pap

It's probably oft-quoted because it's true. I'm not sure what part of Marxism-Leninism mandated that the state kills tens of millions of its own citizens, nor do I get how China is a communist state in any way. There's bugger all wrong with the ideals of a planned economy, but when it is being used as a plaything of the oligarchy ( as vested in the high ranking party members ), then I think you can safely say that the ideals of Marx weren't really being meaningfully adhered to. This is not fresh news. Trotsky wrote about the betrayal of the revolution in the 1930s, eventually paying the price for his continued criticism. Communist societies have "worked" for millennia, in that people have worked for shared interest. Marxist societies never got off the ground, and as for their lack of popularity, I'd probably say that's got a great deal to do with having communist missiles aimed at us for several decades, and the fact that over the years, the term has become synonymous with oppression because of the activities of the regimes that claim to practice it. And let's not forget, life has been pretty good to those of us in Western states, especially during the Cold War, where capitalism was almost seen as synonymous with freedom. Times change and history runs in a cycle. See the problem with capitalism is that eventually, inevitably, it teams up with concepts such as inheritance, population increases, immigration and globalisation to create a situation where the gap between rich and poor is a chasm. For decades, that gap has been maintainable. More opportunity, easier to buy your own house. Now look at us. Everything is made elsewhere and we're outsourcing our jobs at a rate of knots. Money is tighter than ever for most people, so consumer demand for low cost drives even more jobs away. Worse still, the government knows this, so it bends over backwards for business to get them to come here in the first place. It's the perfect storm. You are ill-informed because you accept all this crap as a point of truth. I don't care how many neo-liberal corporate apologists you've lined up with. None of them are doing anything to address the fundamental issues of our age; that corporations and central banks have become the apex of world control, new kingdoms if you like, and they're utterly powerless to do anything about it. You're ill-informed because you accept the game at face value, or worse, an atomic unbreakable concept. It isn't. It's all made up. There's no good reason why n% of our income is paying debts back to a sector that we spent money to save. We are literally throwing good money after bad. There isn't a party in Parliament that isn't fully signed up to perpetual membership of the broken financial system, nor is there a voting system to deliver one. The game is rigged, sir. It is a hierarchical pyramid scheme in which a tiny percentage of the world's population get to control the vast majority of the world's resources and through media, get to tell you it's not happening.

Nah, he's alright. Can be a bit grating on some of his stuff, but I do like his geeky stuff. Now if you want to talk proper annoying, you've always got Jimmy "no gig too corporate" Carr and Michael "tons fatter than he looks" McIntyre.

Eddie Izzard, anybody? http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3044/eddie_izzard_claims_i_ll_be_london_mayor

Look on the bright side, Alps. Bit o' spice for the end of the season, isn't it?

Think she's a good shout. She's a little tarnished by the expenses scandal, but the "they were all at it, m'lud" excuse will be good for a few Parliaments yet.

Sorry hypo, couldn't find your responses. I think you were deftly disarmed of the notion that people don't vote for idiots by Ken Tone. The rest of the thread has been made murkier by DPS's long list of unsourced Boris cheevos

It's odd, really. The one thing that I thought I did bang on about all the time is my politics. I've even started threads on this very subject, which you have participated in. http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?36126-What-the-hell-does-left-wing-or-right-wing-mean-in-2012 If my politics aren't clear enough from all the stuff I write here, do tell. I can always bang on more about it. I'd like to address the questions that you think I'm dodging I stopped liking Boris when reports of him in action started to filter through. It's the contrast, y'see. What business does a light-hearted buffoon have being incandescent with rage in a lift, repeatedly screaming "You're a f**king liar" to Ken Livingstone? How about his performance at City Hall? I know he was provoked by the actions of the wily Labour council, but that's the sort of response you'd expect from someone receiving a custodial sentence, not the mayor of the capital. Seeing just how far apart the two Boris' are is what did it for me. I don't trust him, I don't believe he is what he presents himself to be, and I certainly don't trust his hand on the tiller of this government. The whole clown act is a massive affectation designed to disguise the fact that he is, as Eddie Mair asked him if he was, a nasty piece of work. It's not even a new trick, either - plenty of former despots began their careers in political clown colleges. As to your second unanswerable question, who is a decent benchmark to compare him with? That's easy. I'd rather have Cameron than Johnson. Despite the fact that he's been absent for some major crises and his shedding of the "green boy" act, I know where I stand with the b*stard. He is also capable of considerable grace; I have been particularly impressed with the way he has tried to build bridges with Ireland and the victims of the Hillsborough cover-up. I have also got a reasonable degree of confidence that he's not going to behave like a total arse. Really can't say the same about Boris. Wouldn't like to let his populist wit-cannon near any foreign policy issue, the man has had his problems with Liverpool before and he turned up at that Eddie Mair interview apparently dressed as a flump.

Chaps, genuinely not ignoring you deliberately. Will get back to both of you as time permits.

