What are /r/LabourUK's favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

> I propose that whenever the trial period for each scheme ends, a referendum should be held. Only that way can we see if it really is just a “vocal minority” opposed, as is constantly claimed. Now that’s what I call the will of the people.

What would the constituency be for such a referendum? Just the street involved or the entire city? Whatever you choose looks like it would decide the result.

By the way, use the bypass-paywalls extension if you want to read the hate sheets:

https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome

(chrome, edge, firefox)

Edit: Does anyone actually have Corbyn's foreword to see if he condemned the anti-Semitism?

Here's a PDF of the book:

http://files.libertyfund.org/files/127/0052_Bk.pdf

Can someone point to something overtly anti-Semitic in it?

Edit:

It's there, page 64.

Edit: So I bought the Kindle edition here which is supposed to have Corbyn's foreword. It doesn't.

The Guardian describes it as "Changed the contours of social dialogue." So it's clearly not controversial to praise the book's academic merits.

this book is called "dangerous hero: corbyn's ruthless plot for power".

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dangerous-Hero-Corbyns-Ruthless-Power/dp/0008299579

if waiting 37 years without doing anything to get power, then having power unexpectedly fall into his lap when he was pressured into running for leader was his plan all along, then you've got to be impressed. nailed it. playing the long game and 4D chess at the same time.

Are you Jennifer Garner?

Seriously though, been in use for 120 years. I don't think it's an unacceptable piece of cross-cultural bleed.

Doesn't matter. They voted Conservative in 2015. If you're interested in common reasons why you can read Jon Cruddas' report:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/313245238/Labour-s-Future-19-05-16

(see pgs. 7-10 for a summary of his findings)

No one wants... > > About 80% of workers in the trial elected to stay on zero hours; of those who took up the fixed-hours option, three of five went for the maximum of 30 hours.

Only 12% went for the maximum hours available. There are people who prefer them because they don't have the quite same negative effects for a student or someone young still living from home, in comparison to someone with kids or a mortgage (or worse, both).

It's not a large-scale solution, but it's worth checking out https://prism-break.org/ and https://eff.org/ for various ways you can keep your own data safe online.

I agree that nationalisation isn't practical, but I admit I don't know what the solution is. It's all pretty terrifying, really.

This widely shared photo was from a staged protest, but these photos are of a genuine immigration centre. You are right that Trump signed an order to end the practice though.

The relevant part of the book can be found here if you'd like to read their full reasoning.

(Also tbh I would consider both to have been capitalist for their entire existences so more different forms of capitalism than communism v capitalism). This sort of thing is usually just turning the flawed arguments of some anti-communists back on them rather than any kind of useful debate

> There are plenty of real ideas out there - Capital by Thomas Pikkety for example.

Here's another set of "real ideas" for you- Capitalism and Freedom and The Road to Serfdom.

How are they less "real" than that one you happen to agree with? Plenty of people agree with Friedman and Hayek.

>A real democracy is a participatory democracy where people, especially young people, are engaged and come out to vote.

Why the particular focus on young people? The middle-aged and elderly matter just as much.

>The population know that labour don't represent them anymore, that's why instead of voting for the party who shares their values they went for the safe, incumbent government that at least wouldn't make anything worse.

The issue with your position here is that Labour have never had such a natural hold on "the population", and Labour's values have certainly never matched up perfectly with a majority of the population in general.

This veers into the False Consciousness bullshit that Marxists reel out whenever somebody comes out with views contradicting the party line. People who don't vote Labour aren't necessarily somehow misinformed, or let down by Labour- you aren't acknowledging even the possibility that people vote for other parties because they agree with those other parties.

all members of the government speak in concert in the parliament, unless the prime minister relieves them of that duty. This can happen when the government has no stated policy on an issue and <strong>allows a free vote to take place in the parliament</strong>.

Amazing how quickly the corbyn worshippers are forgetting about that 'free vote'. Some free votes are freer than others...

