How long did it take you to think of the additional racist insult of inserting the word 'white'?

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Interesting in the same way as ebola is interesting.

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

I would like a leader to the left of Yvette Cooper or Liz Kendall. But Jeremy Corbyn's politics hasn't changed since the 80s and Andy Burnham's has every year since the late 90s. If either of the blokes win this leadership election, Labour are f***ed.

"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee

The voice of common sense as usual, Stu.

Labour are crucifying themselves with this massively drawn-out contest. They constantly bang on about wanting to "have a debate" and "listen to the electorate" but all it amounts to is suicidal infighting while the Tories shift the goalposts in their own favour. Last time the Tories convinced half the electorate it was Labour's fault we had a deficit. Now they're portraying Labour as the party of welfare scroungers.

The "debate" is like a 1980s throwback. Corbyn wanting to bring back an elected shadow cabinet is Tony Benn (in whose ideal world we would all spend weekday evenings in draughty school classrooms voting on what day the bins should be taken out) and the 1981 Campaign for Labour Party Democracy all over again. There was even a bloke on radio 4 yesterday talking about "People's QE" (ie, printing money and giving it to local governments and a Green Investment Bank, who clearly know how to spend it wisely) which is like something out of the 1970s!

Even if Corbyn does win (I doubt he will and suspect the media are hyping it up) he'll be ousted before the next election.

Meanwhile, the Tories are getting away with all kinds of empty, populist nonsense (eg, this ridiculous landlord immigrant fig-leaf) while Labour sit around navel-gazing. Poor effort all round.

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...

Look everyone, Jonathan Swift has joined the HOL.

Agreed. And the thought the Tories may be anything other than thoroughly delighted is laughable in the extreme.

I quite like Corbyn (he's quite honest for a politician), but if he were to win the leadership election, he'd be surrounded by a plethora of Labour grandees trying to oust him before he'd even finished his acceptance speech. I doubt the Tories would have to do anything at all for the next 3 months, just stand back, grab the popcorn, and watch the show.

From our posts I strongly suspect our politics are a long way apart but I have to agree with you 100% on this.

It has been to the disgrace of the Labour party that they have not even put up a token opposition to some of the Tory policies since they were elected. Some of the older MP's have tried but the rest would rather bicker amongst themselves and there is no organised opposition from them.

The SNP has emerged as the only opposition, and I am no great lover of theirs, but they should be commended for taking up the slack.

'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'

Interesting article:

[Link]

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

No hard hat necessary, buit I don't think the "your opinion is sh!te, mine is right" attitude is a specifically left or right wing one. It's the nature of opinion - if you believe something then of course you think it's right.

It boils down to this (and has done since the dawn of time):

LEFT: right wingers have no heart, don't care about the less fortunate, and would sell their own grannies for a quick buck

RIGHT: left wingers live in cloud cuckoo land, love spending other peoples money, and tend to grow out of it once they leave university

That wouldn't really be down to Marx, Marxism and Marxist theory, any more than blaming Adam Smith for the millions who die each year from preventable diseases in the third world. The blame generally lies with people who think you can force a world to change (notably Marxist Lennism, for example, presents a vanguard theory which Marx doesn't agree with. Marx views capitalism as needing to be in decline before it is replace, Lennin, Mao, Trotsky and Stalin all believed that crisis of capitalism could be provoked by a revolutionary vanguard, and the population could be 're-educated' into the interim communist state (they were of course wrong).

So in Marx we see a necessity of historical inevitability that would see communism / socialism emerge from the failure of capitalism, in much the same way that Capitalism emerged from the various forms of Aristocratic of agrarian economics with the Industrial Revolution.

Marx points towards a key factor being a post-scarcity society (ie when the production capacity of Capitalism to supply renders profit irrelivent - Probably through a technical evolution similar to the Industrial revolution - I would say something like sub-atomic manipulation technology, such as nano tech, would effectively in time make capital meaningless).

Also, Marxism isn't just applicable to left wing politics either, its also applicable to social theory, historical analayis, Archeology without necessitating a political bias (as Marxist theory view society as in conflict and opposition, rather than as a cohesive whole).

They formed the Catholic church on the basis of Augustine and Aristotle, doesn't mean that they responsible for burning witches and heretics.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]