Tuesday 16th May 2017

[howsillyofme1]

When I read stuff like the comments on this Twitter feed, I start to worry that 200 seats is wildly over-optimistic. What the hell is wrong with people?

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

As I said....voters have to be accountable for their beliefs and their actions......whinging 'but I don't like that Corbyn bloke' and voting Tory and posting some of the things I have read suggest there are more deep-seated problems with British society

[TechnicalEphemera]

Len being helpful

http://www.politico.eu/article/len-mccl ... -2017/amp/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Realistic, really. Minimising losses to under 50 is the best I'm hoping for myself. Mind you, people keep saying how Kinnock got another chance, but he did win seats. No one would argue about Corbyn staying on if he managed that, I wouldn't have thought.

200 would it is claimed be the worst result since 1935. Certainly 9 worse than 1983.

But yes If Corbyn won seats and denied May a majority, or came close to it, then everybody needs to reassess because all polls and election results are massively wrong.

As it is, spread betting and polls say 150-160 ish, which could put Labour back to a level last seen in the 1920s.

[SpinningHugo]

Len being helpful

http://www.politico.eu/article/len-mccl ... -2017/amp/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Realistic, really. Minimising losses to under 50 is the best I'm hoping for myself. Mind you, people keep saying how Kinnock got another chance, but he did win seats. No one would argue about Corbyn staying on if he managed that, I wouldn't have thought.

Yes he isn't going to do that.
He'll make his case based on vote share, which is a bit like a football manager saying ignore the goals, look at the possession stats.

[SpinningHugo]

Len being helpful

http://www.politico.eu/article/len-mccl ... -2017/amp/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Realistic, really. Minimising losses to under 50 is the best I'm hoping for myself. Mind you, people keep saying how Kinnock got another chance, but he did win seats. No one would argue about Corbyn staying on if he managed that, I wouldn't have thought.

200 would it is claimed be the worst result since 1935. Certainly 9 worse than 1983.

But yes If Corbyn won seats and denied May a majority, or came close to it, then everybody needs to reassess because all polls and election results are massively wrong.

As it is, spread betting and polls say 150-160 ish, which could put Labour back to a level last seen in the 1920s.

Even Corbyn ought to beat JR Clynes.

[TechnicalEphemera]

When I read stuff like the comments on this Twitter feed, I start to worry that 200 seats is wildly over-optimistic. What the hell is wrong with people?

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

That is because 200 seats is wildly optimistic. Labour aren't on course to get anywhere close to that.

People don't like what is on the menu, and they particularly dislike the current owner of the establishment. They are going elsewhere. Democracy is about identifying a platform most people will vote for and offering it with a leader that most people like and trust (at least a little) Labour have failed to do that, there is a price to be paid.

In fact elements of the manifesto are popular but the whole is massively less than the sum of its parts.

[howsillyofme1]

Len being helpful

http://www.politico.eu/article/len-mccl ... -2017/amp/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Realistic, really. Minimising losses to under 50 is the best I'm hoping for myself. Mind you, people keep saying how Kinnock got another chance, but he did win seats. No one would argue about Corbyn staying on if he managed that, I wouldn't have thought.

Yes he isn't going to do that.
He'll make his case based on vote share, which is a bit like a football manager saying ignore the goals, look at the possession stats.

shit analogy

unfortunately we have a poor electoral system....of course seats are the deciding factor but votes do as well......that is what individuals cast.

You can choose who you vote for, you cannot (usually) choose the seat in which it is cast

If 32-33% of people vote Labour it will be the highest vote percentage since 2005 - not far off that number either

The fact that some of those in marginals in places like the West Midlands have decided to go Tory is something we have to live with.

To be honest if the vote for this Tory Government and this Prime Minister then they are probably selfish wankers or ignorant.

I am from there and know some of these people - and I stand by my description of most of them.......

