FlyTheNest

Morning all.

US 9/11 law 'threatens to become an international legal Pandora's Box' - The Independent
https://apple.news/AeuPdNxGeQhiI_1YMdTOPZw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Assuming the way it's been reported is correct, it will permit US courts to try and convict e.g. political/regal leaders of other countries, thus removing any diplomatic immunity they may have previously had.

On the one hand, you can see the appeal in terms of shifting power away from the state to the proletariat (it lets Joe Public achieve something that their government may refuse to do because of 'diplomacy', despite it being the moral imperative) and on the other you can see how disastrous it could/would be for the functioning of global governance once everyone else piled in with retaliatory equivalents in their own laws.

We live in interesting times.

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

Worth looking at now before the comments are opened and knock your faith in humanity down a few more notches.

Womble44 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... niel-blake

Worth looking at now before the comments are opened and knock your faith in humanity down a few more notches.

Too late, straight away comment number 2 has missed the point

Incidentally, we're apparently at near record levels of employment, yet still have a substantial deficit. If the unemployed were such a drain on the public purse, why is there this disconnect, and why are journalists not repeatedly pointing it out?

Womble44 wrote:Incidentally, we're apparently at near record levels of employment, yet still have a substantial deficit. If the unemployed were such a drain on the public purse, why is there this disconnect, and why are journalists not repeatedly pointing it out?

Corporation tax receipts, the productivity gap and the self-employed not being used in average salary calculations are all hints not taken.

Yep, do you think they don't see the problems, or just don't want to talk about them?

Womble44 wrote:Yep, do you think they don't see the problems, or just don't want to talk about them?

That's one for Paul Lewis, Danny Blanchflower, SWL etc.

Also (since I'm impotently posting my gripes about society on the internet), why do we never hear about anti-social behaviour anymore? Has it been fixed? Or broken Britain?

I don't expect the papers to report honestly and without an agenda, but tv stations are supposed to, why are they allowed to propagate these sorts of biased agendas?

Very interesting interview

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_580cc ... 79c0d7008f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tory MP Nick Boles has been diagnosed with a cancerous brain tumour.

He's praised A&E at Kings College Hospital. He recovered from Hodkin's lymphoma nearly ten years ago.
Hope the doctors can tackle this for him.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8706" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Council funding reform may mean big winners and losers




Government had consultation on this including abolition of Attendance Allowance,still "analysing feedback".

SpinningHugo wrote:Very interesting interview

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_580cc ... 79c0d7008f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can't really disagree with any of that, personally

Yay, rejoice! The recovery is back. $1.22, what have you got to say now Remoaners?

http://labourlist.org/2016/10/lewis-nan ... -heathrow/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Absolutely.

Womble44 wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:Very interesting interview

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_580cc ... 79c0d7008f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can't really disagree with any of that, personally

yes, I think it is very revealing about the actual agenda.

SpinningHugo wrote:Very interesting interview

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_580cc ... 79c0d7008f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is actually better than the headline suggests (not untypically)

Sorry but if a "right winger" gave an interview like that some people would be screaming foul! and calling for them to "get behind the leader" and stop causing disruption in the party.

A 'right winger' wouldn't give an interview like that. That's the problem.

I think the words used in the article are fairly mild. FWIW my opinion is that this issue isn't about left/right or getting behind the leader, just that there are ways to deal with a boss that you disagree with and bad-mouthing them in public isn't it. No company chair would put up with it, and it only reflects badly on everyone involved, regardless of who I happen to agree with.

Tarry is also right about the deterioration of Smith's campaign as the contest went on (I mentioned it here the other day) Its almost as if he was doing the bidding of the likes of Leslie and McTernan by the end - despite having (quite correctly) criticised Angela Eagle's abortive bid for drawing on the services of such tainted and toxic figures.

A real shame.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Tarry is also right about the deterioration of Smith's campaign as the contest went on (I mentioned it here the other day) Its almost as if he was doing the bidding of the likes of Leslie and McTernan by the end - despite having (quite correctly) criticised Angela Eagle's abortive bid for drawing on the services of such tainted and toxic figures.

A real shame.

No, the truth is much worse for you I am afraid.

Smith was a dreadful candidate, I agree (but I don't actually recall you saying that much at the relevant time.)

But the Labour party has changed. A 'soft' left candidate like Smith, who quite deliberately made his pitch as being one to continue with most of Corbyn's policies but to do so more competently, nowadays gets thrashed in a vote.

it isn't just the 'Bitterites' who are now in a small minority in the Labour party.

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2016 ... gical.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Being honest about ideological influence in economics

Mainly Macro

Hypothetical:

Suppose a company that has been stagnant for a few years, not failing but not growing either. The shareholders then decide to put a new CEO in place with a mandate to change the overall direction of the company, even though much of the senior management disagree with that decision.

If the senior management response to this was to characterise the shareholders as violent cult members, prevent shareholders from meeting and to publicly declare that the CEO is incompetent and anti-Semitic, isn't it clear that many potential investors and customers would consider taking their money elsewhere?

