Corbyn 22 Now But It Won't Be For Long

[Replies From View]

Just a quick further comment about the British telly - did anyone see Politics Live yesterday?  I just watched it on Youtube.  They had a vox pop bit, three young Conservatives (Beleave or whatevs) vs three old bids (Remain). 

The YCs mentioned Farage twice as a great bunch of lads, at 22.15 one of them even says So there you are, that's what Young Conservatives think, if you were wondering.

There have been a few attempts by the establishment telly recently to push leave as "cool for da kidz", haven't there.

Strange.

[Cursus]

From the Mail:

Revealed: How to guard your wealth from Comrade Corbyn!

Prime Minister Theresa May survived last week's no-confidence vote in the House of Commons. But make no mistake, the likelihood of a General Election, followed by a Labour Government, is edging ever closer.

Although the Fixed-term Parliament Act means the Government could cling on until spring 2022, May's fragile tenure and schisms between factions within the Conservative Party may well result in an early Election.

If, God forbid, Jeremy Corbyn and lieutenant John McDonnell – Marxist partners in crime – do indeed stride into Numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street, readers should brace themselves for a massive assault on their wealth.

Not just on the financial assets they have already painstakingly accumulated through prudent saving, but on their ability to build more wealth in the future.

Let's not beat around the bush, it will be nothing but payback time for a duo who in the past have talked about introducing a tax on family assets, raising taxes on capital gains, squeezing the 'rich' and redistributing wealth to give the younger generation a better deal.

On Wednesday, ahead of the no-confidence vote, Corbyn said May should have nothing to fear about a General Election. But the truth is that the country – and especially the middle-classes – have EVERYTHING to fear if Corbyn and McDonnell triumph.

Here, Wealth explains how financial life will pan out under Corbyn and what households can do to prepare their finances for a tax-raising, wealth-soaking government that could send the pound plunging, the economy into a tailspin and the stock market into a sea of red. Financial advice, by the way, that should hold readers in good stead irrespective of what the future holds.

[Paul Calf]

and redistributing wealth to give the younger generation a better deal.

The bastards!

Daily Mail needs GRAVING.

[Replies From View]

I wonder how many Daily Mail readers have the brains to clock that "younger generation" means their own children and grandchildren.


THOSE YOUNGER GENERATION!  GROWIN UP ERE AND TAKIN OUR JOBS THAT WE ARE RETIRIN FROM!!

[phantom_power]

I like the use of "the 'rich'". Those quotes are doing some heavy metaphorical lifting

[greencalx]

It is rather coy about how much you'd have to be earning to be hit by these taxes. More than the average Daily Mail reader, I suspect.

[Buelligan]

It's about frightening the horses though, isn't it.  It's the Mail, always about the fear of not having a beach body bank account (and if you do, how those odd-looking people in the distance plan to take it from you and rape your Pomeranian, unlike nice Jude Law).

I wonder how many Daily Mail readers have the brains to clock that "younger generation" means their own children and grandchildren.

Not many, I'm guessing (and many will be child-planning, as they wealth-plan, to make sure their offspring have as many exceptional get out of jail free cards as possible, they won't want any untermensch children playing with those toys).

I was wondering the other day, who, on  god's green earth, would buy a paper like this.  Then I realised it's the same, more so in some ways with the Sun and then you have those that read the Telegraph or the Express and I remembered why it is I live in a cave and shun human contact.

[finnquark]

Having watched Starmer on Marr, hopefully he and Corbyn can find some time today or tomorrow to have a chat and sort out Labour's position.

[Zetetic]

Edit: Wrong thread.

[Mrs Wogans lemon drizzle]

Having watched Starmer on Marr, hopefully he and Corbyn can find some time today or tomorrow to have a chat and sort out Labour's position.

You would hope so wouldn't you. Anyway I thought Starmer came across well.

[phantom_power]

It is rather coy about how much you'd have to be earning to be hit by these taxes. More than the average Daily Mail reader, I suspect.

It is implying that "rich" means "what you'e earning, or what you hope to be earning in the future" when in reality it is more likely to "loads more than you're earning or are likely to earn"

[pancreas]

This was shared to me on Facebook:

Truly disgraceful - read this report from inside the filming of BBC Question Time this week by Jyoti Wilkinson, a Parliamentary staff member for Labour MP Chris Williamson.

