It's his style to be PST and not the actual fact that he is pig shite thick. Okay then I'll believe you. Honest I really am that gullible.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Hi Steve.
Your vastly overestimating Corbyn and underestimating Marxist theory.
Now go away and read some books.
Well I'm a socialist(not to an extreme) so I don't completely agree with you on that. There have been some really exceptional people on both sides of the centre while there are some real lemons that are middle of the road.
Not to rehash a tedious and endless debate but what constitutes centrist? Is compromise on all aspects of ideology and not sticking to any position admirable? If so, how does holding that principle not make a person an ideologue?
How is any of this related to Johnson's Hugh Grant schtick? Surely he is the opposite of an ideologue? He's a populist opportunist if anything.
The Tories have become a one issue party but their other policies are about as right as always, or are we to pretend that Thatcher, Hague, Duncan-Smith and Howard were anything that could meaningfully be described as centre leaning? They have merely dropped the veneer. The Lib dems have always been to the right of centre, save possibly under poor old Chuck. Which policies of Labour make them hard left? The SNP are fairly close to the centre but, again, have a single principle concern and are irrelevant to 90% of the population.
I'm not sure the centre has been abandoned anymore than it has been ever, save perhaps under the early years of Blair's Third Way.
Last edited:
Oh absolutely, I was being pretty literal.
I think you're wrong on a few things. I'd say the Lib Dem is right of centre and the SNP is actually left of centre, Almost as far left as I am most of their policies would be considered far left if they happened in England.
Yes, I meant right on the Lib Dems of course. What a typo!
Sort of re: the SNP. They are socially quite left (although not as left as they pretend to be). They're a little to the right economically. I'd say they're right of Corbyn's Labour overall but certainly to the left of Blair's.
Also, nationalism of any form always attracts some disturbing philosophies.
The SNP would certainly be considered left in the South of England but that's not saying a lot.
I don't think we'd disagree much on any of that.
I'm not sure where this vanishing centre is though.
I find James Cleverly extremely irritating.
No we don't disagree on a lot. I'd say that the bold part is not far off where I am politically. Just a bit further left of the SNP as I said above. I think that Health, Education and social care should be gold plated and never messed with by political policies. If I have to pay more to ensure the coverage of these 3 bedrocks of our community then I'm more than willing to pay it.
Agreed.
I think most of the human race does, don't they?
I'd say the SNP are quite difficult to pin down due to the nature of Scotland's relationship with the UK. Those defending the SNP from the left who don't think they're left enough will say they're constrained by the UK state; those attacking the SNP from the left will say that's a convenient excuse. There's an element of truth to both elements: it's difficult to diverge from national government policy to the extreme in a devolved state, but the SNP are definitely quite risk-averse at times as well and wary of anything that's too radical. Still, while in power they've had a decent record of either maintaining or introducing universal provisions and benefits - some of which aren't available in England.
They're also a difficult party to pin down because the focus on independence means you get a divergence of views. There are some proper leftists in there like Mhairi Black who draw strongly on more socialist rhetoric, and indeed the party has a history of voices like that in that regard, but there are also some solidly rightist figures in there too and bizarrely even a nutjob creationist who really needs to get unseated as soon as possible considering he makes Rees-Mogg look like Caroline Lucas with his social views.
Probably around where I am too, though a little to the right economically and very libertarian in terms of personal freedoms. Possibly a little to the left in terms of welfare state. I find it astounding we don't have a 'social democrats' party like most countries in Europe.
Can you two stop agreeing so much it’s totally against the spirit of the thread
I'd say elements of Labour are as close as we've got to that - but a lot of the more social democratic types in the Labour Party typically acquiesced to Third Way Blairism over the years instead. Corbyn has elements of social democracy in his policies I'd say, but obviously gets associated more closely with outright socialism due to his background.
Agree on all points. Mason is an absolute imbecile and a disgrace to my city. Not only has he actually argued that Young Earth Creationism be taught in schools he appears to have a staggeringly poor understanding of economics for a finance minister given he sees debt and deficit as synonymous.
I think the divergence of individuals and views in the SNP is unsurprising given that the single rallying point is the nationalist issues. The party does seem to genuinely lean somewhat to the left but they also have a tradition of some seriously scary members like Mason. At least Soutar has fecked off to fund the Lib Dems (although why a Liberal party might accept that most illiberal of men's money is a discussion in of itself). You do see a lot of "it's all the fault of the English" crap and, were independence achieved, the SNP would splinter inevitably I believe.
