Thursday 18th June 2015

Post by **refitman** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 7:11 am

Morning all.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 7:32 am

Good morning refitman and 20 guests.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 7:41 am

South Carolina church shooting: nine dead after 'hate crime' attack
Police in Charleston, South Carolina, searching for white gunman who opened fire inside a historic black church
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... ate-attack" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... At least nine people have been killed after a gunman opened fire at a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina, in what police have described as a “hate crime”.

A bomb threat was also briefly issued after security services swarmed the area around the Emanuel AME Church, whose pastor Clementa Pinckney, a Democratic member of the South Carolina Senate, was said to be present at the time of the shooting.

... Pinckney helped lead a prayer vigil in April for Walter Scott, a black South Carolina man who was shot dead by a North Charleston police officer.

He campaigned for police to be equipped with body cameras, which he said “may not be the golden ticket, the golden egg, the end-all-fix-all, but [would help] to paint a picture of what happens during a police stop”. Mandatory body cameras became law in the state one week ago.

The world seems to be turning backwards. The USA may have a black president and first lady ... but this kind of hatred and division seems to be simmering and boiling up in so many places there. And we have women with children leaving here for Syria - possibly Islamic State.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 7:56 am

norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 5m5 minutes ago
Scot Govt say decision to end wind farm subsidies will have disproportionate effect on Scotland where 70% of future wind farms planned

That probably played a part in the Tories' decision making, no?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 8:29 am

Peter Hain ‏@PeterHain 5m5 minutes ago
Supremely impressive @BBCr4today interview by chief Greece negotiator exposing disastrous bankruptcy of EU IMF neoliberal hardliners

He was good. Humphrys' incessant barracking drove me round the bend. As the Greek negotiator explained what Greece are asking for it sounded pretty reasonable rather than wholly irresponsible. A country that has lost 25% of its GDP and has youth unemployment of nearly 60% is on its knees and surely won't be able to recover if even harsher conditions are imposed.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 8:43 am

Joe Murphy ‏@JoeMurphyLondon 13m13 minutes ago
Dear Lab leadership hopefuls. Re: last night's debate. None of you connected. Too much SW1 jargon. No change message (except JC).Try harder

That's maybe a bit harsher than I would have put it ... but sort of right.

The one person who IMO did better than I was expecting was Cooper. She came over as less desperate to impress than Kendall and Burnham - more quietly confident. Didn't think I would be saying that.

Watched the later item on the debate on Newsnight - feedback from the Nuneaton audience (not particularly good) and then a discussion with Finkelstein, Helen Lewis of the New Statesman and Phil Collins (former Blair speechwriter and at the Times). One of the points made there that I remember is that although she might tone down her stance and direction of travel if she actually won if Kendall is seen to be espousing Tory policies too much / too far to the right during this contest she may well not win the ballot - and that that was probably what scuppered David Miliband last time. She needs to apply her mantra for the Labour party needing to pick an election winner to her own campaign in this contest - work out what is needed to win this time.

Swarthlander · Post by **Swarthlander** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 9:43 am

Re: Last night's debate for me...

Burnham - was a bit soft, I hope he gets stronger.
Cooper - wasn't bad, probably came out best.
Kendal - should cross the floor and join the Tories.
Corbyn - said a lot that I agreed with but I am 'old' Labour.

None of them made me want to get excited about their campaign.
It was the first one, I hope future ones have a bit more fire.

Good morning.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 9:51 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Joe Murphy ‏@JoeMurphyLondon 13m13 minutes ago
Dear Lab leadership hopefuls. Re: last night's debate. None of you connected. Too much SW1 jargon. No change message (except JC).Try harder
That's maybe a bit harsher than I would have put it ... but sort of right.

The one person who IMO did better than I was expecting was Cooper. She came over as less desperate to impress than Kendall and Burnham - more quietly confident. Didn't think I would be saying that.

Watched the later item on the debate on Newsnight - feedback from the Nuneaton audience (not particularly good) and then a discussion with Finkelstein, Helen Lewis of the New Statesman and Phil Collins (former Blair speechwriter and at the Times). One of the points made there that I remember is that although she might tone down her stance and direction of travel if she actually won if Kendall is seen to be espousing Tory policies too much / too far to the right during this contest she may well not win the ballot - and that that was probably what scuppered David Miliband last time. She needs to apply her mantra for the Labour party needing to pick an election winner to her own campaign in this contest - work out what is needed to win this time.

