Saturday 11th and Sunday 12th October 2014

Spacedone · Post by **Spacedone** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 9:05 am

yahyah wrote:Morning.
Very cold here, only 4 degrees C. when I just put the washing out.

Don't think anyone's posted the Survation for Mail on Sunday yet.

CON 31% =
LAB -31% -4
UKIP 25% +6
LD 8%=

Also saw Mike Smithson tweet 'Detailed data from Survation for Southern England has UKIP on 37.6%, four pts ahead of the Tories'

Swings like that scream 'outlier' to me so I'm not sure what the point of overanalysing the detailed data behind it is. If the Tories has dropped as well then I might call it a by-election bounce for UKIP but a big drop for Labour and none for the Tories? Looks like sampling error. If the data is skewed then any analysis of it will also be skewed.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 9:11 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:
yahyah wrote:Morning.

Very cold here, only 4 degrees C. when I just put the washing out.

Don't think anyone's posted the Survation for Mail on Sunday yet.

CON 31% =
LAB -31% -4
UKIP 25% +6
LD 8%=

Also saw Mike Smithson tweet 'Detailed data from Survation for Southern England has UKIP on 37.6%, four pts ahead of the Tories '

I don't discount any poll but this one doesn't look very sensible - have all the Labour votes gone straight to UKIP or to the Tories who then leaked to UKIP - neither seem particularly sustainable if that is how it has worked. Expect a return to the mean in the next wee while

Am always surprised none of the pollsters ask why people move their vote, it would certainly help understand more of what/why things are happening.

I'm on Opinium & YouGov panels, although virtually never get a political poll from YouGov these days, and have never been asked 'why do you vote for....'.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 9:11 am

Morning All!

I'm now unsure what to do about the Pub. I suggested yesterday we might make it Members Only. So far I think one of us says we definitely should. One says we definitely shouldn't

When we originally discussed this on the old site, the decision to make it Members Only was mainly from concerns about libel and copyright. My view is that we have little to worry about on the DP three, because it feels very public, so people are naturally careful, and because we only have one thread open and that is heavily used, so is essentially self-policing.

If we do have make Pub completely public, and I can see it's an attractive part of the Forum, the whole of FTN will need to keep an eye on it and just be conscious that it is every bit in the public domain as DP and other threads.

What do others think?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 9:14 am

Morning.

Just heard Farage's response to being asked on R4 who are the Labour MPs he 'likes'.

Surprise, surprise ..... Frank Field and Kate Hoey. Apparently they're 'thinkers' and he could deal with them.

Hoey in particular really has been in the wrong party for a long time now - Mrs Countryside Alliance. A ringing endorsement from Farage should tell her electorate something .... surely?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 9:16 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Morning All!

I'm now unsure what to do about the Pub. I suggested yesterday we might make it Members Only. So far I think one of us says we definitely should. One says we definitely shouldn't

When we originally discussed this on the old site, the decision to make it Members Only was mainly from concerns about libel and copyright. My view is that we have little to worry about on the DP three, because it feels very public, so people are naturally careful, and because we only have one thread open and that is heavily used, so is essentially self-policing.

If we do have make Pub completely public, and I can see it's an attractive part of the Forum, the whole of FTN will need to keep an eye on it and just be conscious that it is every bit in the public domain as DP and other threads.

What do others think?

I am fairly ambivalent but having a members-only space where we can be a little more 'controversial' does appeal somewhat and reinforces the sense of community of the 'members'

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 9:19 am

Tim Montgomerie ‏@TimMontgomerie 11m11 minutes ago
41% of 2010 Tory voters say they're likely to vote UKIP. Only 16% of 2010 Labour voters say same and 18% of LibDems http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/d ... 101014.pdf

It's those Lib Dem switchers that really get me. Are their values so inconsistent or absent that they could countenance such an extreme switch .... or are they just doing it / saying it because it's their form of protest i.e. 'none of the usual suspects'? Or both?

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 9:20 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Morning All!

I'm now unsure what to do about the Pub. I suggested yesterday we might make it Members Only. So far I think one of us says we definitely should. One says we definitely shouldn't

When we originally discussed this on the old site, the decision to make it Members Only was mainly from concerns about libel and copyright. My view is that we have little to worry about on the DP three, because it feels very public, so people are naturally careful, and because we only have one thread open and that is heavily used, so is essentially self-policing.

If we do have make Pub completely public, and I can see it's an attractive part of the Forum, the whole of FTN will need to keep an eye on it and just be conscious that it is every bit in the public domain as DP and other threads.

What do others think?

In my view the pub isn't really the public face of FTN. Somebody who is a casual visiter shouldn't really just browse it, more so when they arrive at a random page via Google.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 9:22 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning.

Just heard Farage's response to being asked on R4 who are the Labour MPs he 'likes'.

Surprise, surprise ..... Frank Field and Kate Hoey. Apparently they're 'thinkers' and he could deal with them.

Hoey in particular really has been in the wrong party for a long time now - Mrs Countryside Alliance. A ringing endorsement from Farage should tell her electorate something .... surely?

