The bloke never admitted that the vote wasn't on the Autumn Statement.citizenJA wrote:Awful to witness people who aren't responsible for or aren't a party to Osborne's Autumn Statement getting blamed as if they wrote & signed their name to it.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Fun with another who keeps acting as though the vote this week was on Osborne's Autumn Statement.
BTL on Marina Hyde's article is just glorious. I think my irony meter just exploded.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Apparently he has been getting flak from Kippers all day, many of them pointing out he isn't really working class as he went to public school!! As I said:rebeccariots2 wrote:By the sound of that it's going to be like a never ending political soap crossed with voyeuristic reality show and surreal farce ...Pub Landlord v Farage: at last, a humane way to out-Ukip Ukip
Al Murray is bringing a brilliantly bonkers form of satire to the election campaign
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... kip-satire
... And so to Thanet. Quite what this poor district has done in a past life is unclear, but many of its residents must have been dreading the prospect of the next few months, in which politics will be done to them without mercy or respite. Even last October, a few months after Farage had confirmed he would stand, a portrait of Thanet in the London Review of Books found Ramsgate to be “infested with journalists”, which is the absolute worst type of infestation (infestations of MPs being largely confined to a couple of central London buildings for most of the year).
Consequently, the author of the LRB piece found himself interviewing an 18-year-old Ukip activist in a Caffè Nero beneath the nose of the producer of Benefits Street (there to make a film about Thanet). One can only imagine the London-sent horrors to be visited upon the constituency’s infrastructure once the election gets under way (and I speak as one of the horrors, obviously).
One of my fantasies is that the good burghers of Thanet will rightly judge that the media invasion is far more wantonly repulsive than anything eastern Europe can throw at them, and decline to send Mr Farage to Westminster...
Editing to add: Just beginning to enjoy the spluttering outrage of the kippers BTL on this article ... they don't like it up em, they really don't.
Are these people genuinely that stupid that they've bought into Farage's long con so wholeheartedly? Rhetorical question, obviously.My irony meter has expired. @almurray is being attacked for his public school educ by ppl who have forgotten Farage went to Dulwich College.
Is that true, anyone? Or have I been had? Bloody funny either way.TAWTFACE1963
16 January 2015 6:49pm
I recall a bloke standing as a Literal Democrat. The Lib Dems took it to judicial review and lost!
Good on ya Owen. It's more than a bit parky out there.Owen Smith MP @OwenSmithMP 8s9 seconds ago
Great to be out tonight with @JoStevensLabour searching for Lib Dems in Penylan. Rarer than hens teeth. #LabourDooorstep
Evening all,ohsocynical wrote:Good luck to anyone that rubs UKIP and the LibDems noses in it. But and it's a big but, I wonder if a lot of the people joining the Greens over the last couple of weeks have done so because of Dave's using the Greens as a bargaining point in the TV debates.Willow904 wrote:
I used to quite like the Greens. I liked the way they didn't have a leader, just speakers (I have a vague memory of a guy in an anorak speaking to someone from the BBC and thinking how refreshingly un-politicianlike he was, really genuine and enthusiastic!). Caroline Lucas is pretty cool too, a very effective environmentalist, a real asset to the Green movement generally. Since Natalie Bennett took over as leader, however, I've gone right off them. Suddenly they're just like all the other parties, all spin and lies and political positioning. Some may say it's worked, they've grown in membership and in the polls...but at what cost? At the moment they seem intent on stealing votes off Labour, even if it means lying about them, rather than championing left-wing politics against the hegemony of the right. If it was more a case of, we oppose the right, agree with Labour where they are on the left, but would go much further ourselves, then I would applaud them, but instead they appear to be peddling the "there're all the same" rubbish dreamed up by the right that is specifically designed to ensure anyone with even slightly left-leaning views is conned into voting for anyone but Labour, as the only party that can actually gain the majority necessary to implement any kind of left-wing agenda. But maybe I'm just getting the wrong impression. Perhaps if Natalie invested in a nice anorak she might win me over again....
In other words anti-Dave rather than pro-Green.
No absolutely true. I think he cost them the seat. They may have changed the law since.rebeccariots2 wrote:Is that true, anyone? Or have I been had? Bloody funny either way.TAWTFACE1963
16 January 2015 6:49pm
I recall a bloke standing as a Literal Democrat. The Lib Dems took it to judicial review and lost!
It's true, back in 1994: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/lette ... 39807.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;rebeccariots2 wrote:Is that true, anyone? Or have I been had? Bloody funny either way.TAWTFACE1963
16 January 2015 6:49pm
I recall a bloke standing as a Literal Democrat. The Lib Dems took it to judicial review and lost!