> not debating/challenging them has only encouraged polarisation that created the race to the right to begin with.

I'm inclined to say that, to debate them is to legitimise them. It's exactly what Nazis (on record) want because they can then shape the debate to suit themselves.

http://www.openculture.com/2017/02/bertrand-russells-artful-letter-refusing-to-debate-british-fascist-leader-oswald-mosley-1962.html

It's possible the alt-right simply wouldn't exist if Reddit and 4chan had zero tolerance for hate speech. It wasn't a job for the online left to solve, it's the responsibility of the people with the direct power to stamp out these infestations.

I found this interesting because McDonnell is proposing something rather moderate (albeit far to the left of what was plausible in 2016) and dressing it up in the language of radicalism. Elsewhere in the (insight laden) interview, which is on iPlayer here @ 15:30, he emphasises that his reforms are mainstream. He says they are working on the next manifesto now, which is going to be based on the 2017 manifesto. Anyone wondering what is to come for Labour could benefit from listening to the interview.

I've read Capitalism and Freedom, Road to serfdom and Conservative Future used to run my university debating society. Plus the tory party are hundreds of years old, so spurious rumour mongering toward them is a false comparison.

Presumably this is the Rob Sanders who has worked in the TUC since 1988. I presume he owes and is owed a few favours in this coming out with his name on it.

Interesting that there is no 'mini bio' or anything. A TUC employee not declaring their interest. Quelle horreur.

If you prefer not to click on Daily Mail sources, then here is a screenshot of the original article.

^^I'm ^^trying ^^to ^^help ^^so ^^please ^^don't ^^ban ^^me, ^^just ^^downvote ^^me. ^^I ^^auto-delete ^^my ^^comments ^^with ^^a ^^score ^^of ^^-1 ^^or ^^less. ^^I ^^am ^^a ^^bot ^^based ^^on ^^this ^^code.

You're claiming that institutions like British military high command are appointed purely on meritocratic grounds, and there's absolutely no politics involved in the selection procedure. It doesn't take much digging to realise that there are serious competence concerns in those institutions.

And I'm less concerned about 'bribery and corruption'. More about 'if a left-wing government gets elected, they're going to stonewall it, and maybe even do something like a very British coup where lord Mountbatten held a meeting at the Bank of England to overthrow Harold Wilson'.

Also, you could say the same about the houses of Parliament. Yet property developers have managed to capture the entire Tory party.

There's a book called "Learning Legal Rules" which I read at the start of my law studies which is a bit dense but it's a really good introduction to how the law and the judicial system in the UK works - unfortunately that kind of stuff is too dry to make really interesting haha. I'd recommend it if you read it in bits and pieces rather than trying to go through the entire thing.

You can get the penultimate edition for £2.81 on Amazon.

To help clarify you...(the chimps) the pepe brigade the 1488 group, this group is growing in strength and going mainstream.

exhibit A http://boards.4chan.org/pol/ exhibit b http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/4chan.org

The reason I call them chimps is because they stay under the cage of the internet and throw poo at everyone. Half the memes against hillary they were behind, it was them that got behind trump. They keep a low profile despite being an effective political group.

It isn't, Corbyn responded to a charge that he honoured antisemitic terrorists and compared Israel to the Nazis with irrelevant criticism of Israeli policy. To anyone who isn't on Corbyn's team, that is jarring.

If you have been following Netenyahu closely this is good for him. As Stephen Bush puts it Corbyn is playing into Netenyahu's anti-Europe, pro-Trump/Putin strategy. He will be saying to his population, Western Europe are too weak to defend you, you can only trust me. For JC it allows a bit of a distraction from the aftermath of another landmine he fell into.

The 1994 Crime Bill added 60 new death penalty offences, eliminated higher education facilities for inmates (facilities which cut recidivism rates from 50% to 4%. There's a very good documentary on the BBC iPlayer which looks into what these sort of facilities offer in some of the handful of prisons that still offer them), and generally shifted funding within the US prison system away from rehabilitation and entirely towards prevention, contributing to the massive increase in US prison populations since the 1980s.

