New Years Weekend Sat 31 Dec 2016 - Mon 02 Jan 2017

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 6:50 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Willow904 wrote:It's still the case that no natural successor to Corbyn is guaranteed to get the necessary nominations to get on the ballot, so the only way for the left of the party to retain control of the party is for Corbyn to stay until mandatory re-selections in the run-up to the boundary changes for the next election ensure a fundamental change in the make-up of the PLP is achieved. As such if Corbyn goes before a GE, it will be very late on, I suspect, if strengthening the Left's position within the party is the primary aim. Where that will leave Labour electorally is anyone's guess. I'm hoping winning in 2020 is the primary aim. A change in 2018 would be most beneficial in that case I suspect. Everything may hinge on McCluskey, anyway and I'm not convinced he wants to see Corbyn fighting a GE. Does anyone think Corbyn could hang on without the support of Unite?
There is an attempt to reduce that number on the table, that is likely to be one of the main bones of contention in the coming year.

If a youthful Corbyn II were in the wings it might be plausible he'd quit.

It isn't. There is the complete dunce Burgon and the flake Lewis. That is it.

In a y event there will be some uptick this year. There must be more than 24 percent out there even with Corbyn in charge. Brexit will begin to bite and Labour might get as high as 30 percent in some polls.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 7:07 pm

TV series on youtube.It was also repeated on BBC 4,if memory serves me correct.Perhaps may repeat again.Not available on I-player,just checked,just clips.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 7:14 pm

RIP Deyika Nzeribe: Green Party mayoral candidate dies

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma ... 59?SThisFB" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 7:15 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Willow904 wrote:It's still the case that no natural successor to Corbyn is guaranteed to get the necessary nominations to get on the ballot, so the only way for the left of the party to retain control of the party is for Corbyn to stay until mandatory re-selections in the run-up to the boundary changes for the next election ensure a fundamental change in the make-up of the PLP is achieved. As such if Corbyn goes before a GE, it will be very late on, I suspect, if strengthening the Left's position within the party is the primary aim. Where that will leave Labour electorally is anyone's guess. I'm hoping winning in 2020 is the primary aim. A change in 2018 would be most beneficial in that case I suspect. Everything may hinge on McCluskey, anyway and I'm not convinced he wants to see Corbyn fighting a GE. Does anyone think Corbyn could hang on without the support of Unite?
There is an attempt to reduce that number on the table, that is likely to be one of the main bones of contention in the coming year.

If a youthful Corbyn II were in the wings it might be plausible he'd quit.

It isn't. There is the complete dunce Burgon and the flake Lewis. That is it.

In a y event there will be some uptick this year. There must be more than 24 percent out there even with Corbyn in charge. Brexit will begin to bite and Labour might get as high as 30 percent in some polls.

Hugo, Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by 'the flake Lewis'?

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 7:25 pm

Outrage as Katie Hopkins shares neo-Nazi praise after 'racism' debate

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/outra ... 30926.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How far is too far - and who moved the line?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 7:26 pm

Q8

Confectioner?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 7:28 pm

According to Jez, "the issue with trains and buses is the same". In that one has seen passenger growth it can't cope with, and the other (outside of a couple of places) doesn't have enough passengers to sustain it, they are indeed "the same". What he means of course is his talking point is the same in each case- can you guess what it is?

The issue with buses is the daft deregulation that operates outside London. Ed, in a way doubtless derided as "Tory lite" by the proper left, was clear about this. He got an unlikely convert- George Osborne is bringing in Transport for London style organizations in his new city regions. This is good stuff, and easily affordable, and I don't see why somewhere as unlike a City region as Herefordshire or Somerset shouldn't have the same sort of regulated oversight. Among other things, the bus commissioner can do what Sadiq Khan has, and do a comprehensive wage deal with Unite for the bus drivers.

Nationalizing buses is going to be expensive- the bus companies own them, apart from the wretched Boris buses which they refused to buy. It's by no means guaranteed that a public operator would be as efficient as they are in allocating buses to appropriate routes anyway. And has anybody asked the Labour local government people if they actually want to run buses?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 7:29 pm

tinybgoat wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote: There is an attempt to reduce that number on the table, that is likely to be one of the main bones of contention in the coming year.

If a youthful Corbyn II were in the wings it might be plausible he'd quit.

