So radio man is currently saying that early results suggest a huge depressing of the Labour vote rather than any particular enthusiasm for the Cons. Which sounds about right.
Ok I admit I'm a confused american, but how does the tories winning huge not represent a support of their policies?
Because they didn't really win a huge fraction of the votes, people are just sick of Brexit and hate Jeremy Corbyn and bought the conservative lie that...
1) Passing a Brexit deal makes Brexit related social strife and so on go away, once we Brexit, all the remainers will go away and we can all be United again
2) Brexit is inevitable, and we just have to get it done so we can 'move on'
My brother hates Corbyn, hates the tories and doesn't like Brexit, but voted Tory because he just wants Brexit to be over. Noone got out there and sold these people on the message that the only way to make this shit actually go away is to revoke, otherwise the UK will be being ground under the heel of EVERYONE in trade deals from now till the end of time.
The collapse of international cooperation and NATO is a poor time to be striking out by yourself without allies and friends!
From what I've reading, even Labour voters were saying "Get Brexit Done". Besides how Corbyn managed to deftly avoid taking a position on it, the big takeaway is that Boris won by being The Man That Will Get Brexit Done and even Remain people are tired of an struggle that seems pointless every time that Corbyn opened his mouth.
Ok I admit I'm a confused american, but how does the tories winning huge not represent a support of their policies?
they dont have any and nobody knows what few policies they do have bar Brexit
We don't know that. Might be whatever the EU says for a trade deal and effectively an extended transition so things don't fall apart before they get their domestic agenda through - might be full on No Deal and Free Port madness. Or somewhere in between.
Only thing we do know is that Boris disagrees with the one single point that his deal is different from May's in that the custom's border is in the Irish Sea.
I merely mean that the average voter will know that cons want to pass their "Brexit deal" immediately and "get Brexit done", which reflects an actual position they have
Yeah, Corbyn was obviously a huge part of the fucking problem here but I don't think we should downplay just how much the average person wants Brexit over and done with at this point.
the personal vitriol about Corbyn was observable in pre election polling on the topic
every category of voter that didn't say they were voting labour said that Jeremy Corbyn being pm was the biggest problem
Yeah but how do you untangle that from the media landslide against him?
Like seriously, does anyone believe there's some magical unicorn leftist that doesn't get hammered in nonsense until they are rendered pathetic?
Blair won. Maybe someone in Labour should learn from that.
If you can't win, the Tories get to set policy and we all know where that goes.
Yeah so we're back to "put someone who only kills 40% as many people with budget cuts," as a grand victory.
Plus we can throw in some war crime charges!
Being realistic - if the choice is between someone who kills 40% of the people, someone who kills 100% of the people, and someone who wants to kill 0% of the people but will wind up letting somebody else kill 100% of the people, you pick the person who only kills 40%.
If that's a choice the system gives then there is no value in the system.
If democracy and capitalism are going to work to kill people for greed then burn both down.
You are literally advocating for killing 100% of the people metaphorically and literally which is pretty accidentally on the nose
i didnt know there were no societies that aren't capitalist democracies
Burning results in ashes, not a respawn
Sweet, so did you vote for the 20% of the vulnerable culled party or the 40% one?
Because, judging by what got a labour government into power, that seems to be the choice.
At which point burning shit down is just self defense.
Again literally and figuratively it is not. When you burn you die. The only way burning it down seems like a good idea is when you are insulated in your mind from the consequences of society.
the personal vitriol about Corbyn was observable in pre election polling on the topic
every category of voter that didn't say they were voting labour said that Jeremy Corbyn being pm was the biggest problem
Yeah but how do you untangle that from the media landslide against him?
Like seriously, does anyone believe there's some magical unicorn leftist that doesn't get hammered in nonsense until they are rendered pathetic?
Blair won. Maybe someone in Labour should learn from that.
If you can't win, the Tories get to set policy and we all know where that goes.
Yeah so we're back to "put someone who only kills 40% as many people with budget cuts," as a grand victory.
Plus we can throw in some war crime charges!
Being realistic - if the choice is between someone who kills 40% of the people, someone who kills 100% of the people, and someone who wants to kill 0% of the people but will wind up letting somebody else kill 100% of the people, you pick the person who only kills 40%.
If that's a choice the system gives then there is no value in the system.
If democracy and capitalism are going to work to kill people for greed then burn both down.
You are literally advocating for killing 100% of the people metaphorically and literally which is pretty accidentally on the nose
i didnt know there were no societies that aren't capitalist democracies
Burning results in ashes, not a respawn
Sweet, so did you vote for the 20% of the vulnerable culled party or the 40% one?
Because, judging by what got a labour government into power, that seems to be the choice.
At which point burning shit down is just self defense.
I am being quite frankly serious that if I currently had to rely on the tories to be my social support network I would be a suicide statistic in one of those lovely "mentally ill folk killed by austerity" spread sheets. The consequences of this society are something I am regretfully not isolated from at all except for being lucky enough to have a support network free of our failed democracy.
