Thursday 10th March 2016

Post by **refitman** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 7:09 am

Morning all.

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 8:26 am

Good morning.
Latest Male Online from Barney Farmer's twitter:

: 2016-03-09_221205.jpg (140.06 KiB) Viewed 6998 times

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 8:49 am

Lisa Nandy good on Radio 4 re the broken energy market and the very limited response / fixes proposed by Cameron's review.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 8:52 am

Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound 4m4 minutes ago
Energy pricing: I don't want to switch, I just want to not be ripped off by my current supplier.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 8:54 am

steve richards ‏@steverichards14 4m4 minutes ago
Jarvis :"Tough on inequality, tough on causes of inequality"Equivalent in early 90s wd be Blair using Wilson's "white hot heat".Never works

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 8:55 am

I notice that once again we have people turning up late at night to criticise the current Labour leadership without offering any suggestions.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 8:56 am

Jonathan Portes ‏@jdportes 2m2 minutes ago London, England
Jonathan Portes Retweeted PsychBrief
If you've patience, comprehensive demolition of @AdamPerkinsPhD shockingly amateur "research" by @PsychologyBrief

PsychBrief
‏@PsychologyBrief
Collection of criticisms of @AdamPerkinsPhD 'The Welfare Trait' https://storify.com/PsychologyBrief/cri ... e-welfare-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 9:07 am

Let's imagine a scenario where Adam Perkins 'research' and 'theories' are being used to underpin and develop government policy for the DWP. Then those scientists who consider their work has been distorted by him / them in some way are not able to say so under the new rule that prevents anyone in receipt of government funding for their work from 'lobbying' - and those scientists and / or charities or organisations that conduct work and research that shows contrary evidence than that of Perkins and suggests very different analysis and activity is required are also prevented from speaking out because they have received government funding and so are not allowed to 'lobby'.

We don't need to imagine it though do we? We are already 95% there - most glaring example is Hunt and his misleading / misrepresentation of the 'weekend effect' which those whose work is being used to peddle this line seem unable to get him to stop. Soon they won't even be allowed to say he is misleading.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 9:09 am

Morning
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

‘I am well-spoken and not an addict’: how homelessness can happen to anyone

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 9:11 am

danesclose wrote:I notice that once again we have people turning up late at night to criticise the current Labour leadership without offering any suggestions.

I think the suggestion was that we should go for Jarvis because somehow he will appeal to so many more people. Nothing I've seen in the pre released snippets to his speech tells me that would be the case.

I just want any such suggestions and bids and chatter to shut up and allow the current Labour leadership and sc team to get on with the run up to May elections and the membership who are out working hard on their behalf to get on with our job.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 9:33 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:Lisa Nandy good on Radio 4 re the broken energy market and the very limited response / fixes proposed by Cameron's review.

Morfterbubble afterall...

Have been lurking but as ever, not able to write coherently or in a timely enough manner - but please, everyone, accept my heartfelt thanks for being here (and generally being brilliant at cutting through the MSM bullsh!t).

Now then....who remembers the massive oppostion to privatising the utilities? The argument that it wouldn't improve services, wouldn't reduce costs and would, in fact, be diametrically opposed to the best interests of the nation and its' citizens as a whole? I do. I remember at least 60% being against it. Also making the point that the electricity and gas still come into your dwelling through the same wires and pipes....so what's the 'choice' 'everyone' was clamouring for again? I see we've also had a revival of the 'nuclear power is great' argument. THE Jeremy Vine said so...and, on Desert Island Discs, we had an award winning nuclear scientist telling us thast the 'people' have 'finally woken up' to the fact that 'nuclear energy' reduces 'their bills'. Oh, we little people of no independent critical thought....except....what are they doing with the spent fuel and the nuclear waste again? How long is the half-life again? (...and shhh, for fracks sake, no-one mention EDF or China)

...THE Jeremy Vine had someone on, purporting to 'know about energy', telling us that 'renewables are OK, but the trouble is, they're not constant - you have to have backup'....for those instances when the tide stops going in and out and the waves stop waving (and, in the best traditions of Hope (just north of Peterborough) the totally unrealistic and unworkable idea of having international agreement to install a 'belt' of solar panelling around the equator....converting energy when the sun is shining (but not when it's gone out, of course))...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelamis_W ... _Converter

http://www.darvill.clara.net/altenerg/tidal.htm

Personally, I'm against tidal barrages, but there are of course, many many other options....if some funding and resource were to be found...

