Wednesday 20th July 2016

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:59 pm

yahyah wrote:
TR'sGhost wrote:
Willow904 wrote:Someone with the kind of career outside politics that he has had is surely going to be their own person with their own convictions. Whether they are convictions I or anyone else in Labour can get behind, it's too early to tell, but I immediately find him much more relatable than Corbyn.
I'd be amazed if he didn't come across well. He carved out a very successful career indeed in PR and lobbying, first for Pfizer as head of policy and government relations, then as corporate affairs/PR director for another large drugs company at a point when it was in severe and expensive PR difficulty over one of its less than perfect products.

His successful professional career pre-parliament has been convincing people that "My personal convictions are..... (until my employer tells me otherwise)"

Is he a Blairite? Don't know. What I do know is that his Wikipedia page is very up to date and currently portrays him as a "democratic socialist" who wants to ameliorate capitalism with a bunch of positions clearly intended to portray him as on the Labour left. Which sits ill with, amongst other things, his previous lobbying for more private sector money-skimming from the NHS and voting with Cameron to bomb Syria in 2011.

And with the backing he's getting from people who are anything but Labour left.

Sorry, I simply don't trust PR people or anyone else who will fiercely argue for a position they don't hold themselves, and will equally happily argue for its opposite if that's advantageous. Such people also make very bad managers indeed. In middle roles they easily become yes-people to their higher-ups and sod the workers or what the organisation is supposed to achieve. In senior positions where they set policy they can all too often be deceptive, ambitious opportunists heading a culture of bullying, face-fitting, lies and dirty tricks.

Not that lie/misinformation again.

Owen Smith voted against, same as Corbyn. He did not vote with Eagle & the others with the Tories.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34987921" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But thousands of frothing Facebook pages say he did, so hey, that's the truth ?
No one cares about reality. It's all getting very Iain Duncan Smith 'I believe he voted for bombing, he must be a Blairite, therefore it is true'.

Wasn't that lybia?

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 6:00 pm

If I am having a straw man argument I am not doing it intentionally or indeed knowingly. I am saying what I think. But perhaps my level of thinking is insufficient.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 6:04 pm

yahyah wrote:It really is war out there. Swap 'He loves Hamas' for 'He worked in PR and as a lobbyist', not much difference to the way Corbyn is treated.

The difference though is that Smith did work in PR and was a lobbyist. It's not a false accusation, it's a statement of fact.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 6:04 pm

It says Syria, but hey, the BBC are probably in on the Blairite conspiracy too.

''Syria Strikes , find out how your MP voted:''

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34987921" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I typed in Owen Smith and Corbyn in, and both have 'against'.
Eagle and others have 'for'.

Maybe they meant Libya ? Who knows, I'm sure someone on Facebook will put us right.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 6:06 pm

Nobody ever calls me cute.

Perhaps I'm not cantankerous enough.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 6:10 pm

The Guardian, live blog ''Syria Airstrikes, Britain Launches offensive operations'

''Owen Smith, the shadow secretary for work and pensions who opposed airstrikes.''

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... ing-report" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I hope even those who dislike Smith will correct the misinformation when they see it.
It just prompts more hatred to continue it.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 6:11 pm

mbc1955 wrote:Nobody ever calls me cute.

Perhaps I'm not cantankerous enough.

It's purely the avatar mbc. TinyC's is, well cute. Ferret's very handsome though.

and thanks for making me laugh. Am feeling rather fractious in case no one had noticed

Always get grumpy before supper.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 6:14 pm

Yes indeed. Far more handsome than me, as you may be able to tell from the green t-shirt and the hairy arms.

I'm working on the cantankerouness, though.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 6:15 pm

Update on NHS Judicial Review
Dear Valued Donor,

Case Management Hearing at Royal Courts of Justice, London
21st July 2016
09:30am

You are invited to attend outside the Royal Courts of Justice
We will all be there and look forward to meeting you.

On Thursday 21st July, we will offer the Government an opportunity to defend and clarify their position on the implementation of the new contract. If it is deemed that their actions warrant a full legal challenge, a date will be set for the Government to face a Judicial Review by Justice for Health at the Royal Courts.

Since we began this challenge in February, there have been changes and progress in the contract crisis, following the first full walk out strikes in British history and further negotiations between the BMA and government. Junior doctors rejected the latest contract offer put to a referendum by the BMA in June. Mr Hunt once again took the decision to unilaterally 'introduce' the rejected contract, leaving junior doctors silenced and their concerns ignored.

We say the Secretary of State does not have the power to impose a contract on Junior Doctors. The Case Management Hearing will be an opportunity for a High Court Judge to decide whether the Government has been clear in accepting that unilateral imposition of the contract by the Secretary of State is unlawful.

Our case will argue on grounds of public law; challenging the clarity of language used by the Secretary of State and questioning his powers and the collusion between NHS organisations in facilitating the implementation of this unacceptable contract.

We hope that you, our fellow NHS supporters and campaigners will join us outside the Royal Courts of Justice this Thursday morning, and stand together in solidarity to protect the medical workforce of the NHS so that they continue to look after the patients they serve.

Thank you for your support.
Ben, Nadia, Marie, Amar and Fran.
The #JustHealth Team

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 6:19 pm

TR'sGhost wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
JonnyT1234 wrote:Question: how is a former lobbyist for multinational companies going to connect with the working classes who were abandoned by Labour and have abandoned them back?

How does the PLP think that this is going to get represented by our glorious free press if and when Smith beats Corbyn?

Two basic questions you'd think the PLP would have asked themselves before picking Smith as their sole candidate. Noddy mistake in a litany of them throughout this entire bloody shambles.
How is Corbyn going to reach out to remain voters and win their support? He may appeal to left wing Eurosceptics but this isn't a big group. Most Brexiters are right wing and unreachable by a progressive, multi-ethnic Labour party, not least because they are already represented by the current Tory government. I can't see Corbyn improving Labour support without appealing to remain voters as well and he has an awful lot of work to do. Owen Smith may face challenges with certain demographics, but so does Corbyn.
Most Labour supporters I know support Corbyn, even a couple who originally didn't now do as a result of the coup fiasco.

Only one or two of the Corbyn supporters voted to leave the EU. Corbyn himself campaigned for a remain vote. To say Corbyn has no appeal to "remain" voters simply is not true. Almost the same proportion of Labour voters voted "remain" as did LibDem voters.

20 years ago I agreed with Corbyn's "leave" position. In June I voted "remain" because the times and situation are different now to then. By your reckoning it seems my recent "remain" vote is much more than negated by my historical "leave" position in different times and circumstances.

It seems to me that attacking people based on their opinion years ago, which they clearly state they no longer hold to, is counter-productive. Likewise your demand that A50 is never triggered, yet lack of any explanation as to how you think that could be achieved without very seriously upsetting many millions of people and providing a further impetus and legitimacy to UKIP and those to their right is unhelpful.

The fact you used to support leaving the EU, from my perspective as someone who has always been pro-EU, that does kind of make you a Eurosceptic even if you came round to remain and therefore your support for Corbyn seems completely natural to me as that seemed to be his position. For myself, his response to the leave vote has left me feeling his vision for this country is a very long way from my own and his demand for article 50 to be invoked immediately seemed reckless, given the Tories who campaigned for leave have absolutely no plan for what comes next. The only other person who wanted to leave straight away was Nigel Farage. It just really, really jarred with me. It's how I feel, I'm not contending it's logical. Of course, you may be right, all the Labour remain voters may be like you, rather than me, but if they're not, Corbyn has some work to do to win back their trust.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 6:21 pm

TR'sGhost wrote:
minch wrote:Has Owen Smith ever said what things he was trying to push when he was a lobbyist? He has said what he wasn't but he must have be paid for something.
Not directly, but he wouldn't, would he.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -762m-fine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... wen-smith/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/polit ... ng-2338066" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/press/press ... it-reality" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Last paragraph of the last link is a direct Smith quotation.

Public supportive of moves to increase choice but government must do more to make it a reality
31 October 2005

Report author Dr Rebecca Rosen of The King's Fund said:
'The focus groups show that people value choice and want more of it in health. But they also highlight a series of tensions the
government must take on board ahead of its health care outside hospitals White Paper. The key is to make the choice policy
meaningful by providing people with information about different services and ensure they can obtain advice from health
professionals on how to interpret it. The emerging market in primary care will also have to support continuity between
patients and clinicians if it is to respond effectively to people's needs, especially those with long-term conditions. It
will also be important to maintain a watching brief on the impact this policy has on equity of access to health care.'

Owen Smith of Pfizer UK commented:
'We believe that choice is a good thing and that patients and healthcare professionals should be at the heart of developing the
agenda. This report allows us to hear views from the sharp end. It identifies some important themes around the need to invest
in quality and access to care, particularly for patients with long-term conditions. We will be delighted if these findings help to
move the debate forward'

http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/press/press ... it-reality" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 6:22 pm

Labour's biggest donors abandon party and pump £140k into leadership challengers
Exclusive: 24 of 30 biggest donors have not given to Labour since Jeremy Corbyn's victory while Umunna, Hunt, Kendall and Jarvis build funds

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... ngers.html

Do we need them now?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 6:27 pm

Yes I'm wrong to say thousands of Facebook pages, particularly as I don't indulge in it.

But certainly hundreds of tweets and Cif posts. And a few here.

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 6:27 pm

sputnikkers wrote:Attlee actually presided over (successful rather than Osborne's failed) austerity budgets that actually produced budget surpluses in the first four years after the war. Whoops! - not the kind of success by a mythological figure to base the 'reactionary' (in the derivative sense) message of an unnuanced 'anti-austerity, anti-austerity, anti-austerity' political context! context! context!

Yes, context.

In 1945 Europe and the western USSR was devastated, Japan was devastated, other parts of the world were devastated. The Second World War saw a huge expenditure on armaments, with (outside the USSR) privately owned companies making a very nice earner out of it.

After the war the process of reconstruction resulted in an economic boom. Atlee did impose an austerity programme of a sort, but it was nothing at all like the Hayeck/Friedman concept that became prevalent in the 1970s from the "Chilean experiment" under Pinochet onwards.

Attlee's austerity focussed on obtaining foreign currency to pay down war debts, primarily to the USA. So exports and industry that makes things to export were the focus. Rationing continued, partly because much imported food had to be paid for other than in sterling and also required ships to transport it, and partly, it has been alleged, because it maintained a sense of "all in it together in difficult times".

An example of what Attlee was about is that steel was listed as primarily for export, not domestic use. So when the first Land Rovers came off the production line in 1947 they had an aerospace aluminium/magnesium alloy body with only the chassis made from steel. Magalloys, previously expensive, were available cheaply as the US and UK heavy bomber fleets were scrapped.

A country like the UK, 20 miles from France and with good links to Asia, possessing massive industrial capacity which, compared to Germany and much of the rest of Europe, was undamaged along with a population that wasn't living in the rubble of devastated cities was in a very strong position to benefit from reconstruction even if the UK received little US help.

The post-war boom continued pretty much until the end of the 1970s, with the 1974 oil crisis being the first major hiccup.

Attlee's "austerity" simple can not be compared to the current meaning of the word. Attlee didn't use austerity to siphon money upwards and sell off public services and industries. Instead his government started the NHS and nationalised the coal and railway industries, bith of which had been failing under pre-war private ownership.

Attlee's anti-fascist credentials are not in doubt. He was never an "appeaser" of Hitler, those that were sat mostly on the Conservative benches.

The British nuclear arms programme was in large part intended to send messages to the US. The US in 1945 being very reluctant to share all kinds of technological advances with its former war partners, including stuff British citizens had helped develop. There was a concern that the US might retreat into it's pre-1941 isolationist/Americas position and there would be serious economic and political consequences if it did. There was considerable British politician/establishment debate about how to get the US to "take us seriously." Being seen to have the capability to develop nuclear weapons without US help became regarded as a strong way to do that.

The empire and Korea, as you say, is hardly Attlee's finest moment. He was no revolutionary and to an extent desired, like Ramsay MacDonald, not to frighten the horses too much. He had his own version of the coup plotters to deal with as well, including some senior Labour figures. Attlee was still to the left of most of the current PLP however.

The 1945 election was a reaction both to the 1930s and to the post World War I situation where the promised land fit for heroes turned out to mean the same people in charge as before the war, following the same policies to the same ends.

Me, I don't do idols or play "follow who I'm told is my leader", and those that do often end up very disappointed. No-one is perfect, no-one never makes mistakes, no-one has all the answers.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 6:32 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:There's no need to make stuff up about Smith, there are plenty of good reasons not to vote for him. Likewise there's no need to exaggerate the opposition to him. 'Thousands of frothing Facebook pages'? And he is getting something of an easy ride from the media. His politics may well be of the soft left these days, but not so very long ago, they weren't, and it's legitimate to interrogate that. Andy Burnham went from Blairite to Brownite to soft left in the space of about five years, and a lot of people didn't trust that he was being truthful about it. I think we can be fairly confident that these are his politics these days, but on the other hand if David Miliband had been elected leader would that have remained the case? Compare this with Corbyn who has been more or less absolutely constant about his ideology for 30 years.

Frankly, the fact that he was a lobbyist for big pharma is enough to rule him out for me. When I worked for PCTs, particularly around the commissioning of non-approved treatments, the behaviour of pharma companies I saw was appalling. It's no stretch to say people have died because of the way drug companies push their products. See Ben Goldacre's book 'Bad Pharma' for some of the shady and immoral stuff they got up to. Not to say Smith was implicated in this, but he would have known how the company operated and the things it did to sell its product, and not only condoned it but through his role defended and enabled it.

I've looked into his politics and his voting record, and they look OK apart from his attitude to Trident replacement (and his decision to abstain on the welfare bill, which didn't reflect well on anyone, though most of the blame wasn't his). He's no Stephen Kinnock - I can see why he holds some appeal to some folk and I won't challenge anyone for supporting him if I think the reasons are legitimate. But I don't think I can vote for him. Quite apart from the coup business, where he appeared to stand back and let Eagle take the heat. I don't see how that's so different from Portillo's behaviour in 1995.

But claiming he's a Blairite is demonstrably wrong, and his position has been misrepresented in a number of areas, which is wrong and does no credit to those making the argument.

If you are suggesting someone is claiming this AND that that someone is me, then you have misunderstood. I am thinking at a much broader level - that we are fundamentally on the wrong track while appearing to have every intention of staying on it.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 6:33 pm

Changing the subject, hopefully to something less controversial, does anyone reckon on Eddy Izzard's chances for the NEC ?

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 6:45 pm

mbc1955 wrote:Like it. Of course, the media would print no 1 under your name, no matter what you said. And you'd be Looney TR's Ghost for the rest of your natural.

Well that goes without saying. Anyone not positively looking forward to having an excuse to let off the biggest fireworks display ever and turning lots of places into rubble and people into corpses is clearly quite unsuitable for public office.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 6:46 pm

I initially fell for the right wing propaganda about Smith, which has now been amply clarified for me. Nevertheless, I join with those who are suspicious by nature of PR experts. And he faces an uphill struggle over taking this time of all times to attack his party leader as opposed to the bloody incompetent Tories.

I will reserve judgement, until the election is over and, if Smith is successful, until I see what he does.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 6:50 pm

Hi chaps and chapesses, I've just returned to preserve my sanity as I am getting a little irked btl at the G.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 6:50 pm

George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 2h2 hours ago

Shadow cabinet minister says some frontbenchers who resigned are ready to serve again if Corbyn wins.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 6:53 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Willow904 wrote: The fact you used to support leaving the EU, from my perspective as someone who has always been pro-EU, that does kind of make you a Eurosceptic even if you came round to remain and therefore your support for Corbyn seems completely natural to me as that seemed to be his position. For myself, his response to the leave vote has left me feeling his vision for this country is a very long way from my own and his demand for article 50 to be invoked immediately seemed reckless, given the Tories who campaigned for leave have absolutely no plan for what comes next. The only other person who wanted to leave straight away was Nigel Farage. It just really, really jarred with me. It's how I feel, I'm not contending it's logical. Of course, you may be right, all the Labour remain voters may be like you, rather than me, but if they're not, Corbyn has some work to do to win back their trust.
FWIW my view at the time was that we had to invoke A50 right away to avoid months or years of damage due to uncertainty, and to minimise the punishment we will face from other EU countries. I'm not yet fully convinced that that position isn't right. Especially as the reasons for not invoking it right away were not pragmatic, they were political - Cameron didn't want to get his hands dirty, and it was that, to me, that seemed reckless. I get the strong feeling that people calling for delay think that the longer it goes without A50 being invoked, the less likely it is to be invoked, and I honestly do not think that is the case. I really, really don't want it to be invoked (not least as my other half is an EU immigrant) but that argument is dead. It just hasn't stopped moving yet.

After the referendum result, I assumed the person who had won an election based on holding one and then had called one, having told voters he would abide by the result, would have a) had a plan for exit as well as remain and b) would be the one to invoke article 50, pretty much straight away as promised. Instead that person, the architect of the whole, rushed, ill thought through barely legitimate exercise in direct democracy with no factual debate and absolutely no indication of what "out" would mean, abdicated all responsibility by resigning. As it was Cameron who promised to follow through on the advisory referendum, not via parliament but himself via the royal prerogative, when he went, responsibility to follow through on his promises left with him. As Tories make up the bulk of Brexiters, I feel very strongly that it is up to them and their representatives to hold those who offered them Brexit to account. I don't see it as the role of the opposition to argue for the government to do something the government has offered to do but is against the wishes of a majority of opposition supporters. In a representative democracy, I feel it important for both sides of a major division to be adequately represented.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 6:57 pm

yahyah wrote:Changing the subject, hopefully to something less controversial, does anyone reckon on Eddy Izzard's chances for the NEC ?

Well I voted for him, so I'd guess his chances are small, given my track record in such things ( which should be good news for Corbyn supporters, I suspect ).

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 7:00 pm

yahyah wrote:I'll post it separately. Am tempted to do a Kipper and put it IN CAPITAL LETTERS.

Smith voted against bombing in Syria.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34987921" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Apologies, a slip of the brain rather than the keyboard. I was misremembering a bunch of stuff.

I would also hope I rarely, if ever, "froth".

Lost Soul · Post by **Lost Soul** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 7:06 pm

yahyah wrote:Changing the subject, hopefully to something less controversial, does anyone reckon on Eddy Izzard's chances for the NEC ?

He could fill it easily - and send everyone home happy ( particularly if he does the 'small yappy type dog' routine.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 7:07 pm

citizenJA wrote:
TR'sGhost wrote:
minch wrote:Has Owen Smith ever said what things he was trying to push when he was a lobbyist? He has said what he wasn't but he must have be paid for something.
Not directly, but he wouldn't, would he.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -762m-fine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... wen-smith/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/polit ... ng-2338066" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/press/press ... it-reality" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Last paragraph of the last link is a direct Smith quotation.

Public supportive of moves to increase choice but government must do more to make it a reality
31 October 2005

Report author Dr Rebecca Rosen of The King's Fund said:
'The focus groups show that people value choice and want more of it in health. But they also highlight a series of tensions the
government must take on board ahead of its health care outside hospitals White Paper. The key is to make the choice policy
meaningful by providing people with information about different services and ensure they can obtain advice from health
professionals on how to interpret it. The emerging market in primary care will also have to support continuity between
patients and clinicians if it is to respond effectively to people's needs, especially those with long-term conditions. It
will also be important to maintain a watching brief on the impact this policy has on equity of access to health care.'

Owen Smith of Pfizer UK commented:
'We believe that choice is a good thing and that patients and healthcare professionals should be at the heart of developing the
agenda. This report allows us to hear views from the sharp end. It identifies some important themes around the need to invest
in quality and access to care, particularly for patients with long-term conditions. We will be delighted if these findings help to
move the debate forward'

http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/press/press ... it-reality" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think we can safely say his fingers have been a bit sticky....
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -762m-fine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 7:11 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:@TR's Ghost - thanks for the above, you express thoughts I had been trying to frame. The only thing I would add is that committing military forces to Malaya was very different to the recent adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the counter-insurgency there is still considered a model of how to defeat guerilla warfare while winning the 'hearts and minds' of the population caught up in it.

I have a strong suspicion that one factor that made the US keen to have British involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq was the long British experience in "dealing" with uppity colonial locals.

If so it was extremely short-sighted. For a start, the UK is widely regarded as the ex-colonial power in much of the world and while the Commonwealth may put most of that behind them, in Afghanistan and what had been the North West Frontier the history of their relationship to the UK was a series of assaults by British imperial forces based in India. Assaults where the Afghans had done pretty well, all things considered.

Sending British troops into a region where they were already seen as an historically beatable foreign invader was not, in my view, wise.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 7:13 pm

Jessica Elgot ‏@jessicaelgot 4h4 hours ago Islington, London

Paul Davies, of Wallasey CLP, told me he would pay for lie detector test which he claims would prove there was no bullying of Eagle.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 7:36 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
TR'sGhost wrote: Not directly, but he wouldn't, would he.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -762m-fine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... wen-smith/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/polit ... ng-2338066" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/press/press ... it-reality" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Last paragraph of the last link is a direct Smith quotation.

Public supportive of moves to increase choice but government must do more to make it a reality
31 October 2005

Report author Dr Rebecca Rosen of The King's Fund said:
'The focus groups show that people value choice and want more of it in health. But they also highlight a series of tensions the
government must take on board ahead of its health care outside hospitals White Paper. The key is to make the choice policy
meaningful by providing people with information about different services and ensure they can obtain advice from health
professionals on how to interpret it. The emerging market in primary care will also have to support continuity between
patients and clinicians if it is to respond effectively to people's needs, especially those with long-term conditions. It
will also be important to maintain a watching brief on the impact this policy has on equity of access to health care.'

Owen Smith of Pfizer UK commented:
'We believe that choice is a good thing and that patients and healthcare professionals should be at the heart of developing the
agenda. This report allows us to hear views from the sharp end. It identifies some important themes around the need to invest
in quality and access to care, particularly for patients with long-term conditions. We will be delighted if these findings help to
move the debate forward'

http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/press/press ... it-reality" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think we can safely say his fingers have been a bit sticky....
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -762m-fine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can't say that about Smith, Ohso, no. Not based upon what's posted here and in the linked web pages.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 7:37 pm

Curious, if working for a pharmaceutical company disqualifies Smith from being Labour leader, at what point on the moral compass does being paid by an Iranian state TV station that was complicit in the forced confession of a tortured journalist, place you ? Not once, not twice but five times ? With the final appearance being six months after the network had its broadcasting license revoked by Ofcom for airing a forced confession by Newsweek journalist Maziar Bahari.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy-co ... ist-2016-6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please, please read it before dismissing it, I'm not being confrontational, but I am confused as to why one is viewed as the pits, but the other goes by without comment.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 7:52 pm

So if Smith gets in and by some outside chance leads Labour to a GE win you all promise not to get indignant when he allows the NHS to become even more privatised?

I'll probably be dead by then but I'm truly sorry for those that are going to suffer through no fault of their own.

Hobiejoe · Post by **Hobiejoe** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 7:56 pm

Hmmm. A letter from NatWest announcing changes to the T&C's of our business account, including the warning of the possibility of negative interest rates being imposed, and the subsequent charging of interest on positive balances.

Tweet-tweet *cough* *splutter* went the miner's canary.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 7:57 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
utopiandreams wrote:Hi chaps and chapesses, I've just returned to preserve my sanity as I am getting a little irked btl at the G.
Quite. When we get mildly irked with each other here, it's easy to forget what a bearpit the G can be by comparison

Thanks, Robert, I mentioned expressing an interest in the backgrounds of people I'd met working for the NHS and was then accused of being ignorant, which somewhat reminds me of yesterday. I have a six letter, three syllable Spanish/Portuguese name, which even in it's anglicised version seems too hard for most. Anyway when I was called for height and weight measurement prior to my appointment yesterday the nurse pronounced it perfectly in its anglicized form, so naturally when she asked if she'd pronounced it correctly I congratulated her.

The doctor greeted me with the perfectly pronounced Iberian version of my name., He was an Indian, I didn't need to ask as he not only looked like one but also spoke with an Indian accent. Strangely enough he had a common English name... or is that Welsh? It could be Greek I guess or should I say Aramaic?

Speaking of doctors and names, my GP surgery are in the habit of abbreviating foreign names, even a three syllable Germanic one in days of yore. I say Germanic but probably from Dutch as he was South African. Anyway a week or so ago I was with my doctor who has a six syllable name and I asked her what it was. She replied with the two syllable abbreviation so I smiled and asked what her real name was.

She replied with her forename. I now thanked her and laughingly introduced myself with mine then trying to get my tongue around her surname asked if I had pronounced it correctly. I just wanted to be sure where the stresses lay.

Edit: removed a stray space that had migrated to 'myself'

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 7:59 pm

Just for information for those of you who may not know -

Dear

Today the Procedures Committee, established by the Labour Party National Executive Committee, declared that the following would be candidates in the 2016 Leadership election: Jeremy Corbyn MP, Owen Smith MP.

Applications to become a Registered Supporter of the Labour Party and vote in the 2016 Leadership Contest closed at 5.00pm today.

Ballots will be dispatched in the period from 22 August until 12 September. Members will receive ballots via post and email. Registered and affiliated supporters will receive ballots via email. The balloting period will close at 12 noon on 21 September.

Received, a few minutes ago, by e-mail from the Labour Party (Iain McNicol).

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 8:13 pm

Cameron accused of 'gross negligence' over Brexit contingency plans
Select committee says government exacerbated post-referendum uncertainty and made Brexit task more difficult

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ency-plans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whoa! Good job, Select committee, sincerely.

The former Cabinet Office minister, Oliver Letwin, told the committee that no plans for Brexit were ordered because it was possible
they would leak and then be seen as unwarranted interference in the referendum campaign.

Genius. Letwin's career of infamous meanness rolls on.

David Cameron’s government committed an act of gross negligence and deepened the uncertainty surrounding the impact of Brexit
by instructing Whitehall not to make any contingency plans for a vote to leave the EU, parliament’s foreign affairs select committee
has said.

The committee’s report says Cameron’s “considered view not to instruct key departments including the Foreign Office (FCO) to plan
for the possibility that the electorate would vote to leave the EU amounted to gross negligence”.

What's the penalty?

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 8:16 pm

yahyah wrote:
TR'sGhost wrote:
Willow904 wrote:Someone with the kind of career outside politics that he has had is surely going to be their own person with their own convictions. Whether they are convictions I or anyone else in Labour can get behind, it's too early to tell, but I immediately find him much more relatable than Corbyn.
I'd be amazed if he didn't come across well. He carved out a very successful career indeed in PR and lobbying, first for Pfizer as head of policy and government relations, then as corporate affairs/PR director for another large drugs company at a point when it was in severe and expensive PR difficulty over one of its less than perfect products.

His successful professional career pre-parliament has been convincing people that "My personal convictions are..... (until my employer tells me otherwise)"

Is he a Blairite? Don't know. What I do know is that his Wikipedia page is very up to date and currently portrays him as a "democratic socialist" who wants to ameliorate capitalism with a bunch of positions clearly intended to portray him as on the Labour left. Which sits ill with, amongst other things, his previous lobbying for more private sector money-skimming from the NHS and voting with Cameron to bomb Syria in 2011.

And with the backing he's getting from people who are anything but Labour left.

Sorry, I simply don't trust PR people or anyone else who will fiercely argue for a position they don't hold themselves, and will equally happily argue for its opposite if that's advantageous. Such people also make very bad managers indeed. In middle roles they easily become yes-people to their higher-ups and sod the workers or what the organisation is supposed to achieve. In senior positions where they set policy they can all too often be deceptive, ambitious opportunists heading a culture of bullying, face-fitting, lies and dirty tricks.

Not that lie/misinformation again.

Owen Smith voted against, same as Corbyn. He did not vote with Eagle & the others with the Tories.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34987921" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But thousands of frothing Facebook pages say he did, so hey, that's the truth ?
No one cares about reality. It's all getting very Iain Duncan Smith 'I believe he voted for bombing, he must be a Blairite, therefore it is true'.

Thanks for this yahyah. I checked Public Whip & they say he voted FOR yet Hansard on 2nd Dec quite clearly lists him with the NOES.

Good to have accurate information to counter the untruths - thanks again

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 8:18 pm

citizenJA wrote:
Cameron accused of 'gross negligence' over Brexit contingency plans
Select committee says government exacerbated post-referendum uncertainty and made Brexit task more difficult

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ency-plans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Whoa! Good job, Select committee, sincerely.
The former Cabinet Office minister, Oliver Letwin, told the committee that no plans for Brexit were ordered because it was possible
they would leak and then be seen as unwarranted interference in the referendum campaign.
Genius. Letwin's career of infamous meanness rolls on.
David Cameron’s government committed an act of gross negligence and deepened the uncertainty surrounding the impact of Brexit
by instructing Whitehall not to make any contingency plans for a vote to leave the EU, parliament’s foreign affairs select committee
has said.

The committee’s report says Cameron’s “considered view not to instruct key departments including the Foreign Office (FCO) to plan
for the possibility that the electorate would vote to leave the EU amounted to gross negligence”.
What's the penalty?

Given the severity of the outcome, shouldn't it be classed as a case of Treason?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 8:27 pm

mbc1955 wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
Cameron accused of 'gross negligence' over Brexit contingency plans
Select committee says government exacerbated post-referendum uncertainty and made Brexit task more difficult

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ency-plans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Whoa! Good job, Select committee, sincerely.
The former Cabinet Office minister, Oliver Letwin, told the committee that no plans for Brexit were ordered because it was possible
they would leak and then be seen as unwarranted interference in the referendum campaign.
Genius. Letwin's career of infamous meanness rolls on.
David Cameron’s government committed an act of gross negligence and deepened the uncertainty surrounding the impact of Brexit
by instructing Whitehall not to make any contingency plans for a vote to leave the EU, parliament’s foreign affairs select committee
has said.

The committee’s report says Cameron’s “considered view not to instruct key departments including the Foreign Office (FCO) to plan
for the possibility that the electorate would vote to leave the EU amounted to gross negligence”.
What's the penalty?
Given the severity of the outcome, shouldn't it be classed as a case of Treason?

Aye

Post by **refitman** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 8:28 pm

A little light distraction:
[youtube]1VuMdLm0ccU[/youtube]
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 8:31 pm

Absence of contingency planning
Government decision not to plan for Brexit

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... tAnchor017

The previous Government’s considered view not to instruct key Departments including the FCO to plan for the possibility that the
electorate would vote to leave the EU amounted to gross negligence. It has exacerbated post-referendum uncertainty both within
the UK and amongst key international partners, and made the task now facing the new Government substantially more difficult.

The lack of contingency planning inevitably means that the Government’s plans are tentative and just emerging. We intend to
examine these at the earliest available opportunity, including how the Government plans to consult other interested parties in
the UK.

Severe reproach indeed.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 8:33 pm

A Brexit post-mortem: 17 takeaways for a fallen David Cameron

From
Jeremy Kinsman
Former High Commissioner of Canada to the United Kingdom and former Ambassador to the European Union

https://www.opencanada.org/features/bre ... d-cameron/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brutal .....

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 8:40 pm

citizenJA wrote:
Absence of contingency planning
Government decision not to plan for Brexit

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... tAnchor017

The previous Government’s considered view not to instruct key Departments including the FCO to plan for the possibility that the
electorate would vote to leave the EU amounted to gross negligence. It has exacerbated post-referendum uncertainty both within
the UK and amongst key international partners, and made the task now facing the new Government substantially more difficult.

The lack of contingency planning inevitably means that the Government’s plans are tentative and just emerging. We intend to
examine these at the earliest available opportunity, including how the Government plans to consult other interested parties in
the UK.
Severe reproach indeed.

Knuckles will be firmly rapped. With a spotless white handkerchief.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 8:40 pm

Following on with refitman's distraction when I was last in the pet supplies store I remarked on the slightly sweet fragrance of rabbit food but was reliably informed that it was in fact hamster food. Of course it was, rabbit food is what I'm accused of eating.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 8:43 pm

I'm sorry folks for posting on a politics forum. I fear I have become apolitical so disappointed I am with our parliamentary representatives.

Lost Soul · Post by **Lost Soul** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 8:45 pm

citizenJA wrote:
Absence of contingency planning
Government decision not to plan for Brexit

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... tAnchor017

The previous Government’s considered view not to instruct key Departments including the FCO to plan for the possibility that the
electorate would vote to leave the EU amounted to gross negligence. It has exacerbated post-referendum uncertainty both within
the UK and amongst key international partners, and made the task now facing the new Government substantially more difficult.

The lack of contingency planning inevitably means that the Government’s plans are tentative and just emerging. We intend to
examine these at the earliest available opportunity, including how the Government plans to consult other interested parties in
the UK.
Severe reproach indeed.

'previous Government'... Previous ! it's the same flippin government with a reshuffle of staff !

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 9:04 pm

Lost Soul wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
Absence of contingency planning
Government decision not to plan for Brexit

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... tAnchor017

The previous Government’s considered view not to instruct key Departments including the FCO to plan for the possibility that the
electorate would vote to leave the EU amounted to gross negligence. It has exacerbated post-referendum uncertainty both within
the UK and amongst key international partners, and made the task now facing the new Government substantially more difficult.
'previous Government'... Previous ! it's the same flippin government with a reshuffle of staff !

(cJA edit)

Exactly
I feel utterly helpless

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 9:24 pm

Hang on - how can they possibly blame a previous government since the referendum was only announced after the 2015 election!

You can now see why the only person to raise his head above the parapet and actually talk to the markets was Carney.

"Jeremy, what do I do now?"
I don't know Prime Minister"
"What do you mean you don't know -you must have a plan!"
"You told us not to make any"
"Shit. I forgot about that...get Carney on the phone"

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 9:30 pm

citizenJA wrote:
Absence of contingency planning
Government decision not to plan for Brexit

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... tAnchor017

The previous Government’s considered view not to instruct key Departments including the FCO to plan for the possibility that the
electorate would vote to leave the EU amounted to gross negligence. It has exacerbated post-referendum uncertainty both within
the UK and amongst key international partners, and made the task now facing the new Government substantially more difficult.

The lack of contingency planning inevitably means that the Government’s plans are tentative and just emerging. We intend to
examine these at the earliest available opportunity, including how the Government plans to consult other interested parties in
the UK.
Severe reproach indeed.

Previous government? New government? I hope we won't be the only people to notice that.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 9:39 pm

Tories installed their Queen and it's a 'new' Tory government made up of every same, relentlessly worthless Tory MP that got us over six years into now.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 9:58 pm

Turkey coup attempt: State of emergency announced

Turkey's president has declared a state of emergency for three months following Friday night's failed coup.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan said citizens should not have "the slightest concern with regards to democracy, rule of law, fundamental rights and freedoms".

The state of emergency would protect those values from attacks against them, he said, in a speech in Ankara.

The president praised those who were killed fighting against the coup as "martyrs". (BBC News website)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36852080

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 10:08 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Curious, if working for a pharmaceutical company disqualifies Smith from being Labour leader, at what point on the moral compass does being paid by an Iranian state TV station that was complicit in the forced confession of a tortured journalist, place you ? Not once, not twice but five times ? With the final appearance being six months after the network had its broadcasting license revoked by Ofcom for airing a forced confession by Newsweek journalist Maziar Bahari.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy-co ... ist-2016-6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please, please read it before dismissing it, I'm not being confrontational, but I am confused as to why one is viewed as the pits, but the other goes by without comment.
A few things. First off, the article contains basic factual errors. Second, there are big differences in these two positions.

The article is factually incorrect. The network was fined for the aforementioned broadcast, but this was not the reason it lost its licence. Ofcom was perfectly happy to work with Press TV following this incidence. It lost its licence for breaching Ofcom rules in that oversight was from Tehran while the licence was held in London. Ofcom offered to help Press TV resolve this, but for whatever reason, the broadcaster declined so Ofcom withdrew the licence. There are problems of tone and bias in the piece IMO. 'Complicit in forced torture and forced confession' is a very, very strong way of putting a ten-second clip broadcast from an allegedly forced confession that they may or may not have known was forced. The article cites the broadcaster's two main Western critics as Nick Ferrari and Andrew Gilligan, and also mentions the Anti-Defamation League, all, with the deepest of respect, figures not without agenda. Iran has many problems, but is among the most enlightened of the Arab states, is an emerging democracy and the policy of most Western governments is of engagement, so the article is rather one-sided in its tone at least. The problems in Iran are hardly Press TV's fault.

And the comparison with Smith. To my mind, there are all kinds of differences. Smith was full-time employed for a big pharma company, and his role was to defend the actions of that company, and lobby government in favour of its activities. Big pharma is a hugely problematic industry for all kinds of reasons, and it's concerning to say the least that someone calling themselves progressive would work for them in a role that defends pharma's actions and attempts to persuade government to act in its favour. Corbyn, on the other hand, undertook a handful of interviews for a broadcaster over several years. The article doesn't say what he said in these interviews, apart from one case where he is described as reacting uncomfortably homophobic statements by another interviewee. Corbyn hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, taken money from Press TV to present it in a good light or lobby for it to parliament. He took their money, but not in return for putting a gloss on the company. Given his record with human rights, it's a bit strong to suggest that he in any way condoned forced confession, while Smith would have been required to sign up to everything Pfizer was doing.

Apropos of nothing, just been looking at register of members' interests around this. Apparently Nick Clegg received £22,500 for delivering a speech to Goldman Sachs last December!

If you are content for JC - as prospective PM - to have been involved with this kind of company, fine.