We will see when the results come in as to whether the swing to the Tories (as assumed) is Labour -> Tory or UKIP -> Tory

[howsillyofme1]

If we have to serve a menu that the despicable apologies for human beings on that twitter feed want to eat from then I am quite glad we aren't giving them what they want

If the choose the Tory offer over Labour - which they have the right to as electors - then the only response would be to go and offer them something similar to whet their appetite

So a tough line on immigration, the hardest of Brexit whilst insulting the negotiating partners, continued cuts to services, continued cuts to the NHS in particular, improved 'security' - whatever the fuck that means (usually bombing somebody in the Middle east) and tax cuts for the rich

That is what is on offer from the Tories!

If they actually choose to eat shit food because they don't like the owner of the restaurant then, again that is their choice, but don't come complaining when it makes you ill!

[SpinningHugo]

One way in which the manifesto is a triumph for Corbyn is that it has closed off the ability for Labour to go back.

So, there won't be any convincing people that Labour isn't the party of tax and spend for a generation.

You couldn't use Labour as a vehicle for a New Labour agenda any longer: it would lack all credibility

Regardless of what happens, Corbyn has won.

[SpinningHugo]

One way in which the manifesto is a triumph for Corbyn is that it has closed off the ability for Labour to go back.

So, there won't be any convincing people that Labour isn't the party of tax and spend for a generation.

You couldn't use Labour as a vehicle for a New Labour agenda any longer: it would lack all credibility

Regardless of what happens, Corbyn has won.

It was only five years from 'Labour's Tax Bombshell!' to 'New Labour, New Danger'.

Anyway, all parties tax and spend. The slogan is meaningless. The difference is on whether you can be proud of what you spend it on.

The 92 manifesto was much more conservative than this one. I'd have to go back and look at 87, which I remember much less vividly than 83 (which I *really* believed in.)

[SpinningHugo]

People don't like what is on the menu, and they particularly dislike the current owner of the establishment. They are going elsewhere. Democracy is about identifying a platform most people will vote for and offering it with a leader that most people like and trust (at least a little) Labour have failed to do that, there is a price to be paid.

In fact elements of the manifesto are popular but the whole is massively less than the sum of its parts.

More than elements http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 31536.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

People didn't like or trust Ed Miliband, not enough. Or Gordon Brown. Or Neil Kinnock. Labour's problem is that while the ownership and regulation of the media is as it is, they will not get a hearing and their leader will be trashed. This is not unique to Corbyn.

Serious question, how do you think we should regulate the media to achieve this? We could insist on diversification, but Murdoch doesn't own that much.

[howsillyofme1]

And some parties tax and cut but manage to find some money down the back of the sofa for their well paid mates!

[howsillyofme1]

People don't like what is on the menu, and they particularly dislike the current owner of the establishment. They are going elsewhere. Democracy is about identifying a platform most people will vote for and offering it with a leader that most people like and trust (at least a little) Labour have failed to do that, there is a price to be paid.

In fact elements of the manifesto are popular but the whole is massively less than the sum of its parts.

More than elements http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 31536.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

People didn't like or trust Ed Miliband, not enough. Or Gordon Brown. Or Neil Kinnock. Labour's problem is that while the ownership and regulation of the media is as it is, they will not get a hearing and their leader will be trashed. This is not unique to Corbyn.

Serious question, how do you think we should regulate the media to achieve this? We could insist on diversification, but Murdoch doesn't own that much.

No ownership by non-residents of the UK (perhaps even foreign nationals- Brexit would possibly allow this)

Nobody can own above X% of the printed media

Nobody can own above Y% of the total print and broadcast media

Independent regulator with teeth to ensure untruths are dealt with appropriately

Would have to be updated to include other forms of media too


That would do for:

NewUK (wholly owned subsiduary of News Corp
Daily Mail owned by non-resident Harmsworth through DMG media
Telegraph (non resident Barclays)

seems a good start!

[SpinningHugo]

Thornberry on channel 4

https://www.channel4.com/news/programme ... 05/16/1900" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SpinningHugo]

People don't like what is on the menu, and they particularly dislike the current owner of the establishment. They are going elsewhere. Democracy is about identifying a platform most people will vote for and offering it with a leader that most people like and trust (at least a little) Labour have failed to do that, there is a price to be paid.

