Thursday 11th August 2016

[AnatolyKasparov]

The only other significant unions I know of backing Smith are Community, Musicians and USDAW - none of whom consulted their members beforehand.

I mention that to make clear that, contrary to what some like to claim, it isn't just a Len McCluskey thing

[PorFavor]

I thought I'd read 18% somewhere, Anatoly, but may be speaking of something else. I didn't really pay it any attention and may even be thinking of another union should there be one backing Smith.

Mr[Owen] Smith said it was "a great honour" to receive GMB's nomination - which comes on top of support from the Community Union, Musicians Union and shopworkers' union USDAW, the fourth largest. (BBC News website)

Hope this helps - although there are no figures given for the voting in this article.

Edited to add -

No figures to give as AnatolyKasparov has told us.

[pk1]

GMB, whose members include workers on the Trident nuclear weapons programme, is the only union so far to hold a consultation of all members over its endorsement of a Labour leadership candidate. However, only around 30,000 of the GMB’s 639,000 members are eligible to actually vote in the Labour leadership election – those who pay into the union’s political fund.

My emphasis

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... our-leader" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The suggestion that Corbyn supporters were not balloted is a bit strange & one wonders a) how that was known in advance & b) if they had been excluded, who were the 40% that backed JC ? Foil hats have been much in demand...

edit to add link to GMB press release and to highlight:

Notes to editors

The ballot was conducted by the independent agency Electoral Reform Services (ERS) and closed at noon on Wednesday 10 August.

GMB Consultative Ballot of Members

Total number of votes cast: 43,635

Total number of votes found to be invalid: 216

Total number of valid votes to be counted: 43,419

Question – Who do you think is best placed to lead the Labour Party to a General Election victory and serve as Prime Minister?

SMITH, Owen – 25,969 (60%)

CORBYN, Jeremy - 17,450 (40%)

Turnout - 8.1%

*GMB Scotland took a decision not to ballot their members. A statement on GMB Scotland’s decision is here

http://www.gmb.org.uk/newsroom/owen-smi ... our-leader" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[citizenJA]

Good-morning, everyone.

[utopiandreams]

Crest Academy, an E-Act sponsored outfit, ruins kids chances of university by teaching the wrong standard.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... ment-error" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Standards, and all that.

Okay I'll stick my neck out. When I taught or mentored some GNVQ projects at college I knew nothing at all of what was required and was only handed a few notes of guidance. I couldn't even glean much from Edexcel's website (I think it was them). Still barring a very few that I could not pass, despite being told to pass them all, my assessment did parry with the external markers. Because so many had dropped out, before my arrival I may add, I was instructed to mark their work a week early and return it to the students with explicit instructions of what else was required... as if they hadn't had enough hand holding already. Even after that I got into arguments with the head of department about my refusal to pass them all.

PGSE was another bone of contention, no guidance or curriculum whatsoever. The blind leading the blind.

Postscript: It wasn't PGSE that's something else entirely. I can't remember what it was.

[ohsocynical]

Momentum LEEDS ‏@MomentumLeeds yesterday

Few facts about the @GMB_union ballot:

1) 7.2% turnout
2) Scottish members not balloted
3) thousand of members never received their ballot

[Willow904]

Immeasurable damage has already been done, but despite the backlash I'd still like our government to finally admit that Brexit really is not deliverable.

Brexit means Brexit.

We just need to find out what

Teresa May means by 'Brexit and what the EU mean by A50.

All the talk of negotiations and pre A50 talks, what is allowed formally, informally, unofficially. Hints of spy novels.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-li ... le-50.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Article 50

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

There's a problem with the referendum in that it was drawn up to be advisory. The result of the referendum advises the government on what the public prefers, but it doesn't represent a constitutionally binding decision to leave. My understanding is that the AV referendum was drawn up to be legally binding on parliament, showing a referendum can be drawn up to be binding, but the EU ref wasn't. I can't view this as accidental and it causes huge issues as this wasn't clearly communicated during the referendum campaign. If you compare to the Scottish referendum, it was mentioned on numerous occasions that a decision to leave would require the UK parliament to pass the necessary legislation. There was no doubt the government would do this, but it's interesting it was talked about, yet in the EU referendum campaign the processes necessary to fulfil a choice to leave wasn't discussed at all by the MSM until after the result as far as I can remember. Was this a result of the very rushed nature of the campaign or was this omission deliberate? Is the non-binding nature of the referendum a tactic?:


http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/the ... rticle-50/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some have suggested that, since the EU cannot throw the UK out, one way would be for the UK government to use a No vote in the referendum as a de facto negotiating mandate. But this would depend on the EU’s willingness to negotiate an exit before Article 50 was triggered.