It isn't. There is the complete dunce Burgon and the flake Lewis. That is it.

In a y event there will be some uptick this year. There must be more than 24 percent out there even with Corbyn in charge. Brexit will begin to bite and Labour might get as high as 30 percent in some polls.
Hugo, Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by 'the flake Lewis'?

I'm not calling Lewis a flake. Ex-army, banged the wall when Milne mucked him about.

And a savvy media man who got the message out that he banged the wall.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 7:33 pm

Graham Jones MPVerified account
‏@GrahamJones_MP Graham Jones MP Retweeted (((Dan Hodges)))
Labour must understand that in 2016, rights (liberalism) were replaced by responsibilities (communitarianism).

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 8:45 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Graham Jones MPVerified account
‏@GrahamJones_MP Graham Jones MP Retweeted (((Dan Hodges)))
Labour must understand that in 2016, rights (liberalism) were replaced by responsibilities (communitarianism).

I'm not having any of this opaque nonsense from anyone, least of all from Hodges.
It's unreasonable throwing undefined terms around and demanding to be 'understood'.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 8:52 pm

Anyone think that Trump might just not know the significance of Strange Fruit and agree?

Rebecca Ferguson asked to perform at Donald Trump's inauguration ceremony

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/3 ... n-ceremony" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 8:56 pm

citizenJA wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Graham Jones MPVerified account
‏@GrahamJones_MP Graham Jones MP Retweeted (((Dan Hodges)))
Labour must understand that in 2016, rights (liberalism) were replaced by responsibilities (communitarianism).
I'm not having any of this opaque nonsense from anyone, least of all from Hodges.
It's unreasonable throwing undefined terms around and demanding to be 'understood'.

Yep.

The implication (I presume) is that immigrants wreck communities, or some other bollocks.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 9:01 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Graham Jones MPVerified account
‏@GrahamJones_MP Graham Jones MP Retweeted (((Dan Hodges)))
Labour must understand that in 2016, rights (liberalism) were replaced by responsibilities (communitarianism).
I'm not having any of this opaque nonsense from anyone, least of all from Hodges.
It's unreasonable throwing undefined terms around and demanding to be 'understood'.
Yep.

The implication (I presume) is that immigrants wreck communities, or some other bollocks.

Anyway - rights were replaced by responsibilities?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 9:05 pm

I think he means as political talking points among people like him.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 9:06 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01cj2lf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Politics of Art
Archive on 4

This "Archive on 4" uses John Berger's ground-breaking 1972 BBC-2 series on art and society - called "Ways of Seeing"

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 9:09 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Well it's catching on anyway

ITALY: Basic Income Pilot Launched in Italian Coastal City
http://basicincome.org/news/2016/12/ita ... stal-city/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CANADA: Food Bank Canada recommends creating a national basic income to curb the “unacceptably high” reliance on food banks
http://basicincome.org/news/2016/12/can ... ood-banks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BRAZIL: Basic Income Startup gives “lifetime basic incomes” to villagers
http://basicincome.org/news/2016/12/bra ... villagers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From
Basic Income European Network (BIEN)
http://basicincome.org/about-bien/#overview" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can get rid of food banks far easier than having a basic income, as shown by the fact we didn't have all that many of them till IDS showed up.

I was surprised to see in the Guardian that voluntary schemes funded by philanthropy are counted as basic income trials. That's not what I've ever understood by it.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 9:10 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
citizenJA wrote: I'm not having any of this opaque nonsense from anyone, least of all from Hodges.
It's unreasonable throwing undefined terms around and demanding to be 'understood'.
Yep.

The implication (I presume) is that immigrants wreck communities, or some other bollocks.
Anyway - rights were replaced by responsibilities?

Random words next to random words in parentheses apparent camouflage for the outrageous suggestion we've no longer rights only responsibilities. How proud Tories must be of their darling Dan.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 9:20 pm

2017 prediction- Man of the Year, Tim Farron.

Will have inside track on Brexit from Guy Verhofstadt. Can take votes off Tories and Labour remainers and Greens too, the "man who predicted the chaos". He could even back the (mild) Swiss reforms on migration, to show he's "listening".

Or alternatively, shit doesn't hit fan too obviously, maybe because Theresa May postpones Article 50 a couple of months. Or Farron isn't up to the job.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 9:21 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:I think he means as political talking points among people like him.

