Thursday 18th May 2017

[AnatolyKasparov]

I agree with not being nice to fascists, Tem.

But however wrong headed they can be, SH is not a fascist. Nor are the other Corbyn(ism) critics on this board.

Pretending otherwise does us no favours.

[Temulkar]

I agree with not being nice to fascists, Tem.

But however wrong headed they can be, SH is not a fascist. Nor are the other Corbyn(ism) critics on this board.

Pretending otherwise does us no favours.

Casting phrases like genocide denial at Chomsky? That's just bullshit. And it has sod all to do with corbyn, it has to do with morality, and right and wrong. Much like the crowing for Labour rebels who refused to vote against selling weapons to Saudi that we had to endure on here. It is just wrong; it's sick. If it isn't fascism what is it?

And I hasten to add its not every corbyn critic who behaves like this on here.

[AnatolyKasparov]

I would certainly not use such language about Chomsky personally, but there is some of his stuff that I am not happy with.

[Temulkar]

I would certainly not use such language about Chomsky personally, but there is some of his stuff that I am not happy with.

I don't deny that, Chomsky isn't a sacred cow for me anymore than Corbyn is, but I am as angry about the co-option of genocide as I was about Yemen.

It really is about right and wrong.

[tinyclanger2]

more treats (as Alan Bennett might have put it) some shouting.

[tinyclanger2]

anyway:

As positions have hardened on the continent, with estimates of the size of the bill now reaching as much as €100bn, Juncker noted that Theresa May appeared to be softening up the British public for failure to strike a deal.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... negotiator" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

isn't she (as Brucie might put it) doing well.

[tinyclanger2]

About time:

Latest fine highlights how tech giants no longer seen as constructive but also destructive and obstructive, be it on tax, privacy or competition law
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... o-facebook" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tinyclanger2]

The Scottish Labour leader, Kezia Dugdale, has suspended every Labour councillor in Aberdeen after they ignored orders to abandon a power-sharing deal with the Conservatives.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ith-tories" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tinyclanger2]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 42791.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thousands more Britons will be barred from bringing their foreign husbands and wives to the UK, under plans in the Conservative manifesto.
The next Tory government would hike the minimum income requirement already attacked as “particularly harsh” by Supreme Court justices.

DUK essentially inhumane.

[NonOxCol]

And just by the by, they're dumping Leveson 2.

To the surprise of no-one here I suspect, seeing as she's basically nothing more than Dacre's avatar.

[Eric_WLothian]

The Scottish Labour leader, Kezia Dugdale, has suspended every Labour councillor in Aberdeen after they ignored orders to abandon a power-sharing deal with the Conservatives.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ith-tories" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

West Lothian councillors have taken the hint

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/g ... -1-4449874" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tinyclanger2]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 42666.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Conservatives are to stop people from voting if they don't own a passport or a driving licence.
The plans to force people to show ID when they vote could stop millions of people from taking part in future elections.
The law would stop an estimated 3.5 million people, or 7.5 per cent of the electorate, from voting, according to the Electoral Commission. Those people would be stopped from voting entirely.

Worse than scum. And yet in we vote them, time after time after sodding time.

[tinyclanger2]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[tinyclanger2]

Mr Steel:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the ... 43311.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
As the Prime Minister points out, if Labour takes money from someone else and spends it on you, that must make you worse off

Labour could propose a tax on private zoos, and the Conservatives would say “The people this will hurt most is the ordinary working-class pensioner private zoo-owner, who has a little nest egg from coins saved in a jar, that added up to thirty-five million quid so they bought some pandas and a herd of rhinos for their retirement. And now that little pleasure will be robbed from them by the grasping hands of Labour.”

[tinyclanger2]

Similarly the Tories can announce: “YOU will be crippled by Labour’s plans to end rail privatisation, because although you’re a rail passenger, you have the aspiration to become the CEO of a major rail franchise that robs the country of millions of pounds a day. So the last thing you want is an efficient transport system to wreck your hopes and dreams.”

[PorFavor]

20:43

Here is the BBC’s Philip Sim on the CCHQ Twitter output. See 8.16am. He has a point ...

Philip Sim (@BBCPhilipSim)

Have to feel that tweeting along with the #ITVdebate when you've refused to take part in it looks just a little bit daft... https://t.co/3ooQNL97xp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
May 18, 2017

(Politics Live, Guardian)

Edited to add - I think that should say (above) 8.16pm?

[Eric_WLothian]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 42666.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Conservatives are to stop people from voting if they don't own a passport or a driving licence.
The plans to force people to show ID when they vote could stop millions of people from taking part in future elections.
The law would stop an estimated 3.5 million people, or 7.5 per cent of the electorate, from voting, according to the Electoral Commission. Those people would be stopped from voting entirely.

Worse than scum. And yet in we vote them, time after time after sodding time.

