Tuesday 24th January 2017

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 5:57 pm

My interlocutor last night self-deprecatingly compared himself to a trade unionist unimpressed by neoliberalism.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 6:03 pm

The headline is often chosen that "stimulates"diversionary debate.

The "buggy versus w/c "thing largely resulted in virtually nothing on design of bus,training of drivers,which here at least resolves easilly any potential problems or travel for all which was actually the intent.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 6:05 pm

From an excellent poster on another board. Trying to make sense of Trump.

Setting aside the Putin mole theory, it seems pretty clear that he hates the idea of multilateral institutions (hardly surprising for a narcissist), and wants to tear them down in favour of bilateral deals. To the extent there's a strategy rather than a pathology behind it, it's that he thinks the US has, or could have, the upper hand in bilateral deals, whereas it's weaker negotiating against/with a block. In the abstract, if you squint really hard, it's not entirely without merit, but only if you ignore the diplomatic and geopolitical context and don't mind pissing off and weakening your allies while emboldening and strengthening your enemies. It also ignores the possibility of other countries forming their own multilateral institutions without you.

This is bang on, and a good way of seeing his rationale for Brexit. Isolate, pick off.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 6:07 pm

gilsey wrote:If anyone here is a secret admirer of Cameron & Osborne, it's so secret they don't even know it themselves.
Even admiring what they seem to be able to get away with is a step too far.

Broadly agree with your thoughts on A50, hsom1, as you should already know. I've given up rehashing it for the time being.

Hi Gilsey

Well I can think of one poster who I am pretty sure really admires them but who really knows what he/she thinks as it is a bit of a mystery due to the multiple identities and obvious trolling

I am also deducing from the reaction to Brexit and the view that Osborne is a heroic Remainer....

What I would say though is that Tubby seems to have decided I mean him, based on no evidence at all - is it the sign of a guilty conscience perhaps lol...it shouldn't be treated as ridiculous though as some people on here have started prophesing a love for the LD based on one policy.....REMAIN.....whilst forgetting their involvement in many of the abject disasters during the last Parliament

To be fair though it was a throwaway line at the end of a post which I would rather defend the bulk than something I probably wish I hadn't put at the end

It does though act as a reminder of how a substantive point, whether you agree or not, is ignored because someone makes a silly or facetious comment (or a simple mistake) and allows the commentators to avoid the subject

One poster on here had a real fascination with Corbyn's birthplace recently.....shame the rest of his interesting interview was ignored for that one point, again and again and again!

It is one commonly used in the press....Miliband was a regular victim of it to I seem to remember

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 6:15 pm

folly:
“...the pursuit of policy contrary to the self-interest of the constituency or state involved.”

criteria of folly
“ . . . it must have been perceived as counter-productive in its own time, not merely in hindsight.”
“ . . . a feasible alternative course of action must have been available.”
“ . . . the policy in question should be that of a group, not an individual ruler, and should persist beyond ‘any one political lifetime.’”

- Barbara Tuchman
THE MARCH OF FOLLY: FROM TROY TO VIETNAM
1984

http://faculty.webster.edu/corbetre/per ... folly.html

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 6:17 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:From an excellent poster on another board. Trying to make sense of Trump.

Setting aside the Putin mole theory, it seems pretty clear that he hates the idea of multilateral institutions (hardly surprising for a narcissist), and wants to tear them down in favour of bilateral deals. To the extent there's a strategy rather than a pathology behind it, it's that he thinks the US has, or could have, the upper hand in bilateral deals, whereas it's weaker negotiating against/with a block. In the abstract, if you squint really hard, it's not entirely without merit, but only if you ignore the diplomatic and geopolitical context and don't mind pissing off and weakening your allies while emboldening and strengthening your enemies. It also ignores the possibility of other countries forming their own multilateral institutions without you.
This is bang on, and a good way of seeing his rationale for Brexit. Isolate, pick off.

You could drive yourself to a nervous breakdown trying to make sense of trump.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 6:19 pm

Indeed, but I think he has a good go there. As good as anybody is likely to do, anyhow.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 6:19 pm

It may be folly JA, but it's the 'will of the people' therefore must be pursued to the bitter end and damn the consequences.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 6:23 pm

citizenJA wrote:folly:
“...the pursuit of policy contrary to the self-interest of the constituency or state involved.”

criteria of folly
“ . . . it must have been perceived as counter-productive in its own time, not merely in hindsight.”
“ . . . a feasible alternative course of action must have been available.”
“ . . . the policy in question should be that of a group, not an individual ruler, and should persist beyond ‘any one political lifetime.’”