...but then again, of course, what the frack do I know! (...or should it be GAAAAAAH, now?)

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 10:00 am

The Scum / Queen story. Gove is being touted as the source, if so wouldn't he cosy up and offer the info to the Telegraph first?

Which could explain their headline. Just my guesstimate!

Morning all.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 10:02 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
danesclose wrote:I notice that once again we have people turning up late at night to criticise the current Labour leadership without offering any suggestions.

I think the suggestion was that we should go for Jarvis because somehow he will appeal to so many more people. Nothing I've seen in the pre released snippets to his speech tells me that would be the case.

I just want any such suggestions and bids and chatter to shut up and allow the current Labour leadership and sc team to get on with the run up to May elections and the membership who are out working hard on their behalf to get on with our job.

I saw some stuff on Twitter, saying Jarvis has recieved funding from some hedge funds....so pro-austerity, pro-bombing Syria, pro-Bankster/Corporations....so definitely not for me (but - I'm just a loony-leftist Corbynista unrealist I'm just a loony-leftist Corbynista unrealist I'm just a loony-leftist Corbynista unrealist)

It feels as though it's the 'Establishment' deciding that 'enough is enough' of the 'Corbynite nightmare' and it's time to get back to the nice safe cosy 'inside the bubble' politics that serves it so well...and I wouldn't be surprised if the word has gone out to 'float the idea' of Jarvis and prepare everyone for the coup that comes later....as I'm not now, and have never been a member of the Labour Party, can anyone tell me if they (the Labour Party) can actually change leader without a vote by the membership?

If not, I can't see this as anything other than an attempt to further split the party and ensure it's unelectability (to be clear - I don't believe(TM) this will happen - I just think it's the ultimate aim of the anti-Corbynista)

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 10:04 am

StephenDolan wrote:The Scum / Queen story. Gove is being touted as the source, if so wouldn't he cosy up and offer the info to the Telegraph first?

Which could explain their headline. Just my guesstimate!

Morning all.

You're forgetting Gove's close links with the Murdoch press...

Talking of leaks someone on Twitter pointed out that the leaks coming out of the DfE have dropped significantly since Gove moved on. And we never did hear who was behind ToryEducation or who leaked the draft Trojan Horse Ofsted reports to Gilligan.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 10:13 am

StephenDolan wrote:The Scum / Queen story. Gove is being touted as the source, if so wouldn't he cosy up and offer the info to the Telegraph first?

Which could explain their headline. Just my guesstimate!

Morning all.

...but Gove was at THE WEDDING....and was paid (very much ALLEGEDLY) £860,000 as a cash advance by one of the old goats putrid organs for a book he hasn't written yet...(now 12 years, of course - I wonder if the payment reduced HarperCollins tax bill?)...

In 2004 he was selected for the safe Tory seat of Surrey Heath. Harper Collins, Murdoch's publishing house, handed him an advance to write a book about an obscure eighteenth century politician called Henry St John, Viscount Bolingbroke.
Nine years on, Gove hasn't delivered. When last year the Guardian asked whether the advance should be returned, Harper Collins replied that Gove "is still committed to writing a book on Bolingbroke but obviously his ministerial duties come first for now".