Hodges is an unremarkable annoying person - a meaningless word generator
He can't use words as he's done and expect understanding

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 9:26 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:You can get rid of food banks far easier than having a basic income, as shown by the fact we didn't have all that many of them till IDS showed up.

I was surprised to see in the Guardian that voluntary schemes funded by philanthropy are counted as basic income trials. That's not what I've ever understood by it.

(cJA edit & emphasis)

Neither have I. Private charity can fold at any time, supply succour to some while turning away others away. It is not a replacement for social security provision. It can not be counted upon.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 9:26 pm

Brown did some good things,little adjustments,deliberately targeted not many would be aware of ie.particular circumstances effecting relatively few people-I think in essence that's the difference now;such "inconvenience' of particular circumstance are at best viewed as insignificant,at worst targeted but not in a good way.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 9:29 pm

This Gerard Coyne bloke has gone all Brexity

Gerard Coyne ‏@gerard_coyne 11h11 hours ago
This morning I'll be outlining my views on Brexit to an audience of Unite members in Birmingham:

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

As you were - back to Len it is then

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 9:32 pm

Committee inquiries: Open calls for evidence
The following is a list of all committee inquiries where the initial call for evidence is still open. Further information can be found by following the links to the relevant inquiry pages.

Some select and joint committees (but not public bill committees) continue to accept written evidence after the initial call for evidence deadline has passed. Please refer to the relevant inquiry pages or contact committee staff for details of specific inquiries.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/commi ... -evidence/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 9:39 pm

"Already, one can see the lineaments of that struggle: internationalists versus nativists; autocracy versus liberalism;
traditionalism versus pluralism. It is fast rendering obsolete the old matrix of left-right, and east versus west."

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

Horseshit, that's the technical name for this here.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 9:44 pm

http://www.demoshelsinki.fi/en/2016/08/ ... -our-time/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Finns on basic income.

The piece from the Atlantic says this on cost :

A more compelling argument against instating a minimum income, though, has to do with how much it’d cost to run such a program. $10,000 a year is a standard figure tossed out for what a guaranteed income might look like in America, but this would, as an economist at the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes, cost over $3 trillion a year—which is almost as much as is collected every year in federal taxes. It’s not clear where exactly all this money would come from.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... nt/487883/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_we ... ng_40.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In the UK total spend is 784 billion; welfare and pensions 218 billion; for 52 milllion adults (16 onwards) at minimum wage (7.20) for 36 hour week it would cost 701 billion. But with 31.4 million employed https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlab ... bruary2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; businesses could be expected to stump up 423 billion >> 641 billion. The additional cost would need to come from savings from other costs currently associated with poverty.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 9:45 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:This Gerard Coyne bloke has gone all Brexity

Gerard Coyne ‏@gerard_coyne 11h11 hours ago
This morning I'll be outlining my views on Brexit to an audience of Unite members in Birmingham:

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

As you were - back to Len it is then

Yep, very poor tweeting. I suppose his position might be more nuanced. A Swiss deal could satisfy him, maybe.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 9:47 pm

Should add - am interested in it, and trying to work out how it could work. Would be interested in any other info on existing (or not existing) proposals for how to fund it.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 9:47 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:http://www.demoshelsinki.fi/en/2016/08/ ... -our-time/
The Finns on basic income.

The piece from the Atlantic says this on cost :
A more compelling argument against instating a minimum income, though, has to do with how much it’d cost to run such a program. $10,000 a year is a standard figure tossed out for what a guaranteed income might look like in America, but this would, as an economist at the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes, cost over $3 trillion a year—which is almost as much as is collected every year in federal taxes. It’s not clear where exactly all this money would come from.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... nt/487883/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_we ... ng_40.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In the UK total spend is 784 billion; welfare and pensions 218 billion; for 52 milllion adults (16 onwards) at minimum wage (7.20) for 36 hour week it would cost 701 billion. But with 31.4 million employed https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlab ... bruary2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; businesses could be expected to stump up 423 billion >> 641 billion. The additional cost would need to come from savings from other costs currently associated with poverty.

It wouldn't be set at full time wage level, something much closer to JSA. But it's still far too expensive. Plus there'd have to be extra benefits for housing.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 9:55 pm

But if one argument is that there are savings in administration (along with removing stigma) then pinning it near JSA and adding additional benefits for housing etc doesn't seem to make much sense.

