/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>1848779
Oh she is not even a red Tory?

>>1848789
>>1848797
She's one of the most right wing Tories.
Not only that but her husband is currently serving a prison sentence for committing a violent sexual assault, and she publicly defended him throughout the court case.

Watched the Novara Media interview with Galloway. All the top comments seem to be supporting Galloway, claiming there's nothing wrong with what he has said. Wonder where that crowd came from.

Anyway, in the interview Galloway says he hopes that the Worker's Party will become one party in a socialist alliance with Jeremy Corbyn as it's leader.
Has there been any update on that? And I presume it's unlikely to come into fruition with the LGBT remarks?

>>1849031
Can't find the source but I'm fairly certain Corbyn rejected the idea of working with Galloway around the same time as he was elected in Rochdale.
Like you say, Corbyn has very progressive social positions he won't compromise far on and Galloway is a social reactionary.

>>1849019
*minor correction
it was 3 violent sexual assaults, and he is now out of prison

>>1849031
galloway is socially conservative and fiscally a leftist.
that crowd is nazbol gang

>>1849031
A socialist alliance, whereby multiple socialist parties and groups form an electoral front and platform is good idea tbh, too bad Galloway can’t seem to work with people he doesn’t like for it to work.

>>1849431
The real divide in the left is between workerism (the "content" of class power) and communism (the "form" or political discourse of this power).
Galloway is a workerist who desperately wants to obscure his responsibilities to politics proper (rather than mere populism) so is caught in contradiction.
This is also the reason why reactionaries can genuinely appeal to the working class while still having right wing politics.
Galloway himself has said previously "i am not a leftist, i am a socialist" (the same as haz 👀) so its becoming more common to be ideological in this way. There can be no "leftist" alliance for this reason.
In some way, this is the contradiction between socialism and communism, where i think fascists will subsume the socialist position as expressly anticommunist (the same as the historical natsocs).

>>1849044
He said in the interview that he doesnt believe in climate change, and never really got into any policy ideas except abolishing the house of lords (which is a bipartisan issue that nigel farage also supports). His fiscal character is largely empty, and on his show he just talks about culture war stuff

Katie Price is ‘being evicted from £2,000,000 Mucky Mansion’

Katie Price has reportedly been served an eviction notice and given weeks to vacate her £2,000,000 Mucky Mansion.

Located in Horsham, West Sussex, the property was purchased by Katie, 45, in October 2014 for £1.35 million. It was also at the centre of her Channel 4 TV show, Katie Price’s Mucky Mansion, documenting her home renovations.

However, the house soon fell into despair due to Katie’s money woes and relationship troubles with her ex, Carl Woods. Her alleged eviction now comes after the former glamour model failed to show up in court amid a second bankruptcy.

According to The Mirror, Katie was sent a letter, dated April 24, 2024, stating that ‘the eviction will take place on May 29, 2024, at 10am’. Horsham County Court’s eviction notice, which is addressed to Katie and ‘any other occupiers’, also instructs her ‘to arrange to leave the property with [her] belongings before this time and date’.

The letter also states: ‘The court has issued a warrant or writ for the possession of the above property (land) at the request of the claimant.

‘A warrant gives a county court bailiff the authority to evict you and hand over possession to the claimant. A writ gives a High Court Enforcement Officer the authority to evict you and hand over possession to the claimant.

‘In this notice, the term “Authorised Person” is used to refer to either the Bailiff or the High Court Enforcement Officer.’

In February this year, Katie was declared bankrupt for a second time, owing a six-figure sum to HMRC.

It was reported that she had failed to pay over £750,000 in tax, VAT, and other fees. She had previously been warned about losing her home unless HMRC could recover the money. Katie had been due to give evidence about her finances at the High Court last week, but lawyers announced at the start of the hearing that ‘health issues’ had prevented her from attending at the last minute. A judge described this excuse as ‘scanty’.

Having received backlash for missing her court appearance, Katie spoke out. In a recent podcast episode, Katie stressed that she is ‘taking [her] bankruptcy so seriously’. She also clarified that the ‘cheap’ holiday she took to Cyrpus with her boyfriend JJ Slater, 31, was because she needed a ‘break’.

https://metro.co.uk/2024/05/10/katie-price-evicted-mucky-mansion-home-amid-second-bankruptcy-20815840/

>>1850971
>holiday she took to Cyrpus with her boyfriend JJ Slater, 31, was because she needed a ‘break’.

Imagine if benefit claimants were reprieved from being sanctioned because 'they needed a break'.

Read the new yorker article about the Letby case, seems pretty sus tbh. Wouldn't put it past them to scapegoat her for the failings of the NHS to divert attention from them and the criminal underfunding that leads to overworked, undersupplied, undertrained staff making mistakes that cost lives. Very grim stuff.