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdo ... chael-gove

cough Mrs Blurt cough

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 10:33 am

Morning everyone.
Haven't been posting much these last few weeks.I find that I have nothing much to say.Maybe we just need the spring to arrive,but the country/Europe/world seems to be going to shit.
Usual monstering of Corbyn/poor/disabled/elderly/foreigners
The referendum is like the Scot Indy ref on cocaine,thank god it's only for a few months.I shall vote to stay in,simply because I feel european and not just British.
So I shut the door to the world,light the woodburner and toast muffins.My daughter hibernates each winter anyway.
Mrs Ohso,I am so very sorry that Mr Ohso isn't doing well.Do you need anything of a practical nature?
And yahyah,are you feeling any better yet?What a nasty collection of ills hit you.
Oh,and Dan Jarvis and Rachel Reeves can go to hell.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 10:39 am

The fact that Jarvis, Dugher, Reeves et al are stirring the pot less than a year after Corbyn was overwhelmingly elected, is proof enough he [Jarvis] is not fit to be leader.

A leader needs finesse. And he/they lack it. In spades.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 10:40 am

I understand the media obsession with finding a replacement for Corbyn - most of the media, including the G, massively misjudged the mood of party members (new and old, as Corbyn won in all categories, not just the three-pounders) and were shocked when he won. The media was caught napping, looked like fools, and this is their revenge - and I can't discount the right-wing bias (and possible corruption) that makes our media so soft on Cameron and so vicious on Corbyn.
For years, the media has taken what Labour soundbites they use from the usual people - ex-ministers, ex-heirarchy, etc. - so having no sources in the grassroots, they were as surprised as the Blairites; and not just that Corbyn won, but that he won so comprehensively.

What I am having trouble with is the apparently pro-Labour people refusing to get behind their leader - why can't they just accept who the party members wanted and get on with the business of opposition and campaigning for the local elections?
Cooper's campaign was dire; Kendall's was risible; Burnham was OK but a bit wet - and even if I'd personally prefer that Miliband had stayed, Corbyn galvanised all sorts of members, new/established, young/old, and I am at a loss to work out where he's gone wrong.

He has his own personal beliefs, but he's prepared to keep them personal as leader in the interests of party unity. Unlike the Bitterites.
He has voted with his party 85% of the time over 30-plus years; that's not a record of disloyalty, other MPs have been worse.

We know that corporatism is failing the people of this country; we know what the Tories are up to; the electorate isn't stupid, and Labour members aren't either. Cooper's attitude and campaign is typical of the arrogance that infests the ex-heirarchy - she gave me the impression that she couldn't be bothered to do much more than send out a few leaflets (and they were dire), give a few speeches, and be a shoo-in as leader because she's a woman and has experience in government - experience she was happy to take off to the back benches as soon as she didn't get her way.

I'm not a Labour Party member any more, because I see no point in belonging to a group of people who are prepared to plot against the leader the majority of members voted for. Corbyn won that contest fair and square, and the party needs unity now. He can't make that happen on his own.
These bloody people just aren't listening, and they're all jockeying for position in the hope that they will convince us that they are different, that lessons have been learned, blah blah blah - when the evidence is that they're sulking and have thrown their toys out of the pram.

How does anyone know that Corbyn won't win a GE? He has never lost an election he has stood in. He has massive grassroots support.
I am heartily sick of people insisting that he is useless when we are seeing very skewed stories from a media that not only hates him but resents the fact that he won't play their stupid games.

High time Labour as a whole concentrated on effective opposition and the elections to come. Jarvis/whoever are just distracting the party from what they should be doing - supporting their leader 100% and offering their services for a united front against Tory hegemony.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 10:42 am

Lonewolfie wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:The Scum / Queen story. Gove is being touted as the source, if so wouldn't he cosy up and offer the info to the Telegraph first?

Which could explain their headline. Just my guesstimate!

Morning all.

...but Gove was at THE WEDDING....and was paid (very much ALLEGEDLY) £860,000 as a cash advance by one of the old goats putrid organs for a book he hasn't written yet...(now 12 years, of course - I wonder if the payment reduced HarperCollins tax bill?)...

