Monday 13th October 2014

A home from home
Forum rules
Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.
Tubby Isaacs
Prime Minister
Posts: 9949
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:18 pm

Re: Monday 13th October 2014

Post by Tubby Isaacs »

ErnstRemarx wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Hunt should be stating categorically that academies are a shit idea that should never have been countenanced, and that all such schools will return to LEA (democratic) control.
The trouble is that even competent LAs had sink schools. Democracy was not very good at preventing that. People who probably don't even vote, in a couple of areas of the town, have their kids kept away from people who do.

Academies were responding to a real problem, for all the chancers they involved.

LAs have been smashed up by Pickles. Many openly want schools off their books altogether. They couldn't cope with loads of schools suddenly coming back to them now. The current oversight idea is quite good, and there's the chance of rebuilding them in the longer term.
The point is, the mechanism was already there. If there were schools with serious problems, address the fucking problems - don't outsource the entire school to MegaEduCorp over whose activities you'll never have a say. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Inspect the schools, inspect the LEA, hold people to account; we know only too well from report over the years - and frequently catalogued here by Roger O'Thornhill - that running away from the problems by inviting the private sector in never works. It's not worked with railways, power generation and distribution, schools, water or anywhere else you'd care to name, because shareholders will always come before customers and parents, and that's where the problems really start.
The mechanism wasn't already there. LAs were not all that good for that, or else there wouldn't have been problems in the first place. You needed something from outside, backed by Central Government. I'd have had central government running the schools until it could be reintegrated into the LA.

I have never supported academies, as you know.
User avatar
ErnstRemarx
Secretary of State
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:04 pm
Location: Bury, in the frozen north of England

Re: Monday 13th October 2014

Post by ErnstRemarx »

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: The trouble is that even competent LAs had sink schools. Democracy was not very good at preventing that. People who probably don't even vote, in a couple of areas of the town, have their kids kept away from people who do.

Academies were responding to a real problem, for all the chancers they involved.

LAs have been smashed up by Pickles. Many openly want schools off their books altogether. They couldn't cope with loads of schools suddenly coming back to them now. The current oversight idea is quite good, and there's the chance of rebuilding them in the longer term.
The point is, the mechanism was already there. If there were schools with serious problems, address the fucking problems - don't outsource the entire school to MegaEduCorp over whose activities you'll never have a say. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Inspect the schools, inspect the LEA, hold people to account; we know only too well from report over the years - and frequently catalogued here by Roger O'Thornhill - that running away from the problems by inviting the private sector in never works. It's not worked with railways, power generation and distribution, schools, water or anywhere else you'd care to name, because shareholders will always come before customers and parents, and that's where the problems really start.
The mechanism wasn't already there. LAs were not all that good for that, or else there wouldn't have been problems in the first place. You needed something from outside, backed by Central Government. I'd have had central government running the schools until it could be reintegrated into the LA.

I have never supported academies, as you know.
That's why I specifically said inspect. If intervention were needed, support the LEA until the standards were attained. Where's the problem with that? The school remains in local authority control, the intervention occurs via increased resource to the LEA. It certainly doesn't need the private sector and that's what academies were and are all about.

I suspect we're not a million miles from each other on this.
User avatar
RogerOThornhill
Prime Minister
Posts: 11115
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm

Re: Monday 13th October 2014

Post by RogerOThornhill »

Tubby Isaacs wrote: The mechanism wasn't already there. LAs were not all that good for that, or else there wouldn't have been problems in the first place. You needed something from outside, backed by Central Government. I'd have had central government running the schools until it could be reintegrated into the LA.

I have never supported academies, as you know.
Didn't that happen with Islington? IIRC the company who was running all of their schools has now handed them back to the LA.

It should be remembered that Gove didn't think a middle tier was necessary...then we had the regional commissioners for academies and free schools...and now they're going to be able to intervene in all schools. Looks very like a middle tier to me.

