Saturday 11th and Sunday 12th October 2014

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Morning All!

I've been over to the old site a couple of times this week. Apart from one spam post, now deleted, there has been no activity for weeks and weeks.

So, I've started locking all the threads that are still open, so we can "freeze" the site as is and stop having to worry about checking it. I'm sure Refitman will tell me I can lock everything in one fell swoop, but I'm quite enjoying flicking through thread by thread

We had a brief discussion a couple of weeks back about 'Members Only' here (so far unused) and the Pub. At the old site the Pub was members only. I think we felt we could be a little less careful about what we posted there compared with the very public Daily Politics. What do folk think? Should we get rid of Members Only and restrict access to the Pub? At the old site there was a visible topic called 'Looking for the Pub' that explained to non-members its existence.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Definitely make the pub members only, but as our spam friends make clear anybody ( even Rusty) can register as a member. It isn't that private.

Ideally once we have everything we think we need here I think we should delete the lot over there and leave a single pointer to here.

[TechnicalEphemera]

In case we missed this Guardian editorial on the byelections.

For David Cameron, whose vote collapsed in both Thursday’s contests, and who faces a further Ukip challenge at Rochester within weeks, the pressure is greater. The results confirm that if Ukip is going to break the mould anywhere, it will be in England’s Conservative east before the Labour north. But the PM has already made panicked sacrifices to Ukip on tax, human rights and Europe. Further panic will not stop the rot.

Not everybody at Guardian towers is a muppet.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Thanks TE

I think I've now made the Pub available to Registered Users only - not including new registrants. This should keep spamming to a minimum over there, which is good because we don't monitor it as regularly as DP.

Of course this doesn't mean we can post libellous or copyright material there but we can relax a little.

I've converted 'Members Only' to 'Looking for the Pub'. Is the message there OK? If so we can make it public.

P.S. Refitman sorry if I've done anything wrong

[howsillyofme1]

Good morning everyone from a damp and chilly Switzerland

Spent the last few days in Bad Säckingen in Germany - very nice town and it has the longest wooden covered bridge in Europe crossing the Rhine between Germany and Switzerland!

Been reading some of the guff being written about the by-elections (not here of course but in MSM) and am absolutely stupified

Of course, the results need to be looked at and Labour needs to ensure it is listening to those most affected by Globalisation, wage deflation and all the rest of it without seeing the benefits. This group is difficult to get to and tend not to vote so it is a big task

The thing that strikes me that all those crowing about H&M in the media are those who have absolutely nothing to offer to these people - immigration being the only thing but no mention of all the other aspects, focused mainly on corporate greed and speculation. Mattew Huntbach over on LDV gives one of his long posts just tearing into the legacy of Thatcherism and how it is focused on non-earned riches rather than those earned by work - I have a lot of sympathy in what he says. Unfortunately there are not many like him over there now (more Simon Shaw-like if you know this unpleasant character....)

UKIP are a an empty right-wing vessel that will implode one day - it is just I hope that day comes before they get too much traction and the risk is that Labour start to pander to them in the same way the Tories have (in their case more of rolling over to be honest)

The media and the commentators in the media are a contemptible and loathsome bunch, drip feeding untruth and opinion under the cover of 'fact's

Stay strong Ed, get rid of those remaining Blairite Tories and start looking at selling us a vision that concentrates on the many rather than the few - if you don't do it then no-one will! A defeat for Miliband in 2015 will, I fear, again lead to a resurgence of the Labour right - and I cannot see where those with compassion and tolerance will go.....some may say the Greens but until they stop being so anti-science I cannot bring myself to support them

[PaulfromYorkshire]

I've also started a 'Primary Sources' topic here http://flythenest.org/viewtopic.php?p=8545#p8545" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As discussed, please do add links to useful sources of data, reports and the like. It will be a valuable resource.

[howsillyofme1]

oh dear

'Comments disabled for this account' message again at the other place!

S'pose I can live with it now - I only go there to abuse the writers of crap articles or annoy trolls

It is of no merit as a serious discussion site....

[rebeccariots2]

Douglas Carswell asked if Ukip's hard line on 'health tourism' meant that he disagreed with the treatment given to Malala Yousafzai

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/d ... x144DBGJIg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Carswell replied that he was 'not familiar with that case', obscure as it is and involving the latest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize rather than someone really important, in, say, business.

I think selective collective amnesia is going to be essential for many UKIP reps ... their manifesto is a bit like the conveyor belt in the Generation Game ... policies selected and jettisoned at Farage whim - now you see them, now you don't, ... then see how many you can remember or conveniently forget in 30 seconds or so ...

[tinyclanger2]

The appeal of UKIP smacks very much of that of Geerd Wilders a few years ago. Happily his support does not appear to be sustained.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2014/06/le-pen ... i-eu-bloc/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ErnstRemarx]

From that Graun editorial - the first one I've actually mostly agreed with for a very long time:

"The Conservatives and Labour alike would do better to take the fight to Ukip than ape it. The party has thrived through unvarnished bluster, which strikes an authentic note in an age of spin, yet conceals chaotic policies which could easily be ripped apart. While Mr Farage undoubtedly speaks for a minority, more voters tell pollsters they dislike Ukip than any other party. His latest remarks about HIV follows a prejudiced assault on Romanians and his calls to entrust the NHS to businessmen. His obsessions are not those of Middle England. After his win, others must muster the courage to take him on in his own plain-speaking style."

Of course, it might help a little if meeja outlets like the Graun were a little more inquisitive about UKIP's policies, but I imagine that doesn't sell a many issues or attract as much clickbait as simply parroting the UKIP line uncritically, which is what the Graun is guilty of, and other papers and meeja outlets more so.

UKIP have two policies: we hate the EU; we hate wogs. That's it. It staggers me that seemingly ordinary sane people can vote for that shit, but apparently they do.

[Spacedone]

UKIP have two policies: we hate the EU; we hate wogs. That's it. It staggers me that seemingly ordinary sane people can vote for that shit, but apparently they do.