"New presenter Fiona Bruce came out to address the audience. Hailed for her performance from the week before by fans, and after happily approving of the sycophantic praise that she was being adorned with from some quarters, Bruce proceeded to warm up the crowd. I am aware that this was indeed a tradition with former host David Dimbleby, and audience members were encouraged to participate as vocally and enthusiastically as possible. Nothing wrong with that, an exercise in democracy it would seem.
However, it was at this moment in time that the real hostility towards Diane Abbott became evident. Each panelist was given a brief bio; Rory Stewart – a member of the Government, Kirsty Blackman – SNP and a remainer, Isabel Oakershott – ardent brexiteer and Anand Menon – academic expert on the EU.
When Fiona Bruce introduced Diane Abbott, Labour's Shadow Home Secretary, she took it upon herself to instigate a roast. Comments along the lines of 'let her know what you really think' and 'some may think she is in the shadow cabinet because of her very close relationships with Corbyn, nudge nudge, wink wink' were made. This indeed had the desired effect, and the carefully selected audience guffawed in delight as they had now been given licence to air their bigoted views in public. An audience member in a pinstripe suit commented "I'm going to ask her to do a sum, but she will just claim its discrimination I'm sure." This level of deliberate antagonism from the BBC is a disgrace, and the institution now desperately needs to be held to account.
Now these terms were set, the now legitimised hostility became all too clear. A brief practice session took place, where the most reactionary members of the audience were identified so that they could be returned to during the show. Diane was given the cold shoulder as the other panelists chatted together chummily, and she was spoken over as if she did not exist.
During the debate, the Shadow Home Secretary was interrupted by Fiona Bruce more times in three minutes that the others were in twenty. Audience members barracked and abused her, questioned her legitimacy and jeered, empowered by the licence they felt they had been granted by the BBC to do so. Sympathisers such as myself were simply ignored. At one-point Fiona Bruce and Isabel Oakeshott ganged up like playground bullies to ridicule Diane Abbott over Labour's polling, both making statements later proven to be false.
BBC's Question time is portrayed as a truly democratic spectacle, where the public can engage members of the Government and Opposition, as well as leaders of their field. In reality, it is far from it. It is a farcical stage-managed state propaganda tool in which the BBC use and legitimise institutional racism, misogyny and bigotry to stoke up reactionary sentiment amongst the general population. At the very least the BBC needs to be reformed and we must build a new media. This cannot be done soon enough."

[Artemis]

after happily approving of the sycophantic praise that she was being adorned with from some quarters

It's phrases like this that undermine any sense of a fair analysis about what comes next.

[Funcrusher]

Given that one thing we have learnt from various parts of the media over the last few months is that suspected antisemitism is something that must be taken very very very very very seriously, I'm sure that there will be a great deal of scrutiny of the alleged antisemitic elements within the Womens March organisation, as obviously they will be very very very very very concerned about it.

[BlodwynPig]

It's phrases like this that undermine any sense of a fair analysis about what comes next.

calling a fish a fish

[pancreas]

It's phrases like this that undermine any sense of a fair analysis about what comes next.

It's the fact you choose to discredit the whole report by someone clearly angry about the treatment of their black female colleague by reference to a small part of it that renders your comment worthless.

[Buelligan]

It's phrases like this that undermine any sense of a fair analysis about what comes next.

I agree, I think you're a complete tit BTW, Artemis, not sure if I've ever mentioned it but the description needed paring down to simple facts, that's for sure. 

Having watched the programme however, I am unsurprised to learn that the warm-up (a misnomer, if ever there was one) was as biased as is reported. 

It was positively unpleasant to watch.  I think any fair-minded person would have been repelled by the way Diane Abbott was treated by Bruce and Oakeshott, whether they like the Labours or no.  The two came across as short on facts and bullying.  Really, very unedifying.

[NoSleep]

It's the fact you choose to discredit the whole report by someone clearly angry about the treatment of their black female colleague by reference to a small part of it that renders your comment worthless.

A good guide is to take anything that Artemis says as wrong; this will not fail you, ever.

[BlodwynPig]

I'm fucking going to rampage those antiques.

[Artemis]

It's the fact you choose to discredit the whole report by someone clearly angry about the treatment of their black female colleague by reference to a small part of it that renders your comment worthless.

It was the 'small part' that - to me - revealed the cheap tone of what came next. I'd say the same regardless of the skin colour of the person involved, but the fact you've chosen to leap on that aspect to make your 'point', tells me everything I need to know about your sorry critique.

I think you're a complete tit BTW, Artemis

Fascinating.

[pancreas]

A good guide is to take anything that Artemis says as wrong; this will not fail you, ever.

It's very irritating. He mindlessly trots out tropes and cherry picks data with a view to supporting his centrist faith. It's the same game religious people play when defending their faith.

[BlodwynPig]

It was the 'small part' that - to me - revealed the cheap tone of what came next. I'd say the same regardless of the skin colour of the person involved, but the fact you've chosen to leap on that aspect to make your 'point', tells me everything I need to know about your sorry critique.

