Monday 18th July 2016

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 6:52 pm

I agree Ephie.

It's all getting silly. Why complain that Corbyn is misrepresented and then go along with doing it to his rival ?

The article says Smith said ''I'm glad you think I'm normal'', presumably in response to the questioner, and then goes on to fill in why he thinks he's normal.

Is what he says that awful ?

What is really disenchanting is that Smith will be treated in the same way that Corbyn has been, but by a different group of people. He'll be picked apart, lied about, misrepresented, mind read, and undermined.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 6:55 pm

One of the things in my CBT therapy for anxiety is learning not to imagine you know what other people think/feel/mean without concrete facts. It isn't easy, but there is a good reason for trying to do it.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 7:09 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:It doesn't sound to me as though Smith was trying to dogwhistle Eagle.

I'd been looking at the photo all day, and it just didn't occur to me.

Horrible if it had been.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 7:22 pm

yahyah wrote:One of the things in my CBT therapy for anxiety is learning not to imagine you know what other people think/feel/mean without concrete facts. It isn't easy, but there is a good reason for trying to do it.

I don't know what the guy that posted it was imagining.

You all know my opinion of Eagle, and that I also think she's been set up as the fall guy. That would have been particularly cruel thing to do or say about anyone.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 7:24 pm

Word is that Eagle will drop out tomorrow.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 7:33 pm

Temulkar wrote:Word is that Eagle will drop out tomorrow.

Are you sure she won't just enter a holding pattern for a week or so?

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 7:35 pm

yahyah wrote:I agree Ephie.

It's all getting silly. Why complain that Corbyn is misrepresented and then go along with doing it to his rival ?

The article says Smith said ''I'm glad you think I'm normal'', presumably in response to the questioner, and then goes on to fill in why he thinks he's normal.

Is what he says that awful ?

What is really disenchanting is that Smith will be treated in the same way that Corbyn has been, but by a different group of people. He'll be picked apart, lied about, misrepresented, mind read, and undermined.

Devil's advocate: but he's better than Corbyn. Ergo, he knows how to manipulate the press and won't fall into the obvious man trap that's obvious. And so on, and so forth.

Competence.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 7:41 pm

Actually when read in context the apparently 'straight choice' (remember Simon Hughes?) comment from Smith reads to me more like a dig at "weird" Corbyn.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 7:42 pm

This is a colossal investment in a weapons system that will become increasingly vulnerable and for whose security we will have to throw good money, after bad – in fact tens of billions of it more than already estimated – to try to keep it safe in the decades to come.

Bloody, beardy communist. Putting our very lives at risk with these subversive words of sedition.

(Actually, it's Crispin Blunt)

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 7:47 pm

yahyah wrote:One of the things in my CBT therapy for anxiety is learning not to imagine you know what other people think/feel/mean without concrete facts. It isn't easy, but there is a good reason for trying to do it.

One of the sayings in AA meetings is that we compare our insides with other peoples' outsides. How we feel with how others look.
Failing to recognise that others have insides too......
Like - I wish I was confident like X. X, of course, just looks that way, more than likely.

In fact, the first 3 steps of the AA programme are a good template for living (well, for me, anyway)
1. Admit what your problem is; 2. Understand that there is help; 3. Ask for that help - wherever it may come from.
Keeps me off the booze, and allows me to be as imperfect as I am.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 7:54 pm

On the Smith "normal" thing here's the actual interview
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(You might need to click in to the photo to get the full quote, or click the white arrows either side, I can't copy & past it - sorry)

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 8:03 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:One thing I know I am in serious disagreement with Smith and Watson over is the argument that jobs should be a factor in the decision to renew the SSBNs and their weapons. Jobs are important, but the argument over whether we continue to operate a nuclear deterrent should be based entirely on whether or not we need it. There are plenty of things we can do to protect defence jobs. Build more attack submarines or surface warships, for example. Lord knows we need them.

Or research vessels to study climate change, the ice sheets at the poles, etc. You know, an actual threat that's very, very real and happening right now, not some perceived threat that we can't defend ourselves against even if it ever happened. But what do I know? I'm just an expert.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 8:05 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Actually when read in context the apparently 'straight choice' (remember Simon Hughes?) comment from Smith reads to me more like a dig at "weird" Corbyn.