But Mr Justice Dyson and Mr Justice Forbes ruled that Mr Huggett's candidature was perfectly legal and that the returning officer had not breached his duty by allowing him to stand.
The judges agreed ``Literal Democrat'' would confuse and mislead voters, but pointed out that, under British electoral law, candidates have to identify themselves by name and home address. There is no mention in the Representation of the People Act that party must be included.
And further to the above, From Wikipedia.TechnicalEphemera wrote:No absolutely true. I think he cost them the seat. They may have changed the law since.rebeccariots2 wrote:Is that true, anyone? Or have I been had? Bloody funny either way.TAWTFACE1963
16 January 2015 6:49pm
I recall a bloke standing as a Literal Democrat. The Lib Dems took it to judicial review and lost!
The Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 (c. 48), or An Act to make provision about the registration of political parties was an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to set up a register of political parties in the United Kingdom. Previously there had been no such register, and political parties were not specially recognised. There are currently[when?] 342 political parties registered in the UK.
The legislation was introduced for a variety of reasons. It was planned to introduce some elements of list-based proportional representation in elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, and for that, political parties needed to have a stronger legal recognition. Additionally, various pieces of legislation needed to refer to parties and so were using ad hoc definitions, which might have been incompatible.
Another motivation was the use of the names Literal Democrats, Conversative Party and Labor Party by people in elections in the 1990s. The use of the name Literal Democrats was condemned as potentially confusing with the Liberal Democrats. In the 1994 European Elections, Richard Huggett stood as a Literal Democrat candidate for the Devon and East Plymouth seat, taking more votes than the Conservative Party margin over the Liberal Democrats.[1]
The legislation therefore introduced a register of political parties; and included provisions to prohibit 'confusion' with already-existing parties, names that were 'more than six words', or were 'obscene or offensive'.
Ditto Tizme. I just wrote a longer reply explaining how confusing all the different electoral systems seem to have become for people around here ... and the different stances parties have taken for each ... and lost it. So just to say no offence taken - no sharpening of blades for decapitation - and I understand how irritating it is to be told how to vote - not on. My best wish is that the Greens do really well where they have a good chance of gaining the seat.refitman wrote:@Tizme - thanks for the eloquent reply.
I'm pretty sure one of her Tweets stated Labour had voted with the Tories for austerity cuts and they didn't. It was for a balanced budget which is not binding anyway. It was a Tory trick to put Labour in a bad light.Tizme1 wrote:Evening all,ohsocynical wrote:Good luck to anyone that rubs UKIP and the LibDems noses in it. But and it's a big but, I wonder if a lot of the people joining the Greens over the last couple of weeks have done so because of Dave's using the Greens as a bargaining point in the TV debates.Willow904 wrote:
I used to quite like the Greens. I liked the way they didn't have a leader, just speakers (I have a vague memory of a guy in an anorak speaking to someone from the BBC and thinking how refreshingly un-politicianlike he was, really genuine and enthusiastic!). Caroline Lucas is pretty cool too, a very effective environmentalist, a real asset to the Green movement generally. Since Natalie Bennett took over as leader, however, I've gone right off them. Suddenly they're just like all the other parties, all spin and lies and political positioning. Some may say it's worked, they've grown in membership and in the polls...but at what cost? At the moment they seem intent on stealing votes off Labour, even if it means lying about them, rather than championing left-wing politics against the hegemony of the right. If it was more a case of, we oppose the right, agree with Labour where they are on the left, but would go much further ourselves, then I would applaud them, but instead they appear to be peddling the "there're all the same" rubbish dreamed up by the right that is specifically designed to ensure anyone with even slightly left-leaning views is conned into voting for anyone but Labour, as the only party that can actually gain the majority necessary to implement any kind of left-wing agenda. But maybe I'm just getting the wrong impression. Perhaps if Natalie invested in a nice anorak she might win me over again....
In other words anti-Dave rather than pro-Green.
I've picked this post to respond to 'cos it kind of leads back to the comments by Caroline Lucas that upset people the other day, and that I said I'd come back to. I took a look at Caroline's twitter account but there really wasn't anything more than the comments Tubby posted here for me to see. I didn't follow the debate at the time but broadly, I do think it was about 'differentiation' as I said I thought might be the case. For what its worth, this is my 'take';
I think we'll all agree that the Tories are about cutting state spending and public services. Furthermore, I think we'll all agree that this impacts most on the disabled, sick, unemployed, low paid, young people, pensioners on basic rate pension only, and even on people on a fairly 'middle' or OK ish wage [by which I mean, better than minimum wage, but not higher or even middle tax bracket]. The politics of Austerity.
