Wednesday 2nd November 2016

[refitman]

Morning all.

[PorFavor]

Morning all.

We more or less simultaneously started today's proceedings - please feel free to ditch my opening gambit.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Morning all.

We more or less simultaneously started today's proceedings - please feel free to ditch my opening gambit.

Ditched

And Good Morning!

[PorFavor]

The mayor of London has ordered an independent inquiry into the soaring conversion costs for the former Olympic Stadium that is now home to West Ham United, after it emerged the bill had risen by another £51m to £323m

The Labour mayor Sadiq Khan, elected to succeed his Conservative predecessor Boris Johnson in May this year, claimed that the finances of the London Stadium had been left in a “total and utter mess by the previous administration” as the cost of the conversion ballooned.

The new inquiry was welcomed by campaigners. John O’Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “For too long the details of this shabby deal were kept in secret and lacked proper scrutiny so Sadiq Khan is absolutely right to look again at the case. (Guardian)

Blimey. Tax Payers' Alliance gunning for Boris Johnson?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/ ... um-inquiry

[SpinningHugo]

Yesterday paulfromyorkshire asked me a question I only just saw which was


"Which of the ten pledges are not "actual world" policies then?

• Full employment and an economy that works for all

• A secure homes guarantee

• Security at work

• Secure our NHS and social care

• A national education service, open to all

• Action to secure our environment

• Put the public back into our economy and services

• Cut income and wealth inequality

• Action to secure an equal society

• Peace and justice at the heart of foreign policy"

The answer is that the majority of those are not policies at all. The first ("full employment") is, but to the extent that is meaningful is somthing we probably have now (employment rate is at a record high, and is very high in international comparisons).

The rest are just vague nice things that nobody rational could disagree with. One test is "would Theresa May disagree with this?"

So, would Theresa May oppose an economy that works for all? No, she has used those words herself? Does she oppose a good environment? No. And so on. Some are a bit more specific ("A national education service" - I oppose this and think it a bad idea) but most are not.

It is the same problem as the Edstone. Who now recalls the pledges on that (save the immigration one)? They were just nice aspirations.

As time has gone by Corbyn has grown much less specific. So back in 2015 we had Corbynomics: a relatively detailed if completely bonkers plan. That was, rightly, quickly ditched after his election. It looked like the economic advisors (really Wren-Lewis) had constructed a perfectly fine fiscal policy (albeit one that was nearly identical to Ed Balls') but now that the panel of economists have quit we are back to John McDonnell making it up on the back of an envelope.

Corbyn does have some policies (free University education, nationalise rail). They tend to be populist but dumb (as both of those are).

[PorFavor]

Admiral to price car insurance based on Facebook posts

Insurer’s algorithm analyses social media usage to identify safe drivers in unprecedented use of customer data (Guardian)

Disturbing. And I'm not even on "Facebook" or any of that malarkey.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... book-posts

[PorFavor]

Clinton campaign dismisses polls putting Donald Trump in the lead

A senior Clinton campaign official says a new ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll which put Trump one point ahead is ‘not what we see at all’ (Guardian)

I should have stayed in bed.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... n-campaign

[adam]

Clinton campaign dismisses polls putting Donald Trump in the lead

A senior Clinton campaign official says a new ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll which put Trump one point ahead is ‘not what we see at all’ (Guardian)

I should have stayed in bed.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... n-campaign

Keep an eye on this summary of state by state polling.

Remember that he needs a net gain of 64 electoral college votes - so if she wins North Carolina (15) - and she still appears to be on course to do that - then that rises to 79 and even florida + ohio + iowa (29 + 18 + 6 = 53) won't be nearly enough for him. In fact even one of Michigan, Minnesota or Wisconsin (all of which she's consistently well ahead in) on top of that wouldn't be enough. And she's maintained a long term lead in polling averages in Florida (although that doesn't mean there might not be a trend to him there.)

I know what election results can do and I know how much I personally relied on polling for 2015 and how wrong I was then - I'm not suggesting it's all okay.

