Tuesday 28th February 2017

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 6:52 am

Well, there is more than one party that is adding to the gaiety of nations through spectacular incompetence

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -from-ukip" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More Farage here

http://ijr.com/2017/02/810965-trump-dit ... -watching/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well done with catsup! Philistine.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 7:44 am

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

One ‘not really disabled’ man has won against the system. I’m not celebrating
Aditya Chakrabortty

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 8:01 am

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/ ... -committee" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Raising pension age will mean many people die before getting it, say MPs

Can't find Report as yet.

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

Post by **adam** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 8:21 am

From willow last night

Still, Labour voting against an amendment to stay in the single market isn't going to be popular with ~~remain~~ their voters.

Fixed it for you.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 8:40 am

Be vigilant

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

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 8:41 am

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/char ... idge-trust" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Press release
Charity Commission publishes report on Garden Bridge Trust

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ase-report" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 9:25 am

From the G live blog:

In the debate Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, the shadow Brexit minister, explained why Labour was not supporting Hain’s move. She said accepting the amendment would mean acting “as if the referendum hadn’t happened” and effectively “asking the prime minister to eat her own words”. She went on:

With regard to free movement, we cannot simply airbrush this from the referendum decision. For if we turn round to those who voted out, and we say ‘yes we are out, but actually we are still having everything exactly as it was, we are still having free movement unchanged’, I think that might emit some surprise.

What Lady Hayter appears to be saying is that Labour have swallowed the Tory narrative that only a hard Brexit fulfils the result of the referendum and therefore won't be opposing them in any significant way.

For some reason Labour's explanation for not supporting the amendment has disappointed me more than their actually voting against it. Curbing immigration will be a) bad for the economy ; b) impossible to achieve alongside any kind of beneficial access to the single market and c) is culturally regressive. I thought the point of political parties were for them to decide what they stand for and then try to win people to their cause - not change their cause to whatever people have been led to ask for by other, more persuasive, political parties. Labour have truly lost their way.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 9:40 am

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017 ... -care.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Budget and Health Care

Mainlymacro

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 9:42 am

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... stomers-bt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Landline charges for 2m customers to be cut as telecoms watchdog steps in
Ofcom condemns poor value for money on landline-only accounts with plan to force biggest provider BT to trim phone bills by up to £7 a month

Quite right too,not that I may personally benefit(ahem)

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 9:43 am

Willow904 wrote:From the G live blog:

In the debate Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, the shadow Brexit minister, explained why Labour was not supporting Hain’s move. She said accepting the amendment would mean acting “as if the referendum hadn’t happened” and effectively “asking the prime minister to eat her own words”. She went on:

With regard to free movement, we cannot simply airbrush this from the referendum decision. For if we turn round to those who voted out, and we say ‘yes we are out, but actually we are still having everything exactly as it was, we are still having free movement unchanged’, I think that might emit some surprise.
What Lady Hayter appears to be saying is that Labour have swallowed the Tory narrative that only a hard Brexit fulfils the result of the referendum and therefore won't be opposing them in any significant way.

For some reason Labour's explanation for not supporting the amendment has disappointed me more than their actually voting against it. Curbing immigration will be a) bad for the economy ; b) impossible to achieve alongside any kind of beneficial access to the single market and c) is culturally regressive. I thought the point of political parties were for them to decide what they stand for and then try to win people to their cause - not change their cause to whatever people have been led to ask for by other, more persuasive, political parties. Labour have truly lost their way.

Yep. And are we thinking that the 'iron grip' of Corbyn (or McDonnell) has done this?

There's lots to think, puzzle, worry about.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 9:57 am

Morning all. Early meeting in school so I'm late clocking on for the morning shift at FTN.

‘Far from clear’ if DfE can cope with academies expansion, warn MPs

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/far-from-clear ... -warn-mps/

MPs have questioned the government’s capacity to cope with the growth of the academies programme, amid predictions of “further pressures” for its departments and agencies.

The commons education committee says it is “far from clear” if the Department for Education and Education Funding Agency can cope with the expansion of multi-academy trusts over the next five to six years, and has urged both organisations to outline how much they expect the sector to grow.

Although the government has abandoned plans to force all schools to become academies by 2022, the full academisation of the system remains the long-term ambition of ministers.

A week or so back Morgan was saying she was proudest of her White Paper - that was the one proposing full academisation by 2022 at the latest.