Nobody has ever explained to me why she has not been removed from her seat by the party. She gets elected on a party platform if her political views no longer fit she should stand for another party.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 9:24 am

Oh FFS.

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 3m3 minutes ago
Carswell: "UKIP is not the Conservative party in exile..." Says Lab MPs shd realise UKIP is in tune with values of Keir Hardie

George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 2m2 minutes ago
Carswell didn't deny that Austin Mitchell is the Labour MP he's spoken to about defecting. #Marr

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 9:26 am

alexmassie ‏@alexmassie 3m3 minutes ago
If Douglas Carswell really thinks UKIP is the party of "Keir Hardie's values" why the hell has he joined UKIP?

Thank you.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 9:27 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:Oh FFS.

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 3m3 minutes ago
Carswell: "UKIP is not the Conservative party in exile..." Says Lab MPs shd realise UKIP is in tune with values of Keir Hardie

George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 2m2 minutes ago
Carswell didn't deny that Austin Mitchell is the Labour MP he's spoken to about defecting. #Marr

Mitchell said he was standing down in 2015.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 9:30 am

yahyah wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Oh FFS.

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 3m3 minutes ago
Carswell: "UKIP is not the Conservative party in exile..." Says Lab MPs shd realise UKIP is in tune with values of Keir Hardie

George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 2m2 minutes ago
Carswell didn't deny that Austin Mitchell is the Labour MP he's spoken to about defecting. #Marr

Mitchell said he was standing down in 2015.

It's the Keir Hardie bit that's got me frothing.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 9:31 am

yahyah wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
yahyah wrote:Morning.

Very cold here, only 4 degrees C. when I just put the washing out.

Don't think anyone's posted the Survation for Mail on Sunday yet.

CON 31% =
LAB -31% -4
UKIP 25% +6
LD 8%=

Also saw Mike Smithson tweet 'Detailed data from Survation for Southern England has UKIP on 37.6%, four pts ahead of the Tories '

I don't discount any poll but this one doesn't look very sensible - have all the Labour votes gone straight to UKIP or to the Tories who then leaked to UKIP - neither seem particularly sustainable if that is how it has worked. Expect a return to the mean in the next wee while

Am always surprised none of the pollsters ask why people move their vote, it would certainly help understand more of what/why things are happening.

I'm on Opinium & YouGov panels, although virtually never get a political poll from YouGov these days, and have never been asked 'why do you vote for....'.

Changes is party vote share doesn't mean direct transfers of voters.

2 Lab to Tories, 2 lab to lib Dems, 2 lib Dems to kippers 2 Tories to kippers etc.

This looks like a sampling error, but what if it is regional bias.

The Tories Southern vote deserting them for UKIP hammering the largely ineffective Labour vote.

That would move the whole SE England into a battleground, elect maybe 50-60 Kippers; throw half a dozen bonus seats Labours way and cause Conservative meltdown.

That really would change things.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 9:34 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
yahyah wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Oh FFS.

Mitchell said he was standing down in 2015.
It's the Keir Hardie bit that's got me frothing.

It's all getting silly, right wing Tories pretending to be the successors of Hardie.
UKIP are the new Lib Dems, pretending to be whatever they think the voters want, as long as they can spout anti-immigration along the way.

Hardie was a committed tee-totaller, would not have approved of Farage's boozing stunts for a start.

Edited to correct 'ant immigration'

Let those ants go where they like as long as it isn't into my kitchen.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 9:40 am

Observer/ British Academy Immigration events look interesting. Toby Helm appearing in Liverpool, I'll be trying to clear space for that.
https://ols.britac.ac.uk/multievents/di ... ode=AW1410" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 9:40 am

're Keir Hardie

http://labourlist.org/2014/04/keir-hard ... full-text/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 9:42 am

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
yahyah wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:

I don't discount any poll but this one doesn't look very sensible - have all the Labour votes gone straight to UKIP or to the Tories who then leaked to UKIP - neither seem particularly sustainable if that is how it has worked. Expect a return to the mean in the next wee while

Am always surprised none of the pollsters ask why people move their vote, it would certainly help understand more of what/why things are happening.

I'm on Opinium & YouGov panels, although virtually never get a political poll from YouGov these days, and have never been asked 'why do you vote for....'.
Changes is party vote share doesn't mean direct transfers of voters.

2 Lab to Tories, 2 lab to lib Dems, 2 lib Dems to kippers 2 Tories to kippers etc.

This looks like a sampling error, but what if it is regional bias.

The Tories Southern vote deserting them for UKIP hammering the largely ineffective Labour vote.

That would move the whole SE England into a battleground, elect maybe 50-60 Kippers; throw half a dozen bonus seats Labours way and cause Conservative meltdown.

That really would change things.