Those voters are voting for an anti-Establishment party, they're rebelling against the Westminster Elite... which is why they just elected a expenses-guzzling Tory MP.

Vote UKIP, get Tory. It's an election poster waiting to happen.

[tinyclanger2]

It staggers me that seemingly ordinary sane people can vote for that shit, but apparently they do.

I expect most of them are ignoring the racism and just looking at their own domestic situation. People feel threatened and it's a knotty issue. I had a pretty socialist colleague in the NL who understood the appeal of Wilders because he spoke to the unprivileged majority about threats to their livelihood. Most people just conveniently ignored the racist aspects no matter how blatant. More recently I spoke to a really nice couple who voted BNP because they didn't know who to vote for who would make their lives any easier. They'd found that they couldn't afford to have one of them working as a careworker so she had to go and do something trivial instead.

This is tricky for Labour. They are going in the right direction with the increase in the minimum wage, the living wage and apprenticeships. But then there is also the fact that many have swallowed the "Europe tells us what to do" crap which is the other half of the UKIP message. Simplicity works in terms of swinging opinion, regardless of how it translates into practice. Labour need to understand that too.

[Spacedone]

It staggers me that seemingly ordinary sane people can vote for that shit, but apparently they do.

I expect most of them are ignoring the racism and just looking at their own domestic situation.

For some the racism is part of the appeal. I had the unpleasant experience yesterday of listening to three women talking to each other about how they couldn't wait for UKIP to get power so that they'd kick all the "foreign muck" out of the country, especially Slovakians. They then proceeded to reinforce their racism by telling each other how they'd heard how these foreigners were all living in luxury on £100,000 a year benefits which they got just for arriving on our shores whilst "our" people are having their benefits took off of them.

Feeling p*ssed off at being forced to listen to this diatribe of utter cobblers I asked them what they thought of UKIPs plan for a flat tax that would double the income tax they paid to 30%, cut taxes for the rich and lead to more public service cuts. Blank stares in response.

[ohsocynical]

http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/10/1 ... ace-prize/

Totally sickening. I think we need to apply ethnic cleansing to Daily Mail readers.

[frightful_oik]

Good morning everyone from a damp and chilly Switzerland

Spent the last few days in Bad Säckingen in Germany - very nice town and it has the longest wooden covered bridge in Europe crossing the Rhine between Germany and Switzerland!

Been reading some of the guff being written about the by-elections (not here of course but in MSM) and am absolutely stupified

Of course, the results need to be looked at and Labour needs to ensure it is listening to those most affected by Globalisation, wage deflation and all the rest of it without seeing the benefits. This group is difficult to get to and tend not to vote so it is a big task

The thing that strikes me that all those crowing about H&M in the media are those who have absolutely nothing to offer to these people - immigration being the only thing but no mention of all the other aspects, focused mainly on corporate greed and speculation. Mattew Huntbach over on LDV gives one of his long posts just tearing into the legacy of Thatcherism and how it is focused on non-earned riches rather than those earned by work - I have a lot of sympathy in what he says. Unfortunately there are not many like him over there now (more Simon Shaw-like if you know this unpleasant character....)

UKIP are a an empty right-wing vessel that will implode one day - it is just I hope that day comes before they get too much traction and the risk is that Labour start to pander to them in the same way the Tories have (in their case more of rolling over to be honest)

The media and the commentators in the media are a contemptible and loathsome bunch, drip feeding untruth and opinion under the cover of 'fact's

Stay strong Ed, get rid of those remaining Blairite Tories and start looking at selling us a vision that concentrates on the many rather than the few - if you don't do it then no-one will! A defeat for Miliband in 2015 will, I fear, again lead to a resurgence of the Labour right - and I cannot see where those with compassion and tolerance will go.....some may say the Greens but until they stop being so anti-science I cannot bring myself to support them

Here's an example from last night:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04kf82j
Listen from 1:43:00 misquoting Jack Straw and then doing it again at 2:22:00. I'll complain but it'll do no good.
The Lab bloke wasn't much cop but at least he had his quotes lined up properly when the odious Helmer came on.
Morning all.

[Temulkar]

Good morning everyone from a damp and chilly Switzerland

Spent the last few days in Bad Säckingen in Germany - very nice town and it has the longest wooden covered bridge in Europe crossing the Rhine between Germany and Switzerland!

Been reading some of the guff being written about the by-elections (not here of course but in MSM) and am absolutely stupified

Of course, the results need to be looked at and Labour needs to ensure it is listening to those most affected by Globalisation, wage deflation and all the rest of it without seeing the benefits. This group is difficult to get to and tend not to vote so it is a big task

The thing that strikes me that all those crowing about H&M in the media are those who have absolutely nothing to offer to these people - immigration being the only thing but no mention of all the other aspects, focused mainly on corporate greed and speculation. Mattew Huntbach over on LDV gives one of his long posts just tearing into the legacy of Thatcherism and how it is focused on non-earned riches rather than those earned by work - I have a lot of sympathy in what he says. Unfortunately there are not many like him over there now (more Simon Shaw-like if you know this unpleasant character....)

UKIP are a an empty right-wing vessel that will implode one day - it is just I hope that day comes before they get too much traction and the risk is that Labour start to pander to them in the same way the Tories have (in their case more of rolling over to be honest)

The media and the commentators in the media are a contemptible and loathsome bunch, drip feeding untruth and opinion under the cover of 'fact's

Stay strong Ed, get rid of those remaining Blairite Tories and start looking at selling us a vision that concentrates on the many rather than the few - if you don't do it then no-one will! A defeat for Miliband in 2015 will, I fear, again lead to a resurgence of the Labour right - and I cannot see where those with compassion and tolerance will go.....some may say the Greens but until they stop being so anti-science I cannot bring myself to support them

How exactly are the Greens anti-science?

