I'll believe it when I see it.

>>84896
Are Nige's Brexit party were officially recognised by the Electoral Commission.

>>84897
That's not particularly difficult, is it? Don't think you even need a deposit until you start standing, and that listing shows they're not currently doing so.
Ah, £150. Even Jimmy can probably rustle that up.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/107680/intro-registration-rp.pdf
Mildly interesting that two out of his three logos seem to have NI maps on.

>>84900

You inspired me to look through the list of registered political parties these are the two best comedy votes.
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP843

http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP39

Also which one of you fuckers did this?
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP504

>>84901 iswydt. Nowt wrong with Militant Elvis.

>>84901
Mirth. Also:

>Putting Mansfield Residents First
>Putting Warsop Residents First

Well which is it?

>>84914
They're the splitters from the 'Massive.

>>84916
It's treason then.

Chuka and a few others are expected to leave Labour today.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/18/chuka-umunna-and-other-mps-set-to-quit-labour-party

>>84921
Is there a single word that embodies both complete hopelessness and thrashing, violent, pitiless rage?

Chuka Umunna, Luciana Berger, Chris Leslie, Angela Smith, Mike Gapes, Gavin Shuker and Ann Coffey have all resigned but have said they aren't forming a new party.

I'm going fucking guffaw with laughter when these wormy, idiotic, fucking cretins are tabled at the next election, blasted into oblivion like a skid-mark getting hit with a stream of piss.

Surely they'll form a new party 'once the public ask them to'?
Drag in a few from other parties - and then get wiped out by the usual FPTP shitshow?
Have they said anything about this brexit thing, or is it all 'nasty Jezza and his lack of love for the jews'?

>>84925
Shut up, you cunt.

>>84926
you seem troubled.

>>84927
Yeah, I am. I'm troubled because the only party advocating real change in how this country operates has just been undermined by seven morons in perfectly safe seats, I'm troubled because that change is needed to stop this country slip-sliding into economic regression and I'm troubled because phrases like "his lack of love for the jews" are about as helpful as a barbed wire jockstrap.

>>84928

Learn context cues, lad

>>84930
No.

What now?

>>84928

Corbyn has fucked it. His approval ratings have been in continual decline since becoming party leader. We have the weakest government in living memory, but they're on target to gain a majority at the next election. Blame the media, blame the splitters, blame the Blairites, but the basic fact is that Corbyn couldn't win a meat raffle.

My local party has lost the vast majority of long-standing members - the people who have been out doorstepping at every election for thirty years, the people who were out leafleting every night for weeks before the referendum, the people who fought to win back our council from the Lib Dems. They've been pushed out by an angry, nasty mob of Momentum supporters who have done the square root of fuck all for the party. I've been hearing the same thing from Labour members across the country - they've slogged their guts out for the party for decades, but now they've been explicitly told that they're not welcome any more. Their long record of hard work counts for nothing, because a bunch of people who joined the party in the last couple of years have decided that they're a melt.

Anti-semitism is just a symptom of a wider problem. The Labour party has been hijacked by an inexperienced and rather unpleasant Facebook mob whose loyalty is to Corbyn rather than the party and who tolerate no dissent. They're actively sabotaging the grassroots infrastructure that Labour has relied upon to fight and win elections, all for some misguided sense of ideological purity. Corbyn is doing precisely nothing to unify the party and retain those experienced campaigners.

The Labour party should be running away with the opinion polls, they should be preparing for government, but they're completely rudderless and staring down the barrel of a humiliation in 2022. Corbyn has had three years to show some progress, but he is only moving backwards. Currently, the SNP are doing more to oppose the government than the official opposition; that's an untenable state of affairs. I don't endorse the split, but Labour desperately needs competent leadership and the country desperately needs a competent opposition.

>>84922
Languor? Ennui? Melancholy?

All I know is that all the Telegraph members who joined the Labour party to vote Corbyn into power must be absolutely pissing themselves right now. It's all they could of ever dreamed of and more.