The Green Party are totally opposed to this. We reject the politics of austerity entirely and believe it to be totally and utterly wrong and a disaster for the Country as a whole. So, the Tories and the Greens are at complete odds on this.
Labour, seem to be somewhere in between. They have not totally rejected the politics of austerity. They accept the need for some cuts, and have stated they won't reverse all the Tory cuts. From an absolute pure Green point of view, not rejecting the politics of austerity is wrong. End of. And I think this is what Caroline was expressing. I believe there are Labour MPs who actually think along similar lines.
Bear with me before you decapitate me though - pretty please? I'm not here to blame Labour for their political view, or to get into a discussion about cuts etc. I'm just trying to give my response to your upset at Caroline's tweets.
Some of you have expressed disappointment in Caroline behaving in the same way as other politicians and have said you thought the Greens were different. I understand that. I wish all politicians would cut the attacks on other parties, and instead focus on their own positive alternatives. But it isn't the way politics is sadly. And Labour are guilty too. At a local level, I do try to focus on the positive, but it is hard. I think Caroline was setting out a fundamental difference of approach and philosophy. I guess as a leading Green, she has to do that.
You know, it's not just politicians that do it either. Look at the btl comments on various blogs and articles. Even on here where we all try to be more respectful of different points of view, we slip into it on occasion. Now and then, I see a bit of a dig at the Greens even on here, and I trundle off and make a cup of tea rather than bite [well, mostly anyway].
There are of course some die hard Greens that will never vote Labour - even in a constituency where Greens don't have a chance and Labour do. By the same token, there are some die hard Labour voters that would never vote Green [or another leftish party], even if the Green [or other leftish party] were the ones with the real chance to topple the Tory in that area. For some of those people it's because they won't consider anyone other than 'their party', for some it's because they disagree with tactical voting.
However, I do know the majority of Greens I come across, are very aware that while the Labour party approach is different to ours, they mostly believe it is not as damaging as the Tory approach. Some believe it is slightly less damaging, some believe Labour are a whole lot better than the Tories. Most are conscious of the dilemma. I have to say though, nearly all of us get really pissed off when we are told that we must vote Labour or we will personally be at fault if the Tories get back in. And believe me, that does happen on occasion - though I'm not saying it happens on here.
To try and explain the reaction, imagine you were living in an area where a Green candidate had the most chance of beating the Tory. You'd probably find it perfectly reasonable if I asked you to consider voting for the Green to beat the Tory. But if I demanded you voted Green, you'd probably want to tell me to go feck myself [or words to that effect].
Ohso, I don't know if the people joining over the last couple of weeks are doing so as an 'anti Dave' statement but I do think his position has given us a huge boost in terms of publicity. Personally I think these people were Green inclined and he's tipped them over into joining. Our membership numbers have been increasing for some time though.
Anyway, I've rambled on for long enough. Hope I haven't offended anyone. I'm just trying to give some explanation, or at least, my take.
I echo that. I vote Labour because I believe in the Labour movement but I also believe in the Green movement. I want both to be successful not just here but globally. Under PR, voting for one isn't detrimental to the other. I was personally cock-a-hoop when Labour and the Green party edged a Ukip and the Libdem out in the EU elections for the South West. In a general election, however, FPTP causes a lot of friction when two parties roughly aligned let a diametrically opposed party in. It's causing a lot of anxiety because the polls are so close. I don't think people voting Green is a problem, though. It's the people who are being crushed by this Coalition government but who don't go out and vote at all that really bother me. People who are being hammered by high rents, sitting and moaning about it with their friends, but not even bothering to see if any party is offering a solution. As AK said above, Russell Brand style disengagement is the big issue. Oh, and the MSM that pushes everything to the Tories advantage. If Labour were able to reply in kind to Green party accusations of being the same as the Tories, with an explanation of why they think they are different, I don't think we'd have the same levels of animosity - instead we'd have something this country is desperately in need of - intelligent debate.refitman wrote:@Tizme - thanks for the eloquent reply.
Remember this was supposed to be the bill that curbed lobbyists .... remember that stand Cameron made? Total f**ckers twisting everything around to suit their own agendas and pockets. Instead we got a bill that clamped down on the legitimate business of those who speak up for vulnerable people and creatures and working people. Disgusting.Angela Eagle @angelaeagle Jan 15
Lobbying Act already having a widespread chilling effect on charities wishing to campaign in run up to #GE2015 Labour will repeal it #HoC
Oi, drop the sarcasm, I'll have you know Andrew does ''a huge amount of unheralded work'' for this country.TechnicalEphemera wrote:Good news everybody.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... orum-davos
I do so love it when Andy hosts things.