How does that idea look now I wonder Nicky?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 10:00 am

Wages docked.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 10:01 am

https://www.theguardian.com/public-lead ... hs-prisons" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The uncomfortable truth: UK government cuts have happened under our noses
Frances Ryan

ScarletGas · Post by **ScarletGas** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 10:09 am

It comes to something when an ex tory prime minister is more in tune with the views of labour voters at large than the party leadership!

When May came out with the silly statement that she was (I paraphrase) governing for all the country its clear she had totally ignored the 48%.

Good to see someone (with seemingly no ulterior motives?) standing up for the disenfranchised (nearly) half the population

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 10:17 am

StephenDolan wrote:
Willow904 wrote:From the G live blog:

In the debate Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, the shadow Brexit minister, explained why Labour was not supporting Hain’s move. She said accepting the amendment would mean acting “as if the referendum hadn’t happened” and effectively “asking the prime minister to eat her own words”. She went on:

With regard to free movement, we cannot simply airbrush this from the referendum decision. For if we turn round to those who voted out, and we say ‘yes we are out, but actually we are still having everything exactly as it was, we are still having free movement unchanged’, I think that might emit some surprise.
What Lady Hayter appears to be saying is that Labour have swallowed the Tory narrative that only a hard Brexit fulfils the result of the referendum and therefore won't be opposing them in any significant way.

For some reason Labour's explanation for not supporting the amendment has disappointed me more than their actually voting against it. Curbing immigration will be a) bad for the economy ; b) impossible to achieve alongside any kind of beneficial access to the single market and c) is culturally regressive. I thought the point of political parties were for them to decide what they stand for and then try to win people to their cause - not change their cause to whatever people have been led to ask for by other, more persuasive, political parties. Labour have truly lost their way.
Yep. And are we thinking that the 'iron grip' of Corbyn (or McDonnell) has done this?

There's lots to think, puzzle, worry about.

There has been plenty from the likes of Andy Burnham and Dan Jarvis on immigration curbs to suggest that this is coming from the right of the party, but it seems to align with the stance from the Corbyn left which appears reluctant to say anything that may seem to go against the referendum result, including anything positive about the single market. Personally, I feel that the truth should be told, however unpalatable. The reason we joined the EU is because it was better than being on the outside. The reason Norway pays for membership of the single market is because it's better than being on the outside. The reason we have immigration is because we have jobs and people will always try to seek jobs in preference to struggling/starving. Shutting people out is akin to shutting people in. Recent arbitrary immigration decisions both here and in the US reveal the authoritarian impulse behind both Trump and Brexit. I don't think I can overstate just how uneasy it makes me feel to see Labour apparently going along with what seems to me to be a very dark, right wing agenda.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 10:21 am

HindleA wrote:https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017 ... -care.html

The Budget and Health Care

Mainlymacro

This is what I'd like to hear from Labour.
I can just about follow their train of thought over brexit, although I don't like it, but I can't follow it on public spending. They still seem to be suicidally compelled to stick to the household budget analogy, frightened to propose increases in spending. As Wren-Lewis says

there might be a short term boost to activity from a tax financed spending increase. This could be amplified, of course, if the tax increase was delayed for a year or two. As interest rates are still at their lower bound, such a boost to activity would be welcome.

Start educating the electorate now.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 10:26 am

https://jennymorrisnet.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... al-of.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Some context on today's BBC Report(File on 4)on social care abuse"

Jenny Morris

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 10:38 am

Smart meter tomorrow,compiling a set of questions to check,current one,bless him a bit dim.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 10:45 am

HindleA wrote:Smart meter tomorrow,compiling a set of questions to check,current one,bless him a bit dim.

Big question to ask
Is it compatible (and will still work fully) with other suppliers if you change suppliers?
Martin Lewis mentioned something about this a couple of week ago, seems some will still work as in - work - but do not operate the smart features bit. In other words it just becomes a normal metre, so cost of it wasted. Or you just have to stay put and not change suppliers.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 10:50 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote: Yep. And are we thinking that the 'iron grip' of Corbyn (or McDonnell) has done this?