But on the night, if she wins NC early on (and it will be one of the first to declare) then it becomes difficult for him to find a route to win - if she wins Georgia it's very very difficult to see how he could do it, and if she holds Florida (which should be in the first couple of hours) then it becomes almost impossible.
edit - tidy up url

[adam]

Clinton campaign dismisses polls putting Donald Trump in the lead

A senior Clinton campaign official says a new ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll which put Trump one point ahead is ‘not what we see at all’ (Guardian)

I should have stayed in bed.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... n-campaign

Keep an eye on this summary of state by state polling.

Remember that he needs a net gain of 64 electoral college votes - so if she wins North Carolina (15) - and she still appears to be on course to do that - then that rises to 79 and even florida + ohio + iowa (29 + 18 + 6 = 53) won't be nearly enough for him. In fact even one of Michigan, Minnesota or Wisconsin (all of which she's consistently well ahead in) on top of that wouldn't be enough. And she's maintained a long term lead in polling averages in Florida (although that doesn't mean there might not be a trend to him there.)

I know what election results can do and I know how much I personally relied on polling for 2015 and how wrong I was then - I'm not suggesting it's all okay.

But on the night, if she wins NC early on (and it will be one of the first to declare) then it becomes difficult for him to find a route to win - if she wins Georgia it's very very difficult to see how he could do it, and if she holds Florida (which should be in the first couple of hours) then it becomes almost impossible.
edit - tidy up url

In fact, I'd go beyond that - again, it's not all right yet and anything could happen but once it comes to the actual night...



If she wins NC and Fla, then even if you move 'officially' safe democrat states like Minnesota and Michigan into 'toss up' then she will still win without a single one of the toss up states.

(apologies for size of map, in a rush, please feel free etc etc)

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Yesterday paulfromyorkshire asked me a question I only just saw which was


"Which of the ten pledges are not "actual world" policies then?

• Full employment and an economy that works for all

• A secure homes guarantee

• Security at work

• Secure our NHS and social care

• A national education service, open to all

• Action to secure our environment

• Put the public back into our economy and services

• Cut income and wealth inequality

• Action to secure an equal society

• Peace and justice at the heart of foreign policy"

The answer is that the majority of those are not policies at all. The first ("full employment") is, but to the extent that is meaningful is somthing we probably have now (employment rate is at a record high, and is very high in international comparisons).

The rest are just vague nice things that nobody rational could disagree with. One test is "would Theresa May disagree with this?"

So, would Theresa May oppose an economy that works for all? No, she has used those words herself? Does she oppose a good environment? No. And so on. Some are a bit more specific ("A national education service" - I oppose this and think it a bad idea) but most are not.

It is the same problem as the Edstone. Who now recalls the pledges on that (save the immigration one)? They were just nice aspirations.

As time has gone by Corbyn has grown much less specific. So back in 2015 we had Corbynomics: a relatively detailed if completely bonkers plan. That was, rightly, quickly ditched after his election. It looked like the economic advisors (really Wren-Lewis) had constructed a perfectly fine fiscal policy (albeit one that was nearly identical to Ed Balls') but now that the panel of economists have quit we are back to John McDonnell making it up on the back of an envelope.

Corbyn does have some policies (free University education, nationalise rail). They tend to be populist but dumb (as both of those are).

Thanks for coming back on this.

Of course I share some reservations about the vagueness of some of the "pledges". Also I'm not sure "Cut income" is a good way to start a pledge!

But let's have a debate about the idea of a national education service. For info, here's what Corbyn says here http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/education" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

We will build a new National Education Service, open to all throughout their lives. We will create universal public childcare to give all children a good start in life, allowing greater sharing of caring responsibilities and removing barriers to women participating in the labour market. We will bring about the progressive restoration of free education for all; and guarantee quality apprenticeships and adult skills training.

[PorFavor]

@adam

Thank you for your informative reply.

[SpinningHugo]

Yesterday paulfromyorkshire asked me a question I only just saw which was


"Which of the ten pledges are not "actual world" policies then?

• Full employment and an economy that works for all

• A secure homes guarantee

• Security at work

• Secure our NHS and social care

• A national education service, open to all

• Action to secure our environment

• Put the public back into our economy and services

• Cut income and wealth inequality

• Action to secure an equal society

• Peace and justice at the heart of foreign policy"

The answer is that the majority of those are not policies at all. The first ("full employment") is, but to the extent that is meaningful is somthing we probably have now (employment rate is at a record high, and is very high in international comparisons).