>>84932
There are no sufficiently competent MPs.
Corbyn may be utterly incompetent, but at least he doesn't think a good dose of 90s LARPing is all Labour needs to get back on top. For all his massive flaws, Corbyn has broken the party from the recent past. You can be snide if you want and go "oh, the past where they won elections???" but it's worth remembering after the 2015 election there was serious discussion of the terminal decline of the Labour party after losing Scotland to the SNP and UKIP's performance in so much of their heartlands. That discussion has now ended. I could give my whole manifesto on how Labour needs actual new thinking rooted in actual social democratic thought (read: too left wing for Blairites, inherently distrusted by Corbynites.) but honestly I don't see the point. Even if I was given single-handed control of party policy, I severely doubt any of the sitting MPs could be assembled into a functional front-bench. Definitely, there's not a leader amongst them. Christ, I couldn't find one in all of parliament - probably not in all of the party - or indeed the country.

Forget the losers who ran off to make their own clubhouse with d-ream being racist on television for some reason, forget the Blairites who stayed, forget our gutter press, the problem is the country. This country is sick to the core and beyond salvation. No other country is both so arrogant and yet so utterly gutless, cowardly and craven. No other European nation has screwed up their postcolonial transition as badly as we have. No other country on earth is so singlehandedly capable of producing so many utterly unsympathetic and often utterly uninteresting people and elevating them to positions of power and prominence. Everything else is symptomatic of the fact that at the end of the day we're a global disgrace.
Sometimes when I go to bed at night, I think that if I were a young man I would emigrate. But when I wake up in the morning, I ask myself whether there is any place else I would prefer to go.

>>84934

I think you're confusing politics with the symptoms of clinical depression.

>>84934
Christ. I attempted suicide recently but thank God I'm not you.

>>84935
>>84936
You'd be surprised to learn I'm pretty cheerful and optimistic. I just have no time for incompetence, especially not incompetence with a pretence to maturity and reasonableness. The country's never going to improve if we sit around and pretend everything is actually going as well as it could be and just one change of party leader or one more coalition balanced out by the Lib-Dems will be enough to offset the accrued mistakes of the past 75 years.
Perhaps it's because I am a comparatively young man. There's no reason to let the tragicomic failure of one country get you down. Perhaps I'm wrong, and actually there's some hidden optimistic future, maybe from some startup executives who were drawn in to politics at the next election by the fresh old ideas of The Independent Group. (no not the newspaper.) You'll forgive me if I keep checking up on visa requirements though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v14Y0Cvf10U

>>84937

Mate, some of us remember Kinnock.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V58dOl84MaI

>>84937
Honestly you just sound like a vile knobhead.

>>84932
The infighting, propagated by the likes of the seven who've done one today is one of the big reasons for Labour's struggling in the polls. They've been lighting fires since Corbyn became leader and chastising him for not putting them out fast enough. I don't think Corbyn is some manner of Wunderkind, infalable and indefatigable in equal measure, but what these, frankly, bastards have done today is unforgivably selfish, stupid and short-sighted. The fact that these leaderless, mealy-mouthed, scoundrals think anyone would vote for them on their own non-existent merits is laughable, and that's exactly what I'll do when they lose their seats. Sadly, their vote splitting ways will quite possibly leave their seats open to Tories, which is a betrayal I can't begin to rationalise.

I'm sorry people are mean to them on Twitter, and any kind of Jew-hating nonsense is vile and it repulses me in the strongest terms possible, but unless they expect Jack Dorsey to give Corbyn and McDonnell admin priviledges there is a limit to what can be done.

I know this might be hard to believe after everything I've just written, but I don't like hating politicians. There are those I do hate, but for fine and specific reasons. However, I cringe when people call even the likes of Theresa May a "bitch" or slag off her jewelry or what have you, but I'm genuinelly fuming at these actions today. That's one, if not the sole, reason why it took me six hours to type something not totally unreadable in reply to your post.

>>84938
>“It’s going to be so divided … The Conservatives are going to win”

Sage words from the sweary man on the BBC.

And what kind of a fucking name is "Gapes" anyway!?

So what will the Lib Dems be called next?

>>84944

I dunno, Jewish liberation front?

>>84945
How about the Liberation front of Jews.

