what's the *worst* lefty paper?
- Thread starter Pickman's model
- Start date
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
A left wing journalist called Dave Osler stumbled across Callinicos in a book on the British peerage. His interest was piqued and he did a bit of digging around and discovered that Alex's family consists of most of the nobility and royalty of Europe. His grandparents include Richard M. Lyon-Dalberg-Acton, 2nd Baron Acton of Aldenham and the brilliantly named Maria Anna Ludmilla Euphrosina von und zu Arco auf Valley.
Poor old Paul Foot used to get some stick about his father being Governor General of Jamaica, but if people are going to be unfairly mocked for having an aristocratic family it seems to me that the fun should be spread around a little.
Poor old Paul Foot used to get some stick about his father being Governor General of Jamaica, but if people are going to be unfairly mocked for having an aristocratic family it seems to me that the fun should be spread around a little.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
'poor old paul foot' - your attitudes changed a bit sudenly! 
There never was any hiding of Callinicos' posh background - major landowners in Zimbabwe, and a relation of Lord Acton. The Maria Anna Ludmilla Euphrosina von und zu Arco auf Valley is a new one to me tho - and is marvellously ludicrous.
There never was any hiding of Callinicos' posh background - major landowners in Zimbabwe, and a relation of Lord Acton. The Maria Anna Ludmilla Euphrosina von und zu Arco auf Valley is a new one to me tho - and is marvellously ludicrous.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
belboid said:
Eh? I was being quite nice about him on the other thread, I just wasn't treating him as a secular saint.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
If this was my name I think I'd use it.Nigel Irritable said:
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Imagine if his parents had decided to hyphonate their names,
Alexander Lyon-Dalberg-Acton-von und zu Arco auf Valley
Alexander Lyon-Dalberg-Acton-von und zu Arco auf Valley
Nigel Irritable said:
You didn't explain your assertion that RESPECT had lost votes in both places. Now you say they repeated it in one.
Can you explain what figures you are actually comparing here, and how you come to these conclusions?
I fully expect this request to be ignored again.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Respect got 9% across Leicester and 7% across Birmingham in the Euro elections. I gather from Respect supporters amongst others that those percentages were concentrated to some degree or other in the constituencies that were being contested in the by-elections.
From that perspective it seems clear that Respect at best held their vote in Leicester South, something of an achievement given the change in electoral system, and certainly lost votes in Birmingham. I wasn't aware that this was a contested opinion. Do you think that they got less than 6% in the Birmingham electoral area, for instance?
From that perspective it seems clear that Respect at best held their vote in Leicester South, something of an achievement given the change in electoral system, and certainly lost votes in Birmingham. I wasn't aware that this was a contested opinion. Do you think that they got less than 6% in the Birmingham electoral area, for instance?
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
not any more, i suspect.belboid said:
There's a lot of good socialists in Britain but somehow they've never managed to come up with a decent paper (although News on Sunday might have been the right paper at the wrongest possible time, Thatcherism's high water mark).
Workers Hammer is unintentionally hilarious - always worth a read just to see who's being denounced.
Weekly Worker, and the AWL's mag are tiresome and dull.
Socialist Worker is, as others have said, cringingly patronising, but is at least well designed.
I've rarely read The Socialist, though Militant was pretty bad.
I've got a bit more time for the Morning Star to be honest - it's frequently dull and there's obviously some bits I just don't agree with (stop calling North Korea "people's Korea" you fucking weirdos), but at least it actually tells you the fucking news sometimes, rather than just shout slogans at you. It's also, for a mag semingly run by Tankie control freaks, more prepared than most lefty rags to give a bit of space to differing strands of left opinion.
Workers Hammer is unintentionally hilarious - always worth a read just to see who's being denounced.
Weekly Worker, and the AWL's mag are tiresome and dull.
Socialist Worker is, as others have said, cringingly patronising, but is at least well designed.
I've rarely read The Socialist, though Militant was pretty bad.
I've got a bit more time for the Morning Star to be honest - it's frequently dull and there's obviously some bits I just don't agree with (stop calling North Korea "people's Korea" you fucking weirdos), but at least it actually tells you the fucking news sometimes, rather than just shout slogans at you. It's also, for a mag semingly run by Tankie control freaks, more prepared than most lefty rags to give a bit of space to differing strands of left opinion.
Charlie Drake
New Member
What about the SPGB's tergid old 'Socialist Standard'?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Why didn't you have the courtesy to tell them you no longer wanted it? That's a serious question - these thing cost money and come out of members own funds.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
No, they're potentialy loaded...different thing...
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
All their outward budget was probably thrown into it. One little classified ad is not even that much, even in the nme - yes -i saw it as well.
You're first line bears no relation to my point - or a very loose one at best. Please cease this impressionistic rubbish masqerauading as points - it makes you look stupid
Really though, it does.
You're first line bears no relation to my point - or a very loose one at best. Please cease this impressionistic rubbish masqerauading as points - it makes you look stupid
Really though, it does.
The stuff about them being loaded wasn't my answer to your point.
WTF is wrong with you? I made the point that it was terrible and they wouldn't stop sending it to me. You seem upset that I didn't go out of my way, at the age of about 14, to stop them sending me that and other junk mail.
I explained why I didn't, and you seem to want to Labour a point. Then you say it makes me look stupid.
WTF is wrong with you? I made the point that it was terrible and they wouldn't stop sending it to me. You seem upset that I didn't go out of my way, at the age of about 14, to stop them sending me that and other junk mail.
I explained why I didn't, and you seem to want to Labour a point. Then you say it makes me look stupid.
I'm still awaiting his answers.....
LOL u no
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
flimsier said:
Your line "Yes, but that wasn't my answer anyway." - when it was it exactly that is what makes you look stupid - twice. Once for getting it wrong first time round and then a second time for pretending that this was not your first point - when it's plain to see that it was.
I've got no problem with you trying to make a point - but please try and make that point. Unconnected vague wafflings in which the logical or substantive points only exist in your head (i.e not expressed or articulated in public on here) does not an argument make.
The last pm from you had only one question in it.
(from memory): 'Do you really think I'd remember one conversation in a pub with a student teacher from 5 years ago?'
I didn't reply to that because I just took it as a denial that you remember anything, but said I'd stick to what I said I would do, and I pmed you that. (for others: just that I'd not engage because I will get wound up)
Now I don't know if you've posted stuff on another thread, but I presume you are referring to your last pm - which contained just one question, as above.
(from memory): 'Do you really think I'd remember one conversation in a pub with a student teacher from 5 years ago?'
I didn't reply to that because I just took it as a denial that you remember anything, but said I'd stick to what I said I would do, and I pmed you that. (for others: just that I'd not engage because I will get wound up)
Now I don't know if you've posted stuff on another thread, but I presume you are referring to your last pm - which contained just one question, as above.
Similar threads