I've been inspired by your comment to check out the debate on catch-up, I'm watching it now. I have to admit I'm coming around to Cooper. Burnham says all the right things when read written down, but whenever I see him talking on tv I find myself less convinced somehow. Right now Cooper is coming across more naturally while making good points (about Sure Start, working mums etc) that are clearly carefully crafted to appeal to the right people yet she manages to put across with some degree of genuineness. I also like the fact that she has on a number of occasions now rejected the scrounger rhetoric aimed at benefit claimants. She talks of the need to expand out from Labour's current core and seems to be managing to put that into practice by saying the right things about business but at the same time defending the need for sickness benefit. If she can continue to fight the battle on both fronts - reassure businesses that Labour will look after their interests, while defending the need for social security in a civilised society she could be what Labour needs right now. At the end of the day, it may be superficial, but a change of gender at the top could be enough to persuade people of a wider transformation.

Swarthlander · Post by **Swarthlander** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 9:57 am

One thing I did learn last night...

Dan F******g Hodges is still a first class t**t.

That's why the BBC love him.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 10:02 am

In addition to the above Cooper just made a very clever point which will be lost in the mix, no doubt, but really impressed me. On immigration she said a change she would ask for in renegotiations with the EU would be more money from the union for countries who are experiencing the highest amounts of immigration. Now that shows real lateral thinking in problem solving plus ties in with the current political climate of EU change set by Cameron and showing what she could achieve in his place.
She just mentioned inequality as well, always a plus for me.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 10:14 am

Cooper is having a good campaign now after a rather unimpressive start. Still inclined to Burnham overall, but he needs to do better than last night - he is capable of it.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 10:26 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Cooper is having a good campaign now after a rather unimpressive start. Still inclined to Burnham overall, but he needs to do better than last night - he is capable of it.

Can't see either the first or last proposition being true myself.

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

it was very boring.

ScarletGas · Post by **ScarletGas** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 10:32 am

Swarthlander wrote:One thing I did learn last night...

Dan F******g Hodges is still a first class t**t. That's why the BBC love him.

Hodges was absolutely taken apart by Owen Jones on The Daily Politics a couple of days ago.

Challenged on his total negativity and asked for one positive suggestion he has ever put forward as regards the Labour Party.

It was such a evisceration that Jones even had Matthew Paris agreeing with him.

As still the BBC use such a discredited figure!

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 10:57 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Cooper is having a good campaign now after a rather unimpressive start. Still inclined to Burnham overall, but he needs to do better than last night - he is capable of it.
Can't see either the first or last proposition being true myself.

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

it was very boring.

Why don't you go back to last night's posts and read the context of that clip instead of just trolling it here and everywhere else?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 11:02 am

Steve Bell on Brexit

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

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 11:05 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Cooper is having a good campaign now after a rather unimpressive start. Still inclined to Burnham overall, but he needs to do better than last night - he is capable of it.
Can't see either the first or last proposition being true myself.

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

it was very boring.

That vine quote was in respect of the question about party leadership (and whether each candidate would resign if not cutting it with the public) and I thought it was a snidey, nasty thing that Kendall did by chipping in with "the country comes first." She should be ashamed of herself, and likewise so should you for perpetuating an out of context quote as though it was some profound insight to AB thoughts. That's politics of the tory gutter. We saw enough of that used to destroy Ed.
Please stop it.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 11:45 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Peter Hain ‏@PeterHain 5m5 minutes ago
Supremely impressive @BBCr4today interview by chief Greece negotiator exposing disastrous bankruptcy of EU IMF neoliberal hardliners
He was good. Humphrys' incessant barracking drove me round the bend. As the Greek negotiator explained what Greece are asking for it sounded pretty reasonable rather than wholly irresponsible. A country that has lost 25% of its GDP and has youth unemployment of nearly 60% is on its knees and surely won't be able to recover if even harsher conditions are imposed.

Exactly, RR2.

