Re: Friday 21st November 2014
Posted: Fri 21 Nov, 2014 1:07 pm
THE problem is the MSM, not Ed or Labour. If even people here are playing their game, there really is no hope.
AnatolyKasparov wrote:THE problem is the MSM, not Ed or Labour. If even people here are playing their game, there really is no hope.
AnatolyKasparov wrote:THE problem is the MSM, not Ed or Labour. If even people here are playing their game, there really is no hope.
Precisely. And Nick Robinson likes to call himself a journalist with his finger on the political pulse? Risible.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Sorry, I disagree. The meme that she put into operation is almost unbelievably toxic for the party.
But an apology would surely still have sufficed, if our MSM wasn't so poisonous.
But anyway.......if we want to do something useful instead of turning on each other, let's do everything we can to get that "selfie" of Nick Robinson with the fascist "Britain First" candidate at the Rochester count as widely known as possible - his "excuse" is that he didn't know who she was (even though she had a bloody big "CANDIDATE" badge on) but why should ignorance be a defence for him any more than the MSM allows it for politicians??
Live by the sword..........
And the first time you come out with this is after you've jumped ship and your new party is trying to attract Labour voters?Clive Efford, the Labour MP sponsoring the bill, asked Reckless to explain why he voted for the Act when he was a Tory MP. Reckless said he was “guilty of believing the undertakings I was given by the front bench opposite.”
I'm not convinced it would be fair to accuse Ed Miliband of ever being afraid of standing up to the press. If he was indeed angry with Thornberry, if he was instrumental in her resignation then, on past experience, I would suggest that there is a matter of principle at stake. Two things spring to mind. The first is that the tweet, showing a family home and a car reg number, was something of an invasion of privacy. Whatever Thornberry meant to convey with the tweet, she put an innocent (if not particularly endearing) individual at the heart of it without their consent, which, given the media scrutiny at the time due to the by-election, was a case of extremely poor judgement. And that brings me to my secondly, one of judgement. Is inviting people to look at someone's flag festooned home the act of a dedicated 'one nation' Labourite? Singling people out, stereotyping and the putting of voters in boxes is a rather neoliberal mindset. Can it really be wondered as a result that Ed finds himself mistrusting her instincts?ephemerid wrote:AnatolyKasparov wrote:THE problem is the MSM, not Ed or Labour. If even people here are playing their game, there really is no hope.
The problem is indeed the MSM - as evinced by the Tweet I've just seen of a man the Sun now calls White Van Dan pictured with the Sun's very own white van emblazoned with its logo standing outside Emily Thornberry's home.
He is, apparently, waiting for her to come out and apologise even though she is likely to be in the House debating the future of our NHS.
I wonder how much the Sun paid White Van Dan perform this specious stunt?
If you consider me to be one of the "people here" who are playing the media's nasty little game, Anatoly, you are mistaken.
It is not "playing their game" to be extremely annoyed that the leader to whom I have given my unequivocal support, for whom I trudge around knocking on doors and delivering hundreds of leaflets, despite chronic illness and needing 2 days to recover for half a day's campaigning, sees fit to capitulate to a manipulated story of such arrant bias and misinterpretation you will have to forgive me my anger at what I see as appeasement.
Having just watched Lucy Powell attempt to justify the sacking of Emily Thornberry, having heard what Ed had to say, and seen many Tweets and comments from other high-ranking Labour MPs, I am disgusted that Ed and his team did not have the courage - and, indeed, the sense - to treat this as the nonsense it is and call out those responsible for the stupid, manipulative, small-minded pathetic little hacks they are.
It's not good enough. Just when I thought Ed had courage, he does this. It's a craven capitulation to manufactured outrage, it's not what I expected from a man who stood up to Murdoch - I am seriously considering tearing up my card, and not for the first time.
Incidentally, the Bill passed the vote by a margin of 241 to 18! As Clive Efford said:RogerOThornhill wrote:From the Commons...