No excuse for this.

Sure I’d read books on the subject.

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Economics_of_fascism.html

I’m not sure you can say it’s a fact that facisim has no economic model, people far more educated on the matter than a casual observer like me (Baker 2006 ect) says there is. There is a debate though, with others agreeing with you, it just depends on what argument you find most convincing.

An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme,[4] meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence over investment, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private individuals being allowed property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.[5]

To me, the last part, service to the state, means that it is controlled by the state. I think the economics is fairly set if you follow the values of facisim to their logical conclusion. Perhaps we won’t get anywhere, that’s ok, it was good talking to you, I’ll keep trying to learn more, I’m more interested in the military side of WW2, but obviously the politics plays into that too. All the best.

> The Green Party, as wonderful as its ideas are, cannot win a general election.

Neither have Labour since 1974, unless you count New Labour.

I'm deadly serious, you should become more democratic, egalitarian and inclusive visit http://democracyos.org/ and www.loomio.org these are wonderful tools in moving that way.

Also please just consider, I mean just think about, just for a second, as a party member getting on board with voting reform. Seriously supporting it, for real in a way that is binding somehow for your elected MPs unlike in the past. It's like Labour would rather be second most of the time to the Tories with the odd sniff of power than risk becoming irrelevant in a more democratic system.

If you can't transform the Labour party into something relevant then you should leave it.

>his is true, people who are antisemitic within the Labour party cite Israel as a main source of their prejudice

I really recommend Steve Cohen's book, That's Funny, You Don't Look Antisemitic

It does a very good job of deconstructing this argument - from a left anarchist and anti-zionist perspective - and showing how it really is just cover for more deeply held prejudice. Antisemitism on the left has been a problem for much longer than Israel has existed as a state and not a dream - the very first anti-immigration act in the UK was sponsored by the TUC and supported by the proto-Labour party, despite targeting only Jews.

There's a version of the book available online for free, too!

This has been known for a while-I remember reading it in this book about the 2017 election written later in the year.

Sadly I don't think the party would ever have let McDonnell become leader because he's actually (very) capable and would've done much better than Corbyn-I have heard interviews even with non-left-Labour people saying as such-perhaps even enough to win and launch the restructuring of the economy that would put many of the landlords + capital-tied influential figures in Labour to the sword. He's unequivocally smarter intellectually and a better politician and while he shared a skeleton-filled closet which would have made it hard for him to win he is better at handling the media and a more likeable figure.

Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything. It's basically about how neoliberalism and capitalism in general affected the discourse around climate change and made it much worse. It kinda blew my mind when I read it because I never really connected capitalism to climate change before or considered environmentalism and social welfare under the same umbrella. It took me a long time to read because there was so much to digest and I was in a state of panic for months afterwards. I had very little interest in politics before reading this, but joined a bunch of different movements and campaigns soon after. I know it also inspired many others in the climate movement because that was pretty much the first thing someone would mention when we met.

Second most influential book was The Shock Doctrine.

Exactly. First thought on our media and politician's reactions to well-publicised tragedies like Paris is to look at how they'll twist it to fit their agendas. Thinking of Naomi Klein's 'The Shock Doctrine', too.

The claim is 140 MPs, MEPs and members of the House of Lords supported it. Not even 140 MPs, not even joined. Supported. How many MPs really did join?

Why did the vast majority of representatives not support it?

Friends of Ireland sounds like a partisan organization to me, probably caused more harm to the peace process than helped it. No surprise a handful of congresspeople supported it too, you know what the Americans are like with the IRA.

Edit: Here's the statement. Pretty bland stuff broadly expressing support for something no one would rightly oppose. No real contribution.

>dystopian timelines Unionists concoct in order to try and portray themselves as the antidote to nationalism.