[ErnstRemarx]

From that Graun editorial - the first one I've actually mostly agreed with for a very long time:

"The Conservatives and Labour alike would do better to take the fight to Ukip than ape it. The party has thrived through unvarnished bluster, which strikes an authentic note in an age of spin, yet conceals chaotic policies which could easily be ripped apart. While Mr Farage undoubtedly speaks for a minority, more voters tell pollsters they dislike Ukip than any other party. His latest remarks about HIV follows a prejudiced assault on Romanians and his calls to entrust the NHS to businessmen. His obsessions are not those of Middle England. After his win, others must muster the courage to take him on in his own plain-speaking style."

Of course, it might help a little if meeja outlets like the Graun were a little more inquisitive about UKIP's policies, but I imagine that doesn't sell a many issues or attract as much clickbait as simply parroting the UKIP uncritically, which is what the Graun is guilty of, and other papers and meeja outlets more so.

UKIP have two policies: we hate the EU; we hate wogs. That's it. It staggers me that seemingly ordinary sane people can vote for that shit, but apparently they do.

The problem with Ukip is that people (including Carswell, IMO) are investing it with all sorts of things that they want it to be, not necessarily what it is. It happened with Obama, it happened with the LibDems, it happened with Blair, to an extent it happened with Cameron and it's in the process of happening with the SNP. If there's a silver lining to this particular Ukip cloud, it's that sooner or later people see the truth and the result is at best disappointment and at worst a sense of betrayal. But for now, it's hard to fight because it's not based on anything real, just what the individual wants to be true.

This. A thousand times; this.

You've put your finger on it in a way that I couldn't. UKIP are tabula rasa except for the two policies I mentioned (which will always find them a racist and xenophobic core vote), and are so similar in that respect to the FibDems that it wouldn't surprise me at all if they campaign in exactly the same manner.

It's almost impossible to campaign effectively against UKIP based upon criticising their two policies, because those core policies are the sort of things that people either agree with or find abhorrent; there is little middle ground as such. OK, some people are indifferent to the EU, but if pushed will have a view on it, and I defy you to find a kipper who's indifferent to the EU and who isn't genuinely xenophobic.

I've come to the conclusion, after many years of thought and observation, that there simply are people in the UK who dislike anything that isn't familiar and part of their immediate landscape. You'll see them on holidays in ThatForn heading for Ye Olde Red Lion pub rather than seeking out a local taverna or bodega, anxiously scanning the menus in restaurants (the menus must be in English, or else they struggle) for the reassurance of the full English breakfast. I know people like that, and you probably do too.

I hoped that as Europe and the world opened up, people like that would be in such a minority that they would be irrelevant, and that young people growing up in a very different world to the one I was born into and grew up in would have shaken off such parochialism. That's why finding out that UKIP have an active youth wing saddens me so much. It's a bit like meeting an 18 year old who tells you that they're voting Tory, but slightly worse.

So what to do? UKIP supporters that I've met are pretty much impervious to factual arguments, and in the absence of any policies, it's difficult to get a purchase on them given that they disowned their 2010 manifesto lock, stock and barrel. UKIP will have to start telling people their policies soon, and that's when the real work starts. If their next manifesto is as dreadful as the 2010 version, that's the opening that's needed. Otherwise it's going to be difficult to argue against blind faith. It doesn't work with the devoutly religious.

[tinyclanger2]

It staggers me that seemingly ordinary sane people can vote for that shit, but apparently they do.

I expect most of them are ignoring the racism and just looking at their own domestic situation.

For some the racism is part of the appeal. I had the unpleasant experience yesterday of listening to three women talking to each other about how they couldn't wait for UKIP to get power so that they'd kick all the "foreign muck" out of the country, especially Slovakians. They then proceeded to reinforce their racism by telling each other how they'd heard how these foreigners were all living in luxury on £100,000 a year benefits which they got just for arriving on our shores whilst "our" people are having their benefits took off of them.

Feeling p*ssed off at being forced to listen to this diatribe of utter cobblers I asked them what they thought of UKIPs plan for a flat tax that would double the income tax they paid to 30%, cut taxes for the rich and lead to more public service cuts. Blank stares in response.

Indeed. I don't dispute (and indeed feel exhausted by) the fact that racist speech is apparently acceptable again. Very depressing.

[TechnicalEphemera]

It staggers me that seemingly ordinary sane people can vote for that shit, but apparently they do.

I expect most of them are ignoring the racism and just looking at their own domestic situation. People feel threatened and it's a knotty issue. I had a pretty socialist colleague in the NL who understood the appeal of Wilders because he spoke to the unprivileged majority about threats to their livelihood. Most people just conveniently ignored the racist aspects no matter how blatant. More recently I spoke to a really nice couple who voted BNP because they didn't know who to vote for who would make their lives any easier. They'd found that they couldn't afford to have one of them working as a careworker so she had to go and do something trivial instead.

This is tricky for Labour. They are going in the right direction with the increase in the minimum wage, the living wage and apprenticeships. But then there is also the fact that many have swallowed the "Europe tells us what to do" crap which is the other half of the UKIP message. Simplicity works in terms of swinging opinion, regardless of how it translates into practice. Labour need to understand that too.

You have to segment the UKIP vote, peel off the bit you want and promote their vision for the bits you don't want. UKIP is a coalition of contradictory causes dominated by the right. As I see it their support divides as follows:

1. Racist thugs - we hate Wogs faction, as exploited by the sack of crap they called a candidate in H&M. Ex BNP - never voting Labour.
2. Modernity rejecting old people. The Michael Gove brigade, seeking to return to a fictional 50s paradise. Mostly poorer pensioners some of whom might vote Labour but generally a natural Tory constituency.
3. Suffering working class, the we hate the EU brigade because them Bulgarians took our jobs (and now all we have are crappy retail minimum wage jobs). This is a natural Labour constituency.
4. Protest voters - we hate everybody and want to send a message. The sort of people who don't vote or vote Lib Dem.
5. Changeists - everything is shit let's try something else. Non voters, or fringe voters, or politically ignorant tabloid readers.

The trick is (as an oddly sensible Diane Abbot pointed out) to construct an offer for group 3 that they will go for, whilst pointing out that group 2 (UKIP core) is actively working against their interests and that Group 1 are the sort of people you cross the road to avoid.