Rumours that he has been forced to drop the Slogan - "No need to ask yourself - do you feel lucky" because of a lawsuit (by the Dirty Harry franchise) are of course just rumours.....
Not sure the link up with Davros will do much for the image though - eyes on stalks very 1970s.
Barack Obama and David Cameron fail to see eye to eye on surveillance
British prime minister takes tougher line on internet companies than US president at White House talks on Islamist threats
Aw shucks refitman and RRrebeccariots2 wrote:Ditto Tizme. I just wrote a longer reply explaining how confusing all the different electoral systems seem to have become for people around here ... and the different stances parties have taken for each ... and lost it. So just to say no offence taken - no sharpening of blades for decapitation - and I understand how irritating it is to be told how to vote - not on. My best wish is that the Greens do really well where they have a good chance of gaining the seat.refitman wrote:@Tizme - thanks for the eloquent reply.
Obama actually understands the internet, Dave doesn't.citizenJA wrote:Barack Obama and David Cameron fail to see eye to eye on surveillance
British prime minister takes tougher line on internet companies than US president at White House talks on Islamist threats
I'm surprised how encouraged I was to read this. I don't know very much about President Obama. At all. I wouldn't be surprised to find out he's nothing but a hologram. Hologram or no, I'm glad he doesn't see like Dave sees.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... terrorists" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I haven't got the wording of the motion in front of me but, I think broadly speaking, the argument is that in voting for a balanced budget as Osborne promoted it, would have to involve austerity cuts, and/or tax increases. Frankly it was a Tory gimmick and as you say, not binding. I doubt very much people in general will have taken much notice. When it comes to strategy I'd say Ed has nothing to worry about from Osborne. I may not be fully in agreement with the Labour party, but that doesn't stop me seeing that Ed is playing the long game. And playing it much better than the Tories.ohsocynical wrote:I'm pretty sure one of her Tweets stated Labour had voted with the Tories for austerity cuts and they didn't. It was for a balanced budget which is not binding anyway. It was a Tory trick to put Labour in a bad light.Tizme1 wrote:Evening all,ohsocynical wrote: Good luck to anyone that rubs UKIP and the LibDems noses in it. But and it's a big but, I wonder if a lot of the people joining the Greens over the last couple of weeks have done so because of Dave's using the Greens as a bargaining point in the TV debates.
In other words anti-Dave rather than pro-Green.
I've picked this post to respond to 'cos it kind of leads back to the comments by Caroline Lucas that upset people the other day, and that I said I'd come back to. I took a look at Caroline's twitter account but there really wasn't anything more than the comments Tubby posted here for me to see. I didn't follow the debate at the time but broadly, I do think it was about 'differentiation' as I said I thought might be the case. For what its worth, this is my 'take';
I think we'll all agree that the Tories are about cutting state spending and public services. Furthermore, I think we'll all agree that this impacts most on the disabled, sick, unemployed, low paid, young people, pensioners on basic rate pension only, and even on people on a fairly 'middle' or OK ish wage [by which I mean, better than minimum wage, but not higher or even middle tax bracket]. The politics of Austerity.
The Green Party are totally opposed to this. We reject the politics of austerity entirely and believe it to be totally and utterly wrong and a disaster for the Country as a whole. So, the Tories and the Greens are at complete odds on this.
Labour, seem to be somewhere in between. They have not totally rejected the politics of austerity. They accept the need for some cuts, and have stated they won't reverse all the Tory cuts. From an absolute pure Green point of view, not rejecting the politics of austerity is wrong. End of. And I think this is what Caroline was expressing. I believe there are Labour MPs who actually think along similar lines.
Bear with me before you decapitate me though - pretty please? I'm not here to blame Labour for their political view, or to get into a discussion about cuts etc. I'm just trying to give my response to your upset at Caroline's tweets.
Some of you have expressed disappointment in Caroline behaving in the same way as other politicians and have said you thought the Greens were different. I understand that. I wish all politicians would cut the attacks on other parties, and instead focus on their own positive alternatives. But it isn't the way politics is sadly. And Labour are guilty too. At a local level, I do try to focus on the positive, but it is hard. I think Caroline was setting out a fundamental difference of approach and philosophy. I guess as a leading Green, she has to do that.
You know, it's not just politicians that do it either. Look at the btl comments on various blogs and articles. Even on here where we all try to be more respectful of different points of view, we slip into it on occasion. Now and then, I see a bit of a dig at the Greens even on here, and I trundle off and make a cup of tea rather than bite [well, mostly anyway].
