FlyTheNest

Morning all.

Good morfternoon.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... ee-lunches" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The celebrity chef and healthy eating campaigner, Jamie Oliver, has attacked the Conservatives over their plans to end free lunches for some of the youngest primary school children.

I didn't necessarily think it was the best policy when the Libdems first came out with it, primarily because there wasn't the funding to do it properly and was only aimed at infant children, which felt more like an eye-catching gesture than a proper, substantive policy.

However......now they've spent all that money putting kitchens back into many infant schools that no longer had them, in order to deliver the policy, it seems pretty wasteful to ditch the idea so soon. Even so, the bit which really puzzles me is this idea of giving all children a breakfast instead. If schools don't currently run a breakfast club, this is simply a different expense to grapple with, one which could be pointless, if next to no children appear for breakfast. At least with free lunches you have a captive audience for healthier eating initiatives.

Typical tory manifesto, unravels in record time when you start looking in to it.

I can't see how the 'dementia tax' could work? If you have to get the money with an equity release plan, there's no way I can see that you can draw the £100k line, because the plan charges will continue until it's repaid after death, even if the council's picking up the actual care costs. Or is the plan that the taxpayer will have to pay the charges as well? Lovely.

Those outrageous Tory internet proposals - though they are, again, totally unworkable - are potentially something a number of younger voters could be mobilised against.

Two and a bit days to get people registered......

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Those outrageous Tory internet proposals - though they are, again, totally unworkable - are potentially something a number of younger voters could be mobilised against.

Two and a bit days to get people registered......

Yes.

It's impossible to imagine Osborne agreeing to a manifesto like this, isn't it. How to piss off your natural supporters and motivate the young to vote, in one easy lesson.

gilsey wrote:Typical tory manifesto, unravels in record time when you start looking in to it.

I can't see how the 'dementia tax' could work? If you have to get the money with an equity release plan, there's no way I can see that you can draw the £100k line, because the plan charges will continue until it's repaid after death, even if the council's picking up the actual care costs. Or is the plan that the taxpayer will have to pay the charges as well? Lovely.

I made a similar point btl at the G and had a response that suggested the council would put a charging order on the house, which sounds like aggressive debt recovery to me, rather than a sensible plan to fund elderly social care. They said it's already done now, presumably when someone going into residential care has a partner still living at home. Although I'm pretty certain it doesn't happen in all council areas. There was a case of an MP whose mother-in-law gave him and his wife her house and she didn't then have to pay for residential care and apparently that was fine. This new policy is simply going to extend the random unfairness of it all to people needing care at home.

gilsey wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Those outrageous Tory internet proposals - though they are, again, totally unworkable - are potentially something a number of younger voters could be mobilised against.

Two and a bit days to get people registered......

Yes.

It's impossible to imagine Osborne agreeing to a manifesto like this, isn't it. How to piss off your natural supporters and motivate the young to vote, in one easy lesson.

Which tells you quite a lot.

The Tory policies towards the elderly, two of the three I agree with for the reasons given by Balls (even the social care proposals, which I don't support, are better than asking 25 year olds to pay higher taxes to protect the inheritance wealth of others)

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... pensioners" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

could only be put forward by a party sure in the knowledge it was going to win. Abandoning the triple lock, a cripplingly expensive and generationally unjust commitment, needs to be done asap, but is political poison.

May is trading political space for votes. Populism this is not.

Not, in a way, that any of it matters. Brexit means hard times are coming for the UK. Nobody seems to care about the Elephant in the room shitting on the carpet, and instead we argue about wallpaper colour.

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

Labour's 2015 election result is no yardstick for success, says Starmer
Shadow Brexit secretary says it would not be enough to top Miliband’s 30.4% of vote if Tories significantly increase majority

I prefer Starmer's straightforward matter-of-factness to the usual politician's spin, but I don't think he's going to win over any Corbyn fans with this interview, where he lays out the reality Labour are potentially facing pretty starkly.

