FlyTheNest

In broader terms,non of the various phrases are applicable to me.Starting my own Party.

RobertSnozers wrote:]

I find it hard to believe your grasp of comprehension is so poor

obnoxious, arrogant, sneering, dismissive,

One thing I don't think I can be accused of is not offering policy solutions. I post policy all the time

I rather like dull.This is scandalous.

I am boring,dull but I get things done,largely because nobody notices until it is too late.Has served me well over the years.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Its the staggering and unjustified sense of entitlement that gets me - "put us in charge because WE KNOW BEST and don't ask any impertinent questions".

Mind blowing.

"How are you going to pay for this stuff post-Brexit?" and "Is this the most progressive use of the money?" seem like impertinent questions at the moment.

I don't like left populism. It'll fall flat on its arse in office.

I don't mind such things being asked in good faith. The problem is they all too often aren't.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Its the staggering and unjustified sense of entitlement that gets me - "put us in charge because WE KNOW BEST and don't ask any impertinent questions".

Mind blowing.

Again, who specifically do you think can fairly be accused of that?

Or, again, is that just the kind of thing Centrist Dads ought to say and think?

Doesn't make them bad questions. As Orwell might have said (there should be an equivalent to Godwin for whoever shoehorns Orwell in first, I don't normally do that, but it's a genuinely good one) something doesn't become wrong just because Jim Murphy's said it.

Afternoon folks,

400,000 hit by new Ryanair cancellations to solve pilot crisis
The fresh cancellations mean that all of the airline's domestic mainland UK flights will cease over the winter period.

http://news.sky.com/story/ryanair-40-vo ... s-11055749" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This probably puts Ryanair in a good post-Brexit position, if the Open Skies agreement falls down.

55DegreesNorth wrote:Afternoon folks,

400,000 hit by new Ryanair cancellations to solve pilot crisis
The fresh cancellations mean that all of the airline's domestic mainland UK flights will cease over the winter period.

http://news.sky.com/story/ryanair-40-vo ... s-11055749" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This probably puts Ryanair in a good post-Brexit position, if the Open Skies agreement falls down.

(cJA emphasis)

Apart from Frances O'Grady and Manuel Cortes, senior trade unionists aren't distinguishing themselves at the moment. I'm worried re Corbyn on the Single Market, but I do appreciate there are pressures. McCluskey needs to be much more focussed on keeping his members' jobs, frankly.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Doesn't make them bad questions. As Orwell might have said (there should be an equivalent to Godwin for whoever shoehorns Orwell in first, I don't normally do that, but it's a genuinely good one) something doesn't become wrong just because Jim Murphy's said it.

I thought that Andrew Gwynne was also quite good earlier on the Beeb, pointing out that much of what Labour is proposing works well in other countries.

Too much populism is never good, but if forced to choose I would rather have more of the optimistic "can do" left variety than the right wing version.

(which has of course had much more traction in recent years - until now)

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Its the staggering and unjustified sense of entitlement that gets me - "put us in charge because WE KNOW BEST and don't ask any impertinent questions".

Mind blowing.

For some reason brings to mind (many) academics.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Doesn't make them bad questions. As Orwell might have said (there should be an equivalent to Godwin for whoever shoehorns Orwell in first, I don't normally do that, but it's a genuinely good one) something doesn't become wrong just because Jim Murphy's said it.

I thought that Andrew Gwynne was also quite good earlier on the Beeb, pointing out that much of what Labour is proposing works well in other countries.

Too much populism is never good, but if forced to choose I would rather have more of the optimistic "can do" left variety than the right wing version.

(which has of course had much more traction in recent years - until now)

He's good, and I'm pleased he's accommodated himself to the new leadership.

It's a fair point, provided what he's suggesting does actually happen and work well in other countries. Rail, as you know, is a bit of a hobby horse of mine. I don't think that the places mentioned run nationalized systems without big subsidies for tickets prices. We've not had a commitment to find money for subsidizing ticket prices.

I'd be happy to pay more tax for ticket subsidies, but that's not really a plan.

Here's something that could be a plan-

Have ambitious policies that get people excited, as is happening now. And in a few months, say "you want those? got to be the EEA then".