My earnest postings yesterday reflect the picture unfolding in front of me - the Greek government are inconvenient people to the powers that be. Note the profound inconsistencies, impossibilities of the demands made upon Greece. The motivation driving demands from Greece's creditors are ideological alone. Every country & its people ought to be frightened of powerful organisations failing to compromise, disregarding legitimate counter-proposals to pay the debt. My overriding thought after reading proposals & counter proposals is that creditors want to take over the prerogatives allowed government.

Good morning, everyone.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 12:00 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Joe Murphy ‏@JoeMurphyLondon 13m13 minutes ago
Dear Lab leadership hopefuls. Re: last night's debate. None of you connected. Too much SW1 jargon. No change message (except JC).Try harder
That's maybe a bit harsher than I would have put it ... but sort of right.

The one person who IMO did better than I was expecting was Cooper. She came over as less desperate to impress than Kendall and Burnham - more quietly confident. Didn't think I would be saying that.

Watched the later item on the debate on Newsnight - feedback from the Nuneaton audience (not particularly good) and then a discussion with Finkelstein, Helen Lewis of the New Statesman and Phil Collins (former Blair speechwriter and at the Times). One of the points made there that I remember is that although she might tone down her stance and direction of travel if she actually won if Kendall is seen to be espousing Tory policies too much / too far to the right during this contest she may well not win the ballot - and that that was probably what scuppered David Miliband last time. She needs to apply her mantra for the Labour party needing to pick an election winner to her own campaign in this contest - work out what is needed to win this time.

I've had something on my mind for a long time now.
Tristram Hunt backs Kendall.
Now, I know & mostly agree with the just criticisms my friends here have about each.
I want to know why Hunty backs Kendall.
He's got his failings but I wonder about his judgement - I respect it, the more so because he's willingly forfeited leadership himself.
Please let me know your thoughts.
It's just a nagging thing that's been on my mind.
I've no attachment to any of the Labour leadership people at this point - least of all Kendall, I think - so why does Hunty back her?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 12:08 pm

David Pemsel set to be appointed chief executive of Guardian Media Group
Former ITV marketing director has worked at GMG since 2011 where he has been involved in commercial expansion overseas

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/j ... edia-group" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know this person.
Does anyone else know anything about David Pemsel?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 12:31 pm

Good morfternoon.

I didn't see the leadership hustings on TV yesterday, but it seems that I didn't miss all that much. Unless, of course, you like the sound of Laura Kuenssberg's voice - which I don't.

However, I get the general impression that Yvette Cooper acquitted herself quite well. I wonder if the fact that Ed Balls is hieing himself off to Harvard will help her cause (ie lending what may be seen by the electorate as a real distance between himself and British politics).

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 12:32 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... endum.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

David-Cameron-faces-Commons-defeat-over-date-of-EU-referendum

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 12:32 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Cooper is having a good campaign now after a rather unimpressive start. Still inclined to Burnham overall, but he needs to do better than last night - he is capable of it.
Can't see either the first or last proposition being true myself.

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

it was very boring.
That vine quote was in respect of the question about party leadership (and whether each candidate would resign if not cutting it with the public) and I thought it was a snidey, nasty thing that Kendall did by chipping in with "the country comes first." She should be ashamed of herself, and likewise so should you for perpetuating an out of context quote as though it was some profound insight to AB thoughts. That's politics of the tory gutter. We saw enough of that used to destroy Ed.
Please stop it.

The question Burnham was answering was about the LABOUR PARTY LEADERSHIP, FFS!

That it has been used in totally unscrupulous fashion by Kendall merely confirms the nastiness of her campaign (no surprise given how it is being run by the same obnoxiously entitled Blairites who ruined the election bids of Johnson and Blears in 2007, D Miliband and King in 2010, and are now trying to do the same to Jowell) and her complete unsuitability for the post.

At least Creasy not running for leader this time means the ghouls aren't going to get the chance to f*** up her prospects in the same way

(and yes, Cooper *was* pretty good - and I have been critical enough of her in the past. If she doesn't get this job she would be a very good SC - better than her husband IMO)

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 12:40 pm

citizenJA wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Joe Murphy ‏@JoeMurphyLondon 13m13 minutes ago
Dear Lab leadership hopefuls. Re: last night's debate. None of you connected. Too much SW1 jargon. No change message (except JC).Try harder
That's maybe a bit harsher than I would have put it ... but sort of right.

The one person who IMO did better than I was expecting was Cooper. She came over as less desperate to impress than Kendall and Burnham - more quietly confident. Didn't think I would be saying that.