The graph here nicely illustrates my central objection to abolishing tuition fees

https://election2017.ifs.org.uk/article ... nefit-most" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Along with the triple lock and social care pledges, alongside the failure to propose anything very significany on benefits for the poorest, the Labour manifesto is oddly skewed to the better off, despite the tax pledges.

Willow904 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ys-starmer

Labour's 2015 election result is no yardstick for success, says Starmer
Shadow Brexit secretary says it would not be enough to top Miliband’s 30.4% of vote if Tories significantly increase majority

I prefer Starmer's straightforward matter-of-factness to the usual politician's spin, but I don't think he's going to win over any Corbyn fans with this interview, where he lays out the reality Labour are potentially facing pretty starkly.

The point that he has been visiting marginals that Labour needs to defend is an obvious attempt to contrast himself with his leader. I dont think he'll come close to having the nominations to get on the ballot.

Willow904 wrote:

gilsey wrote:Typical tory manifesto, unravels in record time when you start looking in to it.

I can't see how the 'dementia tax' could work? If you have to get the money with an equity release plan, there's no way I can see that you can draw the £100k line, because the plan charges will continue until it's repaid after death, even if the council's picking up the actual care costs. Or is the plan that the taxpayer will have to pay the charges as well? Lovely.

I made a similar point btl at the G and had a response that suggested the council would put a charging order on the house, which sounds like aggressive debt recovery to me, rather than a sensible plan to fund elderly social care. They said it's already done now, presumably when someone going into residential care has a partner still living at home. Although I'm pretty certain it doesn't happen in all council areas. There was a case of an MP whose mother-in-law gave him and his wife her house and she didn't then have to pay for residential care and apparently that was fine. This new policy is simply going to extend the random unfairness of it all to people needing care at home.

That's what I assumed initially, but I don't think that's what they have in mind, did you see what ephe tweeted yesterday, later picked up be Barry Gardiner.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That didn't last long,after convincing myself why I should l leave and rather good exit,if I do say so myself,I've convinced myself it was exactly the wrong thing to do so "Frank" is back.Of course I was correct both times.

To treat home care the same is exactly the opposite what needs to be done and I would say insane.Think vast cost saving association,loathe to ask for support as it is,before you get to independent enhancing and health benefits.Granted there are costs in keeping the inconvenient alive longer than otherwise.Consistent with the only possible housing support for home owners being a repayable interest bearing loan,largely aimed at the severely sick/disabled,given it was time limited in anycase elsewise.


In my humble work/personal based opinion I should add,to lessen stridency.

Yes, the Tories think they can propose whatever they like and still win a landslide. The point is, what if they are wrong?

Willow904 wrote:

gilsey wrote:Typical tory manifesto, unravels in record time when you start looking in to it.

I can't see how the 'dementia tax' could work? If you have to get the money with an equity release plan, there's no way I can see that you can draw the £100k line, because the plan charges will continue until it's repaid after death, even if the council's picking up the actual care costs. Or is the plan that the taxpayer will have to pay the charges as well? Lovely.

I made a similar point btl at the G and had a response that suggested the council would put a charging order on the house, which sounds like aggressive debt recovery to me, rather than a sensible plan to fund elderly social care. They said it's already done now, presumably when someone going into residential care has a partner still living at home. Although I'm pretty certain it doesn't happen in all council areas. There was a case of an MP whose mother-in-law gave him and his wife her house and she didn't then have to pay for residential care and apparently that was fine. This new policy is simply going to extend the random unfairness of it all to people needing care at home.

It's often done now, in the interim while the house is being sold after someone's gone into residential care.

The value of the house isn't taken into account at all if the partner, or sometimes another relative, is living in it at the moment.

HIndle, may I say how lovely it is to see you.

@HindleA

About bleedin' time.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Yes, the Tories think they can propose whatever they like and still win a landslide. The point is, what if they are wrong?

It's not the despair that kills you, it's the hope.

I'm more hopeful now than I was before the manifestos came out, but that's not saying much.

