Rayvin

I thought you'd appreciate my due diligence The thing is, I have no issue being wrong about things as long as I'm wrong about them in a way that makes sense to me. For what it's worth, given the Article 50 issue with Corbyn, I'm now less inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt about the train ride.

New Labour were a vessel for Neo-Liberalism but IMO it's really closer to a Tory ideology, so I'd group them into that as well, pretty much since Thatcher. It's just been the political norm, whatever your colours, for decades. It's bigger than party politics. Monbiot has a good article on it here which sums up most of my views: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

I'm in two minds on that. I'd be all for them sacking Moyes if Allardyce wasn't available again, but given that he is, they do actually have someone vaguely competent to turn to. Then again, Allardyce isn't anywhere near as great as he thinks he is, and may not even take it. If he doesn't, I genuinely don't know who they'd take.

Then the truth is unhelpful.

Where did I ignore Corbyn's lies? I acknowledged them. I wasn't aware of some of them, admittedly, until ewerk pointed it out. But I called them for what they were as soon as I'd verified it. On the Brexit bit, I just flat out disagree with you on why Labour has torn itself apart. How on earth that makes me a hypocrite is beyond me. It could make me wrong. But not a hypocrite.

I've had a scan back actually, and this all started because of something stupid I did in truth. You asked what people had against Clinton, and I put forward the things that people say. I didn't really intend for that to become 'my position' in this whole debate, which is why I've been a bit surprised to have to defend my views on and around it. Taking it one step at a time is fine, except that I view her as a step back. Trump would be a whole different issue - I'm not at all sure what that world would look like - but Clinton does nothing to address the problems unless she turns out to be one of the most effective Presidents in a long time. The very act of not addressing them, makes the situation worse. So it's not like we're pressing pause, in my view. I don't blame Corbyn for Brexit in any meaningful sense. I blame Neo-Liberalism.

You think I'm being a hypocrite because of what, exactly?

I have? I said she should be president - but the drone strike point is something I can totally believe her saying. I actually don't quite understand your issue here come to think of it. You've harped on and on at me about some of the opinions I have about Clinton that I have said, repeatedly, aren't my main concern with her candidacy. I'm not actually sure why I even engaged with it given that it's just used to smokescreen away from my actual point, the answer for which was never provided. What happens if the status quo continues and we get more Brexit style fiascos? What then? Logically, either your position has to be that you don't think this will happen - which is fine, although I'd be curious as to why you'd think that - or you agree that more of this shit will happen, but don't see any need for a change in course. Welcome to other suggestions but those are the only two I can see presently. Forget about whether or not I think Clinton is a liar, because it absolutely doesn't matter. You aren't going to change my opinion on it, and I don't even see the need to justify it, really (although I have done so).

I dunno. It's funny though This isn't a centrepiece of the debate ewerk, don't worry.

The Sun has theorised that they're going to be taken over by a Chinese consortium who will immediately sack Moyes and bring back Allardyce for the second coming, to finish the great and noble project he started last year.

Cynical but true. If it's Clinton, she has suggested drone striking Assange, so that's an option as well.

True. Although the PLP did put up someone to challenge him with nearly identical policies, which does make me wonder if they'd be prepared to adopt the same views, as long as it can be on their terms. Obviously you wouldn't trust them to do this, but a few years ago it might have done the trick.

Ah that does sound about right actually. Villa ffs...

Well played.

Ok, I'm going to ignore the second one as I found too many poll related articles to do with his leadership election and can't be bothered to sort through it. On the other one, it looks to me as though he's been caught bang to rights on that one. So yes, that'd mean at the hustings, he lied. He should have just owned the mistake. I'm not withdrawing my support though Largely because that would be, for me, a personal reason to have issue with him. Not a policy one. I also have an issue with his stance on the EU, his lack of firm leadership, and his inability to sort the party out (even taking into consideration the utter shambles the PLP presented him with). But none of that is as important to me as his message and policies. Hillary also has my support in this contest, despite being a liar. I would prefer her to Trump. So as you can see, my friend, I am consistent.

Oh FFS I've not seen either of those. Let me google it, hang on.

I've only seen the mackems say that. Surely no one with any sense could possibly think that this was the case to any degree of relevance?

I read enough people coming forward claiming that the train was packed that it muddied it for me. Sorry, I'm offering him the benefit of the doubt on that one. In the small window of time where it seemed clear cut that he had lied, I condemned it (on here). That said, Corbyn is actually right about overcrowding on trains. What political point did 'landing in Bosnia under sniper fire' serve to support, other than her own personal interests? On Wall Street, yep, they probably do believe that. There are bits of slightly concerning information out there, like about how she's refused to release the details of speeches she gave at Goldman Sachs, but generally you're probably right. What is in the interests of the elites on wall street though, is maximising their wealth. This very likely means minimising the wealth of others. What is interesting, is that the average wage of Trump supporters is higher than that of Hillary's voters. I suspect that BAME communities cover this to a degree, given his rhetoric, but it does rather refute the idea that Trump is the voice of the normal man any more than she is.

I was having this debate with my old man last night. He made the same point - he's definitely on your side of the political spectrum. You can't put it back in the bottle, but you have to be seen to be doing something to demonstrate to the people who feel they've been put to one side that actually, you're on their side. That you're making choices that benefit them. This means the establishment/elites/whatever have to be seen to be feeling the pain. In fairness to the working classes, Brexit has achieved that and then some. Even if they're going to feel it worse, in the long run.

I agree. Although it does make me wonder what we're going to get instead. I just don't see how this 'fizzles out'.

She's not lied about anything serious to my knowledge. She's lied though. So it seems fitting to call her a liar (Bosnia, sniper fire). No? I'm not voting for her remember, I'm just setting out my views. I've thought she was a total pillock since that lie came out, small though it may be, because it's exactly the sort of bullshit that a 'typical politician' might say. Except, not a very smart one. Renton asked what I personally have against her and I've said previously 'not much', but since we're putting so fine a point on it, this is one of those things. Nothing she's done with wall street 'worries' me. It's just that they are a very wealthy and controlling influence with a vested interest in the status quo, and they support her - they support her because of all candidates on offer (including when she was up against Sanders), she was deemed to be the candidate who most had their interests at heart: http://www.wsj.com/articles/financial-sector-gives-hillary-clinton-a-boost-1462750725

I definitely agree that the electorate are fundamentally stupid. I'm not sure that the direction we've taken is entirely down to that though. Your view sort of suggests that the Tories, UKIP, Labour have policies, that people vote for without understanding what they're asking for. I would suggest that political parties look at the public mood, shift public debate through the media and establish narratives that they then call gospel through selective statistical analysis (e.g. Labour ruined the economy). The public swallow this up. The problem before, was that both Labour and the Tories represented the status quo - just the 'choice' to make voters feel like they actually had some control, as long as they voted for normal. The problem that the establishment has now is exactly what you say. It has one party and no establishment opposition. It has fringe parties and those too small to make a difference. This means people now have to choose the establishment or something different, rather than the establishment or the establishment. The US seems different though. I have to say that Howay's post the other day was eye opening on how futile change might be over there. I suspect that makes it more likely to be susceptible to serious political unrest, but perhaps in this day and age that's no longer possible.

I'm clearly not putting over my views very well if this is the position you've ended up on, so I apologise for that. Hillary Clinton is a proven liar and has an incredibly dubious relationship with Wall Street; apparently, although I've not paid much attention to this area, she's also likely to continue failed US foreign policy objectives (interventionism). That makes her a poor candidate in my view, based on my principles. But yes, my general issue is that she's not going to improve people's lives. Yes I've read her policies. Let's see how many of them go through. FFS I'm prepared to be pleasantly surprised, I'm not wedded to this idea that she *must* be a poor president who achieves nothing and doesn't allay concerns about the representation of ordinary people in the halls of power... but after Obama, I'm just not convinced that that 'hope' offered by mainstream candidates is something that gets us anywhere. Yes, I would agree that her policies, like the policies put forward in every political party manifesto I've ever read, would improve people's lives. That should say it all.

Well exactly. Me too. Why am I the only one who sees this as a failure of our political system though? Neo Liberalism brought us to this point in its ceaselessly pursuit of the selling of state assets and maximising of profits. And yet we vote for...more Neo-Liberalism!