FlyTheNest

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 11:38 am**

SpinningHugo wrote:Retirement age for MPs.

Should parties have a rule for this, as we do for judges?

Michael Crick has been posting the age of some of the MPs standing. Looking at the list, most of them have never troubled the scorers in political terms, and I wonder whether a mandatory retirement age would help.

Yes there should definitely be a rule making retirement compulsory for MPs & I'd go further & add Peers too. A mandatory retirement age would help to reduce the HoL numbers. Life Peers could be permitted to keep the title & 'prestige'

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 11:46 am**

http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/dw ... iolations/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

DWP declared a ‘leading’ Disability Confident employer, despite UN rights violations

Not so much two ticks but two fingers.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 12:03 pm**

pk1 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Retirement age for MPs.

Should parties have a rule for this, as we do for judges?

Michael Crick has been posting the age of some of the MPs standing. Looking at the list, most of them have never troubled the scorers in political terms, and I wonder whether a mandatory retirement age would help.
Yes there should definitely be a rule making retirement compulsory for MPs & I'd go further & add Peers too. A mandatory retirement age would help to reduce the HoL numbers. Life Peers could be permitted to keep the title & 'prestige'

Age limit? 75 too high?

Labour

Skinner, 85; Winnick, 83; Flynn, 81; & Clwyd, 80

Robinson, 78 Cunningham 76, Sheerman 76 & Hopkins 75

Oldest Tories are Cash 77, Clarke 76

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 12:06 pm**

Ok, that Corbyn foreign policy speech explains why I won;t be voting Labour. Pure Milne.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 12:09 pm**

SpinningHugo wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote: I find this reluctance to accept the influence of the media strange -
Again, who is it you think is doing that?

Of course the media has an influence. The idea that the BBC is dominated by Tories, as some think, is a bit odd for anyone who knows people in the media, but there we are. (and no, I don't think Laura K is all that good either, and I deliberately avoid Today).

The point is not that the media, like the weather, is important. The point is that Labour has to win in the world as it is. Using the media as an excuse for failure, as will inevitably happen on June 9th, is to give up.

Most of the media bias against Corbyn reflects general opinion. Yes, there is a percentage of people in the Uk who passionately back him. There is a much larger number who think he is useless. That is going to get reflected back at us by the media. Having a leader who has opposed all military action by the west everywhere since 1945 is a bit tricky in media terms.

Senior and prominent positions in BBC News and Current Affairs are dominated by Tories and/or the Murdoch/Mail/soon to be Standard axis. That is so obvious I remain staggered by anyone that professes not to have noticed, or not to think it is an issue.

I have never argued, in simplistic terms, that the BBC is "dominated by Tories". Culturally I think it does still (on balance) lean left, certainly the output I tend to consume (e.g. 6 Music).

But news and current affairs is so Tory it's truly laughable.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 12:15 pm**

Willow904 wrote:I would add that Labour isn't the only party that is vulnerable to the power of the press. Since Maastricht the right wing tabloid press has fed the British public a drip-drip backdrop of anti-EU, anti-immigration propaganda that ultimately, although the Tory party may currently be trying to exploit it for electoral gain, may prove to come back to bite them on the ass in the end. Regardless of what May says is her aim, she has to deliver a Brexit outcome that satisfies both her party's City and business donors on the one hand, and Brexit voters and the tax-dodging foreign owned press on the other. It is quite within the realms of possibility that she will fail on one side or the other, losing either voters or donations and will run into trouble at the next election. But that, of course, is why she is having an election now, to buy herself two more years to try to square the circle. This reality is what left wing hopes mostly ride on. Losing the minimum amount of seats possible to ensure the best chance of capitalising next time being the aim in June.

Thank You. You raise a very valid point. The point I raised earlier (maybe somewhat pompously?) that there is a threat to democracy in that the media (and our means of information) is in the hands of a small number of individuals is amplified here.I should have made this precise point. It is not as simple as right/left it is the power of a small number of people to use their wealth and that power to spread "news" that benefits them and their own interests. Until and unless we have (and I haven't an easy solution) some form of balance or a redress as illustrated by Leveson then this will be a threat to both sides of the political debate.

Teresa May may like the status quo now but what happens in the worm(s) turn(s).......

Therein lies the threat to our democracy. We ignore this or take the advice of some who tell us to stop complaining about the media (or indeed the weather!) only ignores the problem which is exactly what the media/press would like.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 12:16 pm**

SpinningHugo wrote:
pk1 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Retirement age for MPs.

Should parties have a rule for this, as we do for judges?