Let's address this self-defeating nonsense, shall we? You start out by claiming you hate a group of people. You then claim that this group of people have no idea on how to solve things. I'm sure that myself and every other left winger in the tech industry would take issue with your ill-informed comments. Professionally, I haven't met a problem yet that I didn't solve. It's kind of what I do. Your "the answer to everything is spend more" comment. That's a left-wing argument as dreamed up by an irredeemable capitalist who takes this fictive financial system to be a point of truth. It isn't. Some people made it up; they and their progeny have done very well out of it over the last 300 years. Then you go on to conflate left-wing with Labour, something it hasn't been since John Smith died. Our debts got as high as they did because our money was used to bail out the criminals in the banking sector, with, I might add, the tacit agreement of all parties in Parliament ( no-one wanted to rock the neo-liberal boat ). You talk about Communist countries like they actually existed ( dictatorships wearing the Commie brand, mostly ). You present this tissue of straw-man argument and omission and attempt to criticise my intellectual integrity? Some front, kid. The simple truth is that you don't know what the left is.

btw, my comments on Tim's allegedly parlous financial state should by no means be taken as an endorsement of your post on business class, or your general attitude toward fat people. Though not a tubster now, I have been in the past. It gives me tremendous satisfaction, 20 years on, to attend school reunions and wonder whether a Japanese whaler is going to harpoon my former tormentors. You may well be on this forum in a decade or two on the weight loss blog Better stick to your namesake cereal

Not only that, but after all that money saved, he can't afford to pay his fiver!

The Guardian were also good enough to re-publish Boris' manifesto pledges after they were removed from his site. Important to be able to check against delivery, don't you think?

Any opinion I have on Boris is informed by his politics, his actions and with this particular politician, his so-called USP, his honesty. You can call it bias if you like. I'm calling it informed opinion, and backing it up with examples. You're defending him on the basis that a normal person wouldn't openly proclaim he was after his boss' job. Not a normal person, and not a normal job. As it goes, I disagree with you. Boris could easily claim he'd want to be PM, and his fans amongst the public would love him for it. He bottled it, and thus invalidated the one thing that people thought made him different. Not only that, it shows him for what he is; an opportunist with zero political courage. I actually feel sorry for you Tories. You wait ages for a Tory government to come around, only get a Tory-led one instead that seems intent on making history with the entry into our first triple-dip recession. The government has performed so poorly that you're falling for Boris' schtick. And you wonder why left-wingers make generalisations about right wingers being stupid Anyways, I'm more than willing to entertain evidence in support of Boris. What are his great political achievements? * buffoonery is not a political achievement

Another brilliant insight into NA's footballing philosophy. No-one in that press conference will be in any doubt about how Reading are likely to line up

Different situation, isn't it? I can appreciate your early Boris love, trousers. I liked him too, but have changed my opinion as the evidence rolls in. There are definitely two different sides to Boris, the lovable buffoon he likes you to see and the one that flies off the handle in fits of rage. Neither attribute is a good fit for a Prime Minister. As for David Miliband, I don't see anyone here holding him up as an example of a "tell it like it is" politician. I'm therefore not sure that the double standard applies. Boris shat on everything he is praised for during that interview.

It's been there to see for a while. Anyone who wants to see Boris in a leadership capacity can go trawl historical videos of him in his capacity as London Mayor. He is a tremendously poor judge of character. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2004024/Boris-Johnson-aide-Tom-Campbell-resigns-shoplifting-boasts.html A good piece on why so many people love Boris. Got bugger all to do with politics, and everything to do with the cult of celebrity. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/05/sonia-purnell-boris-johnson-not-prime-minister-material

You do know how elections work, right? They let ANYONE over 18 vote, FFS.

I am aware of Turkish's identity SuperMikey. I am happy to sell you the details. Turks: I'm also willing to betray young Super Michael to your and your no-doubt fully functioning Harrogate nawty crew. Both: let's speak money.

To the specifics hypo, as this is really the only way we can derail this nonsense. Are we talking the same Boris that called for an in/out European referendum before Christmas and then reversed his position a short time afterward? How's that fighting our corner, exactly? Sounds like he's fighting both corners. Whatever, it's indicative of a bloke that can't make his mind up and doesn't have any true political convictions. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/11/boris-johnson-rejects-inout-referendum-call/ I think the basic problem here is people making points about politics with no memory of anything that has gone before.

Here are my problems with the Boris love and specifically, that video. First off, I find it amazing that "straight talking Boris" was unable to give answers to very simple questions, including the pertinent one, "do you want to be Prime Minister?". Puts a real fly in the ointment of "tell it like it is" Boris. The bloke cannot even admit to something that has been an open secret in Parliament for yonks. I know you point out that you wouldn't go round saying "I want my boss' job". You're not trying to be Prime Minister though, mate! (Neither is Boris, from the interview). Sorry Boris lovers, you can't have your cake and eat it. What is he? Straight-talking politician or just as much as weasel as the rest of them, but slightly funnier? We've got enough panel show guests, boys. They tend to live on panel shows, not in Number 10.

Dunno why you even bothered posting this, mate. The fella was crucified by Mair to the extent that people are saying his PM chance may be gone. You don't mention who the "usual people" are or indeed, what evidence we have that Boris is going to start a revolution. Apart from buffoonery, what has Boris done well?

That is fair enough, but as many have pointed out time and time again, we did have a lot of resources. This is one of those "time will tell" situations.

I've read all saint lard has to say on the matter in this thread, and he makes more points than that. Whatever, even on that one point, NA's communications are relevant. It's about getting your message across, isn't it? As I said before, there's three years of media you can pore over on YouTube or whatever. I really don't buy the "NA was a genius using cliches to hide his gameplan" school of thought, if that's what you're getting at by "we all know he kept shum in interviews" statement. Yes, we do. The question is why. Fortunately, the answers will shortly be arriving in the form of Premier League football.

Dude, we've got three years of Southampton interviews alone to pick from. Surely you've got some evidence?

You should get a cat, call it Shatkins Jr, and simply add the extra letters to either side. Then you can pretend that it was pussy love that inspired the ink all along.