There's lots to think, puzzle, worry about.
There has been plenty from the likes of Andy Burnham and Dan Jarvis on immigration curbs to suggest that this is coming from the right of the party, but it seems to align with the stance from the Corbyn left which appears reluctant to say anything that may seem to go against the referendum result, including anything positive about the single market. Personally, I feel that the truth should be told, however unpalatable. The reason we joined the EU is because it was better than being on the outside. The reason Norway pays for membership of the single market is because it's better than being on the outside. The reason we have immigration is because we have jobs and people will always try to seek jobs in preference to struggling/starving. Shutting people out is akin to shutting people in. Recent arbitrary immigration decisions both here and in the US reveal the authoritarian impulse behind both Trump and Brexit. I don't think I can overstate just how uneasy it makes me feel to see Labour apparently going along with what seems to me to be a very dark, right wing agenda.
The problem with this is that it's been ingrained for over a decade - by Labour. It goes back to Gordon Brown's 'British jobs for British workers', the points based system introduced in the mid 2000s, and the narrative didn't change with Ed's 'controls on immigration' written on the mugs and the Ed Stone. The narrative is that it didn't convince anyone, but who knows how many votes a slightly tougher line on immigration secured or at least didn't lose?

I maintain that arguing for full membership of the single market would be political suicide. Even Norway has exemptions.

It would, however, be honest.

And Ed Miliband was wrong to suggest controls on immigration were feasible or desirable. He convinced non-one who wanted them that he truly meant it and lost some respect from those who oppose the scapegoating of immigrants (as has Andy Burnham).

Leave voters have the leave campaign architects in government in the form of Tory ministers. Why are they going to vote for anyone else? I understand why Corbyn just wants to move on, to get Brexit out of the way and get back to national issues, but our relationship with the EU affects everything. It's not going to go away.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 10:50 am

@AAW If it can't name the winning goalscorer in the 1968 League Cup Final,as a bare minimum,it will automatically fail.Basics,first,but thanks for info.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 11:01 am

Anyway,back to ShamiWatch,or is it LenWatch,have to check roster.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 11:05 am

Eleanor Garnier
‏Verified account @BBCEleanorG

Follow
More
So... Aaron Banks's office has confirmed that it is his intention to stand against UKIPs only MP, Douglas Carswell, at the next election...

UKIP have officially taken the title over from Labour as "Party in most chaos".

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 11:12 am

Willow904 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:
Willow904 wrote:From the G live blog:
What Lady Hayter appears to be saying is that Labour have swallowed the Tory narrative that only a hard Brexit fulfils the result of the referendum and therefore won't be opposing them in any significant way.

For some reason Labour's explanation for not supporting the amendment has disappointed me more than their actually voting against it. Curbing immigration will be a) bad for the economy ; b) impossible to achieve alongside any kind of beneficial access to the single market and c) is culturally regressive. I thought the point of political parties were for them to decide what they stand for and then try to win people to their cause - not change their cause to whatever people have been led to ask for by other, more persuasive, political parties. Labour have truly lost their way.
Yep. And are we thinking that the 'iron grip' of Corbyn (or McDonnell) has done this?

There's lots to think, puzzle, worry about.
There has been plenty from the likes of Andy Burnham and Dan Jarvis on immigration curbs to suggest that this is coming from the right of the party, but it seems to align with the stance from the Corbyn left which appears reluctant to say anything that may seem to go against the referendum result, including anything positive about the single market. Personally, I feel that the truth should be told, however unpalatable. The reason we joined the EU is because it was better than being on the outside. The reason Norway pays for membership of the single market is because it's better than being on the outside. The reason we have immigration is because we have jobs and people will always try to seek jobs in preference to struggling/starving. Shutting people out is akin to shutting people in. Recent arbitrary immigration decisions both here and in the US reveal the authoritarian impulse behind both Trump and Brexit. I don't think I can overstate just how uneasy it makes me feel to see Labour apparently going along with what seems to me to be a very dark, right wing agenda.

Thanks, Willow.
I think, that's my biggest problem with Labour currently, aside from brexit, or infighting: it's as you said, deciding on what they believe & then working to convince others. Labour had to fight to get elected in the first place, they didn't just magically coalesce around an already overwhelmingly popular cause, but currently their seems to be a reluctance to champion any views that aren't immediately popular (although I suppose, arguably some of Corbyn's views would contradict this).
With immigration, I can see why Burnham & others might want to have the discussion on why there might be a case for possible curbs/restrictions in some areas, but I'd then hope that they'd be arguing in favour of immigration, not just caving in for the easy vote.
At the moment I wouldn't trust this to be the case.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 11:13 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:
Eleanor Garnier
‏Verified account @BBCEleanorG

Follow
More
So... Aaron Banks's office has confirmed that it is his intention to stand against UKIPs only MP, Douglas Carswell, at the next election...