Michael Crick has been posting the age of some of the MPs standing. Looking at the list, most of them have never troubled the scorers in political terms, and I wonder whether a mandatory retirement age would help.
Yes there should definitely be a rule making retirement compulsory for MPs & I'd go further & add Peers too. A mandatory retirement age would help to reduce the HoL numbers. Life Peers could be permitted to keep the title & 'prestige'

Age limit? 75 too high?

Labour

Skinner, 85; Winnick, 83; Flynn, 81; & Clwyd, 80

Robinson, 78 Cunningham 76, Sheerman 76 & Hopkins 75

Oldest Tories are Cash 77, Clarke 76

Tricky isn't it. 75 is reasonable imo but self-interest would doubtless play a part in legislating it

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 12:20 pm**

I assumed it was obvious that we were talking about the news side of the BBC

And, as a supporter of the Greens, I assume you found Corbyn still too much of a warmongerer?

I assume, as a Green, you abhor Labour keeping Trident and agree with Caroline Lucas?

I thought his speech was very thoughtful and more constructive and thoughtful than most of the crap we see from politicians

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 12:24 pm**

Labour braced for internal battle over manifesto after leak (Guardian - from yesterday)

I just happened across this (again).

Are they still "braced"? I know I am, and I'm getting tired.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 12:36 pm**

SpinningHugo wrote:
ScarletGas wrote:
I will not get into a prolonged argument with you, which on the basis of this nonsense of a reply, it seems you want. I have better things to do than indulge in non productive arguments with people of closed minds. I wont be able to change your mind and you will not change mine so lets leave it there shall we?
Yes.

No doubt I too am suffering from an irredeemable false consciousness.

If you were, you'd be for real, like most on FlyTheNest are real
I feel awkward, self-conscious, not angry, writing this in the thread
It's likely you've never been here to do more or less than cause harm
I can't prove it, I don't want to prove it, I'd prefer being wrong
I'm not going to tangle with you or trouble anyone's peace
Most people are exchanging information, sharing genuine feelings and accept others, take them at their word
I've frequently disagreed with others and continue to love them, regardless of differences, how they feel about me is their business, I won't bother anyone
Your likely purpose is cultivating doubt and futility, not sometimes, all the time, it's your goal
No joke, what you likely are makes my blood run cold

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 12:41 pm**

Good-afternoon, everyone

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 12:41 pm**

Deleted

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 12:48 pm**

Strawmen announce all out strike

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 1:01 pm**

Excuse aside CJA -essential cake and coffee replenishment will be supplied in less than one month at the usual place.It's my turn to pay so it will be the smallest quantities available,but the thoughts there.Cja will be accompanied for her own protection,clarification.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 1:05 pm**

If I can remember the combination on my wallet.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 1:14 pm**

Upper age limits for MPs are illiberal and impractical, if there are "bed blockers" then it is down to local parties to put pressure on them to retire.

But as we know, a certain tendency within Labour views a large and active membership with hostility and wants a PLP dominated by the SPADocracy to have all the power.

You can't have it both ways.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 1:18 pm**

howsillyofme1 wrote:I assumed it was obvious that we were talking about the news side of the BBC

And, as a supporter of the Greens, I assume you found Corbyn still too much of a warmongerer?

I assume, as a Green, you abhor Labour keeping Trident and agree with Caroline Lucas?

I thought his speech was very thoughtful and more constructive and thoughtful than most of the crap we see from politicians

On Trident, yes actually.As I've said before, I favour unilateral nuclear disarmament.

The speech was dire. Purest Milne.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 1:23 pm**

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Upper age limits for MPs are illiberal and impractical, if there are "bed blockers" then it is down to local parties to put pressure on them to retire.

But as we know, a certain tendency within Labour views a large and active membership with hostility and wants a PLP dominated by the SPADocracy to have all the power.

You can't have it both ways.

Why can't the parties have centralised rules about it? It needs more centralised selection procedures too, to aid diversity. Those should be governed by rules too, to stop things like the parachuting in of, say, Dromey or McCluskey's bestie.

I tend to agree with Professor Bale about the new members

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... a7f5767204" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 1:46 pm**

[youtube]dkQpVgOcGVY[/youtube]

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 2:15 pm**

HindleA wrote:Excuse aside CJA -essential cake and coffee replenishment will be supplied in less than one month at the usual place.It's my turn to pay so it will be the smallest quantities available,but the thoughts there.Cja will be accompanied for her own protection,clarification.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 2:27 pm**

There are a few cases where Labour MPs have stayed on for ages because the local party couldn't agree on a successor.