Womble44 wrote:Hypothetical:

Suppose a company that has been stagnant for a few years, not failing but not growing either. The shareholders then decide to put a new CEO in place with a mandate to change the overall direction of the company, even though much of the senior management disagree with that decision.

If the senior management response to this was to characterise the shareholders as violent cult members, prevent shareholders from meeting and to publicly declare that the CEO is incompetent and anti-Semitic, isn't it clear that many potential investors and customers would consider taking their money elsewhere?

Absolutely. But I don't know what your point is?

AngryAsWell wrote:Sorry but if a "right winger" gave an interview like that some people would be screaming foul! and calling for them to "get behind the leader" and stop causing disruption in the party.

Quite. Tarry's "loads of people want me to stand as an MP" made me literally laugh out loud !

Come on then Sam, chuck your hat in the ring for Richmond Park - you're bound to be selected by the CLP seeing as so many want you as MP & Labour can win that seat & you, Sam Tarry will be earmarked for future PM & world leader.

Then again, reality hits & he realises he's just a jumped up nobody with an enormous ego.

Or like the Globe, the company could accept that they had made the wrong appointment, sack the director and get a new one.
As things stand this "shareholder" will be taking my money elsewhere if things don't change.
People cannot afford to wait 15 to 20 years for a Labour Government.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/j ... k-politics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And they say it's the 'moderates' that are damaging Labour......

Womble44 wrote:Hypothetical:

Suppose a company that has been stagnant for a few years, not failing but not growing either. The shareholders then decide to put a new CEO in place with a mandate to change the overall direction of the company, even though much of the senior management disagree with that decision.

If the senior management response to this was to characterise the shareholders as violent cult members, prevent shareholders from meeting and to publicly declare that the CEO is incompetent and anti-Semitic, isn't it clear that many potential investors and customers would consider taking their money elsewhere?

Long term shareholders who disagree should sell up, rather than stick with the company out of blind loyalty, IMO, especially if the new CEO and his financial manager have views about, say, the legitimate use of terrorism.

Unfortunately, MPs, unlike me, don't have that option. They were elected to represent their constituencies and are supposed to be trying to gain power so as to improve the lot of the disadvantaged.

In a way, I have tremendous admiration for those who stay and fight. I wouldn't, I'd go and do something else with my life and let the Tarrys of this world test their views to destruction.

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1523307 ... ts-chaotic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Labour's motion on Concentrix/TC handling

Needless to say SH I disagree with your post above.

A "soft left" candidate is quite capable of winning the Labour leadership in the (perhaps not too distant) future if they play it right.

AngryAsWell wrote:Or like the Globe, the company could accept that they had made the wrong appointment, sack the director and get a new one.
As things stand this "shareholder" will be taking my money elsewhere if things don't change.
People cannot afford to wait 15 to 20 years for a Labour Government.

The previous board has already made them wait 10 and there was zero evidence that they knew how to stop it being 20. None.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Needless to say SH I disagree with your post above.

A "soft left" candidate is quite capable of winning the Labour leadership in the (perhaps not too distant) future if they play it right.

Play it right? I see what you did there.

AngryAsWell wrote:Or like the Globe, the company could accept that they had made the wrong appointment, sack the director and get a new one.
As things stand this "shareholder" will be taking my money elsewhere if things don't change.
People cannot afford to wait 15 to 20 years for a Labour Government.

True, but there are ways to demonstrate a CEO is incompetent without insulting the people you need on your side.

I fear the Labour Party want to go the same route the Democrats in the US are going and win by being 'not-Trump'. I can't see that being a long-term strategy

Laura Kuenssberg Verified account
‏@bbclaurak

Despite calls from Lisa Nandy, Clive Lewis and Jonny Reynolds, Labour NEC has decided this morning party will field a candidate in Richmond

Goldsmith should walk it given that Tories aren't standing and his electorate almost certainly agree with the stance on the new runway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_Park_(UK_Parliament_constituency" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)#Election_results

SpinningHugo wrote:

Womble44 wrote:Hypothetical:

Suppose a company that has been stagnant for a few years, not failing but not growing either. The shareholders then decide to put a new CEO in place with a mandate to change the overall direction of the company, even though much of the senior management disagree with that decision.

If the senior management response to this was to characterise the shareholders as violent cult members, prevent shareholders from meeting and to publicly declare that the CEO is incompetent and anti-Semitic, isn't it clear that many potential investors and customers would consider taking their money elsewhere?

Long term shareholders who disagree should sell up, rather than stick with the company out of blind loyalty, IMO, especially if the new CEO and his financial manager have views about, say, the legitimate use of terrorism.

Unfortunately, MPs, unlike me, don't have that option. They were elected to represent their constituencies and are supposed to be trying to gain power so as to improve the lot of the disadvantaged.

In a way, I have tremendous admiration for those who stay and fight. I wouldn't, I'd go and do something else with my life and let the Tarrys of this world test their views to destruction.

