Bank holiday weekend: 27th, 28th & 29th August

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 12:54 pm

Willow904 wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... gle-market

A number of senior figures, including the chancellor, Philip Hammond, according to the Sunday Times, are thought to believe that all options including staying part of the economic area should remain on the table.

But many Brexit campaigners, including cabinet members David Davis and Liam Fox who will lead negotiations, are thought to believe Britain may have to quit the single market in order to impose adequate border controls.
There's no mandate for either option, this is May's essential problem. People weren't asked if they wanted to curb immigration or if they want to remain in the single market. A vote to leave the EU gives us no insight into people's thoughts on these issues. There is far too much being tied to the EU vote which, although not unreasonable inferences are just that - inferences. Guesswork doesn't provide a sound basis for a mandate for such a huge decision. We need an election or further referendums in order to provide the democratic mandate on which to proceed. That's not to say we'll get one, but May does need to be challenged on the democratic basis for her decisions at every step.

It is an absolute mess isn't it and it is astounding that the Government does not seem to have understood this as a scenario from when the referendum was announced, or at least during the campaign when it became apparent of the different strands of the 'Exit' campaign

The 'Remain' campaign always was being sold on there being a different meaning to a 'Corbyn Remain' when compared to a 'Cameron Remain' which was perfectly acceptable to me. In a 'Remain' scenario these differences would have caused some later debate and tension but were manageable as it would not need a definitive answer in reality

What was not explored enough was whether a 'Leave' vote was for a 'Johnson Leave' or a 'Farage Leave' though and as the Exit requires a definitive answer to that things are truly in a mess because no-one knows - and there is no mechanism to answer it. The differences between the different wings of the Leave campaign were talked about but in hindsight the emphasis on needing clarity was hidden away behind other things - Project Fear and Immigration being two. The MSM played their part in this as well - never seriously demanding an answer from the Exiteers

It is actually a perfectly simple scenario to have envisaged though and the fact the Tory Governmental Incompetents never worked out how to deal with it is one of their big failures in this whole sorry story

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 1:03 pm

Each of the different strands of "Out" always acted as if people would be voting for their brand. Now that the result is in, they continue to act as though their brand was the brand people opted for. Several of the proponents of these different brands of "Out" are now appointed to key roles in the "Out" process. A total mess.

Actually it's a mess to rival, or even eclipse (because it's arguably more important and certainly more immediate) the mess in the Labour Party. If only the Labour Party could get its act together sufficiently to capitalise on the situation . . . .

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 1:04 pm

Good morfternoon.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 1:07 pm

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

Yo

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 1:16 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.
Yo

Ta!

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 1:22 pm

PorFavor wrote:Each of the different strands of "Out" always acted as if people would be voting for their brand. Now that the result is in, they continue to act as though their brand was the brand people opted for. Several of the proponents of these different brands of "Out" are now appointed to key roles in the "Out" process. A total mess.

Actually it's a mess to rival, or even eclipse (because it's arguably more important and certainly more immediate) the mess in the Labour Party. If only the Labour Party could get its act together sufficiently to capitalise on the situation . . . .

Indeed, and you are right about the mess!

The Labour one is more interesting in terms of pure theatre but the one that really matters is the one going on behind closed doors and out of the gaze of a (pretty much) disinterested media.

Why the hell is Labour having a leadership election at this time? What possessed the PLP to instigate this......when it was clear the Tories were going to be heading for turmoil, not matter how well they are hiding it at the moment?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 1:53 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Each of the different strands of "Out" always acted as if people would be voting for their brand. Now that the result is in, they continue to act as though their brand was the brand people opted for. Several of the proponents of these different brands of "Out" are now appointed to key roles in the "Out" process. A total mess.

Actually it's a mess to rival, or even eclipse (because it's arguably more important and certainly more immediate) the mess in the Labour Party. If only the Labour Party could get its act together sufficiently to capitalise on the situation . . . .

Indeed, and you are right about the mess!

The Labour one is more interesting in terms of pure theatre but the one that really matters is the one going on behind closed doors and out of the gaze of a (pretty much) disinterested media.

Why the hell is Labour having a leadership election at this time? What possessed the PLP to instigate this......when it was clear the Tories were going to be heading for turmoil, not matter how well they are hiding it at the moment?