HindleA wrote:That didn't last long,after convincing myself why I should l leave and rather good exit,if I do say so myself,I've convinced myself it was exactly the wrong thing to do so "Frank" is back.Of course I was correct both times.

To treat home care the same is exactly the opposite what needs to be done and I would say insane.Think vast cost saving association,loathe to ask for support as it is,before you get to independent enhancing and health benefits.Granted there are costs in keeping the inconvenient alive longer than otherwise.Consistent with the only possible housing support for home owners being a repayable interest bearing loan,largely aimed at the severely sick/disabled,given it was time limited in anycase elsewise.

Exactly. Dilnot was charged with coming up with recommendations to end the uncertainty now facing those going into residential care. The Tories have, instead, decided to extend that uncertainty to those receiving social care at home.

Ed Miliband's "death tax" and the certainty of only paying 10% or 20% out of your estate when you die is now looking very attractive indeed.

And I see some wriggle room in that from Starmer - as in what actually constitutes a "substantially" increased majority?

Come to think of it, if Labour increased their share significantly (eg to 33-34%, not much less than their last victorious election in 2005) then I expect Jez could make a good case for staying on for at least a while almost irrespective of how many seats the Tories win. Of course, this could make things very messy as far as internal Labour politics are concerned (again) which is a reason for hoping the result leaves little doubt there one way or the other.

gilsey wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

gilsey wrote:Typical tory manifesto, unravels in record time when you start looking in to it.

I can't see how the 'dementia tax' could work? If you have to get the money with an equity release plan, there's no way I can see that you can draw the £100k line, because the plan charges will continue until it's repaid after death, even if the council's picking up the actual care costs. Or is the plan that the taxpayer will have to pay the charges as well? Lovely.

I made a similar point btl at the G and had a response that suggested the council would put a charging order on the house, which sounds like aggressive debt recovery to me, rather than a sensible plan to fund elderly social care. They said it's already done now, presumably when someone going into residential care has a partner still living at home. Although I'm pretty certain it doesn't happen in all council areas. There was a case of an MP whose mother-in-law gave him and his wife her house and she didn't then have to pay for residential care and apparently that was fine. This new policy is simply going to extend the random unfairness of it all to people needing care at home.

That's what I assumed initially, but I don't think that's what they have in mind, did you see what ephe tweeted yesterday, later picked up be Barry Gardiner.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very concerning.

HindleA wrote:That didn't last long,after convincing myself why I should l leave and rather good exit,if I do say so myself,I've convinced myself it was exactly the wrong thing to do so "Frank" is back.Of course I was correct both times.

To treat home care the same is exactly the opposite what needs to be done and I would say insane.Think vast cost saving association,loathe to ask for support as it is,before you get to independent enhancing and health benefits.Granted there are costs in keeping the inconvenient alive longer than otherwise.Consistent with the only possible housing support for home owners being a repayable interest bearing loan,largely aimed at the severely sick/disabled,given it was time limited in anycase elsewise.

Well, howdy partner

Your absence, however brief, was not unnoticed.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:And I see some wriggle room in that from Starmer - as in what actually constitutes a "substantially" increased majority?

Come to think of it, if Labour increased their share significantly (eg to 33-34%, not much less than their last victorious election in 2005) then I expect Jez could make a good case for staying on for at least a while almost irrespective of how many seats the Tories win. Of course, this could make things very messy as far as internal Labour politics are concerned (again) which is a reason for hoping the result leaves little doubt there one way or the other.

Vote share is an utter irrelevance, it is how you do relative to the opposition that matters. The death of UKIP has put about 15 points in play, the Tories have 12 of them, Labour a couple. That means to win again Labour needs Tory switchers, this wasn't true in 2015, it is now. That group of voters is simply beyond Corbyn and the Tories are still on course for their biggest win since the 1920s.

May has clearly decided Cameron's screw the young to cosset the wealthy pensioner Tory vote had economically run out of road. The Telegraph launching the IRA stuff yesterday suggests there is some nervousness as to whether the pensioners might rebel.

