FlyTheNest

Good morfternoon.

China warns UK relations are at 'historical juncture' over Hinkley Point

Ambassador to Britain stresses need for trust as PM’s attitude to controversial nuclear project remains unclear (Guardian)

And this is before China has got us over a barrel in any physical way.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... u-xiaoming

And then there's this -

EDF decision on Hinkley Point should be declared void, say French unions

Senior board members accused of knowing of probable delay in UK government approval before vote on nuclear project(Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... al-nuclear


Edited to try for working links

Good morning.

Quite frankly that Kuenssberg piece was a waste of time, largely being a rerun of clips from the referendum rather than additional in or hindsight, so nothing new. As for this China and Hinkley Point thing, oh dear what does it say of Britain now? Personally I'm not strongly against nuclear as a stop gap, it had it's place in the past but now it's far too late but regarding trade deals if Brexit means Brexit... then I don't know what to think. I'm not suggesting we should go ahead merely to save face btw, but how the fuck did we get here?

'And while I'm here I think it pertinent to say that contrary to popular belief I ain't some old fart, so if you, and you know who you are, don't butt out I'll set your nanny on you. Seriously though it's only a problem I associate with tinned baked beans, besides haven't you heard the expression full of beans? During my more abstinent days I did find them euphoric; wholewheat grain was a buzz too.

Reposted here since... Well let's not upset anybody.

utopiandreams wrote:Good morning.

Quite frankly that Kuenssberg piece was a waste of time, largely being a rerun of clips from the referendum rather than additional in or hindsight, so nothing new. As for this China and Hinkley Point thing, oh dear what does it say of Britain now? Personally I'm not strongly against nuclear as a stop gap, it had it's place in the past but now it's far too late but regarding trade deals if Brexit means Brexit... then I don't know what to think. I'm not suggesting we should go ahead merely to save face btw, but how the fuck did we get here?

'And while I'm here I think it pertinent to say that contrary to popular belief I ain't some old fart, so if you, and you know who you are, don't butt out I'll set your nanny on you. Seriously though it's only a problem I associate with tinned baked beans, besides haven't you heard the expression full of beans? During my more abstinent days I did find them euphoric; wholewheat grain was a buzz too.

Reposted here since... Well let's not upset anybody.

Hello! Sorry about that. Initially, I didn't spot that you'd already kicked us off for the day and, once I did, I tried to respond on your thread but I couldn't get it to react.

In other news it seems our police force are rather slow to act; no sign yet having been reported last week. A local business is in administration because their accountant has embezzled all the funds for HMRC. He maintains that he was being blackmailed. I've no idea whether or not related but found on his computer were underage girls doing things they really should not be performing in front of camera. I wonder whether his advice against using my services had anything to do with this.

@PorFavor

No probs, PF. Since there was only my one post on the thread I merely deleted it and brought it across. Mind you it was an hour and a half before yours.

utopiandreams wrote:Good morning.

Quite frankly that Kuenssberg piece was a waste of time, largely being a rerun of clips from the referendum rather than additional in or hindsight, so nothing new. As for this China and Hinkley Point thing, oh dear what does it say of Britain now? Personally I'm not strongly against nuclear as a stop gap, it had it's place in the past but now it's far too late but regarding trade deals if Brexit means Brexit... then I don't know what to think. I'm not suggesting we should go ahead merely to save face btw, but how the fuck did we get here?

'And while I'm here I think it pertinent to say that contrary to popular belief I ain't some old fart, so if you, and you know who you are, don't butt out I'll set your nanny on you. Seriously though it's only a problem I associate with tinned baked beans, besides haven't you heard the expression full of beans? During my more abstinent days I did find them euphoric; wholewheat grain was a buzz too.

Reposted here since... Well let's not upset anybody.

You've made an allusion & think it's a gas, it's clear to see
you're taking with good humour, someone pulled your leg(who,me?)
I may have cast aspersions on the produce of your rear end,
I'm sorry but, my words weren't really meant to personally offend.
'Old fart', I should think not! Indeed your pulse seems strong,
So I hereby apologise, we should let beans gone be bygones.
(Hope that helps clear the air, a bit. )

Morning all.

I find clearing the air after old farts is best for all present.

Greater Manchester Mayor candidate announced today, anyone care to make a prediction?