The rest are just vague nice things that nobody rational could disagree with. One test is "would Theresa May disagree with this?"

So, would Theresa May oppose an economy that works for all? No, she has used those words herself? Does she oppose a good environment? No. And so on. Some are a bit more specific ("A national education service" - I oppose this and think it a bad idea) but most are not.

It is the same problem as the Edstone. Who now recalls the pledges on that (save the immigration one)? They were just nice aspirations.

As time has gone by Corbyn has grown much less specific. So back in 2015 we had Corbynomics: a relatively detailed if completely bonkers plan. That was, rightly, quickly ditched after his election. It looked like the economic advisors (really Wren-Lewis) had constructed a perfectly fine fiscal policy (albeit one that was nearly identical to Ed Balls') but now that the panel of economists have quit we are back to John McDonnell making it up on the back of an envelope.

Corbyn does have some policies (free University education, nationalise rail). They tend to be populist but dumb (as both of those are).

Thanks for coming back on this.

Of course I share some reservations about the vagueness of some of the "pledges". Also I'm not sure "Cut income" is a good way to start a pledge!

But let's have a debate about the idea of a national education service. For info, here's what Corbyn says here http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/education" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

We will build a new National Education Service, open to all throughout their lives. We will create universal public childcare to give all children a good start in life, allowing greater sharing of caring responsibilities and removing barriers to women participating in the labour market. We will bring about the progressive restoration of free education for all; and guarantee quality apprenticeships and adult skills training.

Still much too vague. Does Theresa May oppose apprenticeships?

The key proposal is free University education.

As I have said on here before, I consider myself to be on the left.

Being on the left means you oppose regressive policies.

Paying for free university education, like subsidising rail travel, is regressive.

So, I oppose it.

I think the policy of the last Labour government was right in relation to both higher education and rail transport. Corbyn opposes those policies. He prefers populist dumb policies.


To be fair to Corbyn personally, his own interests have always been far more in foreign policy than domestic policy issues. In that area, I think he is even more profoundly wrong.

[PorFavor]

The Irish government is holding an ‘all island civic dialogue’ on Brexit and its impact on the whole of Ireland in Dublin today.

However, there is no significant representation from the unionist community at the conference in the Royal Hospital Kilmainham. Both the Democratic Unionists - the largest party in Northern Ireland - and the Ulster Unionists are boycotting the event. The DUP backed a Brexit vote in the June referendum while the UUP urged its support base to back the remain side. (Politics Live, Guardian)

Can anyone here enlighten me as to what possible point there is to a boycott?

[adam]

The Irish government is holding an ‘all island civic dialogue’ on Brexit and its impact on the whole of Ireland in Dublin today.

However, there is no significant representation from the unionist community at the conference in the Royal Hospital Kilmainham. Both the Democratic Unionists - the largest party in Northern Ireland - and the Ulster Unionists are boycotting the event. The DUP backed a Brexit vote in the June referendum while the UUP urged its support base to back the remain side. (Politics Live, Guardian)

Can anyone here enlighten me as to what possible point there is to a boycott?

[youtube]d9uHhLe6WE0[/youtube]

[PorFavor]

Nigel Farage could lead Ukip again, donor Arron Banks suggests

Founder of Leave.EU campaign confirms he will stop funding Ukip because he has no confidence in leadership candidates (Guardian)

And Suzanne Evans is shaping up to be more bonkers than I thought she was (judging from last night's posts (PaulfomYorkshire and adam?) quoting the Independent's article in which she outlined her views on education).

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-suggests




Edited - typo

[adam]

Nigel Farage could lead Ukip again, donor Arron Banks suggests

Founder of Leave.EU campaign confirms he will stop funding Ukip because he has no confidence in leadership candidates (Guardian)

And Suzanne Evans is shaping up to be more bonkers than I thought she was (judging from last night's posts (PaulfomYorkshire and adam?) quoting the Independent's article in which she outlined her views on education).

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-suggests

Edited - typo

Not me, though she lives round my way and I see her about the place from time to time, see her in the local press , and I'm not going to argue about the 'bonkers' thing. She was, you will recall, difficult enough for UKIP to suspend her. That is saying something.