>>1850971
Mock Tudor is the blackest stain on this country's architectural resume.

>>1854101
https://archive.ph/AWpyz

Here is the article, remember to not get caught reading it or the judge will be upset, it's banned in the UK :^)

Definitely seems like very weird series of events, can't say I'm sure she's innocent but the prosecution case seems like a farce, court experts are always inherently untrustworthy, I don't know how they live with themselves after just delivering decades of 'testimony' which is just what the prosecution wants to hear.

>>1854101
>>1854514
erm,

>>1854615
Why is it in contempt of court?

>>1854514
Whats the tl;dr? I didn't follow the case but became deeply suspicious when they were using new information analysis as their driving evidence in the news segment i was watching when Letby was a big story, the other weird thing i seen on the news about it was a bunch of nonsense about her journal which didn't say anything incriminating by their own admisison, despite condemning her for it.
>Here is the article, remember to not get caught reading it or the judge will be upset, it's banned in the UK :^)
It's okay, i think i'm not allowed to do jury duty.

Channel 4 - Are racial hate speech laws being ‘weaponised’ against ethnic minorities?

Laws designed to crack down on racial hate speech are being weaponised against ethnic minorities, according to the National Black Police Association.

Speaking exclusively to this programme, they’ve called for policing to stay impartial and not get ‘caught up in culture wars’.

Symeon Brown has been talking to people of colour who’ve been subjected to police investigations over race-related language, including the former teacher who went viral last year with a placard depicting Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman as coconuts.

https://www.channel4.com/news/racial-hate-speech-laws-being-weaponised-warns-national-black-police-association

>>1855238
You don't even need to imagine the political reaction this will generate. It takes a predictable forumla now:

- Online conservatives will complain that the liberal establishment gags them on expressing their racial views and that this is a double standard.
- Screenshots of these posts will inevitably wind up in left-adjacent social media communities, where their users will triumphantly deny this and affirm that the opposite is the case.
- The online media heavyweights and tabloid personalities of the left will weigh in either to repudiate the case or argue for nuance that doesn't exist.
- The Right wing political pundits will retweet American style commentary, or simply retweet the comments made by the original conservatives.
- The two will clash, engaging in long drawn out threads that do not even come close to acknowledging the material basis for the issue.

After meeting in the middle, the issue will become another notch in the growing political divisions of society that the technocrats in Westminster will draw upon in complete consensus for policy proposals and reforms that attempt to slap another legal band aid on in the hopes that the issue simply resolves itself, out of the way from the focus of the media and any personal risk to themselves.

>>1855238
Clearly a disgusting double standard where normal people are being prosecuted for things that politicians or newspaper columnists would easily get away with saying.

>>1855238
The reactionary turn of British institutions fascinates me. Particularly the equality act. It's an interesting (if "socdemmy") dilemma: How do you avoid this?
Specifically: the UK equalities act has an inane provision that a legimately held irratitonal belief of any kind is permitted, so long as it is "worthy of respect in a democratic society and not affect other people's fundamental rights." or some other vaguery.
Which means:
If you believe in man-made climate change as an absolute, an unavoidable thing which is not scientifically provable, this is a protected belief
If you believe in man-made climate change, but would not believe in it if scientific evidence said otherwise, you get no protection.
If you believe in man-made climaet change as an unavoidable thing, ignoring science, and believe this morally obliges you to destroy fossil fuel infrastructure, this is not protected as it is "no worthy of respect in a democratic society "
(This is why TERFs now talk of being protected by the equalities act - originally a court case found "correctly" that their discrimintory beliefs aren't worthy of respect and infringe the rights of others, in line with how you'd expect liberals to let the act operate - no protection for bullying your co-workers - but that was overturned by arguing that the belief wasn't rooted in a rational scientific understanding of human sex, but an essentially religious belief that sex changes are impossible.)
Best yet: there were provisions in the act for making economic status a protected characteristic, in other words to force public bodies to reduce economic inequality - but this being Britain, they were never actually put into force! ( https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/nov/17/theresa-may-scraps-legal-requirement-inequality )

But can such a subversion of an institutional reform be avoided, or does one always have to be aware that everything bends to the whims of those in power at a later date? Or is the valuable lesson here that you've really got to stack the deck if you want to kill off reaction, just another case of Blairites giving the Tories a mile where they shouldn't have given an inch, failing to take measures that would've been in their own interest (the internet was coming online and killing print media, jesus christ, take advantage and change the balance of power in your favour! if not for socialism than for careerism!) and thus 15 years later even the token measures they've passed - a nice little anti-discrimination law! - were now being used as a cudgel by reactionaries to play the victim themselves and to victimise others. (but then, the Blairites and Guardian-Liberals of 2010 are mostly fine with this… a rising tide of reaction lifts all boats, eh?)

