Forum rules Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.
PorFavor wrote:I think it was a mistake to elevate Shami Chakrabarti to the House of Lords after having stated that that there would be no names put forward by Labour. Just stupid - and asking for trouble.
Its the original statement there would be no new nominations under Corbyn that was the real mistake IMO.
Being opposed to the HoL in principle is all well and good, but as long as it exists as a branch of our legislature Labour needs to maintain its strength there.
Well, exactly. But having made the original statement, what does he do? Put forward one name - that name opening up all sorts of problems, which he surely must have known would happen. Not to mention passing up the chance to boost Labour's number in the Lords (which, as you say, is part of the game that must be joined in with) and, incidentally, snubbing God knows who else in the process.
Ill-judged is putting it mildly.
Last edited by PorFavor on Sun 16 Oct, 2016 10:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
From the home affairs select committee report, quoted above
However, the fact that incidents of antisemitism—particularly online—have made their way into a major political party is a new and deplorable phenomenon, and one which has not recently affected the mainstream right wing of British politics.
That took me five minutes and involved the first few pages of a google search. The home affairs select committee should be ashamed of themselves. (Edit - tidy up links)
Both tomorrow's Time and Telegraph are reporting Hammond at war with the rest of the cabinet over the migrant question and hard Brexit harming the economy.
All going well then?
If I'm not here, then I'll be in the library. Or the other library.
Mr Garrison is Trump, with an orange face, trying to get people not to vote for him because he has no idea what he's doing. But despite his best efforts including calling his own supporters morons his popularity is increasing.
I once studied Classics and the thing about demagogues is that they only have to be lucky once then you're fucked. Not just you but your family, your country and your entire way of life.
It's probably way past time when people coming up with this stuff should have said "yes, we can do this but if it makes x numbers of people redundant, should we?"
When people point to how many manufacturing jobs have been lost, it's not easy to say how many have been lost due to loss of capacity i.e. offshoring, and how many because of technological advance.
The question for society should be "Who does this benefit?"
If I'm not here, then I'll be in the library. Or the other library.
Technological" solutions "are already replacing human contact in the health/social sphere-tracking devices in lieu of a daily call etc,no doubt the argument is that if it saves money it frees it up for others who need more help,but isolation also has costs.
adam wrote:From the home affairs select committee report, quoted above
However, the fact that incidents of antisemitism—particularly online—have made their way into a major political party is a new and deplorable phenomenon, and one which has not recently affected the mainstream right wing of British politics.
That took me five minutes and involved the first few pages of a google search. The home affairs select committee should be ashamed of themselves. (Edit - tidy up links)
Quite. And yet Umunna was a co-author on this.
Last edited by tinyclanger2 on Mon 17 Oct, 2016 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
It's probably way past time when people coming up with this stuff should have said "yes, we can do this but if it makes x numbers of people redundant, should we?"
When people point to how many manufacturing jobs have been lost, it's not easy to say how many have been lost due to loss of capacity i.e. offshoring, and how many because of technological advance.
The question for society should be "Who does this benefit?"
Indeed. Rise in technological unemployment
Accelerating technological unemployment will likely be one of the most challenging societal issues in the 21st Century. Never before in history are so many industries being simultaneously upended by new technologies. Though "creative destruction," in which lost jobs are replaced with new ones, will be a factor, our newest technologies have the clear potential to eliminate many more jobs than we create. With technology advancing at a geometric pace, robotics, artificial intelligence, 3D-printing, and other innovations with enormous disruptive potential will soon hit the mainstream. Billions of people worldwide are currently employed in industries that will likely be affected—and billions of new entrants to the workforce will need jobs. http://www.wtn.net/wtn-technological-un ... ent-summit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
plus: Polarisation of types of jobs available
As summarized by Mr. Autor, “the structure of job opportunities in the United States has sharply polarized over the past two decades, with expanding job opportunities in both high-skill, high-wage occupations and low-skill, low-wage occupations, coupled with contracting opportunities in middle-wage, middle-skill white-collar and blue-collar jobs.”
A recent WSJ article noted that the 2014 median earnings of a typical male full time worker was $50,383 based on Census Bureau statistics. Back in 1973, the median earnings of a similar typical full time male worker was $53,294 measured in 2014 dollars to adjust for inflation. http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2015/11/06/tec ... e-of-work/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
HindleA wrote:Technological" solutions "are already replacing human contact in the health/social sphere-tracking devices in lieu of a daily call etc,no doubt the argument is that if it saves money it frees it up for others who need more help,but isolation also has costs.