You know somebody actually wrote one of these. I think he wrote for Spiked and maybe was on GB news.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gulag-Caledonia-Bruce-Scott-ebook/dp/B09XVMRYJM

https://twitter.com/JamFitzpatrick/status/1519275337154236416?t=WhR9L0jUNCMuY8KQ1RdZUw&s=19

Reviews are hilarious.

This brand new account is sponsored by NordVPN. NordVPN allows you to change your IP address, making you harder to track, securing your privacy. Check out the link in the description to get 20% off for the first two months and thank you to NordVPN for sponsoring this brand new account.

Spoken like a neophyte zealot.

We were worse off in the early 2000's after New Labour took a set of shears to our personal freedoms, something even Thatcher wasn't comfortable doing. Have a read of Taking Liberties or watch the documentary if reading's not your thing. Also, due to technological advances we became a serious surveilance state in that time.

Just that one example invalidates your opinion as we were definitely closer to fascism under New Labour and things have only deteriorated since then.

Just use this, dude.

U Read Deborah Mattisons book… she head of polling now for labour and is trying to leverage labour to win back the red wall… labours actions make sense in context of this strategy

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Beyond-Red-Wall-Labour-Conservatives/dp/1785906046

> So you don't know if Labour just had anonymous sources unwilling to go public in 2018? What book are you referring to?

...?

If you read the thread he makes it clear that he's taking quotes from this book https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fall-Out-Year-Political-Mayhem/dp/0008264422/

That's where the Zahawi quote is from

Something I picked in the freezing cold winters in New England is to use cling wrap on your windows. It's not going to magically halve your energy bill but anything that can improve insulation can help.

Something like this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/tesa-UK-Thermocover-Insulating-Transparent/dp/B0038JE7WW?th=1

> Do you have a source for that, I've never seen anyone claim that but I can admit that it might be my ignorance.

Wail al-Shehri was one of the many recruits of Al Qaeda trained in afghanistan and Jason Burkes book about Al Qaeda says that the training happened in Afghanistan with Taliban resources. The Taliban didn't want war with the US, but they defended and protected their man even after he broke their own rules and attacked the us.

For me harbouring terrorist and giving them resources that are used to attack your enemies counts as an offensive action, and to be clear, I consider that offensive actions when the US does it too, like in Nicaragua and Cuba with the bay of pigs.

>Ten pounds worth of candles last more than a day or two

I'd bet this pack would last best part of a month, depending on how many you need to use because candles are a lot worse at lighting than modern bulbs.

A pack of LEDs will cost about the same and last literally years and cost almost nothing to run because modern bulbs are like 60W each and a single one can light a room fully.

There is the cabinet paper and there is the book. If you mean the book

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Alternative-Economic-Strategy-Response-Movement/dp/0906336236

If you mean the cabinet paper presented by Benn then it's in the national archives and I can't find a digital copy.

The Guardian have changed their Live Updates page to a different URL: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2016/jun/17/jo-cox-death-police-labour-mp-latest-updates

The BBC Live Stream has also ended, and updates can now be found at their regular running stream:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36454645

Agreed we're basically agreed, but I don't think it's enough to just hope they make it illegal, or to nudge them in the right direction but give up if they refuse.

I have no desire to remove their democracy (I'd welcome independence if that's what the people there want) but overruling this particular decision, if they refuse to, seems like a no-brainer to me.

I just hope this whole scandal starts a wider conversation about tax evasion (or avoidance, and the grey area between the two). We've gone too long acting as though there's nothing to be done about it, presumably just because the richest people in the world would lose out if we really fought it. From this article:
>about a third of U.S. corporate profits, or $650 billion, are purportedly earned outside the country. Corporate tax lawyers use accounting tricks to make 55 percent of this $650 billion bogusly appear to have been generated in six low- or zero-tax countries: the Netherlands, Bermuda, Luxembourg, Ireland, Singapore, and Switzerland.