It is possible I suppose but all these vote transfers being accessed in one poll at the same time and it not showing up in the other polls which suggest a reverting to the mean makes me very suspicious. Would need to see a continued run like that to be convinced

It is surprising how polls are assessed. Labour is ahead in virtually every poll since 2010 but they are all wrong, whereas we seen a few unsustained Tory leads and they become 'la verité' and reported as such in the msm

The polls have to be taken as a trend and also there has to be an awareness that none of the pollsters can say whether UKIP is being measured correctly....the indications are that the are being underestimated by a number of the pollsters and, if this isthe case, 2015 will be very interesting.

Post by **adam** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 9:48 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Morning All!

I'm now unsure what to do about the Pub. I suggested yesterday we might make it Members Only. So far I think one of us says we definitely should. One says we definitely shouldn't

When we originally discussed this on the old site, the decision to make it Members Only was mainly from concerns about libel and copyright. My view is that we have little to worry about on the DP three, because it feels very public, so people are naturally careful, and because we only have one thread open and that is heavily used, so is essentially self-policing.

If we do have make Pub completely public, and I can see it's an attractive part of the Forum, the whole of FTN will need to keep an eye on it and just be conscious that it is every bit in the public domain as DP and other threads.

What do others think?

Members Only isn't an answer to concerns about copyright or defamation - although it obviously makes any 'wrongdoing' much less likely to be caught.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 9:51 am

adam wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Morning All!

I'm now unsure what to do about the Pub. I suggested yesterday we might make it Members Only. So far I think one of us says we definitely should. One says we definitely shouldn't

When we originally discussed this on the old site, the decision to make it Members Only was mainly from concerns about libel and copyright. My view is that we have little to worry about on the DP three, because it feels very public, so people are naturally careful, and because we only have one thread open and that is heavily used, so is essentially self-policing.

If we do have make Pub completely public, and I can see it's an attractive part of the Forum, the whole of FTN will need to keep an eye on it and just be conscious that it is every bit in the public domain as DP and other threads.

What do others think?
Members Only isn't an answer to concerns about copyright or defamation - although it obviously makes any 'wrongdoing' much less likely to be caught.

Are we searchable online, to bring up results from within the forum ?

I just tried searching some key words from this morning's posts and it doesn't seem as if we are.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 10:01 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:Oh FFS.

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 3m3 minutes ago
Carswell: "UKIP is not the Conservative party in exile..." Says Lab MPs shd realise UKIP is in tune with values of Keir Hardie

George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 2m2 minutes ago
Carswell didn't deny that Austin Mitchell is the Labour MP he's spoken to about defecting. #Marr

Oh dear, I was always led to believe Carswell was one of the more intelligent MPs, despite his tie-in with the kippers, after that statement I take it history isn't one of his strong points?

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 10:08 am

yahyah wrote:
adam wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Morning All!

I'm now unsure what to do about the Pub. I suggested yesterday we might make it Members Only. So far I think one of us says we definitely should. One says we definitely shouldn't

When we originally discussed this on the old site, the decision to make it Members Only was mainly from concerns about libel and copyright. My view is that we have little to worry about on the DP three, because it feels very public, so people are naturally careful, and because we only have one thread open and that is heavily used, so is essentially self-policing.

If we do have make Pub completely public, and I can see it's an attractive part of the Forum, the whole of FTN will need to keep an eye on it and just be conscious that it is every bit in the public domain as DP and other threads.

What do others think?
Members Only isn't an answer to concerns about copyright or defamation - although it obviously makes any 'wrongdoing' much less likely to be caught.

Are we searchable online, to bring up results from within the forum ?

I just tried searching some key words from this morning's posts and it doesn't seem as if we are.

If we aren't today we may become so at no notice in the future.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 10:10 am

adam wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Morning All!

I'm now unsure what to do about the Pub. I suggested yesterday we might make it Members Only. So far I think one of us says we definitely should. One says we definitely shouldn't

When we originally discussed this on the old site, the decision to make it Members Only was mainly from concerns about libel and copyright. My view is that we have little to worry about on the DP three, because it feels very public, so people are naturally careful, and because we only have one thread open and that is heavily used, so is essentially self-policing.

If we do have make Pub completely public, and I can see it's an attractive part of the Forum, the whole of FTN will need to keep an eye on it and just be conscious that it is every bit in the public domain as DP and other threads.

What do others think?
Members Only isn't an answer to concerns about copyright or defamation - although it obviously makes any 'wrongdoing' much less likely to be caught.

Hi Adam I agree. For me the members only Pub makes it more likely that one of us spots a post of concern before a potential offended party does.

I'm not against opening the Pub up, but just want FTN regulars to be aware of the responsibility we all have to keep an eye on it.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 10:11 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
frightful_oik wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Couple of HS2 development- to the plans, still a distinct possibility it won't happen at all. I support it but no reason the start can't be put back a couple of years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 60087.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Crewe to be a major interchange station- as it already is for conventional rail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crewe_railway_station" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bit hard on Stoke though that wanted a station too.

Not so sure about this though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29538362" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

East Midlands station being moved from Toton where the Nottingham Tram would meet it to somewhere called Breaston, where it won't meet any public transport.

