FlyTheNest

Morning all.

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/201 ... ew-clothes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don't feed the monster!' The people who have stopped buying new clothes


I didn't realise people had started.I still run in gear circa 1990,that was bought for me.

I'm thinner now.I seem to revert all the usual temporal changes.

Keep for "occasion",quick wash,beyond zillions of puncture holes (pins for number)good as new.

Also more hair,I'm down to twice a year barber infliction.

Mean,mo?

Would say less likely to vote Tory rather than more but it was minus infinity.

On Honda - nothing to do with the UK leaving the EU, just global conditions and the fact that the new trade deal means that we can trade tariff free to the EU directly from Japan.

So they're leaving - and Japanese investment in the UK must as a generalisation be very much at risk - not because we're leaving the EU, but because our conservative (and probably also Vince and the Coalition) government have negotiated a trade deal that makes it easier for Japanese companies to end that investment here and trade from 'home'.

And this is interesting - Hunt saying something that actually has a certain amount of political nouse for a change

Jeremy Hunt has seized on Labour’s split, claiming to European foreign ministers it proved that only concessions to win round Conservative rightwingers will get the Brexit deal through the Commons.

S Club Seven leaving is being used to argue, vaguely sensibly, that all of this has to lean right. Which means, of course, that he's arguing that we have to leave without a withdrawal agreement.

Not sure I follow *unt's argument tbh.

I think the EU recognises something that's not been taken on board here so far, that negotiation of the future relationship is likely to outlive one or possibly two UK governments. They want to get both parties on board so the negotiations don't get sent back to square one halfway through, at once a perfectly reasonable position and hopelessly unrealistic.

gilsey wrote:Not sure I follow *unt's argument tbh.

I think the EU recognises something that's not been taken on board here so far, that negotiation of the future relationship is likely to outlive one or possibly two UK governments. They want to get both parties on board so the negotiations don't get sent back to square one halfway through, at once a perfectly reasonable position and hopelessly unrealistic.

I think Hunt's argument is an absurd no hope argument to the EU but I entirely understand why he's making it to a domestic audience. "Look, there has been some significant momentum here for Labour's proposals but this must surely be the end of that."

HindleA wrote:Would say less likely to vote Tory rather than more but it was minus infinity.

Heh, that really is one of the most meaningless questions in polling

Good-afternoon, everyone

Chuka apparently asked this morning what part of Labour's last GE manifesto he disagreed with, was unable to answer.

Draw your own conclusions from that, I know I have.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Chuka apparently asked this morning what part of Labour's last GE manifesto he disagreed with, was unable to answer.

Draw your own conclusions from that, I know I have.

I can't fathom what they're thinking. What are they hoping to accomplish leaving their party at this time? That's a genuine question.

In the early days of the Corbyn leadership there were statements from various branches of the Labour party that everyone within the party at least shared the basic goal of reducing inequality.

Reducing inequality is not the basic goal of your average Tory and this is reflected in the outcomes of Tory rule on a daily basis.

I don't particularly like Corbyn, I find him difficult to relate to and am unconvinced by his priorities and methods. He is an uninspiring speaker and makes basic factual mistakes. However, he does want to reduce inequality, so is therefore far more likely to achieve this goal than someone who doesn't, eg all Tories.

Therefore, if you have a goal of reducing inequality, why is it not possible to remain in a party lead by someone who shares that goal? All the differences over means and method are insignificant against a Tory party that doesn't share that basic goal.

Not to mention, Corbyn will have stepped down in a few years. As long as the Labour Party continues to strive for greater equality it will remain the party it has always been. The obsession with one individual will pass, it has to, as Corbyn can't be leader forever. As such it's hard to see what the Independent Group are trying to achieve. If it's about Brexit that would at least make some sense as Brexit isnt going to wait for a few years, but in what way might they want or could affect Brexit by breaking away? Darn'd if I know.

Strange times.

Great post Willow

That is the point, the likes of Umunna/Leslie/Smith/Shuker are basically centre-right politicians who never cared about inequality and only ever used "Labour" as a flag of convenience. There aren't many others like them in the PLP (though there are a relative handful) so I don't expect further *major* defections.

(those four were named deliberately, Coffey and Gapes are former lefties who have become right wing in old age whilst Berger's case is sui generis as we sadly know)

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Great post Willow

Agreed
the essence

I look around and wonder what are government's intentions?
They've done nothing but intentionally screw around while the leave date comes closer.