There are of course some die hard Greens that will never vote Labour - even in a constituency where Greens don't have a chance and Labour do. By the same token, there are some die hard Labour voters that would never vote Green [or another leftish party], even if the Green [or other leftish party] were the ones with the real chance to topple the Tory in that area. For some of those people it's because they won't consider anyone other than 'their party', for some it's because they disagree with tactical voting.
However, I do know the majority of Greens I come across, are very aware that while the Labour party approach is different to ours, they mostly believe it is not as damaging as the Tory approach. Some believe it is slightly less damaging, some believe Labour are a whole lot better than the Tories. Most are conscious of the dilemma. I have to say though, nearly all of us get really pissed off when we are told that we must vote Labour or we will personally be at fault if the Tories get back in. And believe me, that does happen on occasion - though I'm not saying it happens on here.
To try and explain the reaction, imagine you were living in an area where a Green candidate had the most chance of beating the Tory. You'd probably find it perfectly reasonable if I asked you to consider voting for the Green to beat the Tory. But if I demanded you voted Green, you'd probably want to tell me to go feck myself [or words to that effect].
Ohso, I don't know if the people joining over the last couple of weeks are doing so as an 'anti Dave' statement but I do think his position has given us a huge boost in terms of publicity. Personally I think these people were Green inclined and he's tipped them over into joining. Our membership numbers have been increasing for some time though.
Anyway, I've rambled on for long enough. Hope I haven't offended anyone. I'm just trying to give some explanation, or at least, my take.
I was surprised when I read hers, but was trying to get across to a couple of thickos that it wasn't the case, and in the end was so bad tempered I went to bed.
Wasn't that chap who got had up on child abuse porn charges working on interweb stuff?TechnicalEphemera wrote:Obama actually understands the internet, Dave doesn't.citizenJA wrote:Barack Obama and David Cameron fail to see eye to eye on surveillance
British prime minister takes tougher line on internet companies than US president at White House talks on Islamist threats
I'm surprised how encouraged I was to read this. I don't know very much about President Obama. At all. I wouldn't be surprised to find out he's nothing but a hologram. Hologram or no, I'm glad he doesn't see like Dave sees.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... terrorists" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
America's technical dominance is built on Cisco, Amazon, Google, Apple, IBM and a load of other big technology firms, by contrast we have very few.
All of these companies rely on e-commerce and secure crypto and non-repudiation are fundamental to this.
Obama knows you cannot weaken crypto without letting in the bad guys. He also realises the huge damage Snowden has done to American commerce. For example thanks to the patriot act US companies are effectively locked out of German government work.
Obama knows something has to be done, and the sort of stupidity Cameron is arguing for is the opposite of what needs to happen. Given Cameron knows fuck all about technology I would love to know which Securocrat is giving him such awful advice.
I'm surprised Obama agreed to talk with Dave. Dave's silly. It's not a good time to entertain silly people.TechnicalEphemera wrote:Obama actually understands the internet, Dave doesn't.citizenJA wrote:Barack Obama and David Cameron fail to see eye to eye on surveillance
British prime minister takes tougher line on internet companies than US president at White House talks on Islamist threats
I'm surprised how encouraged I was to read this. I don't know very much about President Obama. At all. I wouldn't be surprised to find out he's nothing but a hologram. Hologram or no, I'm glad he doesn't see like Dave sees.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... terrorists" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
America's technical dominance is built on Cisco, Amazon, Google, Apple, IBM and a load of other big technology firms, by contrast we have very few.
All of these companies rely on e-commerce and secure crypto and non-repudiation are fundamental to this.
Obama knows you cannot weaken crypto without letting in the bad guys. He also realises the huge damage Snowden has done to American commerce. For example thanks to the patriot act US companies are effectively locked out of German government work.
Obama knows something has to be done, and the sort of stupidity Cameron is arguing for is the opposite of what needs to happen. Given Cameron knows fuck all about technology I would love to know which Securocrat is giving him such awful advice.
I agree not voting at all is a bigger problem. I do recall at the time of the AV referendum, Ed was clear he supported AV but not any other form of PR. I was rather disappointed at that. So, I'm not holding my breath that a Labour government will address the problem, but maybe he'll revisit it given the way the vote seems to be fracturing.Willow904 wrote:I echo that. I vote Labour because I believe in the Labour movement but I also believe in the Green movement. I want both to be successful not just here but globally. Under PR, voting for one isn't detrimental to the other. I was personally cock-a-hoop when Labour and the Green party edged a Ukip and the Libdem out in the EU elections for the South West. In a general election, however, FPTP causes a lot of friction when two parties roughly aligned let a diametrically opposed party in. It's causing a lot of anxiety because the polls are so close. I don't think people voting Green is a problem, though. It's the people who are being crushed by this Coalition government but who don't go out and vote at all that really bother me. People who are being hammered by high rents, sitting and moaning about it with their friends, but not even bothering to see if any party is offering a solution. As AK said above, Russell Brand style disengagement is the big issue. Oh, and the MSM that pushes everything to the Tories advantage. If Labour were able to reply in kind to Green party accusations of being the same as the Tories, with an explanation of why they think they are different, I don't think we'd have the same levels of animosity - instead we'd have something this country is desperately in need of - intelligent debate.refitman wrote:@Tizme - thanks for the eloquent reply.