In fact elements of the manifesto are popular but the whole is massively less than the sum of its parts.

More than elements http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 31536.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

People didn't like or trust Ed Miliband, not enough. Or Gordon Brown. Or Neil Kinnock. Labour's problem is that while the ownership and regulation of the media is as it is, they will not get a hearing and their leader will be trashed. This is not unique to Corbyn.

Serious question, how do you think we should regulate the media to achieve this? We could insist on diversification, but Murdoch doesn't own that much.

No ownership by non-residents of the UK (perhaps even foreign nationals- Brexit would possibly allow this)

Nobody can own above X% of the printed media

Nobody can own above Y% of the total print and broadcast media

Independent regulator with teeth to ensure untruths are dealt with appropriately

Would have to be updated to include other forms of media too


That would do for:

NewUK (wholly owned subsiduary of News Corp
Daily Mail owned by non-resident Harmsworth through DMG media
Telegraph (non resident Barclays)

seems a good start![/quote]

I don't think any of the ownership things work make a scrap of difference.

I'm interested in this regulator though. How do you envisage that working. Fines?

TBH, seems daft to me.

[tinyclanger2]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... avoid-jail" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
An Oxford University student who stabbed her boyfriend with a bread knife .... She admitted unlawfully wounding the Cambridge University student, who she met on the dating app Tinder....Judge Ian Pringle QC, sitting at Oxford crown court, .... hinting that Woodward will not be jailed because of her talent. “It seems to me that if this was a one-off, a complete one-off, to prevent this extraordinary able young lady from not following her long-held desire to enter the profession she wishes to would be a sentence which would be too severe,” he said.

as opposed to:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/aug ... orts-freed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ursula Nevin slept through riots in Manchester but was jailed after accepting a pair of shorts looted by a friend

[howsillyofme1]

Thornberry on channel 4

https://www.channel4.com/news/programme ... 05/16/1900" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and your point is?

It is always the case when you give details based on assumptions and predictions that people can try to pin you down on things - it is an easy task

The assumption is growth will be X%, the question is what if it isn't?

The assumption is Brexit will have this effect, what if it has a bigger effect?

Infaltion is assumed to be this, what if it is greater?

Interest rates are assumed to be this, what if they are higher?


The Labour Party have put out their manifesto in more detail on the spending and funding plans than have been seen for a long time

Let us see what the Tories plans are - perhaps ee could look at their predictions from the 2015 manifesto on their website....oh now we can't can we because the took it off after they broke all their commitments, had some blocked (would that be by the useless opposition?) and completely blew everything away by managing to lose their own referendum

Knock Labour if you wish, and they should be challenged on the figures, but let us see whst the Tory 'menu' contains before you cotinue your snidey attacks on the party you keep pretending you support

[SpinningHugo]

Thornberry on channel 4

https://www.channel4.com/news/programme ... 05/16/1900" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and your point is?

It is always the case when you give details based on assumptions and predictions that people can try to pin you down on things - it is an easy task

The assumption is growth will be X%, the question is what if it isn't?

The assumption is Brexit will have this effect, what if it has a bigger effect?

Infaltion is assumed to be this, what if it is greater?

Interest rates are assumed to be this, what if they are higher?


The Labour Party have put out their manifesto in more detail on the spending and funding plans than have been seen for a long time

Let us see what the Tories plans are - perhaps ee could look at their predictions from the 2015 manifesto on their website....oh now we can't can we because the took it off after they broke all their commitments, had some blocked (would that be by the useless opposition?) and completely blew everything away by managing to lose their own referendum

Knock Labour if you wish, and they should be challenged on the figures, but let us see whst the Tory 'menu' contains before you cotinue your snidey attacks on the party you keep pretending you support

I don't think that is fair on Miliband and Balls. Their figures really were fully costed. The current ones aren't: see the IFS.

[Willow904]

We have neither left the EU or the single market as yet. It's perfectly possible to remain. Unlikely perhaps. Unpopular perhaps. But if only the likely and popular are allowed, all the parties would be offering the same - hard Brexit. Is that democracy? Why can't alternatives be offered?