Hunt ought to be pointing this out - labour have been accused of simply copying Gove - now turn the table and remind people that Gove didn't think this was necessary.
If I'm not here, then I'll be in the library. Or the other library.
User avatar
RogerOThornhill
Prime Minister
Posts: 11115
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm

Re: Monday 13th October 2014

Post by RogerOThornhill »

RogerOThornhill wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: The mechanism wasn't already there. LAs were not all that good for that, or else there wouldn't have been problems in the first place. You needed something from outside, backed by Central Government. I'd have had central government running the schools until it could be reintegrated into the LA.

I have never supported academies, as you know.
Didn't that happen with Islington? IIRC the company who was running all of their schools has now handed them back to the LA.

It should be remembered that Gove didn't think a middle tier was necessary...then we had the regional commissioners for academies and free schools...and now they're going to be able to intervene in all schools. Looks very like a middle tier to me.

Hunt ought to be pointing this out - labour have been accused of simply copying Gove - now turn the table and remind people that Gove didn't think this was necessary.
Interestingly that contract with Cambridge Education only began in 2000 according to Peel who wrote about the mess that was Islington.

http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/5519/full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And yes, they've now been handed back - contract expired last year.
If I'm not here, then I'll be in the library. Or the other library.
User avatar
adam
First Secretary of State
Posts: 3210
Joined: Wed 27 Aug, 2014 9:15 pm

Re: Monday 13th October 2014

Post by adam »

Tonight's YouGov for The Sun

Labour 34%
Con 31%
UKIP 17%
LibDem 7%
I still believe in a town called Hope
Tubby Isaacs
Prime Minister
Posts: 9949
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:18 pm

Re: Monday 13th October 2014

Post by Tubby Isaacs »

ErnstRemarx wrote:
That's why I specifically said inspect. If intervention were needed, support the LEA until the standards were attained. Where's the problem with that? The school remains in local authority control, the intervention occurs via increased resource to the LEA. It certainly doesn't need the private sector and that's what academies were and are all about.

I suspect we're not a million miles from each other on this.
We're not, indeed.

The things you mentioned had happened before, and when you provide extra money where there's failure you're creating a perverse incentive. I think central government needed to be directly involved in the schools.
Tubby Isaacs
Prime Minister
Posts: 9949
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:18 pm

Re: Monday 13th October 2014

Post by Tubby Isaacs »

RogerOThornhill wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: The mechanism wasn't already there. LAs were not all that good for that, or else there wouldn't have been problems in the first place. You needed something from outside, backed by Central Government. I'd have had central government running the schools until it could be reintegrated into the LA.

I have never supported academies, as you know.
Didn't that happen with Islington? IIRC the company who was running all of their schools has now handed them back to the LA.

It should be remembered that Gove didn't think a middle tier was necessary...then we had the regional commissioners for academies and free schools...and now they're going to be able to intervene in all schools. Looks very like a middle tier to me.

Hunt ought to be pointing this out - labour have been accused of simply copying Gove - now turn the table and remind people that Gove didn't think this was necessary.
Interestingly that contract with Cambridge Education only began in 2000 according to Peel who wrote about the mess that was Islington.

http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/5519/full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And yes, they've now been handed back - contract expired last year.
I've avoided that Peal bloke successfully till now.
User avatar
onebuttonmonkey
Committee Chair
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed 27 Aug, 2014 8:04 pm

Re: Monday 13th October 2014

Post by onebuttonmonkey »

ErnstRemarx wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote: Emoticon for wild applause there.

Balls is combative, but people just don't warm to him much (something he shares with No. 11's current incumbent) regardless of his accuracy of prediction or economic skills/knowledge.

Hunt and Umunna can jump off a fucking cliff as far as I'm concerned. Two characters (and Reeves, now I think on) more lacking in actual blood and charisma are hard to imagine as 'leading lights'. The reason their arguments often look like quibbling over details is because they are quibbles over details. Reeves should be saying categorically WCA will be scrapped on day one and something of use and of help put in it's place. Umunna should be saying that Osborne's fucked it up, and it's low wage jobs and scaring the unemployed in self-employment on shit rates that's screwing the tax take, and Hunt should be stating categorically that academies are a shit idea that should never have been countenanced, and that all such schools will return to LEA (democratic) control.

