Labour

[Keepitgreen]

No KIG, that isn't it. I have referred back to the theme of the article which is borne out by party support and the themes candidates are playing too. You suggest all this is not the 'root' of things but haven't explained why.

Lots

Far from enough despite those towns handing them a whopping majority, and that is a central part of the story here.

Sorry KiG but 'tories' isn't an answer to anything, and makes you look like a bit of antique tbh. People are rejecting the whole uniparty charade which has presided since 1997 alongside much more sinister elements creeping in.

And that is the tale the article tells. I don't think you're very in touch with all this. You certainly aren't if you think banging on Starmer-like about the tories is any way pertinent.

The tories are finished and so are labour. Whether it is manifested in the result or not, this by election presages a britain that is moving beyond all that and increasingly formed by other things.

You don't want to talk about why the towns are in this state, and why doing what should've been done is how to make things better. Fine. Makes you look like a bit of a tory tbh.

 

[egb_hibs]

You don't want to talk about why the towns are in this state, and why doing what should've been done is how to make things better. Fine. Makes you look like a bit of a tory tbh.

What are you talking about?

 

[egb_hibs]

No seriously, what are you talking about?

Please explain what you mean by 'this state', how it was created and what should be done to make things better? And please explain what point you think the article is missing? And if you know better than the voters please explain why that is? And please also elaborate on why I don't want to talk about this and how, in your bell-bottomed trouser of an outlook, that makes me a tory?

 

[Keepitgreen]

No seriously, what are you talking about?

Please explain what you mean by 'this state', how it was created and what should be done to make things better? And please explain what point you think the article is missing? And if you know better than the voters please explain why that is? And please also elaborate on why I don't want to talk about this and how, in your bell-bottomed trouser of an outlook, that makes me a tory?

It really is funny watching you repeatedly trot out the same old tactics, phrases, twists and turns to route and frame responses the way you want the discussion to go. Not tonight amigo, not tonight!

I also cba typing too much on my phone

Who knows what tomorrow at my desk may bring though. N'night amigo, off to watch Secret Genius on ch4, been a decent watch so far

 

[egb_hibs]

It really is funny watching you repeatedly trot out the same old tactics, phrases, twists and turns to route and frame responses the way you want the discussion to go. Not tonight amigo, not tonight!

I also cba typing too much on my phone

Who knows what tomorrow at my desk may bring though. N'night amigo, off to watch Secret Genius on ch4, been a decent watch so far

I not twisting anything. This would be a bit surreal to be honest, were it not so well worn.

I quoted an article which you said is focused on on an agenda and ignoring the real root of the problem.

I have asked you to explain what you mean, ie what those roots are, and you have not. I have also noted what I think is a little bit hubristic, ie you presuming you know these roots which you can't explain, better than voters in the area. And that carries through to your basic complaint at the article which is reporting on those voters not some imagined polity you prefer to the actually existing one.

You have, meanwhile chucked out a bunch of straw men, and hopelessly out of date ones to boot, which I have called out, and again asked you to explain.

I have not twisted at any point. You are the one evading and deploying the usual tactic of inventing things I haven't said (which Archie does so much better) as well as failing to explain yourself.

Time and again a narrative based worldview apparently falters the moment you are asked to explain what it's choir pleasing clichés amount to. Tories this, right wing that. FFS it's so empty. I am happy to criticise political parties or wings but I can and will say why. Without that it means zero.

But I guess emerging political dynamics are not as they are and certainly won't continue, and you can guarantee that on the basis that it's how you would prefer things to be?

The only way I want this discussion to go is honestly and founded in reality. I can't even disagree with you as you have avoided saying anything concrete. Why are you apparently so scared of the world as it is? You don't have to like it - I often don't - but it has to be faced.

 

[Keepitgreen]

I not twisting anything. This would be a bit surreal to be honest, were it not so well worn.

I quoted an article which you said is focused on on an agenda and ignoring the real root of the problem.