Anyway. Drifting off topic.
First past the post has kept us pretty much as a 2 party system which has stopped the development of other parties that have thrived in other countries.
Well what we agreed on had absolutely nothing to do with Brexit so that falls within the parameters of the thread surely. If not get fecked we lefties can agree on what ever we want.
Which is, sadly, generally true... The famed idealistic young of the counter culture 60s for example, were right, and have since seen most of their major ideological points form part of the liberal consensus - civil rights, gay rights, general opposition to war, etc... However it took a whole generation for that to actually happen (and even then debatably) as the Right pushed back, and they themselves became older and jaded, and sunk into “rational” Reaganism/Thatcherism, until the later Gen X took those beliefs to be self-evident, and pushed the Overton window back (somewhat) further left....
Now we’re at another point of right wing push back - this time against the accepted Center-Liberal status quo of the late 90s (ironically instigated by many of the now aged youth of the 60s!) - and the Millennial/Gen Y children of Gen X are pushing even further left again, whilst most of Gen X themselves are hand wringing about the over-zealous nativity of their children’s ideas (and how it affects bad stand-up comedy) just as their parents likely did to them...
The only thing “getting more right wing with age” achieved anyone in the 20th Century, was delaying tangible change... Civil Rights in the US were performatively achieved in the 60s, but took until at least the 90s to seem even somewhat normalised (and even then, only to whites) Gay rights were supposedly won in the 80s, but it took until 2010 in the UK for them to actually be considered fully equal in law. At least in part because the Generations that pushed for them so passionately in their "idealistic youth" stopped doing so, as they were less invested, more content and (apparently) more "experienced" in their middle age.
Which isn’t to say that everything the new youth are fighting for should automatically be considered right, or shouldn’t be argued against or moderated... of course it should! But it’s worth considering how we do that, as they will inevitably become the arbiters of the future - or at the very least their children will (providing, you know, we don’t destroy the World by then) - so dismissing their ideas, or their enthusiasm for them with some pat “argument to maturity” is ultimately as ridiculous as it is futile... and more of an excuse than it is an argument.
Last edited:
I mean it is an excuse, but there's obvious reasons why it's used too.
The following are generalisms but they do apply to the majority of older people, though of course not to all. They are naturally more afraid of change and desire stability, since they are now more physically fragile and have low adaptability. They are also generally low on optimism and hope to since their best years are undoubtedly behind them. Finally, they have a tendency to view the years of their youth through a nostalgic, rose-tinted lens and almost always compare it favourably to the present. Which again, reinforces their dislike of change.
Now all of that has nothing to do with the merit (or lack of) of the causes that the youth are pushing for. But due to their tendency to fight change they will oppose it regardless. And sometimes they will hide behind the maturity argument, because maturity is a desired trait and it makes them feel good about themselves. Whereas saying I'm old and fearful of change doesn't really do that.
Oh and one more thing. The reason why it takes ~30 years for a movement (civil rights, gay rights etc) to really bear fruit, is because those 20-30yo that were fighting for it are now old. The previous generations have passed away. There's no strong opposition to it any more and most now think this is how things should be.
Although we should never underestimate the society's ability to radically change for the worse too and undo years of progress. We had scientific development slowed significantly and liberalism reversed when the gains of the Classical, Hellenistic and Roman periods got undone by the coming of the Dark Ages and the turn to religious fundamentalism.
Yeah, I do wonder what the political landscape will look like in 30 years time due to the generational changes. With any luck it will be a substantial departure from the current state of affairs - the entire system in this country is in need of a shake up.
Can you imagine how Americans feel then? They have had three years of this rubbish.
Would Boris go to prison if he refused to ask for an extension if it becomes law?
No, the law refers to the prime ministerial office not Boris personally and certainly isn't written with a criminal sentence. He'd just be forced to resign or more likely he'll do so willingly and wear it as a badge of honour that he'd rather resign than give into Brussels.
Last edited:
I find it astonishing a group of MPs are having to make contingencies in case the PM doesn't follow the rule of law.