[RogerOThornhill]

(judging from last night's posts (PaulfomYorkshire and adam?)

[PorFavor]

(judging from last night's posts (PaulfomYorkshire and adam?)

Ah - thank you. Sorry for forgetting.

[pk1]

UK Power Networks offer a Priority Services Register. This may be useful for people in these areas.

Power cuts don’t happen very often but if the electricity network is damaged or develops a fault it’s our job to get your power back on. Our engineers will work around the clock 24/7 to restore your power as quickly and as safely as possible.
If you live in London, the East or South East of England, then being on our Priority Services Register will ensure you will receive extra support if you experience a power cut.
What help should I expect to get during a power cut?

- A priority number that you can call 24 hours a day
- A dedicated team who will contact you to keep you updated during a power cut
- We can put you in touch with an expert who can offer you advice on energy bills and energy saving tips if this is important to you
- Tailored support if needed such as home visits, hot meals, advice and keeping your friends and relatives updated
In certain scenarios we may also offer a free hotel overnight and transport to the hotel

Who can register to receive extra support?
• Customers who rely on medical equipment
• Customers who are chronically ill
• Customers with a disability
• Customers who have dementia
• Customers who are blind or partially sighted
• Customers who are deaf or hard of hearing
• Customers who are of pensionable age
• A nursing or residential home
• Customers with children under five in their household
• Any other case that you would like us to consider

http://www.ukpowernetworks.co.uk/intern ... FZ,GZ0EJ,1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PorFavor]

Not me, though she lives round my way and I see her about the place from time to time, see her in the local press , and I'm not going to argue about the 'bonkers' thing. She was, you will recall, difficult enough for UKIP to suspend her. That is saying something.

I thought she was suspended for being not quite bonkers enough!

[pk1]

The mayor of London has ordered an independent inquiry into the soaring conversion costs for the former Olympic Stadium that is now home to West Ham United, after it emerged the bill had risen by another £51m to £323m

The Labour mayor Sadiq Khan, elected to succeed his Conservative predecessor Boris Johnson in May this year, claimed that the finances of the London Stadium had been left in a “total and utter mess by the previous administration” as the cost of the conversion ballooned.

The new inquiry was welcomed by campaigners. John O’Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “For too long the details of this shabby deal were kept in secret and lacked proper scrutiny so Sadiq Khan is absolutely right to look again at the case. (Guardian)

Blimey. Tax Payers' Alliance gunning for Boris Johnson?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/ ... um-inquiry

One of the TPA mouthpieces was interviewed on the Daily Politics & they went big on the issue of transparency.
I was willing either Jo Coburn or Martin Lewis (Money Saving Expert chap) to ask for transparency on the TPA's funding arrangements.
Alas, they didn't but it begs the question - why not ?!

[AnatolyKasparov]

If things turn out to be close next week in the US, Trump's lack of a "ground game" is what could ultimately cost him.

[RogerOThornhill]

Not me, though she lives round my way and I see her about the place from time to time, see her in the local press , and I'm not going to argue about the 'bonkers' thing. She was, you will recall, difficult enough for UKIP to suspend her. That is saying something.

I thought she was suspended for being not quite bonkers enough!

Wonder if it is calculated -appeal to the "country's gone downhill since we lost the Empire!" members.

[pk1]

This makes damning reading for the Labour party & to poo-poo it as 'just focus groups' would be to miss the entire point.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/l ... fc9564033f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PorFavor]

The government’s plan for tackling the UK’s air pollution crisis has been judged illegally poor at the high court, marking the second time in 18 months ministers have lost in court on the issue, my colleague Damian Carrington reports. (Politics Live, Guardian)

[AnatolyKasparov]

This makes damning reading for the Labour party & to poo-poo it as 'just focus groups' would be to miss the entire point.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/l ... fc9564033f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The problem with focus groups is that they have gone beyond their original remit.

To begin with, they were used as a way of informing politicians of how people thought about things - and then determining from that how best to sell their (already agreed) platform. Now, they are increasingly used as a means of *dictating* what that platform should be.

What happened to the idea of politicians actually putting forward what *they* believe in?