In 2004 he was selected for the safe Tory seat of Surrey Heath. Harper Collins, Murdoch's publishing house, handed him an advance to write a book about an obscure eighteenth century politician called Henry St John, Viscount Bolingbroke.
Nine years on, Gove hasn't delivered. When last year the Guardian asked whether the advance should be returned, Harper Collins replied that Gove "is still committed to writing a book on Bolingbroke but obviously his ministerial duties come first for now".

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdo ... chael-gove

cough Mrs Blurt cough

Our politicians really are a seedy bunch, aren't they.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 10:48 am

Rebecca wrote:Morning everyone.
Haven't been posting much these last few weeks.I find that I have nothing much to say.Maybe we just need the spring to arrive,but the country/Europe/world seems to be going to shit.
Usual monstering of Corbyn/poor/disabled/elderly/foreigners
The referendum is like the Scot Indy ref on cocaine,thank god it's only for a few months.I shall vote to stay in,simply because I feel european and not just British.
So I shut the door to the world,light the woodburner and toast muffins.My daughter hibernates each winter anyway.
Mrs Ohso,I am so very sorry that Mr Ohso isn't doing well.Do you need anything of a practical nature?
And yahyah,are you feeling any better yet?What a nasty collection of ills hit you.
Oh,and Dan Jarvis and Rachel Reeves can go to hell.

Oh I do envy you the wood burning stove

Thanks but we're okay at present. One day at a time.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 10:50 am

My opinion (FWIW) on the EU Referendum...

This is a manufactured Tory Civil War, the greatest shiny squirrel of them all - the only reason the Referendum is even a 'thing' is because Clouncy Funt 'pledged' it...so why this pledge, and not all the others?

We are being asked to choose between the aseembled ranks of Murkydochia (Gove, Johnson and Odious IDS et al) and the assembled ranks of Murkydochia (Cameron, Osbourn and Javid et al)...so...for me, I'm not prepared to entertain the idea of the former 're-negotiating' Brexit, whatever I might think of the EU and its' need for reform. The 'Leavers' seem to think that Britain will just magically 'improve' and the negotiated exit will somehow help the rest of Europe...there's no plan, no answer to the questions about the tariffs for exporting to the Single Market, no actual substance behind the 'sovereignty' meme...so what then? The Tories don't do enough destruction and oppression of the poorest and most vulnerable? They want to 'leave Yurrrrp' so they can do more? I agree that Clouncy Funt doesn't really care either way - he's fulfilled his purpose - as TE says, it's PM Boris now, 'cos that's what we deserve....well - they can go and get fracked.

Better inside the tent etc...and, of course, if anyone (in the MSM) was remotely interested in 'balance', they would mention the Labour Party position of staying in to improve the lot of the ordinary rank and file citizenry.

...so...je suis Bremanian...

Other opinions are, of course, available

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 10:58 am

danesclose wrote:I notice that once again we have people turning up late at night to criticise the current Labour leadership without offering any suggestions.

I believeTM that if that person's prediction came to pass, it would be off a turnout so low that we would be in a true crisis of democracy.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 11:01 am

danesclose wrote:I notice that once again we have people turning up late at night to criticise the current Labour leadership without offering any suggestions.

Didn't he? I thought he was suggesting more Thatcherism Lite and I hardly think less is 'hard' left.

Post by **refitman** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 11:03 am

Jarvis's speech at Demos: http://labourlist.org/2016/03/tough-on- ... is-speech/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 11:07 am

StephenDolan wrote:The Scum / Queen story. Gove is being touted as the source, if so wouldn't he cosy up and offer the info to the Telegraph first?

Which could explain their headline. Just my guesstimate!

Morning all.

Why the telegraph, Steve? If it did come from Gove it could have been pillow talk. Btw. I literally laughed out loud at Scouser snobs.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 11:23 am

refitman wrote:Jarvis's speech at Demos: http://labourlist.org/2016/03/tough-on- ... is-speech/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bit clunky at the start with the army stuff.