I have asked you to explain what you mean, ie what those roots are, and you have not. I have also noted what I think is a little bit hubristic, ie you presuming you know these roots which you can't explain, better than voters in the area. And that carries through to your basic complaint at the article which is reporting on those voters not some imagined polity you prefer to the actually existing one.

You have, meanwhile chucked out a bunch of straw men, and hopelessly out of date ones to boot, which I have called out, and again asked you to explain.

I have not twisted at any point. You are the one evading and deploying the usual tactic of inventing things I haven't said (which Archie does so much better) as well as failing to explain yourself.

Time and again a narrative based worldview apparently falters the moment you are asked to explain what it's choir pleasing clichés amount to. Tories this, right wing that. FFS it's so empty. I am happy to criticise political parties or wings but I can and will say why. Without that it means zero.

But I guess emerging political dynamics are not as they are and certainly won't continue, and you can guarantee that on the basis that it's how you would prefer things to be?

The only way I want this discussion to go is honestly and founded in reality. I can't even disagree with you as you have avoided saying anything concrete. Why are you apparently so scared of the world as it is? You don't have to like it - I often don't - but it has to be faced.

Crikey, I fair got your feathers a-flutter last night eh! I'll say sorry then chief - I was quite the excitable hibby yesterday, buzzing off that win at darkheid and on my phone where I tend to keep posts short and perhaps not so sweet! I didn't think I was being that obtuse nor vague, but sure I could've done with adding a bit more colour (pun intended ). Here goes.

Firstly, I usually bat away your sly digs as they're never important to me, but on the point of you going on about me thinking I know better than working-class voters, or more insinuating I know nowt about their plight, is a pile of pish to start, just to nail that down. I'm not about to start explaining why in too much detail (not least cos it makes for boring reading for any poor sod looking in) but needless to say being born and raised in early 1980s Leith by a single parent, and still renting flats in my 40s having never bought (had 9 so far, dotted about the whole of Edinburgh) you can rest assured that I'm no shouting shite from some ivory tower amigo.

Onto the article then and the above doesn;t even really matter here anyway, because it covers off a lot of what folk are indeed affected by. They have direct quotes in there ffs! And of course there are countless resources around for any of us to know what's going on around the country. So, going by all that of course I'd never deny there are tensions in places like Gorton or Denton (not that I was tbh). But, what I was saying was, before we leap straight to 'parallel communities' and - your favourite - civilisational drift, it’s worth looking at what’s actually happened to towns like that over, oh, say, the last 15/16 years.

Local government budgets were slashed post-2010, with poorer urban councils hit hardest. Youth services, community centres, early intervention programmes; gone or hollowed out. Social housing was underbuilt for years while right-to-buy cracked on with no replacement. Planning reform stalled. Rents climbed. Waiting lists grew. That scarcity fuels resentment. At the same time, net migration hit record highs under a Conservative (note me not using 'tory' guvnor)government that repeatedly promised 'control'. Whatever your view on immigration in principle, ramping numbers up while underinvesting in housing, GP capacity, schools, local services and so on was a policy choice. If you increase pressure without increasing infrastructure, something gives. That’s governance, interacting with change. Its relevant and key and I don't see why you want to dismiss it and move on. Or do I?

Add in a decade of wage stagnation, patchy shite about 'levelling up' that failed to happen, hollowed-out policing, NHS backlogs and social care crisises, and you’ve got communities that feel stretched, insecure and ignored. Fucked over essentially. When services feel worse and opportunities feel thinner, people look sideways instead of upwards. Media that headlines headcounts over investment failures don’t exactly help. In fact they make things fucking worse.

Again though, I'll repeat, demographic change does create pressure. But pressure plus austerity plus underbuilding plus incoherent immigration management plus weak local capacity is what produces fragmentation. That’s not civilisational guff; it’s policy interacting with reality, hence why I talked about it in response to the article and your post. It's relevant man.

