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

daily politics is showing footage of the announcement at the tooting by-election, obviously a sombre atmosphere, monster raving loony candidate looks a bit out of place

― soref, Friday, 17 June 2016 11:34 (48 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The Radio 1 news this morning said she didn't do a victory speech.

Which is somewhat inaccurate, she did make a speech which was a tribute. She didn't just say nothing..

xp all the major parties contested it, as well as the NF, Lindi St Clair and something called the "Ironside Party"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastbourne_by-election,_1990

The loss came as a shock to many Conservatives who had expected (not least given the circumstances under which the by-election was held, as well as the fact that it had been retained by a majority of more than 16,000 votes in 1987) that they would easily retain the seat. Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe sent a message to voters saying that the IRA would be "toasting their success".[1]

Eastbourne, so I imagine it wouldn't have made any difference if Labour had contested this or any other election there.

To give credit where it's due, after my earlier comments about the Telegraph, its front page didn't shy away from the reported "Britain first" cry. Unlike the Mail, Express and Sun, who all just pushed the "crazed loner" angle.

http://i.imgur.com/lUNN7Xh.jpg

http://cdn.images.dailystar.co.uk/dynamic/pixfeed/covers/81x101/front_2016-06-17.jpg

Daily Star went with "MP DEAD AFTER ATTACK BY BREXIT GUNMAN" (sorry, can't find a bigger picture)

I agree that arguments that this was somehow apolitical, that this guy was "just" crazy are iniquitous, but "Brexit gunman" seems a bit dubious to me as well? idk

LOL, not pulling their punches there.

is the telegraph in the leave or remain camp?

private eye has been saying that there is pressure from the paper's owners for the editors to not take a strong pro-brexit line, prompting an angry response from readers

To give credit where it's due, after my earlier comments about the Telegraph, its front page didn't shy away from the reported "Britain first" cry. Unlike the Mail, Express and Sun, who all just pushed the "crazed loner" angle.

🗻

Thanks soref, I suppose they reflect the tensions within the tories

An interesting edit:

https://twitter.com/bonaldi/status/743532776763318272

Is the Star still owned by Richard Desmond? If so, you could read that headline as triumphalist.

lolololol if the barclay brothers are getting cold feet btw

Being reported that Mair is being charged under anti-terrorism laws and is being moved to London. The hapless nutter angle falters.

xps Last night Britain First said that Tommy Mair had never had any contact with their group and condemned shrugged their shoulders at the killing might be closer than what the Telegraph actually printed

My local pub gets the Telegraph; I occasionally flick through (mainly just on the way to the crosswords tbh) and iirc last year it was more Brexity but this year a lot of the articles have had a slightly resigned/fence-sitting tone of not really liking this EU business but it's all about the economy so stiff upper lip and let's stay in for now

(this may not be quite fair - have been trying to cut down on the boozing and consequently haven't spent much time in the pub reading the paper over the last month or two)

+ good catch Andrew/stet

I am dense, who is the "glaring exception"?

https://www.scribd.com/doc/169454715/Nigel-Farage-1981-school-letter#fullscreen

I am dense, who is the "glaring exception"

Boris Johnson

Farrage.

^^^ I meant the second exception, not the first one, sorry!

not so glaring apparently

(Thought Farage was obvious)

Aha.

Yeah, Johnson's entire approach to this is transparently self-serving. Farage is in it for the hatred.

Many xposts - Ah gotcha - misread it and though that the glaring omissions weren't mentioned in that para.

politicians stopped viewing bigotry as something to be argued against and became something to be tiptoed around or pandered to

jo cox sounds like one of those politicans:

Let me be clear from the start: it’s fine to be concerned about immigration – many people are.

This doesn’t mean to say they are racist or xenophobic – they are simply concerned about pressures on GP surgeries or schools, or how once familiar town centres are changing, or whether they’ll be able to compete with migrant workers to get a job.

...

But I strongly believe that concerns about immigration – as legitimate as they are – are not a reason to vote for Brexit.

Had my emails from kezsia and Corbyn - apparently recalled parliament on Monday?

yes.

has anything emerged about the reported other victim of the attack? what was going on there?

I have said many disparaging things about her in the past year. I am still horrified at what happened yesterday, but despite her being a nice person I was never impressed with her as a politician. She was a standard Blairite and what happened yesterday doesn't change that one iota. I have been having this argument with someone today and apparently my attitude is unacceptable so I will stfu.

hmm, drops microphone, right?

I hadn't heard of her til she co-wrote an article in the guardian last month the day after the elections saying we nominated jeremy corbyn and now we regret it

not trying to be controversial, it's something I have been having an irl argument about today. Some of the sanctimonious bullshit is starting to annoy me.

The eventual by-election: Conservatives have said they won't field a candidate, so it will be Labour verses UKIP, doubtless...

Anyway, I did wonder who would take up the Labour candidacy, not because of safety issues, more who will fill those shoes.

btw, hey, let's not be reasonable, right?

I probably agree with stuff evaluating her lagacy/position, but I really don't feel like getting into that now. It's for another day.

You're gonna love this page, right?

https://www.gofundme.com/jocox

I really don't feel like getting into that now. It's for another day.

It really isn't for another day. She was not a major politician, she might have been in the future.

As I see/say, there's a legacy in the form of a charity page. That is her political legacy.

Like most people I hadn't heard of her before yesterday, but I would imagine that even as a passionately pro-immigration MP you must just get this steady drip-drip of anti-immigration crap from your constituents that makes it difficult not to mediate it back in that kind of vague equivocating fashion occasionally. You get the opposite as well, I'm sure, but the Overton window has lurched so far to the right now that even your more liberal standard Blairites are starting to look like Michael Foot in comparison.

I jus don't think I can talk about the things I disliked about someone rather than the things I liked.

The eventual by-election: Conservatives have said they won't field a candidate, so it will be Labour verses UKIP, doubtless..

UKIP not standing. Neither are the Lib Dems (fwiw).

is there any level of immigration that you guys would find problematic?

if immigration is problematised in terms of they are simply concerned about pressures on GP surgeries or schools, or how once familiar town centres are changing, or whether they’ll be able to compete with migrant workers to get a job.

1. that's not an immigration problem
2. sorry
3. sorry that's not an immigration problem

is that a no?

immigration obv causes some problems, in that local authorities faced with an introduction of significant immigrant population will need resources they perhaps hadn't accounted for - both in terms of sudden increase of population not provided for plus extra things like translators etc. - and in intercommunal strife between immigrant groups and longer standing residents.

the problem is these logistical problems are never presented as what they are, which is just "problems" and not Armageddon, and immigration is constantly posited as a Malthusian thing ("we're full"), or clash of civilizations/attack on native white culture and way of life.

altho obv that positing is most often done sotto voce or thru dog whistles

if the immigration rate put the uk population growth rate in the top 20 or so I think it would be a problem, but as it is many countries are dealing with much larger increases of population and it's not normally a bump of educated working age people

Is there any level of immigration that you guys would find problematic?

I can see there would be practical difficulties with accommodating an infinite number of people, but from an ideological POV: no

Actually let me rephrase that: fuck off, no

cool