My favourite line in the speech was
*When you hear George Osborne say ‘long term economic plan’, what he really means is ‘short term political gain’." One to be repeated.

I look forward to seeing DFH and Rentoul point to anything in that speech that deviates from Corbyn. Was there a crumb that I missed?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 11:24 am

I had to laugh at the (of course anonymous) suggestion in the Graun report - offered as if it was some startling revelation - that Jez's internal critics had to actually make their own pitch rather than just lecture the wider party that they are wrong and stupid. Its taken "moderates" half a year to recognise *that*??

And these are supposed to be the grown up people of substance, the political titans, who will rescue us all from the hell of Corbynism

As for the Jarvis speech - meh. His offering to Progress just after the GE was superior. Though it is still better than the likes of Dugher deserve.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 11:39 am

Lonewolfie wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
danesclose wrote:I notice that once again we have people turning up late at night to criticise the current Labour leadership without offering any suggestions.

I think the suggestion was that we should go for Jarvis because somehow he will appeal to so many more people. Nothing I've seen in the pre released snippets to his speech tells me that would be the case.

I just want any such suggestions and bids and chatter to shut up and allow the current Labour leadership and sc team to get on with the run up to May elections and the membership who are out working hard on their behalf to get on with our job.
I saw some stuff on Twitter, saying Jarvis has recieved funding from some hedge funds....so pro-austerity, pro-bombing Syria, pro-Bankster/Corporations....so definitely not for me (but - I'm just a loony-leftist Corbynista unrealist I'm just a loony-leftist Corbynista unrealist I'm just a loony-leftist Corbynista unrealist)

It feels as though it's the 'Establishment' deciding that 'enough is enough' of the 'Corbynite nightmare' and it's time to get back to the nice safe cosy 'inside the bubble' politics that serves it so well...and I wouldn't be surprised if the word has gone out to 'float the idea' of Jarvis and prepare everyone for the coup that comes later....as I'm not now, and have never been a member of the Labour Party, can anyone tell me if they (the Labour Party) can actually change leader without a vote by the membership?

If not, I can't see this as anything other than an attempt to further split the party and ensure it's unelectability (to be clear - I don't believe(TM) this will happen - I just think it's the ultimate aim of the anti-Corbynista)

I think too, it's another 'Look a dead cat' attempt to distract from the cock up over, and rift in the Tory party over the EU. Even so, it has to be with tacit consent from the Labour right.
It's past the stage where we can make excuses for them.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 11:48 am

Off topic - but -

An outspoken gun rights activist has been shot and wounded by her four-year-son - hours after she posted a message on social media saying how “jacked up” he was to shoot a weapon.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 21636.html

Was I right to laugh?

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 11:50 am

NHS records worst ever performance in January

http://gu.com/p/4hef9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

83%!!!!!!!!!

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 12:22 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
Lonewolfie wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
I think the suggestion was that we should go for Jarvis because somehow he will appeal to so many more people. Nothing I've seen in the pre released snippets to his speech tells me that would be the case.

I just want any such suggestions and bids and chatter to shut up and allow the current Labour leadership and sc team to get on with the run up to May elections and the membership who are out working hard on their behalf to get on with our job.
I saw some stuff on Twitter, saying Jarvis has recieved funding from some hedge funds....so pro-austerity, pro-bombing Syria, pro-Bankster/Corporations....so definitely not for me (but - I'm just a loony-leftist Corbynista unrealist I'm just a loony-leftist Corbynista unrealist I'm just a loony-leftist Corbynista unrealist)

It feels as though it's the 'Establishment' deciding that 'enough is enough' of the 'Corbynite nightmare' and it's time to get back to the nice safe cosy 'inside the bubble' politics that serves it so well...and I wouldn't be surprised if the word has gone out to 'float the idea' of Jarvis and prepare everyone for the coup that comes later....as I'm not now, and have never been a member of the Labour Party, can anyone tell me if they (the Labour Party) can actually change leader without a vote by the membership?