Even with the overreach, as I see it, I'd be happy to go along with that.

tinyclanger2 wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Its the staggering and unjustified sense of entitlement that gets me - "put us in charge because WE KNOW BEST and don't ask any impertinent questions".

Mind blowing.

For some reason brings to mind (many) academics.

Including an awful lot of them on Twitter

But of course other places aren't, as things stand, charging out of their biggest market, and trashing their reputation with "liberal elites" who really matter.

And more generally, we have to be very careful about assuming that the positive stuff about now- relatively low inflation, cheap borrowing, competiveness (albeit more on price than we'd like) are going to be around forever.

Despite the noises still coming from some of the leadership on occasion, I think its clear which direction Labour policy on Brexit is going now.

It won't satisfy the Remainer fundamentalists, but nothing will for them save the restoration of the status quo unchangably and forever.

(the mood music from JC in today's speech was also consistent with this, even if - unsurprisingly - there were few concrete commitments)

No change on Brexit, then the policies are fantasy.

Also pleased to see George Eaton being more balanced with respect to Corbyn's leadership.

Whether he can bring the whole of the Staggers with him remains to be seen!

The Canary has made a complete arse of itself re Kuensberg. Do the complaints by the book, there are plenty you can make.

People "inviting" famous people to their crap events is the oldest trick in the book. Surprised Nelson Mandela and Bill Clinton weren't invited too.

http://www.publicsectorexecutive.com/Pu ... als-by-lgo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Bradford told to review over 500 benefit appeals by LGO
Bradford Council has been told to review more than 500 benefit applications after the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) found delays in the authority’s process.
The Ombudsman unearthed the problem after an investigation into a single complaint sent to Bradford Metropolitan District Council over how long it was taking for a woman’s housing benefit appeal to get to the First Tier Tribunal.
During this investigation, the council then told the LGO that 519 housing benefit appeals were waiting to be passed to the tribunal, with some dating back to as far as February 2015.

Evening all

Why is 'populism' such a bad word in all aspects as is being suggested

Trump problem isn't that he 'populist' policies, it is just the population he is aiming at are racist bigots!

He is not that popular either so surely his policies aren't that popular

Seems to me it is a lazy way to label people in a sneering way.....surely we would want Corbyn to have policies that are relatively popular?

As to whether they are all achievable - well, probably not but as Anatoly suggested earlier I would rather we had a direction that actually wants to make things better than a lot of miserable shit that comes out of the Tories (only miserable if you are poor though....)

Blair was a populist two back in the day......didn't seem to bother him then.

AK: As you've probably gathered I think the very notion of Brexit is appalling. This could eventually have consequences for my relationship with the Labour Party but am waiting to see what happens (suffice it to say am not ecstatic it at the moment). Does that mean that I am a "remainer fundamentalist"? Or do you mean something more specific?

HSOM - am not sure that it is really sneering. I think it is more that populism has started to be used in a very specific way, so it no longer means something along the lines of appealing to ordinairy people, but something along the nationlistic, xenophobic trajectory. It's a bit like sustainability started being used to mean a number of specific things to different groups of specific people in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:The Canary has made a complete arse of itself re Kuensberg. Do the complaints by the book, there are plenty you can make.

People "inviting" famous people to their crap events is the oldest trick in the book. Surprised Nelson Mandela and Bill Clinton weren't invited too.

I don't think they made a 'complete arse of itself' at all - was fair to ask the question

Kuennsberg is an appalling journalist - not for her politics - she is just useless

tinyclanger2 wrote:HSOM - am not sure that it is really sneering. I think it is more that populism has started to be used in a very specific way, so it no longer means something along the lines of appealing to ordinairy people, but something along the nationlistic, xenophobic trajectory. It's a bit like sustainability started being used to mean a number of specific things to different groups of specific people in the late 90s and early 2000s.

TC2 - if that is the case then why does someone like Blair should not use it to describe Corbyn or Sanders - or others too

I am not sure these words with moveable definitions are really helpful but seem to be used and I do think in a sneering way (by some anyway!)

howsillyofme1 wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:The Canary has made a complete arse of itself re Kuensberg. Do the complaints by the book, there are plenty you can make.

People "inviting" famous people to their crap events is the oldest trick in the book. Surprised Nelson Mandela and Bill Clinton weren't invited too.