Pete Seeger (around 1960):

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?

I learned our government must be strong.
It's always right and never wrong.
Our leaders are the finest men
And we elect them again and again.

That's what I learned in school today.
That's what I learned in school.

[gilsey]

Annoyed today by widespread comments on May's 'death tax' being the same as Labour's, it's nothing of the kind, lazy journalism.

take the announcement today that the elderly will have to pay more for their care. The idea is that people will have to pay care costs – whether they’re receiving care at home or living in a nursing home – until their assets are below £100,000. This takes the value of their house into account, which means about one in ten people with care needs will be paying more. The government will wait until they die before they have to provide this money.

This is very similar to Labour politician Andy Burnham’s policy proposal when he was health secretary in Gordon Brown’s government. He proposed funding social care by taxing people’s estates when they die – almost identical to May’s announcement today.

Almost identical?! She can't tell the difference between taxing everyone's estate 10 or 20%, and taking all but £100k from those unfortunate enough to need expensive care for a long time?

Quote from this piece, which should have been a good read.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/ju ... s-policies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[gilsey]

Farron says he has a long-term economic plan. It is called staying in the single market.

I wish he'd just go away, it doesn't help at all.

[PorFavor]

Annoyed today by widespread comments on May's 'death tax' being the same as Labour's, it's nothing of the kind, lazy journalism.

take the announcement today that the elderly will have to pay more for their care. The idea is that people will have to pay care costs – whether they’re receiving care at home or living in a nursing home – until their assets are below £100,000. This takes the value of their house into account, which means about one in ten people with care needs will be paying more. The government will wait until they die before they have to provide this money.

This is very similar to Labour politician Andy Burnham’s policy proposal when he was health secretary in Gordon Brown’s government. He proposed funding social care by taxing people’s estates when they die – almost identical to May’s announcement today.

Almost identical?! She can't tell the difference between taxing everyone's estate 10 or 20%, and taking all but £100k from those unfortunate enough to need expensive care for a long time?

Quote from this piece, which should have been a good read.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/ju ... s-policies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes - I think there was a bit from Andy Burnham (on today's Politics Live, Guardian) rebutting this.

[PorFavor]

Andrew Clark (@clarkaw)

Tim Farron beginning to sound like Farage in a strange way. Whatever the question, his answer is about Europe. #ITVDebate
May 18, 2017

(Politics Live, Guardian)

I'm not watching it - but I'm dipping in and out of the Guardian coverage which is quite amusing (or at least the "Tweets" are).

Jeremy Corbyn seems to have made a wise decision to give it a swerve.

[PorFavor]

I wonder if SpinningHugo is still loitering within tent. It's absolutely peeing it down here. Maybe he's found a pub.

And - has anyone heard from HindleA who's not been around of late?

[TechnicalEphemera]

I notice there's a distinct lack of regular posters commenting on the Tories manifesto that regularly criticise the Labour shadow cabinet. Why is that?

I'm trying to find a way to put this that isn't critical, because it's not a criticism of you at all,so please bear with me.

If you are referring to the way SpinningHugo has so conveniently opted out just as the Tory manifesto has come along, I wish you'd just say so, it's a fair observation and I see no need to be subtle about it.

The bit that troubles me is the "regular posters" plural. SH chose the name SpinningHugo, presumably for a reason and we know they were banned from the Guardian. As such, I have little time for them and don't care about direct criticisms of them, but when anonymous references are made to "posters" plural, those criticisms are then being aimed at other people also, possibly implying suspicion of their genuineness in a way I'm not sure is justified in the way it is with SH, who has substantiated facts against them.

I'm sure you don't mean to criticise genuine posters, it's just hard to tell which posters you do mean, unless you are specific. You are not normally a poster I associate with these oblique generalised criticisms so this response being to you is a little unfair, I know, but I'm just trying to explain how such a comment could come across. If I hadn't posted already this morning, I may have read your comment and started wondering if you meant me, among others, because I often criticise Corbyn. So I guess what I'm saying is can people just be a bit more specific? If you think SH is avoiding commenting on the Tory manifesto why not make it clear you are talking about SH. Other posters often don't post until the afternoon so haven't been given a chance yet.

I hope you understand my reasoning for picking up on this. I just think it would be better for the board if there were less generalised, anonymous criticisms of unnamed posters and more direct discussion/disagreements on specific points between active participating posters, if you see what I mean.

Fair enough Willow, taken on board.

Pk1, TE and SH can you please let me know what you think of the Conservatives manifesto?

Oddly I am quite busy holding down a full time job and a host of other activities in my spare time. So there is nothing sinister about my absence.

In general I think the Tory manifesto is an absolute bag of shite. It is exactly what I expect from a party of shysters who are on the verge of creating a one party semi authoritarian state for the sole purpose of enriching their rich donors. Grammar schools, voter Id (with no ID cards!) fracking, hard brexit and screw the economy, they can simply fuck off in my book.