And the first time you come out with this is after you've jumped ship and your new party is trying to attract Labour voters?Clive Efford, the Labour MP sponsoring the bill, asked Reckless to explain why he voted for the Act when he was a Tory MP. Reckless said he was “guilty of believing the undertakings I was given by the front bench opposite.”
How very convenient. And I don't believe a single word of it.
Not a single Lib Dem was in attendance either afaik (apparently Simon Hughes turned up in the chamber five minutes after the vote was taken). That party no longer possesses even a shred of credibility.Clive Efford @CliveEfford
· 2m 2 minutes ago
Government unable to defend its own #NHS privatisation legislation. They must listen to the will of the House and let it go into committee
I don't know.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Sorry, I disagree. The meme that she put into operation is almost unbelievably toxic for the party.
But an apology would surely still have sufficed, if our MSM wasn't so poisonous.
But anyway.......if we want to do something useful instead of turning on each other, let's do everything we can to get that "selfie" of Nick Robinson with the fascist "Britain First" candidate at the Rochester count as widely known as possible - his "excuse" is that he didn't know who she was (even though she had a bloody big "CANDIDATE" badge on) but why should ignorance be a defence for him any more than the MSM allows it for politicians??
Live by the sword..........
ephemerid wrote:Central government has 1,524 WTE staff working on press and communications only.
The Home Office has 276, the Cabinet Office has 205, and DWP has 184.
I do not know how many of these are civil servants and how many are SPADs or whatever.
See - http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/central-g ... ions-staff" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think I've found the article.The requested page could not be found.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/central-g ... ions-staff" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This may help on the NHS billseeingclearly wrote:Good morning, and hello. I've been reading here daily, but haven't felt much like posting. People are posting the things I would link to, and tbh, I've not got much positive to say, other than to thank you all for brightening my days.
What's been said here about being at war, and about us having suffered a coup, echoes everything I've felt since 2010. Todays comments on Thornberry drew me out, it's a measure of where we are that even here her wealth and background are discussed, as though those things are validatory or not, and a measure of how tough life can be comes through the presence or absence of wealth. It's my belief that the meanspirited wrongheaded mob out there would even consume lovely Harry Leslie Smith in their feeding frenzy. It's no longer enough to be a decent person. Any one can be a sacrificial goat at this particular altar.
I'm not sure we aren't already past the tipping point, even though there's loads of people who don't seem to be aware of what we are dealing with, or the part they themselves are playing. Thornberry proves we haven't yet passed the stage where people think the malignant spirit abroad in our land can be appeased. It won't be, it's hunger won't be satiated and it can't be reasoned with, and we are all more affected by it than we like to admit.
Apologies for the above on a rather abysmal sort of day. It's a gloomy post, I know, but it's not without hope. The Chinese traditionally had a different view of revolution than the west. They saw it as cyclical, rather than an end in itself, and that there are inevitable stages within that cycle. We tend to make the mistake that things are a lot more fixed than they are. There's a lot to be said for starving malign spirits.
I'd hoped for more discussion on whether or not the NHS thing (sorry, cannot recall the name of the proposer) would be helpful or not. Though many support it in principle a brief reading reveals its weaknesses. There's a petition out there about its flaws, would love to know what people here think about it. It has some limited merit if one hopes a Labour win at the GE will bring and end to the H&SC act. if not at best it might obstruct any other government, at worst it does not create a genuine block to privatisation, or insurance based solutions. This had to be pointed out to me, as I wasn't ready to admit it, I so wished to believe it was a true safeguard. So any thoughts would be welcome.
Labour Whips @labourwhips · 25m25 minutes ago
Interestingly after introducing @MarkReckless to @HouseofCommons Philip Hollobone voted for the #SaveTheNHS Bill along with #UKIP
THIS ^^^Rebecca wrote:I am getting so tired of the constant whining about Ed/Labour from people,who,if they have the sense to see what the coalition govt is doing to this country,are unable to then have the sense to be supportive of the only party who will be able to replace them in 2015.