BBC News - Brexit: MPs willing to go to court to enforce delay
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49618242.
BBC News - Brexit: MPs willing to go to court to enforce delay
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49618242.
WHAT IT WAS REALLY ABOUT ALL ALONG
CORPORATE TAX AVOIDANCE
Throughout the world, corporate tax avoidance is a colossal problem. And by far the biggest enabler of corporate tax avoidance, with its global network of secretive tax-haven territories, is the UK:
“Britain has single-handedly done more to undermine the world’s tax system than any other nation…Tax haven territories linked to Britain are responsible for around a third of the world’s corporate tax avoidance risk.” (Ben Chapman, Independent, 28 May 2019)
Britain itself is badly affected by unpaid corporate tax, yet the Conservative Party has done little to address the matter. This seems particularly galling when we consider that the amount of missing tax per year is about the same as the total reduction in welfare spending in the name of austerity (over £30 billion).
In 2016 (note the year), the EU published its planned Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive which seeks to tackle the thriving culture of corporate tax avoidance. From January 2020, the new law will require anyone with offshore accounts and investments to disclose them to enable full scrutiny so they can no longer get away with tax-avoidance and evasion.
Continuing membership of the EU, or just the single market, means that the UK must adopt and enforce this anti-tax avoidance policy on itself.
This obviously conflicts with all those major companies and business owners who dodge taxes, as well as numerous leaders of poorer countries who are secretively hoarding and laundering money with the help of British offshore banks.
A hard Brexit or no-deal Brexit, on the other hand, means business as usual.
This is the plain and simple reason why so many of the most powerful supporters of Brexit - wealthy business tycoons who also happen to be named in the Paradise Papers - suddenly began proclaiming that Britain had to leave the EU, the sooner and harder the better. These include:
Aaron Banks, highly dodgy owner of an offshore bank who donated £8.5 million plus another £6 million in so-called loans to Nigel Farage’s Leave campaign.
The Barclay brothers, owners of the relentlessly pro-Brexit Telegraph newspaper and Spectator magazine, who live in the Channel Islands to avoid paying UK taxes.
Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, currently in Boris Johnson’s cabinet as Leader of the House of Commons; chairman of the Conservative Party’s shadowy ‘European Research Group’
As soon the EU’s anti-tax avoidance directive was announced, these and others like them set about portraying the EU as the great enemy of Britain, an ‘undemocratic elite’ causing misery for ordinary Brits.
Sadly, many ordinary Brits fell for it.
But then…things didn’t quite work out as planned.
After she became Prime Minister, Theresa May spent a long time with other EU national leaders working out and agreeing on a pragmatic Brexit plan.
But when this huge Withdrawal Agreement finally came out, some of the most prominent Brexiteers were deeply unhappy with it.
Why?
Because at the back of the document there was a commitment by the British Government to retain the EU’s new anti-tax avoidance laws.
Suddenly, the Prime Minister was being branded a ‘traitor’. A column in The Telegraph literally suggested that she was ‘guilty of treason’.
But if another Prime Minister could be found…preferably an unprincipled opportunist who will say and do absolutely anything to get into 10 Downing Street…
With so many shady groups and individuals — British, American and Russian — funding UK politicians to say whatever it takes in order to produce the hardest Brexit possible, it really begs the question: Who is the current government actually working for?
More:
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Remai...fd4wQYKSQ17kFmCsXqWWGZnd9runwZtsX1kMEejZ8GPSk
CORPORATE TAX AVOIDANCE
Throughout the world, corporate tax avoidance is a colossal problem. And by far the biggest enabler of corporate tax avoidance, with its global network of secretive tax-haven territories, is the UK:
“Britain has single-handedly done more to undermine the world’s tax system than any other nation…Tax haven territories linked to Britain are responsible for around a third of the world’s corporate tax avoidance risk.” (Ben Chapman, Independent, 28 May 2019)
Britain itself is badly affected by unpaid corporate tax, yet the Conservative Party has done little to address the matter. This seems particularly galling when we consider that the amount of missing tax per year is about the same as the total reduction in welfare spending in the name of austerity (over £30 billion).
In 2016 (note the year), the EU published its planned Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive which seeks to tackle the thriving culture of corporate tax avoidance. From January 2020, the new law will require anyone with offshore accounts and investments to disclose them to enable full scrutiny so they can no longer get away with tax-avoidance and evasion.