>>84940
Some of us realise history extends beyond 1979-1997

>>84941
The truth is vile. Name a potential Labour PM in parliament, give me a laugh.

First day, first gaffe.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMqJOJ0ejqk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbEg6YmTRBs

>>84948
How has she managed to post an actually square video?

>>84948
Jesus Christ we need younger people in politics.

Do Berger's tits sag all the way down past her elbows?

>>84947
>Name a potential Labour PM in parliament, give me a laugh

Not him but I think there is a consensus here that we'd vote for Liz Kendall. She seems fun.

We just talk about the same things over and over again with opinions never changing don't we? Hardcore labour-lad would defend Corbyn if he cut in a queue and otherlad talks about how his local labour party (proper door-knockers!) is dead now.

>>84951

She's heavily pregnant, you meff.

>>84954
Baby belly is where her hands should be.

>>84953
In a heartbeat - if she joins this lot I might actually put leaflets through doors for them.

>>84948
>>84949
She is literally stuck in the year 1997. Also I'm really starting to fancy "I'm literally a Communist".

>>84956
Isn't that supposed to end with "IYKWIM"?

>>84952
I had to do some googling to find who that was. She reminded me of Claire Forlani from Mallrats.

>>84958

I'd eat her chocolate covered pretzel IYKWIM

help me please im just so fucking tired

Is there anything to this or is it just shenanigans, or a non-issue? Is Panama just where websites are or something? It's doing the rounds on Twitter, but if it's not doctored photos or made up quotes I can't prove it one way or another.

>>84958
She's not even the most searched Angela Smith in Westminster, which could be why she erred racist on her first day on the frontlines?

>>84959
Mirth. .gs needs a chill-out room.

>>84960

Isn't the point that Panama is where everyone hides all their money these days ever since the Swiss were forced into playing ball with the international authorities?

>>84961

That doesn't particularly have any relevance to where someone's domain registrar is located. If I'm reading this correctly, they've used a service called WhoIsGuard to hide the name and address of the person who registered it (common and not odd, I do the same) and people are freaking out about that? It's essentially the equivalent of going ex-directory.

It's possible I've misunderstood though.

>>84960
It's completely normal - it's just a domain name privacy service, tons of them exist.

>>84962

As far as I can tell that's not the registrar country, it's the country of who registered the domain. The registrar is namecheap.com which is hosted at:

network:Street-Address:55, Marieta "34 Peachtree ST, Suite 400
network:City:Atlanta
network:State:GA
network:Postal-Code:30303/3030
network:Country-Code:US

Which is not Panama at all.

>>84960
Nice "9/11 truther"-tier screenshot, mate.

>>84964
My Namecheap domains are listed in Panama as well, despite them having my very British home address. Give up the PI lark.

>>84964

Fair, but then it's WhoIsGuard's location, no?

http://www.whoisguard.com/contact-us.asp

>>84953
A derisory option in a world where Julia Gillard exists tbh.

[spoiler]yeah. Nobody in politics has *good* fresh ideas, why should we be held to higher standards?[spoiler]

>>84960

It's a total non-issue.

The Independent Group bought a domain name from NameCheap, a US-based domain registrar. The ICANN rules governing domain names require that contact details for the domain name owner are published through the WHOIS system. NameCheap provide a free privacy service to all their customers; the registrant can be contacted via the privacy service, but their personal details are not made public. This is offered by the vast majority of domain registrars either by default or as an option, because it reduces the risk of spam and identity theft.

NameCheap (and many other registrars) use a registered office in Panama to provide this service, primarily because Panama has very strict privacy laws. Tax dodgers like Panama for the same reason, but it's obviously a sensible idea to base a privacy service in a country that respects privacy. Panamanian privacy laws have protected a great number of website owners against spurious libel lawsuits or attempts by governments to shut them down.

Personal data is currently unavailable through WHOIS due to an ongoing legal dispute between ICANN and the German data protection regulator, hence the "REDACTED FOR PRIVACY" entries; in normal circumstances, you'd see the contact details for the domain privacy service.

> Give up the PI lark.
Mirth.