No politician can be perfect,no party will have policies which suit everybody.Get over it and look at the big picture.
I've been thinking this since 2010.Labour had just been dumped by the electorate,many people voted libdem instead of Labour for example,then about 2 seconds after the rose garden love-in,the whining started.Like Ed is supposed to be superman and come to our rescue.People got the bloody govt they deserved if you ask me,five years of it.
Instead of Labour ripping itself apart,Ed has pulled them together.
During the referendum it was Labour that managed to prevent a yes vote,which would have been economically disasterous for Scotland,and now they are being threatened with a wipe-out in Scotland in thanks.
There are 6 months to go before the election and I think it's high time labour supporters stopped moaning and consider the good things that the party has done this past four years.
This is a general rant,so ephe,don't start with the 'are you referring to me' like you did to Anatoly,because if I was I would have replied to your post specifically.
edited to add,I'm also sick of the Ed should say this/do that/look like this etc.Anybody who thinks they could do the job better should maybe get into politics and see how well they do.
Thank you so much for the link, I could see the SoS aspect, but was not informed enough to counter the rest. That is a great little resource.AngryAsWell wrote:This may help on the NHS billseeingclearly wrote:Good morning, and hello. I've been reading here daily, but haven't felt much like posting. People are posting the things I would link to, and tbh, I've not got much positive to say, other than to thank you all for brightening my days.
What's been said here about being at war, and about us having suffered a coup, echoes everything I've felt since 2010. Todays comments on Thornberry drew me out, it's a measure of where we are that even here her wealth and background are discussed, as though those things are validatory or not, and a measure of how tough life can be comes through the presence or absence of wealth. It's my belief that the meanspirited wrongheaded mob out there would even consume lovely Harry Leslie Smith in their feeding frenzy. It's no longer enough to be a decent person. Any one can be a sacrificial goat at this particular altar.
I'm not sure we aren't already past the tipping point, even though there's loads of people who don't seem to be aware of what we are dealing with, or the part they themselves are playing. Thornberry proves we haven't yet passed the stage where people think the malignant spirit abroad in our land can be appeased. It won't be, it's hunger won't be satiated and it can't be reasoned with, and we are all more affected by it than we like to admit.
Apologies for the above on a rather abysmal sort of day. It's a gloomy post, I know, but it's not without hope. The Chinese traditionally had a different view of revolution than the west. They saw it as cyclical, rather than an end in itself, and that there are inevitable stages within that cycle. We tend to make the mistake that things are a lot more fixed than they are. There's a lot to be said for starving malign spirits.
I'd hoped for more discussion on whether or not the NHS thing (sorry, cannot recall the name of the proposer) would be helpful or not. Though many support it in principle a brief reading reveals its weaknesses. There's a petition out there about its flaws, would love to know what people here think about it. It has some limited merit if one hopes a Labour win at the GE will bring and end to the H&SC act. if not at best it might obstruct any other government, at worst it does not create a genuine block to privatisation, or insurance based solutions. This had to be pointed out to me, as I wasn't ready to admit it, I so wished to believe it was a true safeguard. So any thoughts would be welcome.
Clive Efford Bill – What Exactly is It?
http://sochealthlondon.com/blog/4584293153" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(I'm in "facts" mode - can't post on anything else at the moment, have a really dark feeling of foreboding)
I posted one and deleted it? is that what you mean?seeingclearly wrote:The little clip of Dennis Skinner ought to be compulsory viewing. It helped me, and I hope it will help whoever posted a now withdrawn post. I resized the post to find out who it was, and it had gone.
We are in this fight on the right side, and I believe Mr Ed is too.
Rebecca wrote:I am getting so tired of the constant whining about Ed/Labour from people,who,if they have the sense to see what the coalition govt is doing to this country,are unable to then have the sense to be supportive of the only party who will be able to replace them in 2015.
No politician can be perfect,no party will have policies which suit everybody.Get over it and look at the big picture.