The point is, it's not going to happen. How can it? The LibDems have gone back to promising whatever they like knowing they'll never have to deliver.

There are alternatives being offered, anyway. If nothing else the Tories are still pushing that no deal is possible, and Labour is promising that they won't walk away without one. Labour's position is distinct and a lot softer than the Tory approach.

I'm not disagreeing that the Libdems have little chance of forming a government, but why does that make their fighting Brexit "cynical"? By your definition they're being cynical for offering any policies at all. I know people were let down over tuition fees, I know that makes it harder for them to convince people they are genuine, but my point is that the Libdems have always been very pro-EU. If they were previously Eurosceptic and switched because they thought there was votes in it......well, that's what May did in reverse and that is cynical - but Farron hoping a long standing Libdem pro-EU stance may prove popular with remain voters is cynical? Really?

[howsillyofme1]

Thornberry on channel 4

https://www.channel4.com/news/programme ... 05/16/1900" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and your point is?

It is always the case when you give details based on assumptions and predictions that people can try to pin you down on things - it is an easy task

The assumption is growth will be X%, the question is what if it isn't?

The assumption is Brexit will have this effect, what if it has a bigger effect?

Infaltion is assumed to be this, what if it is greater?

Interest rates are assumed to be this, what if they are higher?


The Labour Party have put out their manifesto in more detail on the spending and funding plans than have been seen for a long time

Let us see what the Tories plans are - perhaps ee could look at their predictions from the 2015 manifesto on their website....oh now we can't can we because the took it off after they broke all their commitments, had some blocked (would that be by the useless opposition?) and completely blew everything away by managing to lose their own referendum

Knock Labour if you wish, and they should be challenged on the figures, but let us see whst the Tory 'menu' contains before you cotinue your snidey attacks on the party you keep pretending you support

[tinyclanger2]

@George_Osborne
Today's @EveningStandard take on the Labour Manifesto - and the first look at the new M&S collection

He's like a new Shakespeare

[tinyclanger2]

The Donaeld:

Donaeld The Unready‏ @donaeldunready 4h4 hours ago
Kinging difficult enough without folc bringing Intelligence into it.

[citizenJA]

THE LABOUR PARTY MANIFESTO 2017

http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017

That's a real pretty piece of work, pagination gorgeous, works real well on a mobile device

[howsillyofme1]

Not wanting to criticise Miliband - I was a fan but the IFS seemed to indicate it wasn't quite as you said with such confidence


https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7726" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tinyclanger2]

Evening Mr Snozers

[Willow904]

I'm not disagreeing that the Libdems have little chance of forming a government, but why does that make their fighting Brexit "cynical"? By your definition they're being cynical for offering any policies at all. I know people were let down over tuition fees, I know that makes it harder for them to convince people they are genuine, but my point is that the Libdems have always been very pro-EU. If they were previously Eurosceptic and switched because they thought there was votes in it......well, that's what May did in reverse and that is cynical - but Farron hoping a long standing Libdem pro-EU stance may prove popular with remain voters is cynical? Really?

There's a difference between accepting the reality that they would be unlikely to be in government and proposing policies they'd never be able to implement even if they were.

Of course the Libdems could prevent Brexit or keep us in the single market if people voted them into government to do so. I'm really not following what you're trying to say tbh.

[HindleA]

17 Years Since Cats


https://markneary1dotcom1.wordpress.com ... ince-cats/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SpinningHugo]

Burgon.

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-h ... march-2017" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Press release
UK House Price Index (HPI) for March 2017


https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... n-apr-2017" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Official Statistics
Index of private housing rental prices (IPHRP) in Great Britain: Apr 2017

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... up-to-2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Official Statistics
Population trends of UK bat species up to 2016

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... n-apr-2017" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


National Statistics
UK consumer price inflation: Apr 2017

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... o-mar-2017" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


National Statistics
UK services producer price indices: Jan to March 2017


https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... o-mar-2017" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Official Statistics
Construction output price indices (OPIs): UK, Jan to Mar 2017

[AFinch]

One way in which the manifesto is a triumph for Corbyn is that it has closed off the ability for Labour to go back.

