Snap General Election called

[Son of Mathonwy]

And I disagree with that premise, as I’ve said 3 times. And I feel it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of politics.

I even said that the illiberalism of the conservatives puts them closer to communism than Labour.

I don’t know how clearer I can make it

NB I don't think you should be using the term communism here - it's too broad a category, and does not imply illiberalism. Perhaps totalitarian communism or soviet communism or Leninism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

That’s a bit like insisting that Primitive and Wesleyan Methodists are completely different.

Assuming you are being serious(?), that's a straw man, I'm not saying they are completely different.

Communism is a broader category than fascism. Fascism is not the opposite of communism, if there is an opposite, it's capitalism. Capitalism is another broad category which contains democratic and totalitarian forms. Capitalism and communism are ways of organizing an economy, they don't prescribe the form a government should take.

And this is my point: communism is not fundamentally illiberal (nor is capitalism). Totalitarian communism is, as is fascism.

[Son of Mathonwy]

And I disagree with that premise, as I’ve said 3 times. And I feel it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of politics.

I even said that the illiberalism of the conservatives puts them closer to communism than Labour.

I don’t know how clearer I can make it

NB I don't think you should be using the term communism here - it's too broad a category, and does not imply illiberalism. Perhaps totalitarian communism or soviet communism or Leninism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

If you refer back to my previous post on illiberalism, you can see my working

Basically, both groups require an "us vs them" mentality, and a form of collective solidarity. However, the goal of that solidarity, and the way in which that solidarity is gained, are very, very different.

Either way, I do not think it is fair to say Labour are anywhere near communism, considering the implications that has to certain people, while the Tories have demonstrably flirted with fascist policies and I'd say more than flirted with fascist rhetoric.

That a certain poster, who accused others of being "triggered", got triggered by the conversation, and decided that my assertion that I believe a vote for the Tories is an implicit acceptance of their worst parts, before accepting Mells' point on individuals (I'm too caught up in Hungary and our politics here sometimes, and lose sight of what is actually a very different system despite the paper similarities), got us caught up in a endless cycle of semantics that I just did not understand, because it was not about logic, but about being hurt...

I am not calling anyone a fascist.

I AM going to continue to call out fascist policies, rhetoric, and behaviors as fascist.

No-one is attacking individuals here (except Braverman, she deserves verbal attack).

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, of course.

You 'triggered' me ( ) by implying that being close to communism is as bad as being close to fascism, my point just being that communism is much broader than fascism and perhaps you should be more precise and use the term 'totalitarian communism' (or soemthing like it) instead, because that indeed is as scary as fascism.

I disagree that communism requires an 'us and them' mentality in the way that fascism does (indeed the idea that 'we need a strong leader to protect us from them' is at the core of fascism). Communism takes the view that we are all equal. Philosophically communism makes sense without a 'them' whereas fascism always needs an enemy, a scapegoat.

NB of course a number of communist dictators have made use of fascist techniques. The reason why we're more concerned with fascism now (rather than totalitarian communism) is that fascism has a track record of subverting capitalist democracies over time. Russia and Hungary are clearly well along that path and the USA has made some significant steps.

NB also, I'm not a communist. I just think its ideas should be given a fair hearing.

[Stom]

NB I don't think you should be using the term communism here - it's too broad a category, and does not imply illiberalism. Perhaps totalitarian communism or soviet communism or Leninism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

If you refer back to my previous post on illiberalism, you can see my working

Basically, both groups require an "us vs them" mentality, and a form of collective solidarity. However, the goal of that solidarity, and the way in which that solidarity is gained, are very, very different.

Either way, I do not think it is fair to say Labour are anywhere near communism, considering the implications that has to certain people, while the Tories have demonstrably flirted with fascist policies and I'd say more than flirted with fascist rhetoric.

That a certain poster, who accused others of being "triggered", got triggered by the conversation, and decided that my assertion that I believe a vote for the Tories is an implicit acceptance of their worst parts, before accepting Mells' point on individuals (I'm too caught up in Hungary and our politics here sometimes, and lose sight of what is actually a very different system despite the paper similarities), got us caught up in a endless cycle of semantics that I just did not understand, because it was not about logic, but about being hurt...

I am not calling anyone a fascist.