I've been thinking this since 2010.Labour had just been dumped by the electorate,many people voted libdem instead of Labour for example,then about 2 seconds after the rose garden love-in,the whining started.Like Ed is supposed to be superman and come to our rescue.People got the bloody govt they deserved if you ask me,five years of it.
Instead of Labour ripping itself apart,Ed has pulled them together.
During the referendum it was Labour that managed to prevent a yes vote,which would have been economically disasterous for Scotland,and now they are being threatened with a wipe-out in Scotland in thanks.
There are 6 months to go before the election and I think it's high time labour supporters stopped moaning and consider the good things that the party has done this past four years.
This is a general rant,so ephe,don't start with the 'are you referring to me' like you did to Anatoly,because if I was I would have replied to your post specifically.
edited to add,I'm also sick of the Ed should say this/do that/look like this etc.Anybody who thinks they could do the job better should maybe get into politics and see how well they do.
NOES
Baldry, rh Sir Tony
Baldwin, Harriett
Bray, Angie
Chope, Mr Christopher
Davies, Philip
Dunne, Mr Philip
Eustice, George
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Hands, rh Greg
Heald, Sir Oliver
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Nuttall, Mr David
Patel, Priti
Penning, rh Mike
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Tellers for the Noes:
Anne Milton
and
Mr David Evennett
From the ONS today. My emphasis.Public sector borrowing (the difference between spending and income) was £7.7 billion in October 2014, a decrease of £0.2 billion compared with October last year. This additional borrowing needed to balance the public sector’s accounts means that between April and October the public sector borrowed £64.1 billion, a rise of £3.7 billion compared with the same period last year, as illustrated above.
Between April and October 2014 central government’s income was £340.6 billion, an increase of £3.8 billion on the same period last year.
While strong growth in VAT (up £2.2 billion to £71.2 billion) and stamp duty on land & property (up £1.5 billion to £6.8 billion) have boosted government receipts, income tax receipts have been weak. In the 7 months of the financial year income tax receipts were down £0.3 billion to £81.5 billion, compared to the same period last year, despite a fall in unemployment.
Over the same period, central government spent £398.7 billion, an increase of £9.0 billion.
Of this £398.7 billion, £234.4 billion was spent by central government departments (such as health, education and defence), £116.1 billion on social benefits (such as pensions, unemployment payments, child benefit and maternity pay), £30.3 billion on interest payments (on the government’s outstanding debt) and £17.9 billion on capital investment (such as buildings and infrastructure).
While the deficit in 2013/14 has fallen by a third since its peak in 2009/10, the continued reliance on borrowing has seen public sector net debt reach £1,449.2 billion, or 79.5% of GDP in October 2014.
I saw 5 minutes of the debate this morning, Efford was asked by another Lab MP whether the bill could/would abolish the purchaser/provider split*. Efford's answer was that that would require another top-down reorganisation.AngryAsWell wrote:This may help on the NHS billseeingclearly wrote: I'd hoped for more discussion on whether or not the NHS thing (sorry, cannot recall the name of the proposer) would be helpful or not. Though many support it in principle a brief reading reveals its weaknesses. There's a petition out there about its flaws, would love to know what people here think about it. It has some limited merit if one hopes a Labour win at the GE will bring and end to the H&SC act. if not at best it might obstruct any other government, at worst it does not create a genuine block to privatisation, or insurance based solutions. This had to be pointed out to me, as I wasn't ready to admit it, I so wished to believe it was a true safeguard. So any thoughts would be welcome.