So big minimum wage increases, or a ban on unskilled labour migration from the EU are the answer here.

The problem is you can't offer part 2 (although Dave will try to claim he can) because of EU rules. So you need to see if you can find something improves their actual circumstances quickly. I have no idea what that is (other than doubling the minimum wage). Now I would be in favour of that but business would do its nut and might offshore even more jobs.

[Spacedone]

I expect most of them are ignoring the racism and just looking at their own domestic situation.

For some the racism is part of the appeal. I had the unpleasant experience yesterday of listening to three women talking to each other about how they couldn't wait for UKIP to get power so that they'd kick all the "foreign muck" out of the country, especially Slovakians. They then proceeded to reinforce their racism by telling each other how they'd heard how these foreigners were all living in luxury on £100,000 a year benefits which they got just for arriving on our shores whilst "our" people are having their benefits took off of them.

Feeling p*ssed off at being forced to listen to this diatribe of utter cobblers I asked them what they thought of UKIPs plan for a flat tax that would double the income tax they paid to 30%, cut taxes for the rich and lead to more public service cuts. Blank stares in response.

Indeed. I don't dispute (and indeed feel exhausted by) the fact that racist speech is apparently acceptable again. Very depressing.

The racist element will sadly alway be there but when times are economically hard it does tend to surge to the surface. Unfortunately this time we've had our own Government, not to mention the usual tabloid suspects, doing their part to help bring it to the surface with their blame culture towards any kind of minority group.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Douglas Carswell asked if Ukip's hard line on 'health tourism' meant that he disagreed with the treatment given to Malala Yousafzai

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/d ... x144DBGJIg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Carswell replied that he was 'not familiar with that case', obscure as it is and involving the latest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize rather than someone really important, in, say, business.

I suspect that might have been a coded way of saying "I don't agree", tbf - it is a bit much to expect him to diss Farage the day after UKIP's biggest triumph.

But the potential for friction between the two is pretty obvious, and I don't think we will have to wait too long before it becomes explicit.

[tinyclanger2]

I imagine our predominantly right-wing press is at the heart of much of it. The question is how do we deal with that?

[Spacedone]

Douglas Carswell asked if Ukip's hard line on 'health tourism' meant that he disagreed with the treatment given to Malala Yousafzai

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/d ... x144DBGJIg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Carswell replied that he was 'not familiar with that case', obscure as it is and involving the latest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize rather than someone really important, in, say, business.

I suspect that might have been a coded way of saying "I don't agree", tbf - it is a bit much to expect him to diss Farage the day after UKIP's biggest triumph.

But the potential for friction between the two is pretty obvious, and I don't think we will have to wait too long before it becomes explicit.

Some of the media were already calling him "UKIPs future leader" yesterday. Awkward...

[citizenJA]

"In October 2013 the Electoral Commission made an assessment that the implementation of IER should not be delayed and the Government announced on 18 December 2013 that IER would be brought into force on 10 June 2014 in England and Wales and on 19 September 2014 in Scotland.

The new system of registration will mean that electors will be registered individually and they will have to provide identification in order to verify their application; this will be their date of birth and National Insurance number.

Transitional arrangements have been made to allow data matching against the records held by the Department for Work and Pensions to automatically confirm electors on the register during the transition to IER in 2014."

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-paper ... gistration

The DWP is involved in auto confirming electors. Oh, no.

From the Individual Electoral Registration - Commons Library Standard Note
Published 15 January 2014 | Standard notes SN06764 publication pdf linked on the website I've posted above, the following:

The April 2011 parliamentary registers were 82.3% complete, meaning
that 17.7% of the eligible electorate were not registered at this time.

The December 2010 registers were estimated to be 85-87% complete,
meaning that an estimated 13-15% of those eligible were not
registered after the 2010 annual canvass.

The last estimate for the completeness of the registers found that 8-9% were not registered in
December 2000;

Only 14% of people who moved house after the 2010 annual canvass
had registered at their new address by April 2011;

56% of 19-24 year olds are registered, compared with 94% of those
aged 65+;

77% of people from BME communities are registered (compared with
86% of white people);

56% of European Union citizens and 68% of Irish / Commonwealth
citizens are registered on the local government registers, compared
with 84% of UK citizens;

56% of people living in private rented homes are registered, compared
with 88% for homeowners;

44% of those not registered to vote mistakenly believe that they are.

(my bold)

[citizenJA]

Good morning, everyone.

[AngryAsWell]

It's worth remembering that more people in this country support Ed Miliband's vision of Britain than Nigel Farage's.

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

[AngryAsWell]

"In October 2013 the Electoral Commission made an assessment that the implementation of IER should not be delayed and the Government announced on 18 December 2013 that IER would be brought into force on 10 June 2014 in England and Wales and on 19 September 2014 in Scotland.

The new system of registration will mean that electors will be registered individually and they will have to provide identification in order to verify their application; this will be their date of birth and National Insurance number.

Transitional arrangements have been made to allow data matching against the records held by the Department for Work and Pensions to automatically confirm electors on the register during the transition to IER in 2014."

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-paper ... gistration

The DWP is involved in auto confirming electors. Oh, no.

From the Individual Electoral Registration - Commons Library Standard Note
Published 15 January 2014 | Standard notes SN06764 publication pdf linked on the website I've posted above, the following:

The April 2011 parliamentary registers were 82.3% complete, meaning
that 17.7% of the eligible electorate were not registered at this time.

The December 2010 registers were estimated to be 85-87% complete,
meaning that an estimated 13-15% of those eligible were not
registered after the 2010 annual canvass.

The last estimate for the completeness of the registers found that 8-9% were not registered in
December 2000;

Only 14% of people who moved house after the 2010 annual canvass
had registered at their new address by April 2011;

56% of 19-24 year olds are registered, compared with 94% of those
aged 65+;

77% of people from BME communities are registered (compared with
86% of white people);

56% of European Union citizens and 68% of Irish / Commonwealth
citizens are registered on the local government registers, compared
with 84% of UK citizens;

56% of people living in private rented homes are registered, compared
with 88% for homeowners;

44% of those not registered to vote mistakenly believe that they are.