If the polls close significantly May might panic and row backwards, she badly needs that landslide, vote suppression and boundaries fixed for 2021/2 because Brexit is going to be a shit storm.

However the reality is it is hard to see many pensioners switching, they crave low inflation and economic stability more than inheritance. The gulf in economic trust is so massive they will mostly stay put and grumble a bit.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Yes, the Tories think they can propose whatever they like and still win a landslide. The point is, what if they are wrong?

Is there a tipping point?

I'm not sure, but I do feel Theresa May is sailing very close to the wind by proposing a policy that potentially threatens people's property assets. If anything undoes her it will likely be this insidious social care policy that sounds threateningly like pulling elderly people's houses out from under them.

Sorry, but I disagree about vote share meaning nothing. If it turns out that Labour gets a significantly bigger total than 2010 and 2015 despite this NOT BEING A NORMAL ELECTION AND DELIBERATELY ENGINEERED IN UNFAVOURABLE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THEM, then that cannot be ignored IMO however many seats the Tories win on a "one off" windfall through UKIP's collapse.

At the very least, the w*** fantasy of some pundits and Bitterites that someone like Cooper can be foisted on the rest of the party by PLP "acclamation" needs to be put to bed NOW.

Taking childrens school lunches might be just as powerful a vote loser as anything else.

Theresa May went out to play
And took the children's lunches away

might just resonate.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Yes, the Tories think they can propose whatever they like and still win a landslide. The point is, what if they are wrong?

Do you think they are?

I don't.

[I don't think you do, either.]

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Yes, the Tories think they can propose whatever they like and still win a landslide. The point is, what if they are wrong?

Do you think they are?

I don't.

[I don't think you do, either.]

As you like to say, we'll see.

Some mildly interesting anecdotal evidence of some pensioners reacting unfavourably to the Tory manifesto proposals, though.....

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:And I see some wriggle room in that from Starmer - as in what actually constitutes a "substantially" increased majority?

Come to think of it, if Labour increased their share significantly (eg to 33-34%, not much less than their last victorious election in 2005) then I expect Jez could make a good case for staying on for at least a while almost irrespective of how many seats the Tories win. Of course, this could make things very messy as far as internal Labour politics are concerned (again) which is a reason for hoping the result leaves little doubt there one way or the other.

Vote share is an utter irrelevance, it is how you do relative to the opposition that matters. The death of UKIP has put about 15 points in play, the Tories have 12 of them, Labour a couple. That means to win again Labour needs Tory switchers, this wasn't true in 2015, it is now. That group of voters is simply beyond Corbyn and the Tories are still on course for their biggest win since the 1920s.

May has clearly decided Cameron's screw the young to cosset the wealthy pensioner Tory vote had economically run out of road. The Telegraph launching the IRA stuff yesterday suggests there is some nervousness as to whether the pensioners might rebel.

If the polls close significantly May might panic and row backwards, she badly needs that landslide, vote suppression and boundaries fixed for 2021/2 because Brexit is going to be a shit storm.

However the reality is it is hard to see many pensioners switching, they crave low inflation and economic stability more than inheritance. The gulf in economic trust is so massive they will mostly stay put and grumble a bit.

Why is supporting a universal definition of genocide and applying that definition universally, without fear or favour, genocide denial?

I believe (apologies) that some figures show a very different picture if you remove Scotland from the picture. In some ways theres an argument for that, but impossible retrospectively. They are fighting an entirely different election up there.

Cameron and co. knew what they were doing by shoring up the notion that there wasn't a whisker of difference between them and Labour, which is why the coup was wrong. Imagine if the party had been united under Corbyn and looking strong, and supporting the things many here thought they should have supported, instead of being apologetic and heading off in the direction the tories were leading.

Whether you like it or not, and regardless of outcomes the mood has changed.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:And I see some wriggle room in that from Starmer - as in what actually constitutes a "substantially" increased majority?