That would because 81% of the PLP have no confidence in Corbyn to exploit any such turmoil.

I agree with Ed Miliband.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 1:59 pm

From today's Times:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corby ... -g2x0ld52b" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And another aide to his campaign, from last month.
...she admitted guilt to electoral fraud for faking 100 forms and signatures and was sentenced to 100 hours community service. Let's hope she's learnt her lesson.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/leade ... -fhsfcn2n2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting, in light of all the accusations about 'vote rigging' that have chucked around recently.

Post by **refitman** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 1:59 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Each of the different strands of "Out" always acted as if people would be voting for their brand. Now that the result is in, they continue to act as though their brand was the brand people opted for. Several of the proponents of these different brands of "Out" are now appointed to key roles in the "Out" process. A total mess.

Actually it's a mess to rival, or even eclipse (because it's arguably more important and certainly more immediate) the mess in the Labour Party. If only the Labour Party could get its act together sufficiently to capitalise on the situation . . . .

Indeed, and you are right about the mess!

The Labour one is more interesting in terms of pure theatre but the one that really matters is the one going on behind closed doors and out of the gaze of a (pretty much) disinterested media.

Why the hell is Labour having a leadership election at this time? What possessed the PLP to instigate this......when it was clear the Tories were going to be heading for turmoil, not matter how well they are hiding it at the moment?
That would because 81% of the PLP have no confidence in Corbyn to exploit any such turmoil.

I agree with Ed Miliband.

Well, at least they gave him a chance, eh?

*sigh*

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 2:02 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Each of the different strands of "Out" always acted as if people would be voting for their brand. Now that the result is in, they continue to act as though their brand was the brand people opted for. Several of the proponents of these different brands of "Out" are now appointed to key roles in the "Out" process. A total mess.

Actually it's a mess to rival, or even eclipse (because it's arguably more important and certainly more immediate) the mess in the Labour Party. If only the Labour Party could get its act together sufficiently to capitalise on the situation . . . .

Indeed, and you are right about the mess!

The Labour one is more interesting in terms of pure theatre but the one that really matters is the one going on behind closed doors and out of the gaze of a (pretty much) disinterested media.

Why the hell is Labour having a leadership election at this time? What possessed the PLP to instigate this......when it was clear the Tories were going to be heading for turmoil, not matter how well they are hiding it at the moment?
That would because 81% of the PLP have no confidence in Corbyn to exploit any such turmoil.

I agree with Ed Miliband.

well not exploiting it to the full (even if I agree with your assertion which I don't - and stop pretending you have any respect at all for the opinion of Ed Miliband - it was people like you who within the PLP who undermined any chance of him winning in 2015) is different to making sure that there is absolutely no scrutiny of the Tories at all

If you launch a coup like that you have to succeed- if you fail then you suffer the consequences......

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 2:10 pm

Well, quite.

SH likes to dismiss Mason's stuff as conspiracy theorising - I have said myself that there is certainly that element present in much of his work, as well as some real and penetrating insights - but he is right to note that on the eve of the "coup" against Corbyn, the Tory lead in the polls was low and dropping.

A sensible assessment from even the most anti-Corbyn elements in the PLP should have been to wait and see until the fallout from the government side was clear. If JC failed to exploit that, then it would have been a pretext for a move against him many might have at least acquiesced in - rather than trying to make out *he* (and not anybody in the actual government) bore the prime blame for Brexit, or even indulging their own conspiracies (eg "Corbyn voted to leave")

Some have tried to make out it was all his fault because he "triggered it off" by sacking Hilary Benn. So in that case, was Benn already ringing round SC members trying to organise a mass walkout or not? The evidence strongly suggests he was - so what should his leader have actually done??

No, it was an act of self indulgence combined with knee jerk panic. For which we may all be paying a price for years to come

Post by **refitman** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 2:14 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well, quite.

SH likes to dismiss Mason's stuff as conspiracy theorising - I have said myself that there is certainly that element present in much of his work, as well as some real and penetrating insights - but he is right to note that on the eve of the "coup" against Corbyn, the Tory lead in the polls was low and dropping.