Watched the later item on the debate on Newsnight - feedback from the Nuneaton audience (not particularly good) and then a discussion with Finkelstein, Helen Lewis of the New Statesman and Phil Collins (former Blair speechwriter and at the Times). One of the points made there that I remember is that although she might tone down her stance and direction of travel if she actually won if Kendall is seen to be espousing Tory policies too much / too far to the right during this contest she may well not win the ballot - and that that was probably what scuppered David Miliband last time. She needs to apply her mantra for the Labour party needing to pick an election winner to her own campaign in this contest - work out what is needed to win this time.
I've had something on my mind for a long time now.
Tristram Hunt backs Kendall.
Now, I know & mostly agree with the just criticisms my friends here have about each.
I want to know why Hunty backs Kendall.
He's got his failings but I wonder about his judgement - I respect it, the more so because he's willingly forfeited leadership himself.
Please let me know your thoughts.
It's just a nagging thing that's been on my mind.
I've no attachment to any of the Labour leadership people at this point - least of all Kendall, I think - so why does Hunty back her?

Tristram Hunt's got a good feel for how to appeal to the self-obsessed middle classes and I imagine he thinks Kendall has a similar draw for this demographic and is probably right. The advantage Hunt had was that I felt he could also sell Labour to a wider audience, he looks the part, he has tv experience and he has that natural confidence only the privately educated have (like Blair). Kendall has none of those advantages. She may attract the Tory swing voters as SH says, but I fear she would lose all the Milibandites and condemn Labour to oblivion in Scotland for a long time. She could get a few Ukip voters back, but I'm not sure I would be willing to accept the cave-in to anti-immigrant, anti-welfare rhetoric that she would use to do it.
I'm liking Cooper a bit at the moment. She's rather sharp, isn't she? And seemed quite bright and upbeat on the debate last night, in contrast to a rather doom and gloom feel from the others. The party could use some optimism and a 'we can do it' attitude right now. And she was very forthright about everyone deserving our respect, including those who find themselves in need of help from social security. I felt she showed real spirit to go a bit against the flow on welfare. Given the Tories now have a majority there's a very strong possibility, as more and more people find their lives screwed up by current government, that public opinion may swing towards her stance that people needing help should be respected and helped in a way that is fair to all.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 12:46 pm

Willow904 wrote:In addition to the above Cooper just made a very clever point which will be lost in the mix, no doubt, but really impressed me. On immigration she said a change she would ask for in renegotiations with the EU would be more money from the union for countries who are experiencing the highest amounts of immigration. Now that shows real lateral thinking in problem solving plus ties in with the current political climate of EU change set by Cameron and showing what she could achieve in his place.
She just mentioned inequality as well, always a plus for me.

Yes - you're right. I noted that point about the redistribution of EU funds to support those countries most affected by inward migration and thought it was a good and original (to me at least) one.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 12:49 pm

The results in the elections for HoC Committee Chairs have been announced:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/ ... announced/

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 1:02 pm

Ryan-Lee Norrie
‏@ryanlee502
@jk_rowling Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings. (Sorry )

J.K. Rowling ‏@jk_rowling 26m26 minutes ago
J.K. Rowling retweeted Ryan-Lee Norrie
Ryan, I'm sorry, but you may have to accept that designing greetings cards isn't for you.

She is so good at this.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 1:03 pm

Willow904 wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote: That's maybe a bit harsher than I would have put it ... but sort of right.

The one person who IMO did better than I was expecting was Cooper. She came over as less desperate to impress than Kendall and Burnham - more quietly confident. Didn't think I would be saying that.