It's tempting to think that Cameron is just a useless twat who ran out of luck, but on preparing to legislate for an EU referendum his advisors and civil servants must have highlighted all the issues we are facing now, surely. Not to mention the strange way the 'Brexiter' PM hopefuls faded out of the race, leaving Brexit voting Tories no choice but to accept a remain camp minister for leader. It's almost as if none of them ever really wanted to leave, not just Johnson who was clearly faking. Is it all just a clusterfuck or are there darker motives at work. The Tea Party element that is linked to many of the main Tory Brexit players isn't interested in seeing the UK leave the EU so much as it is interested in seeing the EU itself torn apart. Is our half in, half out status a useful lever to undermine the whole project? I am constantly told I must accept we are leaving the EU, but I find it difficult to do so as long as we're not actually leaving. The Tories have 4 years to fart around and piss everyone off and I suspect they will do just that because, as utopiandreams points out above, actually leaving the EU is just way too hard work.

[ephemerid]

1. Are you fed up with tory austerity and sleaze? Would you like a party that represents lots of different views? Join our party, pay £3.92 a month, and you will be part of the team and able to vote in leadership elections.

2. If you like the leader who was elected last time by a stonking great majority, that's fine - but we are determined to ensure you really really want him by insisting he's challenged and we have another vote.

2. Having joined our party (and thanks for the £27.44 you've paid since January) you can't vote now unless you give us another £25. We changed the rules, sorry.

3. If you do get a vote at some point after you've taken legal action to get your voting rights and your extra £25 back, we will take you back to court to stop you voting.

4. Obviously, we are incredibly keen for you to vote as per the information on our website. Now that we've done everything we can to stop you voting, that is.

5. Finally - please ignore absolutely everything that has happened so far (see above) and vote for the bloke who isn't the bloke who won last time.
You know it makes sense.

[utopiandreams]

Thanks, pk, it was that 8.1% not 18 that I had read.

[AngryAsWell]

Senior Momentum member expelled from Labour

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/st ... led-labour" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yet here she is with full access to Labour members details, phone banking for Corbyn via momentum. Data protection question?

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

[Willow904]

1. Are you fed up with tory austerity and sleaze? Would you like a party that represents lots of different views? Join our party, pay £3.92 a month, and you will be part of the team and able to vote in leadership elections.

2. If you like the leader who was elected last time by a stonking great majority, that's fine - but we are determined to ensure you really really want him by insisting he's challenged and we have another vote.

2. Having joined our party (and thanks for the £27.44 you've paid since January) you can't vote now unless you give us another £25. We changed the rules, sorry.

3. If you do get a vote at some point after you've taken legal action to get your voting rights and your extra £25 back, we will take you back to court to stop you voting.

4. Obviously, we are incredibly keen for you to vote as per the information on our website. Now that we've done everything we can to stop you voting, that is.

5. Finally - please ignore absolutely everything that has happened so far (see above) and vote for the bloke who isn't the bloke who won last time.
You know it makes sense.

