Wednesday 14th September 2016

Post by **refitman** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 7:12 am

Morning all.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 7:40 am

Cameron's 'shock' resignation from Parliament put into some context ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37356873" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 8:51 am

Glad to hear Today doing their best to protect our glorious ex PM from the Libya report. Little Nicky leading the way.

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 9:16 am

Lest we forget. Only 12 MPs voted against intervention in Libya.
One of them was Jeremy Corbyn.

It is past time that Labour critics such as Hilary Benn acknowledged that Corbyn has consistently shown superb judgment on foreign policy issues. Had he been prime minister for the last 15 years, Britain would not have been drawn into the death trap of Helmand province, the horror of Iraq or the calamity of Libya.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/li ... -709095939" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 10:08 am

yahyah wrote:Cameron's 'shock' resignation from Parliament put into some context ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37356873" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dunno - I thought it might have something to do with this...

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

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/f ... -criminals

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/ ... -bbc-chair

....with all roads leading to Panama....then again, there's an awfully long list of reasons for the funt to clounce off.

As a £3 Corbynista I'm sticking a very trepidatious toe in the waters - I've been away for a bit, mainly due to a massive IT meltdown that has taken a lot of time and removed my usual desktop until now, but also that I've a feeling I'd be somewhat pilloried....but f*** it - broad shoulders and all that!! - so I'm hoping all members will allow me to continue name-calling when it's someone as deserving (IMHO) as TCC....or Gidiot...or the Idiot Diptin Sh1t...or, in fact, any of the Murchydochian monstrousities...and of course, Mrs May(not) is added to the list following the back-door visit by Uncle Ruperts favourite progeny (tweeted yesterday)....any meeting notes taken I wonder(not)?....

: jmtm0132.JPG (29.44 KiB) Viewed 12394 times

Bu***r....hope that's not too big....and, of course, from a source called political pictures there's no image

...and morfterbubbleeventimorningtons all...I continue to live in Hope (just north of Peterborough)...but it does seem rather a folorn and lonely place atm

- but again - f*** it - when Lawson said 'we've the chance to finish what Thatcher started' I fully agree - finish the anti-human, uncompassionate, corrupt program of theft and media-management that has allowed Hillsborough, Orgreave, the destruction of the NHS, the persecution of the disabled, the poor and just about anyone not connected to the gravy train etc etc...in other words finish it forever and bring its' perpertrators to book (ref the Clouncy Funt above - my first thought was that he was running as he is due to be arrested and charged with something...as I say...I continue to live in Hope (just north of Peterborough))

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 11:02 am

"Clouncy Funt" - he he.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 11:08 am

Good-morning, everyone.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 11:22 am

Libya seemed like a good idea at the time tbf.

The overwhelming support from MPs was partly explained by a widespread assumption that *some* lessons had to have been learned from the disastrous post-conflict aftermath in Iraq - well you would think so, wouldn't you? The reality of course was that Dave just wanted his "war spurs"

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 11:22 am

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... t#comments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As a thalidomider, ‘I feel I’m being treated like a scrounger’
People born with limb defects due to the thalidomide drug are facing new penalties half a century on as their PIP disability benefits are cut

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 11:23 am

...and whilst on the subject of good ol' Uncle Rupert, his workload has recently increased substantially....

Rupert Murdoch has taken control of Fox News after ousting embattled Roger Ailes amid claims of sexual harassment .
The newspaper mogul , executive co-chairman of parent company 21st Century Fox Inc, will take over supervision of the network and its sibling, Fox Business Network, as chairman and interim chief executive.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... ox-8468700

...hmmm....let's see now...

Last month, Roger Ailes resigned as Fox News’s chairman and C.E.O. in the face of multiple allegations of sexual harassment, including a lawsuit filed against him by the former anchor Gretchen Carlson. (Ailes has denied Carlson’s allegations.)* The unfolding embarrassment at the network poses a host of questions—not the least of which is how the network’s executives justified their Javert-like pursuit of Clinton’s extramarital affairs, given their boss’s own repeated sexual misconduct.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-com ... dalmongers

* However, Fox have now paid Ms Carlson....