I AM going to continue to call out fascist policies, rhetoric, and behaviors as fascist.

No-one is attacking individuals here (except Braverman, she deserves verbal attack).

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, of course.

You 'triggered' me ( ) by implying that being close to communism is as bad as being close to fascism, my point just being that communism is much broader than fascism and perhaps you should be more precise and use the term 'totalitarian communism' (or soemthing like it) instead, because that indeed is as scary as fascism.

I disagree that communism requires an 'us and them' mentality in the way that fascism does (indeed the idea that 'we need a strong leader to protect us from them' is at the core of fascism). Communism takes the view that we are all equal. Philosophically communism makes sense without a 'them' whereas fascism always needs an enemy, a scapegoat.

NB of course a number of communist dictators have made use of fascist techniques. The reason why we're more concerned with fascism now (rather than totalitarian communism) is that fascism has a track record of subverting capitalist democracies over time. Russia and Hungary are clearly well along that path and the USA has made some significant steps.

NB also, I'm not a communist. I just think its ideas should be given a fair hearing.

Communism does require buy-in to the system from everyone. And if you do not buy in? Well, you need to be re-educated or eliminated.

The distinction between the two seems to be that someone wrote a manifesto about one that contains some elements a lot of people feel aren’t bad ideas.

But because it requires a dogmatic and rigid adherence to the state to function, you essentially end up at the same result as fascism: individualism is crushed. Hence my suggestion that illiberalism is present in both.

But that’s neither here nor there.

As we have a perfectly good potential system that promises much of the same good outcomes of communism while allowing the functioning of capitalism at the same time: social democracy.

[Son of Mathonwy]

If you refer back to my previous post on illiberalism, you can see my working

Basically, both groups require an "us vs them" mentality, and a form of collective solidarity. However, the goal of that solidarity, and the way in which that solidarity is gained, are very, very different.

Either way, I do not think it is fair to say Labour are anywhere near communism, considering the implications that has to certain people, while the Tories have demonstrably flirted with fascist policies and I'd say more than flirted with fascist rhetoric.

That a certain poster, who accused others of being "triggered", got triggered by the conversation, and decided that my assertion that I believe a vote for the Tories is an implicit acceptance of their worst parts, before accepting Mells' point on individuals (I'm too caught up in Hungary and our politics here sometimes, and lose sight of what is actually a very different system despite the paper similarities), got us caught up in a endless cycle of semantics that I just did not understand, because it was not about logic, but about being hurt...

I am not calling anyone a fascist.

I AM going to continue to call out fascist policies, rhetoric, and behaviors as fascist.

No-one is attacking individuals here (except Braverman, she deserves verbal attack).

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, of course.

You 'triggered' me ( ) by implying that being close to communism is as bad as being close to fascism, my point just being that communism is much broader than fascism and perhaps you should be more precise and use the term 'totalitarian communism' (or soemthing like it) instead, because that indeed is as scary as fascism.

I disagree that communism requires an 'us and them' mentality in the way that fascism does (indeed the idea that 'we need a strong leader to protect us from them' is at the core of fascism). Communism takes the view that we are all equal. Philosophically communism makes sense without a 'them' whereas fascism always needs an enemy, a scapegoat.

NB of course a number of communist dictators have made use of fascist techniques. The reason why we're more concerned with fascism now (rather than totalitarian communism) is that fascism has a track record of subverting capitalist democracies over time. Russia and Hungary are clearly well along that path and the USA has made some significant steps.

NB also, I'm not a communist. I just think its ideas should be given a fair hearing.

Communism does require buy-in to the system from everyone. And if you do not buy in? Well, you need to be re-educated or eliminated.

The distinction between the two seems to be that someone wrote a manifesto about one that contains some elements a lot of people feel aren’t bad ideas.

But because it requires a dogmatic and rigid adherence to the state to function, you essentially end up at the same result as fascism: individualism is crushed. Hence my suggestion that illiberalism is present in both.

But that’s neither here nor there.

As we have a perfectly good potential system that promises much of the same good outcomes of communism while allowing the functioning of capitalism at the same time: social democracy.

Where are you getting this from? It's just not true. For any system, the greater number who support it the better. But 100% support isn't needed, not for capitalism, not for communism. If someone doesn't agree with the system, they're just going to be unhappy - they don't need to be eliminated.