UKIP have officially taken the title over from Labour as "Party in most chaos".

Can't help but wonder what Ukip voters make of it. Surely they wouldn't be happy if Ukip got rid of their only MP.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 11:28 am

tinybgoat wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote: Yep. And are we thinking that the 'iron grip' of Corbyn (or McDonnell) has done this?

There's lots to think, puzzle, worry about.
There has been plenty from the likes of Andy Burnham and Dan Jarvis on immigration curbs to suggest that this is coming from the right of the party, but it seems to align with the stance from the Corbyn left which appears reluctant to say anything that may seem to go against the referendum result, including anything positive about the single market. Personally, I feel that the truth should be told, however unpalatable. The reason we joined the EU is because it was better than being on the outside. The reason Norway pays for membership of the single market is because it's better than being on the outside. The reason we have immigration is because we have jobs and people will always try to seek jobs in preference to struggling/starving. Shutting people out is akin to shutting people in. Recent arbitrary immigration decisions both here and in the US reveal the authoritarian impulse behind both Trump and Brexit. I don't think I can overstate just how uneasy it makes me feel to see Labour apparently going along with what seems to me to be a very dark, right wing agenda.
Thanks, Willow.
I think, that's my biggest problem with Labour currently, aside from brexit, or infighting: it's as you said, deciding on what they believe & then working to convince others. Labour had to fight to get elected in the first place, they didn't just magically coalesce around an already overwhelmingly popular cause, but currently their seems to be a reluctance to champion any views that aren't immediately popular (although I suppose, arguably some of Corbyn's views would contradict this).
With immigration, I can see why Burnham & others might want to have the discussion on why there might be a case for possible curbs/restrictions in some areas, but I'd then hope that they'd be arguing in favour of immigration, not just caving in for the easy vote.
At the moment I wouldn't trust this to be the case.

RobertSnozers comments above that you can't argue for the single market because no one wants it, that it's electoral poison. I'd at least like to see that theory put to the test, though. I'd like to see the negatives of leaving explained much, much better than we've seen so far. People who definitely want to leave won't listen and won't be swayed (and are currently helping the Tories ride high in the polls, hence their Copeland victory), but AK maintains there are plenty of voters who don't have strong feelings either way. Why is it assumed the only option people will consider is a hard Brexit? We don't really know how many voters would put curbing immigration above economic security, regardless of what they voted. Ed Miliband started down this road last year, trying to explain the trade off between immigration curbs and market access and suggesting Labour should prioritise market access. I still essentially agree with that. Voters aren't going to get what they want. They can't have their cake and eat it. Does Labour play the game and lead them down the garden path or does it tell the cold, hard truth? Which will voters thank them for in the long run?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 11:32 am

http://dpac.uk.net/2017/02/briefing-mps ... gulations/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Briefing to MPs and Lords on changes to PIP regulations

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 11:33 am

UKIP has done iits job, most of the tory kippers have already switched back to Theresa - decline in the kipper vote is mirrored by the rise in the tory vote i the dreaded polls - its the labour kippers left there now. I actually think that there is a concerted internal effort to break the party apart now brexit has been delivered. Just leave a tiny rump of labour kippers fighting against the reds. I mean Banks standing against carswell is guaranteed to give the seat to the tories.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 11:36 am

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/po ... cial_icons" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Government to repay Hackney man with no legs whose benefits were cut because he ‘could climb stairs with his arms

Post by **adam** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 11:49 am

HindleA wrote:Smart meter tomorrow,compiling a set of questions to check,current one,bless him a bit dim.

Those who write about online security tend to have a view of smart meters that falls somewhere between scathing and finding it impossible not to laugh.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 11:55 am

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ests-leaks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Donald Trump accuses Obama of orchestrating protest against him

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 11:55 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Be vigilant

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks for that, some useful info there. Have seen an increase in this sort of thing lately, so it makes sense that it's orchestrated.

Yes.

Bitterites everywhere.

Plotting.

Scheming.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 11:56 am

And about time too...