A sensible assessment from even the most anti-Corbyn elements in the PLP should have been to wait and see until the fallout from the government side was clear. If JC failed to exploit that, then it would have been a pretext for a move against him many might have at least acquiesced in - rather than trying to make out *he* (and not anybody in the actual government) bore the prime blame for Brexit, or even indulging their own conspiracies (eg "Corbyn voted to leave")

Some have tried to make out it was all his fault because he "triggered it off" by sacking Hilary Benn. So in that case, was Benn already ringing round SC members trying to organise a mass walkout or not? The evidence strongly suggests he was - so what should his leader have actually done??

No, it was an act of self indulgence combined with knee jerk panic. For which we may all be paying a price for years to come

Oh come on. As SH has made it clear on many occasions, the coup wasn't organised in advance and the hourly resignations from the shadow cabinet was pure coincidence. Also, anything you read in the papers, in the weeks before, was clearly a figment of your imagination.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 2:16 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well, quite.

SH likes to dismiss Mason's stuff as conspiracy theorising - I have said myself that there is certainly that element present in much of his work, as well as some real and penetrating insights - but he is right to note that on the eve of the "coup" against Corbyn, the Tory lead in the polls was low and dropping.

A sensible assessment from even the most anti-Corbyn elements in the PLP should have been to wait and see until the fallout from the government side was clear. If JC failed to exploit that, then it would have been a pretext for a move against him many might have at least acquiesced in - rather than trying to make out *he* (and not anybody in the actual government) bore the prime blame for Brexit, or even indulging their own conspiracies (eg "Corbyn voted to leave")

Some have tried to make out it was all his fault because he "triggered it off" by sacking Hilary Benn. So in that case, was Benn already ringing round SC members trying to organise a mass walkout or not? The evidence strongly suggests he was - so what should his leader have actually done??

No, it was an act of self indulgence combined with knee jerk panic. For which we may all be paying a price for years to come

Well said Anatoly....

I think that 2nd paragraph is important......

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 2:43 pm

Well, this has been said before but I repeat it. The evidence and the testimony of members of the PLP all point to the Brexit campaign, vote and Corbyns reAction to it as being the trigger. I don't think the PLP is made up of liars as some here must do. On this I agree with Wren-Lewis.

The evidence to the contrary seems to be the waves of resignations. If this was planned it would have taken about 25 minutes on whatsapp to organise.

I do suspect there is naivety on the "soft" left of the party. Some MPs clearly expected Corbyn to behave in the same way any previous leader of Labour (or indeed any other party) would have behaved when presented with such an overwhelming vote of no confidence.

This was to misunderstand what the project of Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne is.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 2:45 pm

Oh and* nobody* whatsoever has claimed Corbyn bears the "prime blme"for Brexit. That is to misrepresent what has been said.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 2:49 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
I agree with Ed Miliband.

Yes. I know. You always have done. As evidenced by your posts on the morning after the General Election.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 2:52 pm

PorFavor wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
I agree with Ed Miliband.
Yes. I know. You always have done. As evidenced by your posts on the morning after the General Election.

I don't think he was a good leader. Labour should be in power now.

But he is. right about Corbyn.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 2:59 pm

Not liars, just incompetents in this case

If you launch a coup like this, you have to win

If Corbyn wins the vote, and with a more supportive NEC, they could find themselves in a bit of bother

Your assertions about Brexit being the trigger may seem true to you (and your new all-knowing guru on all matters, as long as he agrees with you Wren-Lewis) but the undermining of the leader started in September 2015, and that of the two previous leaders well before that

Whatever, the truth of the coup, it is clear to anyone with an objective mind that there are some systematically disloyal members of the PLP who have been undermining the leadership for years....seemingly being from around the 'Progress' organisation

Your simplistic arguments are easily dismissed as the whole thing didn't start with Corbyn, it started a long time before....firstly with Miliband Major against Brown

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 3:29 pm

Part of the reason I get really wound about Free Schools is the utter bilge that comes out from their defenders. Like this from the CEO of a trust:

LAs haven't had the authority to tell schools how to run themselves for more than 25 years and certainly wouldn't have said that schools couldn't encourage community service.

Bah.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 3:57 pm

PorFavor wrote:Each of the different strands of "Out" always acted as if people would be voting for their brand. Now that the result is in, they continue to act as though their brand was the brand people opted for. Several of the proponents of these different brands of "Out" are now appointed to key roles in the "Out" process. A total mess.

