Snap General Election called

[Sandydragon]

The Conservatives are going to elect their new leader and the first rounds of that are going to be voted for by the Conservative MPs. If the only ones left after the July 4th mass-murder are toxic bigoted fuckers, then they will vote for a toxic bigoted fucker leader, especially if they can point to everyone who was sensible getting voted out as evidence that the "Will of the People" is that they need to go further right to win elections. So therefore keeping a sensible Tory MP in could be seen as a good plan.

I mean, I think they will select a toxic bigoted fucker anyway, simply because the majority of those who kept their seats are the rabid fringe cause they were in safe seats (and because the Party membership get the final call when it's narrowed down to two candidates, and last time they did that, they picked Truss), but I can see Mell's logic there, even if it's not a decision I would make.

Puja

Well for a start puja you’ve suggested that what’s left of the Tory party will be toxic bigoted fuckers. Who could suggest them eh?

You realise that you have literally just quoted me actively defending Mells's decision to vote Tory and saying that I understand his reasoning, right?

Puja

What’s left of the Tories will be the toxic bigoted fuckers. Nice.

Nice wide brush there.

[Sandydragon]

Well, I did. I think it’s perfectly fair to suggest that the Tory party has flirted with fascism, and the likes of Braverman would drag it further toward that.

You then made a comment that Labour were just as communist as the conservatives are fascist, which I also reject.

I think it’s dangerous to not call out fascist behavior for free of offending. That doesn’t mean calling people fascists, nor did I call Tory voters fascists. I merely pointed out that, in my mind, voting Tory was an implicit acceptance of their actions, even if those actions were fascist in nature.

I accepted Mells point about voting for the individual.

So, yes, I’m not sure what I could have done to prove that I understood your point, I just completely disagree with it.

You’ve misread my post.

O said Labour were closer to communism than the Tories by dint of being towards the left of politics. Same way the Tories are closer to fascism by being on the right.

At least read the post before calling your own argument nonsense

And I disagree with that premise, as I’ve said 3 times. And I feel it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of politics.

I even said that the illiberalism of the conservatives puts them closer to communism than Labour.

I don’t know how clearer I can make it

You made a point you don’t agree with and i argue that the original post was nonsense. So you continue to argue.

Right o

[Puja]

Well for a start puja you’ve suggested that what’s left of the Tory party will be toxic bigoted fuckers. Who could suggest them eh?

You realise that you have literally just quoted me actively defending Mells's decision to vote Tory and saying that I understand his reasoning, right?

Puja

What’s left of the Tories will be the toxic bigoted fuckers. Nice.

Nice wide brush there.

If the only ones left after the July 4th mass-murder are toxic bigoted fuckers, then they will vote for a toxic bigoted fucker leader, especially if they can point to everyone who was sensible getting voted out as evidence that the "Will of the People" is that they need to go further right to win elections. So therefore keeping a sensible Tory MP in could be seen as a good plan.

The word "if" is fairly important to read there for actual comprehension of the sentence, as well as the context of the conversation being about voting for a OneNation Tory instead of looking at a total wipeout, which would leave only the extremes.

However, I am still struggling to get over you literally using a post of me defending someone's reasons for voting Tory as evidence that I am attacking everyone voting Tory. I get that you've been overwhelmed by people outside of the board making comments and my relatively benign joke about Timpson the Tory (which I did apologise for, as being a cheap and unworthy quip) was the proverbial straw. But I've not accused or implied anyone of fascism in this discussion, either politicians or voters, and I'm not thrilled about having words put into my mouth.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Well, I did. I think it’s perfectly fair to suggest that the Tory party has flirted with fascism, and the likes of Braverman would drag it further toward that.

You then made a comment that Labour were just as communist as the conservatives are fascist, which I also reject.

I think it’s dangerous to not call out fascist behavior for free of offending. That doesn’t mean calling people fascists, nor did I call Tory voters fascists. I merely pointed out that, in my mind, voting Tory was an implicit acceptance of their actions, even if those actions were fascist in nature.

I accepted Mells point about voting for the individual.

So, yes, I’m not sure what I could have done to prove that I understood your point, I just completely disagree with it.