It was about current spending only, and loosely defined 3rd year of economic cycle. and an "aim".Tizme1 wrote:
I haven't got the wording of the motion in front of me but, I think broadly speaking, the argument is that in voting for a balanced budget as Osborne promoted it, would have to involve austerity cuts, and/or tax increases. Frankly it was a Tory gimmick and as you say, not binding. I doubt very much people in general will have taken much notice. When it comes to strategy I'd say Ed has nothing to worry about from Osborne. I may not be fully in agreement with the Labour party, but that doesn't stop me seeing that Ed is playing the long game. And playing it much better than the Tories.
Shows how statesman like Obama is when he's with Cameron.citizenJA wrote:I'm surprised Obama agreed to talk with Dave. Dave's silly. It's not a good time to entertain silly people.TechnicalEphemera wrote:Obama actually understands the internet, Dave doesn't.citizenJA wrote:
I'm surprised how encouraged I was to read this. I don't know very much about President Obama. At all. I wouldn't be surprised to find out he's nothing but a hologram. Hologram or no, I'm glad he doesn't see like Dave sees.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... terrorists" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
America's technical dominance is built on Cisco, Amazon, Google, Apple, IBM and a load of other big technology firms, by contrast we have very few.
All of these companies rely on e-commerce and secure crypto and non-repudiation are fundamental to this.
Obama knows you cannot weaken crypto without letting in the bad guys. He also realises the huge damage Snowden has done to American commerce. For example thanks to the patriot act US companies are effectively locked out of German government work.
Obama knows something has to be done, and the sort of stupidity Cameron is arguing for is the opposite of what needs to happen. Given Cameron knows fuck all about technology I would love to know which Securocrat is giving him such awful advice.
Tbh Tubby, I doubt very much that she was unaware of Osborne's intent to use her/the Greens. Likewise, we [including the leadership obvs] are very aware that Cameron is using us. I guess that's politics. Local politics is riven with deceit and spin and it truly is hard work to make sure you don't get sucked in to the same game. I guess that applies to National politics too to one degree or another. We have a local Green party member who was previously a Labour Councillor many years ago. He used to come to our meetings and advocate all sorts of dodgy tactics. Eventually he got fed up of us saying no, and stopped coming. I guess there are people in all parties who are more prone to that sort of carry on and even those of us [of whatever colour] that aren't, have to fight against being drawn in as I say.Tubby Isaacs wrote:It was about current spending only, and loosely defined 3rd year of economic cycle. and an "aim".Tizme1 wrote:
I haven't got the wording of the motion in front of me but, I think broadly speaking, the argument is that in voting for a balanced budget as Osborne promoted it, would have to involve austerity cuts, and/or tax increases. Frankly it was a Tory gimmick and as you say, not binding. I doubt very much people in general will have taken much notice. When it comes to strategy I'd say Ed has nothing to worry about from Osborne. I may not be fully in agreement with the Labour party, but that doesn't stop me seeing that Ed is playing the long game. And playing it much better than the Tories.
The line that £30bn of cuts was needed came from Osborne? Lucas jumped up and attacked Labour, contrasting them with the SNP, Greens and Plaid Cymru.
Osborne said "that's why we need you in the debates".
She tweeted out three times there had been a vote for £30bn cuts, Osborne's insinuation.
If she can't see she's been used and misled by Osborne so she causes trouble for Labour, I am surprised.
She replied to me when I pointed out it was non-binding quickly. Hasn't replied to me about how she got the "£30bn of cuts" completely wrong.
We've done much worse than this, of course, so I'm not criticising on that score. It's being used that gets me.