If not, I can't see this as anything other than an attempt to further split the party and ensure it's unelectability (to be clear - I don't believe(TM) this will happen - I just think it's the ultimate aim of the anti-Corbynista)
I think too, it's another 'Look a dead cat' attempt to distract from the cock up over, and rift in the Tory party over the EU. Even so, it has to be with tacit consent from the Labour right.
It's past the stage where we can make excuses for them.

Sorry, my original post was missing the word "sensible". Like it or lump it, the Blairite wing of the Labour party have to accept that the overwhelming majority of the membership wanted Corbyn as leader (for the record I wasn't one of them). It's called democracy. Less than 5% of the membership supported their candidate. If they want to continue Tory rule, the best way for them to do so is to continually snipe against the elected leader, ensuring that their Cassandra-esque predictions of an overwhelming Tory majority come to pass.
What I can't understand about Jarvis is that less than a year ago he was unwilling to stand for the leadership as his children were too young. Are they old enough now? Don't they grow up quickly these days!

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 12:30 pm

I remain sceptical about how much Jarvis really wants the leadership, tbh. This still looks like a load of smoke and mirrors with rather little substance.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 12:33 pm

Are we going to have four years of the 'former paratrooper' being endlessly repeated at us by the MSM? This descriptor seems de rigeur.

Why can't we have 'former towel folder' and 'former PR man' and 'former stockbroker' (or whatever he was) for Osborne, Cameron and Farage respectively?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 12:35 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I remain sceptical about how much Jarvis really wants the leadership, tbh. This still looks like a load of smoke and mirrors with rather little substance.

You might be right - but - if you are, why doesn't he demand Dugher and others stop mentioning him in their Tweets etc?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 12:36 pm

For some strange reason, Ed Miliband was never the "former lecturer at Harvard" was he?

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 12:43 pm

If anyone doubts how accurate the Male Online cartoon is, have a look at the following responses to Stephen Hawking & 150 other scientists arguing that Britain leaving the EU would be a disaster for British science.

: 2016-03-10_123640.jpg (29.21 KiB) Viewed 6635 times

: 2016-03-10_123706.jpg (144.82 KiB) Viewed 6635 times

: 2016-03-10_123740.jpg (146.21 KiB) Viewed 6635 times

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 12:53 pm

Aren't we lucky to have the promise of Cameron remaining as an MP after he stands down as leader of the Tories? I don't know about you but I would have been bereft if he had disappeared from the HoC and we were to be denied hearing his deliciously plummy smug tones in the future reassuring us shit is chocolate pudding and we will all love it.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 12:55 pm

danesclose wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
Lonewolfie wrote: I saw some stuff on Twitter, saying Jarvis has recieved funding from some hedge funds....so pro-austerity, pro-bombing Syria, pro-Bankster/Corporations....so definitely not for me (but - I'm just a loony-leftist Corbynista unrealist I'm just a loony-leftist Corbynista unrealist I'm just a loony-leftist Corbynista unrealist)

It feels as though it's the 'Establishment' deciding that 'enough is enough' of the 'Corbynite nightmare' and it's time to get back to the nice safe cosy 'inside the bubble' politics that serves it so well...and I wouldn't be surprised if the word has gone out to 'float the idea' of Jarvis and prepare everyone for the coup that comes later....as I'm not now, and have never been a member of the Labour Party, can anyone tell me if they (the Labour Party) can actually change leader without a vote by the membership?

If not, I can't see this as anything other than an attempt to further split the party and ensure it's unelectability (to be clear - I don't believe(TM) this will happen - I just think it's the ultimate aim of the anti-Corbynista)
I think too, it's another 'Look a dead cat' attempt to distract from the cock up over, and rift in the Tory party over the EU. Even so, it has to be with tacit consent from the Labour right.
It's past the stage where we can make excuses for them.
Sorry, my original post was missing the word "sensible". Like it or lump it, the Blairite wing of the Labour party have to accept that the overwhelming majority of the membership wanted Corbyn as leader (for the record I wasn't one of them). It's called democracy. Less than 5% of the membership supported their candidate. If they want to continue Tory rule, the best way for them to do so is to continually snipe against the elected leader, ensuring that their Cassandra-esque predictions of an overwhelming Tory majority come to pass.
What I can't understand about Jarvis is that less than a year ago he was unwilling to stand for the leadership as his children were too young. Are they old enough now? Don't they grow up quickly these days!