Why the fuck would I be happy with an electable labour government being some neo liberal uselessness that pays lip service to caring while only just moving the ticker a few notches left?
the personal vitriol about Corbyn was observable in pre election polling on the topic
every category of voter that didn't say they were voting labour said that Jeremy Corbyn being pm was the biggest problem
Yeah but how do you untangle that from the media landslide against him?
Like seriously, does anyone believe there's some magical unicorn leftist that doesn't get hammered in nonsense until they are rendered pathetic?
Blair won. Maybe someone in Labour should learn from that.
If you can't win, the Tories get to set policy and we all know where that goes.
Yeah so we're back to "put someone who only kills 40% as many people with budget cuts," as a grand victory.
Plus we can throw in some war crime charges!
Being realistic - if the choice is between someone who kills 40% of the people, someone who kills 100% of the people, and someone who wants to kill 0% of the people but will wind up letting somebody else kill 100% of the people, you pick the person who only kills 40%.
If that's a choice the system gives then there is no value in the system.
If democracy and capitalism are going to work to kill people for greed then burn both down.
You are literally advocating for killing 100% of the people metaphorically and literally which is pretty accidentally on the nose
i didnt know there were no societies that aren't capitalist democracies
Burning results in ashes, not a respawn
Sweet, so did you vote for the 20% of the vulnerable culled party or the 40% one?
Because, judging by what got a labour government into power, that seems to be the choice.
At which point burning shit down is just self defense.
Burning shit down kills innocent people too.
If all the options kill innocent people then why are we not working towards the one that at least is burning down the mechanisms of oppression?
the personal vitriol about Corbyn was observable in pre election polling on the topic
every category of voter that didn't say they were voting labour said that Jeremy Corbyn being pm was the biggest problem
Yeah but how do you untangle that from the media landslide against him?
Like seriously, does anyone believe there's some magical unicorn leftist that doesn't get hammered in nonsense until they are rendered pathetic?
Blair won. Maybe someone in Labour should learn from that.
If you can't win, the Tories get to set policy and we all know where that goes.
Yeah so we're back to "put someone who only kills 40% as many people with budget cuts," as a grand victory.
Plus we can throw in some war crime charges!
Being realistic - if the choice is between someone who kills 40% of the people, someone who kills 100% of the people, and someone who wants to kill 0% of the people but will wind up letting somebody else kill 100% of the people, you pick the person who only kills 40%.
If that's a choice the system gives then there is no value in the system.
If democracy and capitalism are going to work to kill people for greed then burn both down.
You are literally advocating for killing 100% of the people metaphorically and literally which is pretty accidentally on the nose
i didnt know there were no societies that aren't capitalist democracies
Burning results in ashes, not a respawn
Sweet, so did you vote for the 20% of the vulnerable culled party or the 40% one?
Because, judging by what got a labour government into power, that seems to be the choice.
At which point burning shit down is just self defense.
the personal vitriol about Corbyn was observable in pre election polling on the topic
every category of voter that didn't say they were voting labour said that Jeremy Corbyn being pm was the biggest problem
Yeah but how do you untangle that from the media landslide against him?
Like seriously, does anyone believe there's some magical unicorn leftist that doesn't get hammered in nonsense until they are rendered pathetic?
Blair won. Maybe someone in Labour should learn from that.
If you can't win, the Tories get to set policy and we all know where that goes.
Yeah so we're back to "put someone who only kills 40% as many people with budget cuts," as a grand victory.
Plus we can throw in some war crime charges!
Being realistic - if the choice is between someone who kills 40% of the people, someone who kills 100% of the people, and someone who wants to kill 0% of the people but will wind up letting somebody else kill 100% of the people, you pick the person who only kills 40%.
If that's a choice the system gives then there is no value in the system.
If democracy and capitalism are going to work to kill people for greed then burn both down.
You are literally advocating for killing 100% of the people metaphorically and literally which is pretty accidentally on the nose
i didnt know there were no societies that aren't capitalist democracies
There are also dictatorships, true.
anything not capitalist is a dictatorship.
Got it.
I’m curious which country you’re thinking of. It’s certainly possible I’ve missed one
If anything less than exactly what you want is unacceptable, and losing is preferable to admitting you might need to change course slightly, you're going to have a hard time pulling that off. Because there will be 27473 groups of "you", all too small to accomplish much because they can't cooperate or admit that a change in tactics is required.
I'm still voting labour constantly.
So unless you think me being pissy at you lot is literally the only thing keeping Corbyn in power (and not that he was elected, consistently, all the time, to the role he holds) this is just another variant of 'be quiet people who want good things'.
Except you don't want good things. Because you prefer losing to adapting, and whining to thinking. At least so far. And that attitude keeps a guy who somehow manages to be less popular than *Donald Fucking Trump* in charge, writ large over all his supporters.
Yeah the media will be biased against any Labour leader. That's a known quantity though. So you need someone best able to avoid that damage, however they choose to do that.