I don't think they made a 'complete arse of itself' at all - was fair to ask the question

Kuennsberg is an appalling journalist - not for her politics - she is just useless

I agree about Kuennsberg completely. It's important to get every complaint in to Ofcom or the BBC Trust or whoever, however bad they are, and assume that somebody is doing that. But this was an easily checkable dud story. I also don't like it when media chooses the most hideous photo (plus photoshopping to make worse) of somebody, especially a woman. Though I come close to making an exception for Gove.

Do this sort of thing by the book.

tinyclanger2 wrote:AK: As you've probably gathered I think the very notion of Brexit is appalling. This could eventually have consequences for my relationship with the Labour Party but am waiting to see what happens (suffice it to say am not ecstatic it at the moment). Does that mean that I am a "remainer fundamentalist"? Or do you mean something more specific?

In a personal capacity I wouldn't describe you as this but some people on here could be described as such

Being totally committed to the belief that Remain is what we should do, to be a strong proponent of whatever that translates to, is perfectly reasonable position to take - as is being a committed Leaver

The issue is when people don't listen to any other view or engage with the arguments made that challenge some of their pronouncements. I can only think of one poster on here who I would describe in that way

RobertSnozers wrote:

tinyclanger2 wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Its the staggering and unjustified sense of entitlement that gets me - "put us in charge because WE KNOW BEST and don't ask any impertinent questions".

Mind blowing.

For some reason brings to mind (many) academics.

Academics at least know their subject. Some of them have confused that with being right about anything connected with their subject.

There is a reason folk on Twitter accuse all academics of being lefty 'elites' though...

And some of them have confused that with being right about anything.

howsillyofme1 wrote:

tinyclanger2 wrote:HSOM - am not sure that it is really sneering. I think it is more that populism has started to be used in a very specific way, so it no longer means something along the lines of appealing to ordinairy people, but something along the nationlistic, xenophobic trajectory. It's a bit like sustainability started being used to mean a number of specific things to different groups of specific people in the late 90s and early 2000s.

TC2 - if that is the case then why does someone like Blair should not use it to describe Corbyn or Sanders - or others too

I am not sure these words with moveable definitions are really helpful but seem to be used and I do think in a sneering way (by some anyway!)

Without immortals to guard English (hurrah!) our language evolves and people use it how they want whether we like it or not. It's a gift and a curse. Mostly a gift.

Do this sort of thing by the book.

I would agree with the 'by the book' approach if it was reciprocated - she is a manipulator of facts (BBC Trust found her guilty of that) and she showed no contrition, supported by her Tory-minister brother boss

Unfortunately fire has to be fought with a bit of fire occasionally....and she is in a stronger position having the BBC 'neutrality' where we all know the Canary has an openly admitted agenda

Are you saying she wasn't listed to speak? Whether she was ever going to take it up is another....why not highlight it?

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:People like me need reminding that not everybody in the "Progress" wing of the party is the same.

McGovern eviscerating Kinnock Jr on Twitter last night was an excellent demonstration.

Both of them voted to trigger art 50, neither is really up to much (though on immigration, McGovern is right).

Opposing invoking A50 would have been a disaster for Labour electorally, its exactly what May was praying for.

Corbyn held the party together over this - even if only barely - with no little skill.

Politics as a game.

I pronounce I am six foot three with a massive wanger.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Despite the noises still coming from some of the leadership on occasion, I think its clear which direction Labour policy on Brexit is going now.

It won't satisfy the Remainer fundamentalists, but nothing will for them save the restoration of the status quo unchangably and forever.

(the mood music from JC in today's speech was also consistent with this, even if - unsurprisingly - there were few concrete commitments)

The policy will remain the successful one.

Just-fractionally-more-remain-y-than-the-Tories. Unprincipled, but useful. Corbyn and McDonnell love it.

What a grave disappointment Starmer has been. Dreadful.

tinyclanger2 wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:

tinyclanger2 wrote:HSOM - am not sure that it is really sneering. I think it is more that populism has started to be used in a very specific way, so it no longer means something along the lines of appealing to ordinairy people, but something along the nationlistic, xenophobic trajectory. It's a bit like sustainability started being used to mean a number of specific things to different groups of specific people in the late 90s and early 2000s.