One of the reasons the costs rise to big schemes is that all sorts of other schemes get momentum and the big scheme gets expanded. Its better to spend more and bring benefits to more places. Sheffield should get a city centre station, even if headline cost of scheme goes up. (Now it has an out of town station).
Toton currently has little public transport either. The tram line to Beeston is currently being built. I haven't seen any planning to extend it. If they move the station 3km west, the line might pass through my village! Breaston is a pleasant and quiet village, probably more Tory than mine. It's in the Erewash constituency which is very marginal.
Interesting. How's the connection to Derby from Toton going to be?

And a bit odd to go under a fairly large (and expandable, one presumes) airport without stopping.

Presumably, there would be modifications to the existing Derby-Nottingham routes to call there. It would make more sense to stop at the airport instead as there are already very good bus connections to Derby/Nottinham/Leicester/Loughborough from there.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 10:14 am

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
yahyah wrote:
adam wrote: Members Only isn't an answer to concerns about copyright or defamation - although it obviously makes any 'wrongdoing' much less likely to be caught.

Are we searchable online, to bring up results from within the forum ?

I just tried searching some key words from this morning's posts and it doesn't seem as if we are.
If we aren't today we may become so at no notice in the future.

Morning yahyah yes we are searchable. I'm not an expert on Google etc, but I imagine we won't come very high up search responses for now.

Post by **refitman** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 10:15 am

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
yahyah wrote:
adam wrote: Members Only isn't an answer to concerns about copyright or defamation - although it obviously makes any 'wrongdoing' much less likely to be caught.

Are we searchable online, to bring up results from within the forum ?

I just tried searching some key words from this morning's posts and it doesn't seem as if we are.
If we aren't today we may become so at no notice in the future.

Bots/spiders are active (you will see them in the members list), so we are being indexed by search engines.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 10:21 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
yahyah wrote:

Am always surprised none of the pollsters ask why people move their vote, it would certainly help understand more of what/why things are happening.

I'm on Opinium & YouGov panels, although virtually never get a political poll from YouGov these days, and have never been asked 'why do you vote for....'.
Changes is party vote share doesn't mean direct transfers of voters.

2 Lab to Tories, 2 lab to lib Dems, 2 lib Dems to kippers 2 Tories to kippers etc.

This looks like a sampling error, but what if it is regional bias.

The Tories Southern vote deserting them for UKIP hammering the largely ineffective Labour vote.

That would move the whole SE England into a battleground, elect maybe 50-60 Kippers; throw half a dozen bonus seats Labours way and cause Conservative meltdown.

That really would change things.

It is possible I suppose but all these vote transfers being accessed in one poll at the same time and it not showing up in the other polls which suggest a reverting to the mean makes me very suspicious. Would need to see a continued run like that to be convinced

It is surprising how polls are assessed. Labour is ahead in virtually every poll since 2010 but they are all wrong, whereas we seen a few unsustained Tory leads and they become 'la verité' and reported as such in the msm

The polls have to be taken as a trend and also there has to be an awareness that none of the pollsters can say whether UKIP is being measured correctly....the indications are that the are being underestimated by a number of the pollsters and, if this isthe case, 2015 will be very interesting.

Are UKIP part of the parties prompted for first rotation with all the pollsters these days?

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 10:34 am

Morning all...(and apologies, just catching up - this from P1)

Temulkar said...

"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."

I'm quite concerned by that - I was under the impression the the Greens were dedicated to resolving the issue of 45% of food production being discarded http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... food-waste and had not succumbed to the 'power of Monsanto' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto It's very strange how such a massive and controversial company seems to have just disappeared from the MSM. All of the activity and opposition to GM foods was billed as 'muddle-headed leftist enemy-of-progress' stuff...but if the Greens are saying it's OK too, perhaps it isn't (to be clear - I don't believe(TM) the opposition to GM to be muddle-headed but sensible as GM isn't actually necessary)....and with TTIP barreling down the road, good luck getting the corporations to pay, or take responsibility for anything - they don't pay anything towards the harm and damage they cause now.

I still subscribe to this view - http://qz.com/155596/the-global-food-su ... d-problem/ - that it is the method of distribution and processing of food that is the issue, not the amount produced.

An example of how GM, and the argument to use ever more planet-damaging and energy-hungry processes, has become normalised - http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/issue/global.html - but even they notice the waste...

'Similar losses are echoed in the UK. Every day 4.4M apples, 5.1M potatoes, 2.8M tomatoes and 1.6M bananas are binned (ref 13). 2009 figures from WRAP, government's anti-waste arm, reveals that including liquid food the UK throws away 8.3M tonnes every year: £12Bn, or around £680 for the average family'. How many people use Foodbanks? (Rhetorical, as we don't know of course - I think they stopped counting in 2011)

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 10:46 am

I'm with you on food and GM. And I recall from a conference from something like 1984, a PhD student earnestly talking about her contribution to the world by virtue of her identifying some gene or another. She was COMPLETELY floored when someone in the audience raised the issue of famine being largely political. It's important to bear in mind that - given how both funding and science work - many (if not the majority of) scientists are both blinkered (does their science interest THEM) and uncomprehending of the potential significance of things that political, economic and social scientists study. So I would not be too sure that the scientists in isolation will give an unbiased or entirely valuable view. I do recall reading a couple of years ago, about gastrointestinal problems arising in animals in in vivo tests on GM foods - the potential gamut of repercussions of moving genes from species to species and even across kingdoms (or whatever they are called these days) is not, in my view, well enough understood.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 10:54 am

Temulkar wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote: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.