Its why so many people ("inexplicably", from your point of view) support Corbyn. And right wing politicians like Trump and Farage, come to that.

[StephenDolan]

This makes damning reading for the Labour party & to poo-poo it as 'just focus groups' would be to miss the entire point.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/l ... fc9564033f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The problem with focus groups is that they have gone beyond their original remit.

To begin with, they were used as a way of informing politicians of how people thought about things - and then determining from that how best to sell their (already agreed) platform. Now, they are increasingly used as a means of *dictating* what that platform should be.

What happened to the idea of politicians actually putting forward what *they* believe in?

Its why so many people ("inexplicably", from your point of view) support Corbyn. And right wing politicians like Trump and Farage, come to that.

Very surprised that the videos of the focus groups have been made available.

I recall the 7 focus groups of 8ish of nonlabour voters being seized upon as what Labour policy should be just after the GE defeat.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Yes, it was focus groups - and their half-baked interpretation by Labour "moderates" - which caused Harman's historically catastrophic stance on the welfare bill last summer.

[StephenDolan]

Yes, it was focus groups - and their half-baked interpretation by Labour "moderates" - which caused Harman's historically catastrophic stance on the welfare bill last summer.

I remember the Harman interview where she wanted Labour policy to be close to conservative policy because that's what the country had voted for.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

We will build a new National Education Service, open to all throughout their lives. We will create universal public childcare to give all children a good start in life, allowing greater sharing of caring responsibilities and removing barriers to women participating in the labour market. We will bring about the progressive restoration of free education for all; and guarantee quality apprenticeships and adult skills training.[/quote

Still much too vague. Does Theresa May oppose apprenticeships?

The key proposal is free University education.

As I have said on here before, I consider myself to be on the left.

Being on the left means you oppose regressive policies.

Paying for free university education, like subsidising rail travel, is regressive.

So, I oppose it.

I think the policy of the last Labour government was right in relation to both higher education and rail transport. Corbyn opposes those policies. He prefers populist dumb policies.


To be fair to Corbyn personally, his own interests have always been far more in foreign policy than domestic policy issues. In that area, I think he is even more profoundly wrong.

But University isn't even mentioned in that text, so it's not clear to me that it is "key" for Corbyn. I agree to some extent with what you say about University fees. But what about "universal public childcare"? And "free education for all" presumably includes schools & colleges, not just, if at all, universities.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Yes, it was focus groups - and their half-baked interpretation by Labour "moderates" - which caused Harman's historically catastrophic stance on the welfare bill last summer.

I remember the Harman interview where she wanted Labour policy to be close to conservative policy because that's what the country had voted for.

Interesting that some "moderates" now try to airbrush all that from history - their "line" now is that it was all a fuss about nothing and people getting upset about arcane bits of parliamentary procedure they didn't understand (and, needless to say, it was their own fault for not doing so)

Tbf to him "even" Owen Smith in his leadership campaign recognised this for the nonsense it is - and agreed the decision was a hideous mistake that should never have happened.

[pk1]

This makes damning reading for the Labour party & to poo-poo it as 'just focus groups' would be to miss the entire point.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/l ... fc9564033f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The problem with focus groups is that they have gone beyond their original remit.

To begin with, they were used as a way of informing politicians of how people thought about things - and then determining from that how best to sell their (already agreed) platform. Now, they are increasingly used as a means of *dictating* what that platform should be.

What happened to the idea of politicians actually putting forward what *they* believe in?

Its why so many people ("inexplicably", from your point of view) support Corbyn. And right wing politicians like Trump and Farage, come to that.

"inexplicably" ?? When did I use that terminology ?

And unsurprisingly, the point being made in the article is ignored purely because it was being made by focus groups.

The days of seeing another Labour government have never seemed so distant - some of us don't have the luxury of a middle-class background & the health to wait

[Tizme1]

Greetings all


Sad news. Farm Terrace Allotments will be no more. The judge decided in favour of the Council and the Government. You win one Judicial Review, they go back with another argument. You win a second Judicial Review. They go back with another argument. No doubt if we'd won this Judicial Review, they would have gone back with another argument. They just keep going until they win. Bastards.