- Barbara Tuchman
THE MARCH OF FOLLY: FROM TROY TO VIETNAM
1984

http://faculty.webster.edu/corbetre/per ... folly.html

Personally, I think Brexit (in this way.....I would never say it would never be an option) is a folly.....it was before the referendum, it was during and that has been confirmed since

The question is 'how do you prevent the folly actually taking place'?

One would be to completely block A50 and never give notice to leave.....if you can give an explanation on how to do that I am all ears but there is no way I can see i in the current circumstances

In order to win the war it is probably worth a tactical retreat and let the Government have their way.

There is then the argument that we should just vote against anyway but that is a matter of judgement...some think yes...some think no and to be honest I don't care as I don't think it makes much of a difference. The argument that tries to predict who people will blame in 2019 is not one that convinces me

The best option, in my view, is to amend, badger and pester the Government over the whole process........when, and I am optimistic it will, public opinion will change and then the Government will be wanting a way to backtrack as well

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 6:28 pm

I don't like the phrase at all but why is this referendum result not to be construed as being 'the will of the people'?

It is more the 'will of the people' than the Tory Government's election was last year

I am fed up of hearing it....but it is not inaccurate

The question was relatively simple and straightforward....where was the confusion?

Where is the justification in ignoring it? On what grounds?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 6:31 pm

yahyah wrote:It may be folly JA, but it's the 'will of the people' therefore must be pursued to the bitter end and damn the consequences.

Yep, wouldn't be folly otherwise

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 6:38 pm

Can I just ask a simple question

There are no Brexit supporters on here as far as I can tell

There are a number of posters who keep saying that 'this must be stopped' but I have seen very little credible that proposes how this happens....apart from blaming the Labour Party for some reason not well defined.....

The Labour Party could, in your view, be shouting louder (I think you are over doing it but that is my view) but how would that stop this 'folly'? Even the Tories who agree with you/us are going to vote for it apart from possibly 1 or 2 cases

Just shouting at people who tend to agree with your desired outcome doesn't seem to be helping that much....

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 6:39 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:I don't like the phrase at all but why is this referendum result not to be construed as being 'the will of the people'?

It is more the 'will of the people' than the Tory Government's election was last year

I am fed up of hearing it....but it is not inaccurate

The question was relatively simple and straightforward....where was the confusion?

Where is the justification in ignoring it? On what grounds?

No confusion, division. More people who could vote voted for the UK to leave the EU than people who voted for the UK to remain
in the EU. Government didn't have a plan for that outcome. That's causing grief in and of itself. Tory disaster.

May I get you some tea? A medicinal toddy? I'm out of baked goods at the moment.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 6:42 pm

Well, the Government got away completely on the evening news with its reverse ferret.

Apparently, even IDS (who I guess must have been told to shut up) was talking about how Brexit was going to happen, and it was fine.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 6:43 pm

citizenJA wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:I don't like the phrase at all but why is this referendum result not to be construed as being 'the will of the people'?

It is more the 'will of the people' than the Tory Government's election was last year

I am fed up of hearing it....but it is not inaccurate

The question was relatively simple and straightforward....where was the confusion?

Where is the justification in ignoring it? On what grounds?
No confusion, division. More people who could vote voted for the UK to leave the EU than people who voted for the UK to remain
in the EU. Government didn't have a plan for that outcome. That's causing grief in and of itself. Tory disaster.

May I get you some tea? A medicinal toddy? I'm out of baked goods at the moment.

Some tea would be nice....thank you

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 6:45 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:Can I just ask a simple question

There are no Brexit supporters on here as far as I can tell

There are a number of posters who keep saying that 'this must be stopped' but I have seen very little credible that proposes how this happens....apart from blaming the Labour Party for some reason not well defined.....

The Labour Party could, in your view, be shouting louder (I think you are over doing it but that is my view) but how would that stop this 'folly'? Even the Tories who agree with you/us are going to vote for it apart from possibly 1 or 2 cases

Just shouting at people who tend to agree with your desired outcome doesn't seem to be helping that much....

I don't think it can be stopped. There was a vote for Brexit.

It would have been perfectly possible to obtain a Commons majority for membership of the EEA. That is what, for example, Paul Mason (no Blairite) argued for. There was and is no majority for exiting the single market in the referendum.

Instead we are headed for Hard Brexit, with the Labour party adopting an identical stance to the government.

We are doing so because the leadership of the Labour party thinks their best electoral hope lies in the chaos of Hard Brexit. Corbyn thinks that his bright socialist future will win if the competition is with May's version of the UK as Singapore.

Corbyn/McDonnell and Milne think what they have always thought about the EU. They are behaving as one would expect of them.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 6:45 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Well, the Government got away completely on the evening news with its reverse ferret.

Apparently, even IDS (who I guess must have been told to shut up) was talking about how Brexit was going to happen, and it was fine.

