Re: Wednesday 15th October 2014
Posted: Wed 15 Oct, 2014 12:57 pm
John Pienaar is a twat. That is all
Well, 500 million of that was on ATOS.AngryAsWell wrote:From btl AS
outoftouch2010 2m ago
McVey just said they had spent £50 billion a year on the disabled. Hm! Any thoughts
Was quite relieved (in a weird way) to see Frank Field being interviewed in the Guardian this morning where he said "There's no point me joining UKIP; they've already adopted my policies." Er, thanks?JackPranker wrote:Getting waaaaaaaay too tribal in here. May I remind folks in here that the election is not about Labour beating the coalition government, it's about installing a government that represents the electorate. Labour may be better suited to do that (to my mind, anyway) but they also need to be held to account as there are plenty within the ranks of the shadow cabinet that would best be consigned to the Bart Simpson blackboard.
Are you actually suggesting that people posting here who vote Labour and believe that Labour are the best option for a next Govt should not say so?Or just moan about the shadow cabinet like DfH?JackPranker wrote:Getting waaaaaaaay too tribal in here. May I remind folks in here that the election is not about Labour beating the coalition government, it's about installing a government that represents the electorate. Labour may be better suited to do that (to my mind, anyway) but they also need to be held to account as there are plenty within the ranks of the shadow cabinet that would best be consigned to the Bart Simpson blackboard.
Wow - a genuine surprise, that.letsskiptotheleft wrote:Jeremy Browne to stand down at the next election, and to avoid any doubt ''I won't be joining another party'' yet anyway?!
Another of James Purnell's successes.HindleA wrote:Cameron is in dire need of being lectured ,don't use the memory of your sadly deceased son to attempt to stifle criticism about the policies which your Government has enacted.I,in turn will not take lectures from a man that compulsively lies about "exemptions" and "protections".
Freud is of course beneath contempt and not worthy to lick my better halves boots for which he can have a cup of tea,if it comes up to our standards which I doubt.
Yes - even Norman Smith, on BBC News 24, thinks Ed Miliband scored a hit.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well, looks like AS isn't getting much support for his rather strange PMQs verdict - even from most other pundits
I suspect he might want to rethink this one......
It's my understanding that if you quote a source, that source should be - well - sourceable.HindleA wrote:50 billion figure (a,bit out of date but gives,what they include)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... led-people" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No, but jumping on those who's positions differ risks this place becoming the echo chamber it has been accused of being in the past. I'm not sure who you think I'm being impolite or patronising to.Rebecca wrote:Are you actually suggesting that people posting here who vote Labour and believe that Labour are the best option for a next Govt should not say so?Or just moan about the shadow cabinet like DfH?JackPranker wrote:Getting waaaaaaaay too tribal in here. May I remind folks in here that the election is not about Labour beating the coalition government, it's about installing a government that represents the electorate. Labour may be better suited to do that (to my mind, anyway) but they also need to be held to account as there are plenty within the ranks of the shadow cabinet that would best be consigned to the Bart Simpson blackboard.
Frankly,to me,the election IS absolutely about Labour beating the coalition.If they don't there will be another 5 years of carnage.
If that's too 'tribal' for you,then tough.I fail to see why voicing my political opinions on a political blog should be described as 'waaaaay too tribal' and think you could maybe be a little less patronising and a little more polite.
I dunno; I think it could fall to a UKIP upset - those farmers love a bit of UKIP.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Wow - a genuine surprise, that.letsskiptotheleft wrote:Jeremy Browne to stand down at the next election, and to avoid any doubt ''I won't be joining another party'' yet anyway?!
Taunton a nailed on Tory gain now, shurely?
(though that could have arguably have been described as a shift to the left, before today )
I think that you are being impolite and patronising to whichever people on this blog you are calling tribalists and whichever people on this blog you are 'reminding' what the election is about.JackPranker wrote:No, but jumping on those who's positions differ risks this place becoming the echo chamber it has been accused of being in the past. I'm not sure who you think I'm being impolite or patronising to.Rebecca wrote:Are you actually suggesting that people posting here who vote Labour and believe that Labour are the best option for a next Govt should not say so?Or just moan about the shadow cabinet like DfH?JackPranker wrote:Getting waaaaaaaay too tribal in here. May I remind folks in here that the election is not about Labour beating the coalition government, it's about installing a government that represents the electorate. Labour may be better suited to do that (to my mind, anyway) but they also need to be held to account as there are plenty within the ranks of the shadow cabinet that would best be consigned to the Bart Simpson blackboard.
