This was SO fucking sweet. Chef's kiss.

davyK wrote:

EvilRedEye wrote:

It looks Labour are mulling adopting a policy on proportional representation which if it goes ahead would likely lead to an electoral pact with the Greens, Lib Dems etc. Really hope it goes ahead because it offers a decent chance of outing the Tories in the short term and ending this whole 'have to vote Labour even if they're shit to keep the Tories out' thing in the long-term.

The Blues are now every bit as repulsive as they were pre Blair/Labour. The number of hateful fucks in gov then was astounding. I was one of the many who sat up extra late just to watch cunts like Mellor and Portillo (pre-pink jacket train man) get put out. Remember that cunt Hamilton?  Edwina? Fucking Tebbit? Jesus.

A blood letting like that has to be due now. The breadth of arrogance is as bad as was back then. It's hard to believe the fuckwits who vote them in haven't had a bellyfull of this incompetence. Fuel shortages now. Jesus Fuck. I want to see it pile on and start to really hurt personally. Fuck these cunts.

QFPT.

LivDiv wrote:

Well, well.
Johnson has reportedly given his approval for visas for european HGV drivers.

Now watch them tell us to fuck off because why the hell would they bother when apparently there is a surplus of work in Europe.

Its a strange move considering this has supposedly nothing to do with Brexit.

In other news we may have asked Bolsonaro for christmas turkeys.

I'd always hated the idiom 'through the looking glass', but there's no better way to describe current events.

Unless you forego etiquette, and simply use the word 'fucked'.

Downing st spokesman

"We are moving to a high wage, high skilled economy and businesses will need to adapt with more investment in recruitment and training to provide long-term resilience,"

OK but business needs time to do that, ideally more than 18 months of pandemic.
Also what do we do about the low skilled work that will still need doing?
Presumably any extra pay for the likes of HGV drivers will require an increase in price to consumers on the goods. How does that square with low skill low pay jobs and those on UC currently facing an income slash along with tax and utility bill rises.

Its like they haven't thought this all through or something.

Asking for a friend - is there any country with a pure high skill, high wage economy? It seems an impossible goal.

I wouldnt thought so.
Maybe your tiny principalities. Even they will have low skilled workers. Cleaners etc. I guess they might be residents of neighbouring countries?

A country like the UK hell no.

Edit: what Goober said

Escape wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

Labour have been losing with centrists since Blair, it hasn’t changed their approach, I don’t see why one more loss would change that, and again, I think this whole idea that if a centrist wins the left is dead is just nonsense.

It's rhetorical to ask if you like Blair, so can you think of an example of a nonleft leader becoming leftwing while in power? Just moving noticeably in that direction, even.

And if there's no precedent, why trust Starmer with setting one?

Where am I arguing that Starmer might move left? My point is that I see him as the best option from what’s available considering the fact that he is likely to be a) better than the Tories and b) have a chance of winning. That’s it, that’s all.

Although, I’ve been meaning to ask you, your argument for not voting for Starmer seems to boil down to the concern that a Starmer victory might finish off the left and the hope that a Labour loss might cause the party to pick a left wing candidate next time, is that right?

Because what I can’t work out about your position is a) why is Starmer an existential threat to a left that survived three Blair victories and b) why this particular loss with a centrist candidate will cause Labour to choose someone more left wing when all of the previous Labour losses with centrist candidates failed to achieve that?

Yossarian wrote:

You genuinely have no clue about my employer and the people I work with.

I've zero clue about the people you work with, but you often link Grun articles when Jones, Mason, Hyde, Moran and co. are poison on my leftwing Twitter feed. Some hundreds of thousands of people accused of not being cooperative enough by those significantly to their right, ensconced in our Overton as public-facing lefties.

I generally don’t read Jones, I assume by Mason you mean Chris Mason who lost his Guardian column two and a half years ago? Can’t say I’ve read much of anything he’s written since moving to the Spectator, I’ve no clue who Moran is, unless you mean Chris Moran? I do read and share Hyde articles, true, although that’s mostly because I think she can be fucking hilarious rather than because I agree with everything she says.

But, let’s zoom out a bit. What’s the point of this conversation exactly? What purpose does it serve for you to be putting me through some sort of left wing purity test here? Do you think this is somehow going to advance the cause of socialism in this country in any way shape or form?

Edit: I think I’ve worked out what you mean by moving to the left after getting into power. I don’t expect Labour to go into the next election with no policies around poverty, I expect a manifesto before an election which will contain those policies.

Caitlin Moran has been writing for the Times since 1992.

Never trust an ostensibly progressive paper with a fashion section.

Though in any case, columnism is a disease that affects the lot. Flying_rodent is a fucking saint for sifting through it all.

Escape wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

Caitlin Moran has been writing for the Times since 1992.

So the Grun reprint her articles?

No, they don’t.

acemuzzy wrote:

BORIS HAS SAVED CHRISTMAS!

USA! USA! USA!

Oh wait, shit. Wrong populism...

Oof

What was the plan to roll that out?
Because putting every full time employee on £30k will tank small to medium sized businesses.

As well as pushing up the cost of necessities like food and child care considerably.