>>84969
> NameCheap (and many other registrars) use a registered office in Panama to provide this service, primarily because Panama has very strict privacy laws.

That makes a lot of sense. It's slightly odd that everything except PA/Panama has been redacted (even in domaincheap's whois record)

>>84967

Makes sense. There are two whois records for the IP that domaincheap's website is registered at, the other one being in Los Angeles:

OrgName: Namecheap, Inc.
OrgId: NAMEC-4
Address: 11400 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200
City: Los Angeles
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 90064
Country: US
RegDate: 2011-01-28
Updated: 2017-01-28
Ref: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/NAMEC-4


Either way, >>84969 has called it right. Using a registered office in Panama for your domain privacy service makes complete sense and makes this a non issue.

I like the "I agree" option being the only option, which I don't think really makes it an option. I could nitpick some of these statements from their site, but I'm very tired so I'm just going to have to disappoint you all.

Here's the link if there are any other verbose pricks around at this hour: https://www.theindependent.group/statement

>>84969
I see, I see. The Twittersphere is implying it's some kind of backdoor for dark money, but that seemed a like a leap in my opinion. And I "hate" these sods so, yeah, just Twitter fluff.

>>84965
Oh, it's not mine, so... shut up, idiot-face.

>>84942
>these leaderless, mealy-mouthed, scoundrals
Wait, do you mean the splitters or the Labour front bench?

>>84960
>Is there anything to this or is it just shenanigans, or a non-issue?

It's the typical thing of people not understanding what they're on about, deciding it's sinister and jumping to conclusions.

Similar things happened with fracking. There's plenty of valid reasons to oppose it, but the simpletons went heavy on talking about the chemicals used in the process. It's the same chemicals used to clean car engines!

>>84971
It's good to see that the writer of the EdStone is still finding work.

They're already more popular than the Lib Dems.

>>84977
Not exacatly the highest bar in the world. That said, UKIP can't even manage that. Given it's been a few weeks, aren't they overdue a new leader already?

>>84977

Not surprising that the brand new party currently making headline news is gaining popularity. I'd be more interested to see where they stand in a couple of months.

Not saying I'm predicting they'll be up or down - just that this is far too early be finding anything usefully interesting in an opinion poll.

Do these prats honestly think any Tories are going to join them? And when Umunna tells people "time we dumped this country’s old-fashioned politics” does he realise that's what the election of Corbyn the Labour leadership, and the affimitive vote on leaving the EU were? Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it isn't happening, it's just that this lot are "old fashioned".

>>84975
Gosh, that was awfully clever. No you, lad. No you.

>>84979
>Not saying I'm predicting they'll be up or down - just that this is far too early be finding anything usefully interesting in an opinion poll.

It's just an excuse to take the piss out of the Lib Dems. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

>>84980
>does he realise that's what the election of Corbyn the Labour leadership, and the affimitive vote on leaving the EU were?
I think he realises that both of those things have been utter shitshows. (Cries of "sabotaged by the Establishment!" in 5, 4, ...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCLs47jjUcY
This mostly seems like sensible statements of a reasonable man trying to keep Labour remotely together and electable


But I'm a bit out of the loop- what's with the anti-Semitic references?

>>84984
Did Tom Watson always look like that? He's transformed into a hybrid between Colin Firth and Jim Broadbent.

>>84985
He was quite tubby and developed diabetes, so he lost a shit load of weight in a very short amount of time and reversed the diabetes.

>>84982
>(Cries of "sabotaged by the Establishment!" in 5, 4, ...)

Oh, clear off. I've never done that once, but if you don't think having a sizable number of the PLP shitting all over the leadership hasn't hurt Labour's polling numbers you're thicker than two short planks. Corbyn has been undermined constantly and repeatedly from "centrists" who are either so old they're still scared of Militant or so stupid they think Blair was electoral gold dust who won his elections through political brilliance alone.

The economy needs to change, in the long term it is seizing up and slowing down, people don't want to run the country that way anymore because they can see it in the their day-to-day lives. That is why Corbyn's leadership and Brexit have taken place, and covering your ears and trying wish yourself back to the early-noughties won't help anyone, not even yourself or the seven silly sods who achieved nothing but helping the Conservatives yesterday.