MPs at no time in history have been elected to "represent" their constituents. All MPs are elected to SERVE their constituents, whilst REPRESENTING a political party or viewpoint.

To suggest otherwise (and I note a lot of this coming from the mouth of Jess Phillips) is disingenuous and moronic at best, at worst it is a deliberate corruuption of an established constitutional convention stretching back 250 years.

Which are you disingenuous mororn or corrupter of constitutional convention?

must remember to spell disingenuous properly in future.

RogerOThornhill wrote:

Laura Kuenssberg Verified account
‏@bbclaurak

Despite calls from Lisa Nandy, Clive Lewis and Jonny Reynolds, Labour NEC has decided this morning party will field a candidate in Richmond

Goldsmith should walk it given that Tories aren't standing and his electorate almost certainly agree with the stance on the new runway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_Park_(UK_Parliament_constituency" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)#Election_results

He was pro leave, his constituency is pro remain 70%, LibDems held the seat till 2005, they might just get it back on their EU stance plus anti Heathrow (?)

And the habit of leftist use of disablist language returns.Disgraceful.

The sneering attitude of the oh so clever,turns the stomach if I am honest.Shame,any valid points made are redundant in my eyes.

Well, that's one way of attacking someone's critique of your work - call them a communist!

Kristian Niemietz
‏@K_Niemietz

Kristian Niemietz Retweeted Clive Peedell

One hell of a demolition job: a communist doctor repeats some of the caveats already amply acknowledged in the paper

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

Still, it's good that he acknowledges the caveats in the paper - quite how the paper is then able to be so precise about the number of excess deaths then is beyond all understanding.

The most alarming finding is that 46,413 people die each year because they were treated on the NHS, rather than by the healthcare system with the best health outcomes in the world.

The researcher might argue that he's not responsible for the use to which his data collecting (and that's all it is essentially) is put.

RogerOThornhill wrote:

Laura Kuenssberg Verified account
‏@bbclaurak

Despite calls from Lisa Nandy, Clive Lewis and Jonny Reynolds, Labour NEC has decided this morning party will field a candidate in Richmond

Goldsmith should walk it given that Tories aren't standing and his electorate almost certainly agree with the stance on the new runway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_Park_(UK_Parliament_constituency" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)#Election_results

But they largely don't agree with him on Brexit, that is the big opening for the LibDems now.

'Corbyn quotes Baldrick from Blackadder with respect to May’s plan for Brexit:

Our cunning plan is to have no plan.

May says in response that the actor playing Baldrick (Tony Robinson) was a member of the Labour party.'


What is May trying to say here, I'm lost.

Perhaps the emphasis was on 'was'? Has he left the party?

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:

Laura Kuenssberg Verified account
‏@bbclaurak

Despite calls from Lisa Nandy, Clive Lewis and Jonny Reynolds, Labour NEC has decided this morning party will field a candidate in Richmond

Goldsmith should walk it given that Tories aren't standing and his electorate almost certainly agree with the stance on the new runway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_Park_(UK_Parliament_constituency" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)#Election_results

But they largely don't agree with him on Brexit, that is the big opening for the LibDems now.

Maybe but then it depends on whether they're now resigned to accepting the referendum result or not. What's more important to a local constituency that might well be relatively unaffected by Brexit?

Pretty sure he hasn't (even though he is not a Corbynista)

By the way, I'm conscious I appear to have caused a bit of an argument with my comments, apologies for that

Womble44 wrote:By the way, I'm conscious I appear to have caused a bit of an argument with my comments, apologies for that

No need

Then the only other explanation I can come up with is that she thinks the actor and the character share their intelligence, which is odd

Temulkar wrote: Which are you disingenuous mororn or corrupter of constitutional convention?

An interesting view, if somewhat confused.

My view is that you elect a representative. And that is it. Those representatives are usually members of a slate, or party, so that you know roughly speaking how they will vote. Within parliament these slates allow governments to form, and effective collective action. This as all pretty clearly set out by Burke, and the theory of it hasn't really changed since then. Your capitalised emphasis of the difference between 'serve' and 'represent' wouldn't withstand a moment's scrutiny.

As I say, if I were a Labour MP with the kind of views I have (and there are lots of them), I'd quit. Unfortunately, most of them don't have the skill set of, say, David Miliband, and have the option of quitting and doing something else productive with their lives. Which is one reason why we don't have peace. But, and here I agree with the Tarrys of this world, I think it probably would be better if they did leave the party to the likes of him. otherwise they will just continue to make excuses for their obvious failure and unpopularity.

HindleA wrote:And the habit of leftist use of disablist language returns.Disgraceful.

Hmm yet I saw tweets from you claiming Toby Young was 'stupid' or just thought everyone else was, just yesterday?

Which would you prefer me to use?

unintelligent, ignorant, dense, brainless, mindless, foolish, dull-witted, dull, slow-witted, witless, slow, dunce-like, simple-minded, empty-headed, vacuous, vapid, half-witted, idiotic, imbecilic, imbecile, obtuse, doltish?

Save your moral hypocrisy.