Bloodstock Community

Don't know how for the rabbit hole into conspiracy territory this goes, but the 'Independent Group' is not a political party, its a loose collective of MPs but the group is registered as a private company. This means its not subject to the same disclosure, funding and discipline codes of conduct that a party is.

someone else wrote:Don't know how for the rabbit hole into conspiracy territory this goes, but the 'Independent Group' is not a political party, its a loose collective of MPs but the group is registered as a private company. This means its not subject to the same disclosure, funding and discipline codes of conduct that a party is.

Wouldn't bother going into the rabbit hole as it's so they can receive funding/make group expenditures. I imagine if an election went ahead they'd stand as independents and fund their campaigns from this company. Doubt they'll form a party anytime soon as that would limit who would join them (one of the reasons they're going to stay as vague as possible on most policies).

The mps who have broken away are all neo-liberal centrist types, I'm guessing it will be a Blair style party!

A description of the Labour party I just read: "a disgusting mixture of hard-Left creeps and robotic Blairite leftovers". Agree?

Try this quick test: https://www.psychologistworld.com/tests ... m-language

Metalchemyst wrote:Try this quick test: https://www.psychologistworld.com/tests ... m-language

This is hilarious. It got me as 67% conservative... I'm fairly left wing.

Haldamir319 wrote:

Metalchemyst wrote:Try this quick test: https://www.psychologistworld.com/tests ... m-language

This is hilarious. It got me as 67% conservative... I'm fairly left wing.

Left wing in what ways?

It's just bog standard grammar traps.

For example.

A) Amanda is conservative.
B) Amanda is a conservative.

What does that even mean? Is she conservative when it comes to curtains or wallpaper? No bold choices, just beige...

Most people would pick A unless they mean the party. But the c is lower case which implies it's not talking about the political party.

Highlighting poor grammar in other words.

About as valid as those "tests" they have on the CBBC website to see what animal or cartoon character you are.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/cbbc/quizzes/type ... ity#filter

^ The idea is that conservatives prefer clear, simple statements while liberals are more likely to beat around the bush in they way they write and speak. I've been reading some very interesting stuff on the general subject of liberals .V. conservatives:

https://onbeing.org/programs/jonathan-h ... s-oct2017/

". . . Psychologically, what we find empirically is that people who identify as conservative tend to like order and predictability, whereas people who identify as liberal, they like variety and diversity. I have one study where we have dots moving around on a screen. Conservatives like the images where the dots are moving around more in lockstep with each other. Liberals like it when it’s all chaotic and random.

. . . Jonathan Haidt does describe five primary moral foundations that are held across individuals and cultures. People who are liberal and conservative, he says, value two of these in common, compassion and fairness. But conservatives simultaneously juggle three other moral values — of loyalty, authority, and sanctity."

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion - J.Haidt

This is a proper test: https://www.idrlabs.com/morality/6/test.php



Your morality is closest to that of a Conservative.

It's looking like 5 more years of a Conservative government, then 5 more after that if Labour insist on having a woman leader after Jeremy Corbyn.

Metalchemyst wrote:It's looking like 5 more years of a Conservative government, then 5 more after that if Labour insist on having a woman leader after Jeremy Corbyn.

Why would having a female leader make a difference?

It would only make a difference if that female leader is Diane Abbott, or perhaps Emily Thornberry.

Black Wizard wrote:It would only make a difference if that female leader is Diane Abbott, or perhaps Emily Thornberry.

There are many Labour voters (me included) who see Diane Abbott as a liability. Then again, in terms of gaffes and errors I would argue that Boris has been just as bad over the years.

bloodofthekings wrote:

Metalchemyst wrote:It's looking like 5 more years of a Conservative government, then 5 more after that if Labour insist on having a woman leader after Jeremy Corbyn.

Why would having a female leader make a difference?

I didn't mean that Labour couldn't have a good female leader in theory - just that the ones now being talked about as successors to Corbyn are not impressive.