Come to think of it, if Labour increased their share significantly (eg to 33-34%, not much less than their last victorious election in 2005) then I expect Jez could make a good case for staying on for at least a while almost irrespective of how many seats the Tories win. Of course, this could make things very messy as far as internal Labour politics are concerned (again) which is a reason for hoping the result leaves little doubt there one way or the other.

Vote share is an utter irrelevance, it is how you do relative to the opposition that matters. The death of UKIP has put about 15 points in play, the Tories have 12 of them, Labour a couple. That means to win again Labour needs Tory switchers, this wasn't true in 2015, it is now. That group of voters is simply beyond Corbyn and the Tories are still on course for their biggest win since the 1920s.

May has clearly decided Cameron's screw the young to cosset the wealthy pensioner Tory vote had economically run out of road. The Telegraph launching the IRA stuff yesterday suggests there is some nervousness as to whether the pensioners might rebel.

If the polls close significantly May might panic and row backwards, she badly needs that landslide, vote suppression and boundaries fixed for 2021/2 because Brexit is going to be a shit storm.

However the reality is it is hard to see many pensioners switching, they crave low inflation and economic stability more than inheritance. The gulf in economic trust is so massive they will mostly stay put and grumble a bit.

Comparing with 2005 is also daft. Back then the Lib Dems got 22%. With Ukips and the Lib Dems in a state of collapse, for Labour not to do any better is poor.

Not that it matters much. Despite claims to the contrary, Corbyn won't quit. The usual excuses will be wheeled out

1. The media

2. The Bitterites

3. Laura Kuenessberg

4. The PLP

5. The Guardian

6. The coup

7. Tony Blair

8. He came close to Miliband

9. May cheated by calling an election

etc etc

2015 was winnable for Labour. There wouldn't be an election now if there were a serious opposition the government feared. This is the point in the cycle when governments slump in the polls. We've had seven years of austerity and real wages are falling. And Labour is about to get its arse handed to them. 2022 ought to have been winnable for the opposition given Brexit.

As it is, Labour will limp on with Corbyn, the Tories will have a 100+ seat majority, and the usual suspects will be making the same old excuses for failure for the next decade.

"We lost 4-0 but our possession stats were better than last time."

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Yes, the Tories think they can propose whatever they like and still win a landslide. The point is, what if they are wrong?

Do you think they are?

I don't.

[I don't think you do, either.]

As you like to say, we'll see.

Some mildly interesting anecdotal evidence of some pensioners reacting unfavourably to the Tory manifesto proposals, though.....

So, what is the answer to the question?

Do you think they are wrong or right?

You mean the undoubted media bias, so overt that commentators from other nations are able to observe it and wonder where the famed British sense of fairness has gone. That you call " the usual excuse". Forgive me for saying so but these are very unusual times. We have a prime minister who is obscuring her horrid little party and running an election as though she is a presidential condidate. Also spending an absolute fortune, perhaps in an illegal way, but sod that because she'll fix it somehow so it "cannot be proved".

People in other nations have just cottoned on to the fact that WE are the forerunners of Trumptime America. I keep wondering why you would continue to undermine the opposition to this.

seeingclearly wrote:You mean the undoubted media bias, so overt that commentators from other nations are able to observe it and wonder where the famed British sense of fairness has gone. That you call " the usual excuse". Forgive me for saying so but these are very unusual times. We have a prime minister who is obscuring her horrid little party and running an election as though she is a presidential condidate. Also spending an absolute fortune, perhaps in an illegal way, but sod that because she'll fix it somehow so it "cannot be proved".

People in other nations have just cottoned on to the fact that WE are the forerunners of Trumptime America. I keep wondering why you would continue to undermine the opposition to this.

The left has to win in *this* world, not some fantasy world we'd prefer to live in. Every newspaper apart from the Telegraph and Mail backed Labour in 2001.

The left at the moment looks utterly ridiculous, blaming Laura Kuenessberg for its own failings.

"It is all so unfair, Theresa May called an election." Pitiable.

Wedon't even have a serious opposition, and no prospect of one.

The third of these is of overriding importance

https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/Gr ... online.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It dwarfs everything else in policy terms.