Watched the later item on the debate on Newsnight - feedback from the Nuneaton audience (not particularly good) and then a discussion with Finkelstein, Helen Lewis of the New Statesman and Phil Collins (former Blair speechwriter and at the Times). One of the points made there that I remember is that although she might tone down her stance and direction of travel if she actually won if Kendall is seen to be espousing Tory policies too much / too far to the right during this contest she may well not win the ballot - and that that was probably what scuppered David Miliband last time. She needs to apply her mantra for the Labour party needing to pick an election winner to her own campaign in this contest - work out what is needed to win this time.
I've had something on my mind for a long time now.
Tristram Hunt backs Kendall.
Now, I know & mostly agree with the just criticisms my friends here have about each.
I want to know why Hunty backs Kendall.
He's got his failings but I wonder about his judgement - I respect it, the more so because he's willingly forfeited leadership himself.
Please let me know your thoughts.
It's just a nagging thing that's been on my mind.
I've no attachment to any of the Labour leadership people at this point - least of all Kendall, I think - so why does Hunty back her?
Tristram Hunt's got a good feel for how to appeal to the self-obsessed middle classes and I imagine he thinks Kendall has a similar draw for this demographic and is probably right. The advantage Hunt had was that I felt he could also sell Labour to a wider audience, he looks the part, he has tv experience and he has that natural confidence only the privately educated have (like Blair). Kendall has none of those advantages. She may attract the Tory swing voters as SH says, but I fear she would lose all the Milibandites and condemn Labour to oblivion in Scotland for a long time. She could get a few Ukip voters back, but I'm not sure I would be willing to accept the cave-in to anti-immigrant, anti-welfare rhetoric that she would use to do it.
I'm liking Cooper a bit at the moment. She's rather sharp, isn't she? And seemed quite bright and upbeat on the debate last night, in contrast to a rather doom and gloom feel from the others. The party could use some optimism and a 'we can do it' attitude right now. And she was very forthright about everyone deserving our respect, including those who find themselves in need of help from social security. I felt she showed real spirit to go a bit against the flow on welfare. Given the Tories now have a majority there's a very strong possibility, as more and more people find their lives screwed up by current government, that public opinion may swing towards her stance that people needing help should be respected and helped in a way that is fair to all.

Actually I don't even agree on that - like most good "Blairites" she is impeccably (neo)liberal on such things.

The great existensial threat to Labour in 2020 is not losing the marginals again, but the aftermath of the EU referendum campaign meaning UKIP do to us in our northern heartlands what the Nats have just achieved in Scotland. Burnham is the best placed to win UKIP voters back and stop others defecting IMO - a major reason I am inclined to back him tbh. Kendall is (on her present positioning, anyway) by some distance the worst.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 1:07 pm

The Conservatives will end subsidies to onshore windfarms from 1 April 2016, a year earlier than set out in the previous Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition agreement. There will be a grace period for projects that already have planning permission, the Department of Energy and Climate Change said.

Rudd...plans to give local communities – rather than national government – the right to veto windfarms. There will also be two new “planning tests” so that councils can only approve windfarms on sites that have been clearly designated as part of a local or neighbourhood plan, and where the proposed project has the backing of the local community. Rudd told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: “This cannot come as a surprise to the industry. It was alerted by previous Conservative energy ministers and by the prime minister.”

She also confirmed she was content for the Chinese government to invest in new nuclear plants in the UK, despite its questionable nuclear safety record. She said Chinese investors would be subject to UK nuclear safety regulation standards.

The Scottish government’s energy minister, Fergus Ewing, has said it is irrational to reduce or scrap onshore wind subsidies. Scotland would be home to 70% of planned future windfarms and the Edinburgh government claims it has not been consulted by the UK government.

...Ewing earlier this month wrote to Rudd: “It is disappointing that I have not had the opportunity to engage with you on this ahead of it being a matter for speculation in the press. “We have not received any information from your department on the possible options you are considering or what analysis has been done to assess the impact on projects in Scotland.”

Ewing warned that changing previously agreed subsidies would cause a crisis of confidence with business. His letter said: “Any lack of clarity on the UK government’s intentions has the potential to stall a very substantial pipeline of investment in the UK and Scotland and dent [our] reputation with developers and inward investors.”

Caroline Flint, the shadow energy secretary, said renewable energy investment was undermined by the mixed messages of Cameron’s last government..."Onshore wind is the cheapest and most developed form of clean energy and there are 1,000 projects whose investment plans could be affected by the latest moving of the goalposts. Ministers need to make clear which projects exactly the grace period will apply to...”