Frankly,to me,the election IS absolutely about Labour beating the coalition.If they don't there will be another 5 years of carnage.
If that's too 'tribal' for you,then tough.I fail to see why voicing my political opinions on a political blog should be described as 'waaaaay too tribal' and think you could maybe be a little less patronising and a little more polite.
He's another one who can go if the BBC needs to make economies. Dimbleby and Marr to be limited to making documentaries.StephenDolan wrote:John Pienaar is a twat. That is all
A senior Ukip spokesman has been exposed as claiming to hold a “fake” degree and a professorship at an unaccredited academic institution.
Andrew Charalambous, the party’s housing and environment spokesman, is listed on a Facebook page as holding a “PhD in the parallels between Plato’s Utopia and Spartan Society”. He was listed on his official website as being a “professor of environmental sciences”.
Well I'd have failed him on the grounds that Utopia isn't a Platonic concept, it was coined by Sir Thomas More in the 16th Century - he was probably thinking of Republica, assuming he had room for any thoughts other than "Too many darkies around here."RogerOThornhill wrote:Oops.
Exposed: fake doctorate of Ukip ‘professor’
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/poli ... 236914.ece
A senior Ukip spokesman has been exposed as claiming to hold a “fake” degree and a professorship at an unaccredited academic institution.
Andrew Charalambous, the party’s housing and environment spokesman, is listed on a Facebook page as holding a “PhD in the parallels between Plato’s Utopia and Spartan Society”. He was listed on his official website as being a “professor of environmental sciences”.
You'd have to be pretty dim to think that this was even a possibility.
Take a look at the picture...as someone on AS said he looks like a bouncer.
Is she hungover or has she been replaced by an alien?HindleA wrote:Mensch stating that if reports about Freud are correct he should resign.
Thanks TE that was a laugh out loud moment for meTechnicalEphemera wrote:Is she hungover or has she been replaced by an alien?HindleA wrote:Mensch stating that if reports about Freud are correct he should resign.
Could be an alien, she changes her face often enough?PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Thanks TE that was a laugh out loud moment for meTechnicalEphemera wrote:Is she hungover or has she been replaced by an alien?HindleA wrote:Mensch stating that if reports about Freud are correct he should resign.
Umm...perhaps I should start with...PaulfromYorkshire wrote:George Eaton @georgeeaton 14s15 seconds ago
My #PMQs review: Miliband rattles Cameron with passionate attack on Lord Freud's comments http://bit.ly/1runFm7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Yes, I can see his point too. Not just for physically handicapped workers but eg workers with Down's Syndrome, who can learn and enjoy some fairly straightforward tasks.DonutHingeParty wrote:And having looked at Freud's interview, I can see some sympathy with what he said; people who want to work and earn their own money, but for whom no amount of support can ever make them competitive with an able bodied person. As they already get an allowance for being unable to hold full time work, it should be possible to "top it up" meaning that they don't lose benefit, and are able to secure a small amount of work.
Unfortunately Cameron wasn't briefed and basically just cut Freud loose to avoid getting into a stand up fight.
Please don't give it a miss Robert - would miss you.RobertSnozers wrote:Just coming back to this, trying to get my thinking clear... The election is about a number of things, and your 'not about/but' scenario does not quite work for me. To my mind:JackPranker wrote:Getting waaaaaaaay too tribal in here. May I remind folks in here that the election is not about Labour beating the coalition government, it's about installing a government that represents the electorate. Labour may be better suited to do that (to my mind, anyway) but they also need to be held to account as there are plenty within the ranks of the shadow cabinet that would best be consigned to the Bart Simpson blackboard.
1 - It's not about 'installing a government that represents the electorate' as we are simply not able to do that until we have PR, and even then, everyone who has a vote has to distill down everything they want from a government into one X beside the name of the representative of a party who will, one hopes, both represent their constituents in parliament and help to form a government if a majority of people in a majority of other constituencies feel similarly. In fact, I'm not even sure what 'a government that represents the electorate' actually means because it's impossible other than in the vaguest sense
2 - Like it or not, we have a choice of, realistically, 5-6 options at most - majority or minority Labour government, majority or minority Tory government, Labour-LibDem coalition, Tory-LibDem coalition, Tory-Ukip confidence and supply arrangement. We have one vote in order to try and pick the option from these that the largest group of people dislike least.