To the point you're trying to talk about ratehr than all this; if we want less sectarian politics less mistrust and less polarisation, the starting point isn’t white British percentages ffs. It’s things like fixing housing supply, increasing job opportunities, stabilising and improving services, enforcing law consistently and rebuilding local institutions. Without that, any change, demographic or otherwise, will strain the system. That's what the campaigning parties down there should be focussing on.

 

[Archie]

Peter Mandelson released on bail after arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office

Former Labour minister was questioned by police over accusations he passed sensitive information to Epstein

www.theguardian.com

 

[Keepitgreen]

Peter Mandelson released on bail after arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office

Former Labour minister was questioned by police over accusations he passed sensitive information to Epstein

www.theguardian.com

Good stuff.

Seeing this and Andys arrest the other day got me thinking about the actual bizzie who does the physical arrest of these cretins.. Surely the old bumhole must be clenched reading out rights to a royal or is it more like, some buzz, pal?! Bet there was no cuffs involved as well, even though the pair probably like that kind of thing..

 

[egb_hibs]

Crikey, I fair got your feathers a-flutter last night eh! I'll say sorry then chief - I was quite the excitable hibby yesterday, buzzing off that win at darkheid and on my phone where I tend to keep posts short and perhaps not so sweet! I didn't think I was being that obtuse nor vague, but sure I could've done with adding a bit more colour (pun intended ). Here goes.

Firstly, I usually bat away your sly digs as they're never important to me, but on the point of you going on about me thinking I know better than working-class voters, or more insinuating I know nowt about their plight, is a pile of pish to start, just to nail that down. I'm not about to start explaining why in too much detail (not least cos it makes for boring reading for any poor sod looking in) but needless to say being born and raised in early 1980s Leith by a single parent, and still renting flats in my 40s having never bought (had 9 so far, dotted about the whole of Edinburgh) you can rest assured that I'm no shouting shite from some ivory tower amigo.

Its nothing to do with that, for the avoidance of doubt. It's to do with you living in a country that resembles England and chunks of Europe 35 years ago when there was none of the issues that the article was touching on.

And on top of that apparently being unwilling or incapable of putting yourself in the shoes of communities who live in completely different circumstances, imposed upon them against their will, and who only want what you have. And further failure to extend such empathy to other communities who don't share the priorities of white liberals however superior the latter may be.

Onto the article then and the above doesn;t even really matter here anyway, because it covers off a lot of what folk are indeed affected by. They have direct quotes in there ffs! And of course there are countless resources around for any of us to know what's going on around the country. So, going by all that of course I'd never deny there are tensions in places like Gorton or Denton (not that I was tbh). But, what I was saying was, before we leap straight to 'parallel communities' and - your favourite - civilisational drift, it’s worth looking at what’s actually happened to towns like that over, oh, say, the last 15/16 years.

Local government budgets were slashed post-2010, with poorer urban councils hit hardest. Youth services, community centres, early intervention programmes; gone or hollowed out. Social housing was underbuilt for years while right-to-buy cracked on with no replacement. Planning reform stalled. Rents climbed. Waiting lists grew. That scarcity fuels resentment. At the same time, net migration hit record highs under a Conservative (note me not using 'tory' guvnor)government that repeatedly promised 'control'. Whatever your view on immigration in principle, ramping numbers up while underinvesting in housing, GP capacity, schools, local services and so on was a policy choice. If you increase pressure without increasing infrastructure, something gives. That’s governance, interacting with change. Its relevant and key and I don't see why you want to dismiss it and move on. Or do I?

Add in a decade of wage stagnation, patchy shite about 'levelling up' that failed to happen, hollowed-out policing, NHS backlogs and social care crisises, and you’ve got communities that feel stretched, insecure and ignored. Fucked over essentially. When services feel worse and opportunities feel thinner, people look sideways instead of upwards. Media that headlines headcounts over investment failures don’t exactly help. In fact they make things fucking worse.