At the moment...it is.....hopefully that will change but it is that at the moment 'hope'

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 6:50 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Indeed.

But I'll put on record I'm not a secret admirer of Cameron or Osborne. I'm a non secret loather.

Would it matter if you were?

As I understand it, this is an open forum. As far as I'm concerned, if a Tory supporter wants to contribute, that's fine by me - as long as their contribution is polite and reasoned.

FTN is unlikely to ever have the scale of readership of the Graun or any of the tabloids and is not going to shape public (or even PLP) opinion!

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 6:51 pm

Eric_WLothian wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Indeed.

But I'll put on record I'm not a secret admirer of Cameron or Osborne. I'm a non secret loather.
Would it matter if you were?

As I understand it, this is an open forum. As far as I'm concerned, if a Tory supporter wants to contribute, that's fine by me - as long as their contribution is polite and reasoned.

FTN is unlikely to ever have the scale of readership of the Graun or any of the tabloids and is not going to shape public (or even PLP) opinion!

You're going to blow my cover!

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 6:52 pm

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ia-updates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 6:56 pm

So 9 weeks (at the most) is OK for the passage of this Brexit Bill through both houses? Because "the people want us to get on with it".

They want us to get on with all sorts of stuff, but we generally go through the motions of scrutinizing it.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 6:56 pm

HindleA wrote:http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ia-updates

Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

"President Trump has banned employees of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from giving social media updates and speaking with reporters..."

Yeah, right because it'd be real terrible if an environmental disaster unfolded and the EPA was contacting people about it.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 6:57 pm

We are so doomed

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 7:01 pm

Mr citizen went to fetch baked goods.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 7:05 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:So 9 weeks (at the most) is OK for the passage of this Brexit Bill through both houses? Because "the people want us to get on with it".

They want us to get on with all sorts of stuff, but we generally go through the motions of scrutinizing it.

Well, I'd like to put it off.
The NHS and social care needs attention pronto, double-time, quick quick

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 7:27 pm

"Baked goods crisis resolved in Stoke"

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 7:28 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
David Allen Green ‏@Law_and_policy now8 seconds ago

Had Theresa May just got on with Brexit after High Court defeat, she would have an A50 Act by now.

Only herself to blame, by appealing.
Yep.

He's right y'know! I really ought to give my own view rather than someone else's. So what do I think about this...

Poor Rusty, what a sad little man you are to be sure...

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 7:36 pm

Have we had this yet?

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Corbyn gave two reactions to the judgement. The first mentioned tariff free access to the Single Market. He took that out of the second reaction.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 7:48 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Have we had this yet?

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Corbyn gave two reactions to the judgement. The first mentioned tariff free access to the Single Market. He took that out of the second reaction.

and.....?

Mildly interesting....shows the mess that is Labour's media management....(which can't be that easy to do in such a hostile environment to be fair)

It is, however, of no real significance as there will be time to understand completely the Labour Party position over the coming year or two....

Wouldn't it have been fun if people had trawled through May's absolutely incoherent, undeliverable ramblings last week with such endeavour

You know that speech which was politely spoken about by polite diplomats (whilst sniggering to themselves) that has been proposed to be the equivalent of a White Paper......

I asked a question earlier about what proposals others had for stopping Brexit seeing that the blame for it seems to be being laid at Labour's feet - no takers?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 7:53 pm

The leader personally signed off a new, permanent contract for the head of media last week.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 7:55 pm

Bit of not light relief.

Just been trying to find online whether the film Denial was showing near me. Stumbled into a review, complete with "Jewish conspiracy to ruin Irving" below the line.

Reported it.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 7:55 pm

The best thing Labour can do right now is simply shut up about Article 50 and tell the press that the ball is now in the government's court, and that they won't say any more until a Bill is presented.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 7:57 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:The best thing Labour can do right now is simply shut up about Article 50 and tell the press that the ball is now in the government's court, and that they won't say any more until a Bill is presented.

That's all of two days time, by the sound of it.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 8:00 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Bit of not light relief.

Just been trying to find online whether the film Denial was showing near me. Stumbled into a review, complete with "Jewish conspiracy to ruin Irving" below the line.

Reported it.

Yes, the number of times I've seen a comment as if it were Lipstadt who brought the case against Irving and that was about denying free speech.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 8:00 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:The leader personally signed off a new, permanent contract for the head of media last week.

Yes, a mistake.......in my view

But look at who May has appointed for her Brexit Ministers, or Blair letting Mandelson back into Government, or Cameron and his convicted Mr Rock.......

All leaders have made bad to worse appointments....