Actually it's a mess to rival, or even eclipse (because it's arguably more important and certainly more immediate) the mess in the Labour Party. If only the Labour Party could get its act together sufficiently to capitalise on the situation . . . .

The ballot paper for the referendum should have said: 1 Remain? Yes/No - if no go to question 2 which of these scenarios do you prefer?
It would then have been crystal clear that remain had a majority. I'm joking, but it demonstrates again what a crap idea the EUref was.

How could Labour capitalise on the situation though, even if they hadn't gone awol? As I've said before, their voters may have been 2/3 for remain but they can't afford to lose the other 1/3.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 4:25 pm

Angela Eagle launched her leadership challenge at a time when the Tories were having a leadership contest of their own, which is probably, strategically speaking, the optimum time for the opposition to undergo a change of leader - while there is no known PM to oppose, with a summer recess coming up and nothing much happening politically. Although it didn't work out that way, I find the complaints that Labour picked the wrong time to challenge a leader they were unhappy with one of the least convincing arguments from Corbyn supporters. There are major differences of opinion on how Labour should proceed that were thrown up specifically by the EU referendum result and I still feel that if the result had gone the other way there wouldn't have been a challenge in the way there was because Cameron wouldn't have resigned and Corbyn wouldn't have made the speech and statements that so dismayed Labour's more pro-EU supporters immediately post-referendum. The few on the right would have continued to plot and agitate behind the scenes, no doubt, but I think it likely Corbyn would have been safe at least until a poor election result or Cameron stepped down. Maybe things would have worked out somehow in that scenario, but the reality is that "out" won and Corbyn's response was a huge let down to some Labour supporters and that loss of confidence will be extremely difficult for Corbyn to recover from, if not impossible, and these issues aren't going to magically disappear if he's re-elected. I know many posting here appreciate these points, but there has been a bit of "if only it wasn't for those nasty plotters" recently which I feel ignores the huge loss of confidence in Corbyn among some non-plotting MPs and Labour supporters.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 4:40 pm

A small number of MPs did indeed think Labour was heading for defeat in 2015, and tried to get the party to change its leadership. Danczuck was one.

The uncomfortable truth is: they were right about 2015.

Now you may well say that the result might have been different if this tiny number had behaved differently, but that is implausible IMO.

What is happening now is quite different. It was not the case that more than 4 out of 5 MPs had no confidence in Miliband.

If Corbyn wins, as we expect, there is no way this turns out well. Nobody here or anywhere else can tell a plausible story of how it will.

All that is ever said is that the PLP ought to back him. But nobody at all thinks they will.

The only other argument is that Labour Will also lose under Smith. This is true. It is bald men fighting over a comb. MPs, who will lose seats, are the ones who care about the scale of a defeat.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 5:26 pm

vs emoticon - full manc style

: vs double.jpg (1.98 KiB) Viewed 10790 times

no-one can say I don't use my time profitably.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 6:40 pm

FSA: 4,000 major breaches of animal welfare laws at UK abattoirs in two years

Data released by food watchdog reveals incidences of chickens being boiled alive and animals suffocating or freezing to death in trucks (Guardian)

I don't eat a lot of meat but I wish I could eschew it altogether. But I know I can't.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -two-years

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 8:43 pm

Interesting leaked document from Virgin Trains, I see......

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 9:23 pm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 13976.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

German's economy minister has said that Britain should no be allowed to keep the "nice things" as it negotiates its departure from the European Union.

Sigmar Gabriel said that the world was watching how Britain manages Brexit and that Europe could go "down the drain" if things go badly.

We either pay through the nose to stay in the single market and still have to accept free movement of people, or we're out completely and accept a significant reduction in GDP growth in exchange for nominal control over our borders which we won't even use because we're so reliant on immigration.

I wonder if Mr Gabriel suspects the UK may try to bring the whole EU down with it, rather than face up to this stark choice, with his reference to a fear of things going badly.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sun 28 Aug, 2016 11:28 pm

Boundary changes could affect up to 200 Labour seats, says analysis

Research by Tory peer Robert Hayward suggests up to 30 constituencies held by Labour could be abolished altogether (Guardian)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ard-report

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 12:16 am

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 13876.html

The free trade negotiations between the European Union and the United States have failed, but “nobody is really admitting it”, Germany's Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel has said.