Here's the dictionary definition of the word immutable:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/immutable

It means a trait that does not change. In this case, your arguing that the voting electorate and non voting electorate would vote the same way as an immutable social trait using polling as proof .

To which , I responded that the social trait may change per the article link. To which you responded it's immutable bc the UK.

calling me arrogant while questioning whether I know what a word means . In other words , questioning my basic intelligence. classy.

I also have no idea why you mentioned you are a moderator. You were never required to respond to me, nor I to you.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=gchq+site%3Acryptogon.com

I invite you to spend an evening browing these links. First to recognise that every piece of information it is possible for GCHQ to know about you, is stored somewhere indefinitely.

Second to question why they need all this info about everybody. Is it for your safety? Or for theirs?

Since people have already spoken about Macmillan, Disraeli and a few other potential answers, I’ll give a shout out to two unconventional choices: Neville Chamberlain and Alec Douglas-Home.

For Neville Chamberlain I’ll advise people check out this recent biography of him:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Neville-Chamberlain-Passionate-Walter-Reid/dp/1780276745/

He helped prepare the country for World War Two (contrary to his reputation), helped lay the groundwork for the postwar welfare state and just generally deserves to be remembered a lot more fondly than he is.

For Alec Douglas-Home, I’ll admit that this is sort of the result of thinking of the Prime Minister he could have been had he won in 1964. I’ve seen a lot of people in this thread celebrating Macmillan as a decent PM and it’s highly likely that Douglas-Home would have continued his successes and thus prevented the Conservative Party from becoming what it is today.

They do, but likely not in the House or even in the Party ; the kind of people that Tory policies serve pay handsomely to stay out of the limelight.

You've likely not heard of any of the top 10 Tory donors - I certainly haven't.

So . . . No, then.

You should read When China Rules The World: The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order and ask yourself what really would be the point of China invading Taiwan.

But you're still saying no.

I pointed out the Iran Iraq war that wasn't on my doorstep so it's a stupid point to make that I somehow ignore brown peoples deaths

Iran Iraq war 1.25million so your wrong that Blair killed more. That's Saddams head count just between 1980-88
Survey you picked is delibratley the highest estimation of deaths to prove a point (which is still wrong acepting the higher number) and the survey has been roundly criticised as flawed see the link below https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228654909_Conflict_Deaths_in_Iraq_A_Methodological_Critique_of_the_ORB_Survey_Estimate

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B09NBFT1NF/ref=dm_ty_trk?fbclid=IwAR3Ze_aloC7BZJIbXoumYGhijLoWs5zm0gvjqsFAXbuBfsFQZyYF1lrSFEw

It's available for purchase for 59p if anyone wants to help it chart for xmas! :-)

Your point is bc X does not exactly look like Y , x can't be like Y

Got it. It's a poor point.

The only faux intellectualism here is coming from you. Debating whether Orwellian is exactly the right word for example to fit a system of sustained misdirection is certainly as fake as they come.

http://www.openculture.com/2015/10/what-orwellian-really-means-an-animated-lesson-about-the-use-abuse-of-the-term.html The above link illustrates the point. The point of describing something as Orwellian is not does it look like the novel bit whether a practice is deceptive and manipulative. The best you can argue here is the press may not be intentionally doing this. To a degree , I would agree. But that's the nice thing about inertia. It doesn't require intent

Why use Freely available Libre fonts like Darker Grotesque when you can try and figure out how the fuck to license a font across 100s of CLPs.

Sure it's key that the stuff coming out of Labour HQ is consistent and looks good, but it's also important that, content put out at a CLP level is consistent with it, so I don't think Loto is a good choice, if we move away from Open Sans, it has to be to a Libre font.

I also think that until Starmer is established, using the same picture of him is a good idea, outside of politically informed circles i suspect most people still don't know who he is.