Since news of Carlson’s lawsuit came to light, the impact at Fox News has been swift and massive; multiple women have come forward with their own allegations of harassment; Sherman has reported on an entire workplace culture enabling the abuse; Ailes left the company with a $40 million payout; and Carlson settled with 21st Century Fox Thursday for a reported $20 million and a public apology.

...and...

With his reputation and his legacy in tatters, it looks certain that Ailes will spend years fighting allegations of harassment of the many women at the network, even if Carlson, who has begun legal action personally, settles. But Sherman says the Murdoch family may pay far greater sums in lost revenue than the millions Ailes is alleged to have spent to silence his accusers.
“A lot of people have drawn parallels to the UK phone hacking scandal but I think in terms of the potential impact on 21st Century Fox, this could be far greater,”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/ ... wing-media

...well....it's just a good thing Murchydochia has never really had any power in Brita...oh...hang on a sec...

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 11:37 am

Need cheering up?

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/el ... jority-one" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I blame the Blairites.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 11:38 am

I'm plagued by sick headaches
Yesterday I woke to the awful sound of thunder or artillery barrage or Titanic sinking or runaway CH4 release
All I could see out the window was a foul yellow sky

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 11:41 am

SpinningHugo wrote:Need cheering up?

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/el ... jority-one" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I blame the Blairites.

Well, you could blame them for losing Scotland

Seriously, this shows that the ceaselessly deployed Tory trope that the electoral system "has a massive inbuilt pro-Labour bias" to be the utter tosh that it always was (almost all the supposed "bias" - even at its most seemingly apparent in the 2001 and 2005 GEs - was down to differential turnout) There is now no good reason for any Labourite not to support electoral reform - the tribalism that still stops some from doing so has to end.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 11:46 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Libya seemed like a good idea at the time tbf.

The overwhelming support from MPs was partly explained by a widespread assumption that *some* lessons had to have been learned from the disastrous post-conflict aftermath in Iraq - well you would think so, wouldn't you? The reality of course was that Dave just wanted his "war spurs"

I thought I'd look up who the SoS for Defence was at the time - fully prepared with 'look at that - the incompetent clusterfracking-omnishambolist is now Chancellor of the Exchequer'-style comment (as I'd thought it was Hammond)...but no - it was none other than that old favourite of FTN, Dr Liam 'werrity werrity werrity' Fox (everything up)...surely someone with such an unimpeachable reputation for competence wouldn't've* allowed the descent into lawlessness and destruction as they would have a really really splendiferous post-conflict plan...surely?...and (tin-foil hat at the ready) it couldn't possibly strengthen the hand of those trying to convince us that we're 'under attack from ISIS', by creating the conditions to strengthen ISIS....absolutely definitely not - definitely not....nothing like the (planned) lack of planning in post-conflict Iraq...nope, definitely not.

* Couldn't resist the unusual double apostrophe

and ttfn

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 11:48 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Need cheering up?

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/el ... jority-one" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I blame the Blairites.
Well, you could blame them for losing Scotland

Seriously, this shows that the ceaselessly deployed Tory trope that the electoral system "has a massive inbuilt pro-Labour bias" to be the utter tosh that it always was (almost all the supposed "bias" - even at its most seemingly apparent in the 2001 and 2005 GEs - was down to differential turnout) There is now no good reason for any Labourite not to support electoral reform - the tribalism that still stops some from doing so has to end.

(my bold)

True

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 11:58 am

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... 16#history" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ESA: outcomes of Work Capability Assessments including mandatory reconsiderations and appeals: September 2016

60% FTW decisions overturned,in quarter.

Miniscule reduction in numbers predicted,there is an inbuilt reduction process of arbitrary end of entitlement despite no change,of course.

Edited because of an extra "a" invasion.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 12:06 pm

Caroline Flint dropped the 'no rerun' bomb on the daily politics. Not great for Smith.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 12:08 pm

StephenDolan wrote:Caroline Flint dropped the 'no rerun' bomb on the daily politics. Not great for Smith.