Continuing membership of the EU, or just the single market, means that the UK must adopt and enforce this anti-tax avoidance policy on itself.
This obviously conflicts with all those major companies and business owners who dodge taxes, as well as numerous leaders of poorer countries who are secretively hoarding and laundering money with the help of British offshore banks.
A hard Brexit or no-deal Brexit, on the other hand, means business as usual.
This is the plain and simple reason why so many of the most powerful supporters of Brexit - wealthy business tycoons who also happen to be named in the Paradise Papers - suddenly began proclaiming that Britain had to leave the EU, the sooner and harder the better. These include:
Aaron Banks, highly dodgy owner of an offshore bank who donated £8.5 million plus another £6 million in so-called loans to Nigel Farage’s Leave campaign.
The Barclay brothers, owners of the relentlessly pro-Brexit Telegraph newspaper and Spectator magazine, who live in the Channel Islands to avoid paying UK taxes.
Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, currently in Boris Johnson’s cabinet as Leader of the House of Commons; chairman of the Conservative Party’s shadowy ‘European Research Group’
As soon the EU’s anti-tax avoidance directive was announced, these and others like them set about portraying the EU as the great enemy of Britain, an ‘undemocratic elite’ causing misery for ordinary Brits.
Sadly, many ordinary Brits fell for it.
But then…things didn’t quite work out as planned.
After she became Prime Minister, Theresa May spent a long time with other EU national leaders working out and agreeing on a pragmatic Brexit plan.
But when this huge Withdrawal Agreement finally came out, some of the most prominent Brexiteers were deeply unhappy with it.
Why?
Because at the back of the document there was a commitment by the British Government to retain the EU’s new anti-tax avoidance laws.
Suddenly, the Prime Minister was being branded a ‘traitor’. A column in The Telegraph literally suggested that she was ‘guilty of treason’.
But if another Prime Minister could be found…preferably an unprincipled opportunist who will say and do absolutely anything to get into 10 Downing Street…
With so many shady groups and individuals — British, American and Russian — funding UK politicians to say whatever it takes in order to produce the hardest Brexit possible, it really begs the question: Who is the current government actually working for?
More:
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Remai...fd4wQYKSQ17kFmCsXqWWGZnd9runwZtsX1kMEejZ8GPSk
Last edited:
By the way, if you think that the quote posted above is just 'biased politics as usual', consider the depressing & frightening section on 'Market Fundamentalism':
'One of the new EU directives designed to regulate the financial sector, the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (2011), focused on the worst excesses of unscrupulous hedge funds. It addressed everything from their secrecy to how much managers could pay themselves in bonuses.
Hedge fund managers in London, who had been used to operating as freewheeling rogues outside the system, took exception to this and began clamouring for Britain to leave the EU. The clamouring increased in 2015 after they were fined by the Greek government for messing with the struggling Greek economy.
Since the EU referendum, they have been actively sponsoring Leave campaigns as well as sponsoring Boris Johnson to push for a ‘no deal’ Brexit.
One of these hedge fund managers is Crispin Odey. He made £220 million after successfully betting that a Leave result would cause the pound to crash. But then, he had also donated almost £900,000 to the Vote Leave campaign to help get the desired result.
After Theresa May’s downfall, Odey donated £10,000 to Boris Johnson’s leadership campaign. He then began publicly calling for people to support Boris Johnson’s no-deal Brexit strategy as the best possible way ahead for Britain.
‘Theresa May wasted three years,’ he said. ‘The only optimism about anything lies in supporting Boris.’
Yet Odey has placed a £300 million bet on a no-deal Brexit leading to disaster for British companies — but another staggering windfall for himself.
“Odey’s apparent lack of confidence in flagship British firms stands in marked contrast to his fund’s investments in other countries, including France, Germany and the US, where he is mainly backing shares to rise.” (Neil Craven & Jamie Nimmo, The Mail On Sunday)'
“What to do if you are a hedge fund manager down to your last billion? Answer: rig global politics in your favour. If that sounds improbable, remember we are talking about folk capable of shorting the entire Japanese economy in response to a natural disaster." (George Keravan)
'One of the new EU directives designed to regulate the financial sector, the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (2011), focused on the worst excesses of unscrupulous hedge funds. It addressed everything from their secrecy to how much managers could pay themselves in bonuses.