The only Tory policies I am moderately relaxed about is social care and abandoning the triple lock. Yes I would prefer Dilnot's proposals because a tax on everybody is better than a tax on the sick, but it is effectively using a form of inheritance tax to pay for care. The current situation where young people pay taxes to pay for care so old people get to pass on their assets to family makes no sense. Similarly the triple lock has isolated the Brexit voting class from austerity and has seen them overtake working people in terms of wealth, it is unsustainable, a double lock is still better than young people get.

I have no idea why the Corbynistas here think I am a Tory, and I frankly don't care.

The reason I am so furious with Corbyn and his band of incompetent self indulgent safe seat holding, far left personal enriching MPs is because they have guaranteed a shit Tory government with the biggest majority in my life. Far worse even than the fucking awful Thatcher years 83-90.

An eternity of Tory governments won't effect them and despite their utter failure, they will try and hang on so as to keep getting media interviews and fat paychecks for another 5 years, before gifting us an even bigger Tory majority in 2021.

[TechnicalEphemera]

I agree with not being nice to fascists, Tem.

But however wrong headed they can be, SH is not a fascist. Nor are the other Corbyn(ism) critics on this board.

Pretending otherwise does us no favours.

Casting phrases like genocide denial at Chomsky? That's just bullshit. And it has sod all to do with corbyn, it has to do with morality, and right and wrong. Much like the crowing for Labour rebels who refused to vote against selling weapons to Saudi that we had to endure on here. It is just wrong; it's sick. If it isn't fascism what is it?

And I hasten to add its not every corbyn critic who behaves like this on here.

Can I just point out the accusations against Chomsky were in large part given voice by Monbiot. I think he has a significant case to answer.

http://www.monbiot.com/2012/05/21/genoc ... sessments/


Chomsky has nothing to do with Corbyn.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Meanwhile away from the UK election, the EU starts a process that will one day see London eclipsed as the major financial centre in Europe.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 42051.html

[Temulkar]

And those academics have valid arguments that I agree with on Srerbenecia, but also that time has exposed more of the atrocities by the RPF which H+P claimed - leading to Kagame's strongman being arrested in heathrow last year - both which I pointed out two days ago. It is an academic thesis, and a very valid one at that, elements have been proven wrong elements have been proven correct. Where it fails is in its focus, and exclusion, which is exactly what H+P accuse the other scholars of and visa versa - the problem on that score is that both sides are correct.

Chomsky makes it as well, 'There’s no “implicit endorsement.” I made no reference to their claims about these or other matters, but kept to their main thesis, which is extremely important and not understood at all. It would, in my opinion, have been totally inappropriate to comment on these or many other claims in the book.'

It was the point I made when this bullshit first vomited forth: if genocide has a universal definition it must be applied universally. Now, what in that thesis do you disagree with and why? And what in agreeing with that thesis makes Chomsky or me or anyone genocide deniers?

[seeingclearly]

I suspect that Brexit strikes again, and is the enabler of the Tories in spite of every rabblerousing SNP activists hot denial that Scottish politics does not affect England. The single biggest factor likely to warp results/polls/etc. this time round seems to be the almost even split in Scotland between SNP/Cons. Now why would that be? I am guessing that anyone interested in staying in or close to europe will go with SNP, but brexiteers will vote Cons. Well I cannot see any other reason why they would, even though I can see plenty why they would not vote Labour.

So with a single region where Labour only gets 9% predicted vote share, how does this affect the rest of us? If I were Labour I would want to devastate the Tories in Scotland. Anyone got any ideas (other that getting May to do her robotic bit as often as possible)?

I always thought it was untrue that Scottish intentions did not affect the rest of us even though Nicki Fishy swore that was the case. (It might have been true if they actually were independent, but they are not.)

[Temulkar]

I suspect that Brexit strikes again, and is the enabler of the Tories in spite of every rabblerousing SNP activists hot denial that Scottish politics does not affect England. The single biggest factor likely to warp results/polls/etc. this time round seems to be the almost even split in Scotland between SNP/Cons. Now why would that be? I am guessing that anyone interested in staying in or close to europe will go with SNP, but brexiteers will vote Cons. Well I cannot see any other reason why they would, even though I can see plenty why they would not vote Labour.

So with a single region where Labour only gets 9% predicted vote share, how does this affect the rest of us? If I were Labour I would want to devastate the Tories in Scotland. Anyone got any ideas (other that getting May to do her robotic bit as often as possible)?

I always thought it was untrue that Scottish intentions did not affect the rest of us even though Nicki Fishy swore that was the case. (It might have been true if they actually were independent, but they are not.)

I think Scotland is on its way out of the union, If I'm honest. NI at some point as well. I don't see any way to stop it, sadly. Every day I curse Cameron for all this.