I'm not having a pop at you Temulkar - but if the Greens represent my views more than other parties....but there's no constituency party and no candidate...what then?

I'm still of the opinion that Ed has to get to No 10 - then we see what happens - the Greens, with the best will in the world will not form the next government - apart from Labour (and I share many of your concerns about them) the only other party that can form a government is the Conservatives (with a little help from their yellow (or purple) friends, possibly). So in the cold light of day, the only option is Labour. In my 'ideal world', Greens and Labour would have some sort of pre-Election deal that would enable a proper Green showing (and, no, I have no idea how that might work!)

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 11:10 am

Lady Warsi on Palestine, Islam ... and how to stay true to your beliefs
In her first major interview since the turmoil following her resignation, the first Muslim minister tells Mark Townsend of her struggle at the dispatch box and why her book won’t tell tales

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -east-gaza" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting read, I wonder what direction she will take now.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 11:28 am

Re libel / copyright issue:

Didn't we have this issue before when somebody posted stuff from Benefits & Work without their permission ?

I do think we need a Members Only place in order to discuss stuff in relative private. The old forum didn't even show up unless logged in so it did provide a semi-private place.

Yes, members can see everything but casual browsing wouldn't point to the Members Only board.

Regarding libel / copyright - maybe we should incorporate terms & conditions where it is made clear & must be agreed to in order to join the forum that the individual is responsible for what they post & that if they fall foul of the rules, the forum owners will comply with legal requests for individuals information ? Moderation is fine but it relies on a mod being available 24/7 which I'm not sure is feasible given that we are just a motley crew with a common bond.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 11:29 am

The Observer view on Palestine
Formal British recognition would be a powerful, progressive step in the right direction.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -statehood" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So they agree with Ed on this, but can't quite bring themselves to give wholehearted support. Ending with

In his conference speech, Ed Miliband waxed passionate on the issue: “I will fight with every fibre of my being to get the two-state solution, two states for two people, Israel and a Palestinian state living side by side. That will be a very, very important task of the next Labour government.” Tomorrow’s vote is a chance for Miliband to give substance to these fine words and signal that British ambivalence over Palestinian rights is at an end.

The words are fine, the tone "waxed passionate" "these fine words" seem patronising. Or am I just jaded?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 11:30 am

tinyclanger2 wrote:I'm with you on food and GM. And I recall from a conference from something like 1984, a PhD student earnestly talking about her contribution to the world by virtue of her identifying some gene or another. She was COMPLETELY floored when someone in the audience raised the issue of famine being largely political. It's important to bear in mind that - given how both funding and science work - many (if not the majority of) scientists are both blinkered (does their science interest THEM) and uncomprehending of the potential significance of things that political, economic and social scientists study. So I would not be too sure that the scientists in isolation will give an unbiased or entirely valuable view. I do recall reading a couple of years ago, about gastrointestinal problems arising in animals in in vivo tests on GM foods - the potential gamut of repercussions of moving genes from species to species and even across kingdoms (or whatever they are called these days) is not, in my view, well enough understood.

I am sorry to say that this anti-scientist diatribe does no-one any favours. It is far too common

Scientists are like everyone else, some are good and some are bad but to say many scientists are blinkered needs some sort of evidence. I am a scientist and work with others every day and find the discussion of ethical and political subjects as common as with these elevated 'political, economic and social scientists' although I would hesitate to call any of those subjects science!

Of course all potential areas of study have to be assessed for potential hazards and risks, and of course not all interactions are known but the answer to that is better understanding.

I also think your glee at a scientist being 'floored' - rather a pejorative word - not because of a flaw in the science but because some smart arse made some political comment about famine as being a bit unfortunate

GM is still under test - and we can see in Europe there is pretty much a ban so the precautionary approach is being applied. You could argue that this approach is just politically motivated as it is not necessarily based on any evidence

The whole area is enveloped in politics, and I would say this is where the problems lies, not necessarily with the scientists!

Remember we can never prove a negative

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 11:37 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:For some reason, just thought of Diane Abbott.

Those dreadful Hackney schools she had to avoid.

http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2014/02/10/ ... ing-grade/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Across the borough, 61.2 per cent of pupils achieved five or more A*-C GCSE grades including in English and maths. This is a slight increase from 2012 in a decade of steadily-climbing results locally and beats the national average of 60.6 per cent.

Nearly 50 per cent of pupils who receive free school meals achieved the national headline measure – five or more A*-C grades including English and maths – compared to 38.1 per cent nationally.
And without abusing equivalents too. A very good performance.