TIG is big on meritocracy, which is not at all the same thing as reducing inequality.

The barriers of poverty, prejudice and discrimination facing individuals should be removed and advancement occur on the basis of merit, with inequalities reduced through the extension of opportunity, giving individuals the skills and means to open new doors and fulfil their ambitions.

Yes, "meritocracy" is the essence of centre-right (or indeed that dread term "neoliberal") politics.

gilsey wrote:TIG is big on meritocracy, which is not at all the same thing as reducing inequality.

The barriers of poverty, prejudice and discrimination facing individuals should be removed and advancement occur on the basis of merit, with inequalities reduced through the extension of opportunity, giving individuals the skills and means to open new doors and fulfil their ambitions.

"Social mobility" is just another term for the American Dream. Inequality is supposedly ok because everyone has the same opportunity to make it to the top. Except they don't and even if they did everyone can't all be at the top at the same time so for every winer there will always be many losers and I don't see how switching a few winners and losers around makes it ok for lots of people to be stranded in crap, poorly paid work.

And that's before you even get to those who can't work for whatever reason.

It was this sort of stuff that I disliked from Liz Kendall.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Great post Willow

It actually evolved from some musings I had in response to this tweet:

Josh Lowe
@JeyyLowe
·
5h
Been thinking about that line in the Independent Group announcement, about "policies that are evidence-based, not based on ideology", and how crazy it is that so many people whove worked in some cases high up in our political system think that such a clear distinction is possible

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

I'm very keen on evidence-based policy making myself and can get frustrated with obsessions with delivery methods rather than actual goals, but I don't equate "ideology" with delivery methods as such which is why I tend to agree with the tweet. Ideology is what informs goals, surely. What could be more ideological than pursuing the redistribution of wealth in a quest for greater equality? Corbyn does state goals - such as affordable, reliable public transport - as well as delivery methods - renationalisation. I don't necessarily think renationlisation is the only way to achieve the goal, but I do know that having a goal to achieve affordable public transport is pretty essential if it is to happen

So a fondness for evidence-based policy making is all very well, but doesn't mean very much without the context of what you want to achieve with it. I expect the Tories had lots of evidence to show shareholders could make lots of money through the privatisation of British Rail. It doesn't mean I'd vote for them!

It's the essence of Piketty`s work isn't it? You have to force significant redistribution to have a successful society.

Goodnight, everyone
love,
cJA

Re the removal of citizenship...

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

RogerOThornhill wrote:Re the removal of citizenship...

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

It's the young woman's mother who is meant to be the legal way in for this rather dubious sounding move?

PorFavor wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:Re the removal of citizenship...

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

It's the young woman's mother who is meant to be the legal way in for this rather dubious sounding move?

Edited to add this link -

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... ip-revoked

Bumboils.

PorFavor wrote:

PorFavor wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:Re the removal of citizenship...

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

It's the young woman's mother who is meant to be the legal way in for this rather dubious sounding move?

Edited to add this link -

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... ip-revoked

But the girl is now 19 and therefore not legally classed as a child. Therefore what her mother's nationality status is, is of no relevance surely.

Quite.

And Joan Ryan becomes the 8th...

How to pay for the Green New Deal

think of it this way. No one in a 100 years time who suffers the catastrophic and (for them) irreversible impact of climate change is going to console themselves that at least they did not increase the national debt. Humanity will not come to an end if we double debt to GDP ratios, but it could come to an end if we fail to combat climate change.

All this means that the question of how a measure is financed should never prevent that measure being implemented if it has a reasonable chance of reducing climate change. The whole point of the Green New Deal is that measures should be judged on how effective they will be at achieving their goal, and not on whether they can be afforded. Funding through taxes should be the first option because the polluter should pay, but if this is not politically possible then government debt should increase.

RogerOThornhill wrote:And Joan Ryan becomes the 8th...

On 6 September 2018, her Constituency Labour Party narrowly passed a motion of no confidence in her

^^^

A mere coincidence I'm sure...

As I'm not a member. can someone with knowledge of how the Labour Party works tell me precisely what powers the Leader has?

Can they, for example, suspend members or expel them or is that down to the Party chairman and NEC?

I only ask as there's a lot of people saying "The leader ought to do x,y,x" and I;m not sure whether he has actually got the power to do so.