Saturday 26th & Sunday 27th November 2016

Post by **refitman** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 8:18 am

Morning all.

Interesting discussion on American constitutional law, last night, between Adam & Willow.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 8:43 am

Morning all.

Just off shopping and back later but just to say that if anyone's looking in from elsewhere, yes I did see your messages, and thank you!

Slightly cryptic but they'll know what it means.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 8:49 am

refitman wrote:Morning all.

Interesting discussion on American constitutional law, last night, between Adam & Willow.

Morning all

Yes, that was a very good read.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 8:56 am

I guess it's one of those unanswerable and something for a counterfactual but I wonder how Cuba would have changed if US relations had been normalised far earlier - like at the end of the 80s (which would have made sense given USSR breakup)?

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 9:44 am

StephenDolan wrote:
refitman wrote:Morning all.

Interesting discussion on American constitutional law, last night, between Adam & Willow.
Morning all

Yes, that was a very good read.

I agree. It was interesting.
And can I add my congratulations to Roger on his achievements.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 9:58 am

Fidel Castro, Cuba’s revolutionary leader, dies aged 90

The comandante overthrew Batista, established a communist state and survived countless American assassination attempts (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... -icon-dies

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 9:58 am

Good morfternoon.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 10:02 am

PorFavor wrote:
Fidel Castro, Cuba’s revolutionary leader, dies aged 90

The comandante overthrew Batista, established a communist state and survived countless American assassination attempts (Guardian)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... -icon-dies

The exploding cigars were probably my favourite there.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 10:03 am

Labour will not win a general election as Ukip-lite, says Diane Abbott

Shadow home secretary tells Guardian her party should hold its nerve in febrile atmosphere surrounding Brexit vote (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -says-dian

This is the second (or is it the third?) time this year that I have to concede that Diane Abbott is talking sense. Strange times.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 10:28 am

Good-morning, everyone.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 11:22 am

PorFavor wrote:
Labour will not win a general election as Ukip-lite, says Diane Abbott

Shadow home secretary tells Guardian her party should hold its nerve in febrile atmosphere surrounding Brexit vote (Guardian)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -says-dian

This is the second (or is it the third?) time this year that I have to concede that Diane Abbott is talking sense. Strange times.

Diane Abbott was the first black woman to be elected to parliament. It's not surprising she would be vocal in opposing the retrograde forces of Ukip that are trying to drag us back to the 1950s. She's also representative of the reason why some Labour defectors to Ukip will never come back. It doesn't matter what Labour says, as they are clearly, by the make up of their politicians, a multi-cultural party nowadays and this is unappealing to some previous Labour voters. Quite how many previous Labour voters, well, that's the $64,000 question, isn't it.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 11:45 am

Willow904 wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
Labour will not win a general election as Ukip-lite, says Diane Abbott

Shadow home secretary tells Guardian her party should hold its nerve in febrile atmosphere surrounding Brexit vote (Guardian)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -says-dian

This is the second (or is it the third?) time this year that I have to concede that Diane Abbott is talking sense. Strange times.
Diane Abbott was the first black woman to be elected to parliament. It's not surprising she would be vocal in opposing the retrograde forces of Ukip that are trying to drag us back to the 1950s. She's also representative of the reason why some Labour defectors to Ukip will never come back. It doesn't matter what Labour says, as they are clearly, by the make up of their politicians, a multi-cultural party nowadays and this is unappealing to some previous Labour voters. Quite how many previous Labour voters, well, that's the $64,000 question, isn't it.

Yes. Back to trying to articulate what the problem is (I think we've both had several bashes at this)! Once we've nailed down what the problem is, then maybe we can go some way to offering solutions.

To put it baldly, some traditional Labour voters are perhaps a bit racist? But why - that's what I can't dig down to.

They're also perhaps a bit anti- "women should all be 'striving'" to be in the workplace and be happy to have their children looked after by other people (when, perhaps, they're happier with the traditional set-up whereby women (or at least one of the parents) spend all, or most, of their time at home). Being out at work all day may be alluring if you're, say, a teacher or a lawyer, but the value of having an outside career probably dramatically decreases if you're stuck on an assembly line. Labour needs to get a grip on what makes many people tick and what their markers of self-worth comprise of.

Ok - I'll keep trying . . . .

Edited - typo

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 12:32 pm

Pushing both parents into the workplace, destroying the traditional role of the 'homemaker', is essentially neo-liberalism, isn't it? Judging individuals' worth based purely on their contribution to the material economy. The small 'c' conservative Labour voter may see the world in an entirely different way, but it's the same Thatcherite legacy that both the traditionalists and the more liberal left-wing are unhappy with. I just don't know if the preferred something new to replace neo-liberalism would be the same for these two diverse groups and that's why I am often doubtful Labour will survive as a political force.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 12:45 pm

Most of Labour's "coalition" would respond positively to some sort of economic populist message IMO.

