Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Southampton' started by TheSecondStain, Jul 15, 2014.
And his lovechild, Gareth Bale
I know there are a lot of people on here who are into cars so when a friend sent me this link I felt obliged to pass it on:
Gotta be piss-take surely, I cant imagine anyone to be that stupid. Though personally I hope its genuine as it makes me smile to think somewhere in the US some guy is thrashing away at his keyboard and fuming about how everyone else has bought into an elaborate (and pointless) conspiracy theory, it seems more plausible that this a parody like the Landover Baptist Church.
P.S Agreed on the conservapedia. One of my favorite sites to visit for quick pick me up
Could be an example of Poe's Law: “Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.”
How on earth did I miss Landover Baptist Church?
I might be giving the author too much credit, like I said i truly hope the author is genuine as the thought of him/her impotently raging and blogging about the established laws of the universe fills me with delight.
Not sure mate, Landover is great, especially when real nutjobs use them as a source or inspiration.
Corbyn is leading the Labour party right down the ****ter.
He's following his conscience. So, apparently, is David Cameron. History will decide who is right and who is wrong, but a brief study of the history of the region will tell you that European military intervention in the middle east rarely turns out well.
I'm not sure that the leader of the main opposition party leading his team down the ****ter is a good thing Tom. No matter what your political views, we need a strong opposition party, whoever is sitting in power.
I really cant agree with this. We shouldn't be homogenizing our political views to be 'more electable'. Jeremy Corbyn for all his faults is at least someone who seems to genuinely believe in the values of the Labor party...and personally I'd have someone like him with actual opinions and beliefs over some bland rent-a-suit any day.
Maybe so, but it's leading to weak opposition and weak opposition is bad for the country. I'll stress that I'm for this argument whoever might be in power. You need an opposition with credibility and a degree of unity to hold the government of the day up to scrutiny.
So Corbyn may well have beliefs that make him a wonderful Labour party leader (and clearly a large majority of Labour party members think so) but it's not making him a good leader of the Opposition.
I think you need to re-read what I posted Tommomo. I didn't make any comment on his views. I said we need a strong opposition party, not one that is being led "down the ****ter" as was posted. Without a strong opposition, any leading party can run as they please, which I believe wouldn't be good.
I made zero comment on political view.
This is the key point for me. My post was not about Corbyn or his views.
Thatchers downfall was down to the fact she had stopped listening to the people, not just the ones that she represented. Corbyn as a Leader has to put his own ethics into second place, he has to face up to what the majority of the population wants, it is very laudable having decent values, but they may be the wrong ones in the circumstances, especially if they divide the people he is supposed to be leading. The Labour Party is going into terminal decline because they are not talking or agreeing with each other, all the time that there is no viable opposition, the incumbents will run riot with their own policies.
I'm not sure how writing Cameron a blank cheque to do whatever he wants in Syria would constitute effective opposition.
The Labour Party is The Thick Of It in real life.
You're putting words in my mouth. I'm making a comment about Corbyn's dual roles as leader of the Labour Party and the Loyal Opposition, not how he should vote on a single matter.
However, on that single matter, everyone knows that Corbyn's view is black and white. Nothing is going to change his views under any circumstances. So there's no possibility of his leading a credible debate where he accepts that there are shades of grey in every argument. Again, I'd argue that's bad for the good governance of the country.
Please also note that I was saying the same thing about the Tories when they faced Labour pre 2006-7 with doctrinaire views. It was when Cameron came and moderated (I know you'll laugh) their views that they became an effective opposition, because at that point they stood a chance of election.
Strong opposition builds good governance and I'll reiterate that Corbyn may well be an excellent Labour Party leader but he's not opposing the government effectively.
I was about to erase my last post as I try to avoid specific politics in here but it's out there now. Here's an addendum. You've chosen a black and white answer, namely approval gives Cameron a blank cheque to do "whatever he wants". But reality isn't like that. It's all on a spectrum.
"Give him a blank cheque to do whatever he wants"
"We cautiously approve of this but we're going to be watching like hawks and will ceaselessly harry in you in Parliament if this looks like it's going wrong"
"We're neutral, we'll leave it to the consciences of MPs"
"We disapprove but we're open to persuasion if circumstances change"
"We oppose as a matter of principle and no argument will ever change our minds"
I know (in general) where I want politicians (of any political persuasion) to be on a spectrum like that, and it's at neither end.
I think i may have quoted the wrong person in my reply
My overall statement was more aimed at the thought that we shouldn't sacrifice principle in or to have a greater presence in opposition. Unfortunately the average citizen no longer has a genuine choice when voting as they're given a selection of grey political pallet with little to discern between parties and their policies. In my eyes Corbyn presents a genuine alternative hence why he divides opinion as much as he does and as such at least gives an outlet to genuine labor party members.
My statement was more aimed at the fact that we shouldn't sacrifice belief/principle in order to be more electable to the average joe.
I think you'll find that The Thick of It was Labour under Blair.
As for Corbyn's views, I admire a politician who is at least consistent. Cameron has gone, since the Paris attacks, from wanting to bomb Assad in Syria, to wanting to bomb Assad's most powerful enemy. We all know why this has happened, but it does seem to lack a bit of consistency.
Historically, the Parliamentary Labour Party is part of a wider movement including the Co-operative societies, Trade Unions, Fabian Societies and other grass roots bodies that were formed as a response to massive social injustice and inequality prevalent in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
As those injustices began to be addressed, and for one all too brief period after WWII were almost eradicated, the very reasons for Labour Party's existence became the subject of debate, and it's identity became confused. Many observers began to assert that there was little discernible difference between Labour and the Tories.
Now that the post war social consensus has been abandoned, social injustice and inequality have once again become widespread in the UK. A whole generation currently leaving education is finding itself locked out of the housing market and forced to take low paid insecure jobs. These are the people who signed up en-masse to elect Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. These are the people who's interests he has been elected to represent. This has put him on a collision course with the Parliamentary party, most of whom are of a Blairite hue, but that collision is inevitable and, I would say, neccessary. There is a struggle for the soul of the Labour Party, but this needs to be seen in a broader historical context; the political landscape across Europe is shifting in ways no one can confidently predict.
I wouldn't be writing off Corbyn or his party just yet.
What Corbyn appears to have said, in a letter to his MPs, is that he has not personally been persuaded by David Cameron that it is in the UK's interests to join the bombing campaign in Syria. That doesn't sound like an unreasonable position to me; in fact there's a string case for saying it's the only reasonable position currently being enunciated by any high profile politician.
It's getting a little crowded in the skies over Syria. Are you saying that the leader of the opposition has no business opposing a policy of military intervention?