Jarvis has already denied he's putting together a leadership bid. I'm not sure I'm willing to judge someone based on gossip, which is what this essentially is.

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

If Corbyn is a popular and effective leader, why worry what Jarvis has to say? There is no direct criticism of Corbyn so what's the problem with a backbencher expressing a slightly different viewpoint? If Corbyn has the better arguments, it's no contest. And there is precious little to challenge anyone in what Jarvis had to say as far as I can see.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 1:04 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:I remain sceptical about how much Jarvis really wants the leadership, tbh. This still looks like a load of smoke and mirrors with rather little substance.
You might be right - but - if you are, why doesn't he demand Dugher and others stop mentioning him in their Tweets etc?

Well, I suppose you would have to ask him that

My guess, though, might be that he doesn't think Corbyn should lead the party into the next GE - so letting hares like this run does no harm there?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 1:06 pm

Jonathan Portes ‏@jdportes 8m8 minutes ago
Detailed explanation by @MikeBrewerEssex & colleagues explain how @AdamPerkinsPhD misinterpreted their paper: https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/blog/2016/ ... rom-the-uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; … [1/2]

Jonathan Portes ‏@jdportes 8m8 minutes ago
[2/2] some math errors, but mostly @AdamPerkinsPhD applied results of paper on low income working households to workless households!

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 1:10 pm

Willow904 wrote:
danesclose wrote:
ohsocynical wrote: I think too, it's another 'Look a dead cat' attempt to distract from the cock up over, and rift in the Tory party over the EU. Even so, it has to be with tacit consent from the Labour right.
It's past the stage where we can make excuses for them.
Sorry, my original post was missing the word "sensible". Like it or lump it, the Blairite wing of the Labour party have to accept that the overwhelming majority of the membership wanted Corbyn as leader (for the record I wasn't one of them). It's called democracy. Less than 5% of the membership supported their candidate. If they want to continue Tory rule, the best way for them to do so is to continually snipe against the elected leader, ensuring that their Cassandra-esque predictions of an overwhelming Tory majority come to pass.
What I can't understand about Jarvis is that less than a year ago he was unwilling to stand for the leadership as his children were too young. Are they old enough now? Don't they grow up quickly these days!
Jarvis has already denied he's putting together a leadership bid. I'm not sure I'm willing to judge someone based on gossip, which is what this essentially is.

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

If Corbyn is a popular and effective leader, why worry what Jarvis has to say? There is no direct criticism of Corbyn so what's the problem with a backbencher expressing a slightly different viewpoint? If Corbyn has the better arguments, it's no contest. And there is precious little to challenge anyone in what Jarvis had to say as far as I can see.

The issue to me is that no matter how effective or otherwise Corbyn's leadership is (and if I'm honest I tend towards the latter), the MSM are trying to destroy him (Not bowing deeply enough, his ancestor was a slave owner etc etc) and with it any semblance of a realistic radical alternative to the current status quo. Any seeming difference from within the party is going to be blown out of all proportion, and will lead to the prophesied Tory landslide in 2020. This is despite the Tories battling in public.Those on the right of the Labour party need to dissociate themselves from the gossip, unequivocally deny any rumours & give democracy a chance. Thousands of their fellow citizens can't afford for them to play games in the Westminster bubble

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 1:11 pm

Breaking news that the European Central Bank has cut interest rates to zero - a record low - in bid to revive economy.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 1:18 pm

Kate Collins ‏@KitCollins 19m19 minutes ago
Kate Collins Retweeted iain watson
One Labour MP tells us "we either act or the Party's dead" #wato

iain watsonVerified account
‏@iainjwatson
Will Jeremy Corbyn be challenged as Labour leader? More on #wato Radio 4 around 120

Jarvis must have known what the media - and Labour MPs such as the one quoted above - would do with this.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 1:21 pm

"One Labour MP" - one of those who has been mouthing off non stop for the last six months, almost certainly?