You’ve misread my post.

O said Labour were closer to communism than the Tories by dint of being towards the left of politics. Same way the Tories are closer to fascism by being on the right.

At least read the post before calling your own argument nonsense

And I disagree with that premise, as I’ve said 3 times. And I feel it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of politics.

I even said that the illiberalism of the conservatives puts them closer to communism than Labour.

I don’t know how clearer I can make it

NB I don't think you should be using the term communism here - it's too broad a category, and does not imply illiberalism. Perhaps totalitarian communism or soviet communism or Leninism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

[Stom]

You’ve misread my post.

O said Labour were closer to communism than the Tories by dint of being towards the left of politics. Same way the Tories are closer to fascism by being on the right.

At least read the post before calling your own argument nonsense

And I disagree with that premise, as I’ve said 3 times. And I feel it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of politics.

I even said that the illiberalism of the conservatives puts them closer to communism than Labour.

I don’t know how clearer I can make it

NB I don't think you should be using the term communism here - it's too broad a category, and does not imply illiberalism. Perhaps totalitarian communism or soviet communism or Leninism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

If you refer back to my previous post on illiberalism, you can see my working

Basically, both groups require an "us vs them" mentality, and a form of collective solidarity. However, the goal of that solidarity, and the way in which that solidarity is gained, are very, very different.

Either way, I do not think it is fair to say Labour are anywhere near communism, considering the implications that has to certain people, while the Tories have demonstrably flirted with fascist policies and I'd say more than flirted with fascist rhetoric.

That a certain poster, who accused others of being "triggered", got triggered by the conversation, and decided that my assertion that I believe a vote for the Tories is an implicit acceptance of their worst parts, before accepting Mells' point on individuals (I'm too caught up in Hungary and our politics here sometimes, and lose sight of what is actually a very different system despite the paper similarities), got us caught up in a endless cycle of semantics that I just did not understand, because it was not about logic, but about being hurt...

I am not calling anyone a fascist.

I AM going to continue to call out fascist policies, rhetoric, and behaviors as fascist.

No-one is attacking individuals here (except Braverman, she deserves verbal attack).

[Sandydragon]

You’ve misread my post.

O said Labour were closer to communism than the Tories by dint of being towards the left of politics. Same way the Tories are closer to fascism by being on the right.

At least read the post before calling your own argument nonsense

And I disagree with that premise, as I’ve said 3 times. And I feel it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of politics.

I even said that the illiberalism of the conservatives puts them closer to communism than Labour.

I don’t know how clearer I can make it

NB I don't think you should be using the term communism here - it's too broad a category, and does not imply illiberalism. Perhaps totalitarian communism or soviet communism or Leninism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

That’s a bit like insisting that Primitive and Wesleyan Methodists are completely different.

[Sandydragon]

You realise that you have literally just quoted me actively defending Mells's decision to vote Tory and saying that I understand his reasoning, right?

Puja

What’s left of the Tories will be the toxic bigoted fuckers. Nice.

Nice wide brush there.

If the only ones left after the July 4th mass-murder are toxic bigoted fuckers, then they will vote for a toxic bigoted fucker leader, especially if they can point to everyone who was sensible getting voted out as evidence that the "Will of the People" is that they need to go further right to win elections. So therefore keeping a sensible Tory MP in could be seen as a good plan.

The word "if" is fairly important to read there for actual comprehension of the sentence, as well as the context of the conversation being about voting for a OneNation Tory instead of looking at a total wipeout, which would leave only the extremes.

However, I am still struggling to get over you literally using a post of me defending someone's reasons for voting Tory as evidence that I am attacking everyone voting Tory. I get that you've been overwhelmed by people outside of the board making comments and my relatively benign joke about Timpson the Tory (which I did apologise for, as being a cheap and unworthy quip) was the proverbial straw. But I've not accused or implied anyone of fascism in this discussion, either politicians or voters, and I'm not thrilled about having words put into my mouth.

Puja

Because you’re missing the point.