He was asked about AV today when he went to talk to students at Sheffield Hallam...He said it was voted on, settled and he had no plans to resurrect it.Tizme1 wrote:I agree not voting at all is a bigger problem. I do recall at the time of the AV referendum, Ed was clear he supported AV but not any other form of PR. I was rather disappointed at that. So, I'm not holding my breath that a Labour government will address the problem, but maybe he'll revisit it given the way the vote seems to be fracturing.Willow904 wrote:I echo that. I vote Labour because I believe in the Labour movement but I also believe in the Green movement. I want both to be successful not just here but globally. Under PR, voting for one isn't detrimental to the other. I was personally cock-a-hoop when Labour and the Green party edged a Ukip and the Libdem out in the EU elections for the South West. In a general election, however, FPTP causes a lot of friction when two parties roughly aligned let a diametrically opposed party in. It's causing a lot of anxiety because the polls are so close. I don't think people voting Green is a problem, though. It's the people who are being crushed by this Coalition government but who don't go out and vote at all that really bother me. People who are being hammered by high rents, sitting and moaning about it with their friends, but not even bothering to see if any party is offering a solution. As AK said above, Russell Brand style disengagement is the big issue. Oh, and the MSM that pushes everything to the Tories advantage. If Labour were able to reply in kind to Green party accusations of being the same as the Tories, with an explanation of why they think they are different, I don't think we'd have the same levels of animosity - instead we'd have something this country is desperately in need of - intelligent debate.refitman wrote:@Tizme - thanks for the eloquent reply.
I could actually go for that ... in a weirdo style of thing.Cameron insists TV debates must be through medium of interpretive dance
https://tompride.wordpress.com/2015/01/ ... ive-dance/
Broadly speaking, the Green Party stance is a more local economy. I'm no economist though so I'm wary of getting too heavily into that 'debate'. There are others that can explain it much better than me. I'll have a look and see if I can find any Green Party articles because that would put the philosophy across far better than I can. Especially when I'm trying to answer emails, deal with youngest son's on going rambles about 'extreme feminism' [he's got a number of female friends, one of whom really is currently taking an extreme view], cook up a batch of prawny pasta sauce, and plan a 'bit of a do' for my eldest son's birthday on Sunday. I know that sounds a bit like I'm 'ducking out' but honest gov I'm not 'frit'.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Tizme,
Greens talk enthusiastically about post-growth. I can see the point- logic of growth leads to production of ferraris etc. But we have lots of debts already. They will weight extremely heavily without growth.
That's going to lead to cuts in the future, much higher borrowing rates.
Yeah I saw that. And as I say, he has previously said he doesn't agree with any other form of PR. Not for General Elections at least. *sigh*ohsocynical wrote:He was asked about AV today when he went to talk to students at Sheffield Hallam...He said it was voted on, settled and he had no plans to resurrect it.Tizme1 wrote:I agree not voting at all is a bigger problem. I do recall at the time of the AV referendum, Ed was clear he supported AV but not any other form of PR. I was rather disappointed at that. So, I'm not holding my breath that a Labour government will address the problem, but maybe he'll revisit it given the way the vote seems to be fracturing.Willow904 wrote: I echo that. I vote Labour because I believe in the Labour movement but I also believe in the Green movement. I want both to be successful not just here but globally. Under PR, voting for one isn't detrimental to the other. I was personally cock-a-hoop when Labour and the Green party edged a Ukip and the Libdem out in the EU elections for the South West. In a general election, however, FPTP causes a lot of friction when two parties roughly aligned let a diametrically opposed party in. It's causing a lot of anxiety because the polls are so close. I don't think people voting Green is a problem, though. It's the people who are being crushed by this Coalition government but who don't go out and vote at all that really bother me. People who are being hammered by high rents, sitting and moaning about it with their friends, but not even bothering to see if any party is offering a solution. As AK said above, Russell Brand style disengagement is the big issue. Oh, and the MSM that pushes everything to the Tories advantage. If Labour were able to reply in kind to Green party accusations of being the same as the Tories, with an explanation of why they think they are different, I don't think we'd have the same levels of animosity - instead we'd have something this country is desperately in need of - intelligent debate.
I shouldn't be too harsh. We'll accuse you of letting the Tories back in, when you could say we have to. We've both "split the vote" after all!Tizme1 wrote: Tbh Tubby, I doubt very much that she was unaware of Osborne's intent to use her/the Greens. Likewise, we [including the leadership obvs] are very aware that Cameron is using us. I guess that's politics. Local politics is riven with deceit and spin and it truly is hard work to make sure you don't get sucked in to the same game. I guess that applies to National politics too to one degree or another. We have a local Green party member who was previously a Labour Councillor many years ago. He used to come to our meetings and advocate all sorts of dodgy tactics. Eventually he got fed up of us saying no, and stopped coming. I guess there are people in all parties who are more prone to that sort of carry on and even those of us [of whatever colour] that aren't, have to fight against being drawn in as I say.