You can't do anything if you can't win, and spoiler alert if you can't organize people enough to win an election "burn it all down" is going to be completely ineffective as well.
You have to look at winning actual victory either way. Not just moral victory.
I am being quite frankly serious that if I currently had to rely on the tories to be my social support network I would be a suicide statistic in one of those lovely "mentally ill folk killed by austerity" spread sheets. The consequences of this society are something I am regretfully not isolated from at all except for being lucky enough to have a support network free of our failed democracy.
Why the fuck would I be happy with an electable labour government being some neo liberal uselessness that pays lip service to caring while only just moving the ticker a few notches left?
the personal vitriol about Corbyn was observable in pre election polling on the topic
every category of voter that didn't say they were voting labour said that Jeremy Corbyn being pm was the biggest problem
Yeah but how do you untangle that from the media landslide against him?
Like seriously, does anyone believe there's some magical unicorn leftist that doesn't get hammered in nonsense until they are rendered pathetic?
Blair won. Maybe someone in Labour should learn from that.
If you can't win, the Tories get to set policy and we all know where that goes.
Yeah so we're back to "put someone who only kills 40% as many people with budget cuts," as a grand victory.
Plus we can throw in some war crime charges!
Being realistic - if the choice is between someone who kills 40% of the people, someone who kills 100% of the people, and someone who wants to kill 0% of the people but will wind up letting somebody else kill 100% of the people, you pick the person who only kills 40%.
If that's a choice the system gives then there is no value in the system.
If democracy and capitalism are going to work to kill people for greed then burn both down.
You are literally advocating for killing 100% of the people metaphorically and literally which is pretty accidentally on the nose
i didnt know there were no societies that aren't capitalist democracies
Burning results in ashes, not a respawn
Sweet, so did you vote for the 20% of the vulnerable culled party or the 40% one?
Because, judging by what got a labour government into power, that seems to be the choice.
At which point burning shit down is just self defense.
Burning shit down kills innocent people too.
If all the options kill innocent people then why are we not working towards the one that at least is burning down the mechanisms of oppression?
I would suggest turning that rage into something less self destructive. Why kill yourself when you can make others pay? I'd say make them pay by fighting back in some way (not advocating violence).
Im definitely an outsider on this one, but the issue seems to be, separate from political ideology, Jeremy Corbyn is a bit of a wanker or is at least saddled with that image. Why is it important that he specifically be your leader?
Like literally try all the exact same policies, but just get rid of that one old guy. Seems putting a fresh face on things from time to time might be helpful.
Not to throw stones from my very glass house here.
That's what will probably happen - but don't forget that this is also happened very quickly, we've not even gone a full normal Parliamentary term since the end of the Coalition, and the collapse of May, even after the election she called, has always been on the cards. There's not been a safe time to elect a new leader, as the Labour leadership contest and it's aftermath absolutely cratered their popularity as well.
Corbyn then brought it back from the post Leadership contest depths, but has been capped by his own approval levels. So you've got to take a huge hit, knowing that the Tories are going to collapse at any moment can call a new election when nobody really knows who you are other than that most of the Party hates you. I think Corbyn would have stepped down if May had actually got a majority, or if Brexit wasn't an issue that cut across both Parties and threatened to sink any new government at any moment. There's no long primary process and fixed election dates (ha!) in the UK, so voters aren't obviously going to be familiar with the leaders going into a GE.
the personal vitriol about Corbyn was observable in pre election polling on the topic
every category of voter that didn't say they were voting labour said that Jeremy Corbyn being pm was the biggest problem
Yeah but how do you untangle that from the media landslide against him?
Like seriously, does anyone believe there's some magical unicorn leftist that doesn't get hammered in nonsense until they are rendered pathetic?
Blair won. Maybe someone in Labour should learn from that.
If you can't win, the Tories get to set policy and we all know where that goes.
Yeah so we're back to "put someone who only kills 40% as many people with budget cuts," as a grand victory.
Plus we can throw in some war crime charges!
Being realistic - if the choice is between someone who kills 40% of the people, someone who kills 100% of the people, and someone who wants to kill 0% of the people but will wind up letting somebody else kill 100% of the people, you pick the person who only kills 40%.
If that's a choice the system gives then there is no value in the system.
If democracy and capitalism are going to work to kill people for greed then burn both down.
You are literally advocating for killing 100% of the people metaphorically and literally which is pretty accidentally on the nose
i didnt know there were no societies that aren't capitalist democracies
Burning results in ashes, not a respawn
Sweet, so did you vote for the 20% of the vulnerable culled party or the 40% one?
Because, judging by what got a labour government into power, that seems to be the choice.
At which point burning shit down is just self defense.
the personal vitriol about Corbyn was observable in pre election polling on the topic
every category of voter that didn't say they were voting labour said that Jeremy Corbyn being pm was the biggest problem
Yeah but how do you untangle that from the media landslide against him?