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/ ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



One in three families are a month's pay from losing homes, says study
Shelter finds that 37% of working families in England could not cover housing costs for more than a month in event of job loss

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


Who pays for these families to live in Victorian squalor? British taxpayers

I am notoriously bad at predictions.I think Burnham will win after penalties over Lloyd with Lewis some distance back.

StephenDolan wrote:Morning all.

I find clearing the air after old farts is best for all present.

Greater Manchester Mayor candidate announced today, anyone care to make a prediction?

I don't think Andy Burnham will get it. But I'm notoriously bad at predictions so I may have have just done him a big favour.

http://www.homeless.org.uk/connect/blog ... -announced" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Benefit changes for 18-21 year olds: further details announced
The Youth Obligation is being introduced next April 2017 into geographical areas with the Full Universal Credit service.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ow ... ip-8589979

Owen Smith has called for the Labour leadership election to be extended after the High Court ruled some 130,000 new members could not be barred from voting in the contest .
It came as Labour confirmed it was to appeal the decision, which would tear apart the party's bid to block anyone who joined after January 12.
Mr Smith is likely to ask for the polling deadline to be delayed for up to a month,
But would delay the result until after the party's annual conference, leaving the challenger without a platform at the event.

Can anyone take another 4 weeks?

'Dangerous' Trump: 50 key Republicans sign letter warning against candidate

National security and foreign policy officials from GOP administrations dating back decades say candidate would be history’s ‘most reckless’ US president (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ush-reagan

tinybgoat wrote:http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ow ... ip-8589979

Owen Smith has called for the Labour leadership election to be extended after the High Court ruled some 130,000 new members could not be barred from voting in the contest .
It came as Labour confirmed it was to appeal the decision, which would tear apart the party's bid to block anyone who joined after January 12.
Mr Smith is likely to ask for the polling deadline to be delayed for up to a month,
But would delay the result until after the party's annual conference, leaving the challenger without a platform at the event.

Can anyone take another 4 weeks?

The 130000 kinda expected to have been allowed a vote. There's no reason to have an extension IMHO.

http://labourlist.org/2016/08/what-did- ... c-results/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



"What we learnt from the NEC results"

Morning all.

Interesting bit in Warwick Mansell's usual edu diary about the row over school lunches at Michaela.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... -education

Birbalsingh faced criticism – both in the press and on social media – last week for threatening “lunch isolation” for a child the school claimed was behind on lunch payments. “They will receive a sandwich and a piece of fruit only. They will spend the entire 60 minutes in lunch isolation,” read a letter, seemingly signed by the school’s deputy head, Barry Smith.

However, Birbalsingh has now told us the letter was neither written nor signed by Smith – and was sent without the approval of the school’s leadership team.

She said: “Offices often put signatures in for people, that’s normal practice. But this letter was sent without [the senior leadership team’s] approval – a mistake on the office’s part.”

Oops.

More on "Troubled Families scheme",comments now open.



https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ble-impact" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I overstated last night it was £800 for family "turned around"

re Grammar schools and apologies in advance for the source...

Theresa May is warned by Tory MPs she does not have enough support for a new wave of grammar schools to change the law on selective education

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ation.html

But Mr Pritchard told BBC Radio 4's World At One: 'I don't think there's any political legitimacy for the policy and I doubt there would be enough support within the parliamentary party in the Commons.

'It would be a significant shift in Conservative education policy and personally, I'd have to see the detail of any Bill, and I suspect it would have to be a Bill in a new Queen's Speech.'

The Wrekin MP added: 'It wasn't in the party manifesto, it therefore lacks political legitimacy, and I doubt it would have the support of the parliamentary party.

You have to wonder whether they learned anything from the debacle over forced academisation.

It won't happen.

RobertSnozers wrote:

StephenDolan wrote:

tinybgoat wrote:http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ow ... ip-8589979
Can anyone take another 4 weeks?

The 130000 kinda expected to have been allowed a vote. There's no reason to have an extension IMHO.

If they've been living in a cave without wifi for the last two months it's concievable that they might need a bit more time to examine the candidates

The need for a delay because of the administrative toll is pretty obvious, I would have thought, because the overlap between recent members and registered supporters has to be unravelled before ballots can be issued. It's going to be expensive and time consuming.

Willow904 wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:

StephenDolan wrote: The 130000 kinda expected to have been allowed a vote. There's no reason to have an extension IMHO.