To be fair, she made the decision in 2003, when it wasn't so rosy. But she could easily have spoken to Estelle Morris, who was launching London Challenge, or Sir Tim Brighouse who was leading it, or the Learning Trust who took over from the struggling Hackney LEA. I'd have thought her no-confidence vote in them and the schools involved would have gone down badly. By 2008 when he would have taken his GCSEs, things were already quite a bit improved.

If she hasn't apologised to all of them, she should do.

I know Diane Abbott is seen as either a liability or a vapid careerist so I thought I'd link this for a bit of balance - http://dpac.uk.net/2014/10/paula-peters ... -assembly/ - she starts speaking at 36.20ish...and this is most definitely an anti-austerity event.

DPAC are not impressed by Labours latest 'pledge', however - http://dpac.uk.net/2014/10/response-to- ... claimants/

Also, found this - anyone interested in Workfare might find it useful - http://www.warscapes.com/blog/ending-worst-workfare - showing, I think, that IDS is some 20 years behind the 'curve'.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 11:40 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:I'm with you on food and GM. And I recall from a conference from something like 1984, a PhD student earnestly talking about her contribution to the world by virtue of her identifying some gene or another. She was COMPLETELY floored when someone in the audience raised the issue of famine being largely political. It's important to bear in mind that - given how both funding and science work - many (if not the majority of) scientists are both blinkered (does their science interest THEM) and uncomprehending of the potential significance of things that political, economic and social scientists study. So I would not be too sure that the scientists in isolation will give an unbiased or entirely valuable view. I do recall reading a couple of years ago, about gastrointestinal problems arising in animals in in vivo tests on GM foods - the potential gamut of repercussions of moving genes from species to species and even across kingdoms (or whatever they are called these days) is not, in my view, well enough understood.

I am sorry to say that this anti-scientist diatribe does no-one any favours. It is far too common

Scientists are like everyone else, some are good and some are bad but to say many scientists are blinkered needs some sort of evidence. I am a scientist and work with others every day and find the discussion of ethical and political subjects as common as with these elevated 'political, economic and social scientists' although I would hesitate to call any of those subjects science!

Of course all potential areas of study have to be assessed for potential hazards and risks, and of course not all interactions are known but the answer to that is better understanding.

I also think your glee at a scientist being 'floored' - rather a pejorative word - not because of a flaw in the science but because some smart arse made some political comment about famine as being a bit unfortunate

GM is still under test - and we can see in Europe there is pretty much a ban so the precautionary approach is being applied. You could argue that this approach is just politically motivated as it is not necessarily based on any evidence

The whole area is enveloped in politics, and I would say this is where the problems lies, not necessarily with the scientists!

Remember we can never prove a negative

I agree.

How do we know what she had couldn't have been significant? Why should she, aged about 22, I presume, know about the wider context? No-one's saying follow what naive rookie scientists say anyway.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 11:43 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:I'm with you on food and GM. And I recall from a conference from something like 1984, a PhD student earnestly talking about her contribution to the world by virtue of her identifying some gene or another. She was COMPLETELY floored when someone in the audience raised the issue of famine being largely political. It's important to bear in mind that - given how both funding and science work - many (if not the majority of) scientists are both blinkered (does their science interest THEM) and uncomprehending of the potential significance of things that political, economic and social scientists study. So I would not be too sure that the scientists in isolation will give an unbiased or entirely valuable view. I do recall reading a couple of years ago, about gastrointestinal problems arising in animals in in vivo tests on GM foods - the potential gamut of repercussions of moving genes from species to species and even across kingdoms (or whatever they are called these days) is not, in my view, well enough understood.

I am sorry to say that this anti-scientist diatribe does no-one any favours. It is far too common

Scientists are like everyone else, some are good and some are bad but to say many scientists are blinkered needs some sort of evidence. I am a scientist and work with others every day and find the discussion of ethical and political subjects as common as with these elevated 'political, economic and social scientists' although I would hesitate to call any of those subjects science!

Of course all potential areas of study have to be assessed for potential hazards and risks, and of course not all interactions are known but the answer to that is better understanding.

I also think your glee at a scientist being 'floored' - rather a pejorative word - not because of a flaw in the science but because some smart arse made some political comment about famine as being a bit unfortunate

GM is still under test - and we can see in Europe there is pretty much a ban so the precautionary approach is being applied. You could argue that this approach is just politically motivated as it is not necessarily based on any evidence

The whole area is enveloped in politics, and I would say this is where the problems lies, not necessarily with the scientists!