Was that an Outer Limits rerun?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 12:10 pm

Urgent Question on Concentrix at 12.30.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 12:12 pm

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/ec ... al-economy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Simon Wren-Lewis wins the 2016 New Statesman/SPERI Prize for Political Economy

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 12:15 pm

Batley and Witney by elections on 20th October.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 12:43 pm

Looks like it was Corbyn 1 -May 0 at PMQs.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 1:03 pm

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/je ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Jeremy Hunt skips all 7 NHS crisis meetings in his department despite hospitals meltdown

Jeremy Hunt has failed to attend a single crisis meeting on the NHS despite warnings the health service is in “meltdown.”

The Health Secretary skipped all seven gatherings of the Department of Health’s board in the 2015-16 financial year.

All of these took place against the backdrop of the junior doctors’ strike and the controversial introduction of a 7-day NHS.

The high-level meetings review the performance of the NHS and analysis “strategic issues and risks.”

They are also used to “identify the root causes of performance challenges, and develop and implement plans to mitigate risks and improve outcome”.

In addition to the Health Secretary, they are usually attended by the chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, senior civil servants and NHS directors.

But the Department of Health’s annual report reveals Mr Hunt was absent for all seven Board meetings.

He wouldn't want anyone to think the NHS had anything to do with him, would he.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 1:14 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Need cheering up?

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/el ... jority-one" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I blame the Blairites.
Well, you could blame them for losing Scotland

Seriously, this shows that the ceaselessly deployed Tory trope that the electoral system "has a massive inbuilt pro-Labour bias" to be the utter tosh that it always was (almost all the supposed "bias" - even at its most seemingly apparent in the 2001 and 2005 GEs - was down to differential turnout) There is now no good reason for any Labourite not to support electoral reform - the tribalism that still stops some from doing so has to end.

There are many many things wrong with the Tory boundary proposals.

But denying that the system favours Laour is silly. In 2005 Labour led by 2.8% in the GE, and gained a Labour majority of 65. In 2010 the Tories led by 7.1% and had no majority.

The system requires fewer votes to elect a Labour MP than for the other major parties. The system favours all the larger parties, but Labour most of all.

The reason Labour will have to overturn 10k majorities to regain power is how far behind it is. I don't think I'll ever see a Labour majority government again, and I have many decades left in me. Presumably come 2040 it will still all be the Blairites fault.

Which is the only logical reason for Corbynism. If you can't win anyway, why bother compromising with the electorate? What is the point of immigration mugs if you're going to lose?

The tragedy of Miliband is only now becoming apparent. Mayb that was Labour's last realistic shot not only for a generation, but forever.

And I agree with you about electoral reform. Labour now can't win under the present system, and is in reality two parties held together by historical accident and electoral necessity that needs to split.

The Tories won't give us electoral reform, and if (as is likely) it has to be introduced through a referendum (and it is unpopular) it is incredibly unlikely to happen

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 1:26 pm

The 2005 election was a bit of a freak - not the "norm" as Tories pretend.

Longer term, there is little evidence that the system has systematically favoured Labour (even with seat size disparities bigger than now)

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 1:39 pm

We may have a lot of differences on this board, mainly around the current leadership battle

What used to bring us together though was contempt of the values of the Tory party and an understanding that the Labour Party needed to review its positioning to stop being dragged to the right by contined triangulation

Miliband was pretty well respected on here, with an understanding that he had faults but was trying to move in the right direction for us, albeit slowly. Also there was a lot of agreement that the policy framework that was being offered by the right (or 'Blairite') wing of the party was leading nowhere and had cost the party millions of votes.

A repositioning was due and it is this wing of the party that I blame for the problemks we see now. If you oppose Corbyn then it was their actions that caused him to be elected in the fiorst place, if you support him then their policies are unacceptable

The 'Blairite' description is a lazy one though to be honest as Blair has changed his positioning over time and a 1994 Blair is very different to a 2016 Blair

There is one poster on here though who actually sits far to the right of the rest of us...describing themselves as Labour but doesn't seem to have many values and beliefs I equate with Labour and who revels in causing disruption and conflict on here

Days when this person doesn't post are so much more calm but at the moment they enjoy exploiting the differences in the leadership battle, when at the end they don't care.