That quip highlights the view of many on here that the Tories can’t possible include people who are compassionate and genuinely care about society. In itself, assuming that the Tories are full of racists and fascist forms a kind of bigotry that British politics can do without. The term fascist gets bandied about a lot, yet a proper analysis would not actually apply that tag to the party as a whole.

Your’ joke’ just highlighted the crass nature of some political views that the other side are scum and must be treated as such.

[Sandydragon]

And I disagree with that premise, as I’ve said 3 times. And I feel it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of politics.

I even said that the illiberalism of the conservatives puts them closer to communism than Labour.

I don’t know how clearer I can make it

NB I don't think you should be using the term communism here - it's too broad a category, and does not imply illiberalism. Perhaps totalitarian communism or soviet communism or Leninism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

If you refer back to my previous post on illiberalism, you can see my working

Basically, both groups require an "us vs them" mentality, and a form of collective solidarity. However, the goal of that solidarity, and the way in which that solidarity is gained, are very, very different.

Either way, I do not think it is fair to say Labour are anywhere near communism, considering the implications that has to certain people, while the Tories have demonstrably flirted with fascist policies and I'd say more than flirted with fascist rhetoric.

That a certain poster, who accused others of being "triggered", got triggered by the conversation, and decided that my assertion that I believe a vote for the Tories is an implicit acceptance of their worst parts, before accepting Mells' point on individuals (I'm too caught up in Hungary and our politics here sometimes, and lose sight of what is actually a very different system despite the paper similarities), got us caught up in a endless cycle of semantics that I just did not understand, because it was not about logic, but about being hurt...

I am not calling anyone a fascist.

I AM going to continue to call out fascist policies, rhetoric, and behaviors as fascist.

No-one is attacking individuals here (except Braverman, she deserves verbal attack).

And you still can’t understand the original point I made, based on a measurement you introduced. Nothing to do with being hurt (do you seriously think I care that much what you write). I just took your argument to its obvious conclusion. The emotional reaction is in you and some others, not on me.

[Stom]

NB I don't think you should be using the term communism here - it's too broad a category, and does not imply illiberalism. Perhaps totalitarian communism or soviet communism or Leninism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

If you refer back to my previous post on illiberalism, you can see my working

Basically, both groups require an "us vs them" mentality, and a form of collective solidarity. However, the goal of that solidarity, and the way in which that solidarity is gained, are very, very different.

Either way, I do not think it is fair to say Labour are anywhere near communism, considering the implications that has to certain people, while the Tories have demonstrably flirted with fascist policies and I'd say more than flirted with fascist rhetoric.

That a certain poster, who accused others of being "triggered", got triggered by the conversation, and decided that my assertion that I believe a vote for the Tories is an implicit acceptance of their worst parts, before accepting Mells' point on individuals (I'm too caught up in Hungary and our politics here sometimes, and lose sight of what is actually a very different system despite the paper similarities), got us caught up in a endless cycle of semantics that I just did not understand, because it was not about logic, but about being hurt...

I am not calling anyone a fascist.

I AM going to continue to call out fascist policies, rhetoric, and behaviors as fascist.

No-one is attacking individuals here (except Braverman, she deserves verbal attack).

And you still can’t understand the original point I made, based on a measurement you introduced. Nothing to do with being hurt (do you seriously think I care that much what you write). I just took your argument to its obvious conclusion. The emotional reaction is in you and some others, not on me.

I still don’t get it because when you clarified, it was the entire point I replied to: I did not misunderstand your point unless you’re unable to write down what your brain is thinking.

Which is definitely possible here.

[Sandydragon]

If you refer back to my previous post on illiberalism, you can see my working

Basically, both groups require an "us vs them" mentality, and a form of collective solidarity. However, the goal of that solidarity, and the way in which that solidarity is gained, are very, very different.

Either way, I do not think it is fair to say Labour are anywhere near communism, considering the implications that has to certain people, while the Tories have demonstrably flirted with fascist policies and I'd say more than flirted with fascist rhetoric.

That a certain poster, who accused others of being "triggered", got triggered by the conversation, and decided that my assertion that I believe a vote for the Tories is an implicit acceptance of their worst parts, before accepting Mells' point on individuals (I'm too caught up in Hungary and our politics here sometimes, and lose sight of what is actually a very different system despite the paper similarities), got us caught up in a endless cycle of semantics that I just did not understand, because it was not about logic, but about being hurt...