Good afternoon all (apart from Hugo who I hope is not having a good one at all)

Has this become a personal blog?

Seems to be working if you look at the number of posts from other people which seems to be dwindling away despite heroic efforts from a few others

I personally think AK's point of this being an exceptional election (just look at how the polls are suggesting an 'earthquake' election result but without the 'earthquake' actually happening - remember the fervour prior to the 97 election) is a good one and makes me treat some things we are being told with skepticism

We should try to work on the premise that Labour can still win, or get close enough to deprive the Tories of a majority. If we allow the people like Hugo to hold sway with their purposeful attempts to demoralise then we are playing into the hands of the Tories

If we lose, we lose but we should not have lost the battle before a shot is fired.

The Tories are a bunch of lying, incompetent, murdering twats - remember that. If that doesn't motivate you, then think of a board post June 8 where Hugo will not be showing his face again and posting his repetitive dross!

Another big 34% for Labour with ORB

Tories 46 %,
Labour 34 % (+2)
Lib Dems 7 % (-1)
Ukip 7% (+1)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05 ... 1LftL0KVZ1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo wrote:

seeingclearly wrote:You mean the undoubted media bias, so overt that commentators from other nations are able to observe it and wonder where the famed British sense of fairness has gone. That you call " the usual excuse". Forgive me for saying so but these are very unusual times. We have a prime minister who is obscuring her horrid little party and running an election as though she is a presidential condidate. Also spending an absolute fortune, perhaps in an illegal way, but sod that because she'll fix it somehow so it "cannot be proved".

People in other nations have just cottoned on to the fact that WE are the forerunners of Trumptime America. I keep wondering why you would continue to undermine the opposition to this.

The left has to win in *this* world, not some fantasy world we'd prefer to live in. Every newspaper apart from the Telegraph and Mail backed Labour in 2001.

The left at the moment looks utterly ridiculous, blaming Laura Kuenessberg for its own failings.

"It is all so unfair, Theresa May called an election." Pitiable.

Wedon't even have a serious opposition, and no prospect of one.

Blair got in when press was for him, So Corbyn shouldn't complain when press us against him?
Trouble is it's not the real world. We live in a media manipulated, twisted fantasy representation of the real world and in that world it's hard for Labour to win.
The real world has increasing homelessness, persecution of those in need, people having to turn to foodbanks (or in fact as part of gvt. policy).
The fantasy world allows May's "many complex reasons" for these things & crap along the lines of Corbyn being unsuitable for Leadership coz he's weak, talks to terrorists, doesn't wear ties etc.
Utter Bollocks'.

& Welcome back HindleA.

http://evolvepolitics.com/general-elect ... n-england/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tinybgoat wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

seeingclearly wrote:You mean the undoubted media bias, so overt that commentators from other nations are able to observe it and wonder where the famed British sense of fairness has gone. That you call " the usual excuse". Forgive me for saying so but these are very unusual times. We have a prime minister who is obscuring her horrid little party and running an election as though she is a presidential condidate. Also spending an absolute fortune, perhaps in an illegal way, but sod that because she'll fix it somehow so it "cannot be proved".

People in other nations have just cottoned on to the fact that WE are the forerunners of Trumptime America. I keep wondering why you would continue to undermine the opposition to this.

The left has to win in *this* world, not some fantasy world we'd prefer to live in. Every newspaper apart from the Telegraph and Mail backed Labour in 2001.

The left at the moment looks utterly ridiculous, blaming Laura Kuenessberg for its own failings.

"It is all so unfair, Theresa May called an election." Pitiable.

Wedon't even have a serious opposition, and no prospect of one.

Blair got in when press was for him, So Corbyn shouldn't complain when press us against him?
Trouble is it's not the real world. We live in a media manipulated, twisted fantasy representation of the real world and in that world it's hard for Labour to win.
The real world has increasing homelessness, persecution of those in need, people having to turn to foodbanks (or in fact as part of gvt. policy).
The fantasy world allows May's "many complex reasons" for these things & crap along the lines of Corbyn being unsuitable for Leadership coz he's weak, talks to terrorists, doesn't wear ties etc.
Utter Bollocks'.