TES
‏Verified account @tes

Following
More
Justine Greening about to announce that sex and relationships education is to be made compulsory for all schools, TES understands

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 11:56 am

Are energy firms using new smart meters to stop you switching? A new device must be installed every time you change suppliers
Smart meters need to be turned off if you want to change suppliers
Digital meters are meant to save consumers hundreds on their energy bills
Firms can't read the information sent by smart meters from other providers
Around 50 million homes will be fitted with a smart meter by 2020

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mark ... z4ZypwhfzS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 11:56 am

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... oner-rules" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tunisia beach attack: 30 Britons were unlawfully killed, coroner rules
Inquest rejects argument by victims’ families that neglect by tour operator played part in tragedy

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 12:02 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
The issue is not that no-one wants membership of the single market, or even that a not many people want it - there's clearly a large-ish minority that does.

As we were told beforehand that staying in the single market was an option if we left the EU, and the result was tight, I suspect there is a clear majority in favour of staying n.

But, on this issue, such electoral calculation is beside the point. It is bad for the UK, and will make the poor poorer, to leave the single market. Any responsible party of the left should be opposing the government on this.

As it happens, we are testing to destruction the view that it makes sense for Labour electorally to go down this path. So far, the evidence only points one way

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017 ... -iraq.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But that is a second order consideration. What matters first is: what is the right thing to do?

Labour isn't doing that

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 12:02 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Be vigilant

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks for that, some useful info there. Have seen an increase in this sort of thing lately, so it makes sense that it's orchestrated.

Yes.

Bitterites everywhere.

Plotting.

Scheming.

Every day according to Mandleson.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 12:03 pm

Temulkar wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: Thanks for that, some useful info there. Have seen an increase in this sort of thing lately, so it makes sense that it's orchestrated.

Yes.

Bitterites everywhere.

Plotting.

Scheming.
Every day according to Mandleson.

Quite. Millions of the little rats, undermining the Leader.

We need to hunt down Emmanuel Goldstein and eliminate him.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 12:06 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Willow904 wrote:RobertSnozers comments above that you can't argue for the single market because no one wants it, that it's electoral poison.
I said the latter. I most certainly did not say the former.

The issue is not that no-one wants membership of the single market, or even that a not many people want it - there's clearly a large-ish minority that does. The electoral poison comes in because you'd have to try to sell the position of keeping the parts of the EU that those who wanted out voted to limit (free movement and large payments to be in the club) while losing the things that many remainers wanted (influence, equal partnership, internationalism). You'd end up alienating a large number of people on both sides. To be honest, I fail to see why the single market is such a touchstone for some, or why anyone thought that having voted to leave, we could retain full membership. Despite the manipulatively edited Open Britain video, literally no-one on the leave side was arguing for remaining a member of the single market (they said we'd continue to get the benefits of it, which is not the same thing at all).

Willow904 wrote:I'd at least like to see that theory put to the test, though. I'd like to see the negatives of leaving explained much, much better than we've seen so far. People who definitely want to leave won't listen and won't be swayed (and are currently helping the Tories ride high in the polls, hence their Copeland victory), but AK maintains there are plenty of voters who don't have strong feelings either way. Why is it assumed the only option people will consider is a hard Brexit? We don't really know how many voters would put curbing immigration above economic security, regardless of what they voted. Ed Miliband started down this road last year, trying to explain the trade off between immigration curbs and market access and suggesting Labour should prioritise market access. I still essentially agree with that. Voters aren't going to get what they want. They can't have their cake and eat it. Does Labour play the game and lead them down the garden path or does it tell the cold, hard truth? Which will voters thank them for in the long run?
It's far, far too late to start talking about the negatives of leaving. And now there would be absolutely no credibility to those arguments whatsoever. The leave side may have lied on an industrial scale, but their lies (apart from, arguably, the NHS one, which was discredited during the campaign anyway) have not yet been borne out. On the other hand, the dire predictions of the remain side - instant recession, an emergency budget, apocalypse - have been proven to be very wide of the mark. So coming up with more jeremiads now would be utterly pointless.