Imagine "Miliband attacks Google but Len McCluskey's wife works for them!"RogerOThornhill wrote:Wasn't that chap who got had up on child abuse porn charges working on interweb stuff?TechnicalEphemera wrote:Obama actually understands the internet, Dave doesn't.citizenJA wrote:
I'm surprised how encouraged I was to read this. I don't know very much about President Obama. At all. I wouldn't be surprised to find out he's nothing but a hologram. Hologram or no, I'm glad he doesn't see like Dave sees.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... terrorists" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
America's technical dominance is built on Cisco, Amazon, Google, Apple, IBM and a load of other big technology firms, by contrast we have very few.
All of these companies rely on e-commerce and secure crypto and non-repudiation are fundamental to this.
Obama knows you cannot weaken crypto without letting in the bad guys. He also realises the huge damage Snowden has done to American commerce. For example thanks to the patriot act US companies are effectively locked out of German government work.
Obama knows something has to be done, and the sort of stupidity Cameron is arguing for is the opposite of what needs to happen. Given Cameron knows fuck all about technology I would love to know which Securocrat is giving him such awful advice.
Also, if Steve Hilton was still around I'd imagine he would have stuck his oar in given that his other half works for Google at a high level.
Maybe he simply hasn't got anyone to tell him that he's talking bollocks.
Frances Ryan @frances__ryan · 9h 9 hours ago
PIP debate has been called by @tpearce003 MP for Weds 21 January. Willing to share your experience of #PIP? Contact: coylen@parliament.uk
Love her - just love her.Natalie Rowe @RealNatalieRowe · 10h 10 hours ago
USA Scientists reckon that research has shown: listening to Taylor Swift & Rihanna can help with managing pain, WHAT A LOAD OF SHITE !!!
Natalie Rowe @RealNatalieRowe · 11h 11 hours ago
Even USA wondering why Cameron has gone over there! It's his last throw of the dice at being"statesman" before May, he couldn't help himself
Interfering in the free market? Surely not.RogerOThornhill wrote:Give Britain a pay rise!....says one D.Cameron.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Presumably because he needs income tax receipts to rise a bit quicker.
Desperation sinks in...
Didn't someone else suggest this a while ago?
Er...yeah, everyone knows that...because it's on his Facebook page!There are growing calls for an inquiry into how Hinchingbrooke in Cambridgeshire was rated 'inadequate' by the hospital watchdog just months after winning an award for patient care. It can now be revealed that Dr Nik Johnson (pictured top), who is employed by the hospital, is the area's Labour MP candidate, while Maureen Donnelly (bottom right) and Jessica Bawden (bottom left) helped draw up the CQC's damning report but have close ties to the Labour Party and unions which oppose NHS privatisation.
We need a public enquiry, why is Jeremy Hunt resisting the calls for one?RogerOThornhill wrote:Oh dear...apparently the problems with Circle at Hinchingbroke are all the fault of Labour.
Labour's private hospital stitch-up: Shocking evidence of how the Left sabotaged NHS success story
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... story.html
From the front page...
Er...yeah, everyone knows that...because it's on his Facebook page!There are growing calls for an inquiry into how Hinchingbrooke in Cambridgeshire was rated 'inadequate' by the hospital watchdog just months after winning an award for patient care. It can now be revealed that Dr Nik Johnson (pictured top), who is employed by the hospital, is the area's Labour MP candidate, while Maureen Donnelly (bottom right) and Jessica Bawden (bottom left) helped draw up the CQC's damning report but have close ties to the Labour Party and unions which oppose NHS privatisation.
Bit of a shame that the inspector of hospitals stand by the report - must a Labour stooge. Or unions. Or something. Can't be trusted.
I only know the Daily Mail article you've linked is reprehensible, malicious slander, because I've studied untold hours tracking down the whole story.RogerOThornhill wrote:Oh dear...apparently the problems with Circle at Hinchingbroke are all the fault of Labour.
Labour's private hospital stitch-up: Shocking evidence of how the Left sabotaged NHS success story
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... story.html
From the front page...
Er...yeah, everyone knows that...because it's on his Facebook page!There are growing calls for an inquiry into how Hinchingbrooke in Cambridgeshire was rated 'inadequate' by the hospital watchdog just months after winning an award for patient care. It can now be revealed that Dr Nik Johnson (pictured top), who is employed by the hospital, is the area's Labour MP candidate, while Maureen Donnelly (bottom right) and Jessica Bawden (bottom left) helped draw up the CQC's damning report but have close ties to the Labour Party and unions which oppose NHS privatisation.
Bit of a shame that the inspector of hospitals stand by the report - must a Labour stooge. Or unions. Or something. Can't be trusted.
Edit - in fact, Nik Johnson has made it clear that the unit he is employed by is part of Cambridge Community Services NHS Trust and therefore nothing to do with Circle - the children's services aren't part of Circle.