Maria McCaffery, chief executive of RenewableUK, said: “The government’s decision to end prematurely financial support for onshore wind sends a chilling signal not just to the renewable energy industry, but to all investors right across the UK’s infrastructure sectors. It means this government is quite prepared to pull the rug from under the feet of investors even when this country desperately needs to clean up the way we generate electricity at the lowest possible cost – which is onshore wind. People’s fuel bills will increase directly as a result of this government’s actions.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... idies-2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Current government against all the world.
I'm frightened of this ideologically driven government.
Bad news.
Tories have pissed off Scotland.
Let's get some action from the SNP section.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 1:09 pm

Rob Merrick ‏@Rob_Merrick 2h2 hours ago
Enjoying Tory Chris Grayling telling SNP MPs they don't care about the "beautiful" Highlands because they support wind farms....brave move

norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 2h2 hours ago
Scrapping wind farm subsidies will help protect the character and beauty of scotland - Chris Grayling

He's going to need to wear amour under his suit if he carries on saying stuff like that top tweet ...

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 1:13 pm

Huw Irranca-Davies becomes one of Wales' most influential politicians as he wins the reins of the environmental audit committee
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... es-9480501" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Really glad to see that appointment. He really has got his heart in it - and such a good spokesperson for the environment.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 1:22 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:The great existensial threat to Labour in 2020 is not losing the marginals again, but the aftermath of the EU referendum campaign meaning UKIP do to us in our northern heartlands what the Nats have just achieved in Scotland. Burnham is the best placed to win UKIP voters back and stop others defecting IMO - a major reason I am inclined to back him tbh. Kendall is (on her present positioning, anyway) by some distance the worst.

I'm just sharing thoughts here - I'm confused about who's supporting who & why for Labour party leader.

Stoke-on-Trent Central had a UKIP candidate get within 5,100 votes of the Labour party winner. As it is, UKIP secured second place. Tris Hunt won with 12,220 votes. Nonetheless, Hunty is keenly aware of over 7,000 voters went UKIP in his constituency. Again, why the hell is he backing Kendall then? Hunty has certain strengths. He's a historian & strategic navigator. It seems to me Hunty backing Burnham makes more sense. I don't know what the hell they're all thinking. Maybe it's just personal. Hunty has known Kendall for years & may not like the other Labour leadership contenders.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 1:22 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Huw Irranca-Davies becomes one of Wales' most influential politicians as he wins the reins of the environmental audit committee
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... es-9480501" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Really glad to see that appointment. He really has got his heart in it - and such a good spokesperson for the environment.

Agreed.

edited to include this quote from him in the article linked above:

“...all of us as parliamentarians bear a big responsibility to explain to our constituents, to explain to the public, the momentous scale of the challenge that faces us and the downsides that are so apparent if we don’t tackle climate change. Those downsides are not only in the natural environment but they are also in loss of economic growth, they are in large scale migration flows across the planet as people are forced to move from areas where they cannot survive to other more prosperous areas...”

- Mr Irranca-Davies
Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee
Labour MP for Ogmore

I promise greater brevity when I post selected quotes from elsewhere.
xx
cJA

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 1:26 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Rob Merrick ‏@Rob_Merrick 2h2 hours ago
Enjoying Tory Chris Grayling telling SNP MPs they don't care about the "beautiful" Highlands because they support wind farms....brave move

norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 2h2 hours ago
Scrapping wind farm subsidies will help protect the character and beauty of scotland - Chris Grayling
He's going to need to wear amour under his suit if he carries on saying stuff like that top tweet ...

'Scrapping wind farm subsidies will help protect the character and beauty of scotland - Chris Grayling'

Yeah, cause fracking sites are soooooo pretty.

P.S. I know Scotland has a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing.
Chris Grayling probably forgot.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 1:40 pm

Just heard Eric Pickles on R4 promoting his new job as anti corruption czar(?) or something.
Most notable was his claim that election fraud needs looking at. He says in one instance 5000 postal ballots were handed in on Election Day in one seat.
I've said since election day that we were robbed in the key marginals, and have suggested postal votes should be looked at, along with proxy voting by nursing homes, esp in the key seaside marginals.
Wonder if anything will come of it, will Pickles follow up and investigate his suspicions ?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 1:50 pm

James Tapsfield ‏@JamesTapsfield 14m14 minutes ago
All options for vacating Parliament look as if they will probably involve the subsidised catering being closed for 6-11 years...

My heart bleeds for them. What on earth will they do? Tragedy.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 1:56 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Just heard Eric Pickles on R4 promoting his new job as anti corruption czar(?) or something.
Most notable was his claim that election fraud needs looking at. He says in one instance 5000 postal ballots were handed in on Election Day in one seat.
I've said since election day that we were robbed in the key marginals, and have suggested postal votes should be looked at, along with proxy voting by nursing homes, esp in the key seaside marginals.
Wonder if anything will come of it, will Pickles follow up and investigate his suspicions ?

I heard the start of that - in the intro Martha said he had also revealed he was 'sacked' by David Cameron ... as opposed to walking? But whilst he may want to investigate this electoral fraud ... if he's no longer popular with Cameron can't see him really being allowed or encouraged to get on with that particular project, can you?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 2:01 pm

Miliband again.

What a terrible decision his selfish act of instant resignation now looks (as was Brown's in 2010). We now have a rushed and premature contest, with the probable winner very bland. For a Tory making this point see

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/p ... ot-get-it/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and how differently Howard (!) behaved.

The other act of idiocy for which we are now paying the price was his failure to promote the right people. Now whatever you think of Kendall and Creasy they are both clearly able in a way that, say, Lucy Powell just obviously is not. Yet it was the latter who made it into the Shadow Cabinet.

We will be paying a heavy price for the indulgence of his leadership for years and years.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 2:03 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote: The great existensial threat to Labour in 2020 is not losing the marginals again, but the aftermath of the EU referendum campaign meaning UKIP do to us in our northern heartlands what the Nats have just achieved in Scotland. Burnham is the best placed to win UKIP voters back and stop others defecting IMO - a major reason I am inclined to back him tbh. Kendall is (on her present positioning, anyway) by some distance the worst.

A core vote strategy.

Great. Bound to work. Never been tried before.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 2:06 pm

Matt Chorley ‏@MattChorley 13m13 minutes ago
. @YvetteCooperMP at #press gallery: "For the record, Ed Balls will not be doing Strictly... It would conflict with filming in the jungle"

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 13m13 minutes ago
.@YvetteCooperMP in Nuneaton heard woman on phone:'Blonde one, the dark one, the bearded one + the other one'.."They thought we were Abba!"

She's got a sense of humour! Mind you - it would have been a very strange partnership with Ed Balls if you didn't have a sense of humour (and that's not meant as a put down to Ed Balls - I imagine he's quite sparky and fun to live with - infuriating as well, of course).

Swarthlander · Post by **Swarthlander** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 2:08 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
James Tapsfield ‏@JamesTapsfield 14m14 minutes ago
All options for vacating Parliament look as if they will probably involve the subsidised catering being closed for 6-11 years...
My heart bleeds for them. What on earth will they do? Tragedy.

Starve? Poor things.

Maybe an opening for a couple of hot-dog and burger bars? Foreign ownership, zero hours, minimum wage, no tax, sleep under the cart?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 2:15 pm

Swarthlander wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
James Tapsfield ‏@JamesTapsfield 14m14 minutes ago
All options for vacating Parliament look as if they will probably involve the subsidised catering being closed for 6-11 years...
My heart bleeds for them. What on earth will they do? Tragedy.
Starve? Poor things.

Maybe an opening for a couple of hot-dog and burger bars? Foreign ownership, zero hours, minimum wage, no tax, sleep under the cart?

Sleep? You're getting soft. Off to second or third job with them would be more aspirational.

Swarthlander · Post by **Swarthlander** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 2:16 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06 ... _hp_ref=uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Barry Sheerman, the MP for Huddersfield who used to chair the education select committee, intervened in a Commons debate on Thursday about allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote in the upcoming European Union referendum.

"Isn't what is missing out of this, is the responsibility we have to care for young people who are very vulnerable? Up and down this country we've had vulnerability to sexual predators and ghastly things happening right though to 18, up and down this country.

He added: "This move to adults at 16 will make a lot of young men and women more vulnerable to sexual predation than happens at the moment."

OFFS!

Is there a 'head-in-hands' smiley?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 2:22 pm

Swarthlander wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06 ... _hp_ref=uk
Barry Sheerman, the MP for Huddersfield who used to chair the education select committee, intervened in a Commons debate on Thursday about allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote in the upcoming European Union referendum.

"Isn't what is missing out of this, is the responsibility we have to care for young people who are very vulnerable? Up and down this country we've had vulnerability to sexual predators and ghastly things happening right though to 18, up and down this country.