The 6 month cut off is to Labour's discredit there's no doubt about that, but is that the same as acting illegally? That depends on the small print. The ruling on Tuesday suggests the Party has no small print , leaving them open to no end of complaints. For practical purposes there has to be a cut off, but legally the small print seems to provide them with no means to apply one without being open to legal challenge. This is an appallingly lax way to run a party all round. The rules are so clear on participation in CLP meetings, it's puzzling to me how they can be so vague/non-existent on leadership contests that someone could change the wording on the Labour website and through this action cancel out the NEC's authority as the executive council to set the rules. Internal processes are dire, in other words, and need to be tightened up asap. A cut off for all future leadership elections needs to be set in stone and reflected on the website. It's so obvious, it's hard to understand how it hasn't happened before. I'd still like to know who's responsible for the change in the wording on the website, who approved it without considering the NECs role in setting t&cs or the legal implications. Fighting the original ruling seems pointless, when it's so clear that many Labour party rules lack legal robustness, although I think this isn't uncommon in private clubs and the only rule such clubs are expected to adhere to is to be seen to be fair, which is normally quite straightforward and again raises the question of how they have got into such a muddle in the first place.

[utopiandreams]

...It's tempting to think that Cameron is just a useless twat who ran out of luck, but on preparing to legislate for an EU referendum his advisors and civil servants must have highlighted all the issues we are facing now, surely...

Tempting, Willow? He undoubtedly was/is as clearly hinted by Nick. Bloody hell I am suffering serious brain fade is the adopted term nowadays I believe. I can't even think of his surname. Anyway I was amazed when Dave stated the decision was clear on the morning of the result as I cannot help but feel there must have been powerful forces telling him otherwise. I've always marvelled at the man, and not in a good way.

While I'm thinking of Dave I cannot help but remember his telling Moscow students of his KGB approach. What a prat!

Postscript: Clegg, of course. Seriously I seem to be having problems typing lately. Not my fat fingers but losing words that roll off the tongue in speech but have disappeared by the time I type them.

[utopiandreams]

She still had tubes feeding her, A. Ironically it was nearly always me attending to them when she lay in the nursing home, having been shown how. I only ever saw one nurse there.

Postscript: I tell a lie, the manager was a nurse too.

[ohsocynical]

How a US energy company tried to sell its failing ‘clean coal’ project to the world
And:
Daily dispatch: Hinkley drama deepens as Scottish wind delivers

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/0 ... idnt-work/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HindleA]

Or for the extortionate cost of a £1 that covers a year,less than a t-shirt with advice to get rid of someone on it it,unless they are given out,of course.

[ohsocynical]

Michael Rosen
‏@MichaelRosenYes

Lawyer acting for Ian McNicol has basically told judge that client (McNicol) can do what he wants.

[ohsocynical]

Cpk3snVWgAAGFvp.jpg (13.17 KiB) Viewed 9262 times

The Labour NEC appeal is going well.

[ephemerid]

Willow - I take your point, and the rulebook should be clearer.

However - what the NEC appears to be saying is that they have a right to apply an arbitrary retrospective freeze; this affects 130,000 people, many of whom may well have joined long before the latest leadership election was announced on 11th.July (that was Angela Eagle to start with).

The question has to be this: why was the 6-month freeze chosen? Was it because the belief was that people only joined to vote for Corbyn?
Labour announced on 7th.July that its membership was 515,000, ie. before the challenge was made; so the new members and/or returners could not possibly have joined to vote for Corbyn as no challenge to his leadership existed at the time.

This leads me to think that the party wants to choose who can vote in the hope that people will go for the so-called "unity candidate", ie. Smith.
Despite a court judgement saying that what they have done is wrong, they are persisting with this.

On top of all that, they have not only benefited from monthly subscriptions from new members, but have charged those members an additional £25 to allow them a vote that they thought they'd already paid for.

It looks as though one set of Labour members are using the money gleaned from other Labour members to scupper their right to vote.

Not a good look.

[ohsocynical]

12,246 council homes sold under right-to-buy last year. Just 2,055 replacements started (Cameron promised one-for-one).

[ohsocynical]

Cpk2Ji4XgAAjeIz.jpg (66.72 KiB) Viewed 9246 times

[JonnyT1234]

12,246 council homes sold under right-to-buy last year. Just 2,055 replacements started (Cameron promised one-for-one).

You're forgetting how sneaky governments are with language. 2,055 houses can easily be 12,246 homes. When you force people to live 6 to a room instead of 1 to a room.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Michael Rosen
‏@MichaelRosenYes

Lawyer acting for Ian McNicol has basically told judge that client (McNicol) can do what he wants.