The problem is the "continuity" Blairites, who are deeply wedded to neoliberalism - and have shown they are prepared to fight such an approach all the way.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 1:04 pm

I'm less convinced. We need to move past neo-liberalism, agreed, and 'Blairite' neo-liberals are a hindrance to that, also agreed, but I think you're missing my point about how, for some, it's not the message but who is delivering it. And I'm not talking in narrow terms of leadership, I'm talking about the full gamut of MPs, MSPs, AMs, mayors and councillors that represent the Labour party as a whole.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 1:13 pm

Willow904 wrote:I'm less convinced. We need to move past neo-liberalism, agreed, and 'Blairite' neo-liberals are a hindrance to that, also agreed, but I think you're missing my point about how, for some, it's not the message but who is delivering it. And I'm not talking in narrow terms of leadership, I'm talking about the full gamut of MPs, MSPs, AMs, mayors and councillors that represent the Labour party as a whole.

I'm not really following you. Would you expand, please?

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 1:22 pm

Rob
‏@MrMirth
I have today, become a member of the Lib Dem Party. The catalyst was the speech by Tom Watson. Labour have abandoned the 48%

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

That statement from TW !
He's just lost my membership as well.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 1:29 pm

Any Questions is a good listen today. Wow!

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 1:38 pm

Makes a change, tbh

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 1:45 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Yes. Back to trying to articulate what the problem is (I think we've both had several bashes at this)! Once we've nailed down what the problem is, then maybe we can go some way to offering solutions.

To put it baldly, some traditional Labour voters are perhaps a bit racist? But why - that's what I can't dig down to.

You're right, I think, to be tentative about using the term 'racist'. There are clearly far more full on racists out there than many of us would like to admit, but they're not really the people we're talking about, are they? I think maybe Gordon Brown was closer with 'bigoted' although even that term is a little too pejorative for what we're trying to describe and rightly got him into trouble. It's about coping and adapting to cultural change. Ultimately we are shaped by cultural influences and if the prevailing cultural influences are unkind to us (ethnic minorities, women, academically able working class) we try to change them but if they are kind to us (white, male, closed skilled trades) we would prefer them to stay the same. It's about status and there are costs to the individual of being at the bottom of the pile which aren't just or even at all about money. This is why I keep pointing out that these people aren't necessarily poor or "left behind" in a financial sense. This is as much about the perceived favouritism towards those with an education as it is about money and income. Many of the Ukip voting builders and plumbers who moan about liberal lefty teachers earn considerably more than those teachers, yet resent them and their position in society. That's the conundrum I'm wrestling with. How do you align two so disparate groups if it's not about money or the economy but about values and status?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 1:54 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Willow904 wrote:I'm less convinced. We need to move past neo-liberalism, agreed, and 'Blairite' neo-liberals are a hindrance to that, also agreed, but I think you're missing my point about how, for some, it's not the message but who is delivering it. And I'm not talking in narrow terms of leadership, I'm talking about the full gamut of MPs, MSPs, AMs, mayors and councillors that represent the Labour party as a whole.
I'm not really following you. Would you expand, please?

I guess I'm saying that in simplistic terms people tend to vote for people they perceive to be like them, regardless to a degree of policy or principles. Labour has a higher proportion of women and ethic minorities than other parties, winning more support from those groups but losing some support from others.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 2:22 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Rob
‏@MrMirth
I have today, become a member of the Lib Dem Party. The catalyst was the speech by Tom Watson. Labour have abandoned the 48%

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

That statement from TW !
He's just lost my membership as well.

Tom Watson does not speak for "Labour", just saying.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 2:24 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Rob
‏@MrMirth
I have today, become a member of the Lib Dem Party. The catalyst was the speech by Tom Watson. Labour have abandoned the 48%

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

That statement from TW !
He's just lost my membership as well.

It's not getting any better is it ?
I'm not going to the Libs, they've still got too much to apologise for but I'm working my way through the Green's 2015 manifesto. It's 86 pages, too much to print out. Their economic growth assumptions and spending are on page 79 but obviously things have changed somewhat in eighteen months.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 2:30 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Rob
‏@MrMirth
I have today, become a member of the Lib Dem Party. The catalyst was the speech by Tom Watson. Labour have abandoned the 48%

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

That statement from TW !
He's just lost my membership as well.
Tom Watson does not speak for "Labour", just saying.

The voices like McDonnell and Watson seem to be the ones we're hearing.

Maybe some other Labour people could make a little more noise, that might stop the party driving non-Brexit supporters into the arms of Lucas, Farron and Blair.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 2:34 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Rob
‏@MrMirth
I have today, become a member of the Lib Dem Party. The catalyst was the speech by Tom Watson. Labour have abandoned the 48%

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

That statement from TW !
He's just lost my membership as well.