I am not calling anyone a fascist.

I AM going to continue to call out fascist policies, rhetoric, and behaviors as fascist.

No-one is attacking individuals here (except Braverman, she deserves verbal attack).

And you still can’t understand the original point I made, based on a measurement you introduced. Nothing to do with being hurt (do you seriously think I care that much what you write). I just took your argument to its obvious conclusion. The emotional reaction is in you and some others, not on me.

I still don’t get it because when you clarified, it was the entire point I replied to: I did not misunderstand your point unless you’re unable to write down what your brain is thinking.

Which is definitely possible here.

Poster A suggests that the Tories are closer to fascist than Labour.
Poster b suggests Labour is closer to communism than the Tories if, as hinted, poster A is describing politics as a horseshoe.

You spend days trying to be clever and play the man not the ball. I suggest it’s not me with the comprehension problem. We’re done.

[Mikey Brown]

And I disagree with that premise, as I’ve said 3 times. And I feel it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of politics.

I even said that the illiberalism of the conservatives puts them closer to communism than Labour.

I don’t know how clearer I can make it

NB I don't think you should be using the term communism here - it's too broad a category, and does not imply illiberalism. Perhaps totalitarian communism or soviet communism or Leninism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

That’s a bit like insisting that Primitive and Wesleyan Methodists are completely different.

I don’t get this point. The whole “we’ve seen communism given a chance and it just doesn’t work” seems to often remove the totalitarian dictators from the equation completely.

Either communism can’t exist without that kind of influence or it’s fair to distinguish between the concept and the execution.

[Sandydragon]

NB I don't think you should be using the term communism here - it's too broad a category, and does not imply illiberalism. Perhaps totalitarian communism or soviet communism or Leninism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

That’s a bit like insisting that Primitive and Wesleyan Methodists are completely different.

I don’t get this point. The whole “we’ve seen communism given a chance and it just doesn’t work” seems to often remove the totalitarian dictators from the equation completely.

Either communism can’t exist without that kind of influence or it’s fair to distinguish between the concept and the execution.

Communism has clearly evolved as various faction splinter off. Very common with extremists. But in my opinion they owe their origins to the same starting point, a bit like Methodism (although I don’t suggest Methodists are extremists).

There is a core of violence in communism though which suggests that the violence done in its name can’t be totally divorced from the original concept. So a totalitarian government emerging from a communism philosophy isn’t that surprising. The Soviet Union might not be what Marx intended but I’d suggest it was an interpretation of his writings. Later on it’s all
About keeping power and privilege.

[Puja]

What’s left of the Tories will be the toxic bigoted fuckers. Nice.

Nice wide brush there.

If the only ones left after the July 4th mass-murder are toxic bigoted fuckers, then they will vote for a toxic bigoted fucker leader, especially if they can point to everyone who was sensible getting voted out as evidence that the "Will of the People" is that they need to go further right to win elections. So therefore keeping a sensible Tory MP in could be seen as a good plan.

The word "if" is fairly important to read there for actual comprehension of the sentence, as well as the context of the conversation being about voting for a OneNation Tory instead of looking at a total wipeout, which would leave only the extremes.

However, I am still struggling to get over you literally using a post of me defending someone's reasons for voting Tory as evidence that I am attacking everyone voting Tory. I get that you've been overwhelmed by people outside of the board making comments and my relatively benign joke about Timpson the Tory (which I did apologise for, as being a cheap and unworthy quip) was the proverbial straw. But I've not accused or implied anyone of fascism in this discussion, either politicians or voters, and I'm not thrilled about having words put into my mouth.

Puja

Because you’re missing the point.

That quip highlights the view of many on here that the Tories can’t possible include people who are compassionate and genuinely care about society. In itself, assuming that the Tories are full of racists and fascist forms a kind of bigotry that British politics can do without. The term fascist gets bandied about a lot, yet a proper analysis would not actually apply that tag to the party as a whole.