The point about consistency is mostly right but as PEP8 says:

> A style guide is about consistency. Consistency with this style guide is important. Consistency within a project is more important. Consistency within one module or function is the most important.

> However, know when to be inconsistent -- sometimes style guide recommendations just aren't applicable. When in doubt, use your best judgment. Look at other examples and decide what looks best.

Using alternative styles when it's more consistent with the theme of a project is more important than having 100% consistency

Unfortunately it seems that the Minneapolis police department were trained to kneel on suspects necks when they are resisting arrest, according to an interview with one of the officers in that department. Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000kbjm/panorama-george-floyd-a-killing-that-shook-the-world

> The documentary-maker behind the BBC’s Panorama on Labour antisemitism is suing the Party for libel.

Not surprising. Labour were incredibly bone-headed about it, I think I remember they said some things about the people in it that were just plain nasty.

Rewatching it here.

Seriously just get yourself a copy of this with your Xmas money or something and read it cover to cover. Then you'll understand what I'm on about here.

I imagine that stuff will be saved for the full book.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Suburban-Socialism-Barbarism-Oly-Durose/dp/1913462897

Although I feel the article does give some tips:

- Reach out to poor and marginalised people in areas traditionally viewed as affluent.

- Show how left-wing economics benefits the middle class as well as the lower classes.

- Appeal to feelings of community.

- Use climate change as a key issue to get people involved.

https://theintercept.com/2015/09/25/gchq-radio-porn-spies-track-web-users-online-identities/

> THERE WAS A SIMPLE AIM at the heart of the top-secret program: Record the website browsing habits of “every visible user on the Internet.”

That's pretty pedantic. I'm almost offended, you know what the word "purge" means. That isn't what I meant by "consolidating", since that word implies agency on the part of the "consolidator". It also implies internal scope within some organisation, rather than external scope without.

In an election, it is the electorate who have the agency.

But here's a dictionary definition for comparison

>to get rid of people from an organization because you do not agree with them

Which is even broader in scope than my choice of phrasing!

> But in social networking there are no similar decentralised systems with enough traction to take on the likes of Facebook.

There's Diaspora, but as you say, they don't have much traction. Getting the necessary traction is very much r/restofthefuckingowl when it comes to this project.

I'm using Stylus - it lets you undo a lot of stupid decisions by sites.... Or mods. *shakes cane*

Though Nightmode coupled with disabling subreddit styles removed most of my reasons for applying custom styles for Reddit.

Best news I've seen recently. Just in case anyone wants to say that some dudes just decided to do this on their own, this is a US senator basically bragging about the plan.

The story is absolutely hilarious, basically they wanted 300 fighters, got 60, wanted guns, had to use sticks to practice their shooting, were basically starving in a Colombian jungle. Started their coup by storming a beach in broad daylight with like 60 dudes planning to capture an airport AND Maduro and slip out the country in a glorious revolution, leaving Guaido (just a guy who doesn't like Maduro but also doesn't hold office) to run the country for some reason. But no one defected and they got caught by a socialist fishing collective.

This entire debacle really serves to highlight how simplistic the US view of foreign affairs is, and what disdain they have for actual democracy when it doesn't serve them.

Read her book and find out for yourself. It's got good reviews.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Material-Girls-Reality-Matters-Feminism/dp/0349726620/ref=tmm\_pap\_swatch\_0?\_encoding=UTF8&qid=1635465778&sr=8-1

> What I do now is the vast majority of people would not bother using VPNs.

Not now maybe but imagine if online anonymity became mandatory in the UK? And I mean, ffs, you can literally get NordVPN for £3 a month last I checked so there's not even a price issue.

I haven't read it yet but this is apparently a solid book on the subject. It only really covers the miners but should give you a good view on how the government of the day approached organised labour in the UK.

> we need to use the family/Britain friendly approach to frame progressive policies

This is precisely what we're doing. Read Starmer's head of policy's book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07CSNT2KX/

The direction of travel, while buggered up a bit by Covid, is still the direction of travel.