Like seriously, does anyone believe there's some magical unicorn leftist that doesn't get hammered in nonsense until they are rendered pathetic?
Blair won. Maybe someone in Labour should learn from that.
If you can't win, the Tories get to set policy and we all know where that goes.
Yeah so we're back to "put someone who only kills 40% as many people with budget cuts," as a grand victory.
Plus we can throw in some war crime charges!
Being realistic - if the choice is between someone who kills 40% of the people, someone who kills 100% of the people, and someone who wants to kill 0% of the people but will wind up letting somebody else kill 100% of the people, you pick the person who only kills 40%.
If that's a choice the system gives then there is no value in the system.
If democracy and capitalism are going to work to kill people for greed then burn both down.
You are literally advocating for killing 100% of the people metaphorically and literally which is pretty accidentally on the nose
i didnt know there were no societies that aren't capitalist democracies
There are also dictatorships, true.
anything not capitalist is a dictatorship.
Got it.
I’m curious which country you’re thinking of. It’s certainly possible I’ve missed one
If anything less than exactly what you want is unacceptable, and losing is preferable to admitting you might need to change course slightly, you're going to have a hard time pulling that off. Because there will be 27473 groups of "you", all too small to accomplish much because they can't cooperate or admit that a change in tactics is required.
I'm still voting labour constantly.
So unless you think me being pissy at you lot is literally the only thing keeping Corbyn in power (and not that he was elected, consistently, all the time, to the role he holds) this is just another variant of 'be quiet people who want good things'.
Except you don't want good things. Because you prefer losing to adapting, and whining to thinking. At least so far. And that attitude keeps a guy who somehow manages to be less popular than *Donald Fucking Trump* in charge, writ large over all his supporters.
Yeah the media will be biased against any Labour leader. That's a known quantity though. So you need someone best able to avoid that damage, however they choose to do that.
You can't do anything if you can't win, and spoiler alert if you can't organize people enough to win an election "burn it all down" is going to be completely ineffective as well.
You have to look at winning actual victory either way. Not just moral victory.
Ah, so you're in the 20% cull party. Good on you for picking the moral choice.
I am being quite frankly serious that if I currently had to rely on the tories to be my social support network I would be a suicide statistic in one of those lovely "mentally ill folk killed by austerity" spread sheets. The consequences of this society are something I am regretfully not isolated from at all except for being lucky enough to have a support network free of our failed democracy.
Why the fuck would I be happy with an electable labour government being some neo liberal uselessness that pays lip service to caring while only just moving the ticker a few notches left?
the personal vitriol about Corbyn was observable in pre election polling on the topic
every category of voter that didn't say they were voting labour said that Jeremy Corbyn being pm was the biggest problem
Yeah but how do you untangle that from the media landslide against him?
Like seriously, does anyone believe there's some magical unicorn leftist that doesn't get hammered in nonsense until they are rendered pathetic?
Blair won. Maybe someone in Labour should learn from that.
If you can't win, the Tories get to set policy and we all know where that goes.
Yeah so we're back to "put someone who only kills 40% as many people with budget cuts," as a grand victory.
Plus we can throw in some war crime charges!
Being realistic - if the choice is between someone who kills 40% of the people, someone who kills 100% of the people, and someone who wants to kill 0% of the people but will wind up letting somebody else kill 100% of the people, you pick the person who only kills 40%.
If that's a choice the system gives then there is no value in the system.
If democracy and capitalism are going to work to kill people for greed then burn both down.
You are literally advocating for killing 100% of the people metaphorically and literally which is pretty accidentally on the nose
i didnt know there were no societies that aren't capitalist democracies
Burning results in ashes, not a respawn
Sweet, so did you vote for the 20% of the vulnerable culled party or the 40% one?
Because, judging by what got a labour government into power, that seems to be the choice.
At which point burning shit down is just self defense.
Burning shit down kills innocent people too.
If all the options kill innocent people then why are we not working towards the one that at least is burning down the mechanisms of oppression?
I would suggest turning that rage into something less self destructive. Why kill yourself when you can make others pay? I'd say make them pay by fighting back in some way (not advocating violence).
My rambling point is; get MAD!
Thanks for the platitudes on my condition which you know nothing about. Truly it will help me next time I take home shit all because I start to get weird panic attacks when a shift at work starts to overrun by even half an hour.
Reading quite a bit of "fake antisemitism smears" and "Lib Dem spoiler candidates" from Corbyn supporters so these results seem completely unsurprising.
+14
Options
Indie Winterdie KräheRudi Hurzlmeier (German, b. 1952)Registered Userregular
trivially wrong things that will nonetheless be said:
- If lab had been pro Brexit they would have won (hahahahahahahaha)
- it shows a rejection of left wing politics as such (????)
- it represents an endorsement of conservative policies
Ok, so these are the wrong takes
But the right takes are:
- Corbyn BAD; ok, fine
- Brexit Bad, we need to stay/negotiate better deal; but if people are tired of dealing with Brexit and "just getting it done" is the opponent's easy slogan how do you use these positions effectively?