That they can't even dredge up the bottle to argue for three such easy and sensible hits is beyond me. No wonder so many voters don't trust Labour.
In short: yes, yes and yes. Absolutely. All of this.
Thank you. To put my rage into context, I'm a living, breathing (most days) Labour councillor. And I know quite well that there's plenty in my local group and the two local parties that it derives from feel the same way as me. The Tories are there for the taking, and because the national party's so scared of the meeja and so worried that they might say something vaguely radical that might offend the Blairite undead who infest the shadow cabinet, they end up bickering with the Tories about nuance and detail when they should be able to punt those useless, vapid, morally bankrupt and corrupt bastards over the horizon in very short order.

Miliband needs to fire off some of his "stars" (as identified by the right wing meeja) and flush them down the toilet along with Progress, Dan "fucking" Hodges, the remaining Blairites and anyone else who thinks that apeing the Tories in any way whatsoever is going to please either said meeja or people out there in punterland, 'cos it really, really isn't and never will. They will either simply insist that it's not right wing enough to vote for, or in the case of the latter decide that they either won't vote for lukewarm Thatcherism or that there are two or three other parties that do Thatcherism better than Labour.

I'm either a dangerous marxist or else Britain's lost its fucking marbles. This isn't radical; this is a recognition of what needs to happen.
Well, this is the thing - even some moderate, pragmatic lefties are so far to the left of the party, they would be considered extreme now - but they know they're not extremists in normal people's eyes. And it's absurd - not just that so much has been left behind, but that a broad church appears to terrify some in the party. How scared they are of appearing to listen to or speak the same language as them. I've never heard a single credible reason why the Progress mob have any affiliation with Labour, anyway, or why they joined the party for anything other than their own progression. And yet there is a degree to which they hamstring the parliamentary party, like a kind of Zombie SDP, only - somehow - worse.

Now, you know and I know that Labour will be portrayed by the Tories as the party of tax and spend. They always will, regardless of what they say to the contrary - regardless of the fact that they probably will not tax and spend. Blairites like to say that they won that argument, but it's more they won while still not being believed on that argument. I genuinely think we could do with some tax and spend - and some borrowing to spend rather than to plug gaps. But most of all, there's no point being hung for a lamb. They'll get criticised for it anyway, so why not just do it if that's what they want to do? There is nothing whatsoever to lose from saying, "yes, of course we are in favour of renationalising the railways and that's what we want to do. East Coast pays a profit back to us each year. Think what we can do with that!" Hunt doesn't need to pay lip service to the illusion of choice and can simply start banging on about the reality of failing academy trusts. WCA? Scrap them. Come out and say that it's no wonder that the "benefit bill" is rising when wages are falling and the cost of housing is going up. And so bollocks to ZHCs and a non-living wage. "It's time for work to pay, because working isn't working. "

But no. It's no spending. And let's not raise tax. Let's pretend that "we can't afford it" rather than admitting "we've chosen not to raise or borrow the money to pay for it because the newspapers and the Home Counties and I don't know what." And we can't possibly borrow because... erm... The Mail says so. And we can't afford things we can easily afford. And choice is great (don't ask what it means) unless it's what we choose to do which is a Tough Choice which means we have no choice to make it. And immigration is bad now. And let's just deflect away from Gove's problem legacy rather than tackling the outsourcing of all non-teaching posts and profiting from pupils. And all the rest of it. 5 million votes lost between 1997 and 2010. 5 million. And they're not all going to UKIP - they're fed up and disgusted and feel they have no one to vote for. How about talking to some of those people? How about remembering that the left is a source of pride and identity and change, not something to be scared of getting mentioned? How about being genuinely brave and being a real difference not a shallow, so-called tough choice?

We don't want the Tories. We don't want the slightly softer Tories. We don't want the edges off and the soft soap. We don't want a slightly slower sell off. We want a f---ing change, and a real alternative, and we want a proper welfare state and an NHS we all pay to help, and a living wage and proper taxation, and we don't want vilification instead of care. We want someone to say, "if there are fewer jobs than there are unemployed people, it's a problem with our economic framework and the state can help. But it's going to cost. But it will make us all better off." That's not Marxism, it a very limited social democracy. How far away something so moderate seems. And it's cowardice not to offer it, and it's cowardice that will kill Labour - because even if they win the election, they'll be hamstrung by compromises they didn't need to make.

I've honestly never been so disillusioned. Even back in the dark days of the 80s and Thatcher. I have never had less hope than I have now. And I genuinely can't understand why it can't be better - which just makes it worse.
User avatar
RogerOThornhill
Prime Minister
Posts: 11115
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm

Re: Monday 13th October 2014

Post by RogerOThornhill »

MPs vote to recognise Palestine as a State

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29596822

274-12

Symbolic but sends a message.

Good to see this...and Alan Duncan earlier on C4 News.
Conservative Nicholas Soames said: "I'm convinced that to recognise Palestine is both morally right and is in our national interest."
If I'm not here, then I'll be in the library. Or the other library.
Spacedone
Whip
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 6:21 pm

Re: Monday 13th October 2014

Post by Spacedone »

RogerOThornhill wrote:MPs vote to recognise Palestine as a State

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29596822

274-12

Symbolic but sends a message.

Good to see this...and Alan Duncan earlier on C4 News.
Conservative Nicholas Soames said: "I'm convinced that to recognise Palestine is both morally right and is in our national interest."
And Cameron bravely adstained. Leadership!
Temulkar
Secretary of State
Posts: 1343
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:24 pm

Re: Monday 13th October 2014

Post by Temulkar »

Spacedone wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:MPs vote to recognise Palestine as a State

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29596822

274-12

Symbolic but sends a message.

Good to see this...and Alan Duncan earlier on C4 News.
Conservative Nicholas Soames said: "I'm convinced that to recognise Palestine is both morally right and is in our national interest."
And Cameron bravely adstained. Leadership!
Any rebels against the whip?
User avatar
ErnstRemarx
Secretary of State
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:04 pm
Location: Bury, in the frozen north of England

Re: Monday 13th October 2014

Post by ErnstRemarx »

onebuttonmonkey wrote:
Well, this is the thing - even some moderate, pragmatic lefties are so far to the left of the party, they would be considered extreme now - but they know they're not extremists in normal people's eyes. And it's absurd - not just that so much has been left behind, but that a broad church appears to terrify some in the party. How scared they are of appearing to listen to or speak the same language as them. I've never heard a single credible reason why the Progress mob have any affiliation with Labour, anyway, or why they joined the party for anything other than their own progression. And yet there is a degree to which they hamstring the parliamentary party, like a kind of Zombie SDP, only - somehow - worse.

Now, you know and I know that Labour will be portrayed by the Tories as the party of tax and spend. They always will, regardless of what they say to the contrary - regardless of the fact that they probably will not tax and spend. Blairites like to say that they won that argument, but it's more they won while still not being believed on that argument. I genuinely think we could do with some tax and spend - and some borrowing to spend rather than to plug gaps. But most of all, there's no point being hung for a lamb. They'll get criticised for it anyway, so why not just do it if that's what they want to do? There is nothing whatsoever to lose from saying, "yes, of course we are in favour of renationalising the railways and that's what we want to do. East Coast pays a profit back to us each year. Think what we can do with that!" Hunt doesn't need to pay lip service to the illusion of choice and can simply start banging on about the reality of failing academy trusts. WCA? Scrap them. Come out and say that it's no wonder that the "benefit bill" is rising when wages are falling and the cost of housing is going up. And so bollocks to ZHCs and a non-living wage. "It's time for work to pay, because working isn't working. "

But no. It's no spending. And let's not raise tax. Let's pretend that "we can't afford it" rather than admitting "we've chosen not to raise or borrow the money to pay for it because the newspapers and the Home Counties and I don't know what." And we can't possibly borrow because... erm... The Mail says so. And we can't afford things we can easily afford. And choice is great (don't ask what it means) unless it's what we choose to do which is a Tough Choice which means we have no choice to make it. And immigration is bad now. And let's just deflect away from Gove's problem legacy rather than tackling the outsourcing of all non-teaching posts and profiting from pupils. And all the rest of it. 5 million votes lost between 1997 and 2010. 5 million. And they're not all going to UKIP - they're fed up and disgusted and feel they have no one to vote for. How about talking to some of those people? How about remembering that the left is a source of pride and identity and change, not something to be scared of getting mentioned? How about being genuinely brave and being a real difference not a shallow, so-called tough choice?

We don't want the Tories. We don't want the slightly softer Tories. We don't want the edges off and the soft soap. We don't want a slightly slower sell off. We want a f---ing change, and a real alternative, and we want a proper welfare state and an NHS we all pay to help, and a living wage and proper taxation, and we don't want vilification instead of care. We want someone to say, "if there are fewer jobs than there are unemployed people, it's a problem with our economic framework and the state can help. But it's going to cost. But it will make us all better off." That's not Marxism, it a very limited social democracy. How far away something so moderate seems. And it's cowardice not to offer it, and it's cowardice that will kill Labour - because even if they win the election, they'll be hamstrung by compromises they didn't need to make.

I've honestly never been so disillusioned. Even back in the dark days of the 80s and Thatcher. I have never had less hope than I have now. And I genuinely can't understand why it can't be better - which just makes it worse.
I can't disagree with a single fucking word of the above.

Do you know what really sums it up for me? I'll tell you.

Why do we need a minimum wage? Why do we now need a Living Wage? What happened? What happened to the UK that meant that the state had to subsidise people who actually go out and work a full week for a living?

Sit down and consider that one at length, and if that doesn't make you truly sick with dread and fury then you've not paid attention for the last 30 years. We are where we are because we (collectively, not you sir, and certainly not me, oh no) made some pretty shit choices in the intervening period. Blame your parents if you're old enough; blame yourselves if you voted for it at the time.

Blame yourself if, like me, you didn't spot the bullshit until it hit Labour and stuck to it, and does to this day. No more triangulation. No more business friendly deals. No more tax deals. No more truck with reducing the living standards of British citizens, no more interference in those of people elsewhere. There is more than enough damage to repair in this country.

And we can do it. We genuinely can, if we accept that the last 30 years or so have been a horribly mismanaged experiment by the most lunatic economists that ever drew breath, and that a sane alternative is there to be grasped, and has been for years. Think again: why do we need a minimum wage? Why a Living Wage?
HindleA
Prime Minister
Posts: 27400
Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:40 am
Location: Three quarters way to hell

Re: Monday 13th October 2014

Post by HindleA »

"It's the longest running joke
In history
To kill the working classes
In the name of liberty"
HindleA
Prime Minister
Posts: 27400
Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:40 am
Location: Three quarters way to hell

Re: Monday 13th October 2014

Post by HindleA »

Temulkar wrote:
Spacedone wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:MPs vote to recognise Palestine as a State

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29596822

274-12

Symbolic but sends a message.

Good to see this...and Alan Duncan earlier on C4 News.
And Cameron bravely adstained. Leadership!
Any rebels against the whip?

http://labourlist.org/2014/10/how-labou ... statehood/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
TechnicalEphemera
Speaker of the House
Posts: 2967
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Monday 13th October 2014

Post by TechnicalEphemera »

I won't quote the fantastic stuff from
OBM above to save space, but I agree with most of it.

A huge issue is the media, which filters information and provides a framework all parties must occupy - or face the wrath of the media.

The most obvious example being the stupidity over the deficit in Milibands speech. This effectively masked some significant content and replaced it with risible bollocks about forgetting the economy. The absolute highlight of which was Tory muppet Jon Snow having a go at Miliband for - Forgetting the most important issue THE DEFICIT.

Only hang on a minute, it isn't even a little bit important in the public mind. The latest ICM poll shows the NHS and Immigration as - The most important issue. Just 7% chose the deficit.

Looking at those figures as a Tory strategist I would conclude the election is lost. NHS - car crash. Immigration - UKIP are the only trusted party, Real wages and standard of living - A Labour issue.

Everybody believes the Tories are best on the deficit, but just 7% care, right down there with the EU obsessives.

So there is opportunity to flex the spending on the economy, borrow more for longer (already to a degree this is Labours plan). I agree it is time to walk free from the deficit cage, but immigration (specifically unskilled EU immigration is an issue).

The Labour Southampton candidate claiming she was getting hammered on it shows it is an issue. But the same article talked about a 9% population increase hitting the NHS. But hang on a minute, all of our GDP rise is attributed to immigration. So the problem isn't immigration it is the government is grabbing the income but not investing. If the population is up by 9% then the NHS funding must be similarly increased. In which case people would look for something else to blame foreigners for.

It is a bugger of a problem to solve. Jobs and security for all is the answer (but if you delivered that half of Spain's youth would turn up looking for work).

The answer to Ernst's question above - what happened? Globalisation which led to standardisation, economies of scale and the commoditisation of labour.

All you e kit is Apple or Google, made in China or Korea. All your cars are German( Skoda, Seat, Audi,VW and BMW). Rover mostly gone and even the Swedes failed (Volvo Chinese, SAAB gone). Your retail outlet is Amazon, your coffee Starbucks or Whitbread. Clothes are cheap and made by kids, unless they are top brands in which case they are expensive and made by kids.

You need a lot less people to do stuff today than ever before. All those minimum wage retail jobs, going soon. Plus we have the Internet of Things seeking to automate everything, because even paying somebody to read your meter is too expensive.
Release the Guardvarks.
User avatar
ErnstRemarx
Secretary of State
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:04 pm
Location: Bury, in the frozen north of England

Re: Monday 13th October 2014

Post by ErnstRemarx »

HindleA wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
Spacedone wrote: And Cameron bravely adstained. Leadership!
Any rebels against the whip?

http://labourlist.org/2014/10/how-labou ... statehood/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Why wouldn't you vote for Palestinian state recognition? I don't quite get that.
User avatar
TechnicalEphemera
Speaker of the House
Posts: 2967
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Monday 13th October 2014

Post by TechnicalEphemera »

HindleA wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
Spacedone wrote: And Cameron bravely adstained. Leadership!
Any rebels against the whip?

http://labourlist.org/2014/10/how-labou ... statehood/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No Ed Balls and IDS's cut price doppelgänger stayed away.

Taxi for two hopeless ex shadow cabinet members please.
Release the Guardvarks.
User avatar
ErnstRemarx
Secretary of State
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:04 pm
Location: Bury, in the frozen north of England

Re: Monday 13th October 2014

Post by ErnstRemarx »

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
HindleA wrote:
Temulkar wrote: Any rebels against the whip?

http://labourlist.org/2014/10/how-labou ... statehood/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No Ed Balls and IDS's cut price doppelgänger stayed away.

Taxi for two hopeless ex shadow cabinet members please.
Fucking shameful. I hope this is the opportunity that Miliband has been awaiting to ditch Balls and bring back Darling, who, from a campaigning POV is actually an asset. That he was Chancellor whilst all the really bad stuff happened is one of those weird asynchronous public resonances.

He actually was Chancellor whilst the UK economy took a nose dive, but it's fair to say (having covered his biography) that his reaction was sound and measured, unlike Osborne's.

As for Reeves. Well, fuck off doesn't start to cover it.
HindleA
Prime Minister
Posts: 27400
Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:40 am
Location: Three quarters way to hell

Re: Monday 13th October 2014

Post by HindleA »

FYI

Labour Friends of Israel Position

http://www.lfi.org.uk/unilateral-recogn ... er-gerber/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
TechnicalEphemera
Speaker of the House
Posts: 2967
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Monday 13th October 2014

Post by TechnicalEphemera »

HindleA wrote:FYI

Labour Friends of Israel Position

http://www.lfi.org.uk/unilateral-recogn ... er-gerber/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Why are such entryist organisations tolerated in the modern Labour Party. This organisation and all others like it need to be banned in the Labour Party.

Stand for election as a separate party or piss off.
Release the Guardvarks.
Locked