Again though, I'll repeat, demographic change does create pressure. But pressure plus austerity plus underbuilding plus incoherent immigration management plus weak local capacity is what produces fragmentation. That’s not civilisational guff; it’s policy interacting with reality, hence why I talked about it in response to the article and your post. It's relevant man.

To the point you're trying to talk about ratehr than all this; if we want less sectarian politics less mistrust and less polarisation, the starting point isn’t white British percentages ffs. It’s things like fixing housing supply, increasing job opportunities, stabilising and improving services, enforcing law consistently and rebuilding local institutions. Without that, any change, demographic or otherwise, will strain the system. That's what the campaigning parties down there should be focussing on.

And how does this counterfactual explain :

- the Muslim population swinging behind the greens who are possibly the most unlikely choice for them except for cynical plays to sectarianism? Which has led to operation Muslim vote directing the community to support them, while other anti semitic parties have stood down candidates - YP and Galloway's Brown shirts.

- the green party doing that pandering to begin with?

As for the last paragraph, you projecting a fantasy onto the situation does not mean I am trying to shift the premises of the argument, it means you are.

The economic failures of the uniparty for sure are part of Reform's appeal as well as indivisible from the social and civilisational problems they have created. It doesn't explain the greens, YP, or Galloway courting Islamism and sectarian bloc voting though.

Finally to return to your opening intervention here: if your diagnosis is correct surely that would make the Telegraph article more, rather than less right to lament the fact that instead of focusing on these issues, sectarianism is flourishing?

You cannot wish away the world.

 

[Keepitgreen]

Its nothing to do with that, for the avoidance of doubt. It's to do with you living in a country that resembles England and chunks of Europe 35 years ago when there was none of the issues that the article was touching on.

And on top of that apparently being unwilling or incapable of putting yourself in the shoes of communities who live in completely different circumstances, imposed upon them against their will, and who only want what you have. And further failure to extend such empathy to other communities who don't share the priorities of white liberals however superior the latter may be.

Ta, will come back on whole post shortly (tea imminent) but just quickly on this - could you explain why you have more authority on the subject than I do?

 

[egb_hibs]

Ta, will come back on whole post shortly (tea imminent) but just quickly on this - could you explain why you have more authority on the subject than I do?

First and by far and away foremost simply by not denying the reality of what is going on in the world. It's only you that undermines yourself in this way and it's entirely unforced. I have no intrinsic advantage.

I did spend years working the length and breadth of England which makes seeing its rapid transformation and divergence from Scotland inescapable. But thats really not any more necessary than you or me travelling to the poles to understand that ice is receding.

All that is required is not to ignore mountains of facts and what those who are involved in the situation are saying. And it's happening across Europe who never had our Labour Party nor our Tory Party. Heck it was predictable in advance and was in fact predicted: now it's unavoidable, unless you are determined to close your eyes. Why one would choose to do that I dont know. Fear of diversity perhaps?

 

[Jack]

Did anyone watch "Dirty Business" on Channel 4?

 

[Keepitgreen]

Its nothing to do with that, for the avoidance of doubt. It's to do with you living in a country that resembles England and chunks of Europe 35 years ago when there was none of the issues that the article was touching on.

And on top of that apparently being unwilling or incapable of putting yourself in the shoes of communities who live in completely different circumstances, imposed upon them against their will, and who only want what you have. And further failure to extend such empathy to other communities who don't share the priorities of white liberals however superior the latter may be.

And how does this counterfactual explain :

- the Muslim population swinging behind the greens who are possibly the most unlikely choice for them except for cynical plays to sectarianism? Which has led to operation Muslim vote directing the community to support them, while other anti semitic parties have stood down candidates - YP and Galloway's Brown shirts.

- the green party doing that pandering to begin with?

As for the last paragraph, you projecting a fantasy onto the situation does not mean I am trying to shift the premises of the argument, it means you are.

The economic failures of the uniparty for sure are part of Reform's appeal as well as indivisible from the social and civilisational problems they have created. It doesn't explain the greens, YP, or Galloway courting Islamism and sectarian bloc voting though.