The big problem for me with "better to save 40% than none" or whatever is that in the long run everyone still died, you only slowed the rate. You have to have some kind of long term strategy that will get you wins on your own terms.
So fuck going red tory or whatever. Corbyn, as much as I love him, was probably not the man for the job, but its also hard to understand how brutal the media blitz against him and labour in general was and something will need to be done about that regardless of who replaces him.
It seems more than anything else labour got stuck in between the same rock and a hard place that sinks a lot of leftist efforts, balancing labor and internationalism.
Edit: as an American Im extremely looking forward to right wingers repeating bad faith antisemitism accusations here.
trivially wrong things that will nonetheless be said:
- If lab had been pro Brexit they would have won (hahahahahahahaha)
- it shows a rejection of left wing politics as such (????)
- it represents an endorsement of conservative policies
Ok, so these are the wrong takes
But the right takes are:
- Corbyn BAD; ok, fine
- Brexit Bad, we need to stay/negotiate better deal; but if people are tired of dealing with Brexit and "just getting it done" is the opponent's easy slogan how do you use these positions effectively?
Not agreeing to an election featuring those two issues together.
Where a majority Leave precinct seems to have gone to Labour due to an over-abundance of Leave turnout?
This should be on the poster for the RCV campaign that I hope already exists and compounds support daily.
0
Options
JeanHeartbroken papa bearGatineau, QuébecRegistered Userregular
Is there any particular reason why northern England is reporting their results faster than other regions in the UK?
"You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
I mean from my outside perspective it was a single issue election (brexit) and Labor managed to take a position on brexit liked by nobody.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
+12
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
I mean from my outside perspective it was a single issue election (brexit) and Labor managed to take a position on brexit liked by nobody.
Yeah that's that needle of globalism and domestic labor that is so hard to thread on the Left since the collapse of any kind of global worker movement.
Looking at numbers Im not convinced taking a firm side either way would have changed the final result though.
Is there any particular reason why northern England is reporting their results faster than other regions in the UK?
The North is, generally speaking, a Labour stronghold
That they are reporting earlier suggests a serious lack of turnout
They always do. Generally smaller towns and cities with less populous rural areas who've made this a thing. There's a competition between several about who can report in first.
Thread title needs a change - "We're fucked, but fucked if we can agree why"
Tastyfish on
0
Options
Indie Winterdie KräheRudi Hurzlmeier (German, b. 1952)Registered Userregular
I mean from my outside perspective it was a single issue election (brexit) and Labor managed to take a position on brexit liked by nobody.
Yeah that's that needle of globalism and domestic labor that is so hard to thread on the Left since the collapse of any kind of global worker movement.
Looking at numbers Im not convinced taking a firm side either way would have changed the final result though.
Hypothetically lets say Labour would have gone hard Brexit socialist revival
How many Remainers do you think would have defected from Labour to the Lib Dems
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
The lower turnout could just as easily be either the weather, those who want Brexit but couldn't hold their nose enough to vote Tory or general malaise (Alot of people I spoke to the past week kept saying things like; 'They're all the same' or 'what's the point?'), or a combination of all this and more.
Edit: As opposed to/As well as simple distaste for Corbyn I mean.
I mean from my outside perspective it was a single issue election (brexit) and Labor managed to take a position on brexit liked by nobody.
Yeah that's that needle of globalism and domestic labor that is so hard to thread on the Left since the collapse of any kind of global worker movement.
Looking at numbers Im not convinced taking a firm side either way would have changed the final result though.
How I can say this politely. You are basically running with the frame of the right, that the only way to conserve labor rights is to kick all foreign scabs out.
And there's already a "Kick all Foreigner Scabs Out" party.
I mean from my outside perspective it was a single issue election (brexit) and Labor managed to take a position on brexit liked by nobody.
Yeah that's that needle of globalism and domestic labor that is so hard to thread on the Left since the collapse of any kind of global worker movement.
Looking at numbers Im not convinced taking a firm side either way would have changed the final result though.
Hypothetically lets say Labour would have gone hard Brexit socialist revival
How many Remainers do you think would have defected from Labour to the Lib Dems
The lower turnout could just as easily be either the weather, those who want Brexit but couldn't hold their nose enough to vote Tory or general malaise (Alot of people I spoke to the past week kept saying things like; 'They're all the same' or 'what's the point?'), or a combination of all this and more.
Edit: As opposed to/As well as simple distaste for Corbyn I mean.
Three general elections in less than five years absolutely might have depressed turnout, I imagine.
+7
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
I mean from my outside perspective it was a single issue election (brexit) and Labor managed to take a position on brexit liked by nobody.
Yeah that's that needle of globalism and domestic labor that is so hard to thread on the Left since the collapse of any kind of global worker movement.
Looking at numbers Im not convinced taking a firm side either way would have changed the final result though.
Hypothetically lets say Labour would have gone hard Brexit socialist revival
How many Remainers do you think would have defected from Labour to the Lib Dems
A more interesting question: with how much deliberate irony would they sing l’internaionale?
Luckily I have nothing on the calendar for tomorrow. Eat (maybe), drink (a lot) and tomorrow we hopefully don't die of alcohol related causes. Oh shit just looked and now 2 meetings related to Brexit. LOL.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
I mean from my outside perspective it was a single issue election (brexit) and Labor managed to take a position on brexit liked by nobody.
Yeah that's that needle of globalism and domestic labor that is so hard to thread on the Left since the collapse of any kind of global worker movement.
Looking at numbers Im not convinced taking a firm side either way would have changed the final result though.
How I can say this politely. You are basically running with the frame of the right, that the only way to conserve labor rights is to kick all foreign scabs out.
And there's already a "Kick all Foreigner Scabs Out" party.
I advocated no such thing, as youll note from my having nit said it.
I am being quite frankly serious that if I currently had to rely on the tories to be my social support network I would be a suicide statistic in one of those lovely "mentally ill folk killed by austerity" spread sheets. The consequences of this society are something I am regretfully not isolated from at all except for being lucky enough to have a support network free of our failed democracy.
Why the fuck would I be happy with an electable labour government being some neo liberal uselessness that pays lip service to caring while only just moving the ticker a few notches left?
the personal vitriol about Corbyn was observable in pre election polling on the topic
every category of voter that didn't say they were voting labour said that Jeremy Corbyn being pm was the biggest problem
Yeah but how do you untangle that from the media landslide against him?
Like seriously, does anyone believe there's some magical unicorn leftist that doesn't get hammered in nonsense until they are rendered pathetic?
Blair won. Maybe someone in Labour should learn from that.
If you can't win, the Tories get to set policy and we all know where that goes.
Yeah so we're back to "put someone who only kills 40% as many people with budget cuts," as a grand victory.
Plus we can throw in some war crime charges!
Being realistic - if the choice is between someone who kills 40% of the people, someone who kills 100% of the people, and someone who wants to kill 0% of the people but will wind up letting somebody else kill 100% of the people, you pick the person who only kills 40%.
If that's a choice the system gives then there is no value in the system.
If democracy and capitalism are going to work to kill people for greed then burn both down.
You are literally advocating for killing 100% of the people metaphorically and literally which is pretty accidentally on the nose
i didnt know there were no societies that aren't capitalist democracies
Burning results in ashes, not a respawn
Sweet, so did you vote for the 20% of the vulnerable culled party or the 40% one?
Because, judging by what got a labour government into power, that seems to be the choice.
At which point burning shit down is just self defense.
Burning shit down kills innocent people too.
If all the options kill innocent people then why are we not working towards the one that at least is burning down the mechanisms of oppression?
Because mechanisms do not oppress, and the opportunists who abused them will busy themselves by finding ways to leverage the chaos you've unleashed while you're still trying to save the innocent victims you've placed in its path.
I mean from my outside perspective it was a single issue election (brexit) and Labor managed to take a position on brexit liked by nobody.
Yeah that's that needle of globalism and domestic labor that is so hard to thread on the Left since the collapse of any kind of global worker movement.
Looking at numbers Im not convinced taking a firm side either way would have changed the final result though.
How I can say this politely. You are basically running with the frame of the right, that the only way to conserve labor rights is to kick all foreign scabs out.
And there's already a "Kick all Foreigner Scabs Out" party.
I advocated no such thing, as youll note from my having nit said it.
You are saying that Globalism and Domestic Labor Rights are opposite to each other, hence the "thread the needle" language. So, according to what you wrote, the only way to really side with Socialism is to go with the opposite of Globalism. Some kind of....Nationalist...Socialism.
I mean from my outside perspective it was a single issue election (brexit) and Labor managed to take a position on brexit liked by nobody.
Yeah that's that needle of globalism and domestic labor that is so hard to thread on the Left since the collapse of any kind of global worker movement.
Looking at numbers Im not convinced taking a firm side either way would have changed the final result though.
How I can say this politely. You are basically running with the frame of the right, that the only way to conserve labor rights is to kick all foreign scabs out.
And there's already a "Kick all Foreigner Scabs Out" party.
I advocated no such thing, as youll note from my having nit said it.
You are saying that Globalism and Domestic Labor Rights are opposite to each other, hence the "thread the needle" language. So, according to what you wrote, the only way to really side with Socialism is to go with the opposite of Globalism. Some kind of....Nationalist...Socialism.
Hmm.
That's a fairly provocative position outside of Twitter.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
I am being quite frankly serious that if I currently had to rely on the tories to be my social support network I would be a suicide statistic in one of those lovely "mentally ill folk killed by austerity" spread sheets. The consequences of this society are something I am regretfully not isolated from at all except for being lucky enough to have a support network free of our failed democracy.