Who cares??

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 1:22 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/m ... aralympics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tanni Grey-Thompson quits 2017 world championships over ‘tokenistic’ role

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 1:22 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:"One Labour MP" - one of those who has been mouthing off non stop for the last six months, almost certainly?

Who cares??

WATO apparently.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 1:24 pm

Which is why its such a rubbish programme. Just don't listen to it - its years since I have

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 1:26 pm

refitman wrote:Jarvis's speech at Demos: http://labourlist.org/2016/03/tough-on- ... is-speech/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good-morning, everyone.
I've had a quiet morning, I've not looked at any news at all other than your posts and reading Dan Jarvis' speech given this morning at Demos on inequality.

"...[T]he next Labour government must take a more radical economic approach – more radical than we had under Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband."

Good - 'hard left' Labour it is then.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 1:27 pm

Good-afternoon

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 10 Mar, 2016 1:29 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:Afternoon all

Following TE's post yesterday:

The establishment is going to win in 2020, Corbyn if he is still leader is going to be utterly annihilated by Boris by 100+ seats. Why, because he is manifestly never going to be PM. Pretty much everything that was said about his inability to change from his backbench career and build any sort of consensus turns out to have been right. It is a missed opportunity, but he missed it.

So what you have to decide if you are going to give in to total establishment victory in 2020 by sticking with Corbyn, or try and fix it by finding a Labour candidate who could beat them.

Labour needs a new leader, sharpish. Now Jarvis could be the man, he might actually be able to build a winning consensus in the country, and he might be able to undo the damage to Labour's reputation on defence that Corbyn has inflicted.

Reeves definitely isn't part of the story though, she is hopeless, the rights Dianne Abbot is a good description.

The Tory party can be beaten in 2020, and it is essential that it is. Now I am not sold on Jarvis, I think there may be better candidates out there, but somebody needs to step up to the plate and it isn't going to be anybody from the hard left.
This is what we've been told for the last couple of decades. We can choose as long as we are choosing between different flavours of broadly the same thing. We can have Labour and a bit more redistribution, or we can have the Tories and a bit less redistribution.

Well Fuck. That.

I'm not playing any more. If 'building a winning consensus in the country' means everyone accepting that capital has won, a failed deregulated financial sector and borderless global business gets to run things, then I don't want any part of it. And as for 'undo the damage to Labour's reputation on defence that Corbyn has inflicted', how is staging a coup against a leader who was elected with 60% of first preferences (admittedly among 'mouth-breathing activists') going to help with Labour's reputational issues? Labour's reputational problems are 90% down to how it is handled by the media, and that was exactly the same under Miliband (and largely the same under Brown). The only way it would be any different is if the media decided to treat it differently, as it did under Blair. It's not a winning consensus, or any kind of consensus - it's grudging acceptance.

So let me be clear about this, if Labour decides it is going to accept the world largely as it is, but be a bit nicer to poorer and more vulnerable people than the Tories (and possibly not even that, am looking at you Byrne and Reeves), then I am not interested. It goes against the wishes of the vast majority of party members, and most people in the country who do not actually want the model we've been told is the only one we're getting. Yes, life would probably be better for a fair number of people. But if you want me to be happy about that marginal improvement, to put a tick in the 'Less Shit' box instead of the 'Shit' box, then I'm going to disappoint you. Corbyn is at least determined to be part of the solution.

By the way, Dan is a BIG fan of mass retention of communications data. How very 'moderate'.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25067/ ... olicy=6721" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree with you, RobertSnozers, I'd be gravely disappointed to discover Jarvis isn't supporting the current Labour party leader.