Weird? How? Perhaps because you're a bit younger than me you see things I don't?

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 8:06 pm

Theresa May has said she would be willing to authorise a nuclear strike killing 100,000 people, ahead of a House of Commons vote on replacing Britain’s Trident submarines.

The prime minister answered with a decisive “yes” when challenged by the SNP’s George Kerevan about whether she would personally approve a nuclear hit causing mass loss of life.

Kerevan asked May: “Is she personally prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that can kill a hundred thousand innocent men, women and children?”

May responded: “I have to say to the honourable gentleman the whole point of a deterrent is that our enemies need to know that we would be prepared to use it, unlike some suggestions that we could have a deterrent but not actually be willing to use it, which seem to come from the Labour party frontbench.”

Nice to know our new PM is a psychopath.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 8:09 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:One thing I know I am in serious disagreement with Smith and Watson over is the argument that jobs should be a factor in the decision to renew the SSBNs and their weapons. Jobs are important, but the argument over whether we continue to operate a nuclear deterrent should be based entirely on whether or not we need it. There are plenty of things we can do to protect defence jobs. Build more attack submarines or surface warships, for example. Lord knows we need them.

EmilyThornberry verified what's been going around in the media for days, that Tories were using the vote to help widen the split in Labour. They had Watson on straight afterwards and asked him. He said yes it was a political ploy to cause Labour maximum damage, but he was going to vote for keeping Trident anyway.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 8:14 pm

JonnyT1234 wrote:
Theresa May has said she would be willing to authorise a nuclear strike killing 100,000 people, ahead of a House of Commons vote on replacing Britain’s Trident submarines.

The prime minister answered with a decisive “yes” when challenged by the SNP’s George Kerevan about whether she would personally approve a nuclear hit causing mass loss of life.

Kerevan asked May: “Is she personally prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that can kill a hundred thousand innocent men, women and children?”

May responded: “I have to say to the honourable gentleman the whole point of a deterrent is that our enemies need to know that we would be prepared to use it, unlike some suggestions that we could have a deterrent but not actually be willing to use it, which seem to come from the Labour party frontbench.”
Nice to know our new PM is a psychopath.

You missed a word. .Tory psychopath ... They have their very own special space.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 8:26 pm

PorFavor wrote:
TobyLatimer wrote:OK now, but I'm being told I am now in a queue.
Well, get to the back of it, entryist!

Your call is important to us. Please stay online and one of our agents will be with you shortly.

: CnqiT3UW8AAaIBk.jpg (91.09 KiB) Viewed 6704 times

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 8:34 pm

TobyLatimer wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
TobyLatimer wrote:OK now, but I'm being told I am now in a queue.
Well, get to the back of it, entryist!
Your call is importany to us. Please stay online and one of our agents will be with you shortly.
CnqiT3UW8AAaIBk.jpg

Not 'check your momentum below' I note.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 8:44 pm

The delayed local council by-election round up - no fewer than ten contests last week:

Gwynedd - two vacancies here, the first was an Independent hold beating Labour in a straight fight by nearly 2 to 1 (similar, on "top" votes, to four years ago) and consolidating their position here after they won both seats in 2012; Labour and an Independent had shared the spoils in 2008 and 2004. The other vacancy was a hold for Plaid Cymru, but a remarkable one - they beat their sole Tory opponent with over 90% of the vote (!) though at least there was a contest this time after Plaid had been elected unopposed in 2012 and 2008 (even more strikingly, this was after not standing in 2004, when Labour narrowly saw off an Independent in another two way battle) One of the highest winning scores in recent years.

Cornwall - another double vacancy, and this time double joy for the LibDems. The first contest saw them gain a seat from UKIP who did not even stand this time - in their absence they stormed to victory (from third place in 2013) with well over half the vote and a swing of over 17% from the Tories who remained marooned in second with 25%. Labour also squeezed in third, but ahead of a solitary independent candidates (they used to regularly win in this area pre boundary changes) The other seat saw a LibDem gain from Independent, with a somewhat more modest increase ("only" 13 per cent) but this was still enough to win comfortably over a fragmented opposition, as shown by the fact the second placed candidate - the first of three Independents - scored a fairly modest 17.5% of the vote (by way of contrast, back in 2009 the Indy had beaten their sole Tory opponent by almost 2 to 1) Tories in third this time (slightly down on 2013) followed by two more Independents and finally a Labour candidate who relied on "crowd funding" and scraped together nearly 5% for their efforts in this unpromising territory.