Speaking on Sunday, Mr Gabriel, who is also Germany’s Economy Minister, said: “In my opinion, the negotiations with the United States have de facto failed, even though nobody is really admitting it."
He said that during the talks neither side had agreed on a single common chapter out of the 27 being deliberated.
He further denounced the TTIP negotiations, saying the free trade deal proposed between the EU and Canada – the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) – was fairer for all parties.

Sky'sGoneOut · Post by **Sky'sGoneOut** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 12:21 am

Hello, just been trying to post my usual nonsense in 'the pub' but am having a wee bit of difficulty, just wondering if anyone knows why.

Oh and also I was in a real pub in Halifax today and it was jam packed with Corbynistas, apparently they were having some kind of meeting of the local Labour Party while drinking real ale and playing pool (I was shit, I've got broken ribs so I couldn't bend down). They were all so lovely.

I chatted to this old guy called Jim who'd been with the Labour party for 50 years and he wasn't having any of my protestations. He wanted Socialism now, none of that Blairite shit and his wife (I think she was called June) told me she'd been part of the Labour movement since she left school.

So the idea that Corbyn supporters are some kind of urban elite is evidently complete bollocks.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you all that but there it is nonetheless.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 1:33 am

SpinningHugo wrote:A small number of MPs did indeed think Labour was heading for defeat in 2015, and tried to get the party to change its leadership. Danczuck was one.

The uncomfortable truth is: they were right about 2015.

Now you may well say that the result might have been different if this tiny number had behaved differently, but that is implausible IMO.

What is happening now is quite different. It was not the case that more than 4 out of 5 MPs had no confidence in Miliband.

If Corbyn wins, as we expect, there is no way this turns out well. Nobody here or anywhere else can tell a plausible story of how it will.

All that is ever said is that the PLP ought to back him. But nobody at all thinks they will.

The only other argument is that Labour Will also lose under Smith. This is true. It is bald men fighting over a comb. MPs, who will lose seats, are the ones who care about the scale of a defeat.

Do you think that if Labour had changed it's leadership before the 2015 election, it would have won? Who should have been the leader & why do you think this would have worked?
If Owen Smith becomes leader, why do you write off his chances of leading Labour to victory? Is it his policies, personality or because of the damage done to the party through the infighting?
Again, who would you have leading?

I'm reminded of the Bonnie Tyler song

[youtube]bWcASV2sey0[/youtube]

There's a lot of MPs available, hopefully quite a few who would be capable of leading, although I'm sure they're all flawed in some way or other.
Maybe the party just need to accept one as leader and let them get on with it, without undermining them.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 7:04 am

1. Personally, I would have gone for Cooper. Suggestions of women seem to be met with derision.

2. The damage to Labour by Corbyn is now too great for anyone to win in 2020

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 9:04 am

Morning all

Sometimes I think I have entered another reality

I assumed that Labour had lost the 2010 election after a massive financial crash, following from years of bad blood and factionalism in the party. To compound it, I though I saw the party manage to get itself solely blamed for the crash by a party whose leaders were noticeable by their absence during the crisis. Luckily FPTP helped prevent a Tory majority, although the performance of Clegg made it pretty much the same

I seem also to remember the period 2010-2015 being a period where certain MP (senior included) could not prevent themselves running to the press (even post-Levenson) to complain about the leader and ensure no stability coming up until 2015 election. Also let us forget the collapse in the heartland Scotland vote after being played for idiots by the Tories

Then we had the 2015 election where again Labour lost - much of which can be pout down to the loss of Scotland (and compounding this was the use of the SNP to scare the English) and the destruction of the lD by the Tories in the south

And this is without boundary changes to come that, if in place during the Blair years, would have made 2001 and 2005 look very different indeed

There was me thinking all this happened and that the time since 2010 has been one of problem after problem for Labour, making them look a shadow of a political party - factionalism, lack of balls in taking on the Tory and press lies, triangulating to death and electoral collapse in one of the main heartlands

But no, the reality I have stepped into seems to suggest that the problems for Labour have only started with the election of Corbyn in 2015 and that stopped a great Labour recovery that was in line to win in 2020.......

Nice to see you are a fan of the predictive powers of Danzcuk Hugo...some of us find him a despicable individual who should be as far away from politics as possible - but you ob^viously think differently if he agrees with you

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 9:32 am

SpinningHugo wrote:1. Personally, I would have gone for Cooper. Suggestions of women seem to be met with derision.

