Messages

Undermining someone's credibility weakens their position.

Yes, but this story doesn't remotely undermine Cameron's credibility. It's essentially just a bit of fun.

By contrast, if he loses the EU treaty vote he will almost certainly have to go.

From a political stand point the question is, would this scandal undermine his ability to negotiate domestically and internationally. Say he was trying to enter talks with Russia over their worrying expansionist ambitions and Putin decided to answer his concerns by asking if Dave had stuck his dick in any dead pigs recently' Iran could refuse to be lectured by a man that stuffs his pork sword into a pig cadavers gob. Al-Assad could publicly enquire as to weather is was just his flaccid member our PM stuffed into the waiting ham or if it was his balls too.

Maybe they would be above that kind of thing and maybe they wouldn't (I know I'm not and I'm not even 100% sure he did it)

They might indeed say that stuff (who could blame them?) but it wouldn't change the outcome of the negotiations.

Yes, whilst the Cameron Pig Love scandal is hilarious, it's completely trivial and should have no political significance.

I understand that the creators willingly signed away their rights, it's happened many times in comics over the years, and it's very seldom the publisher that gets the poor end of the deal.

That Scarlet Traces news is pretty dismaying.

Not because Scarlet Traces isn't wonderful - it is, especially The Great Game - but because what had been a creator-owned series has now been snaffled by a corporation.

I know that not everybody really cares about creator rights, but personally I think it's shocking that something like this can still happen.

What amazes me is that people keep describing Corbyn as Far Left.
He's not even close to being Far Left, which just illustrates hoe far Right the Labour party has drifted.

I should have written "too far to the left", which is what I meant, and I agree that Jezza is not "far left", although I think "hard left" would probably be fair.

I genuinely like The Badger, he was a very good chancellor and he led Better Together with considerable fortitude. He backed Liz Kendall for the leadership, though, so it's fair to say he's not a fan of the move from New Labour to New Syriza.

I can understand that Labour moderates are concerned that if the party moves too far left it becomes unelectable. However what I don't get is why anyone would join the Labour party if they genuinely don't believe in social justice.

McDonnell, though, is going to be a tougher sell. Feels like rewarding your chum and kicking the PLP when it's down and not really putting his money where his mouth is regarding women in the most senior positions. It's a massive risk, given Angela Eagle was an option.

I admire Corbyn for appointing a Shadow Chancellor who actually agrees with him, rather than a New Labour "big name" who would spend the next four and a half years trying to stop Jezza from doing what he's been elected to do.

The number one risk to Corbyn's leadership is disillusionment, the longer he keeps that at bay the longer he stays Captain of the ship.

Corbyn specifically promised a 50/50 gender split in the shadow cabinet, and he's delivered it. Pretty good going, especially since Cooper and Kendall, who should have bagged top posts, have selfishly refused to serve.

The mud's being slung, but nothing's really sticking yet.

The sexism charge is hilarious, and the idea that Corbyn's a terrorist sympathiser is risible.

Indeed, the more the media focuses on baseless lies and the less it actually looks at what Corbyn really does want to do the better for him.

I think Corbyn is essentially going to have to purge the New Labour refuseniks who won't serve in his shadow cabinet.

It's not very inclusive,but those people are going to be chomping at the bit to depose him the second his honeymoon-period wears off. Besides, given they don't appear to share any particular beliefs with the Labour membership I suspect they're only in the Labour Party because it gives them a shot at achieving power and influence. Politicians like that have a natural home elsewhere. A blue home.

The Shark's ability to duel largely politely with a dozen opponents at once while maintaining a hearty demeanour has to offset some kettle logic deficencies. It's very easy to trot out fallacies while undermanned and under pressure, less easy to stay amiable while doing it.

This is true. He's also a pretty good comics writer, whilst we're discussing Shark's virtues.

However, his views are so far away from anything that might be adopted collectively in the UK that the only power they have is to hurt him when he tries to put them unilaterally into to practice. Which they have done, as historians of this thread will be only too aware. I think a considerable portion of the disagreement he attracts his down to genuine concern for his wellbeing, rather than any particular mass-appetite to trot the same arguments out again and again.

Shark, I shall ends with an appeal. If we can't change your mind, then please just allow self-interest to override your convictions a little bit more. At least that way you can be wrong in comfort!

Hey, do you think it's just a pity he relies on idiocy himself?

Hi Jimmy Baker's Assistant, your wall of text including random parables and implications of complicity/tacit approval of abuse will be along shortly...

Well indeed that's exactly what happened.

I know there's no point in arguing, though, and I look forward to the Labour leadership result tomorrow, at which point the topic of this thread might revert back to politics!

"Government" and society are not the same thing.

Well, that's perfectly true, but you rejected the right of a democratic society to elect a government on the basis it had no authority to do so. This is actually quite a right-wing position, more similar to the US  libertarians than to any progressive movement that I am aware of. This is possibly why I am reminded of Thatcherism by some of the things you say.

Not all my arguments come in the form of logic but they are based in logic: Nobody has the authority to coerce another human being into acting against his or her will. Therefore no person can pass on to another authorities he or she does not possess. Therefore "government" has no authority to make demands under threat of violence. Even if 100% of the population vote for a prime minister. 65,000,000 times nothing is still nothing.

There's no such thing as society, eh? That sounds familiar.