Your’ joke’ just highlighted the crass nature of some political views that the other side are scum and must be treated as such.

My 'joke' (as previously said) was about a family that's famous for prisons reform and compassion towards offenders, having a member who was an MP for a party that is famously pro-"if you can't do the time, don't do the crime". Where is the missing step that's led you to the conclusion that I "was moving towards how anyone could vote Tory, implying the party was fascist, and that Tory voters are by default fascist"?

I really do feel that you are reading what you want to be angry about me saying, instead of what I'm actually saying.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

And I disagree with that premise, as I’ve said 3 times. And I feel it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of politics.

I even said that the illiberalism of the conservatives puts them closer to communism than Labour.

I don’t know how clearer I can make it

NB I don't think you should be using the term communism here - it's too broad a category, and does not imply illiberalism. Perhaps totalitarian communism or soviet communism or Leninism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

That’s a bit like insisting that Primitive and Wesleyan Methodists are completely different.

Assuming you are being serious(?), that's a straw man, I'm not saying they are completely different.

Communism is a broader category than fascism. Fascism is not the opposite of communism, if there is an opposite, it's capitalism. Capitalism is another broad category which contains democratic and totalitarian forms. Capitalism and communism are ways of organizing an economy, they don't prescribe the form a government should take.

And this is my point: communism is not fundamentally illiberal (nor is capitalism). Totalitarian communism is, as is fascism.

[Son of Mathonwy]

And I disagree with that premise, as I’ve said 3 times. And I feel it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of politics.

I even said that the illiberalism of the conservatives puts them closer to communism than Labour.

I don’t know how clearer I can make it

NB I don't think you should be using the term communism here - it's too broad a category, and does not imply illiberalism. Perhaps totalitarian communism or soviet communism or Leninism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

If you refer back to my previous post on illiberalism, you can see my working

Basically, both groups require an "us vs them" mentality, and a form of collective solidarity. However, the goal of that solidarity, and the way in which that solidarity is gained, are very, very different.

Either way, I do not think it is fair to say Labour are anywhere near communism, considering the implications that has to certain people, while the Tories have demonstrably flirted with fascist policies and I'd say more than flirted with fascist rhetoric.

That a certain poster, who accused others of being "triggered", got triggered by the conversation, and decided that my assertion that I believe a vote for the Tories is an implicit acceptance of their worst parts, before accepting Mells' point on individuals (I'm too caught up in Hungary and our politics here sometimes, and lose sight of what is actually a very different system despite the paper similarities), got us caught up in a endless cycle of semantics that I just did not understand, because it was not about logic, but about being hurt...

I am not calling anyone a fascist.

I AM going to continue to call out fascist policies, rhetoric, and behaviors as fascist.

No-one is attacking individuals here (except Braverman, she deserves verbal attack).

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, of course.

You 'triggered' me ( ) by implying that being close to communism is as bad as being close to fascism, my point just being that communism is much broader than fascism and perhaps you should be more precise and use the term 'totalitarian communism' (or soemthing like it) instead, because that indeed is as scary as fascism.

I disagree that communism requires an 'us and them' mentality in the way that fascism does (indeed the idea that 'we need a strong leader to protect us from them' is at the core of fascism). Communism takes the view that we are all equal. Philosophically communism makes sense without a 'them' whereas fascism always needs an enemy, a scapegoat.

NB of course a number of communist dictators have made use of fascist techniques. The reason why we're more concerned with fascism now (rather than totalitarian communism) is that fascism has a track record of subverting capitalist democracies over time. Russia and Hungary are clearly well along that path and the USA has made some significant steps.

NB also, I'm not a communist. I just think its ideas should be given a fair hearing.

[Stom]

NB I don't think you should be using the term communism here - it's too broad a category, and does not imply illiberalism. Perhaps totalitarian communism or soviet communism or Leninism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

If you refer back to my previous post on illiberalism, you can see my working

Basically, both groups require an "us vs them" mentality, and a form of collective solidarity. However, the goal of that solidarity, and the way in which that solidarity is gained, are very, very different.