The late Syd Bidwell in Southall was one, Ann Clywd may be a contemporary example. As is Roger Godsiff (71 next month)

But you can't generalise about these things - Paul Flynn may now be in his 80s, but has the energy of several half his age.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 2:32 pm**

Isn't age discrimination illegal in the UK now and anyway isn't it down to the electors?

If we can get rid of MP over 70 can this be applied to inbred aristocrats who freeload on the back of deferential taxpayers too?

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 2:35 pm**

AnatolyKasparov wrote:There are a few cases where Labour MPs have stayed on for ages because the local party couldn't agree on a successor.

The late Syd Bidwell in Southall was one, Ann Clywd may be a contemporary example. As is Roger Godsiff (71 next month)

But you can't generalise about these things - Paul Flynn may now be in his 80s, but has the energy of several half his age.

Even assuming that you're right about Flynn, he'll be 87 come the next GE. There are plenty of energetic Labour activists deserving of a seat out there.

Not the least of the problems with these very old MPs is they die. See Kaufman and Meacher. By-elections are really expensive.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 2:37 pm**

Maybe you might have told Jamie Reed and Tristram Hunt that

The former in particular - it is likely this election would not be happening now had he not done what he did.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 2:39 pm**

gilsey wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/opin ... state.html
May's vapid vision.

Great analysis

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 2:42 pm**

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Maybe you might have told Jamie Reed and Tristram Hunt that

The former in particular - it is likely this election would not be happening now had he not done what he did.

How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion ?

Reed took the opportunity to return to an industry from whence he came. Changing employment is surely the right of every citizen in the world.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 2:44 pm**

Maybe you should come and talk to some people locally (and most Labourites in these parts are not instinctively pro-Corbyn)

He is not well regarded now (even though he used to be) his actions were widely seen as self-indulgence.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 2:47 pm**

pk1 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Maybe you might have told Jamie Reed and Tristram Hunt that

The former in particular - it is likely this election would not be happening now had he not done what he did.
How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion ?

Reed took the opportunity to return to an industry from whence he came. Changing employment is surely the right of every citizen in the world.

I agree with you, however, I took AK to mean Reed shouldn't have given the Tories a shot at winning the seat for the good of people, nation and Labour. Apologies to you both if I've misunderstood.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 2:54 pm**

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Maybe you might have told Jamie Reed and Tristram Hunt that

The former in particular - it is likely this election would not be happening now had he not done what he did.

I am afraid I think the last is a ridiculous claim.

I do understand the view that being an MP is a vocation and you shouldn;'t quit, but you only have one life. People like Reed and Hunt rightly concluded that they were wasting theirs being MPs with no prospect of power, and that they were better off doing something else. Reed would have lost his seat in this GE anyway. I'm really somewhat surprised so many Labour MPs haven't quit.

Michael Dugher
Alan Johnson
Gisela Stewar
David Anderson
Jim Dowd
Tom Blenkinsop
Rob Marris
Pat Glass
Steve Rotherham
Iain Wright
Andrew Smith
Fiona MacTaggart

Of those only, what, 2 or 3 quit because of Corbyn?

of course there are quite a few others (Huq, Zeichner, Streeting, Woodcock, Siddiq, Kyle, Creagh, Coaker) who might have quit, but know they'll lose anyway.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 2:54 pm**

Beautiful little birds singing and landing upon the window sill, partially open
I thought only gulls, doves, magpies, pigeons and crows were left in the neighbourhood

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 2:59 pm**

SpinningHugo wrote:of course there are quite a few others (Huq, Zeichner, Streeting, Woodcock, Siddiq, Kyle, Creagh, Coaker) who might have quit, but know they'll lose anyway.

I don't see why any MP first elected in 2015 should stand down now, and none have done so.

Not all those you list are guaranteed to lose either (eg Labour local results in Gedling last week were notably good)

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 3:04 pm**

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:of course there are quite a few others (Huq, Zeichner, Streeting, Woodcock, Siddiq, Kyle, Creagh, Coaker) who might have quit, but know they'll lose anyway.
I don't see why any MP first elected in 2015 should stand down now, and none have done so.

Not all those you list are guaranteed to lose either (eg Labour local results in Gedling last week were notably good)

Which do you think will hold on?

I think all that list will lose.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 3:28 pm**

Well I mentioned Coaker, and the 3 London MPs have a chance if the latest poll there is at all accurate (Greens are not standing against any of them, either)

Others are up against it, though I wouldn't completely rule out a "surprise" Labour hold in Cambridge. Woodcock is the only one *guaranteed* to lose, though.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 3:33 pm**

NHS hospitals across England hit by large-scale cyber-attack

Many hospitals having to divert emergency patients, with doctors reporting messages demanding money
(Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ber-attack

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 3:36 pm**

Good morfternoon.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 3:42 pm**

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well I mentioned Coaker, and the 3 London MPs have a chance if the latest poll there is at all accurate (Greens are not standing against any of them, either)

Others are up against it, though I wouldn't completely rule out a "surprise" Labour hold in Cambridge. Woodcock is the only one *guaranteed* to lose, though.

nah. Huq, Streeting and Siddiq will go. Coaker has a chance, but I think the Ukips collapse will do for him.

Still possible the polls are wrong I suppose, but I don't think the Tories have really started on Corbyn and McDonnell yet.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 3:49 pm**

So you think that latest London poll "was wrong", then?

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 4:11 pm**

AnatolyKasparov wrote:So you think that latest London poll "was wrong", then?

No, I don't. Even on that poll all those seats are lost.

See

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9876" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

it was a good poll for Labour, but a deterioration on the 2015 position.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 4:13 pm**

Yes, I know all that. The point is, such a result London-wide would at least indicate they are still in play.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 4:14 pm**

AnatolyKasparov wrote:So you think that latest London poll "was wrong", then?

I'm a little confused. Which London poll are you referring to? According to UK polling report the recent Yougov/Evening Standard London poll had Labour down 3 points on 2015, Tories up 1. It suggests on a uniform swing the MPs SH mentions would lose their seats to the Tories, so doesn't that imply SH is taking the poll at face value, rather than thinking it wrong? I'm not as convinced as SH it will necessarily work out that way, swings aren't normally especially uniform, are they, but I didn't think the polling in London was looking especially promising for Labour at the minute. Still a little way to go, surely.

Edited to add - doh! Too slow. Ignore above.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 4:22 pm**

Out of the 631 GB seats (not including the Speaker's constituency of Buckingham) Labour and Tories have candidates in all of them. LibDems are missing two (Brighton Pavilion and the more surprising Skipton/Ripon) Greens have 468, a bit down on last time but putting them ahead of UKIP who have crashed to 378 - they only missed a few Scottish seats in 2015.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 4:25 pm**

I think what's happened with the NHS today is going to change a few minds.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 4:26 pm**

https://davidhencke.com/2017/05/11/a-da ... r-tory-mp/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A damning indictment on the dangerous failure of privatisation in the criminal justice system by a former Tory MP

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 4:37 pm**

Temulkar wrote:I think what's happened with the NHS today is going to change a few minds.

In which way?

A) Emphasis on national security and that's why we need a strong and secure president? Sorry, Prime Minister.

B) Another disaster at the NHS under the Hunt.

C) something else.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 4:40 pm**

Hard to argue with imho.
Why Corbyn-bashing liberals must vote Labour on 8 June

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

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 4:45 pm**

StephenDolan wrote:
Temulkar wrote:I think what's happened with the NHS today is going to change a few minds.
In which way?

A) Emphasis on national security and that's why we need a strong and secure president? Sorry, Prime Minister.

B) Another disaster at the NHS under the Hunt.

C) something else.

B, although I expect A to be the Tory attack line. This one is too big to bluster through, though.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 5:03 pm**

Temulkar wrote:I think what's happened with the NHS today is going to change a few minds.

I don't. Sorry.

Overall though, i think this has been a good week for labour. The manifesto leak was deliberate i think, and inspired. it meant the free ponies got a run about without it being possible to challenge n costs. The Tory campaign seems to be one of studied inaction. The more Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott are on tv, the better they think.

But, what started as the Brexit election has drifted off that. The reason is obvious: the two main parties agree about Brexit. Europe is still a low salience issue and Farron is insufficiently impressive to make a breakthrough.

I think Brexit dwarfs everything else. Without it, we could pay for all of Labour's programme and have spare change for Sure Start.

Politics is all very odd.

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 5:11 pm**

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... e_btn_link" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 5:13 pm**

Any reason why you don't think that? Possibly because the media will spin it and that will influence what people think?

This does not look like a sophisticated mainframe attack

On Brexit, I think most parties pretty much are agreed Brexit will happen. If that is the outcome then yes they think the same

The actual mechanism on how to do it and the priorities are very different though so the actual situation in a few years could be very different depending who wins the election

Posted: **Fri 12 May, 2017 5:17 pm**

StephenDolan wrote:Hard to argue with imho.
Why Corbyn-bashing liberals must vote Labour on 8 June

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

Yep

FlyTheNest

Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017

Re: Friday 12th May 2017