So then Hugo, I would hope you go back to posting your anti-Labour diatribes on CiF under one of your many names.....you have won to a certain extent as you have caused many to leave this board or be infrequent visitors

The post above is an example of that....a assertion of facts where there are none and also a lack of intellectual capability to cope with the ambiguity of the evidence and data

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 1:41 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:The 2005 election was a bit of a freak - not the "norm" as Tories pretend.

Longer term, there is little evidence that the system has systematically favoured Labour (even with seat size disparities bigger than now)

Not really true though that, is it?

Here are the votes required to elect an MP by party since 1997

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32601281" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now, in a first past the post system, the party with the largest number of votes should have the fewest votes per seat required. But when Labour is ahead it acquires a big advantage, when the Tories are ahead hardly any at all.

So, the Lib Dems, Greens and Ukip are the biggest losers (as Labour is in Scotland), but the system is more favourable for Labour than for the Tories.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 1:46 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:We may have a lot of differences on this board, mainly around the current leadership battle

What used to bring us together though was contempt of the values of the Tory party and an understanding that the Labour Party needed to review its positioning to stop being dragged to the right by contined triangulation

Miliband was pretty well respected on here, with an understanding that he had faults but was trying to move in the right direction for us, albeit slowly. Also there was a lot of agreement that the policy framework that was being offered by the right (or 'Blairite') wing of the party was leading nowhere and had cost the party millions of votes.

A repositioning was due and it is this wing of the party that I blame for the problemks we see now. If you oppose Corbyn then it was their actions that caused him to be elected in the fiorst place, if you support him then their policies are unacceptable

The 'Blairite' description is a lazy one though to be honest as Blair has changed his positioning over time and a 1994 Blair is very different to a 2016 Blair

There is one poster on here though who actually sits far to the right of the rest of us...describing themselves as Labour but doesn't seem to have many values and beliefs I equate with Labour and who revels in causing disruption and conflict on here

Days when this person doesn't post are so much more calm but at the moment they enjoy exploiting the differences in the leadership battle, when at the end they don't care.

So then Hugo, I would hope you go back to posting your anti-Labour diatribes on CiF under one of your many names.....you have won to a certain extent as you have caused many to leave this board or be infrequent visitors

The post above is an example of that....a assertion of facts where there are none and also a lack of intellectual capability to cope with the ambiguity of the evidence and data

Fine. Being called a Tory is par for this course.

But which evidence and data am I not engaging with?

indeed there seems to me to be only one poster here who has posted any links to any actual evidence or data at all. Optimistic wishful thinking not actually constituting data.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 1:48 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:blah blah blah

You're arguing about the arrangement of the deckchairs on the Titanic. The problem is the electoral system full stop, not the boundaries. That boundary changes (or not) are repeatedly used to gerrymander elections is a symptom of the disease, not its cause.

Edit: the point being that our ridiculous system gives extraordinary amounts of clout to a relative handful of people in marginals. You're arguing about the fairness or unfairness of a system that is morally bankrupt from the start.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 1:52 pm

[Actually wishing I was striking an ice berg right now. Can't believe I'm actually wanting for summer to up sticks and bugger off for once]

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 1:58 pm

Move to the Northeast Jonny, it's 15c and drizzling.

I'm actually a few miles over the border in N Yorks. We've had some good weather this summer, but never more than 3-4 days in a row.

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 2:03 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote: So then Hugo, I would hope you go back to posting your anti-Labour diatribes on CiF under one of your many names.....you have won to a certain extent as you have caused many to leave this board or be infrequent visitors

Why on earth would Sad Hugo go anywhere else, or have their uniquely intelligent viewpoint and pearls of great rightist wisdom lost amongst the rest of the right-wing anti-Labour mob on CiF when by they have their own personal SH concern-troll show and dominate the entire forum right here?

