Psychoactive Substances: Rolling UK Politics in The Neo-Con Era

i believe it started as a regionalised term for yobs and grew to a national expression of class hatred.

Isn't it used blankly as "someone uncultured"?

ie that if they are hardworking or not isn't the defining attribute.

yeah i've never thought chav was synonymous with someone on benefits.

xp i dunno, i'm always quite surprised when i come across it these days, not to mention alarmed. it's a bigoted pejorative term nowadays no denying.

It's a bit old (Burberry) hat now, isn't it?

Chavs

But before that there was...

charvers

The bullshit bit of the Cardamon post was the 'should we judge these attitudes too harshly?' bit when the answer is 'of course we fucking should', especially given the minuscule overlap between anti-welfare bigotry and people who have actually been beaten up by gangs of thugs.

i dont' think anyone (other than matt dc) really understood what cardamom was really saying in his post but never mind, keep piling it on.

― cod latin (dog latin), Wednesday, 15 July 2015 15:21 (23 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ok

That's a teenage girl being kicked to death by kids who, let's be honest, came from families that were long-term benefit claimants and who, had they not been sent to prison, would have just continued along those lines

are people who've been in real conflict with real scum to be forgiven or not for hating 'people on benefits'?

I think I understand these bits where instantly and bizarrely the perpetrators of a terrible crime, and another less terrible crime ('real scum') are defined as the progeny of 'benefit claimants' as though that is of key importance.

What I'm saying is that due to getting me head kicked in, I can relate to some extent with what such people are doing, the idea of getting revenge on the benefits people (who have been melded with 'violent people') is indeed a potent drug.

I think I understand this totally vile sentence too! Just because he frames this as part of a (genuinely sad and horrible) story of something that happened to him doesn't mean that relating to this kind of thinking should be in any way ok.

I dunno, based on the reactions here, you lot must either have had similar experiences but nobly forgiven and never want revenge just a little bit, or just never had similar experiences?

Pretty sure I understand this dumb sentence too. The responses to these posts have been fairly mild considering they essentially amount to 'I know it's wrong to want to wipe out the poor but I do fantasize about it and I understand people who do actually want it and if you don't then I guess you are either the luckiest person alive or some kind of saint'.

Anyway I'll shut up now, there's an important conversation about 'chavs' to be had.

things are pretty fucked up everywhere eh

On (reluctantly) googling this horrible murder, which is somehow connected to the Conservative Party's plans to cut the welfare budget, I discovered that one of the two perpetrators has subsequently been diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic. So how the poster's hard earned taxes could have 'reformed' him I know not.

Via funding the health service properly?

Yeah?

Yeah but in the formulation "a ___ wronged me once so now I hate all ___ and want them to suffer and you are an out of touch moralist if you judge me for it", among the many unpleasant things you can fill in there (black person, foreigner, Muslim, benefit claimant) you could just as "reasonably" include schizophrenic

he didn't say he wanted them all to suffer, he just said it was perfectly understandable why people might want them all to suffer

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/27/article-0-02CADB2400000578-486_468x421.jpg

Oxford student paper mention of Gove kicking as requested upthread ^

"Gray did nothing to save his lifelong friend. He ran away, to leave Gove and his face to take the rap"
Let's not be judgemental here, this is not necessarily a clear cut case of moral cowardice.

The first part of that student paper story: "So not going to happen" clearly.

Just me getting Clockwork Orange vibes from the photo then?

Alfred E. Neuman... with rickets.

Seems like a lot of people who ostensibly have left-wing political views are really against Corbyn because of the Hamas thing and now a 5-year old tweet vaguely supporting homeopathy. Now I'm not keen on either of those myself but it seems a bit weird to be so against the only leftie candidate based on those factors when choosing between leaders, almost like they are buying into right-wing media narratives. I dunno this is a bit of a strawman I've built and I'm probably talking out of my arse again, I totally accept that left-wingers might be against a Corbyn leadership based on his apparent unelectability (it's not really my position, I'd rather there was a leader representing me than another Blairite whether they were in government or not, I don't see the point in getting Labour elected if they are just Tory-lite, at all). Mind you I hate George Galloway and people have compared Corbyn to him so maybe they are onto something.

Sorry I'm really rambling here.

Corbyn seems like the least Galloway-like leftie politician imaginable in terms of modus operandi + personal style

Corbyn is nothing like Galloway but expect that connection to be made again and again if he wins. A big part of me wants him to win, but otoh he seems like a genuinely decent man who will be torn limb from limb if he does. The loss of temper + eyeroll in that C4 News interview suggests he lacks the temperament to deal with even a relatively easy-to-sidestep grilling. I don't really believe it will realign Labour to the left either, because the likelihood is that once he resigns or is deposed, they'll sweep back with someone even more right-wing in charge, and that'll probably happen sooner rather than later.