Being called a "Trot" or some other such ancient, out-of-touch, nonsense aspersion in 5, 4, 3, 2, NEVER because you've been schooled and nay-nayed so many times you're just going to go back to nodding at Twitter posts and Times Thonk Pieces so you don't have to consider that the world is different now from how it was twenty-five years ago. Yes I'm projecting traits you probably don't adhere to, but I'm having fun, so, there. And you started it!

We need to break away from the old politics which are unfit for the 21st century by adopting the shiny new politics of the latter half of the 1990s. In your heart you know things can only get better

>>84977
Pretty depressing compared to the SDP really.

Luciana Berger is very attractive. I'd definitely follow her lead.

>>84989
She looks like the Jewish version of Jayda from Britain First.

>>84987
You're right. Dear Leader's poll numbers are poor because of the evil centrist bastards shitting all over him. That's definitely what it is.

>>84991
Nice one, you dodged that critical thinking like the pro you are. Hey, how short does a statement need to be before you can't abridge it into something it didn't say? "Dear Leader", deary fucking me, you pointless, nothing, of a person.

>>84992
You sound upset. No need to have a teary, m9.

>abridge it into something it didn't say
If you say so, Donald.

>>84992
>Hey, how short does a statement need to be before you can't abridge it into something it didn't say?

*ahem*

>if you don't think having a sizable number of the PLP shitting all over the leadership hasn't hurt Labour's polling numbers you're thicker than two short planks. Corbyn has been undermined constantly and repeatedly from "centrists"

>>84994
>>84993
Do you not think that's had a effect? Or does only stuff you pick and choose matter? Is everything else just ephemeral and unimportant, because reality doesn't work that way.

I'd like to reintroduce the idea that the entirety of British politics is unfit for purpose to the discussion.
Because it is, you know. Completely, Completely unfit for purpose. (Yes, that includes you Scotland.)

>>84995

This is the equivalent of the socialism never had a fair chance argument, so we don't know what it really is like.

If something is truly going to work in politics it does it regardless of the best efforts of naysayers. No one complains that Blair didn't get a fair chance despite large parts of the party hating him. The issue isn't that people shouldn't be critical of dear leader and should give him a fair chance the issue is he hasn't persuaded them to.

>>84996
I was wondering if the fistfuckfest that brexit is proving would shake some life into uk politics, but no, it seems that everyone's reasonably happy with the status quo. It's odd.

Third way Neoliberalism I can stomach, but I can't abide Blairism. The Blair government was the least interesting, least radical, least long-term positive centre-left tribute act in the history of the Commonwealth and I can prove it mathematically.
(centrist dad, centrist dad, these things aren't just black and white lad...)

>>84997
No, no it isn't the equivalent of that at all. But again, wonderful job just diverting towards something I never said here or anywhere else to make your job much easier.

What I'm saying, in no uncertain terms, is that some Labour MPs are ideologically opposed to Jeremy Corbyn and that they've frequently fostered attempts to weaken or unseat him for ideological reasons. From the post-Brexit referendum leadership battle to yesterday's split, there have been numerous deliberate measures to seriously undermine him. In turn, this has had a negative effect on polling numbers as it has lead to a Labour Party in a near constant state of civil war. The agressors in these bouts of insurrection have overwhelmingly been the Centrist, Blairite, whatever you want to call them, Labour MPs, like the ones who left on Monday. They left, they called for leadership election to be rerun and I hold them responsible for much of Labour's struggling in the polls. The constant fear of a "hard left" takeover never materialised, no one was deslected, and it was only in recent weeks or the last couple of months, after years of intransigence and outright hostility towards the leadership, that these MPs began to lose no confidence votes of their own. Votes which they dismissed on the basis of not liking the results.

Despite your inane and constant "Dear Leader" jibes, Corbyn is not a sacred cow, he isn't beyond reproach and he isn't my third nan. However, I maintain that he is the best potential PM for this country given the long term economic change his government could lead to, and some whinging MPs who haven't realised what a shithole of a website Twitter is, and are frightened of being booted out by their frustrated local members shouldn't be undermining that.