It's disappointing, I don't deny that. I'd like to see a transcript of the Watson speech. I'm unable to find one.
The earliest thing I've found is from the Express published six hours ago and it's not a transcript. Watson is
giving or has given a speech to the Labour First group in Birmingham today. I'm unable to find a transcript
of that. From LabourList, published last night, Watson is expected to say...

“We will press the government hard on the terms on which we leave the EU in order to achieve a settlement that benefits us all,” he is expected to say.
“But effective scrutiny isn’t the same as blocking Brexit. We’re never going to apologise for holding the government’s feet to the fire. But nor we will ignore
the democratic will of the British people. Unlike the Lib Dem Brexit Deniers, we believe in respecting the decision of the British people. To do any less is to fail
to respect the British people themselves."

http://labourlist.org/2016/11/watson-mo ... n-eu-vote/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/loca ... op-brexit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 2:39 pm

''Brexit Deniers'' did Watson really say that ?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 2:43 pm

Tory government may plunge people and country into the sh** but don't let them divide us, solidarity, stand together.
It's not necessary liking everyone standing with you. I don't like my eldest sister, for example. I love her.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 2:43 pm

yahyah wrote:''Brexit Deniers'' did Watson really say that ?

~~Probably~~.

I'll need to wait to confirm if he did or not.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 2:43 pm

Farron uses the term pro-European rather than Brexit Denier.

https://twitter.com/timfarron" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 2:46 pm

It's difficult to feel solidarity with people who are telling you to jump off a cliff, or to be positive and learn to embrace jumping off a cliff.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 2:56 pm

The Sun are bigging up Tom Watson. Strange days indeed.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2268228/l ... er-brexit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 2:59 pm

yahyah wrote:It's difficult to feel solidarity with people who are telling you to jump off a cliff, or to be positive and learn to embrace jumping off a cliff.

I know, I agree. I'm not going off the cliff and I'll do what I can to prevent it.
I'm not going to turn my frown upside down or be positive if I don't feel that way.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 3:00 pm

yahyah wrote:Farron uses the term pro-European rather than Brexit Denier.

https://twitter.com/timfarron" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I like pro-European best.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 3:06 pm

It was this article from the BBC that made me think about status as well as the more cultural and outlook elements that formed the Brexit vote. I think all these things are as important as the economic element:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38092146" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Low social status 'can damage immune system'

It's not directly relevant, but raises a lot of interesting questions. The researchers solution in particular resonated with Anatoly's theme of the economy that works for all:

Hierarchies are a fixture of society. However, the researchers believe more can be done to ease the health problems coming from being bottom of the pile.
Dr Snyder-Mackler said: "Status is always relative, but if we could flatten the slope so the differences between the highest and lowest weren't as much, or find ways to focus attention on lower social environments so they are not as 'crappy' we could mediate some of those consequences.

It's finding ways of making greater equality appealing to those who benefit under the current skewed system, that's the difficulty, winning the consensus support. It involves changing our entire cultural outlook to one where we don't compete with each other over a finite pool of resources but through co-operation endeavour to make better use of those resources to the ultimate benefit of everyone. I fear I'm sounding a bit Green now, but it's the easiest analogy to make - it's about convincing people to stop squabbling over dwindling oil that concentrates power and wealth in a few hands and work together instead to harness the unlimited possibilities of renewable energy that could allow everyone to have everything they need. We need to get away from the idea of the cake where those below you can only have a better life by you having a worse one. The better off won't want to vote for that. But solar panels and free sun for everyone.....?

I'd be interested in others thoughts.

Edited to add that I think it's this that makes the Trump's of the world so anti-onshore windfarms. It's their potential to free individuals from the tyranny of global corporate power.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 3:21 pm

One thing I'm certain about, and which the above article about status confirms for me, is that SpinningHugo's idea of simply giving poor people more money won't work if the society in which they spend that money remains unchanged.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 3:36 pm

Willow904 wrote:...I think it's this that makes the Trump's of the world so anti-onshore windfarms. It's their potential to free individuals from the tyranny of global corporate power.

(cJA edit)

Exactly. A finite supply of fossil fuel requiring centralised, specialised refining procedures providing energy allows a relatively few
number of people controlling that process and supply dominance over many people who don't. Local energy production connected
to other communities in a network not reliant on expensive finite sources amassed by a few threatens their dominance. The world
doesn't need a few very wealthy people. It's dangerous. Too few owning and controlling everything is destroying our environment
and lives.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 3:44 pm

Time for tea and ginger cake.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 4:00 pm

yahyah wrote:Time for tea and ginger cake.

I've got the water on to boil. The kettle is broken.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 4:02 pm

citizenJA wrote:
yahyah wrote:Time for tea and ginger cake.
I've got the water on to boil. The kettle is broken.