Remember we can never prove a negative

Except that it is neither anti-scientist nor a diatribe. I am a scientist (just so you know) and I see the failings of blinkered vision, faulty funding mechanisms and academic snobbery every day. That's all. The floored bit came from embarrassment. For me it was a gestalt moment. The scientific method is as flawed as the people who use it. I just use this insight in a precautionary way; I don't use it to write off science. Scientists however use ignorance to write off social sciences and humanities as a matter of course. Not to mention applied science or descriptive science. Everything has context. Including science.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 11:43 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:I'm with you on food and GM. And I recall from a conference from something like 1984, a PhD student earnestly talking about her contribution to the world by virtue of her identifying some gene or another. She was COMPLETELY floored when someone in the audience raised the issue of famine being largely political. It's important to bear in mind that - given how both funding and science work - many (if not the majority of) scientists are both blinkered (does their science interest THEM) and uncomprehending of the potential significance of things that political, economic and social scientists study. So I would not be too sure that the scientists in isolation will give an unbiased or entirely valuable view. I do recall reading a couple of years ago, about gastrointestinal problems arising in animals in in vivo tests on GM foods - the potential gamut of repercussions of moving genes from species to species and even across kingdoms (or whatever they are called these days) is not, in my view, well enough understood.

I am sorry to say that this anti-scientist diatribe does no-one any favours. It is far too common

Scientists are like everyone else, some are good and some are bad but to say many scientists are blinkered needs some sort of evidence. I am a scientist and work with others every day and find the discussion of ethical and political subjects as common as with these elevated 'political, economic and social scientists' although I would hesitate to call any of those subjects science!

Of course all potential areas of study have to be assessed for potential hazards and risks, and of course not all interactions are known but the answer to that is better understanding.

I also think your glee at a scientist being 'floored' - rather a pejorative word - not because of a flaw in the science but because some smart arse made some political comment about famine as being a bit unfortunate

GM is still under test - and we can see in Europe there is pretty much a ban so the precautionary approach is being applied. You could argue that this approach is just politically motivated as it is not necessarily based on any evidence

The whole area is enveloped in politics, and I would say this is where the problems lies, not necessarily with the scientists!

Remember we can never prove a negative

Except that it is neither anti-scientist nor a diatribe. I am a scientist (just so you know) and I see the failings of blinkered vision, faulty funding mechanisms and academic snobbery every day. That's all. The floored bit came from embarrassment. For me it was a gestalt moment. The scientific method is as flawed as the people who use it. I just use this insight in a precautionary way; I don't use it to write off science. Scientists however use ignorance to write off social sciences and humanities as a matter of course. Not to mention applied science or descriptive science. Everything has context. Including science.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 11:46 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:I'm with you on food and GM. And I recall from a conference from something like 1984, a PhD student earnestly talking about her contribution to the world by virtue of her identifying some gene or another. She was COMPLETELY floored when someone in the audience raised the issue of famine being largely political. It's important to bear in mind that - given how both funding and science work - many (if not the majority of) scientists are both blinkered (does their science interest THEM) and uncomprehending of the potential significance of things that political, economic and social scientists study. So I would not be too sure that the scientists in isolation will give an unbiased or entirely valuable view. I do recall reading a couple of years ago, about gastrointestinal problems arising in animals in in vivo tests on GM foods - the potential gamut of repercussions of moving genes from species to species and even across kingdoms (or whatever they are called these days) is not, in my view, well enough understood.

I am sorry to say that this anti-scientist diatribe does no-one any favours. It is far too common

Scientists are like everyone else, some are good and some are bad but to say many scientists are blinkered needs some sort of evidence. I am a scientist and work with others every day and find the discussion of ethical and political subjects as common as with these elevated 'political, economic and social scientists' although I would hesitate to call any of those subjects science!

Of course all potential areas of study have to be assessed for potential hazards and risks, and of course not all interactions are known but the answer to that is better understanding.

I also think your glee at a scientist being 'floored' - rather a pejorative word - not because of a flaw in the science but because some smart arse made some political comment about famine as being a bit unfortunate

GM is still under test - and we can see in Europe there is pretty much a ban so the precautionary approach is being applied. You could argue that this approach is just politically motivated as it is not necessarily based on any evidence

The whole area is enveloped in politics, and I would say this is where the problems lies, not necessarily with the scientists!

Remember we can never prove a negative

But...because there is so much money involved, mostly from Vulture Capitalism, the entire subject is shrouded in obfuscation. Can we really believe that GM has suddenly become benign? Have Monsanto answered the criticisms and opened up their records to allow public scrutiny?

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 11:49 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:I'm with you on food and GM. And I recall from a conference from something like 1984, a PhD student earnestly talking about her contribution to the world by virtue of her identifying some gene or another. She was COMPLETELY floored when someone in the audience raised the issue of famine being largely political. It's important to bear in mind that - given how both funding and science work - many (if not the majority of) scientists are both blinkered (does their science interest THEM) and uncomprehending of the potential significance of things that political, economic and social scientists study. So I would not be too sure that the scientists in isolation will give an unbiased or entirely valuable view. I do recall reading a couple of years ago, about gastrointestinal problems arising in animals in in vivo tests on GM foods - the potential gamut of repercussions of moving genes from species to species and even across kingdoms (or whatever they are called these days) is not, in my view, well enough understood.

I am sorry to say that this anti-scientist diatribe does no-one any favours. It is far too common

Scientists are like everyone else, some are good and some are bad but to say many scientists are blinkered needs some sort of evidence. I am a scientist and work with others every day and find the discussion of ethical and political subjects as common as with these elevated 'political, economic and social scientists' although I would hesitate to call any of those subjects science!