(my bold)

I've been tweeting about this for a while now.
Here's the link to register online
http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register_t ... wales.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PorFavor]

Douglas Carswell asked if Ukip's hard line on 'health tourism' meant that he disagreed with the treatment given to Malala Yousafzai

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/d ... x144DBGJIg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Carswell replied that he was 'not familiar with that case', obscure as it is and involving the latest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize rather than someone really important, in, say, business.

I suspect that might have been a coded way of saying "I don't agree", tbf - it is a bit much to expect him to diss Farage the day after UKIP's biggest triumph.

But the potential for friction between the two is pretty obvious, and I don't think we will have to wait too long before it becomes explicit.

Douglas Carswell's speech at the count was a rather off-message start (from a Nigel Farage point of view). The question is - how does he (D Carswell) mean to carry on? Will he knuckle under? Pretending (as I think he must have been) not to be familiar with the case of the Nobel Prize winner was probably a delaying tactic while he decides (or waits to go public on) how he means to continue.


Edited to amend appalling sentence structure and generally bad English.

[ErnstRemarx]

Douglas Carswell asked if Ukip's hard line on 'health tourism' meant that he disagreed with the treatment given to Malala Yousafzai

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/d ... x144DBGJIg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Carswell replied that he was 'not familiar with that case', obscure as it is and involving the latest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize rather than someone really important, in, say, business.

I suspect that might have been a coded way of saying "I don't agree", tbf - it is a bit much to expect him to diss Farage the day after UKIP's biggest triumph.

But the potential for friction between the two is pretty obvious, and I don't think we will have to wait too long before it becomes explicit.

Douglas Carswell's speech at the count was a rather off-message start (from a Nigel Farage point of view). The question is - is that how he (D Carswell) means to carry on or will he knuckle under? Pretending (as I think he must have been) not to be familiar with the case of the Nobel Prize winner was probably a delaying tactic while he decides (or waits to go public on) how he means to continue.

It's one of two things.

Either Carswell tells his target audience that they shouldn't have given treatment (or the Nobel prize) to a Paki (which is what they want to hear), or else he would have to make an exception for her - which then undermines the UKIP position from the mouth of their single MP in the house, and would surely offend most of his electoral base (see also, Daily Mail readers).

I suppose there's one other alternative. It could be that Carswell's a complete fake who jumped ship to UKIP because he thought he stood more chance of getting re-elected in Clacton as a kipper candidate rather than a Tory. If that's the case, then it's pretty unlikely that he'll be wedded to Farago's vision of a black and white England as part of the Empire upon which the sun never sets.

If this last is what's going on, then it sheds a rather different light on Carswell's motivations. In any event, his reply was political obfuscation - just the sort of thing that UKIP pretend they don't do.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Carswell would have easily been re-elected next year as a Tory - he has many failings, but I do think his conversion was sincere as far as it goes.

[howsillyofme1]

Good morning everyone from a damp and chilly Switzerland

Spent the last few days in Bad Säckingen in Germany - very nice town and it has the longest wooden covered bridge in Europe crossing the Rhine between Germany and Switzerland!

Been reading some of the guff being written about the by-elections (not here of course but in MSM) and am absolutely stupified

Of course, the results need to be looked at and Labour needs to ensure it is listening to those most affected by Globalisation, wage deflation and all the rest of it without seeing the benefits. This group is difficult to get to and tend not to vote so it is a big task

The thing that strikes me that all those crowing about H&M in the media are those who have absolutely nothing to offer to these people - immigration being the only thing but no mention of all the other aspects, focused mainly on corporate greed and speculation. Mattew Huntbach over on LDV gives one of his long posts just tearing into the legacy of Thatcherism and how it is focused on non-earned riches rather than those earned by work - I have a lot of sympathy in what he says. Unfortunately there are not many like him over there now (more Simon Shaw-like if you know this unpleasant character....)

UKIP are a an empty right-wing vessel that will implode one day - it is just I hope that day comes before they get too much traction and the risk is that Labour start to pander to them in the same way the Tories have (in their case more of rolling over to be honest)

The media and the commentators in the media are a contemptible and loathsome bunch, drip feeding untruth and opinion under the cover of 'fact's

Stay strong Ed, get rid of those remaining Blairite Tories and start looking at selling us a vision that concentrates on the many rather than the few - if you don't do it then no-one will! A defeat for Miliband in 2015 will, I fear, again lead to a resurgence of the Labour right - and I cannot see where those with compassion and tolerance will go.....some may say the Greens but until they stop being so anti-science I cannot bring myself to support them

How exactly are the Greens anti-science?

This link describes some of the areas I am particularly interested in; organic farming and homeopathy

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomch ... h-science/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not saying the Greens haven't made progress over the years but I have some friends back in the UK, and know some Greens here who are vehemently opposed to anything that smacks of 'chemicals' and have no concept on the difference between hazard and risk or how scientific method should be applied

Whether other people or not find their views and ideas acceptable is up to them but I have had a lot of personal experience of party members which have not been in anyway positive and reassuring

I work in the agro sector, as a chemist, and am not at all a proponent of all that is done in the sector but I have seen things coming from the Green movement which are absolute nonsense and based on emotion rather than fact (not necessarily the Green Party though)

To be fair though I think with the progress of the party I can see them becoming far more attractive to people like me in the future and I also believe there is less of a link from them to the more extremist views now than there was

I do not want to get in a bit debate about the rights and wrongs of business/science etc - all I will say at the minute I am not comfortable voting for the Greens now but as always I will keep an open mind and watch their development from a party on the fringes to a more potent force with interest

[tinyclanger2]

Edited to amend appalling sentence structure and generally bad English.

Excellent. Always cheers me up.