That certainly does seem to be the attitude of certain people involved in all this

[ephemerid]

On another subject - it's Show's birthday today!

There's chocolate cake for tea (with cream for him).
He is dining this evening on homemade chicken curry with lots of trimmings.

He is, I have to say, lucky to have me.

[utopiandreams]

I've just dipped below the line on a Jess Phillips piece at the G. I couldn't help myself when she mentions writing to a woman in Corbyn's office, "Hey lovely...". I generally say nothing about her although I did once refer to her as a rentagob and it had absolutely nothing to do with gender.

[ephemerid]

Michael Rosen
‏@MichaelRosenYes

Lawyer acting for Ian McNicol has basically told judge that client (McNicol) can do what he wants.

That certainly does seem to be the attitude of certain people involved in all this

It does - and that's what bothers me.

In theory, on the grounds that I am currently party-less, I suppose it's none of my business what happens with the Labour silliness.
But, at some point, I want to be able to give my support to an ethos that I can believe in. At the moment, I'm a bit stuck.

The Tories and UKIP are out of the question; the Greens are a bit too shambolic as yet; the Libbing Dead need some serious rehab before I'd consider them again; Plaid don't seem to be entirely sure that they want independence and most of Miss Woody Two-shoes' ideas are a bit pie-in-the-sky.....and the way all sides in Labour are behaving right now puts me off them too.

I voted for Corbyn last time, and I think if I could vote now I'd do so again - but that doesn't mean I think he's perfect, far from it.
I don't think that the PLP or the NEC have done themselves any favours here.

We moan a lot about how vicious and incompetent the Tories are (both as a party and as a government), but one thing they do well in times of trouble is stick together and present a united front.
It seems to me that Labour are, currently at least, showing more appetite for squabbling than they are for giving people like me a real reason to support them; and the longer they keep this up the less inclined I am to do so.

[Willow904]

Willow - I take your point, and the rulebook should be clearer.

However - what the NEC appears to be saying is that they have a right to apply an arbitrary retrospective freeze; this affects 130,000 people, many of whom may well have joined long before the latest leadership election was announced on 11th.July (that was Angela Eagle to start with).

The question has to be this: why was the 6-month freeze chosen? Was it because the belief was that people only joined to vote for Corbyn?
Labour announced on 7th.July that its membership was 515,000, ie. before the challenge was made; so the new members and/or returners could not possibly have joined to vote for Corbyn as no challenge to his leadership existed at the time.

This leads me to think that the party wants to choose who can vote in the hope that people will go for the so-called "unity candidate", ie. Smith.
Despite a court judgement saying that what they have done is wrong, they are persisting with this.

On top of all that, they have not only benefited from monthly subscriptions from new members, but have charged those members an additional £25 to allow them a vote that they thought they'd already paid for.

It looks as though one set of Labour members are using the money gleaned from other Labour members to scupper their right to vote.

Not a good look.

No, not a good look. It's interesting, though, that only people who were members for a year were able to vote for Labour's prospective mayoral candidates so a long cut off has been used before without much comment, which suggests the wording on the website is key. When I joined after the GE I knew there would be a leadership election because Ed Miliband had just resigned, but I didn't know if I would be able to vote in it. I had to wait until the NEC set the parameters for the contest for confirmation I could vote and was pleased I could but would not have felt hard done by if I couldn't. It's the change to the website wording since last year that has prompted this challenge. The idea it's automatically outrageous for new members to be excluded doesn't wash with me. You're joinIg a political party to show your support, not to buy a vote. It is the deliberate selling of membership on a transactional basis - pay money and you get a vote - on the website that has created the sense of being cheated. I want to know where this change of representation of what membership means came from as I feel this is partially to blame for Labour's current pickle because the wording on the website makes any subsequent cut off - even for very worthy reasons - contentious, without a suitable caveat that appears missing.

One of the reasons for the long cut off given was the difficulty to verify such a large number of new members and the high price of "registered supporter" was to put people off to reduce the administrative burden, being unable to ditch the new system completely, I believe. Even if you accept these reasons at face value ( I suspect most here would not!) it really didn't achieve what they wanted, did it, so complete shambles all round.