The press did not magically decide to back Blair. They swapped sides when it became clear that Blair was going to win. The hard work was done by Blair, Brown (and previously Smith and Kinnock) and a huge team of competent focussed people.

It helped that Major screwed up the economy, but that only worked because Labour had worked hard to be credible and trusted on it.

Hugo is right in at least this, stop bleating and work out how to win, otherwise get used to decades of shit Tory governments.

SpinningHugo wrote:

seeingclearly wrote:You mean the undoubted media bias, so overt that commentators from other nations are able to observe it and wonder where the famed British sense of fairness has gone. That you call " the usual excuse". Forgive me for saying so but these are very unusual times. We have a prime minister who is obscuring her horrid little party and running an election as though she is a presidential condidate. Also spending an absolute fortune, perhaps in an illegal way, but sod that because she'll fix it somehow so it "cannot be proved".

People in other nations have just cottoned on to the fact that WE are the forerunners of Trumptime America. I keep wondering why you would continue to undermine the opposition to this.

The left has to win in *this* world, not some fantasy world we'd prefer to live in. Every newspaper apart from the Telegraph and Mail backed Labour in 2001.

The left at the moment looks utterly ridiculous, blaming Laura Kuenessberg for its own failings.

"It is all so unfair, Theresa May called an election." Pitiable.

Wedon't even have a serious opposition, and no prospect of one.

I have seen no evidence of that at all. "This" world as you put it is not on an inevitable path. Reality is mutable. In fact, despite the media intransigence Labour has come out fighting. I have not seen one single instwnce of the "pitiable" stuff you seem so sure of. Instead I see nurses, doctors, scientists, students, old people and young wanting and hoping for something a lot better that the reality May wants to give us. And plenty of evidence that she is not as personally popular as the press would make her out to be. Her oolicies, such as they are do not convince either.

Laura Kuennsberg has never been seen principally as a blamer of Labour, but far more as an enabler of the tories, both in commission and omission. She is an attack dog for the right, and its visible. Not exactly a good example of democratic equity.

We have, imo, a very credible opposition, one that seems to have done more than a little advance preparation, and who understand what they are up against. And what needs to be done. Whether you like it or not they are gaining voters. Now that the smaller parties are more normalized in their influence, people ARE looking for something other than tories. Maybe not in sufficient numbers yet, but we have been in this place before. As the human toll rises higher I suggest the numbers who resist will too. There is only one party offering any respite at the moment. I am not so sure there are others to take its place.

Pitiable? At least they are seen in public.

How are the Greens doing? I hear a lot of them are actively supporting Labour. As does Caroline Lukas when she is not taking part in "sans leaders" type debate.

Temulkar wrote:http://evolvepolitics.com/general-elect ... n-england/

"it is now entirely plausible the people who labelled Jeremy Corbyn as ‘unelectable’ may be in for a massive shock in the coming days and weeks."

See you on 9 June.

Bloody hell, someone who spends all their effort and time 'bleating' about the 'Labour leadership has the chutzpah to criticise others doing the same - the most hypocritical thing I have seen since the Tory manifesto

Also, why does a so-called Labour 'supporter' call pointing out the corrupting and false news agenda of the British press 'bleating'?

It is pointing out that the press is biased against the Labour Party(and I think there have been enough studies to confirm this) so the posting of the opinions of hacks and headlines from newspapers is of no real interest, as in the main they are not objective

The same posters do their own 'bleating' about the new media sites accusing them of the same things

The main media influences though aren't the Canary and others like it - it is the mass media, supported by the BBC

Other Labour leaders got it as well - Foot, Brown and Kinnock especially. They were vile treated by members of the press. Blair went out of his way to make sure Murdoch was on side - it was possibly done for understandable reasons at the beginning but in the end became a corrupting influence as can be seen in the way that Blair did nothing about the bile of the British press

SpinningHugo wrote:

Temulkar wrote:http://evolvepolitics.com/general-elect ... n-england/

"it is now entirely plausible the people who labelled Jeremy Corbyn as ‘unelectable’ may be in for a massive shock in the coming days and weeks."