In the end they will he the only voice left and celebrate their great victory. For such is the intent of all such trolls.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 2:04 pm

JonnyT1234 wrote:[Actually wishing I was striking an ice berg right now. Can't believe I'm actually wanting for summer to up sticks and bugger off for once]

Spare a thought for those of us who have to put a jumper on when at work due to the high air con.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 2:05 pm

It depends what the hypothesis is

If the hypothesis is that Labour has for certain elections (but not all) has the need for less votes for an MP then that is fine but actually it is a pretty irrelevant fact

If the hypothesis is that the current electoral system has systematically favoured the Labour Party then your links have in no way shown that as it is a much more involved question

You could also hypothesise that the current electoral system systematically favours the Tories as it is based on a registration process that excludes certain demographs, that the voting on a Thursday also makes it more difficult to get a high turnout etc. etc.

Your simplistic use of only one particular measure is flawed - you have made an hypothesis and not demonstrated it so it stays as just that

I never called you a Tory either so do not put words into my mouth....I said your values were far removed from what I would expect from someone whjo supports Labour and your posts suggest someone who really does not support the party - I doubt your honesty to be honest about who you identifiy with and are only here to disrupt - the definition of a 'troll'

There are plenty on here who I disagree with on certain subjects but none who I hold in as much contempt as you

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 2:05 pm

TR'sGhost wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote: So then Hugo, I would hope you go back to posting your anti-Labour diatribes on CiF under one of your many names.....you have won to a certain extent as you have caused many to leave this board or be infrequent visitors
Why on earth would Sad Hugo go anywhere else, or have their uniquely intelligent viewpoint and pearls of great rightist wisdom lost amongst the rest of the right-wing anti-Labour mob on CiF when by they have their own personal SH concern-troll show and dominate the entire forum right here?

In the end they will he the only voice left and celebrate their great victory. For such is the intent of all such trolls.

Ignore lists. Very handy.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 2:07 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-g ... ws_central" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

UK Ebola nurse Pauline Cafferkey cleared of misconduct

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 2:11 pm

Shailesh Vara, the Conservative, asks about a forthcoming report from Louise Casey about political correctness threatening traditions like Christmas. He says minority communities should respect mainstream traditions.

PLB

Quick dip of toes into the [freezing but lovely, cooling, refreshing... sidetracking] waters in a moment of work respite...

Someone please tell me that the 'report' quoted above is a joke one? And a ridiculous joke one?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 2:15 pm

Recorded coverage of debate on Social Fund & funeral payments,for those interested

http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/cc ... b2e798675a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 2:19 pm

No,having achieved Damehood,now head of eponymous review team on "integration"

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 2:37 pm

In an ideal world (which, granted, I've noticed it's not), we would limit the influence of divisive forces. I've mentioned before how when faced with the fact that they're ****ing the world up, the megacorporations band together to create a strong force, while the campaigning bodies fragment into smaller and smaller entities (that disagree on the exact meaning of a word or something) and then spend much of their time and energy building larger incoherent coalitions of said small entities rather than fighting the actual battle they were set up to fight.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 2:37 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... n_b-gdnedu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Justine Greening drops plan to scrap parent governors in schools

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 2:41 pm

Some constituencies are smaller than others, such as in Scotland and Wales, but this doesn't "favour" Labour. All parties have an equal opportunity to stand in and win those seats. It may appear that the Tories "need" more votes sometimes, but that could well be, as I think AK said, a reflection of turnout. Tories turn out in bigger numbers in safe Tory seats than Labour voters in Labour safe seats. That doesn't mean the Tories "needed" the extra votes to secure those safe seats, any more than Labour did to secure theirs. It's just how FPTP works. National share of the vote doesn't count in our current system and assumptions can't be made of what would happen in another system, because how people vote is at least in part influenced by their understanding of how the system works. It's impossible to know how many, or how few, voters stay at home because they think their vote won't count.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 2:54 pm