I'm simply looking for a party to vote for which is dedicated to as close ties to the EU as possible for all the right reasons, and that will involve having to accept freedom of movement. What you seem to be saying is that Labour can't/won't be that party. Which is why I wonder if I belong in it anymore. The remain side made a lot more points than the clumsy ones made by Cameron and Osborne and they will come to pass unremarked if no one opposes the Tories' hard Brexit. Environmental regulations are already being ignored by the government in preparation for when we leave and they scrap them, something which won't happen if we remain in the single market.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 12:13 pm

Well my usage is the bare minimum,only me to worry about,having working with the blind I am practised in getting around the dark as an example,apart from the occasional backwards somersaults down the stairs and trying to find the toilet in various cupboards etc.I'll keep an eye if it makes any difference.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 12:19 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
Yes.

Bitterites everywhere.

Plotting.

Scheming.
Every day according to Mandleson.
And of course, the very existence of Saving Labour and Labour First is just a story to frighten young Corbynistas into delivering leaflets

Yes, they must be crushed!

Quislings!

They are what is holding us back from Glorious Victory!

If it hadn't been for Labour First we would have increased our majority in Copeland and been well ahead in the polls.

Traitors!

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 12:27 pm

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

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 12:27 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:And about time too...

TES
‏Verified account @tes

Following
More
Justine Greening about to announce that sex and relationships education is to be made compulsory for all schools, TES understands

Yes indeed. Fair play to her for getting it done with Brexit dominating the news. The frothers have something else to froth about.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 12:30 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
Temulkar wrote: Every day according to Mandleson.
Quite. Millions of the little rats, undermining the Leader.

We need to hunt down Emmanuel Goldstein and eliminate him.
You are a thoroughly nasty piece of work Hugo. I thought your invocation of Niemoller was bad, but this is a new low. I suppose we imagined the 4chan crowd who taunted Lily Allen over her miscarriage did we? I suppose organised social media piling-on campaigns are just in our imagination? I suppose concern trolling doesn't exist?

Absolutely.

All Jeremy, John and Seumas are asking for is the undivided loyalty that they gave in the past.

How grossly unfair that they are being undermined in a way that they so signally refused to do in the past.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 12:31 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... river-jobs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Uber v TfL: court hears written English test will cost 33,000 drivers their jobs
Ride-hailing app challenges Transport for London in high court over demand that all minicab drivers pass a written English test to get a licence

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 12:32 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
Temulkar wrote: Every day according to Mandleson.
Quite. Millions of the little rats, undermining the Leader.

We need to hunt down Emmanuel Goldstein and eliminate him.
You are a thoroughly nasty piece of work Hugo. I thought your invocation of Niemoller was bad, but this is a new low. I suppose we imagined the 4chan crowd who taunted Lily Allen over her miscarriage did we? I suppose organised social media piling-on campaigns are just in our imagination? I suppose concern trolling doesn't exist?

TBH Rob, I think Convolvulus is just clumsily referencing the book in an attempt to be witty rather than that, and you know I can barely contain my distaste for him generally.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 12:35 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: Quite. Millions of the little rats, undermining the Leader.

We need to hunt down Emmanuel Goldstein and eliminate him.
You are a thoroughly nasty piece of work Hugo. I thought your invocation of Niemoller was bad, but this is a new low. I suppose we imagined the 4chan crowd who taunted Lily Allen over her miscarriage did we? I suppose organised social media piling-on campaigns are just in our imagination? I suppose concern trolling doesn't exist?

Absolutely.

All Jeremy, John and Seumas are asking for is the undivided loyalty that they gave in the past.

How grossly unfair that they are being undermined in a way that they so signally refused to do in the past.

Ah now you're being a worm wriggling on a hook, you made your statements so stick by them dont try and move the conversation to a completely different point, as if it justified your earlier statement. It does not, and is a well established trolling technique, so if you're not trolling don't do it SH.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 12:36 pm

Relaunch imminent, as Seumas gets a grip on things

http://www.politico.eu/article/court-of ... left-wing/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 12:37 pm

"Internationalist" Corbyn wants no part of NATO or, as far as I can tell. He'll chuck the Single Market away so he can compete with Trump on steel tariffs. And a dollop of the anti-imperialism of fools.

ScarletGas · Post by **ScarletGas** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 12:37 pm

Ellie Price @EllieJPrice
Nigel Farage says Douglas Carswell needs to finally be expelled but that he's not involved and it's not up to him.
11:32 AM - 28 Feb 2017

Yeah right! Posh boy insults Posh boy by calling him a Posh boy. Laughable.