Newham - Labour hold with over half the vote maintaining their 100% representation here, though their share was modestly down on two years ago. Even when opposition councillors won seats in this borough this ward safely returned three Labour members, so the highly respectable Green performance - runner up with over 30% of the vote and a double figure increase since 2014 - is worth noting (it has been claimed that demographic change is at least a partial explanation) Tories third with little change, whilst the LibDems were last with less than 3% which was half their share two years ago (though the effective withdrawal of their candidate after nominations closed may help account for that)

Islington - Labour hold with over half the vote again, though a slightly bigger drop from 2014 (6 per cent) this time. This may be down to a "dead cat bounce" for the second placed LibDems - they swept all three seats here back in 2002 and won a by-election the following year even more emphatically, but then their great decline in this borough began; after narrowly losing all three councillors to Labour in 2006, they were well beaten four years later and two years ago had actually sunk to fourth place in a former stronghold - an 8 point increase got them runners up now, but still a pretty distant one. Tories (second last time) also saw their share drop slightly, but the Greens edged up slightly despite dropping from 3rd to 4th overall. A token Independent in last place with less than 2%.

Wiltshire - LibDem gain from Independent, though this may not tell quite the full story as the outgoing councillor was a LibDem themselves for many years (after originally being Labour) and they had trounced the Tories by over 2 to 1 in 2009 (the first unitary elections here) before taking, rather remarkably, over 85% as an Indy in 2013 with a sole Tory opponent. So the field was wide open this time without such an evident personal vote, and the LibDems took advantage with 45% - beating the second placed Tories by over 2 to 1 (even though the blue team advanced by over 7% themselves!) UKIP took over 13% in their first contest here, beating Labour who nonetheless advanced modestly from their previous showing in 2009. This time the Independent had to content themselves with a rather more modest 8%, still over twice as much as the last placed Green.

North Norfolk DC - LibDem gain from Tory, a return to form from them in this ward after they did not even stand here last year. Back in 2003 an Independent had been returned here, but a by-election later that year saw a LibDem gain and they consolidated in 2007 before losing to the Tories four years later - and in the yellows absence the Tories easily saw off Green and Labour opposition on GE day. This time round, just over 40% was enough for a comfortable LibDem win as the Tories crashed by over 30% in a year. To add to the volatility here, UKIP carried the Norfolk CC division for this area in 2013 - but their first attempt at DC level here got them a rather more modest 17% and third place. Double figure drops for Greens and Labour (from 2nd and 3rd to 4th and 5th respectively) completed the picture.

Selby DC - the one really satisfying Tory result of the inaugural electoral test of the May era, as they gained this single member ward from Labour with a double figure increase - though the latter's share only fell modestly and there is no doubt a major factor was the absence of UKIP this time after they had polled a strong third last year. Given that the predecessor ward to this prior to last year's boundary changes in this council was a "bellwether" Tory/Lab marginal, it seems likely from that and last week that UKIP hurt the Tories here more than in some other places. This time round the "spoiler" candidate was from the regionalist Yorkshire First, who scored quite a respectable 16%. It is at least possible that their vote is somewhat more left leaning also?

Bradford - Labour hold, and increasing their share from this May to just over half. There was still a small swing to second placed UKIP since then as the latter increased by over 6%, but this should be put into perspective - Labour's main opposition here has come from the populist right ever since the 2004 all-out elections, when the BNP snatched one of the three previously Labour seats. They lost it back two years later, however, and were last seen contesting this ward in 2010. UKIP stepped into the vacuum (as in other similar places) and followed taking second in 2012 by running Labour close in their "annus mirabilis" of 2014, only to fall back heavily in the next two years - they are still not doing as well as on GE day, never mind a year earlier. Tories (not far off beating the BNP for the third seat in 2004, they have never been as close since) advanced slightly themselves in third, LibDems last with less than 3% (a drop since earlier this year, their revival is still far from universal)

This week is even busier - 11 contests

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 8:57 pm

I am watching Panorama - "Angry America"

It is very very scary.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 9:10 pm

Too late response deletion.