If they're unhappy enough to break the laws of the system then there will be a problem. But that's true in our system too - it's not a sign of illiberalism, just law enforcement.

[Which Tyler]

https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... port-finds

Children missing from Home Office hotels likely to have been trafficked, report finds

Exclusive: Study sparks new calls for public inquiry into ‘scandal’ of missing migrant children in UK

Scores of asylum-seeking children are still missing from the UK’s Home Office hotels as a new report reveals that many are likely to have been trafficked.

The most recent figures show that 118 unaccompanied children remain unaccounted for, some as young as 12. The study, released on Wednesday, is the first to conclude that children placed inside the hotels were at “increased risk of trafficking”, contradicting Home Office claims that the youngsters were not exploited.

...

ARTICLE CONTINUES

[Mikey Brown]

That is insane. I kept waiting for the part explaining that I’d misunderstood the headline, and it wasn’t 118 young children still unaccounted for, likely kidnapped from Government care.

[Which Tyler]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/li ... itics-live

[Son of Mathonwy]

https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... port-finds

Children missing from Home Office hotels likely to have been trafficked, report finds

Exclusive: Study sparks new calls for public inquiry into ‘scandal’ of missing migrant children in UK

Scores of asylum-seeking children are still missing from the UK’s Home Office hotels as a new report reveals that many are likely to have been trafficked.

The most recent figures show that 118 unaccompanied children remain unaccounted for, some as young as 12. The study, released on Wednesday, is the first to conclude that children placed inside the hotels were at “increased risk of trafficking”, contradicting Home Office claims that the youngsters were not exploited.

...

ARTICLE CONTINUES

Will this help or hinder Patel and Braverman's leadership ambitions?

[Mikey Brown]

Suella Braverman on LBC at the moment. It's a bit odd but she's doing a fair impression of a reasonable person so far.

[Mikey Brown]

I don't know why I've listed to this or what I really expected. Stop the boats. Immigrants too expensive. Rwanda good idea, poorly executed, but no mention of the incredible cost.

Her bit on Kamala Harris was pretty funny. Acknowledges Trump has made errors but Harris wants to legalise weed (does she?) and "uses pronouns" so she would be a "disaster".

[morepork]

I don't know why I've listed to this or what I really expected. Stop the boats. Immigrants too expensive. Rwanda good idea, poorly executed, but no mention of the incredible cost.

Her bit on Kamala Harris was pretty funny. Acknowledges Trump has made errors but Harris wants to legalise weed (does she?) and "uses pronouns" so she would be a "disaster".

Dear God I am heartily sick and tired of theses quasi sentient puppets and their culture war straw men. We are looking at a generation of podcasters and AM radio warriors being the policy makers of the future.

[Sandydragon]

I don't know why I've listed to this or what I really expected. Stop the boats. Immigrants too expensive. Rwanda good idea, poorly executed, but no mention of the incredible cost.

Her bit on Kamala Harris was pretty funny. Acknowledges Trump has made errors but Harris wants to legalise weed (does she?) and "uses pronouns" so she would be a "disaster".

Truss has fully drunk of the cool aid. She thinks she can make money out of the far right circus a la Russel Brand and others. I’m not sure how seriously they take her but she has to pay the bills somehow I suppose.

Her total lack of self awareness is incredible though.

[Sandydragon]

Just read that Victoria Atkins is threatening to run for Tory leader.

Fuck that fucking piece of shit waste of fucking skin.

I hope the footage of you performatively laughing as Sunak being a bigoted subhuman bag of fuck, cracking jokes about dead trans kids RIGHT IN FRONT OF BRIANNA GHEY'S MOTHER is repeated ad nauseum. I hope that footage haunts the rest of your faltering so-called political career. Your wide open mouth, your clanging peals of laughter. Oh how you laughed and laughed, like the good little soldier you are. You laughed and laughed, falling in line, like the craven toady that you are, and always will be. Fuck you.

Can I put you down for a £10 donation then?

[Sandydragon]

Just read that Victoria Atkins is threatening to run for Tory leader.

Fuck that fucking piece of shit waste of fucking skin.