Clive Efford Bill – What Exactly is It?
http://sochealthlondon.com/blog/4584293153" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(I'm in "facts" mode - can't post on anything else at the moment, have a really dark feeling of foreboding)
So says David Cameron, only a few short months Offa's Dyke was the line between life and death.The Welsh dragon roaring once more and this is a great place to invest and grow.
gilsey wrote:I saw 5 minutes of the debate this morning, Efford was asked by another Lab MP whether the bill could/would abolish the purchaser/provider split*. Efford's answer was that that would require another top-down reorganisation.AngryAsWell wrote:This may help on the NHS billseeingclearly wrote: I'd hoped for more discussion on whether or not the NHS thing (sorry, cannot recall the name of the proposer) would be helpful or not. Though many support it in principle a brief reading reveals its weaknesses. There's a petition out there about its flaws, would love to know what people here think about it. It has some limited merit if one hopes a Labour win at the GE will bring and end to the H&SC act. if not at best it might obstruct any other government, at worst it does not create a genuine block to privatisation, or insurance based solutions. This had to be pointed out to me, as I wasn't ready to admit it, I so wished to believe it was a true safeguard. So any thoughts would be welcome.
Clive Efford Bill – What Exactly is It?
http://sochealthlondon.com/blog/4584293153" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(I'm in "facts" mode - can't post on anything else at the moment, have a really dark feeling of foreboding)
Which as we know they have promised not to do.
Although Wales and Scotland have done it, does anyone know of any feedback on that?
*can't recall the exact words.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... -pile.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;The OBR is expected to revise up the Government's borrowing forecasts on December 3, when the Chancellor will present the Autumn Statement.
What have I missed ??MorganLlan wrote:
(And whilst that is in my mind - how many among us wonder how a personal email which was written supposedly from inside the government secure internet ended up with a certain blogger? A
The world certainly seems to have gone mad, from where I am sittingTizme1 wrote:The world has gone mad. Monday I found out that someone who used to be a member of our local Green party has defected to UKIP. WTF? He wasn't just a supporter - when he lived in Watford, he run our twitter account!Tish wrote:I used to like John Harris but I'm increasingly baffled as to what it is that he wants. After writing seemingly weekly articles about how UKIP are eating into Labour's vote, and how they have to start addressing the concerns of potential UKIP voters and talk about immigration, he suddenly does a complete turnaround and claims Labour are pushing potential voters away to the Greens by sounding too much like UKIP and banging on about immigration! It's just ridiculous.letsskiptotheleft wrote:Oh, and don't get me started on John Harris, he lost all legitimacy when he reckoned Plaid Cymru were running amok in the South Wales valleys, they aren't. Today's piece is in a similar vein.
Does he honestly think that there is some kind of magical policy ground that Labour can adopt which will appeal to both potential Green and UKIP voters (and presumably attract those flirting with the SNP as well)? If so, I wish he'd bloody well share it with the rest of us.
Morning all btw. Probably a flying visit though I'll be dipping in and out no doubt. Today is my youngest son's 18th birthday. I have to somehow turn what is currently a building site back into a home fit to have guests later today. I may be gone some time...........
Well said. I have had a not dissimilar conversation on Twitter today with Éoin Clarke who was praising Tom Watson for comments he is supposed to have made in the Guardian * about changes to PPC selection being mooted by the Labour Party; Watson may well be right, it may be a retrograde step, but was yesterday the best day to be fighting that battle? You pick your battles carefully, preferably on the terrain of your choosing; what you don't need are people like Watson and Danczuk going off half cocked, or one of your central team showing your opponents a potential chink in your armour. ** Thornberry knew, as you say, that she had to fall on her sword *** to make the story go away quicker, but I have no doubt she'll be back if (when?) Labour win the election next year.MorganLlan wrote:In truth, yesterday, on that day of all days, neither you, nor I or anyone, including Ed Milliband could have won that argument. I find in life sometimes it's better to choose your battles and in politics even more so. Emily Thornberry will understand this. She's been at the front line for long enough. The only way to stop the story dead in its tracks was for her to fall on her sword. If she didn't then Ed would have been hounded by the media constantly asking him why he didn't sack her, or if he would apologise, in the same way that Brown was over the McBride episode. It may be that some find this disloyal or weak, in giving in to the bullying media.
You've just jogged my memory....MorganLlan wrote:Whilst I understand some people being angry with Emily Thornberry, my own view is that she is, at worst, naive.