[danesclose]

GMB, whose members include workers on the Trident nuclear weapons programme, is the only union so far to hold a consultation of all members over its endorsement of a Labour leadership candidate. However, only around 30,000 of the GMB’s 639,000 members are eligible to actually vote in the Labour leadership election – those who pay into the union’s political fund.

My emphasis

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... our-leader" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The suggestion that Corbyn supporters were not balloted is a bit strange & one wonders a) how that was known in advance & b) if they had been excluded, who were the 40% that backed JC ? Foil hats have been much in demand...

edit to add link to GMB press release and to highlight:

Notes to editors

The ballot was conducted by the independent agency Electoral Reform Services (ERS) and closed at noon on Wednesday 10 August.

GMB Consultative Ballot of Members

Total number of votes cast: 43,635

Total number of votes found to be invalid: 216

Total number of valid votes to be counted: 43,419

Question – Who do you think is best placed to lead the Labour Party to a General Election victory and serve as Prime Minister?

SMITH, Owen – 25,969 (60%)

CORBYN, Jeremy - 17,450 (40%)

Turnout - 8.1%

*GMB Scotland took a decision not to ballot their members. A statement on GMB Scotland’s decision is here

http://www.gmb.org.uk/newsroom/owen-smi ... our-leader" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Would be interested to know why if there are only about 30,000 GMB members eligible to vote in the Labour leadership election, 43,419 voted in the "Consultative Ballot of Members".
BTW in case anyone thinks this is an anti Owen Smith thing, it's not. I'm a member of the CWU, who seem to have come out for Corbyn despite not asking me

[JonnyT1234]

Note that there was also no equivalent cut off at the last leadership election a mere few months ago. So what happens in other elections is actually even less of a precedent than you're thinking.

[JonnyT1234]

Also, it wasn't just the website, it was Labour MPs. I doubt they were the only ones saying people should become members to vote but e.g. the MPs involved with #SaveLabour were explicitly stating that people should become members to vote against Corbyn.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Also, it wasn't just the website, it was Labour MPs. I doubt they were the only ones saying people should become members to vote but e.g. the MPs involved with #SaveLabour were explicitly stating that people should become members to vote against Corbyn.

Not just MPs, either. It basically came as a complete surprise that such a lengthy "cut off" period was decided.

(a suggestion was made of June 23 - the date of the referendum - but that was narrowly voted down)

[pk1]

Unison committee nominate Jeremy Corbyn by 58 to 42%

The committee decision follows discussions at regional and national level, and a consultation of UNISON members who are affiliated to the Labour party. The consultation was carried out online.

UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis said:

“Jeremy Corbyn retains the backing of a majority of UNISON’s Labour supporting members. That’s why the committee supported his nomination again.

“However, a significant minority backed Owen Smith. Their views will always be respected in our union- that’s our proud tradition.

“It’s healthy for people to hold alternative views on the future direction of the party. What’s toxic though is for abuse, threats and aggressive language to be considered acceptable- or the norm. Labour is in danger of becoming the new‘nasty party’ if this behaviour continues unchecked. There’s no place in the party for witch hunts against MPs, councillors and party staff.

“The decent hard-working people we represent don’t want a party riven by infighting. They want a united opposition that stands up for public services which are facing intolerable pressures.”

1. Would you like the Labour Link committee to nominate a candidate in the forthcoming Labour Leadership election?

Yes, nominate a candidate 64.5%
13,027
No nomination 35.5%
7,163
Total 20,190

2. If the UNISON Labour Link committee decides to nominate a candidate, do you have a preference on which candidate they should nominate?

Nominate Jeremy Corbyn 58.1%
10,698
Nominate Owen Smith 41.9%
7,720
Total 18,418

https://www.unison.org.uk/news/press-re ... committee/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

@danesclose re GMB numbers - I'd imagine the Graun guesstimated how many were eligible & we all know accuracy isn't one of their strong points

[StephenDolan]

Jess Phillips. Why, for the love of God, why? I get it. You don't want Corbyn. You would prefer to have more female challengers. So where is the piece and multiple tweets concentrating your anger, disappointment and dissatisfaction on the FPLP? You know, the one's that stopped Eagle from standing?