It's a fair question - and the answer is that I read his head of policy's book. He put her in place very very quickly and that gives more than a hint as to what his policies are likely to be. I don't agree with everything she says but it's really worth a read.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Protest-Power-Battle-Labour-Party/dp/1448217288 This book is an extensive book that covers labour’s history and includes many insightful interviews from key labour figures. It’s what I used to get an insight into the history of the party.

One ceo has literally written a book upon it. It is called "The CEO Pay Machine: How it Trashes America and How to Stop it".

This isn't something radical or even particularly left-wing. It is just immediately obvious that CEO pay is absolutely not determined by market forces.

>Either way, the vast majority of high earners won't be CEOs given that there are 37,000 individuals in the UK earning over £500,000.

About this, I do not care. Tax the fucking lot of them and say thank you when they pay up.

> "Full employment" isn't specifically an MMT buzzword

TBH I’m done with this conversation because you don’t know what you are talking about and I don’t see the point in going round in circles here.

So I will once again recommend the book considered the bible of MMT, and as a last request, I will ask you to, at the very least, read the fucking title.

Thanks.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Modern-Money-Employment-Stability/dp/1845429419

Arguably when it comes to immigration from South Asia and the Middle East then we are talking about religious extremists in many cases, and that would be one reason - the extreme cultural differences. I think if the evidence shows if there is too much migration then you get less integration and to me that is a problem. This book is quite good on that issue.

It didn't bother me having free movement with the EU - I think our cultures are all similar enough that it doesn't really make a difference, and we also get the benefit of being able to work and live in a bunch of other amaznig countries. I would support free movement within a CANZUK union which is something people are talking about more these days.

In terms of open borders - if we had genuinely open borders, we'd be overwhelmed almost immediately, that should be fairly obvious. So we need to accept a limited number of people here and we need to be sure that as a group, they at least break even in terms of what they add to our economy vs what they take out. Immigration controls ensure that can be monitored and maintained.

Firstly, prostitution can't be legalised because it's already legal. Brothels are illegal, though.

You should read Dr Brooke Magnanti's book "the sex myth".

She covers trafficking very well. The false data out there is leading to the real victims of trafficking being ignored.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sex-Myth-Everything-Wrong-market/dp/1780220898

Early on in life it was everything by Orwell and Solzhenitsyn, but right now I'd say The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. It really brings home the damage done by neoliberalism and Reaganism/Thatcherism. The chapter on Chile and Pinochet is heartbreaking.

Please do feel free to point out in the following post where you said you've attended hours of young Conservative meetings:

>I've read Capitalism and Freedom, Road to serfdom and Conservative Future used to run my university debating society. Plus the tory party are hundreds of years old, so spurious rumour mongering toward them is a false comparison

Also Ive spent plenty of time reading stuff put out there by momentum and it's leaders, so I'm not sure why you think it's neccessary to attend momentum meetings to know anything about momentum when you are literally saying yourself that all you've ever done in regards to the Tories is read about them and interacted with some of them who ran a debating society in university.

A smarter move would have been to bring out The Wealth of Nations. Plenty in there that points out how much of an economic imbecile and nincompoop George Osborne is.

The signal of bringing out Mao will not be left on the RWM.

I highly recommend Brecher's Torture and the Ticking Time Bomb. Torturing to save the life of the tortured is related to torturing to save the lives of others. And it's similarly flawed. Such as (1) torture is far from an exact science (including oral force feeding). In practice, error and pain exceeds the "best case" scenario. And (2) there isn't a torturer profession to draw from. So the torturers are usually compelled, then victimised, by the act. Or, if self-selected, usually have psychological and social problems - exacerbating (1).

There are other flaws, but I highly recommend Brecher's book.

>Only if you quote me out of context, since what I actually said immediately after that was:

My apologies, i read over that. However i was refering to this:

>Er, well, you could, but that wouldn't be about the American genocide since there were no British soldiers involved in said genocide...