You could have tried to have a kind of nuanced argument with the MSM who were screeching and sharpening their pencils. I don't know Emily Thornberry and so I can't say for definite what she was thinking other than here is a house with 3 England flags - and a white van. Since I don't know her, I am unable to say that she was making any kind of comment about it, and definitely not that she was sneering at the "white working class", let alone the people/person living in the house. After all she couldn't know who lived there. It was others who made the assumption, which suggests that this is something which is in their own minds - along the lines of "Through the Keyhole" - "who lives in house like this? Flags, big white van, Oh yeah, white working class, it must be Dan the shaven headed white van man". They would all have looked a bit silly if the occupants had turned out to be a married couple of football supporting Afro Carribean women.
In truth, yesterday, on that day of all days, neither you, nor I or anyone, including Ed Milliband could have won that argument. I find in life sometimes it's better to choose your battles and in politics even more so. Emily Thornberry will understand this. She's been at the front line for long enough. The only way to stop the story dead in its tracks was for her to fall on her sword. If she didn't then Ed would have been hounded by the media constantly asking him why he didn't sack her, or if he would apologise, in the same way that Brown was over the McBride episode. It may be that some find this disloyal or weak, in giving in to the bullying media.
(And whilst that is in my mind - how many among us wonder how a personal email which was written supposedly from inside the government secure internet ended up with a certain blogger? And why was there far more fuss about the offending email having been sent from a government pc/email account than there has been over the sending of official government emails with a certain government department using a private email account?)
I have to say I am a little surprised at the descriptions of Islington - it must be a consituency of huge contrasts because the bits I have seen are rather less "posh" that it is being suggested.
Emily Ashton (the reporter in question) is leaving the Sun to join Buzzfeed in the new year. Robert Colville is doing the same, from the Telegraph.letsskiptotheleft wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02chktn
A caller to a radio station tries to put a Sun hack right, apparently it's all about what Labour genuinely think of people.
Utter bollocks.
I've got some sympathy for that view.TechnicalEphemera wrote:gilsey wrote:I saw 5 minutes of the debate this morning, Efford was asked by another Lab MP whether the bill could/would abolish the purchaser/provider split*. Efford's answer was that that would require another top-down reorganisation.AngryAsWell wrote: This may help on the NHS bill
Clive Efford Bill – What Exactly is It?
http://sochealthlondon.com/blog/4584293153" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(I'm in "facts" mode - can't post on anything else at the moment, have a really dark feeling of foreboding)
Which as we know they have promised not to do.
Although Wales and Scotland have done it, does anyone know of any feedback on that?
*can't recall the exact words.
What I do know is that the purchaser provider split is a bloody good thing, and it has already been broken by Lansley.
You do not want the commissioner providing the services.
Shall we go with A, B or my crappy in house service C.
(Option C is being favoured by certain GPs).
Or rather they did but want to make a H U G E deal out of it.....LadyCentauria wrote:Emily Ashton (the reporter in question) is leaving the Sun to join Buzzfeed in the new year. Robert Colville is doing the same, from the Telegraph.letsskiptotheleft wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02chktn
A caller to a radio station tries to put a Sun hack right, apparently it's all about what Labour genuinely think of people.
Utter bollocks.
The Sun have been driving around London with the man from the flags house (van plastered with Sun stickers, posing with todays Sun front page, etc.,) and sent him knocking on ET's front door to ask for an apology. Patently, neither they nor he saw her apologising this morning as she was leaving home – presumably to go to the HoC...
I imagine a quiet word has been has along the lines of we will bring you back post election.ohsocynical wrote:And also let us not forget. Once upon a time if a minister cocked up, it was instant resignation or dismissal...That's what the honourable in Honourable Member for wherever, is supposed to mean.
The Tories have gradually eroded that principle, so on reflection I actually condone what Ed has done. People are disillusioned seeing what MPs get away with. He is giving us a reminder of how politics should be. It's a shame it had to be Emily, but there can be no exceptions.