See you on 9 June.

I don't think we will be wanting to see you, win or lose - why not go and play with your pal Rusty instead?

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
The press did not magically decide to back Blair. They swapped sides when it became clear that Blair was going to win. The hard work was done by Blair, Brown (and previously Smith and Kinnock) and a huge team of competent focussed people.

It helped that Major screwed up the economy, but that only worked because Labour had worked hard to be credible and trusted on it.

Hugo is right in at least this, stop bleating and work out how to win, otherwise get used to decades of shit Tory governments.

Credible and trusted by whom, TE. The media? The powerful? Bankers, vested interests? And what about the people? who are in fact dying unneccessarily in increasing numbers, quietly and humbly, often behind curtains, and singularly not cared for or about by the likes of Blair. Who sold out where they are concerned, and now undermines efforts to reduce their misery. i will admit times were better under his Labour, I benefitted myself from the change. But it will not do now. As for the economy are you saying Cameron and co.and their heirs have NOT damaged the economy? And that is the least of the damage they have done, they have damaged the fabric of our society, and its very existence in a way that will take decades to recover from. Working out how to win means getting behind Labour.

They are not just our MPs, they are US, all of us who are not for this appalling regime. No party is anything without support. I have seen little enthusiasm for Mrs May in spite of the enormous efforts made, politically wrapped local papers, personally targetted letters etc.

I have seen no bleating from canvassers and activists, or even supporters. But I am seeing every day a focus I haven't seen in years. This time round more people are seeing through the bullshit. And as for "huge team of competent focussed people" they are out there right now canvassing for a better future for you and for me, right now, as I type this. Good. The least we can do is be supportive of their efforts.

Any Greens (or pretend ones) on here who would like to comment

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

I've today received a "personalised" letter, aimed at postal voters, from the Conservative candidate (Penny Mordaunt) asking for my vote.

There's no mention of "strong and stable" or, indeed, Theresa May (not by name, anyway). Instead, I'm asked to support Penny Mordaunt to " secure a government and a Prime Minister who will etc etc". Or at least that's what I'm assuming it's meant to say. Although it actually says "Prime a Minister". Amused me. Theresa May will be mortified and there will be a black mark against Penny Mordaunt's name, I expect.

(An election leaflet from Labour arrived yesterday.)






Edited - typo

howsillyofme1 wrote:Any Greens (or pretend ones) on here who would like to comment

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

Truly dumb, but as that is under 10% of the cost to government finances of Brexit (ie we ignore all the other costs), vote for a party that holds out the hope of avoiding Hard Brexit is my advice.

Brexit dwarfs everything else in importance.

TechnicalEphemera wrote: The press did not magically decide to back Blair. They swapped sides when it became clear that Blair was going to win. The hard work was done by Blair, Brown (and previously Smith and Kinnock) and a huge team of competent focussed people.

It helped that Major screwed up the economy, but that only worked because Labour had worked hard to be credible and trusted on it.

Hugo is right in at least this, stop bleating and work out how to win, otherwise get used to decades of shit Tory governments.

[bleat]It's unproven(and hard to prove) how much influence media has on elections, there's only been 3 Labour leaders who've won elections so it seems a bit woolly pointing out Blair won, having a good press, whilst ignoring all the labour leaders who've lost with a bad press & dismissing press bias as just being a winge.
Following Kinnocks 1992 defeat, Blair seems to have thought it important enough to court Murdoch. Maybe if Labour started winning in the polls, some papers would swap sides but I think the damage done comes from being anti Brown/Miliband/Corbyn from the start of their leaderships. Blair had impressed Murdoch before becoming leader & set out to court him early on, realistically this was never possible for Corbyn ( morally, politically or logistically) in the short time since he's been leader.
[/bleat]