FlyTheNest

Morning all.

Bit nippy like.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/liv ... st-updates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Morning all. Just before I toddle off to t'library...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51731753" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why hasn't she been suspended pending the inquiry as would happen elsewhere?

I assume the argument against would be "Can't go now. National emergency etc etc"

I see that Biden managed to confuse his wife for his sister in his "victory" speech.

Where's that "nothing to see here, please disperse" gif?

Texas: tainted victory due to voter suppression:

https://www.salon.com/2020/03/03/voter- ... ino-areas/

Depressingly believable.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Trump will make mincemeat of him.

We all know this.

HindleA wrote:https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ssion=true

It was time for moderates to get in line, especially after Sanders’s comments in a TV interview – acknowledging Cuba’s literacy programme, “Is that a bad thing, even if Fidel Castro did it?” – crystallised their fear of an electoral car crash. Buttigieg remarked: “I don’t want as a Democrat to be explaining why our nominee is encouraging people to look on the bright side of the Castro regime when we are going into the election of our lives.”

oh I see
It's pathetic, this. That's the best they could do getting rid of Sanders?

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Trump will make mincemeat of him.

We all know this.

Yep.

Good afternoon, everyone.

As Krugman says he doesn't do himself any favours with his self description as "socialist"when he isn't,fully aware of the connotations among the American people.I see some similarities with giving easy ammunition,shall we say elsewhere.

HindleA wrote:As Krugman says he doesn't do himself any favours with his self description as "socialist"when he isn't,fully aware of the connotations among the American people.I see some similarities with giving easy ammunition,shall we say elsewhere.

Yes, for sure. What was Frank Roosevelt's nomination and election like? I wasn't around then and whatever I learned historically, I can't remember exactly. I seem to recall his opponents making wild accusations. I think he levelled with influential people privately. Safely elect me or it's Captain Swing. Something like that.

FDR was widely accused of being a socialist and even communist by the right wing press and establishment, especially at his first re-election in 1936.

Come to that, the terms were used a lot by those types wrt 2008-era Obama as well.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:FDR was widely accused of being a socialist and even communist by the right wing press and establishment, especially at his first re-election in 1936.

Come to that, the terms were used a lot by those types wrt 2008-era Obama as well.

Thought so. How'd he do it? FDR getting into office, I mean. How was he allowed to win? I want to know how to make constructive deals with people who'd not otherwise agree to progressive administrations.

"Assuming the Presidency at the depth of the Great Depression as our 32nd President (1933-1945), Franklin D. Roosevelt helped the American people regain faith in themselves."
https://www.whitehouse.gov

Words extolling individualism though we're all dependent on the daily work everyone does creating and sustaining our civilisation. American people regaining faith in themselves was accomplished, for example, through national government organising and funding useful public service works the private sector couldn't or wouldn't do providing relatively well-paid employment for American people without jobs. Then and now, anyone going without food, shelter, healthcare and enough safety to thrive are due to choices powerful people make depriving others of getting their needs met.

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

Keir Starmer challenged to publish all campaign donations
Rebecca Long-Bailey supporter Jon Trickett claims any further delay is ‘anti-democratic’

No dodgy donations so far but I'm sure the continued unproven accusations will successfully kill off any hopes of uniting Labour for the foreseeable.

I'm surprised there hasn't been more on Starmer's membership of the alternate-Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission, a leftist conspiracist's dream on account no one knows what it is, so it must be bad.

Is it just me or would Long-Bailey be better served by her supporters giving reasons why she would be good as leader, rather than reasons why Starmer would be bad?

A contest of strengths and positives would make Labour look like it's full of lovely people who would all make a good leader in their own way and what a great party that would be to be part of and support. Such a shame a minority are determined to ensure the opposite.

Starmer is publishing all his donations via the Commons authorities.

That means there is a slight delay in the most recent ones being revealed, though - and unsurprisingly his opponents are trying to make a thing out of this.

The latest batch, released yesterday, contained little even mildly controversial.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ ... 1583334335" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... esearchers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

https://www.ukauthority.com/articles/dw ... sessments/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The announcement prompted a cautious response from the Royal National Institute for the Blind. Its head of social change Sarah Lambert said bringing assessments together looks good at face value."

Oh FFS !Recognising the dangers makes this statement even more naive,government's (mis)appropriate for somewhat obvious intent.

Extra costs regardless should not be in any way related to assessment as per work.

"Everybody agrees with removing "needless"(essential)repetition of information"

It's not"for"but "of",by the way (or is it?)

I am party blind on this (pun intended),"holistic approach "equally doesn't inspire great confidence ,given the ageism/differring approach/prioritisation as to whom,when and what in intrinsically linked social care doesn't lead me,shall I say,as to they actually get it beyond using the right (and well worn to threadbare)jargon of independent living.

As I've said before .I (we)preferred the imparting of information specific to each "assessment",beyond DLA,what was Income Support on the basis of disabiilty,community care/carers assessment),CT disabilty reduction-you can see the purpose of each -there is no real personalised approach with combining.

I have absolutely no doubt that the social care assessment/input made our lives easier as regards accessing/maintaining the others

And the reverse.

Repetitive form filling facillitated integration.

Different forms/purposes not one.

Why aid the widespread ignorance surrounding disability/sickness about the fundamental difference by shoehorning thoroughly inappropriately into one?

Looks like a steady drip-drip of allegations about our charming and popular Home Secretary, doesn't it? Almost as if it is being done as part of a strategy......

(but by who, I wonder??)

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Looks like a steady drip-drip of allegations about our charming and popular Home Secretary, doesn't it? Almost as if it is being done as part of a strategy......

(but by who, I wonder??)

The targets of her bullying

Goodnight, everyone.
love,
cJA

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Looks like a steady drip-drip of allegations about our charming and popular Home Secretary, doesn't it? Almost as if it is being done as part of a strategy......

(but by who, I wonder??)

I would imagine word gets around the civil service about who are good and who are bad minsters to work for and I wouldn't see it as an impossibility that they were told after the first instance "it won't happen again"...and when it did, "it won't happen again"...and they've simply taken matters into their own hands.

There's an unequal relationship between MPs/ministers an civil servants - MPs can and do slag off the civil service generally (if not individuals) but the opposite doesn't happen.

And to see her still in post while under investigation and being defended by the PM might have been the last straw.

Also, remember when our MP was Mayor - he was an absolutely appalling judge of character - he lost so many advisers and deputies over different scandals. I wouldn't mind betting he was warned about PP and ignored it.