2. The damage to Labour by Corbyn is now too great for anyone to win in 2020

I voted for Cooper, (though wasn't aware that her suggestions get met with derision, more that she is seen by some as tainted by association with Ed.Balls), Obviously you can't know how things would stand now if Cooper or Burnham had won, but the main damage isn't because of Corbyn, it's how the PLP have chosen to respond to him.
Likewise arguably, the same for Milliband previously.
I don't agree Labour can't now win in 2020, it would depend on how other things in country progress, and on how party behaves, although obv. it probably isn't now very likely with Corbyn.

Edit: to add: apologies for just repeating old arguments.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 10:14 am

Stop playing the gender card please, most Labour women candidates for leader have failed because they have not been good enough.

Cooper was/is potentially an exception, but totally misplayed her run last year.

Also worth pointing out that women have won the deputy leadership twice (Harman in 2007 when she was not generally expected to)

And I think potentially Corbyn's most formidable opponent on this occasion might have been.......Lisa Nandy. She very much remains a viable future prospect, too.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 10:43 am

Theresa May tells pro-EU civil servants to get on with the job of delivering Brexit

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 ... the-job-o/

Theresa May has told pro-EU civil servants that they have been given their "marching orders" and must now get on with the job of delivering Brexit.

Senior government sources have privately complained that europhile civil servants are attempting to sabotage Brexit by frustrating the work of ministers.

So...

"We want a,b,c and we want it now!"
"I'm sorry Minister, that won't work because of x,y,z"
"You're being obstructive - I'll complain to the Telegraph!"

and this...

John Redwood, a eurosceptic Tory MP, said yesterday that Britain can keep "all the jobs, the trade, the economic links" after leaving the European Union.

*insert gag about what planet redwood is on here*

Kinda obvious that when clueless politicians find out they can't have everything they want, they'll blame the civil service...

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 10:54 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:Theresa May tells pro-EU civil servants to get on with the job of delivering Brexit

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 ... the-job-o/

Theresa May has told pro-EU civil servants that they have been given their "marching orders" and must now get on with the job of delivering Brexit.

Senior government sources have privately complained that europhile civil servants are attempting to sabotage Brexit by frustrating the work of ministers.
So...

"We want a,b,c and we want it now!"
"I'm sorry Minister, that won't work because of x,y,z"
"You're being obstructive - I'll complain to the Telegraph!"

and this...

John Redwood, a eurosceptic Tory MP, said yesterday that Britain can keep "all the jobs, the trade, the economic links" after leaving the European Union.
*insert gag about what planet redwood is on here*

Kinda obvious that when clueless politicians find out they can't have everything they want, they'll blame the civil service...

Civil service? Don't you mean "faceless, unelected bureaucrats" (some of whom may even be bi-, or more unpatriotically, multi- lingual, the traitors)?

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 11:19 am

I've been popping in to see what you're all up to from time to time, and am unsurprised to find the board subject to more nonsense from ORCT.

It is not Corbyn who has damaged or is damaging the Labour Party. It is a core of self-obsessed and entitled MPs and the NEC that's doing that.

In May 2015, the membership of the Labour Party was just over 200,000. By July 2016, it had risen to 515,000. Some of those people are ex-members returning; some come from other parties; some are politically engaged for the first time - the PLP and the NEC didn't do that.

When a new leader, who won by an unexpected landslide (thus showing how out of touch the Labour heirarchy is with the party membership), is not supported, constantly briefed against in the media, subjected to personal abuse on social media by party apparitchiks, and heckled in the House by his own side, then is it any wonder that people take sides and this schism develops?

When people who have been party members for decades are barred from voting or thrown out of the party because they dared to express a view at some point in time that is now, apparently verboten, there is something rotten in the party.
When people who left the party come back again because they like the new leader, pay full subscriptions and are under the impression they have a say in what happens in the party they're funding get barred from voting, there's something rotten in the party.
When the heirarchy says it wants to attract supporters who drifted away, wants to get people from other parties to join, but treats its own new and long-term membership with such contempt, there is something rotten in the party.

If the Times is right, a thousand people a day are being barred from voting or ejected from the party altogether. Doctors, pensioners, union leaders, people who dare to say that the Greens might just have a point about a few things and others who use an expletive to describe their love of a certain band's music. If this carries on, there will be nobody left to vote - from a membership of more than half a million.