Either way, I do not think it is fair to say Labour are anywhere near communism, considering the implications that has to certain people, while the Tories have demonstrably flirted with fascist policies and I'd say more than flirted with fascist rhetoric.

That a certain poster, who accused others of being "triggered", got triggered by the conversation, and decided that my assertion that I believe a vote for the Tories is an implicit acceptance of their worst parts, before accepting Mells' point on individuals (I'm too caught up in Hungary and our politics here sometimes, and lose sight of what is actually a very different system despite the paper similarities), got us caught up in a endless cycle of semantics that I just did not understand, because it was not about logic, but about being hurt...

I am not calling anyone a fascist.

I AM going to continue to call out fascist policies, rhetoric, and behaviors as fascist.

No-one is attacking individuals here (except Braverman, she deserves verbal attack).

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, of course.

You 'triggered' me ( ) by implying that being close to communism is as bad as being close to fascism, my point just being that communism is much broader than fascism and perhaps you should be more precise and use the term 'totalitarian communism' (or soemthing like it) instead, because that indeed is as scary as fascism.

I disagree that communism requires an 'us and them' mentality in the way that fascism does (indeed the idea that 'we need a strong leader to protect us from them' is at the core of fascism). Communism takes the view that we are all equal. Philosophically communism makes sense without a 'them' whereas fascism always needs an enemy, a scapegoat.

NB of course a number of communist dictators have made use of fascist techniques. The reason why we're more concerned with fascism now (rather than totalitarian communism) is that fascism has a track record of subverting capitalist democracies over time. Russia and Hungary are clearly well along that path and the USA has made some significant steps.

NB also, I'm not a communist. I just think its ideas should be given a fair hearing.

Communism does require buy-in to the system from everyone. And if you do not buy in? Well, you need to be re-educated or eliminated.

The distinction between the two seems to be that someone wrote a manifesto about one that contains some elements a lot of people feel aren’t bad ideas.

But because it requires a dogmatic and rigid adherence to the state to function, you essentially end up at the same result as fascism: individualism is crushed. Hence my suggestion that illiberalism is present in both.

But that’s neither here nor there.

As we have a perfectly good potential system that promises much of the same good outcomes of communism while allowing the functioning of capitalism at the same time: social democracy.

[Son of Mathonwy]

If you refer back to my previous post on illiberalism, you can see my working

Basically, both groups require an "us vs them" mentality, and a form of collective solidarity. However, the goal of that solidarity, and the way in which that solidarity is gained, are very, very different.

Either way, I do not think it is fair to say Labour are anywhere near communism, considering the implications that has to certain people, while the Tories have demonstrably flirted with fascist policies and I'd say more than flirted with fascist rhetoric.

That a certain poster, who accused others of being "triggered", got triggered by the conversation, and decided that my assertion that I believe a vote for the Tories is an implicit acceptance of their worst parts, before accepting Mells' point on individuals (I'm too caught up in Hungary and our politics here sometimes, and lose sight of what is actually a very different system despite the paper similarities), got us caught up in a endless cycle of semantics that I just did not understand, because it was not about logic, but about being hurt...

I am not calling anyone a fascist.

I AM going to continue to call out fascist policies, rhetoric, and behaviors as fascist.

No-one is attacking individuals here (except Braverman, she deserves verbal attack).

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, of course.

You 'triggered' me ( ) by implying that being close to communism is as bad as being close to fascism, my point just being that communism is much broader than fascism and perhaps you should be more precise and use the term 'totalitarian communism' (or soemthing like it) instead, because that indeed is as scary as fascism.

I disagree that communism requires an 'us and them' mentality in the way that fascism does (indeed the idea that 'we need a strong leader to protect us from them' is at the core of fascism). Communism takes the view that we are all equal. Philosophically communism makes sense without a 'them' whereas fascism always needs an enemy, a scapegoat.

NB of course a number of communist dictators have made use of fascist techniques. The reason why we're more concerned with fascism now (rather than totalitarian communism) is that fascism has a track record of subverting capitalist democracies over time. Russia and Hungary are clearly well along that path and the USA has made some significant steps.

NB also, I'm not a communist. I just think its ideas should be given a fair hearing.

Communism does require buy-in to the system from everyone. And if you do not buy in? Well, you need to be re-educated or eliminated.

The distinction between the two seems to be that someone wrote a manifesto about one that contains some elements a lot of people feel aren’t bad ideas.

But because it requires a dogmatic and rigid adherence to the state to function, you essentially end up at the same result as fascism: individualism is crushed. Hence my suggestion that illiberalism is present in both.

But that’s neither here nor there.

As we have a perfectly good potential system that promises much of the same good outcomes of communism while allowing the functioning of capitalism at the same time: social democracy.

Where are you getting this from? It's just not true. For any system, the greater number who support it the better. But 100% support isn't needed, not for capitalism, not for communism. If someone doesn't agree with the system, they're just going to be unhappy - they don't need to be eliminated.

If they're unhappy enough to break the laws of the system then there will be a problem. But that's true in our system too - it's not a sign of illiberalism, just law enforcement.

[Which Tyler]

https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... port-finds

Children missing from Home Office hotels likely to have been trafficked, report finds

Exclusive: Study sparks new calls for public inquiry into ‘scandal’ of missing migrant children in UK

Scores of asylum-seeking children are still missing from the UK’s Home Office hotels as a new report reveals that many are likely to have been trafficked.

The most recent figures show that 118 unaccompanied children remain unaccounted for, some as young as 12. The study, released on Wednesday, is the first to conclude that children placed inside the hotels were at “increased risk of trafficking”, contradicting Home Office claims that the youngsters were not exploited.

...

ARTICLE CONTINUES

[Mikey Brown]

That is insane. I kept waiting for the part explaining that I’d misunderstood the headline, and it wasn’t 118 young children still unaccounted for, likely kidnapped from Government care.

[Which Tyler]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/li ... itics-live

[Son of Mathonwy]

https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... port-finds

Children missing from Home Office hotels likely to have been trafficked, report finds

Exclusive: Study sparks new calls for public inquiry into ‘scandal’ of missing migrant children in UK

Scores of asylum-seeking children are still missing from the UK’s Home Office hotels as a new report reveals that many are likely to have been trafficked.

The most recent figures show that 118 unaccompanied children remain unaccounted for, some as young as 12. The study, released on Wednesday, is the first to conclude that children placed inside the hotels were at “increased risk of trafficking”, contradicting Home Office claims that the youngsters were not exploited.

...

ARTICLE CONTINUES

Will this help or hinder Patel and Braverman's leadership ambitions?

[Mikey Brown]

Suella Braverman on LBC at the moment. It's a bit odd but she's doing a fair impression of a reasonable person so far.

[Mikey Brown]

I don't know why I've listed to this or what I really expected. Stop the boats. Immigrants too expensive. Rwanda good idea, poorly executed, but no mention of the incredible cost.

Her bit on Kamala Harris was pretty funny. Acknowledges Trump has made errors but Harris wants to legalise weed (does she?) and "uses pronouns" so she would be a "disaster".

[morepork]

I don't know why I've listed to this or what I really expected. Stop the boats. Immigrants too expensive. Rwanda good idea, poorly executed, but no mention of the incredible cost.

Her bit on Kamala Harris was pretty funny. Acknowledges Trump has made errors but Harris wants to legalise weed (does she?) and "uses pronouns" so she would be a "disaster".

Dear God I am heartily sick and tired of theses quasi sentient puppets and their culture war straw men. We are looking at a generation of podcasters and AM radio warriors being the policy makers of the future.

[cashead]

Just read that Victoria Atkins is threatening to run for Tory leader.

Fuck that fucking piece of shit waste of fucking skin.

I hope the footage of you performatively laughing as Sunak being a bigoted subhuman bag of fuck, cracking jokes about dead trans kids RIGHT IN FRONT OF BRIANNA GHEY'S MOTHER is repeated ad nauseum. I hope that footage haunts the rest of your faltering so-called political career. Your wide open mouth, your clanging peals of laughter. Oh how you laughed and laughed, like the good little soldier you are. You laughed and laughed, falling in line, like the craven toady that you are, and always will be. Fuck you.