>>1855272
It's certainly not that Labour have been somehow outflanked on this, the sweeping legal changes to protect politicians and wealthy people in general from all criticism under the banner of 'hate speech' and 'harassment' has bipartisan support. Politicians are so weak that they cannot even accept anymore the public saying bad things about them as they rule with complete impunity.

>>1855272
Taking all of this into consideration, would you not say that hate speech laws are more trouble than they're worth? At what point do we accept it has been a failed experiment and just do away with them altogether.

>>1855309
I think it should be illegal to call for genocide or anything like that, but clearly the laws are being applied way too broadly.

>>1855326
>I think it should be illegal to call for genocide
Then we will just end up like German where saying "from the river to the sea" is a criminal offence. Restrictions on free speech are retarded.

>>1855309
I think the practical implications are limited on two fronts: fistly that the state gets people for what it wants to get them, how you contrive to slot this into the law comes second. If not arrested for "hate speech against Jewish people", a pro-Palestine activist could always be "breach of the peace", and secondly that this is transparently a managed democracy and as such any laws passed or not passed have little to no democratic input - any position on them is mere discourse. (unless you annoy an MP in the course of tweeting about it, then it's a breach of the peace…)

>>1855348
Thinking in terms of free and unfree speech rather than signal and noise is naive, especially in this country. What matters is not the right to speak, but the ability to be heard. You have no common cause with a rightist who preaches the opposite to you on every matter except that he should be free to preach.

>>1855309
Yeah it sucks. It's also always very selective on purpose so the end point is that you end up with all the reactionary forces ganging up on the few accepted demography that isnt actually protected by the law while everyone else enjoy a cozy place under the sun.
>>1855326
>I think it should be illegal to call for genocide
I think it should be legal to call for any genocide whatsoever. Give the general Normal Beautiful & Diverse™ population a taste of their medecine.
It has been delicious to see the based retard Elon taking over twitter and watching all the people in tears because they saw unbanned TND posting, holocaust apologia, homosexuals hate or actual genocidal intent toward muslim diasporoids and stuff like that. Turns out the normie do not like free speech when it does not spare their indentity group. They thought real free speech would be business as usual but with more approved trans hate, it just gave them the war of all against all, now they're self conscious and depressed.

>>1855348
Easy to say that but we could easily end up like Rwanda if there's no restrictions on speech. It Can Happen Here.

>>1855360
it has already started, where they had Hutu Power we have…

>>1855360
>we could easily end up like Rwanda if there's no restrictions on speech.
No we could not. Stop being ridiculous.

>>1855380
Well okay, not exactly like Rwanda, but is it really that unthinkable that the accelerating collapse of western prosperity combined with total freedom to preach mass murder could lead to atrocities?

>>1855385
>it really that unthinkable that the accelerating collapse of western prosperity combined with total freedom to preach mass murder could lead to atrocities?
And you think that banning certain naughty words would halt such a rising tide of ethno-nationalist extremism?

Went to B&M to get a dustpan for work and this fucking cunt ID'd me!
I honestly can't believe i got "Do you have a license for that'd" over a fucking dustpan. Even if a dustpan was smokable or drinkable i'm closer to 40 than i am to 16/18 years old.
Actually insane, most insane thing that happened to me in a shop in a while and i already told you about that cunt staff in Lidl who literally was stealing my shopping and grabbing at my friend.
Dead country, I know i say it a lot but this place is really over.
Can't wait to watch it burn as Europe spends the next 100 years increasingly insular and killing each other.
Nonce-sense. I'm joining Wales.

>>1855395
Tbf that shovel could easily split someone's head wide open. Think of the cost to the NHS if that happened.

>>1855402
>Tbf that shovel could easily split someone's head wide open.
It's not a shovel it's a dustpan.
A shovel license would also be ludicrous but a shovel at least has a lot of leverage which makes it an actual sincerely dangerous weapon.

>>1855395
It's just a dustpan mate chill out.

>>1855421
Well it does look pretty sharp and like it could do someone an injury. It's probably just blanket included in the id check I doubt anyone specifically reviewed it. If it stops the kiddies getting stabbed who cares? I spit on Americans who make fun of our knife control efforts when their country is a murderers paradise. Should we take social measures to tackle knife crime instead, sure, but I don't oppose trying to limit the supply of knives for kids.

>>1855422
My brother once chopped his toe off by accident with something like that.