I can't emphasise enough how much I want to get rid of the coalition, though I accept the election is not about me. Nevertheless, for the last four years, in every poll, the government has had an approval rating in the minus figures, meaning more people disapprove than approve. For much of the time there's been a clear 20-30 point difference in people who disapprove of the government's record. So if the election is about anything, surely replacing the coalition with the only realistic alternative is fairly high on the list.
Having said all that, I think most of the outrage we've seen on the forum for the last couple of weeks about criticism of Labour has been attacking the unjustified drubbing in the MSM. I was a little surprised about the reaction to Owen Jones, but I was a little disappointed he went to the Guardian and I haven't read his stuff since he went there because I've been boycotting the place, partially at first and now entirely. I get disappointed with leftist commentators who attack Labour without looking at the context or proposing any alternative.
My thinking is grinding to a halt again, and I've wasted far too much mental energy over the last few weeks trying to square the circle, so I suspect I may give FTN a miss for a little while. But it does feel like we're fighting each other when we should be fighting the Tories and their establishment lackeys.
SecondedAngryAsWell wrote:Please don't give it a miss Robert - would miss you.RobertSnozers wrote:Just coming back to this, trying to get my thinking clear... The election is about a number of things, and your 'not about/but' scenario does not quite work for me. To my mind:JackPranker wrote:Getting waaaaaaaay too tribal in here. May I remind folks in here that the election is not about Labour beating the coalition government, it's about installing a government that represents the electorate. Labour may be better suited to do that (to my mind, anyway) but they also need to be held to account as there are plenty within the ranks of the shadow cabinet that would best be consigned to the Bart Simpson blackboard.
1 - It's not about 'installing a government that represents the electorate' as we are simply not able to do that until we have PR, and even then, everyone who has a vote has to distill down everything they want from a government into one X beside the name of the representative of a party who will, one hopes, both represent their constituents in parliament and help to form a government if a majority of people in a majority of other constituencies feel similarly. In fact, I'm not even sure what 'a government that represents the electorate' actually means because it's impossible other than in the vaguest sense
2 - Like it or not, we have a choice of, realistically, 5-6 options at most - majority or minority Labour government, majority or minority Tory government, Labour-LibDem coalition, Tory-LibDem coalition, Tory-Ukip confidence and supply arrangement. We have one vote in order to try and pick the option from these that the largest group of people dislike least.
I can't emphasise enough how much I want to get rid of the coalition, though I accept the election is not about me. Nevertheless, for the last four years, in every poll, the government has had an approval rating in the minus figures, meaning more people disapprove than approve. For much of the time there's been a clear 20-30 point difference in people who disapprove of the government's record. So if the election is about anything, surely replacing the coalition with the only realistic alternative is fairly high on the list.
Having said all that, I think most of the outrage we've seen on the forum for the last couple of weeks about criticism of Labour has been attacking the unjustified drubbing in the MSM. I was a little surprised about the reaction to Owen Jones, but I was a little disappointed he went to the Guardian and I haven't read his stuff since he went there because I've been boycotting the place, partially at first and now entirely. I get disappointed with leftist commentators who attack Labour without looking at the context or proposing any alternative.
My thinking is grinding to a halt again, and I've wasted far too much mental energy over the last few weeks trying to square the circle, so I suspect I may give FTN a miss for a little while. But it does feel like we're fighting each other when we should be fighting the Tories and their establishment lackeys.
Thirded. That's settled then, you're stuck here.Lonewolfie wrote:SecondedAngryAsWell wrote:Please don't give it a miss Robert - would miss you.RobertSnozers wrote: Just coming back to this, trying to get my thinking clear... The election is about a number of things, and your 'not about/but' scenario does not quite work for me. To my mind:
1 - It's not about 'installing a government that represents the electorate' as we are simply not able to do that until we have PR, and even then, everyone who has a vote has to distill down everything they want from a government into one X beside the name of the representative of a party who will, one hopes, both represent their constituents in parliament and help to form a government if a majority of people in a majority of other constituencies feel similarly. In fact, I'm not even sure what 'a government that represents the electorate' actually means because it's impossible other than in the vaguest sense
2 - Like it or not, we have a choice of, realistically, 5-6 options at most - majority or minority Labour government, majority or minority Tory government, Labour-LibDem coalition, Tory-LibDem coalition, Tory-Ukip confidence and supply arrangement. We have one vote in order to try and pick the option from these that the largest group of people dislike least.