Note the Finnish model is looking at a much lower basic income (560 Euros per month) than the Dutch experiment (960 Euros per month - where the cost of living is probably lower than Finland).

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 10:14 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:But if one argument is that there are savings in administration (along with removing stigma) then pinning it near JSA and adding additional benefits for housing etc doesn't seem to make much sense.

Note the Finnish model is looking at a much lower basic income (560 Euros per month) than the Dutch experiment (960 Euros per month - where the cost of living is probably lower than Finland).

I'd really like to see how it could be made to work, but like I said last night, needs are so variable (don't start **HindleA, I'm watching you!

) from long term sick/disabled (and all the various levels of sickness/disability) to pensioners, singles/single parents/disabled single parents/job seekers - the list is endless - that I don't see how you can formulate a fair system using "everyone gets the same".
Within the spectrum of needs, all are different and if allowances are made for those differences then we are back where we are today with the added complication of some without need getting the same as those who need it more. So they go into a higher tax band - but then why give it to them in the first place? Like I also said last night : My head hurts....

I love the principal and would love someone to explain how it would work in a fair and equitable way.

** Joke from last night!

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 10:19 pm

Indeed. And extra benefits for disability too, so the most vulnerable people could still get hammered by an IDS figure on the back of tabloid bollocks.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 10:19 pm

Garry Kasparov ‏@Kasparov63 Jan 1
Remember these words from Tsar Nicholas II's diary: "The year 1916 was cursed; 1917 will surely be better!"

Happy New Year!

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 10:19 pm

I think the administrative cost is(of course there is needless siphoning off to private providers-eg.over 20 % in PIP is paper only and still involves DWP staff decision)overblown,or at least the supposed savings resulting.Little or nominal is involved in some benefits/payments/allowances,now.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 10:23 pm

Gerard Coyne
‏@gerard_coyne
For Britons facing job insecurity, the presence of a v large number of foreign nationals adds to pressures on them at a time of austerity.

Bullshit.

My mistake. This bloke is Kipper-Labour wannabe.

daydreamer · Post by **daydreamer** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 10:24 pm

Hi all.

Happy New Year to all (past and present FTN's).

@AAW - So sorry you've had to say goodbye to your cat.

RE: the current discussion on a universal citizens income (and by extension the future of work), here's a link to a piece I found interesting. It's American, so the stats obviously don't apply to us. However, the discussion on the changing nature of work, the need for a re-think on how we value human contribution etc. still apply no matter which country you live in. Hopefully, it'll prove to be of interest.

https://aeon.co/essays/what-if-jobs-are ... he-problem

I’m not proposing a fancy thought experiment here. By now these are practical questions because there aren’t enough jobs. So it’s time we asked even more practical questions. How do you make a living without a job – can you receive income without working for it? Is it possible, to begin with and then, the hard part, is it ethical? If you were raised to believe that work is the index of your value to society – as most of us were – would it feel like cheating to get something for nothing?

Edit: Just to add the title of the article contains the F word. Just in case that might offend anyone.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 10:29 pm

daydreamer wrote:Hi all.

Happy New Year to all (past and present FTN's).

@AAW - So sorry you've had to say goodbye to your cat.

RE: the current discussion on a universal citizens income (and by extension the future of work), here's a link to a piece I found interesting. It's American, so the stats obviously don't apply to us. However, the discussion on the changing nature of work, the need for a re-think on how we value human contribution etc. still apply no matter which country you live in. Hopefully, it'll prove to be of interest.

https://aeon.co/essays/what-if-jobs-are ... he-problem

I’m not proposing a fancy thought experiment here. By now these are practical questions because there aren’t enough jobs. So it’s time we asked even more practical questions. How do you make a living without a job – can you receive income without working for it? Is it possible, to begin with and then, the hard part, is it ethical? If you were raised to believe that work is the index of your value to society – as most of us were – would it feel like cheating to get something for nothing?

Thanks for kind thoughts about Alice, much appreciated.
Off to read your link that looks interesting ...
https://aeon.co/essays/what-if-jobs-are ... he-problem" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Edit to add - how rude of me not to wish you all the best for 2017 and to say Nice to see you here

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 10:37 pm

Not up to the job, part 124.