If they've been living in a cave without wifi for the last two months it's concievable that they might need a bit more time to examine the candidates

The need for a delay because of the administrative toll is pretty obvious, I would have thought, because the overlap between recent members and registered supporters has to be unravelled before ballots can be issued. It's going to be expensive and time consuming.

Then they shouldn't have been so effing stupid as to try to fix the result in such an effing stupid and blatantly obviously stinkingly evil way.

How can anyone possibly vote into power such a bunch of completely incompetent, brainless, self-serving self-stimulators who've shown such a blatant eagerness to openly cheat to try to get into power?

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


Only a proper plan will solve this growing homelessness crisis

Interesting on the Momentum takeover of the NEC

http://labourlist.org/2016/08/what-did- ... c-results/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pessimism from S W-L who seems to accept Corbyn will win

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2016 ... ainlyMacro+(mainly+macro" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

When was politics last this bleak? 1983?

mbc1955 wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote: If they've been living in a cave without wifi for the last two months it's concievable that they might need a bit more time to examine the candidates

The need for a delay because of the administrative toll is pretty obvious, I would have thought, because the overlap between recent members and registered supporters has to be unravelled before ballots can be issued. It's going to be expensive and time consuming.

Then they shouldn't have been so effing stupid as to try to fix the result in such an effing stupid and blatantly obviously stinkingly evil way.

How can anyone possibly vote into power such a bunch of completely incompetent, brainless, self-serving self-stimulators who've shown such a blatant eagerness to openly cheat to try to get into power?

@mbc1955:-
Ticking their own boxes? That's one vote then .
@willow
Possibly, but wouldn't have thought it would take long with database.

Breaking...


Jennifer Williams Verified account
‏@JenWilliamsMEN

And the winner is.... Andy Burnham

in "How to escape the car crash that is Labour national politics right now (c.f. Sadiq Khan)"

So

Who replaces Burnham as shadow Home Sec? Who is there?

By-election in Leigh. Any interest in it? About as safe Labour as it gets, they weigh the vote.

The most (only?) interesting thing I have heard Burnham say is that he doesn't think the Smiths sound very good now. An interesting change of view. Or flip-flop, if you will. (I agree with him.)

Lying down in shock,I predicted Burnham

SpinningHugo wrote:Interesting on the Momentum takeover of the NEC

http://labourlist.org/2016/08/what-did- ... c-results/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pessimism from S W-L who seems to accept Corbyn will win

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2016 ... ainlyMacro+(mainly+macro" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

When was politics last this bleak? 1983?

There is no "Momentum takeover of the NEC" - the left won four of the six constituency places two years ago.

And a Corbyn-sceptic MP - George Howarth - is set to replace Dennis Skinner on the new body, so overall pro-Corbyn forces are up just one seat.

It depends on what the unions do (as so often in the past) Right now most of them are supporting Jez, but that is very much a defensive move borne of their fear that much of the PLP want to reduce union influence further. At the end of the day, they are still ultimately pragmatic organisations who want Labour in power.

RobertSnozers wrote:

HindleA wrote:http://labourlist.org/2016/08/what-did- ... c-results/

"What we learnt from the NEC results"

The NEC elections are a huge deal, in my opinion, but that pales into insignificance compared with my desire to see the look on Luke Akehurst's face.

I'm not proud of myself, but you have to take these moments of happiness when they come

Ha, indeed.

SpinningHugo wrote:Interesting on the Momentum takeover of the NEC

http://labourlist.org/2016/08/what-did- ... c-results/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pessimism from S W-L who seems to accept Corbyn will win

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2016 ... ainlyMacro+(mainly+macro" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

When was politics last this bleak? 1983?

Aww come on Hugo, think of the crowds, thousands, all that energy.

SpinningHugo wrote:So

Who replaces Burnham as shadow Home Sec? Who is there?

By-election in Leigh. Any interest in it? About as safe Labour as it gets, they weigh the vote.

The most (only?) interesting thing I have heard Burnham say is that he doesn't think the Smiths sound very good now. An interesting change of view. Or flip-flop, if you will. (I agree with him.)

I expect that Burnham will stay on in the SC until the leadership election. After that, who knows?

If it is Corbyn re-elected, then I expect he will try to build bridges with the soft-left/pragmatic element in the PLP.

He has to, and contrary to what some of his opponents think I don't think he is delusional enough not to view it as needed.