TC2 - if that is the case then why does someone like Blair should not use it to describe Corbyn or Sanders - or others too

I am not sure these words with moveable definitions are really helpful but seem to be used and I do think in a sneering way (by some anyway!)

Without immortals to guard English (hurrah!) our language evolves and people use it how they want whether we like it or not. It's a gift and a curse. Mostly a gift.

If by using 'populist' Blair was calling Corbyn a xenophobic nationalist then he is an even bigger arse than I thought

If is it just looking for popular policies then ok - although i disagree with his conclusions

He seems to equate the former with the right wing version of Trump so I go with him being an arse

tc2 - there is an example for you


you are in no way like that

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Doesn't make them bad questions. As Orwell might have said (there should be an equivalent to Godwin for whoever shoehorns Orwell in first, I don't normally do that, but it's a genuinely good one) something doesn't become wrong just because Jim Murphy's said it.

I thought that Andrew Gwynne was also quite good earlier on the Beeb, pointing out that much of what Labour is proposing works well in other countries.

Too much populism is never good, but if forced to choose I would rather have more of the optimistic "can do" left variety than the right wing version.

(which has of course had much more traction in recent years - until now)

Rent controls, the usual example, don't work anywhere. Even in places like Berlin, with capacity for building and where demand is not growing in the same way as in London, it is a bad idea.

Price fixing is tried in lots of places and times. We know it is bad. That the French, say, sometimes do it doesn't count in its favour.

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

Both of them voted to trigger art 50, neither is really up to much (though on immigration, McGovern is right).

Opposing invoking A50 would have been a disaster for Labour electorally, its exactly what May was praying for.

Corbyn held the party together over this - even if only barely - with no little skill.

Politics as a game.

Which is something the Progress/SPADocrat tendency know all about. Indeed, they know precisely nothing else.

howsillyofme1 wrote:
If by using 'populist' Blair was calling Corbyn a xenophobic nationalist then he is an even bigger arse than I thought

If is it just looking for popular policies then ok - although i disagree with his conclusions

He seems to equate the former with the right wing version of Trump so I go with him being an arse

Fair enough. I don't disagree.

Rent controls aren't a panacea, but they DO work elsewhere - this is fully observable.

Evil neo-liberals oppose price fixing

http://blog.shelter.org.uk/2017/09/old- ... -good-for/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

howsillyofme1 wrote:tc2 - there is an example for you


you are in no way like that

Adam suggested a phrase a few days ago that covered it.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Rent controls aren't a panacea, but they DO work elsewhere - this is fully observable.

No. They don't work anywhere at all. They are less harmful in some times and places because the demand pressures are less acute and the price fixing is minimal.

(I'd possibly support Miliband's proposed controls on rent increases once tenants are in situ. that wasn't daft if done correctly.)

We know price fixing is dumb if we know anything at all about economics. It is dumb populism.

If you don't ration by price, you'll have to ration in some other way

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/201605 ... ind-a-home" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tinyclanger2 wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:tc2 - there is an example for you


you are in no way like that

Adam suggested a phrase a few days ago that covered it.

don't get complacent though...I am sure we will still fall out occasionally over the details and the definition of Single Market etc - but at least you listen and respond as though you have the ability of rational thought!

Marina, brilliant as usual

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


worth it for the last para

In her smug bubble as usual, you mean

How many of her fellow print journalists has she described as "brilliant" today?

howsillyofme1 wrote:

Do this sort of thing by the book.

I would agree with the 'by the book' approach if it was reciprocated - she is a manipulator of facts (BBC Trust found her guilty of that) and she showed no contrition, supported by her Tory-minister brother boss

Unfortunately fire has to be fought with a bit of fire occasionally....and she is in a stronger position having the BBC 'neutrality' where we all know the Canary has an openly admitted agenda

Are you saying she wasn't listed to speak? Whether she was ever going to take it up is another....why not highlight it?

The Canary have retracted their headline. It wasn't true. She was "invited" as Evolve Politics correctly reported, but wasn't "listed as a speaker" as the Canary alleged. It may be splitting hairs, but if they are incorrect with this, what else are they incorrect about? I stopped reading the Canary some time ago because there were too many inaccuracies of this nature. They don't appear a reliable news source.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:In her smug bubble as usual, you mean

How many of her fellow print journalists has she described as "brilliant" today?

Centrist Dads, one and all.