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 8:03 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:The best thing Labour can do right now is simply shut up about Article 50 and tell the press that the ball is now in the government's court, and that they won't say any more until a Bill is presented.
That's all of two days time, by the sound of it.

Even two days silence would be a relief...and if the thinking is that they won't vote for it until a white paper on terms is published could be considerably longer.

There's till time - May said invoke by end of March so there's no real rush to vote it through.

Post by **refitman** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 8:10 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Yes, that was the spin put on it by the Guardian - like I said. "Three line whip" was a total invention of theirs, nowhere did he actually say that.

(just like he never said "Brexit would be good for Britain" in that speech the other day, despite the Graun claim he would - anybody see a pattern developing here?)

Rubbish was it made up.

He was asked "does that mean a 3 line whip"

He replied

"It means Labour MPs will be asked to voted in that direction when the vote comes up."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38684268" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyone sensible would have realised that he has no power to whip the PLP. They'll vote how they like. Why treat instructions from Corbyn more seriously than he treated them from leaders of the past.

I think he, like you last week, mispredicted how many MPs would refuse to back art 50 being invoked.

So now he is backtracking.

It doesn't matter much. Without a concerted effort to stop Hard Brexit by the opposition, it is inevitable.

I'm really, really impressed that you know what Corbyn said, what, between the words he actually said. are you psychic? you should hire youself out to the police.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 8:19 pm

Maybe he already has.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 8:24 pm

I think I'm with Roger here.

The court have done what they have done. Good. Now there will be a bill.

Let's see what it says.

What people think Corbyn might not have said is of little relevance in the mean time

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 8:24 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ut-consent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

G4S to limit filming asylum seekers in their homes without consent

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -crackdown" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NHS hands over patient records to Home Office for immigration crackdown

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 8:25 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... few-months" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One in 10 nursery schools in England face closure within months

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 8:28 pm

refitman wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Yes, that was the spin put on it by the Guardian - like I said. "Three line whip" was a total invention of theirs, nowhere did he actually say that.

(just like he never said "Brexit would be good for Britain" in that speech the other day, despite the Graun claim he would - anybody see a pattern developing here?)

Rubbish was it made up.

He was asked "does that mean a 3 line whip"

He replied

"It means Labour MPs will be asked to voted in that direction when the vote comes up."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38684268" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyone sensible would have realised that he has no power to whip the PLP. They'll vote how they like. Why treat instructions from Corbyn more seriously than he treated them from leaders of the past.

I think he, like you last week, mispredicted how many MPs would refuse to back art 50 being invoked.

So now he is backtracking.

It doesn't matter much. Without a concerted effort to stop Hard Brexit by the opposition, it is inevitable.
I'm really, really impressed that you know what Corbyn said, what, between the words he actually said. are you psychic? you should hire youself out to the police.

I'm not sure what more I can do that give a link to a video of his saying what he said in response to a direct question.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 8:28 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... tive-order" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Standing Rock Sioux pledge to fight executive order: 'We can't back down now'
Donald Trump’s revival of the Dakota Access pipeline is a stunning twist of fate, but the tribe and its supporters say now is the time to show strength

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 8:29 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... -chatlines" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Irish town plagued by callers to 'Babestation' sex chatlines

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 8:29 pm

Whatever they are.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 8:31 pm

HindleA wrote:Whatever they are.

Are they like a train station?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 8:33 pm

Not sure,Spinning Hugo,might know given perceptive skills.

Edited to add a "k" which went missing.

Post by **refitman** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 8:35 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:

I'm not sure what more I can do that give a link to a video of his saying what he said in response to a direct question.

Go on. A video where Corbyn replies with "we will impose a 3 line whip" in response to the question of voting on A50.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 8:35 pm

HindleA wrote:Not sure,Spinning Hugo,might now,given his perceptive skills.

ahhhh.....I forgot he lives on a higher plane than us....

do you think he gets so many things wrong just to throw us of his trail?

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 24 Jan, 2017 8:36 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
refitman wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
Rubbish was it made up.

He was asked "does that mean a 3 line whip"

He replied

"It means Labour MPs will be asked to voted in that direction when the vote comes up."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38684268" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyone sensible would have realised that he has no power to whip the PLP. They'll vote how they like. Why treat instructions from Corbyn more seriously than he treated them from leaders of the past.

I think he, like you last week, mispredicted how many MPs would refuse to back art 50 being invoked.

So now he is backtracking.

It doesn't matter much. Without a concerted effort to stop Hard Brexit by the opposition, it is inevitable.
I'm really, really impressed that you know what Corbyn said, what, between the words he actually said. are you psychic? you should hire youself out to the police.

I'm not sure what more I can do that give a link to a video of his saying what he said in response to a direct question.

Indeed. It was very kind of you to do so.

Thanks