[citizenJA]

We had a brief discussion a couple of weeks back about 'Members Only' here (so far unused) and the Pub. At the old site the Pub was members only. I think we felt we could be a little less careful about what we posted there compared with the very public Daily Politics. What do folk think? Should we get rid of Members Only and restrict access to the Pub? At the old site there was a visible topic called 'Looking for the Pub' that explained to non-members its existence.

I didn't access the 'Members Only' pub to post or to read; I think I hopped on it but got distracted - perhaps I wasn't invited (?) - I've no idea if I wasn't - it's absolutely fine. I'd like greater privacy with my friends here. I'd like to post my ideas with less strict caution than currently - having written that, I read it back & can't find a specific example in my head to demonstrate what I mean. I've sent private messages to a few members here containing information I'd not post on the news threads or here. That's what I mean, Paul.

I admit I'm not here on this site as often as I think of you all. I've written this before. I'm in the habit of reading news, finding links & data below the line on the G. The beta blog format used more often on the website isn't good. The techs make some good changes then ten minutes later anything improved is gone & I've got to work to find anything at all. Enough of that - I'm just musing.

In my opinion, it's disrespectful to take information from this website & take it elsewhere without permission, without sensitivity - when the intention is to misrepresent - I hope I'm being clear. Once or twice that's happened to me from sailor garden gnome & nutso - absolutely awful - I'd never do such a thing to commentators no matter if I agreed or disagreed with them. The right-wing contributors on the G (& other places, I presume) check out this website & that's great. Taking information I've put into a post here out of context & posting it elsewhere is unacceptable. The intention is stifle voices, not participate in respectful communication.

Please don't hesitate to ask what I'm writing about if I've not been clear here.

[citizenJA]

Carswell would have easily been re-elected next year as a Tory - he has many failings, but I do think his conversion was sincere as far as it goes.

Hang on - my thoughts are conflicted. I've got to ruminate some more before I post.

[ohsocynical]

From last night

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Oh here we go.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 88395.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bunch of Z listers the lot of them. If they don't turn up sack the lot and replace them with charismatic MPs.

None of them would be missed, and none of them have a support base. A great little opportunity.

I think this is what I was saying further up there /\ about the (alleged) coming reshuffle, if shadow cabinet ministers ignore the whip it may well be a blood letting. There is no urgency at this point in time to force this vote.....unless it makes it easier to shift some people..... ?

Quote:
Rachel Reeves, the shadow Work and Pension Secretary, and Michael Dugher, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, are both officers of Labour Friends of Israel.
The shadow Chancellor Ed Balls and shadow Cabinet ministers Caroline Flint, Liam Byrne, Ivan Lewis and Jim Murphy are all listed as supporters.

Note : Never play chess with EdM...


It is a high risk strategy as it will add to the disgruntled brigade which I think is currently:

Stringer, Danczuk, Byrne and Murphy.

On the other hand he can bring in AJ and Darling; the question is who does he have up and coming to add to the mix. We could really do with a recognised disability rights campaigner lining up against IDS.

I actually doubt Balls will rebel, too invested in an election victory.


Very risky I do agree, but - lets face it - how many times have we here expressed frustration that the shadow team just don't get behind Ed? Perhaps its time to "go for broke"
If Lucy Powell gets the bit between her teeth she would be a brilliant match for IDS - I've seen her angry about issues she cares about - and she can handle herself well on TV.
http://www.labour.org.uk/people/detail/lucy-powell" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But maybe I'm wrong and he's just filling parliamentary time....?

Ed's a very clever parliamentarian. Quiet and unassuming, but there's a razor sharp brain underneath. I'm sure he'll have weighed up all the pros and cons.

Recalling the street demos and protests against Israel when they were bombing shit out of Palestine, I think he'll gain a lot of support from voters.
And yes, perhaps he's seen it as the perfect time to do a bit more weeding out. It's far better than a regular clear out. The Blairites either bend to his will and accept there's a new order, or are left behind.

He needs maximum support for 2015, because it's going to be a nightmare for whoever takes over. In fighting and bickering will be disastrous for a untried, redesigned party.

The more he refuses to get rattled, the more I admire him. Tenacious comes to mind....I like it.

Edited. More for less. And less pills would make me less woolly headed.

[citizenJA]

I'm impressed with Miliband's March 2014 speech about the EU & immigration posted below.

http://labourlist.org/2014/03/miliband- ... eech-text/

[yahyah]

Morning All!

I've been over to the old site a couple of times this week. Apart from one spam post, now deleted, there has been no activity for weeks and weeks.

So, I've started locking all the threads that are still open, so we can "freeze" the site as is and stop having to worry about checking it. I'm sure Refitman will tell me I can lock everything in one fell swoop, but I'm quite enjoying flicking through thread by thread

We had a brief discussion a couple of weeks back about 'Members Only' here (so far unused) and the Pub. At the old site the Pub was members only. I think we felt we could be a little less careful about what we posted there compared with the very public Daily Politics. What do folk think? Should we get rid of Members Only and restrict access to the Pub? At the old site there was a visible topic called 'Looking for the Pub' that explained to non-members its existence.

I think keeping Members Only for emergency use would be useful.
Also, if there is ever anything that may be contentious is there any legal protection in having a non-public area to discuss things ?

Also, not sure The Pub should be members only as that may stop viewing there from non registered lurkers who may want to dip their feet non-politics stuff as well, and get to know us FTNers a little more via other topics .

Are there stats on who views what, members/non-members ?

[TechnicalEphemera]

Carswell would have easily been re-elected next year as a Tory - he has many failings, but I do think his conversion was sincere as far as it goes.

Hang on - my thoughts are conflicted. I've got to ruminate some more before I post.

I think Carswell was sidelined in the Tory party, but in UKIP he will be very big news. He will find a way to work with Farage, because leader probably isn't what he wants to be.

The thing with Farage is he doesn't have a deeply held ideology so it is pretty unlikely he will fall out with Carswell over policy. Given UKIPs ability to be everything and nothing, I am not convinced he will even care if they face different ways on key messages. Kippers seem to project their aspirations onto the party not vice versa.