Burnham 3792, Lloyd 2163, Lewis 1472. Turnout 65.3% (7,564 votes cast).


http://labourlist.org/2016/08/andy-burn ... ter-mayor/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mbc1955 wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote: If they've been living in a cave without wifi for the last two months it's concievable that they might need a bit more time to examine the candidates

The need for a delay because of the administrative toll is pretty obvious, I would have thought, because the overlap between recent members and registered supporters has to be unravelled before ballots can be issued. It's going to be expensive and time consuming.

Then they shouldn't have been so effing stupid as to try to fix the result in such an effing stupid and blatantly obviously stinkingly evil way.

How can anyone possibly vote into power such a bunch of completely incompetent, brainless, self-serving self-stimulators who've shown such a blatant eagerness to openly cheat to try to get into power?

Ann Black was one of the people on the NEC who voted for the cut off, I believe, and has just been voted back on, at the top of the list with over 100,000 votes. We get what we vote for, perhaps?

Anyhow, setting the terms and conditions for leadership contests falls to the NEC and clearly includes setting a cut off of some sort. Something more proportionate would have been defendable, such as two months matching the provisional period, or once a leadership challenge happened. Quite where 6 months came from is still a mystery. One issue that has come out of this is that the people running the website don't appear to be talking to the NEC and vice versa. It should be clear on the website that rules for leadership contests can vary and I'm surprised it wasn't as there will always be some kind of cut off at some point. Not that I'm trying to defend the 6 months, just wondering why the website wasn't more professional in protecting the party from litigation.

SpinningHugo wrote:
When was politics last this bleak? 1983?

When the Tories had a majority of 144?

And their majority now?

12 and the chances of an early GE fairly remote.

4 years is a long time in politics...esp. with the Brexit ministers seemingly not having a clue as to what to do now.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:So

Who replaces Burnham as shadow Home Sec? Who is there?

By-election in Leigh. Any interest in it? About as safe Labour as it gets, they weigh the vote.

The most (only?) interesting thing I have heard Burnham say is that he doesn't think the Smiths sound very good now. An interesting change of view. Or flip-flop, if you will. (I agree with him.)

I expect that Burnham will stay on in the SC until the leadership election. After that, who knows?

If it is Corbyn re-elected, then I expect he will try to build bridges with the soft-left/pragmatic element in the PLP.

He has to, and contrary to what some of his opponents think I don't think he is delusional enough not to view it as needed.

You want safe? If Rotheram wins, that's one safe seat up for grabs!

RogerOThornhill wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:
When was politics last this bleak? 1983?

When the Tories had a majority of 144?

And their majority now?

12 and the chances of an early GE fairly remote.

4 years is a long time in politics...esp. with the Brexit ministers seemingly not having a clue as to what to do now.

Yes, something may turn up. A recession is coming and there is no good way forward on Brexit, I agree.

And back then it was also hard to see what the road back for Labour was, but it was found eventually.

That said, I think the odds must be on a considerable increase in the Tory majority come an election, and I am not as sanguine as you are about the obstacle the FTPA presents.

letsskiptotheleft wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:Interesting on the Momentum takeover of the NEC

http://labourlist.org/2016/08/what-did- ... c-results/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pessimism from S W-L who seems to accept Corbyn will win

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2016 ... ainlyMacro+(mainly+macro" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

When was politics last this bleak? 1983?

Aww come on Hugo, think of the crowds, thousands, all that energy.

Yes, but other things being equal it can be argued that crowds and energy are better than no crowds and no energy?

Some people don't like hearing this, but its not enough just being anti-Corbyn. His detractors actually have to win people over with a compelling offer of their own.

(for the record, I am an almost 100% confirmed Smith voter)

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:Interesting on the Momentum takeover of the NEC

http://labourlist.org/2016/08/what-did- ... c-results/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pessimism from S W-L who seems to accept Corbyn will win

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2016 ... ainlyMacro+(mainly+macro" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

When was politics last this bleak? 1983?

There is no "Momentum takeover of the NEC" - the left won four of the six constituency places two years ago.

And a Corbyn-sceptic MP - George Howarth - is set to replace Dennis Skinner on the new body, so overall pro-Corbyn forces are up just one seat.

It depends on what the unions do (as so often in the past) Right now most of them are supporting Jez, but that is very much a defensive move borne of their fear that much of the PLP want to reduce union influence further. At the end of the day, they are still ultimately pragmatic organisations who want Labour in power.

Which is why I queried the other day if union members voting for Smith over Corbyn might raise issues for Union leaders - well, McCluskey at Unite at any rate. He's up for re-election in a couple of years, propping up a Labour leader unpopular with union members would be awkward.

And I agree with this not being a Momentum takeover as such. They are from the "left slate". Momentum helped to get them elected by endorsing them, but do they endorse Momentum? Ann Black has already proved too independently minded to be called pro-Corbyn, leaving the NEC, as you say, very finely balanced.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:Interesting on the Momentum takeover of the NEC

http://labourlist.org/2016/08/what-did- ... c-results/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pessimism from S W-L who seems to accept Corbyn will win

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2016 ... ainlyMacro+(mainly+macro" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

When was politics last this bleak? 1983?

There is no "Momentum takeover of the NEC" - the left won four of the six constituency places two years ago.

And a Corbyn-sceptic MP - George Howarth - is set to replace Dennis Skinner on the new body, so overall pro-Corbyn forces are up just one seat.

It depends on what the unions do (as so often in the past) Right now most of them are supporting Jez, but that is very much a defensive move borne of their fear that much of the PLP want to reduce union influence further. At the end of the day, they are still ultimately pragmatic organisations who want Labour in power.

I think you're missing the significance of the shift. The (clear and easy) victory of the entire Momentum slate is evidence of how the party membership has changed. Pope is good on this. The significance is not about the small shift in immediate balance of power in the NEC, but about what is to come.

I also really do not agree at all that the unions are the same as they were in, say, 1986. Someone like McCluskey is a prisoner of his own left.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:
If it is Corbyn re-elected, then I expect he will try to build bridges with the soft-left/pragmatic element in the PLP.

You mean just like September 2015 onwards?

You think he is going to be *more* successful now than then?

I don't.

The "right" slate did not help themselves by having de facto seven candidates (since Izzard was effectively, if not formally, one of them)

If the internal climate in the party cools down, then we may get less rigidly organised "slate" voting. As was the case in the past.

And on a personal note I am pleased Rhea Wolfson was elected (and I voted for her) Another deserved rebuke to talentless political thug and serial failure Jim Murphy

AnatolyKasparov wrote:The "right" slate did not help themselves by having de facto seven candidates (since Izzard was effectively, if not formally, one of them)

If the internal climate in the party cools down, then we may get less rigidly organised "slate" voting. As was the case in the past.

1. Looking at the numbers, they weren't even close. Even someone with Izzard's name recognition is 10,000 votes off 6th place!

2. You expect it to calm down? I don't.

Another interesting thing about Burnham is he won despite having voted for the Iraq war. Not many successful candidates in Labour for whom that will be true in the future.

I didn't say I "expected" that, not just yet anyway

https://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/ ... y-election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Steve Richards: Don't expect Theresa to take the primrose path towards an early election

Stepheh Bush

#If you're a United fan with my number who hasn't texted "Scouser wins something in Manchester", thank you.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:The "right" slate did not help themselves by having de facto seven candidates (since Izzard was effectively, if not formally, one of them)

If the internal climate in the party cools down, then we may get less rigidly organised "slate" voting. As was the case in the past.

I'm not so sure. The organisation from Momentum to get their preferred candidates elected was far more slick and professional than the "right" slate or either of the slates last year. Changing the make-up of the NEC was communicated as high priority to Momentum members and followers within Labour and the results do suggest a high proportion of Labour members are now also Momentum members. While general non-partisan Labour members mixed and matched, Momentum members were rigid in their commitment in following their instructions on how to vote, regardless of the clear weaknesses of a couple of the candidates. At least that's how it looks to me. I suppose the real question is what happens to Momentum when Corbyn is no longer leader. Is it anything, without its figurehead to rally round?

USDAW backing Owen Smith must have given him a tremendous boost but the balloting of GMB's members will surely give the best indication of the union backing for Corbyn.

Any idea when that result is to be announced ?

As for the NEC, Christine Shawcroft deleted her bitchy remark but not before it was screenshot & shared which I would share with you but can't get my saved images to copy onto here.
The text said

I've shared the result on the website. Rancid Luke got 48 thousand and was well down on the list.

Charming, huh.

Pk1

"Members will receive a communication either by email or in the post. This should arrive with you no later than Tuesday 2 August 2016 and must be returned by Wednesday 10 August 2016."