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 9:14 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:One thing I know I am in serious disagreement with Smith and Watson over is the argument that jobs should be a factor in the decision to renew the SSBNs and their weapons. Jobs are important, but the argument over whether we continue to operate a nuclear deterrent should be based entirely on whether or not we need it. There are plenty of things we can do to protect defence jobs. Build more attack submarines or surface warships, for example. Lord knows we need them.

When the navy has fewer than a couple of dozen blue-water warships, almost all of which were built to fit into the NATO role for the RN not a mix the UK acting alone might find useful, there would certainly appear to be more useful things to spend the money on. The ability of submarines to remain undetected by a technologically and financially equivalent (or better) power is also getting more and more questionable. E.g. using remote controlled or automated drones to hang around Faslane and follow any sub that emerges.

If, to keep in theme with May's bid for Iron Lady mkII status, Argentina were to occupy the Falklands again they'd be harder by far to remove than in the 1980s, and not because Argentina's military has gained any technical superiority over the UK. Come to that, had Galtieri waited a year or so Thatcher's combination of defence budget cuts and re-alllocation of money to pay for Trident in the first place, Thatcher would have most probably found herself the PM who lost the Falklands unless she could have called on NATO assistance.

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 9:16 pm

JonnyT1234 wrote:
Theresa May has said she would be willing to authorise a nuclear strike killing 100,000 people, ahead of a House of Commons vote on replacing Britain’s Trident submarines.

The prime minister answered with a decisive “yes” when challenged by the SNP’s George Kerevan about whether she would personally approve a nuclear hit causing mass loss of life.

Kerevan asked May: “Is she personally prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that can kill a hundred thousand innocent men, women and children?”

May responded: “I have to say to the honourable gentleman the whole point of a deterrent is that our enemies need to know that we would be prepared to use it, unlike some suggestions that we could have a deterrent but not actually be willing to use it, which seem to come from the Labour party frontbench.”
Nice to know our new PM is a psychopath.

She's after a nice new shiny brass maker's plate. "Iron Lady Mk II, Royal Ordnance Factory, 2016 serial 002."

Edited to add - she's no chance. Iron Lady serial 001 privatised Royal Ordnance in 1987.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 10:19 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:I always felt the invasion of the Falklands showed that the continuous at-sea deterrent was no deterrent at all, at least when it came to threats to Britain's territories (if not Britain itself). And indeed, cutting conventional forces to pay for it had partly encouraged invasion.

A balanced, conventional Navy would be much more use to us.

Not to worry. May would just nuke Buenos Aries. What's a few million innocent people's lives when our security is at threat and you're a psychopath?

Edit: illiteracy

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 10:28 pm

HindleA wrote:Noticed distinct lack of bees,butterflies,hedgehogs armadillo,triceratops,fork lift trucks,women called Beryl,men called Cillit Bang the third,pigeons and spitfires in the garden this year.

could it be Tarquin?

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 10:34 pm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 42451.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The environmentalist group Greenpeace has acquired the infamous “£350 million a week” bus owned by campaign group Vote Leave.
Greenpeace is redecorating the bus with the words “Time For Truth” and “#comeclean”, and is soliciting other messages from members of the public to put on the side.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 10:35 pm

He does a habit of hiding things and disappearing for hours at a time,with a guilty smile on his face on return.He's cooling down in the bird bath at the moment.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 10:40 pm

Angela Rayner MP ‏@AngelaRayner 1h1 hour ago
Lost vote 472-117 on Trident renewal, I stand by my vote against...

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 10:41 pm

PorFavor wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
Amid the gloom, Brexit provides an opportunity for Labour
Ed Miliband

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... d-miliband" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good article. I do like Ed Miliband.

Having said that, devolution always makes me think (unfavourably) of US States and their laws - some ofwhich laws being rather alarming- v the federal set-up. I know that's not what's envisaged but it's a bit of a gut-reaction whenever I see the word "devolution".