Why the fuck would I be happy with an electable labour government being some neo liberal uselessness that pays lip service to caring while only just moving the ticker a few notches left?
the personal vitriol about Corbyn was observable in pre election polling on the topic
every category of voter that didn't say they were voting labour said that Jeremy Corbyn being pm was the biggest problem
Yeah but how do you untangle that from the media landslide against him?
Like seriously, does anyone believe there's some magical unicorn leftist that doesn't get hammered in nonsense until they are rendered pathetic?
Blair won. Maybe someone in Labour should learn from that.
If you can't win, the Tories get to set policy and we all know where that goes.
Yeah so we're back to "put someone who only kills 40% as many people with budget cuts," as a grand victory.
Plus we can throw in some war crime charges!
Being realistic - if the choice is between someone who kills 40% of the people, someone who kills 100% of the people, and someone who wants to kill 0% of the people but will wind up letting somebody else kill 100% of the people, you pick the person who only kills 40%.
If that's a choice the system gives then there is no value in the system.
If democracy and capitalism are going to work to kill people for greed then burn both down.
You are literally advocating for killing 100% of the people metaphorically and literally which is pretty accidentally on the nose
i didnt know there were no societies that aren't capitalist democracies
Burning results in ashes, not a respawn
Sweet, so did you vote for the 20% of the vulnerable culled party or the 40% one?
Because, judging by what got a labour government into power, that seems to be the choice.
At which point burning shit down is just self defense.
Burning shit down kills innocent people too.
If all the options kill innocent people then why are we not working towards the one that at least is burning down the mechanisms of oppression?
Because mechanisms do not oppress, and the opportunists who abused them will busy themselves by finding ways to leverage the chaos you've unleashed while you're still trying to save the innocent victims you've placed in its path.
Instability favors the vicious.
Brb, calling my bank to tell them they can't oppress my freedom to travel or food safety because money can't oppress people as a mechanism of society.
I mean from my outside perspective it was a single issue election (brexit) and Labor managed to take a position on brexit liked by nobody.
Yeah that's that needle of globalism and domestic labor that is so hard to thread on the Left since the collapse of any kind of global worker movement.
Looking at numbers Im not convinced taking a firm side either way would have changed the final result though.
How I can say this politely. You are basically running with the frame of the right, that the only way to conserve labor rights is to kick all foreign scabs out.
And there's already a "Kick all Foreigner Scabs Out" party.
I advocated no such thing, as youll note from my having nit said it.
You are saying that Globalism and Domestic Labor Rights are opposite to each other, hence the "thread the needle" language. So, according to what you wrote, the only way to really side with Socialism is to go with the opposite of Globalism. Some kind of....Nationalist...Socialism.
Hmm.
That's a fairly provocative position outside of Twitter.
I'm taking arguments to conclusions. Even with the specter of Greece hanging around, the idea that labor rights will get better outside the EU than inside of it is ridiculous. Which is why Remain is the actual pro-labor position, and Corbyn being wishy-washy about it ended up blowing up on his face.
I mean from my outside perspective it was a single issue election (brexit) and Labor managed to take a position on brexit liked by nobody.
Yeah that's that needle of globalism and domestic labor that is so hard to thread on the Left since the collapse of any kind of global worker movement.
Looking at numbers Im not convinced taking a firm side either way would have changed the final result though.
How I can say this politely. You are basically running with the frame of the right, that the only way to conserve labor rights is to kick all foreign scabs out.
And there's already a "Kick all Foreigner Scabs Out" party.
I advocated no such thing, as youll note from my having nit said it.
You are saying that Globalism and Domestic Labor Rights are opposite to each other, hence the "thread the needle" language. So, according to what you wrote, the only way to really side with Socialism is to go with the opposite of Globalism. Some kind of....Nationalist...Socialism.
Hmm.
That's a fairly provocative position outside of Twitter.
I'm taking arguments to conclusions. Even with the specter of Greece hanging around, the idea that labor rights will get better outside the EU than inside of it is ridiculous. Which is why Remain is the actual pro-labor position, and Corbyn being wishy-washy about it ended up blowing up on his face.
I agree. But I also understand why working class people are skeptical. They always get fucked and they rarely get paid for the fuckery.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Posts
Steam: adamjnet
From what I've reading, even Labour voters were saying "Get Brexit Done". Besides how Corbyn managed to deftly avoid taking a position on it, the big takeaway is that Boris won by being The Man That Will Get Brexit Done and even Remain people are tired of an struggle that seems pointless every time that Corbyn opened his mouth.
Yeah, Corbyn was obviously a huge part of the fucking problem here but I don't think we should downplay just how much the average person wants Brexit over and done with at this point.
Which, well, good luck with that one chaps.
A sad awesome, because at least there's some hope in the future in that Boris hasn't won people over.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Burning shit down kills innocent people too.
Why the fuck would I be happy with an electable labour government being some neo liberal uselessness that pays lip service to caring while only just moving the ticker a few notches left?