In UKIP fantasy land Labour wins narrowly in 2015, the Tories fragment and UKIP takes over the grass roots leading to opposition in 2020 and power 2025.

[yahyah]

Douglas Carswell asked if Ukip's hard line on 'health tourism' meant that he disagreed with the treatment given to Malala Yousafzai

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/d ... x144DBGJIg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Carswell replied that he was 'not familiar with that case', obscure as it is and involving the latest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize rather than someone really important, in, say, business.

According to reports at the time, the Pakistan government paid for ''all transport, migration, medical, accommodation and subsistence costs for Malala and her party."

[Temulkar]

Good morning everyone from a damp and chilly Switzerland

Spent the last few days in Bad Säckingen in Germany - very nice town and it has the longest wooden covered bridge in Europe crossing the Rhine between Germany and Switzerland!

Been reading some of the guff being written about the by-elections (not here of course but in MSM) and am absolutely stupified

Of course, the results need to be looked at and Labour needs to ensure it is listening to those most affected by Globalisation, wage deflation and all the rest of it without seeing the benefits. This group is difficult to get to and tend not to vote so it is a big task

The thing that strikes me that all those crowing about H&M in the media are those who have absolutely nothing to offer to these people - immigration being the only thing but no mention of all the other aspects, focused mainly on corporate greed and speculation. Mattew Huntbach over on LDV gives one of his long posts just tearing into the legacy of Thatcherism and how it is focused on non-earned riches rather than those earned by work - I have a lot of sympathy in what he says. Unfortunately there are not many like him over there now (more Simon Shaw-like if you know this unpleasant character....)

UKIP are a an empty right-wing vessel that will implode one day - it is just I hope that day comes before they get too much traction and the risk is that Labour start to pander to them in the same way the Tories have (in their case more of rolling over to be honest)

The media and the commentators in the media are a contemptible and loathsome bunch, drip feeding untruth and opinion under the cover of 'fact's

Stay strong Ed, get rid of those remaining Blairite Tories and start looking at selling us a vision that concentrates on the many rather than the few - if you don't do it then no-one will! A defeat for Miliband in 2015 will, I fear, again lead to a resurgence of the Labour right - and I cannot see where those with compassion and tolerance will go.....some may say the Greens but until they stop being so anti-science I cannot bring myself to support them

How exactly are the Greens anti-science?

This link describes some of the areas I am particularly interested in; organic farming and homeopathy

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomch ... h-science/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not saying the Greens haven't made progress over the years but I have some friends back in the UK, and know some Greens here who are vehemently opposed to anything that smacks of 'chemicals' and have no concept on the difference between hazard and risk or how scientific method should be applied

Whether other people or not find their views and ideas acceptable is up to them but I have had a lot of personal experience of party members which have not been in anyway positive and reassuring

I work in the agro sector, as a chemist, and am not at all a proponent of all that is done in the sector but I have seen things coming from the Green movement which are absolute nonsense and based on emotion rather than fact (not necessarily the Green Party though)

To be fair though I think with the progress of the party I can see them becoming far more attractive to people like me in the future and I also believe there is less of a link from them to the more extremist views now than there was

I do not want to get in a bit debate about the rights and wrongs of business/science etc - all I will say at the minute I am not comfortable voting for the Greens now but as always I will keep an open mind and watch their development from a party on the fringes to a more potent force with interest

Well I would suggest not trusting the Telegraph as a source for the Green Party. A similar article in the Graun was just as ill informed.

As far as Nuclear goes there are certainly Greens who support it in the short-medium term. Personally since Britain has the equivalent of 9 Nuclear power stations in Geo Thermal energy alone, I would rather see us focus on that and Hydro-electric/Tidal.

GM development is something the Greens always get tarred as anti-science. Actually our stance is pretty clear, GM foods are going to be vital for the survival of humanity. What we are opposed to is the corporate control of GM development and the lack of corporate liability for any potential environmental problems caused. I'm fine with scientists evaluating risks and hazards, but if they get it wrong I expect the corporations to pay for being wrong, not walk away expecting the state to pick up the tab.

We really aren't a bunch of tree hugging luddite hippies.

[citizenJA]

@ Ohsocynical -

Ed's a very clever parliamentarian. Quiet and unassuming, but there's a razor sharp brain underneath. I'm sure he'll have weighed up all the pros and cons.

Recalling the street demos and protests against Israel when they were bombing shit out of Palestine, I think he'll gain a lot of support from voters.
And yes, perhaps he's seen it as the perfect time to do a bit more weeding out. It's far better than a regular clear out. The Blairites either bend to his will and accept there's a new order, or are left behind.

He needs maximum support for 2015, because it's going to be a nightmare for whoever takes over. In fighting and bickering will be disastrous for a untried, redesigned party.

The less he refuses to get rattled, the more I admire him. Tenacious comes to mind....I like it.

Agreed. Miliband "remains always one" - it's a term my internship supervisor taught me.

What is the task at this moment? What is the objective? Remember who you are. What is your purpose in this action? State it. Remember it. Guilelessness - losing that confuses you, confusion sabotages any work. Better not have started than forgetting to remain always one.

Miliband listens, answers, questions the Labour party people about the work & the Labour party people proceed with good work. Steadfast in word & deed is protection from scheming.

It's simple but not easy.

[citizenJA]

Temulkar -

Well I would suggest not trusting the Telegraph as a source for the Green Party. A similar article in the Graun was just as ill informed.

As far as Nuclear goes there are certainly Greens who support it in the short-medium term. Personally since Britain has the equivalent of 9 Nuclear power stations in Geo Thermal energy alone, I would rather see us focus on that and Hydro-electric/Tidal.

GM development is something the Greens always get tarred as anti-science. Actually our stance is pretty clear, GM foods are going to be vital for the survival of humanity. What we are opposed to is the corporate control of GM development and the lack of corporate liability for any potential environmental problems caused. I'm fine with scientists evaluating risks and hazards, but if they get it wrong I expect the corporations to pay for being wrong, not walk away expecting the state to pick up the tab.