Edited to add -

But then I think of Vermont . . . .

which takes me straight to Vermouth

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 10:44 pm

Ah. The Factory. The Squat. The Band with No Name.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 10:45 pm

HindleA wrote:Thanks for that tinybgoat.I keep those records organisations ask you to do. they are getting a bit bizarre.how many polar bears standing on a mint do you see at this time of year?

Twelve.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 10:49 pm

I suppose we better get used to this again once Corbyn is gone, the majority of Labour MPs voting to support the Tories.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 10:51 pm

Second too late response.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 10:56 pm

I realise my sustained interest in the UK's pin the tail on the donkey to decide on being part of the world or not is a bit passe, but here we go anyway.

http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-poll- ... economics/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Over the next five years, 49 percent of Britons think the U.K. economy will be worse off, whereas 38 percent think it will be better off.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 10:57 pm

Goodnight, everyone.
love,
cJA

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 10:57 pm

And finally ...
does anyone know anything about this outfit:
https://www.socialeurope.eu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and if so, what?

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 11:00 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:And finally ...
does anyone know anything about this outfit:
https://www.socialeurope.eu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and if so, what?

Polly Toynbee's with um

https://www.socialeurope.eu/editorial-board/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 11:02 pm

First I've heard,did notice research paper by Simon Wren- Lewis

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 11:02 pm

hmmmm

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 11:16 pm

Britain Elects ‏@britainelects
Labour leadership voting intention:
J. Corbyn: 54%
A. Eagle: 21%
O. Smith: 15%
(via YouGov / 15 - 18 Jul)
Lab members eligible to vote only

Times poll.

JC wins on first round.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 11:24 pm

Oh dear...

Seven-day NHS unachievable for 20 years, expert claims

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ert-claims

The government’s pledge to deliver a seven-day NHS will remain unachievable for 20 years because of underfunding and chronic understaffing, a leading expert has said.

There are also fears that providing more NHS services at weekends could increase the risk of death facing patients who are in hospital during the week, because fewer doctors will be on duty then.

“I’m convinced seven-day services cannot be achieved within current funding. There are huge gaps [in medical staffing rotas in hospitals already]. I think we’re 20 years away from actually being able to achieve a seven-day service given the current challenges, but I would love to be wrong,” said Prof Julian Bion, who is leading a major NHS-funded research project into the introduction of more services at weekends.

Who'd have thunk it eh? Shocked etc...

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 11:32 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:expert claims

Failing to spot the obvious problem with that there report, Roger. What would one of them know about anything, eh?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 18 Jul, 2016 11:33 pm

JonnyT1234 wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:expert claims
Failing to spot the obvious problem with that there report, Roger. What would one of them know about anything, eh?

You're right - how could I have been such a fool?

I've let you all down there...sorry everyone.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 12:07 am

tinyclanger2 wrote:
HindleA wrote:Thanks for that tinybgoat.I keep those records organisations ask you to do. they are getting a bit bizarre.how many polar bears standing on a mint do you see at this time of year?
Twelve.

Ridiculous, I demand a recount.

Post by **adam** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 12:33 am

It's a cheap shot really, but what the hell...

From the candidates' statements for Leader and Deputy Leader for the Co-Operative Party hustings, Autumn 2015

Angela Eagle - "I have a proven track record of opening up debate and listening to all voices ... I will be a deputy leader who puts you, our members, first."

Also interestingly given what else has been going on today (and before today)...

From The Independent

She has not risen in the stellar way that might have been predicted when, at the age of 36, she was appointed the youngest minister in Tony Blair's first government. On the contrary, her boss appears promptly to have forgotten all about her. Damian McBride recalls in his memoirs that in the 2002 reshuffle "Tony forgot Home Office minister Angela Eagle existed, gave someone else her job and effectively sacked her from the Government by mistake – and without informing her."

thatchersorphan · Post by **thatchersorphan** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 12:47 am

ohsocynical wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:It doesn't sound to me as though Smith was trying to dogwhistle Eagle.
I'd been looking at the photo all day, and it just didn't occur to me.

Horrible if it had been.

I think it only occurred to people who aren't 'normal' and have had stigma because of it (disabled, LGBT and others who don't fit in) It quite probably didn't occur to Owen Smith, because for him the term has never been associated with stigma.

On a vaguely related note #shitabledpeoplesay is being used by disabled people for things non-disabled people say, often with 'good intentions'