[HindleA]

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


Care cuts have left one million disabled people stranded. They deserve a life, too
Frances Ryan

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Greetings all


Sad news. Farm Terrace Allotments will be no more. The judge decided in favour of the Council and the Government. You win one Judicial Review, they go back with another argument. You win a second Judicial Review. They go back with another argument. No doubt if we'd won this Judicial Review, they would have gone back with another argument. They just keep going until they win. Bastards.

Sad to hear that Tizme

[pk1]

Greetings all


Sad news. Farm Terrace Allotments will be no more. The judge decided in favour of the Council and the Government. You win one Judicial Review, they go back with another argument. You win a second Judicial Review. They go back with another argument. No doubt if we'd won this Judicial Review, they would have gone back with another argument. They just keep going until they win. Bastards.

The fight you guys put up does you huge credit & I'm genuinely saddened to see your news

[AnatolyKasparov]

You question my presuming things pk1, and then claim ALL those who disagree with you are comfortably middle class and don't care about getting a Labour government?

If most people like what the Tories are doing (assisted, of course, by a criminally biased media) they will continue to vote Tory. There is nothing Labour "moderates" can do to stop that - and any futile attempt to out-Tory/UKIP the Tories/UKIP will only end up costing Labour what remains of its self respect and credibility.

That does not mean Corbyn is the answer, or that he is not deeply (probably fatally) flawed. It means his opponents need to understand why he won - twice.

[adam]

From the huffpo article

“They’ve got strong views on immigration but they’re not racists, they just want something sensible. They want some controls on immigration; they’d like skilled migration; they want people who make a contribution in society, they really don’t like people sponging off the state.”

Let's parse that.

“They’ve got strong views on immigration but they’re not racists, they just want something sensible.

But they're not racists. Okay. I'm not sure how we're going to define 'racist' here so perhaps we should go on.

They want some controls on immigration

We have controls on immigration. I would suggest that there is something inherently racist about having strong views on immigration based on the misapprehension that we don't have immigration controls. I strongly suspect that 'something sensible' would involve the kind of things we already have.

they’d like skilled migration;

Which is one of the things we quite definitely have a lot of, in all sorts of ways. I would suggest that there is something inherently racist about having strong views on immigration based on the misapprehension that we don't already support skilled migrants.

they want people who make a contribution in society, they really don’t like people sponging off the state.

Immigrants proportionately make lower recourse to public funds than non-immigrants. Often refugees and asylum seekers are barred from seeking any recourse to public funds. Our health and social care services and our food production and service industries would collapse overnight without immigration.

I would suggest that there is something inherently racist about having strong views on immigration based on the misapprehension that immigrants don't make a contribution and sponge off the state.

But they're not racists, they just want something sensible - and that, presumably, is the Labour party they want to see. Not racist, just sensible. Like them.

[pk1]

You question my presuming things pk1, and then claim ALL those who disagree with you are comfortably middle class and don't care about getting a Labour government?

I did nothing of the sort & unlike you, I am able to prove I didn't. You however, can not.

Further discussion appears to be futile.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Yes, its obvious you don't want to "discuss" anything other than "Corbyn is a disaster which happened for absolutely no reason and Labour should just do what focus groups tell them".

Bye.

[HindleA]

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



Social care services 'facing existential crisis', say council leaders

http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/publi ... UBLICATION" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[StephenDolan]

This makes damning reading for the Labour party & to poo-poo it as 'just focus groups' would be to miss the entire point.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/l ... fc9564033f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The problem with focus groups is that they have gone beyond their original remit.

To begin with, they were used as a way of informing politicians of how people thought about things - and then determining from that how best to sell their (already agreed) platform. Now, they are increasingly used as a means of *dictating* what that platform should be.

What happened to the idea of politicians actually putting forward what *they* believe in?

Its why so many people ("inexplicably", from your point of view) support Corbyn. And right wing politicians like Trump and Farage, come to that.

"inexplicably" ?? When did I use that terminology ?

And unsurprisingly, the point being made in the article is ignored purely because it was being made by focus groups.

The days of seeing another Labour government have never seemed so distant - some of us don't have the luxury of a middle-class background & the health to wait

Luxury of a middle class background? Sailing pretty close to the champagne socialist wind there.