Gotta be careful these days, never know what sort of damage a maniac could do if they wanted to with that.

>>1855420
>>1855422
S tier bait.

>>1855430
>My brother once chopped his toe off by accident with something like that.
Through unlicensed shovel use?
Want to watch out for that anon, if the NHS learns you're injured yourself using unauthorised tools they legally are not required to aid you.

>>1855450
Gardening: hobby for the elderly, or violent blood sport?

can't believe the facile state of analysis on this board: the state isn't worried he's going to engage in some lumpen acts of violence against other working class people, the state couldn't care less about that! the state brutalizes the working class every day - what does it care if some petty thug does a bit of freelance work to the same end?

no, the correct socialist analysis is that the state fears that he will dig, that he will make a common treasury of the lands claimed by the aristocratic rulers of this nation, that he will act - as god intended - as a free man with the law of richeousness in his heart, taking his birthright given to him by his maker - that is, the free use and exercise of the soil for the benefit of he, his family, and his fellow man. that he will take that shovel, dig up Georges-Hill and the waste ground thereabouts, and sow corn, to eat bread together with his shovel-wielding chums by the sweat of his brows.
To see that every one that is born in the land, may be fed by the Earth his Mother that brought him forth, according to the Reason that rules in the Creation. Not Inclosing any part into any particular hand, but all as one man, working together, and feeding together as Sons of one Father, members of one Family; not one Lording over another, but all looking upon each other, as equals in the Creation; so that our Maker may be glorified in the work of his own hands, and that every one may see, he is no respecter of Persons, but equally loves his whole Creation, and hates nothing but the Serpent, which is Covetousness, branching forth into selvish Imagination, Pride, Envie, Hypocrisie, Uncleanness; all seeking the ease and honor of flesh, and fighting against the Spirit Reason that made the Creation; for that is the Corruption, the Curse, the Devil, the Father of Lies; Death and Bondage that Serpent and Dragon that the Creation is to be delivered from.

>>1855469
Damn. And I was sure it was weird that Wilkinsons shut down, that makes sense now I used to go there for all my Gardening needs and i've never seen someone be ID'd for gardening tools. It's very clear what's going on here.
Tomorrow I will go and steal 3 shovels who's with me? Noble diggers stand up now!

So it appears that Corbyn is planning on leading some kind of Shadow Party-above-a-Party. See their shitbelow:

https://we-are-collective.org/

imagined Leninhat speaking with a strong Welsh valley accent and I can't get it out of my head.

>>1856355
All the best to them.

I guess we're about to see if the electoral duopoly can be overturned.

If this succeeds it won't just divide the vote but will fracture Labour: if the progressives don't jump ship they'll begin to press the leadership for change to counter-act the loss of votes, much like UKIP was to the Tories. Which will in turn cause more political infighting.

Galloway's success is already an indication of this. The threat this represents is actually much larger, if you read their About section:

>For the upcoming election we will provide voters and activists with a comprehensive guide to independent campaigns and groups that are calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, an end to needless and unjust austerity, economic policies that create stability and security for the working class, and real action to protect our environment and tackle the climate crisis. These groups and campaigns are backing independent candidates all around the country for both Parliamentary and Council elections.

Rather than simply forming another party, which even if it accomplished a sizeable vote share would fail to translate into seats, they're going to push the electorate into issue-voting, on a constituency-by-constituency basis. The idea being that if the 2019 election was a single-issue vote for Brexit, the myriad of establishment failures since then will have driven an even greater degree of resentment (this also works in their favour as voters will be encouraged to use their vote to protest over their own personal view).

This strategy essentially means that their electoral success is no longer contingent on any one failure; in fact it's the reverse. While the primary aim is to drive a coalition of independents, the more the merrier, it's simply designed to leech off and unseat Labour. They just need a hanful of candidates for this to be a success.

Ultimately this is entirely contingent upon the Gaza conflict. The protests drew close to a million at their height. If you take the past 14 years as any indication then austerity simply isn't as important, it's a pressing social issue but as a reality it is partially visible and only to those who are immediately effected by it, many of whom voted for the Conservatives as a protest against the direction Labour had taken regarding immigration.

In the long term, if Corbyn succeeds he will have essentially rescued the state from itself.

>>1857409
I suppose I should qualify that this is all political reaction.

The 'mass movement' that they hope to build could be about as transitory and fleeting as Momentum was for Labour.

What's more, the public may simply not take to it: Galloway succeeded because he profited off a dire position which Labour had their own hand in creating.

And again, even if they win a handful of independents to their cause it will be an uphill battle.

Assuming they are able to drive engagement with the public there are so many ways in which it could still just end up as another political shipwreck.