Finally to return to your opening intervention here: if your diagnosis is correct surely that would make the Telegraph article more, rather than less right to lament the fact that instead of focusing on these issues, sectarianism is flourishing?

You cannot wish away the world.

You’re bundling a few things together again.

Bloc-voting around a foreign policy issue isnt proof of civilisational rupture. Communities mobilise around issues they care about all the time. Thats not evidence a 'host society' has disappeared; it’s evidence political incentives exist and parties respond to them. Has happened lots before, will happen lots again.

If some Muslim voters back the Greens over Gaza, that tells us about representation and priorities. It doesnt, by itself, prove parallel governance or a drift toward religious law. Parties courting blocs may be cynical, but that’s politics not a theological turning point.

On the broader point, again, I’m not denying tension. Are you saying I am? What I dispute - as ever - is the move from 'this creates strain' to 'this inevitably produces rupture'.That’s your interpretation, not fact.

As for that 'fear of diversity' flourish? Decent (albeit repeated ) line fae you, but not analysis I'm afraid. Disagreeing about causality isn’t denying reality. We’re looking at the same developments.. The disagreement is about what drives them and where they seemingly must end up.

Reducing dissent to denial is its own kind of comfort blanket btw It spares you from considering that whats under debate isnt the facts.. it’s your interpretation of them. A well-worn script here methinks.

 

[Keepitgreen]

Did anyone watch "Dirty Business" on Channel 4?

Only seen it advertised Jack. Any good?

 

[Jack]

Only seen it advertised Jack. Any good?

Post Office scandal II

Having watched part 1 I've set to record.

 

[Keepitgreen]

Post Office scandal II

Having watched part 1 I've set to record.

Aye its the same wee actor from that isn't it? He was very good.

 

[egb_hibs]

You’re bundling a few things together again.

Bloc-voting around a foreign policy issue isnt proof of civilisational rupture. Communities mobilise around issues they care about all the time. Thats not evidence a 'host society' has disappeared; it’s evidence political incentives exist and parties respond to them. Has happened lots before, will happen lots again.

If some Muslim voters back the Greens over Gaza, that tells us about representation and priorities. It doesnt, by itself, prove parallel governance or a drift toward religious law. Parties courting blocs may be cynical, but that’s politics not a theological turning point.

KiG, you opened up this little tribuatary by claiming the torygraph was focusing on an agenda rather than focusing on what this election was really about in your view, ie a list of comfortable talking points. You seem to have shifted somewhat, to the extent that arguably the initial points contested are somewhat moot. But we persevere, one last time at least.

We have of course always had bloc voting based on shared interests. But we have not heretofore had blocs mobilised by islamists to support anti semitic parties pandering to them. Zack Polanski is currently urging his troops to pass a motion that commits his party to the elimination of Israel and to declaring Jews racist, via the increasingly tatty euphemism of Zionism. Jeremy Corbyn has taken to trading in blood libel.

Now you may or may not personally be dismayed at the reemergence of nazi politics in order to construct an alliance with islamism. Either way it remains the case that it is somewhat removed from your original starry eyed take and it is perfectly legitimate for the Telegraph to report on the reality. That said, i'm not sure anyone would suggest this stuff is a 'theological turning point', a phrase which doesn't make sense in this context.

What it is, or so it seems to me, is another waypoint as the UK converges with a direction more established in parts of Europe, where battle lines are forming around an anti western islamoleft and a nativist response. I think this bequest of decades of progressive pottiness is less than ideal.

Which brings me to your point on parallel governance: again I didn't say this, I talked of parallel communities, which absolutely are in evidence here. The ward could almost have been put together to illustrate the point, down to geography: different parts of it are heavily stocked with Muslims supplemented by middle class students, and others with the original population. These are respectively being courted by islamoleftism and a populist opposition to it. As per the original article which you complained of.

A view from the hustings :

"This constituency has common problems but despite this, and possibly because of it," [the candidates] decide to talk about Jews for 40 minutes"

Things can't get worse in Gorton and Denton

unherd.com

On the broader point, again, I’m not denying tension. Are you saying I am? What I dispute - as ever - is the move from 'this creates strain' to 'this inevitably produces rupture'.That’s your interpretation, not fact.

I refer you the above as a reminder of how you started this discussion. I appreciate you moving on from that though I am no longer sure of your point. If you think a return of anti semitic parties - and the real possibility that campaigning on this stump could see them displace the Labour party, is not some kind of rupture - then that is your prerogative.

Personally I think the fact that the next GE might be contested between Reform and the Greens, sweeping away a hundred years of the established political order, is another way point. I think we are likely to continue to track France who are further down the road, and we can look forward to increasing racist and sectarian violence from the islamoleft, and also violence returned from a nativist opposition.

I realise you can probably guarantee this will not happen because you would prefer it not to, but right now I think it's a concern.

As for that 'fear of diversity' flourish? Decent (albeit repeated ) line fae you, but not analysis I'm afraid. Disagreeing about causality isn’t denying reality. We’re looking at the same developments.. The disagreement is about what drives them and where they seemingly must end up.

Sorry KiG, this empty rhetoric. My 'line' is my best attempt to understand your steadfast refusal of reality. There may be another reason, but if so you aren't forthcoming. It stands apart from my own analysis of that reality, which itself ain't all that, and is mostly reporting what is actually happening.

In your causality statement you seem to be 180'ing again. Are you back to arguing that a quarter century of big state; tax, borrow and spend; gdp pumping through mass migration; uni party politics, explain why the green's are selling themselves on stuff like eradicating Israel?

Reducing dissent to denial is its own kind of comfort blanket btw It spares you from considering that whats under debate isnt the facts.. it’s your interpretation of them. A well-worn script here methinks.

A well worn script indeed, and as fallacious as ever.

We are not debating different interpretations of reality. I am giving one, but you are not. You are simply denying reality. I'm not saying it to diminish your position but because you are doing it, and you do it repeatedly.

Of course uniparty economics and globalist ideology are part of the problem, and indivisible from the cultural and social problems that threaten to burn everything down. But we can't go back to the late 90s / early 00s dude - those days are gone forever. We are dealing with the world built then, which is now with us forever. More of the uniparty disease, is unlikely to provide the cure.

Anyway I've had enough of this as a result because of that reality problem. It's a complete waste of time. You could distill most of our wordy exchanges to something like:

Me - here are the facts of a situation, and this is where I think it is likely to lead if those facts don't change, based on ongoing trajectory and examples from history and elsewhere

You - it isn't happening because I don't want it to be happening / right wing / tories / bring out the straw men and the abstraction which doesn't really mean anything concrete.

So perhaps we should just leave it at that and quit wasting time. That's what I'm going to do.

 

[Keepitgreen]

KiG, you opened up this little tribuatary by claiming the torygraph was focusing on an agenda rather than focusing on what this election was really about in your view, ie a list of comfortable talking points. You seem to have shifted somewhat, to the extent that arguably the initial points contested are somewhat moot. But we persevere, one last time at least.

We have of course always had bloc voting based on shared interests. But we have not heretofore had blocs mobilised by islamists to support anti semitic parties pandering to them. Zack Polanski is currently urging his troops to pass a motion that commits his party to the elimination of Israel and to declaring Jews racist, via the increasingly tatty euphemism of Zionism. Jeremy Corbyn has taken to trading in blood libel.

Now you may or may not personally be dismayed at the reemergence of nazi politics in order to construct an alliance with islamism. Either way it remains the case that it is somewhat removed from your original starry eyed take and it is perfectly legitimate for the Telegraph to report on the reality. That said, i'm not sure anyone would suggest this stuff is a 'theological turning point', a phrase which doesn't make sense in this context.

What it is, or so it seems to me, is another waypoint as the UK converges with a direction more established in parts of Europe, where battle lines are forming around an anti western islamoleft and a nativist response. I think this bequest of decades of progressive pottiness is less than ideal.