I hope the footage of you performatively laughing as Sunak being a bigoted subhuman bag of fuck, cracking jokes about dead trans kids RIGHT IN FRONT OF BRIANNA GHEY'S MOTHER is repeated ad nauseum. I hope that footage haunts the rest of your faltering so-called political career. Your wide open mouth, your clanging peals of laughter. Oh how you laughed and laughed, like the good little soldier you are. You laughed and laughed, falling in line, like the craven toady that you are, and always will be. Fuck you.

Can I put you down for a £10 donation then?

Would mailing a bag full of literal shit count?

Its the thought that counts

[Son of Mathonwy]

Jenrick really gunning for Tory leadership with this piece of blantant religious bigotry which should really have him expelled from any party (well, any party with standards):

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... e-arrested

[Sandydragon]

Jenrick really gunning for Tory leadership with this piece of blantant religious bigotry which should really have him expelled from any party (well, any party with standards):

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... e-arrested

Just commented the same on the Southport threat. He’s a total idiot.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Jenrick really gunning for Tory leadership with this piece of blantant religious bigotry which should really have him expelled from any party (well, any party with standards):

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... e-arrested

Just commented the same on the Southport threat. He’s a total idiot.

Yeah, wasn't sure which tread was best for this. Imagine saying the equivalent about Jews in the Labour party.

Reckon it might clinch him leadership though.

[Sandydragon]

Jenrick really gunning for Tory leadership with this piece of blantant religious bigotry which should really have him expelled from any party (well, any party with standards):

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... e-arrested

Just commented the same on the Southport threat. He’s a total idiot.

Yeah, wasn't sure which tread was best for this. Imagine saying the equivalent about Jews in the Labour party.

Reckon it might clinch him leadership though.

With Braverman out of the race, he’s the favourite of the right. He has a decent chance and if he does win then it will be IDS all over again.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Just commented the same on the Southport threat. He’s a total idiot.

Yeah, wasn't sure which thread was best for this. Imagine saying the equivalent about Jews in the Labour party.

Reckon it might clinch him leadership though.

With Braverman out of the race, he’s the favourite of the right. He has a decent chance and if he does win then it will be IDS all over again.

IDS, but with Farage to the right, splitting the vote. Not pretty.

What an arse though. Even Priti Patel has noticed that these riots are actually a bad thing.

[Sandydragon]

Yeah, wasn't sure which thread was best for this. Imagine saying the equivalent about Jews in the Labour party.

Reckon it might clinch him leadership though.

With Braverman out of the race, he’s the favourite of the right. He has a decent chance and if he does win then it will be IDS all over again.

IDS, but with Farage to the right, splitting the vote. Not pretty.

What an arse though. Even Priti Patel has noticed that these riots are actually a bad thing.

He’s a pathetic little attention seeker. Straight out of the Trumpian/Boris playbook in many ways.

[Which Tyler]

https://www.theguardian.com/law/article ... e-uk-court

The government has dropped an appeal against a judge’s decision to throw out a contempt case against a woman who stood outside a climate activist trial holding a placard about jury rights.

In an email sent on Thursday, a lawyer from the government legal department, led by Richard Hermer, who was recently appointed attorney general, said they had “further considered this case and decided not to pursue the appeal”.

It is the end of an 18-month legal saga for Trudi Warner, who was arrested after she stood outside inner London crown court for 30 minutes holding a sign saying: “Jurors, you have an absolute right to acquit according to your conscience.”

[Which Tyler]

Tomorrow (I think) marks the day that Kier Starmer draws level with Liz Truss for time spent as Prime Minister.
If he wants to beat the record, he needs to resign today

[Son of Mathonwy]

Tomorrow (I think) marks the day that Kier Starmer draws level with Liz Truss for time spent as Prime Minister.
If he wants to beat the record, he needs to resign today

Stop getting my hopes up!

[Son of Mathonwy]

Labour have lost a lot of their lead to the Tories and Reform in only 2 months. Way to go Starmer. Promise change then follow the same Tory plan and tell everyone things are going to get worse. Genius.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election

[Banquo]

Labour have lost a lot of their lead to the Tories and Reform in only 2 months. Way to go Starmer. Promise change then follow the same Tory plan and tell everyone things are going to get worse. Genius.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election

He's doing exactly what he said he would plus what the oppo said he would as well.