Hedge fund managers in London, who had been used to operating as freewheeling rogues outside the system, took exception to this and began clamouring for Britain to leave the EU. The clamouring increased in 2015 after they were fined by the Greek government for messing with the struggling Greek economy.
Since the EU referendum, they have been actively sponsoring Leave campaigns as well as sponsoring Boris Johnson to push for a ‘no deal’ Brexit.
One of these hedge fund managers is Crispin Odey. He made £220 million after successfully betting that a Leave result would cause the pound to crash. But then, he had also donated almost £900,000 to the Vote Leave campaign to help get the desired result.
After Theresa May’s downfall, Odey donated £10,000 to Boris Johnson’s leadership campaign. He then began publicly calling for people to support Boris Johnson’s no-deal Brexit strategy as the best possible way ahead for Britain.
‘Theresa May wasted three years,’ he said. ‘The only optimism about anything lies in supporting Boris.’
Yet Odey has placed a £300 million bet on a no-deal Brexit leading to disaster for British companies — but another staggering windfall for himself.
“Odey’s apparent lack of confidence in flagship British firms stands in marked contrast to his fund’s investments in other countries, including France, Germany and the US, where he is mainly backing shares to rise.” (Neil Craven & Jamie Nimmo, The Mail On Sunday)'
“What to do if you are a hedge fund manager down to your last billion? Answer: rig global politics in your favour. If that sounds improbable, remember we are talking about folk capable of shorting the entire Japanese economy in response to a natural disaster." (George Keravan)
@SteveJ It's not even a secret, they didn't even had the decency to hide their tracks. The list of top leave donators was mainly made of hedge funds managers which should make suspicious everyone from day one.
So the tories plan atm is to get Boris to go around the country saying he doesn't want an election, but use chicken memes to troll corbyn for not calling one?
Brexit has caused the the tory party to implode to the point of a -41 majority where the "unbelievers" are cast off and the government has no control of parliament.
Every time i watch the next clownshow unfold from the outside, I'm actually more embarrassed that Remainers lost to this rabble.
Brexit has caused the the tory party to implode to the point of a -41 majority where the "unbelievers" are cast off and the government has no control of parliament.
Every time i watch the next clownshow unfold from the outside, I'm actually more embarrassed that Remainers lost to this rabble.
I'm an ardent remainer but we don't help our cause with outright lies ... And that is because there was not more than 50% hedge fund managers as top doners to vote leave... It's public info
Plus you know what... The background of the top leave doners
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...st-donors-to-the-leave-brexit-campaign-2017-5
Isn't actually much different than the remain ones
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...o-the-remain-campaign-against-a-brexit-2017-5
If anything more hedge fund and certainly more finance people (on the remain list)
Last edited:
The remain campaign was of course, backed by the right kind of hedge fund manager. 
I said mainly which doesn't mean more than 50% and the list kind of shows that and I had the top 10 in mind which is confirmed by your list.
Also the point wasn't to demonise anyone but to say that these people are on a side of the economy that doesn't really need or care about the commoner, their way of making money doesn't necessarily align with what seems to be the majority of leave voters.
Last edited:
It's an age-old mafia technique: betting on (i.e. sponsoring) both sides.The remain campaign was of course, backed by the right kind of hedge fund manager.
Girly swat Cameron... He's going full trump with the nicknames isn't he
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-jo...n-girly-swot-leaked-document-reveals-11803807
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-jo...n-girly-swot-leaked-document-reveals-11803807
I interpret ‘Mainly’ to mean more than 50%
Whilst it may be unacceptable in the current day, the way Johnson expresses himself is largely harmless. He is an archetype of privately educated men who speak this way.
The problem is he often strays into language that can easily be used against him eg: calling Muslim women wearing the burka as ‘letterboxes or bank robbers’ which I found quite funny, but is easily used against him.
His career is littered by such loose language, he can’t help himself. In the instance above, one can quickly suggest traits of misogyny; He will make many language gaffes on the election trail and it will cost him his premiership.
Last edited:
Well, that's not its meaning. I'll use largely next time if it helps.
Basically.
If people start looking at the people behind the things they believe in, they are going to find a whole lot of murky people with only one interest, profit.