And they were. He directly quotes and points to source material, so actual british soldiers talking about killing entire villages of people.

>In case it escaped your attention, the purpose of the American Revolution was to stop being British. It was the American pursuit of "manifest destiny" that lead to the genocide

Nope, many natives and tribes were already exterminated by that time.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/American-Holocaust-The-Conquest-World/dp/0195085574?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duc08-21&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0195085574

>Like I said: it's part of Russia if you're Russian.

Key bit, you're leaving out only if you're Russian.

>>Note that Chechnya is in fact Russia

>Only if you're Russian

So take Gibraltar, to an American (and even many Spaniards) it's British. The question if it should remain to be is a second question. So definitely not only to British

>As to the rest of your point, it's a bit ridiculous since I only started a very basic and not very credible estimation of "baby death". You can't actually compare to that. It's absurd. Indeed, the whole baby death race is a reduction to the absurd, nothing more and nothing less.

Well we can look at innocent people deaths, and Russia would still be pretty far behind. I mean, we take a long fucking detour, but it eventually boils down to what I said. That the West (in recent history) killed far more innocent people than the Russians.

> because it doesn't seek to be and overall ideology

I think that's a really remarkable thing to say.

> it helps people as individuals identify where they want to go, why and the path to get there

Sure, within the extremely narrow constraints of dialectical materialism. Later strains of Marxism famously don't prescribe alternative societies, and it was something that Adorno, Foucault and others were strongly criticised for. More broadly, I don't think utopian, teleological ideologies are a good thing. Amartya Sen has a great critique of this in his response to John Rawls.

> They weren't Marxists, they were being agitated, inspired and led by Marxists.

By a new breed of demagogue. I don't think that construction is productive, as it gives as much credence to Trumpian populists as it does to explosive figures like Lenin.

> Ho Chi Mihn? Or the Americans? Or the French? D:

The Best & The Brightest - Halberstam

Interesting meta stuff. Seems like there are plenty of people on Ken's side of the antisemitism debate, and who think all the mods are pure evil.

I recommend those people read What's Left by Nick Cohen.

The British General Election of 2015 is a genuinely fascinating read. Crucial for a non-polemic understanding why we lost and what we need to do to win again.

I have to say, this reminds me of 101 Uses For A John Major, the sequel to which is sitting in my office.

Good for a laugh now and then. As the front covers imply, they're basically a load of cartoons involving John Major being used as various fittingly less-than-interesting household objects or solutions to incredibly banal problems, like ‘poster of a four-poster bed’ or ‘talking clock’.

I was actually thinking this more resembled another one of those Cold War coups, mostly because the military dictatorship that took over had an explicit good relationship with Maggie Thatcher and there was a degree of interest at one point for a coup in the UK against Wilson and then Callaghan.

You're right. There is no magical pendulum that swings.

There are theories that support what effectively appears to be a pendulum swing, though.

For instance, this: http://www.amazon.com/Generations-History-Americas-Future-1584/dp/0688119123

Having said that, and I'm a Corbyn supporter, I don't believe it works magically. People have to make it swing. And it's hard. And it doesn't always work. But that doesn't mean it's not worth trying.

What are /r/LabourUK's favorite Products & Services? From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

The most popular Products mentioned in /r/LabourUK:

The most popular Services mentioned in /r/LabourUK:

BBC iPlayer

Cambridge Dictionary

Bypass Paywalls

The Guardian

CNN

Scribd

vgy.me

ResearchGate

Open Culture

Nitter

Thesaurus.com

JustPaste.it

SemanticScholar

The Intercept

Google Groups

The most popular Android Apps mentioned in /r/LabourUK:

Doorstep EU

The most popular VPNs mentioned in /r/LabourUK:

The most popular reviews in /r/LabourUK:

What are /r/LabourUK's favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments