FlyTheNest

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 3:44 pm**

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Danny Alexander: if we allow the Tories to govern by themselves, it frightens me
http://www.libdemvoice.org/danny-alexan ... 44782.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That doesn't actually make sense (I'm speaking sentence structure here). Don't they have an edit facility?

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 4:06 pm**

Re Rifkind.

Can anybody out there please explain to me the difference between an "error of judgement" and a mistake?

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 4:13 pm**

ScarletGas wrote:Re Rifkind.

Can anybody out there please explain to me the difference between an "error of judgement" and a mistake?

I don't think there is much difference (as I think you're suggesting). Although an "error of judgement" carries, to me, the implication that quite a lost of consideration went into making it. Which is a bit worse than a simple mistake. That is to say that, even after applying his great intellect, Malcolm Rifkind still got it wrong.

Edited to add -

Or even:

3 + 34 = 38 is a mistake (usually) unless you're Iain Smith or similar;

spending weeks agonising over how to decorate your living room and then opting for purple with orange stripes (and realising that, after you've done the painting, you hate it) is an error of judgement (apologies to anyone here who has opted for such a style statement).

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 4:24 pm**

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Anybody still claiming that Ed is running scared from having her in the debates?

Christ, was that Robinson who said that?

Always a nice bit of false equivalence.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 4:41 pm**

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Anybody still claiming that Ed is running scared from having her in the debates?
Christ, was that Robinson who said that?

Always a nice bit of false equivalence.

Greens attract the student vote from the Lib Dems, then come the debates see Bennett 'in action' and slide over to Labour. Maybe.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 4:44 pm**

StephenDolan wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Anybody still claiming that Ed is running scared from having her in the debates?
Christ, was that Robinson who said that?

Always a nice bit of false equivalence.
Greens attract the student vote from the Lib Dems, then come the debates see Bennett 'in action' and slide over to Labour. Maybe.

It'll be interesting, won't it? If Bennett turns in a similar performance in the debates, and Cameron empty chairs himself, I can see a situation where Miliband and Sturgeon would be able to turn all their fire on Farrago and give him both barrels. Clegg can serve drinks for everyone.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 4:52 pm**

PorFavor wrote:
ScarletGas wrote:Re Rifkind.

Can anybody out there please explain to me the difference between an "error of judgement" and a mistake?
I don't think there is much difference (as I think you're suggesting). Although an "error of judgement" carries, to me, the implication that quite a lost of consideration went into making it. Which is a bit worse than a simple mistake. That is to say that, even after applying his great intellect, Malcolm Rifkind still got it wrong.

Edited to add -

Or even:

3 + 34 = 38 is a mistake (usually) unless you're Iain Smith or similar;

spending weeks agonising over how to decorate your living room and then opting for purple with orange stripes (and realising that, after you've done the painting, you hate it) is an error of judgement (apologies to anyone here who has opted for such a style statement).

Your assumption is correct in that I was suggesting that.

It may be a pretty pedantic question (something I am noted for!!) but for someone, such as Rifkind, who is always so precise with his vocabulary I found it strange he used this terminology.

We could I suppose be generous in allowing him some leeway given the press hounds were on his back.We did,after all, see today an example of what happens when you allow pressures to get to you (albeit with a much less experienced politician)

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 4:59 pm**

The MS' take on the UKIP expose by the BBC. I can also name a UKIP member who was fully fledged BNP, if they're interested.

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-96 ... Oysxy40-g0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And how did I miss this from Saturday? Was this even reported elsewhere....???

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-9a ... Oys7i40-g0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 5:10 pm**

Incidentally, is Andrew Sparrow still doing his daily political blog over at the Graun? I seem to remember they're buried 'politics' and made it impossible to find, presumably as the preamble to telling AS that there aren't enough posters to justify its continued existence.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 5:13 pm**

In less than two months the Greens have gone from this:

to this:

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

[sorry, not sure how to embed that video]

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 5:19 pm**

yahyah wrote:In less than two months the Greens have gone from this:

to this:

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

[sorry, not sure how to embed that video]

That's fabulously cringeworthy. As if they've not already had a bad enough day, an overprotective - what? SpAd? Primary school teacher? Mum? - has to ensure this won't be forgotten in a hurry. Excruciating.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 5:23 pm**

It really is after their 'come on boys' ad, isn't it ?
If you issue a challenge like that you can't play overprotective mum to hide a failing leader when it suits.

Anyone could see that the Green wheels were not very firmly attached to the vehicle.
But I'm probably just a tribalist

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 5:27 pm**

ErnstRemarx wrote:Incidentally, is Andrew Sparrow still doing his daily political blog over at the Graun? I seem to remember they're buried 'politics' and made it impossible to find, presumably as the preamble to telling AS that there aren't enough posters to justify its continued existence.

h yes, still going.

Today's blip was that it had abandoned threads and gave all comments and replies as single entries as it used to. Fixed now but it was impossible to follow since people had got out of the habit of copy and pasting a comment they replied to.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 5:28 pm**

ErnstRemarx wrote:Incidentally, is Andrew Sparrow still doing his daily political blog over at the Graun? I seem to remember they're buried 'politics' and made it impossible to find, presumably as the preamble to telling AS that there aren't enough posters to justify its continued existence.

When it features breaking political story (like today) the blog is linked on the front page and it can get swamped BTL. Seeing the quality of comments BTL on standalone political stories I'm quite happy for it to be hidden away. There's only so many capital letter postings my eyes can take.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 5:29 pm**

yahyah wrote:It really is after their 'come on boys' ad, isn't it ?
If you issue a challenge like that you can't play overprotective mum to hide a failing leader when it suits.

Anyone could see that the Green wheels were not very firmly attached to the vehicle.
But I'm probably just a tribalist

No, you're spot on.

If you want to give the impression that you can walk the walk, just talking the talk - the 'come on boys' pitch - isn't enough. You need to be ready when people actually start asking questions, including difficult ones about why you fouled up in an interview. If you need a minder at that juncture, you're not going come out of it well.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 5:29 pm**

[youtube]6DEnO3Snb3g[/youtube]

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 5:43 pm**

ErnstRemarx wrote:Incidentally, is Andrew Sparrow still doing his daily political blog over at the Graun? I seem to remember they're buried 'politics' and made it impossible to find, presumably as the preamble to telling AS that there aren't enough posters to justify its continued existence.

I do sometimes stumble into AS' blog. Thank you, Roger, for confirming the thread behaviour change earlier today. I've been messing around with browsers on the computer I use & couldn't be certain it wasn't my own fault.

I'm unhappy with AS' commentary. His so-called analysis of Ed Balls & Osborne yesterday angered me. He ought to go into the entertainment industry if he wants to tell stories & play. I like journalists who report the news with objectivity, honest about their own political bias & thoughtfully providing news. Left or right, journalists can do their job competently.

The G has made more modifications to their website. It's allowed me somewhat better access to some news. I'll tell you plain though, it's been damned difficult finding decent coverage of politics & the economy these days. Some writers for the G are better than others. If I can find their columns. Byzantine, the Internet is a labyrinth.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 6:02 pm**

StephenDolan wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Anybody still claiming that Ed is running scared from having her in the debates?
Christ, was that Robinson who said that?

Always a nice bit of false equivalence.
Greens attract the student vote from the Lib Dems, then come the debates see Bennett 'in action' and slide over to Labour. Maybe.

Isabel Hardman has written something after this morning's debacle.

Isabel Hardman @IsabelHardman · 3h 3 hours ago
Greens offer the politics of hoping something might be possible - which is why Bennett doesn’t need to do her sums http://specc.ie/1ErsZ4L" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think she's saying that many of those that are tempted to vote Green aren't necessarily in it for the costings ... it's about something quite different - the vision. So whilst these bad interviews won't help - they won't necessarily change the minds of a lot of those people who have already decided to vote for them.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 6:03 pm**

ohsocynical wrote:Mike Gapes MP retweeted
Asa Bennett ‏@asabenn 52 mins52 minutes ago

Green MEP now blaming Natalie Bennett's car-crash interviews on Labour. A rather bold theory… " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

I seem to have missed the negative campaigning. Does anyone have a link for this lazy individual?

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 6:05 pm**

Another compare & contrast, this time George Monbiot.

Late January 2015:

''Follow your convictions...forget tactical considerations in May and vote Green for a genuine alternative''
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -snp-green" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Today, Monbiot on Twitter:

Come on @The Green Party: you must be able to say how much policies cost before going public w/ them. Another disastrous @natalieben interview'

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 6:09 pm**

diGriz wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:Mike Gapes MP retweeted
Asa Bennett ‏@asabenn 52 mins52 minutes ago

Green MEP now blaming Natalie Bennett's car-crash interviews on Labour. A rather bold theory… " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
I seem to have missed the negative campaigning. Does anyone have a link for this lazy individual?

The Greens want to be treated like the other parties yet seem to have a problem with being put under scrutiny.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 6:12 pm**

Goodnight, everyone.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 6:21 pm**

rebeccariots2 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: Christ, was that Robinson who said that?

Always a nice bit of false equivalence.
Greens attract the student vote from the Lib Dems, then come the debates see Bennett 'in action' and slide over to Labour. Maybe.
Isabel Hardman has written something after this morning's debacle.
Isabel Hardman @IsabelHardman · 3h 3 hours ago
Greens offer the politics of hoping something might be possible - which is why Bennett doesn’t need to do her sums http://specc.ie/1ErsZ4L" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think she's saying that many of those that are tempted to vote Green aren't necessarily in it for the costings ... it's about something quite different - the vision. So whilst these bad interviews won't help - they won't necessarily change the minds of a lot of those people who have already decided to vote for them.

May well be, but indulging in fantasy economics is exactly what the SNP did prior to the referendum. If you can't back up your 'vision' with some hard figures, then why should people vote for you? I quite like much of what the Greens put forward, but I'm actuely aware that aspiring to it and achieving it are poles apart.

As I said before the Scottish vote, you'd have to be either safely retired or very, very brave indeed to vote for the sort of economic policy the SNP promised for an independent Scotland. Perhaps realistic economics don't matter to Green voters. I would have thought that they very much would, since there's a lot of credibility at stake here (well, minus the chunk that's been lost today).

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 6:23 pm**

PorFavor wrote:Goodnight, everyone.

Nightmorn PF.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 6:24 pm**

goodnight, PF

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 6:25 pm**

yahyah wrote:Another compare & contrast, this time George Monbiot.

Late January 2015:

''Follow your convictions...forget tactical considerations in May and vote Green for a genuine alternative''
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -snp-green" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Today, Monbiot on Twitter:

Come on @The Green Party: you must be able to say how much policies cost before going public w/ them. Another disastrous @natalieben interview'

I spotted that too. He's obviously very frustrated by the performance so far.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 6:25 pm**

But Ernst, it is more of a cult thing, about believing in the vision, than actual reality.

Bennett didn't need to bother about costings and reality because she's peddling a fantasy.
Like the Lib Dems before them, they didn't really expect to be held to account and could offer what ever they wanted.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 6:31 pm**

Goodnight PF.

& goodnight all.

Sorry if I've offended anyone with my glee at the Green meltdown today.
My excuse is that I had to listen to a Green at the weekend whining on about 'Red Tories' and 'Ed Miliband is ineffectual and can't even eat a bacon sandwich' !

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 6:36 pm**

yahyah wrote:But Ernst, it is more of a cult thing, about believing in the vision, than actual reality.

Bennett didn't need to bother about costings and reality because she's peddling a fantasy.
Like the Lib Dems before them, they didn't really expect to be held to account and could offer what ever they wanted.

Again, quite possibly.

There's one more frightening possibility - they do believe that all the policies are immediately deliverable, and that the rest of us should just accept their assurances that it'll all be OK. Not sure I'd bet the ranch on that sort of self-belief.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 6:40 pm**

ErnstRemarx wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: Christ, was that Robinson who said that?

Always a nice bit of false equivalence.
Greens attract the student vote from the Lib Dems, then come the debates see Bennett 'in action' and slide over to Labour. Maybe.
It'll be interesting, won't it? If Bennett turns in a similar performance in the debates, and Cameron empty chairs himself, I can see a situation where Miliband and Sturgeon would be able to turn all their fire on Farrago and give him both barrels. Clegg can serve drinks for everyone.

As I said, she didn't overly impress during the "Meet The Leaders" thing; I don't mean she didn't impress me (which she didn't), but she didn't impress the group of young voters Sky had assembled to question them all and who should (in theory) very much have been her constituency - there was one real winner that day, and I suspect there will be one real winner during these debates, which is why Cameron is trying everything he can to wriggle out of them.

Edited to add - Night PF, night Yahyah.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 6:49 pm**

Whenever somebody of an obstensibly "progressive" political persuasion essays the "bacon sandwich" jibe, they forfeit the right to be taken seriously on anything ever (hopefully you can remind them of that meme's not terribly hidden anti-Semitic subtext before telling them to p*** off)

Its almost replaced "but he STABBED his brother IN THE BACK!!" as the most reliable indicator of that person being a shallow arse whose "leftie" pretensions are fraudulent.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 6:52 pm**

ErnstRemarx wrote:
yahyah wrote:But Ernst, it is more of a cult thing, about believing in the vision, than actual reality.

Bennett didn't need to bother about costings and reality because she's peddling a fantasy.
Like the Lib Dems before them, they didn't really expect to be held to account and could offer what ever they wanted.
Again, quite possibly.

There's one more frightening possibility - they do believe that all the policies are immediately deliverable, and that the rest of us should just accept their assurances that it'll all be OK. Not sure I'd bet the ranch on that sort of self-belief.

Well a few might but only those that had completely missed both Bennett and Lucas saying several times that some of their key policies - Citizens Income etc - are long term aims and aspirations that can't be delivered overnight and certainly not in the course of the next parliament. On the other hand there are also Green supporters expressing the view that all that matters re May 7th is improving the Green vote share ... which is a very pragmatic and long term view. I think - as with all parties and their supporters - there are very many different perspectives and traits involved.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 7:12 pm**

To some extent Hardman was right in what she said - but any Green supporters who think today's multi-act farce wasn't damaging to them kid only themselves, nonetheless.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 7:13 pm**

rebeccariots2 wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:
yahyah wrote:But Ernst, it is more of a cult thing, about believing in the vision, than actual reality.

Bennett didn't need to bother about costings and reality because she's peddling a fantasy.
Like the Lib Dems before them, they didn't really expect to be held to account and could offer what ever they wanted.
Again, quite possibly.

There's one more frightening possibility - they do believe that all the policies are immediately deliverable, and that the rest of us should just accept their assurances that it'll all be OK. Not sure I'd bet the ranch on that sort of self-belief.
Well a few might but only those that had completely missed both Bennett and Lucas saying several times that some of their key policies - Citizens Income etc - are long term aims and aspirations that can't be delivered overnight and certainly not in the course of the next parliament. On the other hand there are also Green supporters expressing the view that all that matters re May 7th is improving the Green vote share ... which is a very pragmatic and long term view. I think - as with all parties and their supporters - there are very many different perspectives and traits involved.

But if these are simply aspirations for the future, then why put yourself in a situation where, as the party leader, you've got to defend these, and claim the costings will be in the manifesto for the 2015 election? That doesn't make any sort of sense whatsoever, and simply invites the sort of kickings that she's had today and on DP previously.

If they're trying to destroy their credibility, then they appear to have stumbled on the perfect way to do it.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 7:13 pm**

Evening all.

I don't much like the look of the following:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... are_btn_tw
Labour has accused the government of trying to sneak out legislation to accelerate the privatisation of NHS services.

Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, said new regulations tabled in parliament on 6 February without any government announcement would force all contracts worth more than £625,000 to be put out to tender.

BTW is it still a Coalition government, because the Libdems barely seem to be in office any more. Have any of them actually done anything over the last few months? While the likes of Hunt and Grayling have been very busy privatising as much of health and justice as they can, while Nicky Morgan has been announcing all sorts of rubbish about education, Pickles has been drawing up his next round of cuts and threatening to take over local councils, and May has been having a third stab at the child abuse inquiry - what exactly has Nick Clegg and his chums Cable, Davey and Alexander been up to? Anything? "Junior partner" rather overstates their input, doesn't it?

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 7:18 pm**

This Progress piece might qualify as some 'attack' campaigning ... I've only just come across it.

The fantasy world of Green policy meets reality
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2015/0 ... s-reality/

Amongst other points it includes this:

... Almost unbelievably, this week the leader of the Green party in Brighton and Hove called for cannabis to be sold by the council in order to plug the looming budget deficit resulting from four years of Green rule. The Green parliamentary candidate for Brighton Kemptown, Davy Jones, agrees but wants to go one step further, saying ‘tax income from the regulation and sale of drugs could provide a major new source of funds…There is absolutely no logical health rationale for tobacco and alcohol to be legal and other drugs (cannabis, ecstasy, LSD or even cocaine and heroin) to be illegal’...

and a link to this:

Could 'The Brighton Model' Help the Seaside City Make Millions with Weed?
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/legalise ... ighton-223

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 7:24 pm**

ErnstRemarx wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote: Again, quite possibly.

There's one more frightening possibility - they do believe that all the policies are immediately deliverable, and that the rest of us should just accept their assurances that it'll all be OK. Not sure I'd bet the ranch on that sort of self-belief.
Well a few might but only those that had completely missed both Bennett and Lucas saying several times that some of their key policies - Citizens Income etc - are long term aims and aspirations that can't be delivered overnight and certainly not in the course of the next parliament. On the other hand there are also Green supporters expressing the view that all that matters re May 7th is improving the Green vote share ... which is a very pragmatic and long term view. I think - as with all parties and their supporters - there are very many different perspectives and traits involved.
But if these are simply aspirations for the future, then why put yourself in a situation where, as the party leader, you've got to defend these, and claim the costings will be in the manifesto for the 2015 election? That doesn't make any sort of sense whatsoever, and simply invites the sort of kickings that she's had today and on DP previously.

If they're trying to destroy their credibility, then they appear to have stumbled on the perfect way to do it.

I agree Ernst. I do. I, like you, have some respect for the concept of a Citizens Income and various other aspirations espoused by the Greens (CI has been around for a while and has been espoused / developed by a wider group than just the Greens). I don't understand why they can't be working on a 'development' plan of sorts - what needs to change first, and then sequentially, in order to create the right conditions for a Citizens Income to be introduced. That would show to a lot of people that they are thinking about delivery and how to get to it ... They need to have a five, ten, fifteen and 20 year plan. That would be honesty and competence in evidence alongside the vision.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 7:30 pm**

rebeccariots2 wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote: Well a few might but only those that had completely missed both Bennett and Lucas saying several times that some of their key policies - Citizens Income etc - are long term aims and aspirations that can't be delivered overnight and certainly not in the course of the next parliament. On the other hand there are also Green supporters expressing the view that all that matters re May 7th is improving the Green vote share ... which is a very pragmatic and long term view. I think - as with all parties and their supporters - there are very many different perspectives and traits involved.
But if these are simply aspirations for the future, then why put yourself in a situation where, as the party leader, you've got to defend these, and claim the costings will be in the manifesto for the 2015 election? That doesn't make any sort of sense whatsoever, and simply invites the sort of kickings that she's had today and on DP previously.

If they're trying to destroy their credibility, then they appear to have stumbled on the perfect way to do it.
I agree Ernst. I do. I, like you, have some respect for the concept of a Citizens Income and various other aspirations espoused by the Greens (CI has been around for a while and has been espoused / developed by a wider group than just the Greens). I don't understand why they can't be working on a 'development' plan of sorts - what needs to change first, and then sequentially, in order to create the right conditions for a Citizens Income to be introduced. That would show to a lot of people that they are thinking about delivery and how to get to it ... They need to have a five, ten, fifteen and 20 year plan. That would be honesty and competence in evidence alongside the vision.

And that's exactly where the credibility gap's yawned wide open. But to do it the way they are doing it is to invite a major league going over every time you step into a studio, particularly if these are all presented by the Greens as achievable within a Parliamentary term (which is sort of the point of a general election manifesto, surely).

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 7:30 pm**

The Scottish POA have said very strongly that they haven't done a no strike deal.

Their boss has written a nice SNP letter, which mentions Jack Straw but not Neil Findlay. Though they would seem to have every right to be annoyed with the TUC.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 7:45 pm**

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 2h 2 hours ago
Survation/Mirror poll expected this evening. In January CON had 1% lead & UKIP on 23%. I'd be surprised if that isn't down

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 7:46 pm**

Dave's trying to start a war.

Britain to send military advisers to Ukraine, announces Cameron
Prime minister says service personnel to provide infantry training as well as advice on logistics, medical care and tactical intelligence

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... t-48019385" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 7:51 pm**

Kate Godfrey ‏@KateVotesLabour · 6 mins6 minutes ago
NHS cancer scanning bid £80m. Alliance bid £87m. Alliance win. Alliance subcontract NHS bidder £80m. Alliance pocket £7m for...

Zero work.

...and that scanner (if its at Christie, where I think it is) was bought with fund raising and public donation. Unless its been subsequently replaced.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 7:54 pm**

ErnstRemarx wrote:
yahyah wrote:It really is after their 'come on boys' ad, isn't it ?
If you issue a challenge like that you can't play overprotective mum to hide a failing leader when it suits.

Anyone could see that the Green wheels were not very firmly attached to the vehicle.
But I'm probably just a tribalist
No, you're spot on.

If you want to give the impression that you can walk the walk, just talking the talk - the 'come on boys' pitch - isn't enough. You need to be ready when people actually start asking questions, including difficult ones about why you fouled up in an interview. If you need a minder at that juncture, you're not going come out of it well.

Politics is a bit like swimming around in shark infested waters.

It certainly sorts out the men/women from the boys/girls.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 7:55 pm**

ErnstRemarx wrote:Hi all, bit of techosadness chez Remarx today. I noticed (finally) that we've not been receiving emails for a few days, and given that I've changed nothing and everything's plugged in securely, I tried the internet on the same machine to find that the TCP/IP stack had finally packed in on the old beast. So, after 7-8 years with it as our main PC (running a version of linux that was desupported in about 2010!) I've finally decided to move the email to the shiny Win7 machine and set it up on Outlook 2010. All quite sad. That little linux box has run flawlessly for years, if not quietly, and when an email settings file got corrupted bout 8 months ago, I could see the writing on the wall.

I am now officially in thrall to Micro$oft, but I least now I've got a silent machine and no need to switch between the two boxes. The PC is dead; long live the PC...

My condolences on the sad demise of your Linux box and my sympathies for having to live with Win7. However, you might be interested in getting adventurous with that machine and getting your hands on Windows 10. With a few exceptions, Win 10 will run on most things that are currently on Win7, if you'd care to join their Windows Insider Program in return for feedback. There's even about to be a way to get hold of their Office 16 but you'd need to sign a 'no disclosure' agreement for that one. Any road, have a look see at this page – there's a link to the Insider Program (and to the blog) at the foot of the page:

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/about

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 7:56 pm**

AngryAsWell wrote:Kate Godfrey ‏@KateVotesLabour · 6 mins6 minutes ago
NHS cancer scanning bid £80m. Alliance bid £87m. Alliance win. Alliance subcontract NHS bidder £80m. Alliance pocket £7m for...

Zero work.

...and that scanner (if its at Christie, where I think it is) was bought with fund raising and public donation. Unless its been subsequently replaced.

If you're right - I'm fuming.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 7:57 pm**

rebeccariots2 wrote:
I agree Ernst. I do. I, like you, have some respect for the concept of a Citizens Income and various other aspirations espoused by the Greens (CI has been around for a while and has been espoused / developed by a wider group than just the Greens). I don't understand why they can't be working on a 'development' plan of sorts - what needs to change first, and then sequentially, in order to create the right conditions for a Citizens Income to be introduced. That would show to a lot of people that they are thinking about delivery and how to get to it ... They need to have a five, ten, fifteen and 20 year plan. That would be honesty and competence in evidence alongside the vision.

Absolutely.

It doesn't help when you've got a load of people all voting for their own radical ideas. Parties find it hard enough when they're suggesting relatively small changes to government policy.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 7:58 pm**

citizenJA wrote:Dave's trying to start a war.

Britain to send military advisers to Ukraine, announces Cameron
Prime minister says service personnel to provide infantry training as well as advice on logistics, medical care and tactical intelligence

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... t-48019385" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's playing to script then ... many of us have always thought he would try to up his 'statesmanship' credentials prior to the election ... and get involved in some military endeavour.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 8:00 pm**

citizenJA wrote:Dave's trying to start a war.

Britain to send military advisers to Ukraine, announces Cameron
Prime minister says service personnel to provide infantry training as well as advice on logistics, medical care and tactical intelligence

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... t-48019385" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's pathetic. Didn't get invited along by Merkel and Hollande, so outflank them.

Hoping that the Syria vote has broken the spell governments have on foreign affairs.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 8:01 pm**

Adam Boulton ‏@adamboultonSKY 1m1 minute ago
New @Survation poll Lab 34% +3 Con 28% -3 UKIP 19% -3 LD 10% no change SNP 4% nc Green 4% +1 AP 1 nc

Blimey.

Posted: **Tue 24 Feb, 2015 8:02 pm**

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 1m1 minute ago
LAB takes 6% lead in tonight's Survation/Mirror poll. In January CON 1% ahead

LAB 34
CON 28

FlyTheNest

Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015

Re: Tuesday 24th February 2015