We really aren't a bunch of tree hugging luddite hippies.

I've put into bold our shared concerns.

I don't know enough about genetically modified organisms & its contribution to food security to agree or disagree with you.

My understanding of geo-thermal energy is that's it's not coal bed methane extraction - I've encountered commentary attempting to pass off this unconventional fossil fuel use as renewable . You're not - I'm sharing my dismay over the confusion in the news. I'm all for wind turbine both on & offshore. I didn't realise the UK has more capacity for hydro-electric - I'm delighted if we do.

Norway Electricity - from hydroelectric plants:

91.7% of total installed capacity (2010 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/no.html

[Temulkar]

Temulkar -

Well I would suggest not trusting the Telegraph as a source for the Green Party. A similar article in the Graun was just as ill informed.

As far as Nuclear goes there are certainly Greens who support it in the short-medium term. Personally since Britain has the equivalent of 9 Nuclear power stations in Geo Thermal energy alone, I would rather see us focus on that and Hydro-electric/Tidal.

GM development is something the Greens always get tarred as anti-science. Actually our stance is pretty clear, GM foods are going to be vital for the survival of humanity. What we are opposed to is the corporate control of GM development and the lack of corporate liability for any potential environmental problems caused. I'm fine with scientists evaluating risks and hazards, but if they get it wrong I expect the corporations to pay for being wrong, not walk away expecting the state to pick up the tab.

We really aren't a bunch of tree hugging luddite hippies.

I've put into bold our shared concerns.

I don't know enough about genetically modified organisms & its contribution to food security to agree or disagree with you.

My understanding of geo-thermal energy is that's it's not coal bed methane extraction - I've encountered commentary attempting to pass off this unconventional fossil fuel use as renewable . You're not - I'm sharing my dismay over the confusion in the news. I'm all for wind turbine both on & offshore. I didn't realise the UK has more capacity for hydro-electric - I'm delighted if we do.

Norway Electricity - from hydroelectric plants:

91.7% of total installed capacity (2010 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/no.html

Geo-thermal most definitely is not methane extraction from coal. Personally, having grown up in a mining village, you have to be really fucking stupid to light a fire near a coal seam and expect to be able to control it.

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/energy/geothermal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Southampton has a geothermal system that heats a part of the city. I think local schemes controlled by local government are going to be part of the way forward. What is (for me) even better is the geology is best in the north and South West, both pplaces that could really do with jobs and green development.

[tinyclanger2]

Is there some reason why "the Greens" can't work from within the Labour party?

[citizenJA]

Temulkar -

Geo-thermal most definitely is not methane extraction from coal. Personally, having grown up in a mining village, you have to be really fucking stupid to light a fire near a coal seam and expect to be able to control it.

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/energy/geothermal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Southampton has a geothermal system that heats a part of the city. I think local schemes controlled by local government are going to be part of the way forward. What is (for me) even better is the geology is best in the north and South West, both pplaces that could really do with jobs and green development.

Check this out.

Onshore Licensing
1 October 2014

Areas currently under Licence
Gas Field
Oil Field Oil Discovery
Gas Discovery
Mines Gas Developments (active)
Coal Bed Methane Field
Gas Storage Location

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... s_Lics.pdf

[citizenJA]

Temulkar -

The Potteries - my home

Thank you for the Geothermal energy page.

[citizenJA]

Is there some reason why "the Greens" can't work from within the Labour party?

It's one of my dearest wishes - Greens & Labour together.

[Temulkar]

Is there some reason why "the Greens" can't work from within the Labour party?

Off the top of my head,

Renationalisation of energy, utilities, transport, health, education and policing/prison services
Higher corporate tax rates.
Land value tax
rebanding of Council Tax.
HS2
Trident
Foriegn Policy
Electoral reform
WCA/ATOS/UNUM
Trade Unionism.

And that's without even going into labour's lacklustre approach to to enviromental issues. What you should really be asking yourself is whose policies represent your views.

[ErnstRemarx]

Is there some reason why "the Greens" can't work from within the Labour party?

Off the top of my head,

Renationalisation of energy, utilities, transport, health, education and policing/prison services
Higher corporate tax rates.
Land value tax
rebanding of Council Tax.
HS2
Trident
Foriegn Policy
Electoral reform
WCA/ATOS/UNUM
Trade Unionism.

And that's without even going into labour's lacklustre approach to to enviromental issues. What you should really be asking yourself is whose policies represent your views.

Whilst that's a great hit list (and one to which I could subscribe), there's a small matter of having enough MPs to be able to cut a deal on it with anyone, and therein lies the problem.

On a personal level, my problem with the Green party is that around here they've acted in a fairly unprincipled manner regarding some of the actions taken by the Labour council (of which I'm obviously a member) in relation to the £50m worth of cuts dumped on us by the Tories.

They've been centre stage in demanding (loudly and in print) the return of Bury library to its pre cuts state, when they know that cannot happen. In the next breath they're telling us to oppose cuts from the Tories. Well, duh, I hadn't thought of that. Perhaps we should do as they request and refuse to implement them and pass an illegal budget to stick it to the man. Yeah, I'm desperate to be surcharged, disqualified from office and have some fucker in London decide the budget for us.

Excuse me if I sound a bit cynical, but I can't see how that actually achieves anything other than to see the Tories back in power in the town hall. To me it smacks of anything other than principles.

I've got no problem with the Greens nationally, I should re-emphasise, and certainly I have no argument with you Tem, but this is stuff I've actually experienced in meetings, on the street and in the local meeja, and I find it distasteful, at best.

[citizenJA]

Is there some reason why "the Greens" can't work from within the Labour party?

Off the top of my head,

Renationalisation of energy, utilities, transport, health, education and policing/prison services
Higher corporate tax rates.
Land value tax
rebanding of Council Tax.
HS2
Trident
Foriegn Policy
Electoral reform
WCA/ATOS/UNUM
Trade Unionism.

And that's without even going into labour's lacklustre approach to to enviromental issues. What you should really be asking yourself is whose policies represent your views.

We've got some work to do together.