By now, with the current purging and all those members who joined after January thinking they had a vote excluded, some estimate that half the members are now not eligible to vote. This is gerrymandering of the worst order. If Smith wins because of it, Labour is finished.

If I were still a party member, I'd cast my vote for Corbyn even if I thought he wasn't the best candidate - which I do. No purging of the execrable McTernan; no calls for Sainsbury to explain himself; no offers of full refunds to excluded members who have swelled Labours' coffers by millions.

Disgraceful. Labour values? If this is what they are, the party deserves all the opprobrium that will be heaped on it. Those among you who support this should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. Those who don't, I wish you well. I hope you get the leader you want.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 11:26 am

One hopeful portent from last year's contest is that over three quarters of appeals against being barred from voting succeeded.

If you think you have been unfairly excluded, seek redress now.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 11:40 am

Small tortoiseshell butterfly numbers have plummeted across UK

Conservationists fear this year’s cool spring and slow start to summer have taken their toll on one of UK’s best-loved butterflies (Guardian)

No change here, on the butterfly front. Still only the occasional cabbage white.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... rs-plummet

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 11:49 am

My buddleia is swarming with butterflies, up to 10 at a time, red admirals, painted ladies, tortoishells, and a few cabbage whites, no peacocks, sadly.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 12:16 pm

Hot and sunny. Barely a cloud in the sky. Can it really be an August bank holiday Monday?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 1:07 pm

Soon to be National Treasure speaks

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

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 1:16 pm

I would say most Labour inclined people blame him more than the other Ed, there was no need for him to pivot towards austerity in the run up to the last GE.

It won him no significant support from those who wanted to believe the Tory fantasy world of "Labour crashed the economy and maxed out the national credit card" but demoralised those who wanted the party to offer a genuine alternative. And after the GE these types just doubled down (eg Kendall's "BUDGET SURPLUSES FOREVER!") rather than learning the correct lessons. Which is one reason why we now have Corbyn.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 1:34 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:Soon to be National Treasure speaks

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

What's the "d-miliband" thing in the url (is that right?) thing? Is the Guardian still pretending to be unable to distinguish between the two brothers? Or is it simply trying to subliminally keep the elder in our minds (obviously, in my case, succeeding but not in a good way)?

Post by **refitman** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 1:42 pm

PorFavor wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Soon to be National Treasure speaks

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

What's the "d-miliband" thing in the url (is that right?) thing? Is the Guardian still pretending to be unable to distinguish between the two brothers? Or is it simply trying to subliminally keep the elder in our minds (obviously, in my case, succeeding but not in a good way)?

It's just the way FTN abbreviates URLs. It says "Ed": http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... d-miliband

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 1:53 pm

refitman wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Soon to be National Treasure speaks

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

What's the "d-miliband" thing in the url (is that right?) thing? Is the Guardian still pretending to be unable to distinguish between the two brothers? Or is it simply trying to subliminally keep the elder in our minds (obviously, in my case, succeeding but not in a good way)?
It's just the way FTN abbreviates URLs. It says "Ed": http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... d-miliband

Ah! Thank you. I shall dismount forthwith.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 2:06 pm

Butterfly report. Plenty of whites. Last week there was a Painted Lady for a few days, and a brief visit from a Red Admiral, there's plenty of both those up on the moors, enjoying the heather. Today a Speckled Wood, and then, at last, not one but 2 Peacock.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 2:31 pm

Emily Thornberry.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/st ... emy-corbyn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

some people have done their level best to deny the party’s full membership a fair and equal vote in this contest, or even the chance to make their voices heard. Instead of welcoming the enthusiasm of our new members, instead of celebrating the strength of our mass membership, they have been behaving as if it is something to be afraid of.

As someone who spent nearly 30 years as a grass roots activist before becoming your MP, I cannot accept this.

Haven't read the whole thing yet, but Emily seems to have read ephe's post this morning.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 4:54 pm

Pretty much what I said earlier.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 5:07 pm

No surprise these reports appeared in the Torygraph - they appear (even more than most right wing media) to be totally the slaves of Brexit "magical thinking".

"Everyone will give us whatever we want without us having to concede anything in return - because we're GREAT Britain!!"