[gilsey]

It's tempting to think that Cameron is just a useless twat who ran out of luck, but on preparing to legislate for an EU referendum his advisors and civil servants must have highlighted all the issues we are facing now, surely. Not to mention the strange way the 'Brexiter' PM hopefuls faded out of the race, leaving Brexit voting Tories no choice but to accept a remain camp minister for leader. It's almost as if none of them ever really wanted to leave, not just Johnson who was clearly faking. Is it all just a clusterfuck or are there darker motives at work. The Tea Party element that is linked to many of the main Tory Brexit players isn't interested in seeing the UK leave the EU so much as it is interested in seeing the EU itself torn apart. Is our half in, half out status a useful lever to undermine the whole project? I am constantly told I must accept we are leaving the EU, but I find it difficult to do so as long as we're not actually leaving. The Tories have 4 years to fart around and piss everyone off and I suspect they will do just that because, as utopiandreams points out above, actually leaving the EU is just way too hard work.

I think most people here had an inkling of the problems brexit would cause, in terms of actually negotiating leaving and new trade agreements etc, rather than the economic effects, but it would probably be fair to say the general public wouldn't have considered it to be an issue, 'just get on with it' and all that. We've seen enough now to know the full horror of it.

I've been wondering what this says about the intellect of the tory MP brexiters, going back to John Major's bastards and before. I mean the apparently sincere ones, not BJ. Surely they should know enough about the practicalities of government to see that, whatever the lure of the ultimate sunlit uplands, the path is impassable? I was assuming they're just as dim as the average Kipper, but you raise an interesting alternative possibility.

[HindleA]

http://disabilityunited.co.uk/2016/08/p ... -must-end/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Petition Alert! Underfunding the Disabled Facilities Grant must end

[danesclose]

Unison committee nominate Jeremy Corbyn by 58 to 42%

If I was a member of Unison I'd be unhappy about that. Other unions have been able to ballot their members, why not Unison

@danesclose re GMB numbers - I'd imagine the Graun guesstimated how many were eligible & we all know accuracy isn't one of their strong points

Fair point well made

[refitman]

On another subject - it's Show's birthday today!

There's chocolate cake for tea (with cream for him).
He is dining this evening on homemade chicken curry with lots of trimmings.

He is, I have to say, lucky to have me.

Happy birthday Show!

[Willow904]

Also, it wasn't just the website, it was Labour MPs. I doubt they were the only ones saying people should become members to vote but e.g. the MPs involved with #SaveLabour were explicitly stating that people should become members to vote against Corbyn.

Then they were just as reckless as those setting up the website to do so without knowing if or when there would be a cut off. And there would have been a cut off as such last year, there is always a cut off, a point at which it's too late to be included and that date surely always has to be set and related to people when they are being offered the chance to vote in a specific leadership election. And I accept what AK is saying about everyone being surprised by the 6 months, I was too and it's obviously very arbitrary and probably manipulative, but I was actually surprised Labour MPs were encouraging people to join to get a vote before the parameters of who would be eligible to vote was set and I still feel that unless cut offs for leadership elections are set in stone in the party rules and are clearly communicated in the membership agreement, everyone who simply assumed it would be exactly the same as last time were being hugely presumptive and ran the risk of misleading new members. These were my thoughts before the 6 months was announced, so I guess it has coloured my reaction somewhat in contrast to others, I guess. Labour really needs to sort out their vague rules.

[citizenJA]

On another subject - it's Show's birthday today!

There's chocolate cake for tea (with cream for him).
He is dining this evening on homemade chicken curry with lots of trimmings.

He is, I have to say, lucky to have me.

Happy Birthday, Showmaster!

[ohsocynical]

For Ephie.

13814045_1124593070962307_4729061136394819414_n.png (100.54 KiB) Viewed 9071 times

[Willow904]

Of course, knowing that MPs had already run away with the idea that people yet to join would get a vote, a prudent NEC would bear this in mind when setting parameters. I'm really not trying to let them off the hook, I'm just not willing to let others off the hook either as the whole party seems to be making things up as they go along as far as I can tell, in all sorts of conflicting directions.