Coutinho injury means I'd prefer something a bit stronger!

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 4:11 pm

That's a football reference, isn't it? For a moment there I was trying to work out what part of the body a 'coutinho' is.

Edited to change my emoticon. I don't want anyone thinking I'm laughing at the injury rather than myself. Is it that bad?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 4:28 pm

It looks like a horrible injury tbf

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 4:57 pm

Willow904 wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
Yes. Back to trying to articulate what the problem is (I think we've both had several bashes at this)! Once we've nailed down what the problem is, then maybe we can go some way to offering solutions.

To put it baldly, some traditional Labour voters are perhaps a bit racist? But why - that's what I can't dig down to.
You're right, I think, to be tentative about using the term 'racist'. There are clearly far more full on racists out there than many of us would like to admit, but they're not really the people we're talking about, are they? I think maybe Gordon Brown was closer with 'bigoted' although even that term is a little too pejorative for what we're trying to describe and rightly got him into trouble. It's about coping and adapting to cultural change.

Insular is the word I would use, ignorant of or uninterested in cultures, ideas, or peoples outside one's own experience.

That's the mindset I see in the anti-EU and pro-Trump people. While the liberal consensus was intact, they had no political movement to identify with, now they do.

My slight hope is that insularity is an increasingly difficult trait to maintain in the modern world and maybe young people today, brought up on the internet, won't turn into their parents.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 5:44 pm

@gilsey

"Insular". That's more like it - thanks.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 5:47 pm

Britons could pay for EU citizenship after Brexit, says top negotiator

Brexit negotiator said he ‘supported the principle’ behind UK citizens keeping their EU rights by paying an annual fee

Brexit-backing Tory MP Andrew Bridgen claimed that these plans were just the EU attempting to undermine the referendum result.

He told the newspaper: “It’s an attempt to create two classes of UK citizen and to subvert the referendum vote. The truth is that Brussels will try every trick in the book to stop us leaving.” (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... negotiator

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 6:06 pm

gilsey wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
Yes. Back to trying to articulate what the problem is (I think we've both had several bashes at this)! Once we've nailed down what the problem is, then maybe we can go some way to offering solutions.

To put it baldly, some traditional Labour voters are perhaps a bit racist? But why - that's what I can't dig down to.
You're right, I think, to be tentative about using the term 'racist'. There are clearly far more full on racists out there than many of us would like to admit, but they're not really the people we're talking about, are they? I think maybe Gordon Brown was closer with 'bigoted' although even that term is a little too pejorative for what we're trying to describe and rightly got him into trouble. It's about coping and adapting to cultural change.
Insular is the word I would use, ignorant of or uninterested in cultures, ideas, or peoples outside one's own experience.

That's the mindset I see in the anti-EU and pro-Trump people. While the liberal consensus was intact, they had no political movement to identify with, now they do.

My slight hope is that insularity is an increasingly difficult trait to maintain in the modern world and maybe young people today, brought up on the internet, won't turn into their parents.

Yes, "insular" is a good description. We can all be insular to a degree in relation to various things. It's not an inherently bad trait but with an aging population there's maybe an imbalance in the mix between insularity and open-mindedness. And I agree that culturally the insularity of future generations will doubtless take a different shape. We are all products of our time, so to speak.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 6:28 pm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... ef27815fa6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Clinton campaign will participate in Wisconsin recount, with an eye on ‘outside interference,’ lawyer says

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 6:40 pm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 13a314e332" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In assessing Donald Trump’s presidential victory, Americans continue to look away from this election’s most alarming story: the successful effort by a hostile foreign power to manipulate public opinion before the vote.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 8:11 pm

Willow904 wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 13a314e332
In assessing Donald Trump’s presidential victory, Americans continue to look away from this election’s most alarming story: the successful effort by a hostile foreign power to manipulate public opinion before the vote.

Just to say - I've never seen (or know anything about) "Firefly". (I assume that's what your strap-line refers to - ie the programme\film (?)). Do you recommend it?

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 8:22 pm

Firefly was a pilot series which wasn't taken further, you're unlikely to see it on freeview.
Afterwards the director and cast made a film called Serenity which you may get the opportunity to see, highly recommend it. Bit gruesome mind.

Post by **refitman** » Sat 26 Nov, 2016 8:25 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Willow904 wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 13a314e332
In assessing Donald Trump’s presidential victory, Americans continue to look away from this election’s most alarming story: the successful effort by a hostile foreign power to manipulate public opinion before the vote.
Just to say - I've never seen (or know anything about) "Firefly". (I assume that's what your strap-line refers to - ie the programme\film (?)). Do you recommend it?

Yes! It's a great show, cut down in it's prime by the muppets at Fox TV. Browncoats forever!