Of course all potential areas of study have to be assessed for potential hazards and risks, and of course not all interactions are known but the answer to that is better understanding.

I also think your glee at a scientist being 'floored' - rather a pejorative word - not because of a flaw in the science but because some smart arse made some political comment about famine as being a bit unfortunate

GM is still under test - and we can see in Europe there is pretty much a ban so the precautionary approach is being applied. You could argue that this approach is just politically motivated as it is not necessarily based on any evidence

The whole area is enveloped in politics, and I would say this is where the problems lies, not necessarily with the scientists!

Remember we can never prove a negative
I agree.

How do we know what she had couldn't have been significant? Why should she, aged about 22, I presume, know about the wider context? No-one's saying follow what naive rookie scientists say anyway.

Sorry but it's a simplistic mindset that our scientists have trained into them. I don't think it helps.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 11:51 am

The £8bn is what the Coalition have gone overbudget on disability benefits in this Parliament.

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/9953321 ... erspend-on" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 11:55 am

yahyah wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
yahyah wrote:
Mitchell said he was standing down in 2015.
It's the Keir Hardie bit that's got me frothing.

It's all getting silly, right wing Tories pretending to be the successors of Hardie.
UKIP are the new Lib Dems, pretending to be whatever they think the voters want, as long as they can spout anti-immigration along the way.

Hardie was a committed tee-totaller, would not have approved of Farage's boozing stunts for a start.

Edited to correct 'ant immigration' Let those ants go where they like as long as it isn't into my kitchen.

Hardie was also a rabid racist and vehemently opposed to immigration.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 11:58 am

Re: the Pub - I'm open on this one.

Apart from the general precautions already mentioned, since implementing our anti spambot measures on registration, we don't get swathes of new members, and I usually check the members list once a day to see if anyone's joined of late, so there's a level of scrutiny that means that we are aware of new people coming along (and if you're a new member and reading this, go ahead and introduce yourself a la your Commons maiden speech - no heckling allowed!).

Within the threads, we have full powers to remove offending material fairly quickly when notified of it - I like to think we did a reasonable and timely job on the spambots, but others can say better than I.

So I say let's just apply ourselves to keeping the Pub in order.

Incidentally, I would encourage FTNers to spread our URL around to interested parties. It would be nice to see some of the remaining CIFers of worth posting here. If you're still on CIF, can you add our URL into your profile pretty please?

Homily ends.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 11:58 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Tim Montgomerie ‏@TimMontgomerie 11m11 minutes ago
41% of 2010 Tory voters say they're likely to vote UKIP. Only 16% of 2010 Labour voters say same and 18% of LibDems http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/d ... 101014.pdf
It's those Lib Dem switchers that really get me. Are their values so inconsistent or absent that they could countenance such an extreme switch .... or are they just doing it / saying it because it's their form of protest i.e. 'none of the usual suspects'? Or both?

Protest voters, basically - and it has long been an open secret that much of the Lib "core vote" in SW England especially is very anti-Europe.

Post by **refitman** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 12:01 pm

Alex Andreou retweeted
Michael Robb ‏@michaelrobb87 Oct 10

UKIP have the same colours as the Standing at the Back Dressed Stupidly & Looking Stupid Party from Blackadder.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 12:03 pm

refitman wrote:
Alex Andreou retweeted
Michael Robb ‏@michaelrobb87 Oct 10

UKIP have the same colours as the Standing at the Back Dressed Stupidly & Looking Stupid Party from Blackadder.

That's fantastic.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 12:15 pm

Alan Johnson dismisses leadership rumours – again

http://labourlist.org/2014/10/alan-john ... urs-again/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 12:18 pm

On the ukippery / Labour front here is a link to Labour Mp's who either want out of EU or are backing a referendum
http://labourforareferendum.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
All the usual suspects.....

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 12:21 pm

Hello to Utopic Unicorn!

I'm still a Trusty Tahr myself.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 12:25 pm

Temulkar wrote:
yahyah wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote: It's the Keir Hardie bit that's got me frothing.

It's all getting silly, right wing Tories pretending to be the successors of Hardie.
UKIP are the new Lib Dems, pretending to be whatever they think the voters want, as long as they can spout anti-immigration along the way.

Hardie was a committed tee-totaller, would not have approved of Farage's boozing stunts for a start.

Edited to correct 'ant immigration' Let those ants go where they like as long as it isn't into my kitchen.
Hardie was also a rabid racist and vehemently opposed to immigration.

He was also a militant Unionist who had a UK flag featured prominently in his sitting room - something to remind CyberNats of when they fondly invoke his memory

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 12:27 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:On the ukippery / Labour front here is a link to Labour Mp's who either want out of EU or are backing a referendum
http://labourforareferendum.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
All the usual suspects.....

And some serious people on the left, to be fair, like John McDonnell

I make that 15 MPs. Not very good.