If all the options kill innocent people then why are we not working towards the one that at least is burning down the mechanisms of oppression?
Except you don't want good things. Because you prefer losing to adapting, and whining to thinking. At least so far. And that attitude keeps a guy who somehow manages to be less popular than *Donald Fucking Trump* in charge, writ large over all his supporters.
Yeah the media will be biased against any Labour leader. That's a known quantity though. So you need someone best able to avoid that damage, however they choose to do that.
You can't do anything if you can't win, and spoiler alert if you can't organize people enough to win an election "burn it all down" is going to be completely ineffective as well.
You have to look at winning actual victory either way. Not just moral victory.
I would suggest turning that rage into something less self destructive. Why kill yourself when you can make others pay? I'd say make them pay by fighting back in some way (not advocating violence).
My rambling point is; get MAD!
That's what will probably happen - but don't forget that this is also happened very quickly, we've not even gone a full normal Parliamentary term since the end of the Coalition, and the collapse of May, even after the election she called, has always been on the cards. There's not been a safe time to elect a new leader, as the Labour leadership contest and it's aftermath absolutely cratered their popularity as well.
Corbyn then brought it back from the post Leadership contest depths, but has been capped by his own approval levels. So you've got to take a huge hit, knowing that the Tories are going to collapse at any moment can call a new election when nobody really knows who you are other than that most of the Party hates you. I think Corbyn would have stepped down if May had actually got a majority, or if Brexit wasn't an issue that cut across both Parties and threatened to sink any new government at any moment. There's no long primary process and fixed election dates (ha!) in the UK, so voters aren't obviously going to be familiar with the leaders going into a GE.
Case in point - Jo Swinson...
Ah, so you're in the 20% cull party. Good on you for picking the moral choice.
Thanks for the platitudes on my condition which you know nothing about. Truly it will help me next time I take home shit all because I start to get weird panic attacks when a shift at work starts to overrun by even half an hour.
Ok, so these are the wrong takes
But the right takes are:
- Corbyn BAD; ok, fine
- Brexit Bad, we need to stay/negotiate better deal; but if people are tired of dealing with Brexit and "just getting it done" is the opponent's easy slogan how do you use these positions effectively?
So fuck going red tory or whatever. Corbyn, as much as I love him, was probably not the man for the job, but its also hard to understand how brutal the media blitz against him and labour in general was and something will need to be done about that regardless of who replaces him.
It seems more than anything else labour got stuck in between the same rock and a hard place that sinks a lot of leftist efforts, balancing labor and internationalism.
Edit: as an American Im extremely looking forward to right wingers repeating bad faith antisemitism accusations here.
Not agreeing to an election featuring those two issues together.
This should be on the poster for the RCV campaign that I hope already exists and compounds support daily.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
The North is, generally speaking, a Labour stronghold
That they are reporting earlier suggests a serious lack of turnout
Yeah that's that needle of globalism and domestic labor that is so hard to thread on the Left since the collapse of any kind of global worker movement.
Looking at numbers Im not convinced taking a firm side either way would have changed the final result though.
They always do. Generally smaller towns and cities with less populous rural areas who've made this a thing. There's a competition between several about who can report in first.
Thread title needs a change - "We're fucked, but fucked if we can agree why"
Hypothetically lets say Labour would have gone hard Brexit socialist revival
How many Remainers do you think would have defected from Labour to the Lib Dems
Oh sorry misread as that they were reporting faster than they usually report
Edit: As opposed to/As well as simple distaste for Corbyn I mean.
How I can say this politely. You are basically running with the frame of the right, that the only way to conserve labor rights is to kick all foreign scabs out.
And there's already a "Kick all Foreigner Scabs Out" party.
We'll find out in South Cambs...
Yes, mortality is the human condition.
Three general elections in less than five years absolutely might have depressed turnout, I imagine.
A more interesting question: with how much deliberate irony would they sing l’internaionale?
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
I advocated no such thing, as youll note from my having nit said it.
Because mechanisms do not oppress, and the opportunists who abused them will busy themselves by finding ways to leverage the chaos you've unleashed while you're still trying to save the innocent victims you've placed in its path.
Instability favors the vicious.
You are saying that Globalism and Domestic Labor Rights are opposite to each other, hence the "thread the needle" language. So, according to what you wrote, the only way to really side with Socialism is to go with the opposite of Globalism. Some kind of....Nationalist...Socialism.
Hmm.
That's a fairly provocative position outside of Twitter.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Brb, calling my bank to tell them they can't oppress my freedom to travel or food safety because money can't oppress people as a mechanism of society.
I'm taking arguments to conclusions. Even with the specter of Greece hanging around, the idea that labor rights will get better outside the EU than inside of it is ridiculous. Which is why Remain is the actual pro-labor position, and Corbyn being wishy-washy about it ended up blowing up on his face.
I agree. But I also understand why working class people are skeptical. They always get fucked and they rarely get paid for the fuckery.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck