Alright, read the piece.Thoughts:

  • Theresa May is a woman who I don’t believe I’ve ever seen look comfortable. She always looks like she’s trying to put a persona on or would otherwise rather be anywhere else. I genuinely think this is a shared driving pieceof personality for a lot of Tories: An intense restlessness and uncomfortableness around other people, informing those sociopathic compulsions of theirs. Particularly for someone like May, who has no real belief system and simply is whatever her party needs her to be in the moment.
  • She’s right that the Tories need to be more than the anti-Corbyn party (although I think that purely on its own is enough to secure them a good 25% of the vote), and to her credit she doesn’t talk much about him. Her proposals sound… weirdly old school left wing? Since when have the Tories been interested in “industrial strategy” and the government stepping into the economy? It’s extremely weird to read a Tory leader using those sorts of soundbites in 2018, even just as a play to Guardian readers.
  • Once again she talks up ending a decade of austerity, but notably absent from this was any mention of reforming the finance sector that caused it. Probably the most significant thing here in terms of where Britain is going post-Brexit. Tax haven ho!
  • She mentions patriotism in her opening spiel, but again notably absent from all this is any kind of call to national pride or destiny. I don’t think you can pin this on it being the wrong audience for that, because Corbyn and his people have used those tropes liberally in their own addresses. It all feels rather cuddly Conservative circa 2012 in that respect. Is an end to the borrowing cap on councils building new housing going to be what gets Leave voters’ blood pumping?

That’s it. It’s all hokum of course but it’s not a bad pitch, you could see some middle aged centrists being swayed by it. If the grand plan is to win the next election by being the party of Careful Now they’re in for a rude awakening though, it’s completely out of step with where the country is now.


May is presenting herself as the normal face of business as usual politics. And the Guardian is swallowing it because they wouldn’t want Johnson, Gove, Mogg or any of the other extreme right and the idea of a Labour Party that is any way on the left is anathema to them.


That cunt dan hodges going on twitter saying Corbyn followers hate the free press for criticising the guardian on this, knowing full well that his paper would never in a million years allow an op ed by Corbyn under any circumstances, is peak smug centrist fuckwit. Just an unbelievable lack of self awareness, even for a mail on sunday rat.


I used to love the Guardian so much when I was younger, but as soon as the Indy Ref issue arose you could see them close ranks and how blatantly they just wanted the status quo. Wasn’t really any discussion of the benefits of the union, just about how badly Scotland would do alone. Same thing that turned me off of Labour in a big way, it was pretty galling when you had all the main parties parroting the exact same li(n)es (@TheWza)

Very self centred way to view the issue of course but it just brought it home to me, and their attitudes to Corbyn seem to follow exactly the same pattern.



hate the inevitability of the “marketplace of ideas” garbage discourse


anyone following this?

We arrived in Managua in 2016 without prior journalistic experience but a shared understanding that the Nicaraguan government represented a fundamental betrayal of socialist ideals, and a shared understanding that the ruling Sandinista party be removed from power

this is trot dipshittery on a level i have not personally witnessed in at least a year. trots out the arse. the guardian are trying their best to avoid answering some tricky questions rn. losers.


here is a brain on liberalism




Is there a simple thing explaining what Trotskyists are in the grand scheme of things? I see a lot of use of ‘trots’ around leftists and I’m never entirely sure what this is referencing.


Nobody is.


tl;dr effort post: they tend to subscribe to basic socialist principles ofc, but they don’t tend to support many socialist states because these states rarely call for global and ongoing socialist revolution, due to being too poor or marginal or beseiged by internal and external forces. a trot is more inclined to interventionism, because they’re big on following the capitalism-socialism-communism path. going straight to socialism from like junta rule = big no no. they don’t care much for material conditions. So travelling to a poor country you have no stake in and calling for the overthrow of the elected government because its socialism isn’t a point for point version of the kind you favour is a proper trotskyist move. many trots end up becoming mouthpieces for imperialism, and end up supporting things like NATO and imposing western capitalism on poorer nations to get them on track for a socialist revolution that never happens. eventually a lot of the older ones threw in with the neocons because their support for US intervention is ultimately irreconcilable with claiming to be a socialist. they compromise and started calling themselves weird shit like “conservative marxists” or “muscular liberals”. hitchens is one, cohen is another. the original group that founded spiked were trots. to try and cling to their dying socialist impulses, they start supporting odd libertarian bugbears like free speech fundamentalism, or the right to smoke in the same room as a baby, or removing all speed limits. the kookier ones splinter into odd factions who believe in UFOs and think nuclear war will create global socialism. the real freaks, the ones you should be scared of, say nobody knows what a trot is. keep an eye on them.


Ha ha, amazing


she’s a good debater – charismatic, dexterous, always ready with a talking point or quip. She also has an occasional, uncanny ability to sense political undercurrents that others miss.


Post/avatar interface :+1:


she’s a good debater – charismatic, dexterous, always ready with a talking point or quip. She also has an occasional, uncanny ability to sense political undercurrents that others miss

if Democrats have their way, Coulter claimed, they will add up to 30 million new voters to the rolls – overwhelmingly dependent on big government and loyal to the Democratic party. In other words, liberal elites support mass immigration because they are thumbing the scale of democracy itself.


Why the fuck is anyone giving breathing space to Ann Coulter?


That would be the question to ask, yes.


It’s just (and I know this isn’t the thread for it), why does anyone at this point still subscribe to the “defeating them in the marketplace of ideas” thing?


Liberal centrists have to believe it. They have to believe their sensibleness and fairness will render the fascist right so obviously wrong that the audience will side against them. They have to believe that because they have no other solution to it, and ultimately they fear the genuine norm-breaking that socialism represents more. It’s an ideology of no ideology.


In with the absolute worst centrist-dad whataboutery take on the GRA consultation now, too: