Saturday 6th and Sunday 7th August 2016

[thatchersorphan]

From having watched that clip and the wider context, it is clear to me that Smith was "mis-speaking" then. Its quite easily done.

There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made of him, some of which you have mentioned yourself.

Pretending he is pro-austerity, however, is the sort of tactic more often used in this contest by Corbyn's opponents.

How did he vote on the second reading of the welfare bill AK? Ah, that's right he abstained. He says whatever he thinks will get him an advantage. He is a weathervane. Cornyn for all his faults, is a signpost.

Seeing as nobody answered my post above (yet?), I hope you don't mind me jumping in here for clarification. From my reading this is exactly the other way round to the evidence. Smith did vote 'aye' to decline to give the Welfare Reform and Work Bill(?) a second reading. It was Mr Corbyn that was 'absent'. It's easy enough to check! I'll get the references if that's what's being talked about?

This seems like a typical piece of evidence-free astroturfing by some people and readily accepted by others to continue the 'anti-politics' FUD? Do people here honestly believe this is a workable strategy to win power?

It was this vote (under Harman) : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 04831.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Willow904]

Furthermore I'm not convinced all 172 MPs are "Red Tories" and I feel the use of that phrase by the left was as damaging to Labour's prospects in 2015 as the undermining by the right, especially in Scotland.

Red Tories is a derogatory term for all Labour MPs - not just the right of the party - of the independence supporting Scottish, not the left per se. Only Hugo - and now you - have ever called or inferred the 172 MPs who voted against Corbyn are Red Tories on this forum.

For what it's worth.

The idea of Corbyn supporters lumping all 172 MPs who voted no confidence in Corbyn together as some kind of analogous enemy came from the article HindleA linked earlier:

Maryam Eslamdoust, a Labour councillor for Kilburn, who referred to Corbyn as ‘our current leader, our future leader and our next Labour prime minister’, suggested that the ‘plotters’ – the 172 MPs who voted no confidence – ‘are not afraid of losing, but of winning. They don’t want us to change this country. They are the ones who are unelectable.’ A Unite representative who had left Labour during the Blair years and rejoined in the Corbyn era blasted ‘the 172’ – a number destined to go down in infamy – and sneered at the ‘Kinnock dynasty’ and ‘their ilk’ (Neil opposed the Bennites as Labour leader in the 1980s and has supported the moves against Corbyn; his son, Stephen, was one of those who resigned from Corbyn’s shadow administration).

I'm sorry if I haven't used terminology correctly. I tend to think of 'red Tory' and Blairite being similar insults because of the context in which I've seen the terms used. Both are used to depict and denigrate Labour MPs as being "establishment" or neoliberal in some way. It's just that Blairite has the connotation of supporting specific policies, which isn't really the case of the accusation thrown at the 172, so I used the "red Tory" term in the sense of being of the establishment. Which is a rather garbled way of saying that I sense a lot of anti-establishment feeling in the Momentum movement, the rise of which has mostly strengthened the nationalist parties at Labour's expense in the past and I'm not convinced the indulgence of it by Corbyn's Labour will help the party in a FPTP system.

[sputnikkers]

How did he vote on the second reading of the welfare bill AK? Ah, that's right he abstained. He says whatever he thinks will get him an advantage. He is a weathervane. Cornyn for all his faults, is a signpost.

Seeing as nobody answered my post above (yet?), I hope you don't mind me jumping in here for clarification. From my reading this is exactly the other way round to the evidence. Smith did vote 'aye' to decline to give the Welfare Reform and Work Bill(?) a second reading. It was Mr Corbyn that was 'absent'. It's easy enough to check! I'll get the references if that's what's being talked about?

This seems like a typical piece of evidence-free astroturfing by some people and readily accepted by others to continue the 'anti-politics' FUD? Do people here honestly believe this is a workable strategy to win power?

Not sure we can be talking about the same bill. From Wikipedia:

Harriet Harman, then deputy leader of the Labour Party, required Labour MPs to abstain from the vote for the bill as opposed to voting against it (a move which US-based magazine The Nation said "underline[d] Labour's moral and intellectual bankruptcy".)[13] However, the Labour Party was in the process of choosing a new leader at the time, and one candidate associated with the party's hard left, the eventual new leader Jeremy Corbyn, voted against the bill along with 48 of his Labour colleagues who also defied the Labour whip.

From theyworkforyou

20 Jul 2015: Owen Smith was absent for a vote on Welfare Reform and Work Bill — Second Reading

Ah, yes I think we are but 'opposition' achieved differently - more intelligently(?), but that can be disputed. Remember the strategy was to oppose the Bill by 'Reasoned Amendment' so as not to fall into that political strategic 'genius' Osborne's simpleton, inane trap of opposing a 'Cap'. The latter was a ridiculous bait and switch Ordoliberal tactic for public outrage which Ed Balls saw a mile off. I seem to remember Osborne's face dropping when he accepted the principle.

It's really not that difficult to understand the strategy of declining to give a reading by reasoned amendment rather than falling into a political trap - one which ironically and deliciously Mrs May has fallen into.
For the avoidance of further doubt that we are talking about the same Bill? (should appear with all voters cast showing - (search <Ctrl> + F for names 'Owen Smith' 'Corbyn' and others -
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — Decline Second Reading — 20 Jul 2015 at 21:50

...
The motion being debated was:

That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The amendment rejected in this vote sought to replace that with:

That this House,
whilst affirming its belief that there should be controls on and reforms to the overall costs of social security, that reporting obligations on full employment, apprenticeships and troubled families are welcome, and that a benefits cap and loans for mortgage interest support are necessary changes to the welfare system,
declines to give a Second Reading to the Welfare Reform and Work Bill because the Bill will prevent the Government from continuing to pursue an ambition to reduce child poverty in both absolute and relative terms, it effectively repeals the Child Poverty Act 2010 which provides important measures and accountability of government policy in relation to child poverty, and it includes a proposal for the work-related activity component of employment and support allowance which is an unfair approach to people who are sick and disabled.

Owen Smith voted 'aye' (as did most other Lab. MPs - 193!) - Jeremy Corbyn 'absent'!

Am I still mistaken?
Edited to embolden 'declines ...' to make pertinent part stand out in overlong quote within quotes (sorry should have edited these - too late now?)

[JonnyT1234]

@Willow: it is difficult to know from that article whether or not it is the author extrapolating mentions of 'plotters' into being all 172 MPs who voted no confidence (like Hugo does here with us) or whether or not they are direct quotes from the people speaking and they really do mean all 172 MPs were plotters. His use of quote marks is a little on the overly liberal side making it very difficult to tell.

Edited to add: while I can well imagine that some/many Corbyn supporters might call all 172 MPs plotters [edit2: or Red Tories], my point was more that I hadn't seen anyone here do that, other than Hugo in his attempts to put words in our mouths that have never been said.

[AnatolyKasparov]

From having watched that clip and the wider context, it is clear to me that Smith was "mis-speaking" then. Its quite easily done.

There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made of him, some of which you have mentioned yourself.

Pretending he is pro-austerity, however, is the sort of tactic more often used in this contest by Corbyn's opponents.

How did he vote on the second reading of the welfare bill AK? Ah, that's right he abstained. He says whatever he thinks will get him an advantage. He is a weathervane. Cornyn for all his faults, is a signpost.

I know how he voted. As with Burnham and others who stayed loyal, his overriding justification was not wanting to split the party irrevocably.

It is, at least, an arguable point of view.

And excoriating them takes the blame away from where it should really belong - Harman and her cronies, and their craven cowardice *and* shockingly cynical calculation.

[sputnikkers]

I'm glad Corbyn didn't vote for the above. I don't know why he was absent - could it be to balance an absent MP on the govt benches?

No, no 'free pass' for Mr Corbyn as usual! Look at the list of names from Labour not supporting and the number of Tories voting and timing of vote - Lib Dems supported! SNP didn't bother to support of course!

Party .Majority(No).....Minority (Aye).....Both.....Turnout
Con 307 (+2 tell)............0......................0........93.6%
DUP 0.........................6......................0........75.0%
Lab 0........................193 (+2 tell)..........0........84.1%
LDem..0.......................8......................0.......100.0%
UKIP 1.........................0......................0.......100.0%
UUP 0..........................1......................0.........50.0%
Total:.308...................208.....................0.........89.5%

I don't understand why you're "glad"? Did you not think the wording was a trap. What is the point in 'opposing' when it will be held against you. Just gesture politics? What is the ('winning') strategy in having a list of names 'opposing' but not defeating the framing - including the meaningless term 'benefits cap'?

Edited to try to make table a little more intelligible after previously starting to delete some columns then posting while undecided. Apologies - does site understand 'table' formatting?

[HindleA]

RedTory


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Tory" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.redtory.com.cn/rednew_en/ind ... d/jieshao/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Willow904]

Further to my suggestion earlier that the left wasn't helpful to Ed Miliband, I have linked two articles about the vote in Jan 2015 on the Charter of Budget Responsibility. This vote didn't tie Labour to austerity or austerity cuts in any way, just by not implementing tax cuts proposed by the Tories would have brought them very close to achieving balanced day to day spending, or they could put some taxes up, as explained in the BBC article. The Morning Star doesn't defend Ed's Labour from the deliberately misleading Tory spin, however, but fans it:

https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-2 ... 6YEVqnTVJ8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30794472" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[sputnikkers]

...
It was held against them anyway, just by different people. The amendment expressed support for the Tory version of apprenticeships (a dodge to pay below minimum wage) and an upper limit on social security. Not very socialist. What happened to 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'?

Mealy mouthed triangulating BS. 'Triangulating' sounds good and very 'Blairite' but meaningless in the context of opposing a second reading? The election of Corbyn showed very clearly that the majority of Labour members take a very dim view of playing politics and percentages in this way. Less 'strategy', more principle please.

(And the problem with the 'trap' was that they would be caught by it however they voted)

No! Am I just being thick - look at the wording! It did not "support a Tory version of apprenticeships" but:

... that reporting obligations on full employment, apprenticeships and troubled families are welcome,

ie we don't want the Tories to do that old trick of 'not counting' stuff ... like ... 'child poverty'!
Can you hear yourself? Read it out loud!
OPPOSING(!)

... an upper limit on social security

So ... 'no upper limit' on social security. Bloody socialists ... magic money tree! There has always been, and always will, be an upper limit on social security! It's called the way that combinations of benefits are calibrated - some straight 'entitlements' and some 'means tested' so that combinations for those with more complex needs aren't 'paid twice' for similar needs. That, combined with tax credits is, for me, attempting to achieve exactly the second part of that tellingly 'verb-less' Marxist quote. Of course it depends on which verbs people think are 'implied'.

If using a bit of nous in order to win is 'mealy mouthed' - then pass me the worms! What is the problem with 'opposing a second reading by reasoned amendment'? It is a principled stand against a stupid bill. The trap is to have to defend Mr Neill's questions.
"You opposed 'any controls on overall costs ..."
and any 'cap on benefits'
Sounds like a winning strategy to me!!! ... but hey, losing with principles intact is better - though children and the more vulnerable lose again! Do we really need to go through this? It's just a question of which is a more sensible strategy ... to win (for benefit of other people's lives - not mine, nor to salve my or the MPs' consciences, or for some moral superiority over the Tories) ... with a view to the future election portrayals/interviews - not replaying 'we ... difficult decisions'... 'you ... opposed every cut'! It doesn't define any correct / evil / psychopathic / neoliberal position on some left - right spectrum.

[sputnikkers]

For the avoidance of any doubt. Once this 'by reasoned amendment' strategy has been started it is then 'divisive' and in my opinion 'unprincipled' to shout about people not opposing the Welfare Bill - when they have. It is deliberately creating a schism by those in the know, exploiting the ignorance of those who aren't aware, to portray a whole list of names as not voting against the Bill (literally true - until Third Reading - but we don't talk about that!) and therefore 'for austerity'.

It is applying a 'reality distortion field' of the worst kind as it creates unnecessary anger, knee-jerk reactions and factionalism. But then that is Mr Corbyn's modus operandi. The man is toxic and has a history - primary source and secondary source material that 30 minutes by a good Tory researcher will use to destroy any chance of electoral victory - even on stuff he's supposed to be good at.

[PorFavor]

For information - here's a copy of an e-mail which I've just received from my Constituency Labour Party (CLP) -

[We]will be holding a nomination meeting as part of the leadership election process.

We will be starting at 7.30 pm and you must bring your membership card with you as it will be checked at the door. For clarity, in order to attend and participate only those who are full members previous to the 12th January 2016 will be able to attend.

Edited to add -

Well, part of an e-mail, anyway . . . .

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/ ... -games-rio" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


All Russian athletes to be banned from Paralympic Games in Rio

[HindleA]

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


House of Commons
MPs wanted to nationalise Westminster pub for their own use

[Temulkar]

"Sounds like a winning strategy to me!!! ... but hey, losing with principles intact is better - though children and the more vulnerable lose again! Do we really need to go through this? It's just a question of which is a more sensible strategy ... to win"

Yet they didnt win by being clever did they? They lost Scotland, and a second general election in a row, they lost 26 seats instead of gaining. The evidence is quite clear and indisputable, trying to be clever and ignoring your principles costs votes, and its blindingly obvious why to all but the most ideologically blinkered or intellectually stunted.

If you cant oppose then dont expect people to see you as a viable opposition worth voting for, and people didnt vote Labour in their millions did they?

I find it quite remarkable that anyone could claim not opposing is a winning strategy for an opposition that has failed to win a general election for over a decade by not opposing. NOt opposing was why Labour lost! I joined the greens when Labour failed to oppose retrospective legislation on workfare, I wasnt the only one, every time Balls stepped up and Osbornes mouth gaped more people left Labour.

Perhaps Osborne's surprise was from wondering how on earth a political party could dump such great stinking turds on their own voters and still expect them to vote for them?.

When you are pursuing a 35% core vote + a few liberals to win an election you make sure your core vote is happy, but labour were more worried about Andrew Neil's questions on telly than voters conversations at bus stops, and the core vote walked away from the non opposing opposition. They went Green or UKIP or Plaid or SNP

It aint rocket science, its blindingly simple, it was said on here numerous times before the election, and borne out by the election result.

[Willow904]

Further to my suggestion earlier that the left wasn't helpful to Ed Miliband, I have linked two articles about the vote in Jan 2015 on the Charter of Budget Responsibility. This vote didn't tie Labour to austerity or austerity cuts in any way, just by not implementing tax cuts proposed by the Tories would have brought them very close to achieving balanced day to day spending, or they could put some taxes up, as explained in the BBC article. The Morning Star doesn't defend Ed's Labour from the deliberately misleading Tory spin, however, but fans it:

https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-2 ... 6YEVqnTVJ8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30794472" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another trap that Labour simply fell into a different way from that feared by the leadership. The SNP, Greens and Plaid all attacked Labour for the same thing. In hindsight it wasn't worth trying to thwart Osborne's small-p politics, and as I said in reply to sputnikkers, one of the lessons of Corbyn's election is that trying to be smart with things like this will just backfire.

The SNP, Greens, Plaid and Diane Abbott all attacked Labour with the same mis-representation of what the bill meant which simply wasn't true, but people believed to be true because so many people said it. It wasn't helpful. To vote against the bill would have been to vote against basic fiscal responsibility, to vote against, over time, ensuring tax receipts cover outgoings on a day to day basis eminently sensible. Labour were stuck between a rock and a hard place because the left preferred to attack Labour with Tory lies that Labour voted for austerity cuts, rather than help Labour expose the games the Tories were playing. The others wanted to win Labour votes, of course, but what was Diane Abbott's excuse?

[AngryAsWell]

A very long and - to me - interesting post by Alex Andreou

THE TRUTH ABOUT JEREMY CORBYN

https://www.byline.com/column/11/article/1177" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PorFavor]

A very long and - to me - interesting post by Alex Andreou

THE TRUTH ABOUT JEREMY CORBYN

https://www.byline.com/column/11/article/1177" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for the link.

This, from the article:

I always thought that socialism could combine with liberal values. But what if it can't? What if there is something so inherently didactic in any movement that believes in its moral superiority, it is structurally doomed to authoritarianism? I voted for Corbyn, because I wanted my idea of Labour to be allowed to coexist and to converse alongside others' idea of Labour; not at its expense or instead of it.

Read more at:https://www.byline.com/column/11/article/1177

[Temulkar]

Here's one labour councillor and Smith supporter who is likely to be in very hot water with his employers after this.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpK0WT1W8AAEefZ.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Temulkar]

Another trap that Labour simply fell into a different way from that feared by the leadership. The SNP, Greens and Plaid all attacked Labour for the same thing. In hindsight it wasn't worth trying to thwart Osborne's small-p politics, and as I said in reply to sputnikkers, one of the lessons of Corbyn's election is that trying to be smart with things like this will just backfire.

The SNP, Greens, Plaid and Diane Abbott all attacked Labour with the same mis-representation of what the bill meant which simply wasn't true, but people believed to be true because so many people said it. It wasn't helpful. To vote against the bill would have been to vote against basic fiscal responsibility, to vote against, over time, ensuring tax receipts cover outgoings on a day to day basis eminently sensible. Labour were stuck between a rock and a hard place because the left preferred to attack Labour with Tory lies that Labour voted for austerity cuts, rather than help Labour expose the games the Tories were playing. The others wanted to win Labour votes, of course, but what was Diane Abbott's excuse?

Maybe she didn't want Labour to lose votes to the others? Can you say she was wrong? We all know what Labour was actually voting for, but they laid themselves open to attack from the left, and it was unnecessary. Osborne didn't care, he got what he wanted. The job of the opposition is to oppose. If we've learned one thing over the last year, surely it's that Labour was wrong to vote for the Tories' fiscal mandate and wrong to abstain on the Tories' welfare bill. The first might have cost us the general election and the second started a civil war in the party.

Sent yo a mail matt.

[PorFavor]

A very long and - to me - interesting post by Alex Andreou

THE TRUTH ABOUT JEREMY CORBYN

https://www.byline.com/column/11/article/1177" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for the link.

This, from the article:

I always thought that socialism could combine with liberal values. But what if it can't? What if there is something so inherently didactic in any movement that believes in its moral superiority, it is structurally doomed to authoritarianism? I voted for Corbyn, because I wanted my idea of Labour to be allowed to coexist and to converse alongside others' idea of Labour; not at its expense or instead of it.

Read more at:https://www.byline.com/column/11/article/1177

Blimey. Likes the sound of his own voice, doesn't he. I confess I gave up after the first ten thousand words.

Sorry to be rude but I find Andreou can be insufferably sanctimonious sometimes, and accusing others of assuming moral superiority is a bit rich.

That paragraph just resonated with me. It comes close(ish) to saying something that I was trying to express to someone quite recently. I'm still struggling to nail down my nebulous thoughts, though. But something is troubling me and I can't express it coherently. And it bothers me.

[PorFavor]

‘There’s nothing dodgy’: questions over Jeremy Corbyn donation (Observer\Guardian)

This really is a very strange story. Elements of farce. At first read, I found it amusing rather than anything else.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -palestine

[AngryAsWell]

Tory Michael Gove DID leak the Queen's alleged support for Brexit, claims Nick Clegg

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... ns-8577034" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PorFavor]

Tory Michael Gove DID leak the Queen's alleged support for Brexit, claims Nick Clegg

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... ns-8577034" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As Nick Clegg nearly said, "Be careful what you wish for."

[AngryAsWell]

Tory Michael Gove DID leak the Queen's alleged support for Brexit, claims Nick Clegg

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... ns-8577034" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As Nick Clegg nearly said, "Be careful what you wish for."

This is what I don't understand, he was being warned yet still put no caveats on the referendum either on turnout or percentage of vote needed. Crazy? Or just not caring

[AngryAsWell]

Nick Sutton ‏@suttonnick 19m19 minutes ago
Sunday Telegraph front page:
May to lift ban on grammar schools

Great, soon we will be totally back in the 50's.

[RogerOThornhill]

Theresa May to end ban on new grammar schools

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 ... r-schools/

Theresa May is planning to launch a new generation of grammar schools by scrapping the ban on them imposed almost 20 years ago, The Telegraph has learnt.

In a move that will be cheered by Tory grassroots, the Prime Minister intends to pave the way for a new wave of selective schools.

Mrs May is understood to see the reintroduction of grammar schools - banned by Tony Blair in 1998 - as a key part of her social cohesion agenda.

The historic shift in education policy is expected to be announced by the end of the year, possibly as early as the Conservatives’ annual party conference in October.

and...

Around seven in 10 Britons want to see the ban lifted and eight in 10 believe grammar schools can boost social mobility when undecided voters are removed, research found.

But...


Sam Freedman ‏@Samfr 10m10 minutes ago
Apparently part of the social mobility agenda though, of course, not a jot of evidence that they promote social mobility.


Kite-flying according to him.

Legislation needed to overturn the ban and with a majority of only 12, quite possible that it won't pass.

And this is just madness.

Campaigners hope the government will both allow new grammar schools to be created from scratch and let existing academies and free schools introduce selection.

There you go - parent choice has just vanished.

[AngryAsWell]

Maria Eagle MP ‏@meaglemp 7m7 minutes ago
Maria Eagle MP Retweeted The Staggers
e-mailed & hard copy sent. Not even acknowledged, much less discussed

Exclusive: Jeremy Corbyn accused of ignoring leaked report on Labour's "rural problem"
Sources say party leader refused to acknowledge highly critical internal analysis.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk ... al-problem" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tizme1]

Greetings all,

Thank you for that link AngryAsWell. I found it interesting. I'm not going to comment on that article as such beyond that!

I mentioned the other day about at one stage being involved with the Coalition of Resistance nationally, originally. One good thing came out of that. I met a really kind and lovely woman who also lives in Watford. Over the years we have become good friends. At times she has driven me to distraction because she a] doesn't listen to facts, b] pays no attention to details, c] is very prone to confirmation bias, and d] was very pro brexit with a side dish of covert racism added in. She was also somewhat pro UKIP until I pointed out they were in favour of fracking which she is totally against. I recall one occasion when we had been along to a medical meeting with one of my local Green party members to support her. The Dr had an accent. Afterwards the three of us went for a coffee [her suggestion], and S started on about 'Russians' in a very negative way. I had to tell her "the purpose of today was to support A, so cut the racist crap or I'm leaving this restaurant".

The first time her covert racism raised its head I was somewhat incredulous. She's from Australia you see. I rarely swear at people but I remember saying "but S, you fucking ARE an immigrant yourself"! I think I've previously written about events immediately after the referendum, the birthday brunch of another friend a week later, and so on, so I won't repeat myself.

Suffice to say, it has been difficult since then but we are both trying to maintain our friendship. She was a £3er last year - she joined to vote for Corbyn. She was disappointed that he campaigned for 'Remain' and decided he wasn't a good 'un after all. Today she happened to email me and during our exchanges she asked me not mention to Labour we were in correspondence or she might lose her vote [as if I would]. I asked if she was now a £25er and she said yes and will be voting for Corbyn. I guess his comment the day after the vote about invoking A50 straight away maybe soothed her. She also told me she'd been to a local Labour meeting last night and met a 'Corbynista' who was outraged at the Greens and wanted "our privates on a string". She also added she rather liked the woman! Tact is not her strong point.

I told her that frankly some members of the local Labour party are undemocratic and a fucking disgrace, plus I wouldn't join them if they paid me. I pointed out that the Labour NEC had banned all meetings of local parties so shouldn't she be more concerned she may lose her vote on that basis?

Both she and her husband are kind, lovely people. They are also comfortably off middle class. They both willingly put their hands in their pocket to support good causes, and indeed to help out anyone they know in need. She is always dashing off places to help people in need. Twice in recent months [before the referendum], she has driven me to visit my mother because I was struggling financially and couldn't really afford the train fare. Both times she refused to take anything for petrol. If I were to 'phone her this very minute and say I have a problem, her response would be "what can I do to help". And whatever I asked, if she could, she'd do it. That's just the way she is.

So, I've sent her that link AngryAsWell. Not necessarily because I agree with everything in it. But I really want her to stop, focus, and think, before she makes her choice, rather than farting and flying at it!

[PorFavor]

@Tizme1
What time d'you call this?

[PorFavor]

Night night.

[AngryAsWell]

Its worth reading actually. I live in an area that - although only 25 mins from the city centre - is a rural area that in some ways is deemed "not to be rural" by the party. We have farms & DIY livery stables. We have local needs that this type of area have, extra road cleaning when the farmers are silageing and slow signs for horses to name but two off the top of my head. These are things that would resonate if the party (any party) acknowledge them and campaigned on locally.
There are more important issues such as isolation of the elderly, travel (bus), poor broadband speed, oh and all sorts of irritations big and small things that come packaged with a nice view.
Not asking for, or implying priority for these things, but the report is good in identifying where electoral gain could be made.

[sputnikkers]

"Sounds like a winning strategy to me!!! ... but hey, losing with principles intact is better - though children and the more vulnerable lose again! Do we really need to go through this? It's just a question of which is a more sensible strategy ... to win"
...

I assume this is addressed to me as I wrote that, or was it intended purely as an example of something else - woolly thinking or something - worthy of exposition?

Anyway, I'll respond but if yours is a 'response' it seems a little 'scatterbrained' but I'll try to stick to where you might have addressed my original point. Sorry, if I likewise seemed to widen my argument out too much to anything beyond a factual representation of Labour's voting record on the "Welfare Bill" - that wasn't my intention and might have made the argument difficult to follow. That was the reason for my original question. I have seen various things, on Twitter especially, saying things like how "cruel" (literally) to vote (might be wrong but certainly to abstain) 'for austerity'. (Anyway, I don't need a straw man argument for how this is misportrayed) or certainly, not oppose the Welfare Bill / cuts.

As I was unsure why people say this I asked here and it does indeed seem to arise from the Second Reading of the Welfare ... Bill (linked above). Now, my argument, above, was based on the evidence in that link and quoted of actual opposition to the second reading by 'Reasoned Amendment'. I take it that we can agree that if Labour had won that vote, the Bill would not be read and Labour would have defeated it. That seems to me to be 'opposing'. IF not to you then we'll just disagree over a statement of fact and we are both wasting our time. As indicated above 193 Labour MPs voted FOR the amendment (Corbyn and co., for whatever reasons, did not attend/abstained but were in the House for another division).

So your second paragraph does not seem to be responding to this? Or if it is it is 'whataboutery'.

Yet they didnt win by being clever did they? They lost Scotland, and a second general election in a row, they lost 26 seats instead of gaining. The evidence is quite clear and indisputable, trying to be clever and ignoring your principles costs votes, and its blindingly obvious why to all but the most ideologically blinkered or intellectually stunted.

The first sentence 'might' apply? But 'they' didn't win the Third Reading either when 209 Labour MPs voted 'No' - Against the Bill. Or did you mean lost the argument to Corbyn or did you mean a different 'they' in the past? So not strictly about this Bill? It's not about being clever or ignoring prinicples, it's about what happened - irrespective of good or bad strategy - opposing.

The Scotland bit wasn't 'them' - it was a long process but that is a separate question of no relevance to my point.

If you cant oppose then dont expect people to see you as a viable opposition worth voting for, and people didnt vote Labour in their millions did they?

The first four words seem to be a blatantly false statement and denying the evidence of a Labour amendment 'declining to give a Second Reading to the Welfare Reform and Work Bill'. 'They' did oppose. Perhaps you were not aware of this if you don't keep up with, or check the facts. The rest of your sentence follows from this. Most people would similarly not have a clue or be interested in what actually happened in the 'Second Reading of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill'. Yet somehow, many people have now been made aware of a misportrayal and misrepresentation of the actual 'facts'. It seems to me that they have been misled - but hey, you know MSM lies and all that to destroy Labour - so its to be expected.

I find it quite remarkable that anyone could claim not opposing is a winning strategy for an opposition that has failed to win a general election for over a decade by not opposing. NOt opposing was why Labour lost! I joined the greens when Labour failed to oppose retrospective legislation on workfare, I wasnt the only one, every time Balls stepped up and Osbornes mouth gaped more people left Labour.

See above, 'they' did oppose. If you're saying other specific occasions I don't remember those. If Mr Miliband tried a similar way of opposing and failed then you might have a point but if so, I apologise for my recollection of interviews saying 'You opposed every single cut'. But hey, both situations might have occurred and the Tory / Interviewer was lying? The current PLP did oppose the Tory mandated cuts and so did the previous group apart from your examples which you haven't referenced - You'll have to point to the lack of opposition as I can't be bothered to check and they are not really relevant to the divisive nature of misportraying the MPs response last year? Neither the older nor newer 'strategy' is sure to succeed. It is a question of learning from the past - perhaps?

Perhaps Osborne's surprise was from wondering how on earth a political party could dump such great stinking turds on their own voters and still expect them to vote for them?.

Speculation! I consider Mr Osborne to have genuinely sociopathic tendencies (not Cameron however!) and can't begin to claim to think along the lines of his strategic genius.

When you are pursuing a 35% core vote + a few liberals to win an election you make sure your core vote is happy, but labour were more worried about Andrew Neil's questions on telly than voters conversations at bus stops, and the core vote walked away from the non opposing opposition. They went Green or UKIP or Plaid or SNP

I don't know if opposing by reasoned amendment was pursuing a 35% strategy. I don't know what people talk about at bus stops. I don't know if the core vote walked away from "non opposing opposition". If so, it seems like a strange 'core vote' who would prefer the risk of five years of Tory Gov't and another five years of "non opposing opposition" but with a further increase in the said parties as a more opposing opposition?

It aint rocket science, its blindingly simple, it was said on here numerous times before the election, and borne out by the election result.

If it was said before the election it is not relevant to my claim. That the incorrect claims of 'non-opposition' to this Bill, either by accident, but more likely by design have damaged the Labour Party, perhaps willingly by whomever for their own political gain. In particular, they have astroturfed ill-feeling and resentment towards Labour MPs at a dangerous time of anti-politics and probably incited hurtful, personal attacks as a result. I didn't follow the various claims on this board. If they turned out correct, I congratulate you all on your foresight and political insight. That doesn't change the facts about MPs opposing the Welfare Bill. How does it progress Labour's reputation to continue to tell lies about them? In my opinion, it can only diminish Labour's standing in the wider public sentiment if they became aware of them.

[RogerOThornhill]

re the post about grammar schools - this is why May doesn't need a separate education adviser in No 10 - Nick Timothy does the job for her.

Wonder whether this is why Rachel Wolf decided to walk out?

[Temulkar]

"Sounds like a winning strategy to me!!! ... but hey, losing with principles intact is better - though children and the more vulnerable lose again! Do we really need to go through this? It's just a question of which is a more sensible strategy ... to win"
...

I assume this is addressed to me as I wrote that, or was it intended purely as an example of something else - woolly thinking or something - worthy of exposition?

Anyway, I'll respond but if yours is a 'response' it seems a little 'scatterbrained' but I'll try to stick to where you might have addressed my original point. Sorry, if I likewise seemed to widen my argument out too much to anything beyond a factual representation of Labour's voting record on the "Welfare Bill" - that wasn't my intention and might have made the argument difficult to follow. That was the reason for my original question. I have seen various things, on Twitter especially, saying things like how "cruel" (literally) to vote (might be wrong but certainly to abstain) 'for austerity'. (Anyway, I don't need a straw man argument for how this is misportrayed) or certainly, not oppose the Welfare Bill / cuts.

As I was unsure why people say this I asked here and it does indeed seem to arise from the Second Reading of the Welfare ... Bill (linked above). Now, my argument, above, was based on the evidence in that link and quoted of actual opposition to the second reading by 'Reasoned Amendment'. I take it that we can agree that if Labour had won that vote, the Bill would not be read and Labour would have defeated it. That seems to me to be 'opposing'. IF not to you then we'll just disagree over a statement of fact and we are both wasting our time. As indicated above 193 Labour MPs voted FOR the amendment (Corbyn and co., for whatever reasons, did not attend/abstained but were in the House for another division).

So your second paragraph does not seem to be responding to this? Or if it is it is 'whataboutery'.

Yet they didnt win by being clever did they? They lost Scotland, and a second general election in a row, they lost 26 seats instead of gaining. The evidence is quite clear and indisputable, trying to be clever and ignoring your principles costs votes, and its blindingly obvious why to all but the most ideologically blinkered or intellectually stunted.

The first sentence 'might' apply? But 'they' didn't win the Third Reading either when 209 Labour MPs voted 'No' - Against the Bill. Or did you mean lost the argument to Corbyn or did you mean a different 'they' in the past? So not strictly about this Bill? It's not about being clever or ignoring prinicples, it's about what happened - irrespective of good or bad strategy - opposing.

The Scotland bit wasn't 'them' - it was a long process but that is a separate question of no relevance to my point.

If you cant oppose then dont expect people to see you as a viable opposition worth voting for, and people didnt vote Labour in their millions did they?

The first four words seem to be a blatantly false statement and denying the evidence of a Labour amendment 'declining to give a Second Reading to the Welfare Reform and Work Bill'. 'They' did oppose. Perhaps you were not aware of this if you don't keep up with, or check the facts. The rest of your sentence follows from this. Most people would similarly not have a clue or be interested in what actually happened in the 'Second Reading of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill'. Yet somehow, many people have now been made aware of a misportrayal and misrepresentation of the actual 'facts'. It seems to me that they have been misled - but hey, you know MSM lies and all that to destroy Labour - so its to be expected.

I find it quite remarkable that anyone could claim not opposing is a winning strategy for an opposition that has failed to win a general election for over a decade by not opposing. NOt opposing was why Labour lost! I joined the greens when Labour failed to oppose retrospective legislation on workfare, I wasnt the only one, every time Balls stepped up and Osbornes mouth gaped more people left Labour.

See above, 'they' did oppose. If you're saying other specific occasions I don't remember those. If Mr Miliband tried a similar way of opposing and failed then you might have a point but if so, I apologise for my recollection of interviews saying 'You opposed every single cut'. But hey, both situations might have occurred and the Tory / Interviewer was lying? The current PLP did oppose the Tory mandated cuts and so did the previous group apart from your examples which you haven't referenced - You'll have to point to the lack of opposition as I can't be bothered to check and they are not really relevant to the divisive nature of misportraying the MPs response last year? Neither the older nor newer 'strategy' is sure to succeed. It is a question of learning from the past - perhaps?

Perhaps Osborne's surprise was from wondering how on earth a political party could dump such great stinking turds on their own voters and still expect them to vote for them?.

Speculation! I consider Mr Osborne to have genuinely sociopathic tendencies (not Cameron however!) and can't begin to claim to think along the lines of his strategic genius.

When you are pursuing a 35% core vote + a few liberals to win an election you make sure your core vote is happy, but labour were more worried about Andrew Neil's questions on telly than voters conversations at bus stops, and the core vote walked away from the non opposing opposition. They went Green or UKIP or Plaid or SNP

I don't know if opposing by reasoned amendment was pursuing a 35% strategy. I don't know what people talk about at bus stops. I don't know if the core vote walked away from "non opposing opposition". If so, it seems like a strange 'core vote' who would prefer the risk of five years of Tory Gov't and another five years of "non opposing opposition" but with a further increase in the said parties as a more opposing opposition?

It aint rocket science, its blindingly simple, it was said on here numerous times before the election, and borne out by the election result.

If it was said before the election it is not relevant to my claim. That the incorrect claims of 'non-opposition' to this Bill, either by accident, but more likely by design have damaged the Labour Party, perhaps willingly by whomever for their own political gain. In particular, they have astroturfed ill-feeling and resentment towards Labour MPs at a dangerous time of anti-politics and probably incited hurtful, personal attacks as a result. I didn't follow the various claims on this board. If they turned out correct, I congratulate you all on your foresight and political insight. That doesn't change the facts about MPs opposing the Welfare Bill. How does it progress Labour's reputation to continue to tell lies about them? In my opinion, it can only diminish Labour's standing in the wider public sentiment if they became aware of them.

Thanks for the congratulations but it wasnt partcularly insightful, it was said by millions of us before the election, vindicated by the result, and afterwards when Harriet carried on trying to be clever and ignoring the members and voters it led to Corbyn, yeah such a clever winning strategy that one. Labour lost and Corbyn won.

As I said, only the ideologically blinkered or intellectually stunted would fail to understand. Frankly until the party and some of the supporters actually grasp how reviled such triangulatory nonsense is percived by their own voters they will have trouble winning a syphylitic dildo's support.

[HindleA]

"Ideologically blinkered fail to understand"well,indeed."intellectually stunted"- beneath contempt.
.

[RogerOThornhill]

Freddie Whittaker ‏@FCDWhittaker 3m3 minutes ago

My feed is full of academics, former government advisers of note, teachers and school leaders. Every single one thinks grammars are bad.

Greening has said that she'll listen to the profession.

If she does that and then says "the profession says that grammar schools aren't the right answer" then what does May do?

If Greening ignores them, then that's her credibility shot to bits.

[sputnikkers]

...
Thanks for the congratulations but it wasnt partcularly insightful, it was said by millions of us before the election, vindicated by the result, and afterwards when Harriet carried on trying to be clever and ignoring the members and voters it led to Corbyn, yeah such a clever winning strategy that one. Labour lost and Corbyn won.

As I said, only the ideologically blinkered or intellectually stunted would fail to understand. Frankly until the party and some of the supporters actually grasp how reviled such triangulatory nonsense is percived by their own voters they will have trouble winning a syphylitic dildo's support.

I take it that's your way of claiming that there was 'no opposition' to the Second Reading. Interesting that you frame it as 'Labour lost and Corbyn won'?

Yes, I suppose I must be ideologically blinkered or intellectually stunted. Probably both! As I don't seem to understand 'properly' the meaning of 193 MPs voting for something to prevent it as 'not opposing'. I suppose it must be to do with not interpreting it through some triangulatory nonsense - or maybe that's what I'm doing without realising it? Whatever it is, I'm not sure that 'their own voters' rather than the 'switchers' will be too worried if they are presented with the right leader with the right message backed by clear, achievable policies that appeal more than the Tory set. Depends on how they handle the next four years or so, as they are in power and can affect events. I'm not 'in' the party - merely a 'voter' so I have no right to determine what they do, just put my x in their box, or not. I'm not sure whether the unfortunately afflicted sex toy can do the same.

With that, I feel as though I've come up against the 'Eton Rifles' and am no match for your 'untamed wit' so will bow out with what's left of my self-esteem. Have a good peaceful night.

[Temulkar]

"Ideologically blinkered fail to understand"well,indeed."intellectually stunted"- beneath contempt.
.

''either by accident, but more likely by design have damaged the Labour Party, perhaps willingly by whomever for their own political gain. In particular, they have astroturfed ill-feeling and resentment towards Labour MPs at a dangerous time of anti-politics and probably incited hurtful, personal attacks as a result.''

And that isnt beneath contempt? give me a fucking break. Im not going to be accused of deliberately inciting personal attacks, its a disgraceful slur, and I was quite restrained in my response.

Forgive me if I have stepped into an alternate universe where Labour won last year by a landslide and werent humiliated by the electorate. How is PM Milliband doing in this fantasy world? How did he stop the rise of the SNP or the leaking of votes to the greens and kipppers?

[Temulkar]

...
Thanks for the congratulations but it wasnt partcularly insightful, it was said by millions of us before the election, vindicated by the result, and afterwards when Harriet carried on trying to be clever and ignoring the members and voters it led to Corbyn, yeah such a clever winning strategy that one. Labour lost and Corbyn won.

As I said, only the ideologically blinkered or intellectually stunted would fail to understand. Frankly until the party and some of the supporters actually grasp how reviled such triangulatory nonsense is percived by their own voters they will have trouble winning a syphylitic dildo's support.

I take it that's your way of claiming that there was 'no opposition' to the Second Reading. Interesting that you frame it as 'Labour lost and Corbyn won'?

Yes, I suppose I must be ideologically blinkered or intellectually stunted. Probably both! As I don't seem to understand 'properly' the meaning of 193 MPs voting for something to prevent it as 'not opposing'. I suppose it must be to do with not interpreting it through some triangulatory nonsense - or maybe that's what I'm doing without realising it? Whatever it is, I'm not sure that 'their own voters' rather than the 'switchers' will be too worried if they are presented with the right leader with the right message backed by clear, achievable policies that appeal more than the Tory set. Depends on how they handle the next four years or so, as they are in power and can affect events. I'm not 'in' the party - merely a 'voter' so I have no right to determine what they do, just put my x in their box, or not. I'm not sure whether the unfortunately afflicted sex toy can do the same.

With that, I feel as though I've come up against the 'Eton Rifles' and am no match for your 'untamed wit' so will bow out with what's left of my self-esteem. Have a good peaceful night.

Did labour have a majority for any of those votes? no because they lost two general election, so they could nnot chage the outcome of the vote, they could however had demonstrated their principles. They decided not to, and it cost the three muppets who opposed corbyn last year their shot at the leadership. Owen Smith is going to fail for exactly the same reason - unprincipled.

How many times do the anti corbyn cult have to lose before they work out why?

[utopiandreams]

Just a flying visit to thank A for confirming that I am still an honorary Scouser. Funny how I got all the drinking establishments right. I'm afraid the Royal Charter was before my time as was the the Liver Building actually. As for the Raz, I hadn't realised it was still going having known the guy who first had it many many moons ago. 'And you know what, maybe Liverpool ain't such a bad idea compared to fleeing the country. I may even be able to afford somewhere half decent to live.

As for Labour, whatever one says of Jeremy as a leader nothing can sway my opinion of crass disloyalty to the members, the party and the country. Had they worked with him whilst positioning a replacement, if they really felt they had to, they would have achieved their end. As it is they have a lacklustre candidate that is unsuitable and unlikely to replace him. Besides they had to move left. I am sick and tired of even the PLP calling his supporters hard left. Nobody in the LibDems ever labelled me such, and please don't suggest I'm a devotee either... even if you don't want me in 'your' party.

[utopiandreams]

Sorry thought I'd better pop back to confirm that I was not in Liverpool during the first incarnation of the Blue Angel and to be honest only have it second hand about prior owner, albeit the man making such claims. When I met him he was separated from his wife who owned properties she let out to visiting actors, predominately playing at the Everyman. Last I heard of him was touring America as 'The Man Who Gave The Beatles Away'.

Oh and one other bit of good news. I hadn't seen little old lady these last few days and was beginning to worry, but saw her heading down the road with her brushes and bucket this morning.

[utopiandreams]

Some other good news. I'm nearly into my old storage device, surprising what hitting it with a hammer can do, Who knows I may yet salvage something, 700 gig of memories not to mention some educational software I wrote years ago.

Edit; added the hammer bit.

[utopiandreams]

Mmm the directory must be corrupt. I've started recovering what I thought were pictures for my wife when she lay in the nursing home and so far only have a (DJ) mix. I don't remember taking that to her.

[RogerOThornhill]

Bless.

Our chum is pretending he knows all about education now and ignores the fact that the cast majority of informed opinion e.g. outgoing HMCI, edu head of Policy Exchange, director of Teach First, Schools Week, TES, successful HTs etc etc are against this.

I'm sure he'll come up with the evidence that grammar schools are the way to get social mobility going and parent choice later.

Even Michael Gove was against bringing them back!

NB posted here as I know he'll read and respond in his own inimitable style...

Edit - apparently we have a "mediocre status quo" - doesn't that imply that the government of which he is a supporter has been an utter failure on education over the past six years?

[utopiandreams]

Now now, Roger. Grammar schools, look what they did for me. On second thoughts my sis failed her 11 plus and it wasn't until she was 13 and we moved elsewhere that she went up a set and what became of her? Head hunted by one of the major financial institutions. Oh I see they've been in the news again, possibly best left unsaid.

[tinyclanger2]

Morning

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liv ... p-11711417" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"Could you pass a Scouse Citizen test?"

Got 13 but with weighting for pub and club knowledge I should be a shoo in.

[tinyclanger2]

I know every street in Liverpool.It's in Kensington,just off West Derby Road.

I lived in Balmoral,just off Prescot Road,before that Kremlin .

Yes Andrea. We understand.

[ephemerid]

I know every street in Liverpool.It's in Kensington,just off West Derby Road.

I lived in Balmoral,just off Prescot Road,before that Kremlin .

Yes Andrea. We understand.

But........I've never been to Liverpool!

[utopiandreams]

Forgive me one more inanity... Kids in Liverpool are really polite as I recall and always called me 'Sir'. Well it was 'Mister' actually but near enough; much better than most folk call me.

[tinyclanger2]

However, I do recall a taxi driver advising a driver in front of him that she was "a dozy mare".
(vis a vis Liverpool)