>>85000
>some Labour MPs are ideologically opposed to Jeremy Corbyn and that they've frequently fostered attempts to weaken or unseat him for ideological reasons.
This is called "being party leader". It comes with the territory. An effective leader rises above this and inspires the loyalists to stay onside.

Another one bites the dust.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47300832

>>85002
I think they have some Momentum now...

>>85002
That's Angela Smith, you moron, pay attention.

>>85001
Yeah, and if I fill your shoes with bits of glass and douse your socks with vinegar you could still play 90 minutes of football, but I don't see you scoring any goals or marking anyone out of the game. It's called being hobbled, and as I stated earlier there are serious ideological divides that are insurmountable for certain, former and current, PLP members to overcome. That's their damned problem and if they had decency or sense they wouldn't have stood again in 2017 on a Corbyn/McDonnell manifesto. It goes far deeper than Brexit and it's about the very basis of what the Labour Party is and they, the Blairtristinas oh... I'm giving people silly names too now! Whatcha' gonna' do?!, are the ones who are against Labour, not the post-2015 members, not the leadership and not me, they are.

I wish there had been a purge. There, I said it. The biggest mistake Corbyn has made is thinking these wormy creeps had any kind of backbone or desire for plurality. They're the ones who've been dictating and demanding, but apparently it only counts as a bad thing if you're left-wing. And if you're one of the Indefinable Eight then kicking yourself out of the party if more democratic than letting your local members do it, because... erm... oh, I actually have literally no idea how any of this is justifiable or appropriate.

I'm occasionally sympathetic to a Labour purge not for ideologically left-wing reasons, but because i'm genuinely convinced it's the only hope of getting some new blood and talent into the party and indeed into our party system. Roll the dice again and see where they fall.
>>85004
The ironic thing is that by going full-on into a purge Corbyn would've shown leadership, but that would be a hell of a monkey's paw to pull on the kind of people who can rationalise calling him dear leader while decrying his failure to impose his will on the party one way or another.

>What I'm saying, in no uncertain terms, is that some Labour MPs are ideologically opposed to Jeremy Corbyn and that they've frequently fostered attempts to weaken or unseat him for ideological reasons. From the post-Brexit referendum leadership battle to yesterday's split, there have been numerous deliberate measures to seriously undermine him.

Well they have left the party now, you must be as happy as a pig in shit.

>>85007
"Centerists"
fuck sakes dad go to bed

>>85005
>I'm genuinely convinced it's the only hope of getting some new blood and talent into the party and indeed into our party system.

Shame you're just getting crusty cunts like Derek Hatton instead.

>>85007>>85009
Are you capable of writing more than a single line shitpost about this? You're impossibly boring.

>>85010
He says whilst writing a short dull reply. Talk about hoisting yourself by your own petard, you retard.

Three Tory MPs have resigned from party over its "shift to the right".

Anna Soubry, Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen wrote a joint letter to Theresa May to confirm their departure

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47306022

>>85012
Career suicide for Soubry. She's loathed in her constituency for being a remoaner as well as being totally out of touch with those she represents. Next time she's up for election she's out.

>>85013
Won't most of them get wiped out at an election anyway? They come across as self-serving careerists.

Has Umunna had a stroke? Every image of him I've seen in the last few days has made him look half-cut.

>>85014
>self-serving careerists

Thank God they have something to distinguish them from the rest of parliament!

>>85016
Yes, but they could at least have kept up the pretence that they're not.

>>85018
>it's being in the middle that wins you elections because that's where most people are, and that's okay.
this is bollocks though. there's a reason the liberals haven't been a serious contender since before the second world war.
Labour weren't in the middle in 1974, Thatcher was basically never in the middle - nice moderate people always preferred the SDP. Brexit was never the moderate position. You can't reduce politics down to a stupid little axiom that doesn't actually hold. Let alone if we go abroad and look at the radicalism of say New Zealand Labour circa 1984/7.

World history exists beyond 1979-2010. Read a fucking book.