I can't emphasise enough how much I want to get rid of the coalition, though I accept the election is not about me. Nevertheless, for the last four years, in every poll, the government has had an approval rating in the minus figures, meaning more people disapprove than approve. For much of the time there's been a clear 20-30 point difference in people who disapprove of the government's record. So if the election is about anything, surely replacing the coalition with the only realistic alternative is fairly high on the list.
Having said all that, I think most of the outrage we've seen on the forum for the last couple of weeks about criticism of Labour has been attacking the unjustified drubbing in the MSM. I was a little surprised about the reaction to Owen Jones, but I was a little disappointed he went to the Guardian and I haven't read his stuff since he went there because I've been boycotting the place, partially at first and now entirely. I get disappointed with leftist commentators who attack Labour without looking at the context or proposing any alternative.
My thinking is grinding to a halt again, and I've wasted far too much mental energy over the last few weeks trying to square the circle, so I suspect I may give FTN a miss for a little while. But it does feel like we're fighting each other when we should be fighting the Tories and their establishment lackeys.
I said the other day that an economic downturn in Europe which affects us may well be Osborne's worst nightmare.letsskiptotheleft wrote:When all is said and done it could be that Osborne and his economic bollocks miracle could be running out of time, not very encouraging data coming from the Chinese, Germany and the US, commentators have been hinting at things taking a downturn for months, it seems to be creeping in, this country thanks to incompetence by those at the Treasury is starting from a low base anyway, if things do go tits up how would the electorate judge it, how would Osborne, probably the opposite to the charges he levelled at Brown "global downturn, caught in the cross hairs" blah blah blah, ably abetted by the media of course.
Agreed; the corollary of blaming the EU this time around is basically them saying "But in 2010 we thought the EU would be recovered by now," which shows political naivety, and punctures their original argument that the only reason things were bad in the first place was Labour's policies.RogerOThornhill wrote:I said the other day that an economic downturn in Europe which affects us may well be Osborne's worst nightmare.letsskiptotheleft wrote:When all is said and done it could be that Osborne and his economic bollocks miracle could be running out of time, not very encouraging data coming from the Chinese, Germany and the US, commentators have been hinting at things taking a downturn for months, it seems to be creeping in, this country thanks to incompetence by those at the Treasury is starting from a low base anyway, if things do go tits up how would the electorate judge it, how would Osborne, probably the opposite to the charges he levelled at Brown "global downturn, caught in the cross hairs" blah blah blah, ably abetted by the media of course.
People might be able to forgive the lack of real wage increases if they thought the economy was getting stronger and we had signs of growth but a slowdown of growth in the early part of next year will leave people thinking "hang on - we've made sacrifices but for what?"
Blaming the last recession on Labour may have worked for him before but I doubt if they'll buy the "But it's all the fault of the EU".
Sorry Letsskipletsskiptotheleft wrote:@Lonewolfie I can forgive a lot, my shoulders are little but they are strong, but some of those images you linked were hideous, I know you gave a warning, but please, no more?!
I'm happy to discuss most issues, and I'm aware I won't agree with everyone here, perhaps half of the time or so. The essence is to keep it civil, and so it's best that everyone stops to reread their posts before they click 'submit'. I've frequently amended myself when I realise I'm just about to cause massive offence.TechnicalEphemera wrote:Can I also just point out life would be very tedious if we agreed on everything. Despite the occasional acrimony of the discussion it has been enlightening.
I'd watch his back if I was him, for a Kipper he looks a bit foreign?Lonewolfie wrote:Sorry Letsskipletsskiptotheleft wrote:@Lonewolfie I can forgive a lot, my shoulders are little but they are strong, but some of those images you linked were hideous, I know you gave a warning, but please, no more?!
Mind you - I'm sure he can't help looking a bit 'wierd'.