Fascinating.

But you're Our tit mas.

[Artemis]

It's very irritating. He mindlessly trots out tropes and cherry picks data with a view to supporting his centrist faith. It's the same game religious people play when defending their faith.

That's up there with the dumbest things I've read on CaB in my time here, even in this slump. It does nothing to dispel the idea that Corbyn supporters are mindless puppets (which I don't believe) when you so broadly dismiss any criticism, particularly when you invoke religion to do it. Is a simple conversation beyond you? So much assumption here.

[NoSleep]

That's up there with the dumbest things I've read on CaB in my time here, even in this slump. It does nothing to dispel the idea that Corbyn supporters are mindless puppets (which I don't believe) when you so broadly dismiss any criticism, particularly when you invoke religion to do it. Is a simple conversation beyond you? So much assumption here.

See what I mean, pancreas?

[Buelligan]

It's very irritating.

Don't be irritated, Artemis has been like this forever, well, as long as I remember, anyway. 

Just kick back man, it's a tiny occasional noise, look at that view!  Didn't I tell you it would be worth it?

[Artemis]

Can't somebody have a different view without all this?

[DeadJefferson]

This was shared to me on Facebook:

Truly disgraceful - read this report from inside the filming of BBC Question Time this week by Jyoti Wilkinson, a Parliamentary staff member for Labour MP Chris Williamson.

"New presenter Fiona Bruce came out to address the audience. Hailed for her performance from the week before by fans, and after happily approving of the sycophantic praise that she was being adorned with from some quarters, Bruce proceeded to warm up the crowd. I am aware that this was indeed a tradition with former host David Dimbleby, and audience members were encouraged to participate as vocally and enthusiastically as possible. Nothing wrong with that, an exercise in democracy it would seem.
However, it was at this moment in time that the real hostility towards Diane Abbott became evident. Each panelist was given a brief bio; Rory Stewart – a member of the Government, Kirsty Blackman – SNP and a remainer, Isabel Oakershott – ardent brexiteer and Anand Menon – academic expert on the EU.
When Fiona Bruce introduced Diane Abbott, Labour's Shadow Home Secretary, she took it upon herself to instigate a roast. Comments along the lines of 'let her know what you really think' and 'some may think she is in the shadow cabinet because of her very close relationships with Corbyn, nudge nudge, wink wink' were made. This indeed had the desired effect, and the carefully selected audience guffawed in delight as they had now been given licence to air their bigoted views in public. An audience member in a pinstripe suit commented "I'm going to ask her to do a sum, but she will just claim its discrimination I'm sure." This level of deliberate antagonism from the BBC is a disgrace, and the institution now desperately needs to be held to account.
Now these terms were set, the now legitimised hostility became all too clear. A brief practice session took place, where the most reactionary members of the audience were identified so that they could be returned to during the show. Diane was given the cold shoulder as the other panelists chatted together chummily, and she was spoken over as if she did not exist.
During the debate, the Shadow Home Secretary was interrupted by Fiona Bruce more times in three minutes that the others were in twenty. Audience members barracked and abused her, questioned her legitimacy and jeered, empowered by the licence they felt they had been granted by the BBC to do so. Sympathisers such as myself were simply ignored. At one-point Fiona Bruce and Isabel Oakeshott ganged up like playground bullies to ridicule Diane Abbott over Labour's polling, both making statements later proven to be false.
BBC's Question time is portrayed as a truly democratic spectacle, where the public can engage members of the Government and Opposition, as well as leaders of their field. In reality, it is far from it. It is a farcical stage-managed state propaganda tool in which the BBC use and legitimise institutional racism, misogyny and bigotry to stoke up reactionary sentiment amongst the general population. At the very least the BBC needs to be reformed and we must build a new media. This cannot be done soon enough."

#notacult

[Buelligan]

Can't somebody have a different view without all this?

Yes, it's spectacular!  Just get out of the way or I'll have to push you over the edge.  I'm sorry about that.

[pancreas]

Can't somebody have a different view without all this?

Taken in toto, I am minded to believe the report, because it contains specific objections which are backed up by other reports I've seen. Your response is far too glib and hinges on your presumption of the report's falsehood, which you then go about trying to 'prove' by picking a slightly bitter part of it which was written in anger and using its tone to dismiss the remainder. It's not good enough, I'm afraid. I don't think people should be 'allowed whatever opinion they like', when it's not based on anything other than their own prejudice.

[NoSleep]

I think it's fair enough that people are allowed any opinion they like as long as we can point out where they are wrong.