He added: "This move to adults at 16 will make a lot of young men and women more vulnerable to sexual predation than happens at the moment."
OFFS!

Is there a 'head-in-hands' smiley?

I've tried (and failed) to follow his rationale. What next - rape trials where the victim "was asking for it" because they had a history of voting in elections?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 3:35 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:Miliband again.

'You are Mr ~~Kolly Kibber~~ Dan Hodges, I claim the Daily Messenger prize

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 3:37 pm

Theresa Griffin's North West European Update, including TTIP and the referendum

"Trade is neither bad nor good, but there is good trade and bad trade. Labour is firmly committed to changing the rules of global trade, for the benefit of the people and the planet. We stand for fair trade rather than free trade. We want to put an end to social dumping, protect jobs and wages at home while promoting human rights abroad and rebalance north-south relations. To do that, we must seize every opportunity we have to set a new agenda. TTIP represents such an opportunity, and that’s why Labour is not ruling it out at this stage. If we fail to get the agreement that we want, we can alway veto the deal in the end. But there would be no excuse for not trying.

Labour MEPs oppose the inclusion of ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) in TTIP, and have demanded security for our NHS and public services, and the maintenance of high labour standards and environmental protections."

http://theresagriffin.eu/european-parliament/ttip/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FAQ's about TTIP

http://theresagriffin.eu/ttip-frequentl ... questions/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 3:43 pm

"Labour MEPs have condemned today’s formation of a far-right Group in the European Parliament, made possible by the defection of a former UKIP MEP.

Until now, Marine Le Pen’s Front National have not been able to create a political group, but with Janice Atkinson – elected as a UKIP MEP last year – joining them they reach the threshold of having MEPs from seven different countries, required to form a group.

The creation of a group means that they can get access to more than €17 million over the next four years, and places on parliamentary committees."

http://theresagriffin.eu/labour-meps-co ... ght-group/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 3:47 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Miliband again.

'You are Mr ~~Kolly Kibber~~ Dan Hodges, I claim the Daily Messenger prize

Trying to be serious, do you think it was wise to step down immediately and have this contest straight away?

As with Brown in 2010, I understand why he personally felt that is what he wanted to do, but was it wise?

I realise that it is somewhat uncomfortable for me to be arguing that Miliband should lead the Labour party....

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 3:50 pm

Hugo, stop trolling. You are better than that.

Back in the 1990s our core vote really did "have nowhere else to go". Now, it does (and a substantial, traditionally essential part of our old electoral coalition already *has*) Any leader who does not take account of this risks sending the UK Labour party the same way as PASOK.

If anything, *you* are the complacent one in these exchanges - not me.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 4:01 pm

Afternoon all.

From what I've seen so far since they've announced, Cooper has improved in my eyes (from a lowish base), there's still a long way to go though.

In other news, this has appeared in relation to fracking. http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/archive/frac ... 2015.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 18 Jun, 2015 4:09 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Hugo, stop trolling. You are better than that.

Back in the 1990s our core vote really did "have nowhere else to go". Now, it does (and a substantial, traditionally essential part of our old electoral coalition already *has*) Any leader who does not take account of this risks sending the UK Labour party the same way as PASOK.

If anything, *you* are the complacent one in these exchanges - not me.

I do not agree. At all.

The Lib Dems, led by Kennedy, consistently painted themselves as to the left of Labour. Indeed, on foreign policy and civil liberties they were. As I have confessed before, in 2005 I voted Lib Dem because of Iraq. In 2005 the Lib Dems got 22%, in 2010 23%. Once they went into government with the Tories they immediately lost those who saw them as a leftwing alternative, and collapsed to 8%.

So, to say that there was no alternative to Labour on the left in the Blair era is just nonsense. Ukip are not of the left. The Greens are but they got 3.5% of the vote.

the truth is that 2015 was not an especially difficult election for Labour with popular alternatives on the left compared to earlier elections eating into our vote. Exactly the opposite. Labour found itself in especially propitious circumstances with the only viable alternative on the center left which might actually take seats off us in a state of complete collapse.

[And the PASOK reference is completely ridiculous. PASOK collapsed because it did in government exactly the opposite of what it had promised to do to get elected. See also the Lib Dems on tuition fees: more posturing to Labour's left.]