So, there won't be any convincing people that Labour isn't the party of tax and spend for a generation.

You couldn't use Labour as a vehicle for a New Labour agenda any longer: it would lack all credibility

Regardless of what happens, Corbyn has won.

Don't you mean for the members who voted for him and the direction he wanted to take the party? It's not about Corbyn.

What it also means is that Labour must now continue to build support and make a convincing case for these values. And that in the face of the, generally admitted, shameless bias and passivity of our media. It was always going to be hard. Kinnock's double failure should have taught us that.

By the way, I been 'lurking' for years on this forum and the assumptions you (appear to?) make about human nature appal me. They are also the root of your own woes, IMO. You may be left wing but only just, if at all.

[SpinningHugo]

One way in which the manifesto is a triumph for Corbyn is that it has closed off the ability for Labour to go back.

So, there won't be any convincing people that Labour isn't the party of tax and spend for a generation.

You couldn't use Labour as a vehicle for a New Labour agenda any longer: it would lack all credibility

Regardless of what happens, Corbyn has won.

Don't you mean for the members who voted for him and the direction he wanted to take the party? It's not about Corbyn.

What it also means is that Labour must now continue to build support and make a convincing case for these values. And that in the face of the, generally admitted, shameless bias and passivity of our media. It was always going to be hard. Kinnock's double failure should have taught us that.

By the way, I been 'lurking' for years on this forum and the assumptions you (appear to?) make about human nature appal me. They are also the root of your own woes, IMO. You may be left wing but only just, if at all.

What woes?

I am a jolly cheery chap.

[SpinningHugo]

You know these £gotcha" numbers questions that have been asked of McDonnell, Thornberry and now Burgon today. Journos never tried these with Brown and Balls.

Have a guess why not?

(Clue: not because the MSM used to be pro-Labour).

[HindleA]

@AFinch

[youtube]KfymmFs1kJg[/youtube]

[TechnicalEphemera]

@George_Osborne
Today's @EveningStandard take on the Labour Manifesto - and the first look at the new M&S collection

He's like a new Shakespeare

Genius. Best one liner of the day.

[citizenJA]

@AFinch
Welcome

[citizenJA]

Goodnight, everyone
love,
cJA

[TechnicalEphemera]

You know these £gotcha" numbers questions that have been asked of McDonnell, Thornberry and now Burgon today. Journos never tried these with Brown and Balls.

Have a guess why not?

(Clue: not because the MSM used to be pro-Labour).

To be fair Burgon is thick, asking him the time of day is going to seriously tax him.

The manifesto is really a program for feel good opposition, it doesn't have to stack up because nobody is really worried about Labour winning. In those circumstances, faced with any sort of questioning even Einstein is going to struggle.

It does at least show there are alternatives if you choose to go there. It can be used to attack May on that basis.

It is annoying though that they have succumbed so badly to shambolic amateurism. It looked decent but chucking in the water thing at the back end is just stupid, sort of the uncosted shit load of bricks that caused the whole thing to collapse.

They have also fallen into the trap of wanting to massively raise tax but not asking people to pay more, except for the top 5% (who clearly can't pay for it all). The corporation tax won't raise what they expect and people will read between the lines and work out taxes will be raised for middle income earners as well. Having no figures to quantify this they will probably assume the worst.

Also that 73% tax band looks bad from a PR perspective, they could have fixed that at relatively little cost and shown fairness.

I am not sure though this matters beyond 2017, and it probably doesn't really matter now. There may not be a viable Labour Party in 2022, and if there is the post Brexit economy will be completely different, and possibly completely broken.

Labour's one hope is a competent center left leader emerges and benefits when May collapses the economy with her car crash Brexit. Right now only the car crash Brexit seems likely.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Goodnight, everyone
love,
cJA

[HindleA]

Good night cja



PF :night night

Night PF.

[HindleA]

[youtube]M90BHwNXn-0[/youtube]

[HindleA]

[youtube]b9434BoGkNQ[/youtube]