I suspect the likelihood is that either Burnham or (more likely) Cooper will drop out of the race between now and the ballot in return for one of the plum shadow cabinet positions. I don't really understand the second preference thing either - Burnham apparently ahead on first votes but Corbyn ahead after transfers, but I don't really understand why anyone would put Cooper or Kendall down as their first choice and then Corbyn as a #2.

united by a fondness for hats, I suppose xp

Every possible stop will be pulled out to ensure Corbyn doesn't win.

he has plenty of faults, he's not a good media performer and he isn't likely to sell his policies to anybody who doesn't already share them but otoh he's the only candidate with any sense of principle or opposition to the neoliberal hegemony. that's broadly what makes him unelectable and precisely what needs to happen to the Labour party, whatever the outcome.

also the Torygraph's hilarious "vote for Corbyn and destroy Labour forever" campaign stinks of mildly alarmed double bluff to me

A big part of me wants him to win, but otoh he seems like a genuinely decent man who will be torn limb from limb if he does.

^

NV also otm, no tories are going to be joining labour to vote for Corbyn.

xps The Hamas thing... It's a funny one. Seems that if you're a prominent socialist asking for dialogue it automatically makes you a terrorist sympathiser. It's a transparent bit of dirt-digging crossed with a canard on behalf of the right-wing, but so many people seem to take it seriously, as if Corbyn's key objective all these years has been to invite terrorists into number 10 and blow up parliament or whatever.
Yesterday the Telegraph were celebrating Corbyn's popularity, hoping his election would 'destroy' Labour. He's either unelectable or not. But the fact so many people think he's a. unelectable and b. dangerous just makes me despair in humanity.

The Telegraph has 'campaigns' now? Standards slipping not like in my day they don't like it up 'em.

a lot of leftists who may well sincerely seek an equitable solution to the Palestine issue have the unfortunate habit of wording their public statements a bit less diplomatically than "i am asking for dialogue"

he has very little support in the parliamentary labour party, right? to the point where he struggled to get on the ballot? which would surely make any theoretical Corbyn victory a non-starter even aside from the fact that labour establishment will obv move heaven and earth to crush him if he looked like he had any chance of victory

Hamas: diplomatically referring to conference attendees from an elected government as 'friends' is normal political behaviour, see also our 'friends' in Saudi Arabia, whose wealthy citizens are probably paying for all the terrorism and yet we get half-mast Union flags when their king pegs it. I call *bullshit*.

Homeopathy: a cursory glance shows JC sees it as possible complementary medicine in some cases, not a replacement for regular medicine (the cleu is in 'complementary'), on the perfectly understandable willow bark = aspirin tip. Nothing more, surely?

Corbyn wouldn't even be close to winning this if there were another candidate willing to challenge the austerity narrative, which is what every grassroots party person or left-wing/labour voter I know really wants from PLP politicians.

What if Corbyn and allies were to form their own left-wing party? What would happen to Labour? Would it have an SNP-like effect or no effect at all?

Hamas: diplomatically referring to conference attendees from an elected government as 'friends' is normal political behaviour, see also our 'friends' in Saudi Arabia, whose wealthy citizens are probably paying for all the terrorism and yet we get half-mast Union flags when their king pegs it. I call *bullshit*.

just wanted to OTM this.

I assume people only vote Labour to keep the Tories out, so no effect.

to what extent are these stories about his unexpected levels of support exaggerations? either from excitable Corbyn supporters or opponents of Labour who feel theyhave an interest in making it seem like he is a credible candidate?

I don't think they're exaggerated.

i trust nothing i read except what can be openly evidenced at this stage tbh

but it wdn't be much of a surprise if grassroots party activists and some Trade Unions got behind the only candidate who isn't a fucking Tory

sort of wonder how this could have played out if Diane Abbott was running as the left candidate rather than Corbyn, someone who maybe could sell these policies to people who aren't already true believers

Corbyn's appearance on Channel 4 polarised Twitter as far as I could tell, but maybe people's minds were made up already. I went to an anti-austerity thing in town the other day with Natalie Bennett speaking, as well as others, and there was obviously a lot of pro-Corbyn talk.

http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5984150.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/MAINcorbynweather.jpg

He's putting up a fair battle in endorsements apparently:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_in_the_Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2015

Sort of surprised (but not unhappy) how poorly Liz Kendall's doing there.

Kendall to clown all predictions and win at a canter imo

on the perfectly understandable willow bark = aspirin tip

Eh? What does willow bark have to do with homeopathy?

they're both magic

he has plenty of faults, he's not a good media performer and he isn't likely to sell his policies to anybody who doesn't already share them but otoh he's the only candidate with any sense of principle or opposition to the neoliberal hegemony. that's broadly what makes him unelectable and precisely what needs to happen to the Labour party, whatever the outcome.

Except "electability" isn't really about policy, it's about personality and presentation. A leader with the principles of Corbyn and the presence and communication skills of mid-90s Blair would stand a better chance of winning than a centrist wonk who excites precisely no one.

Also a) I don't think Corbyn ever expected to be in this position when he entered the contest and b) why the fuck are Jason Cowley and other professional political journalists still talking about opinion polls like they mean anything? They might as well be consulting the fairies at the bottom of the garden.

i don't think it's one or the other. over-relying on your ability to play the media is a fool's enterprise if you're proposing anything that's broadly unpalatable to the media, as any anti-austerity position wd be. winning hearts and minds is going to take grassroots work and the ability to get a message out there thru a steady barrage of flack. it's going to take enough patience to not worry about soundbiting yrself into short term TV popularity. obviously a "leader" has to not make an arse of themselves in public whenever poss, but i don't think meaningful change is something that can be accomplished thru a polished enough media presence. Blair, after all, wasn't interested in meaningful change.