Out of interest, if you feel it's relevant, what are your thoughts on the personal background of each of the Backbench Big Hitters that will save Labour?

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Meanwhile in the "actual world"

Angela Rayner MP ‏@AngelaRayner
We'll be voting against Tory pharmacy cuts today in parliament. Must protect pharmacies,our communities rely on them

[SpinningHugo]

We will build a new National Education Service, open to all throughout their lives. We will create universal public childcare to give all children a good start in life, allowing greater sharing of caring responsibilities and removing barriers to women participating in the labour market. We will bring about the progressive restoration of free education for all; and guarantee quality apprenticeships and adult skills training.[/quote

Still much too vague. Does Theresa May oppose apprenticeships?

The key proposal is free University education.

As I have said on here before, I consider myself to be on the left.

Being on the left means you oppose regressive policies.

Paying for free university education, like subsidising rail travel, is regressive.

So, I oppose it.

I think the policy of the last Labour government was right in relation to both higher education and rail transport. Corbyn opposes those policies. He prefers populist dumb policies.


To be fair to Corbyn personally, his own interests have always been far more in foreign policy than domestic policy issues. In that area, I think he is even more profoundly wrong.

But University isn't even mentioned in that text, so it's not clear to me that it is "key" for Corbyn. I agree to some extent with what you say about University fees. But what about "universal public childcare"? And "free education for all" presumably includes schools & colleges, not just, if at all, universities.

I know it isn't. This was all spelled out in detail during the campaign over the summer.

As for the rest, during the summer Corbyn gave up even pretending to cost his programme. It just became free lunches for everyone. That wont last ten minutes in an actual election.

But that won't be the worst of it. The Tories (and the Evil Media) will focus relentlessly on the background of Corbyn and McDonnell. Surprising I know, but most voters have no clue about McDonnell's support for the IRA. The midterm 28% Labour is on now will start to look good.

[HindleA]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/pensio ... ungle.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Pensioners told to check their National Insurance records after 30,000 are hit by state pension bungle

[HindleA]

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/23538" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The Work,Health and Disability Green Paper

By Bernadette Meaden

[SpinningHugo]

The problem with focus groups is that they have gone beyond their original remit.

To begin with, they were used as a way of informing politicians of how people thought about things - and then determining from that how best to sell their (already agreed) platform. Now, they are increasingly used as a means of *dictating* what that platform should be.

What happened to the idea of politicians actually putting forward what *they* believe in?

Its why so many people ("inexplicably", from your point of view) support Corbyn. And right wing politicians like Trump and Farage, come to that.

"inexplicably" ?? When did I use that terminology ?

And unsurprisingly, the point being made in the article is ignored purely because it was being made by focus groups.

The days of seeing another Labour government have never seemed so distant - some of us don't have the luxury of a middle-class background & the health to wait

Luxury of a middle class background? Sailing pretty close to the champagne socialist wind there.

Out of interest, if you feel it's relevant, what are your thoughts on the personal background of each of the Backbench Big Hitters that will save Labour?

There are none.

Labour is stuffed.

Lucky there is no English SNP. It is just inertia now.

[JonnyT1234]

You know what happens when politicians appease racists and 'listen to concerns' about immigration? You get UKIP, you get Brexit, you get Australian politics.

Screw the people who voted for UKIP and would still vote for UKIP. After all they've said and done? Don't come back. You are most definitely not welcome.

Not racist? Bollocks.

[JonnyT1234]

May says Fifa's ban on England and Scotland football players wearing poppies is 'utterly outrageous'

Labour’s Stephen McCabe asks May to condemn the Fifa decision to stop England and Scotland football playes wearing poppies.

May condemns the decision. She says Fifa should sort its own house out before it starts telling the UK what to do.

British football will be so much better once we leave the ball and chain that is FIFA. We'll never lose against those horrid foreigners again. Vote #Fixit at the referendum.

[Spot the difference in the Brexit rhetoric from the Tories versus what May said about FIFA above... yep, I couldn't see it either]

[HindleA]

http://labourlist.org/2016/11/unite-inc ... ve-merger/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



The merger of construction workers’ union UCATT into Unite will now go ahead in January, after being formally approved by members.