Willow904 wrote:Some constituencies are smaller than others, such as in Scotland and Wales, but this doesn't "favour" Labour. All parties have an equal opportunity to stand in and win those seats. It may appear that the Tories "need" more votes sometimes, but that could well be, as I think AK said, a reflection of turnout. Tories turn out in bigger numbers in safe Tory seats than Labour voters in Labour safe seats. That doesn't mean the Tories "needed" the extra votes to secure those safe seats, any more than Labour did to secure theirs. It's just how FPTP works. National share of the vote doesn't count in our current system and assumptions can't be made of what would happen in another system, because how people vote is at least in part influenced by their understanding of how the system works. It's impossible to know how many, or how few, voters stay at home because they think their vote won't count.

A very good post that I think highlights why it is dangerous to draw definit6e conclusions from poor data

The subject is a complex one and there are many things to look at, not all easily measurable

I remember reading a study (cannot find it now) that suggests there is an advantage in the disparity between seats that tend to have been in Labour urban areas (but they are more vulnerable to this as population movements make it difficult) but it is nowhere near as marked as the raw numbers say. I cannot find the link though so it should be taken as anecdotal

There is also good reason for this as the BC want to avid crossing council boundaries and even county ones which they will find more difficult to do now - this makes the job of an MP more difficult

This could have been done differently but as it is the Tories it is a nonsense - if they want fair then go for PR!

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 3:03 pm

JonnyT1234 wrote:
Shailesh Vara, the Conservative, asks about a forthcoming report from Louise Casey about political correctness threatening traditions like Christmas. He says minority communities should respect mainstream traditions.
PLB

Quick dip of toes into the [freezing but lovely, cooling, refreshing... sidetracking] waters in a moment of work respite...

Someone please tell me that the 'report' quoted above is a joke one? And a ridiculous joke one?

Of course it is, its Louise Casey

Let's not forget, a favourite of the last Labour government too - and again because she could be relied on to tell them what they wanted to hear.

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 3:10 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:In an ideal world (which, granted, I've noticed it's not), we would limit the influence of divisive forces. I've mentioned before how when faced with the fact that they're ****ing the world up, the megacorporations band together to create a strong force, while the campaigning bodies fragment into smaller and smaller entities (that disagree on the exact meaning of a word or something) and then spend much of their time and energy building larger incoherent coalitions of said small entities rather than fighting the actual battle they were set up to fight.

A bit like this....

[youtube]WboggjN_G-4[/youtube]

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 3:25 pm

danesclose wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:In an ideal world (which, granted, I've noticed it's not), we would limit the influence of divisive forces. I've mentioned before how when faced with the fact that they're ****ing the world up, the megacorporations band together to create a strong force, while the campaigning bodies fragment into smaller and smaller entities (that disagree on the exact meaning of a word or something) and then spend much of their time and energy building larger incoherent coalitions of said small entities rather than fighting the actual battle they were set up to fight.
A bit like this....

[youtube]WboggjN_G-4[/youtube]

More or less exactly like that.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 3:32 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -man-leeds" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This racist aftermath is grim.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 3:41 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... with-devon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So it’s no surprise that proposed changes to parliamentary boundaries that would create a new “Devonwall” constituency, cutting across the 1,000-year-old border between Cornwall and Devon and including this ancient Cornish capital, are not going down well. “We’ve nothing against people from Devon,” explained Maunder. “But we want to stay Cornish.”

Oh dear. More identity shenanigans on the way. Cue another call for Cornish independence.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 3:46 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... evelopment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Buenos Aires and London have agreed to extend flights between the Falkland Islands and Argentina, and to explore the possibility of joint hyrdrocarbon exploration in the south Atlantic.

Great. Just what we need.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 14 Sep, 2016 3:55 pm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 90526.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The former Chancellor Ken Clarke has said he will continue to fight Brexit, insisting the EU referendum is "not binding".

The long-standing Conservative MP said Europhilic politicians should vote and speak in the parliament according to their judgment of the "national interest and the interest of their constituents".