Which brings me to your point on parallel governance: again I didn't say this, I talked of parallel communities, which absolutely are in evidence here. The ward could almost have been put together to illustrate the point, down to geography: different parts of it are heavily stocked with Muslims supplemented by middle class students, and others with the original population. These are respectively being courted by islamoleftism and a populist opposition to it. As per the original article which you complained of.

A view from the hustings :

"This constituency has common problems but despite this, and possibly because of it," [the candidates] decide to talk about Jews for 40 minutes"

Things can't get worse in Gorton and Denton

unherd.com

I refer you the above as a reminder of how you started this discussion. I appreciate you moving on from that though I am no longer sure of your point. If you think a return of anti semitic parties - and the real possibility that campaigning on this stump could see them displace the Labour party, is not some kind of rupture - then that is your prerogative.

Personally I think the fact that the next GE might be contested between Reform and the Greens, sweeping away a hundred years of the established political order, is another way point. I think we are likely to continue to track France who are further down the road, and we can look forward to increasing racist and sectarian violence from the islamoleft, and also violence returned from a nativist opposition.

I realise you can probably guarantee this will not happen because you would prefer it not to, but right now I think it's a concern.

Sorry KiG, this empty rhetoric. My 'line' is my best attempt to understand your steadfast refusal of reality. There may be another reason, but if so you aren't forthcoming. It stands apart from my own analysis of that reality, which itself ain't all that, and is mostly reporting what is actually happening.

In your causality statement you seem to be 180'ing again. Are you back to arguing that a quarter century of big state; tax, borrow and spend; gdp pumping through mass migration; uni party politics, explain why the green's are selling themselves on stuff like eradicating Israel?

A well worn script indeed, and as fallacious as ever.

We are not debating different interpretations of reality. I am giving one, but you are not. You are simply denying reality. I'm not saying it to diminish your position but because you are doing it, and you do it repeatedly.

Of course uniparty economics and globalist ideology are part of the problem, and indivisible from the cultural and social problems that threaten to burn everything down. But we can't go back to the late 90s / early 00s dude - those days are gone forever. We are dealing with the world built then, which is now with us forever. More of the uniparty disease, is unlikely to provide the cure.

Anyway I've had enough of this as a result because of that reality problem. It's a complete waste of time. You could distill most of our wordy exchanges to something like:

Me - here are the facts of a situation, and this is where I think it is likely to lead if those facts don't change, based on ongoing trajectory and examples from history and elsewhere

You - it isn't happening because I don't want it to be happening / right wing / tories / bring out the straw men and the abstraction which doesn't really mean anything concrete.

So perhaps we should just leave it at that and quit wasting time. That's what I'm going to do.

Sure thing amigo. I'll wrap up too with my summary and we can hopefully hear about your musical talents on that thread?

You: Demographic change + political mobilisation = eventual rupture unless dramatic change.

Me: Demographic change + political mobilisation = pressure mediated through institutions; outcomes depend on governance.

I'll sing it from the cheap seats; that’s not denial. Thats a disagreement about causality. Cheers!

 

[Smurf]

Fuck me.... The Kremlin would admire this manipulation and distortion.... In this opinion poll The Green Party are also on 28% but Labour decided not to show that....

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Archie]

Fuck me.... The Kremlin would admire this manipulation and distortion.... In this opinion poll The Green Party are also on 28% but Labour decided not to show that....

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Seriously, why would they highlight a rival?

 

[hibbybilly]

The Paedo Defenders Party.

 

[Smurf]

Seriously, why would they highlight a rival?

 

[Archie]

Why would they? Political parties do this all the time. It would be like Tesco having an ad saying 'we're cheaper that Sainsburys - but you can get stuff cheaper at LIDL'. Confected outrage I think.

 

[Smurf]

Why would they? Political parties do this all the time. It would be like Tesco having an ad saying 'we're cheaper that Sainsburys - but you can get stuff cheaper at LIDL'. Confected outrage I think.