McDonnell, who is the closest ally of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, will make a major speech on economic policy this month and hopes to draw a clear dividing line with the Conservatives by showing that he would take on vested interests as chancellor.

He recently made a series of spending pledges to protect pensioner benefits, including the costly triple-lock guarantee (that pensions rise by the same as average earnings, consumer price index or 2.5%, whichever is highest), in an effort to win over elderly voters.

Multi-billion pound spending commitment made without any consultation at all, as far as I can tell.

Can you really not think of anything better to spend the money on? Seriously? I guess when you can answer any question with "national investment bank" and "close tax loopholes", you don't need to keep count. Good luck with getting that past Andrew Neil, or any other remotely well briefed interviewer.

The "elderly" will tell you they don't trust you for a minute to afford your plans.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 10:39 pm

HindleA wrote:I think the administrative cost is(of course there is needless siphoning off to private providers-eg.over 20 % in PIP is paper only and still involves DWP staff decision)overblown,or at least the supposed savings resulting.Little or nominal is involved in some benefits/payments/allowances,now.

Yes, this is important.

Books help me think differently, change my perspective. Things taken for granted or assumptions of one kind or another turn
out to be unlike I thought prior to alternative ideas. Ursula LeGuin, The Dispossessed. Changing something, freeing up people
from having to worry about one concrete thing can lead to positive, creative transformations not thought of prior to making that
change. I don't know what what that one thing is, or if it's just one thing. It could be a series of small changes creating remarkably
different circumstances.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 10:41 pm

Personal experience alerts me to the need for complexity,broad brush category of "disabled" and benefits to account for that doesn't distinguish or take suitable account of circumstances.Various schemes exist subject to receiving certain rates and having particular circumstance.Already the 3 to 2 change from DLA to PIP is causing problems,so you have Mordaunt saying you can access the Motorbility scheme if on Standard(from high only)Mobility,which would be about a steering wheel.

daydreamer · Post by **daydreamer** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 10:43 pm

Nice to be here AAW.

Having said that, I'm leaving again. Time for

Night all.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 10:44 pm

daydreamer wrote:Nice to be here AAW. Having said that, I'm leaving again. Time for Night all.

Goodnight, daydreamer

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 10:48 pm

There's a never-ending amount of work to be done. Whether or not it's funded is something else.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 10:49 pm

Goodnight, everyone.
love,
cJA

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 11:10 pm

daydreamer wrote:Nice to be here AAW. Having said that, I'm leaving again. Time for Night all.

Hopefully you'll see this tomorrow
Thanks for that interesting link, I need to read it again - without the wine - to fully understand it. On the first read through it sound a bit Utopian (in a nice way) but I still can't see (without a revolution) how we - society - could get it to work.
People are too selfish and self-possessing to happily work whilst others did not.
Will read again tomorrow..
Thanks!

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 11:10 pm

Think I've still got a shirt like John Berger wore circa '72

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 11:13 pm

AAW I have never been given two stars in any context.Thankyou.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 11:14 pm

The 48% are no longer an irrelevance

Be it the Lib Dems or Tony Blair, someone will fill the yawning chasm at the centre of British politics

http://reaction.life/48-no-longer-irrelevance/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 11:16 pm

HindleA wrote:AAW I have never been given two stars in any context.Thankyou.

I was going for 3 but thought it might be a bit OTT, so cut it to 2, glad I did now or would have been really ostentatious.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 11:31 pm

My 'favourite' read of the day. Night all.

"Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact."
https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is- ... .vqud7o3jb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hobiejoe · Post by **Hobiejoe** » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 11:37 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
tinybgoat wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
If a youthful Corbyn II were in the wings it might be plausible he'd quit.

It isn't. There is the complete dunce Burgon and the flake Lewis. That is it.

In a y event there will be some uptick this year. There must be more than 24 percent out there even with Corbyn in charge. Brexit will begin to bite and Labour might get as high as 30 percent in some polls.
Hugo, Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by 'the flake Lewis'?
I'm not calling Lewis a flake. Ex-army, banged the wall when Milne mucked him about.

And a savvy media man who got the message out that he banged the wall.

"I'm not calling Lewis a flake...".

Whoops-a-daisy! Wrong account Hugo, or is it Tubby?