[HindleA]

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2016-08- ... mb-stairs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Wheelchair-bound woman refused entry to Croydon disability centre because she can't climb stairs



Aaaaaaargh USER ffs.

[frog222]

On another subject - it's Show's birthday today!

There's chocolate cake for tea (with cream for him).
He is dining this evening on homemade chicken curry with lots of trimmings.

He is, I have to say, lucky to have me.

Happy Birthday, Showmaster!

Homemade chickens are much better than shop ones

[AngryAsWell]

On another subject - it's Show's birthday today!

There's chocolate cake for tea (with cream for him).
He is dining this evening on homemade chicken curry with lots of trimmings.

He is, I have to say, lucky to have me.

Happy Birthday, Showmaster!

Ditto from me! Happy Birthday Showmaster

[PorFavor]

On another subject - it's Show's birthday today!

There's chocolate cake for tea (with cream for him).
He is dining this evening on homemade chicken curry with lots of trimmings.

He is, I have to say, lucky to have me.

Happy Birthday, Showmaster!

Homemade chickens are much better than shop ones

Free range sausages? That one's always amused me.

[PorFavor]

Happy birthday Showmaster.

[Willow904]

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2016-08- ... mb-stairs/



Wheelchair-bound woman refused entry to Croydon disability centre because she can't climb stairs



Aaaaaaargh USER ffs.

How bizarre. Wouldn't this be the case for any floor other than the ground floor, that the lifts can't be used in case of fire? And yet surely wheelchair users access higher floors all the time. I don't think this is about the physical environment. I think this is about the centre being unwilling to have staff available to assist (potentially carry) disabled people from the building in case of fire which, for a disability centre, is clearly very poor indeed.

[citizenJA]

...at some point, I want to be able to give my support to an ethos that I can believe in. At the moment, I'm a bit stuck.

The Tories and UKIP are out of the question; the Greens are a bit too shambolic as yet; the Libbing Dead need some serious rehab before I'd consider them again; Plaid don't seem to be entirely sure that they want independence and most of Miss Woody Two-shoes' ideas are a bit pie-in-the-sky.....and the way all sides in Labour are behaving right now puts me off them too.

(cJA edit)

Are political parties as vehicles for parliamentary democracy in the UK not fit for purpose at this point in history?

[Willow904]

...at some point, I want to be able to give my support to an ethos that I can believe in. At the moment, I'm a bit stuck.

The Tories and UKIP are out of the question; the Greens are a bit too shambolic as yet; the Libbing Dead need some serious rehab before I'd consider them again; Plaid don't seem to be entirely sure that they want independence and most of Miss Woody Two-shoes' ideas are a bit pie-in-the-sky.....and the way all sides in Labour are behaving right now puts me off them too.

(cJA edit)

Are political parties as vehicles for parliamentary democracy in the UK not fit for purpose at this point in history?

Or have we got too fussy? I do genuinely wonder that sometimes. With the internet we have so much more information. It's hard to be disappointed by what you don't know about.

[ohsocynical]

A grandmother to all children: This woman is offering refugees home-cooked meals and so much more.

https://www.facebook.com/Upworthy/video ... 844202070/

[citizenJA]

The UK’s statistics office has begun recruiting its first data analytics apprentices, following a critical review into the quality
of economic data by the former Bank of England deputy governor Sir Charles Bean.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said it was recruiting six apprentices at its Newport headquarters in south Wales, where its
new data science campus is based. Bean has been highly critical of the skills levels at the ONS following its move from London to
Newport after 2007, when it lost many senior staff.

Andrew Tyrie, chair of the cross-party Treasury select committee, has also blasted the UK’s “rubbish” statistics and criticised the
ONS for falling behind its international peers.

- ONS to recruit data analytics apprentices after skills criticism

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

Yeah, six apprentices will sort out the ONS, no problem.
Tory governments foment disaster for sport - it's what the Tory party is about.
I've no doubt their jiggery of services continues.