They're highlighting Reform! Hardly confected outrage.

 

[Archie]

They're highlighting Reform! Hardly confected outrage.

Saying that they are ahead of them. You seem angry that a Labour message doesn't highlight the Green's. Labour and the Green's are fighting for the anti reform vote. It's not a very persuasive message to say we are ahead of Reform - but so are the Green's!

 

[Smurf]

Saying that they are ahead of them. You seem angry that a Labour message doesn't highlight the Green's. Labour and the Green's are fighting for the anti reform vote. It's not a very persuasive message to say we are ahead of Reform - but so are the Green's!

You know full well it is deliberate distortion and misrepresentation of an opinion poll to create a misleading and entirely false impression of a two horse race.

 

[Sancho Panza]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Archie]

You know full well it is deliberate distortion and misrepresentation of an opinion poll to create a misleading and entirely false impression of a two horse race.

Have you heard of something called political campaigning. Every single party does what you seem angry at Labour about.

 

[egb_hibs]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The greens have gone full brownshirt. Labour are rightly calling them out for whipping up hatred as the basis for their platform.

Polanski is urging party members to pass a motion that makes it the green party's formal position that israel should be eradicated, and the belief that Israel has a right to exist be deemed racism; effectively making jews as an ethnic group collectively guilty of racism.

These loons have chucked it and if anything are doubling down as their existing lies fall apart - such as revised hamas figures showing that fighting age men were hugely overrepresented in the 'genocide'. Somewhat a turnaround from recycling of age old Jewish babykiller tropes beloved of og nazis and latterly auntie nazis.

The greens are fully embracing the sectarian politics already developed in France. Its dismal and they now need filed alongside the BNP.

 

[Smurf]

Have you heard of something called political campaigning. Every single party does what you seem angry at Labour about.

So that makes it OK. You're totally happy that Labour treats the electorate with utter contempt.

 

[Archie]

So that makes it OK. You're totally happy that Labour treats the electorate with utter contempt.

There's plenty to dig at Labour about. I just don't think this is it. But clearly you do, so there you go.

 

[egb_hibs]

It's worth nothing that the Greens campaign isn't just trading on hatred of Jews but hatred of Hindus.

Its campaign video puts Labour in the dock not only with images of Labour politicians meeting Israeli leaders, but also Indian leaders.

It is utterly despicable. @Archie talks of Labour and Green contesting the anti Reform vote. In a saner world Labour and Reform would be contesting an anti Green vote.

 

[Smurf]

There's plenty to dig at Labour about. I just don't think this is it. But clearly you do, so there you go.

Peston now live on telly challenging this absolute distortion and misrepresentation. In the world of Archie though treating voters with contempt is perfectly normal....

 

[Archie]

Peston now live on telly challenging this absolute distortion and misrepresentation. In the world of Archie though treating voters with contempt is perfectly normal....

I get e mails from Hibs. Are they treating me with contempt because they don't talk about Hearts?

In the world of Smurf he's triggered to make hyperbolic comments about Labour doing something that every political party does.

I guess I don't think voters areas stupid as you clearly do.

 

[hibbybilly]

Must be a few Tims and Hibs fans in Gorton,
MON THE GREENS.

 

[Sancho Panza]

Fuck me.... The Kremlin would admire this manipulation and distortion.... In this opinion poll The Green Party are also on 28% but Labour decided not to show that....

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This aged well!

The Green victory changes everything

unherd.com

 

[Smurf]

This aged well!

The Green victory changes everything

unherd.com

Yip their tactics backfired spectacularly. Nonetheless @Archie will say otherwise.

 

[Archie]

Yip their tactics backfired spectacularly. Nonetheless @Archie will say otherwise.

Why would I say that? They came third!

 

[hibbybilly]

Farage and Polanski opposite each other at PMQ's after the next election.
Who'd a thunk?

 

[Sancho Panza]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies