Monday 10th August 2015

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 3:16 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/20 ... f-he-wins/

War criminal, blah, blah, blah!

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 3:18 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
yahyah wrote:TNS poll result for Holyrood is depressing.

SNP 62%
Labour 20%
Tories 12%
Lib Dems 3%

What will all those 'Labour are Red Tories' folk say if Corbyn wins ?
That must be an all time record for a party in a constituent part of the UK. Labour under Blair never polled numbers like that.
Yes they did, in early 1995. They also hit 60% in the autumn of 1997, during Blair's all time peak of personal popularity after Lady Di's death.

63% in November 1997 with Gallup, I find.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 3:25 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/20 ... f-he-wins/
War criminal, blah, blah, blah!

Histrionics about "Labour being finished" if Corbyn wins really don't help, tbh.

Its not going to win people who are thinking of supporting him over to a more prudent course.

Surprised, and a bit perturbed, that even somebody like Campbell doesn't realise this.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 3:34 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
letsskiptotheleft wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/20 ... f-he-wins/
War criminal, blah, blah, blah!
Histrionics about "Labour being finished" if Corbyn wins really don't help, tbh.

Its not going to win people who are thinking of supporting him over to a more prudent course.

Surprised, and a bit perturbed, that even somebody like Campbell doesn't realise this.

I am not so sure. We are lucky that the contest is going on over the summer, when less attention is paid. Unlucky that it is going on so long, giving the opportunity for people to notice. Quite a lot of damage has been done already.

I agree with you that if Corbyn wins he won't make it to be leader in 2020, but the reason he won't make it will be because of the serious damage to the party's reputation. The rightwing press are keeping their powder dry on him. The Deir Yassin Remembered stuff is just a start.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 3:37 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
mikems wrote:
If I remember correctly the '83 and '87 elections did not really discuss nuclear disarmament at all,
You memory is profoundly defective. It was central to both campaigns. Healey, one of the parties major assets, didn't support it, was humiliated on it at both elections.

You are equally wrong about car manufacturing.

UK car manufacturing is just short of its all time peak in terms of units, and is far above it in terms of value (inflation adjusted) because so much UK manufacturing is now high end. We are the third largest car producer in Europe (ahead of France) and if current rates of growth continue can expect to be second, behind Germany, by 2017.

We are an assembler of cars for foreign owners not really manufacturers. As said in the original piece there used to be a huge components industry support the mass produced car industry. This still exists for some bespoke manufacturers and in fairly isolated cases but the bulk of that industry has now gone

Not all doom and gloom but being an assembler for foreign companies is not always the best place to be

Tonibel · Post by **Tonibel** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 3:44 pm

Please feel free to shoot this down and point out all the flaws in my argument but is there any reason why it would be necessary to buy out the privatised energy companies in the event of nationalisation?
Could a Corbyn government not set up a state energy company to run parallel to,and in competition with the existing companies? It would not be a member of the price cartel and would not have to pay out obscene profits to shareholders,so could presumably offer better prices and encourage people to switch. Any profits could be used to improve customer service e.g. Call centres based in UK and to provide help for those forced to pay through the nose because they are obliged to use meters.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 3:56 pm

Tonibel wrote:Please feel free to shoot this down and point out all the flaws in my argument but is there any reason why it would be necessary to buy out the privatised energy companies in the event of nationalisation?
Could a Corbyn government not set up a state energy company to run parallel to,and in competition with the existing companies? It would not be a member of the price cartel and would not have to pay out obscene profits to shareholders,so could presumably offer better prices and encourage people to switch. Any profits could be used to improve customer service e.g. Call centres based in UK and to provide help for those forced to pay through the nose because they are obliged to use meters.

I suspect you have in mind a model like the rail network?

The difference is that rail was renationalised in 2002, and on the cheap because railtrack went bust (in a way privatisation was a success: the government got lots of money from private investors and then bought the assets back at a knock down price when they went belly up).

So, you'd have to renationalise all the energy production assets, which would be vastly expensive if you paid for them, completely immoral and damaging to he UK's commercial reputation if they are just seized.

There isn't really the scope for the franchise solution post-nationalisation that we use for railways.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 3:56 pm

Owen (him again - I know) meets Jeremy

[youtube]qBbsU9VkRvQ[/youtube]

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 4:06 pm

Andy 'Ordinary Scouser not Westminster Bubbly-at-all" Burnham's video makes a contrast with Corbyn's

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/an ... eo-6224743" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Both are devoid of substance, despite Corbyn saying he only wants to talk substance.

That over half the registered voters joined since polling day shows why Corbyn could win.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 4:24 pm

Lack of substance hasn't done Cameron any harm.

There again he got lucky with the SNP playing the role of Labours bogey-man.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 4:46 pm

yahyah wrote:TNS poll result for Holyrood is depressing.

SNP 62%
Labour 20%
Tories 12%
Lib Dems 3%

What will all those 'Labour are Red Tories' folk say if Corbyn wins ?

Scottish Labour needs to have a proper pop over the SNP playing to the gallery with GM foods and making Scotland a laughing stock among scientists.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 4:56 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
mikems wrote:
If I remember correctly the '83 and '87 elections did not really discuss nuclear disarmament at all,
You memory is profoundly defective. It was central to both campaigns. Healey, one of the party's major assets, didn't support it, was humiliated on it at both elections.

You are equally wrong about car manufacturing.

UK car manufacturing is just short of its all time peak in terms of units, and is far above it in terms of value (inflation adjusted) because so much UK manufacturing is now high end. We are the third largest car producer in Europe (ahead of France) and if current rates of growth continue can expect to be second, behind Germany, by 2017.

Umm. We don't actually own any of the companies now though do we? I mean as UK/British owned. And in that case, profits go to whatever country does own them?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 5:00 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
yahyah wrote:TNS poll result for Holyrood is depressing.

SNP 62%
Labour 20%
Tories 12%
Lib Dems 3%

What will all those 'Labour are Red Tories' folk say if Corbyn wins ?
Scottish Labour needs to have a proper pop over the SNP playing to the gallery with GM foods and making Scotland a laughing stock among scientists.

I don't know Tubby, but suspect they've been doing their homework on the problems that arise from dealing with the big corporation that owns the rights to GM crops via American news sites. [sorry I can't remember the name] They're very aggressive towards traditional farmers once they have their feet under the table.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 5:03 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:Andy 'Ordinary Scouser not Westminster Bubbly-at-all" Burnham's video makes a contrast with Corbyn's

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/an ... eo-6224743" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Both are devoid of substance, despite Corbyn saying he only wants to talk substance.

That over half the registered voters joined since polling day shows why Corbyn could win.

And perhaps some of the newly registered voters realised they'd been too complacent at the GE what with Labour being ahead in the polls. So now they've decided to take a more active part.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 5:06 pm

Monsanto. But that's no reason to shun a whole technology. The oil companies they embrace aren't very cuddly.

Scotland hosts loads of GM food research. The government have basically told those scientists they don't trust them. That research will go elsewhere.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 5:10 pm

Tonibel wrote:Please feel free to shoot this down and point out all the flaws in my argument but is there any reason why it would be necessary to buy out the privatised energy companies in the event of nationalisation?
Could a Corbyn government not set up a state energy company to run parallel to,and in competition with the existing companies? It would not be a member of the price cartel and would not have to pay out obscene profits to shareholders,so could presumably offer better prices and encourage people to switch. Any profits could be used to improve customer service e.g. Call centres based in UK and to provide help for those forced to pay through the nose because they are obliged to use meters.

My thoughts exactly !!!!! They've spoken about doing it with a bank.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 5:12 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Monsanto. But that's no reason to shun a whole technology. The oil companies they embrace aren't very cuddly.

Scotland hosts loads of GM food research. The government have basically told those scientists they don't trust them. That research will go elsewhere.

Have you read some of the American reports on Monsanto? Have a dig around on Google.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 5:15 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
yahyah wrote:TNS poll result for Holyrood is depressing.

SNP 62%
Labour 20%
Tories 12%
Lib Dems 3%

What will all those 'Labour are Red Tories' folk say if Corbyn wins ?
Scottish Labour needs to have a proper pop over the SNP playing to the gallery with GM foods and making Scotland a laughing stock

among scientists.

And don't forget some of these big corporations pay scientists to give them favourable reports. You need to check what the people on the ground are saying. Not to mention third world farmers who are talked into growing GM crops are then held to ransom and have to buy their seeds from them every year, so not such a good deal in the end.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 5:20 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
yahyah wrote:TNS poll result for Holyrood is depressing.

SNP 62%
Labour 20%
Tories 12%
Lib Dems 3%

What will all those 'Labour are Red Tories' folk say if Corbyn wins ?
Scottish Labour needs to have a proper pop over the SNP playing to the gallery with GM foods and making Scotland a laughing stock

among scientists.
And don't forget some of these big corporations pay scientists to give them favourable reports. You need to check what the people on the ground are saying. Not to mention third world farmers who are talked into growing GM crops are then held to ransom and have to buy their seeds from them every year, so not such a good deal in the end.

The EU will hammer uncompetitive behaviour. That's one thing they're good at.

Scottish farmers, by the way, strongly oppose this decision.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 5:23 pm

The decision is quite likely to be reversed once Holyrood is out of the way.

Prof. Ottoline Leyser, Director of the Sainsbury Laboratory, University of Cambridge, said:

“It is ironic that Ministers have justified their decision by stating that they are not prepared to “gamble with the future” of Scotland’s food and drink industry, because that is exactly what they are doing. In the short term, this is a zero risk, eye-catching announcement that will have no impact whatsoever, because there are currently no approved GM crops available that are suitable for cultivation in Scotland. In the long term, however, when products such as blight resistant potatoes eventually reach the market, Scottish farmers will find themselves at a serious disadvantage. But maybe this is not such a gamble- a week is famously a long time in politics, so when the time comes, no doubt an elegant U turn can be effected.”

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 5:25 pm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 48177.html

Billboards hawking London flats appear in Hong Kong despite the UK's housing shortage

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 5:25 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
mikems wrote:
You memory is profoundly defective. It was central to both campaigns. Healey, one of the party's major assets, didn't support it, was humiliated on it at both elections.

You are equally wrong about car manufacturing.

UK car manufacturing is just short of its all time peak in terms of units, and is far above it in terms of value (inflation adjusted) because so much UK manufacturing is now high end. We are the third largest car producer in Europe (ahead of France) and if current rates of growth continue can expect to be second, behind Germany, by 2017.
Umm. We don't actually own any of the companies now though do we? I mean as UK/British owned. And in that case, profits go to whatever country does own them?

Just not a big deal. Employs 100,00s, about £10bn of activity, and we own more foreign enterprises tha they own here.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 5:26 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
yahyah wrote:TNS poll result for Holyrood is depressing.

SNP 62%
Labour 20%
Tories 12%
Lib Dems 3%

What will all those 'Labour are Red Tories' folk say if Corbyn wins ?
Scottish Labour needs to have a proper pop over the SNP playing to the gallery with GM foods and making Scotland a laughing stock

among scientists.
And don't forget some of these big corporations pay scientists to give them favourable reports. You need to check what the people on the ground are saying. Not to mention third world farmers who are talked into growing GM crops are then held to ransom and have to buy their seeds from them every year, so not such a good deal in the end.

All I would say is that I have very little trust in NGO's either...they make a lot of money from focusing on half-truths and on hazard rather than risk.

Most farmers are pretty hard-nosed and as far as I know no-one forces them to buy crop products - if the value wasn't there they wouldn't do it. The regulatory environment is already very strict based on the risk cup and the precautionary principle (for GM there is a pretty much outright ban). I am not a great fan of the precautionary principle - bad science in my view - and it has led to such things as the farcical badger cull

That is not to say some of the company ethics lead a lot to be desired but I think we can say that for all large corporations to be honest!

The solution to future food needs will be better resource management and better yields. This will be a combination of good practice, pesticides and GMO.

Or we could just cut put food prices up to reflect the real cost of growing things (especially meat) without any pesticides or GM and also look at massive population reductions

This is a complex area and one that will need some really thought in the future

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 5:28 pm

Agree with all of that, Howsilly.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 5:41 pm

Some of the zealots who are ranting about Blairite war criminals, David Kelly & Harman's feminism are not doing Corbyn any favours.

It repels me to think that by voting Corbyn, in a sense, I would be endorsing those people and their views.

For every sensible person who wants to vote for him, there seems to be 50 irrational ranters.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 5:45 pm

Why doesn't one of the armchair warriors actually march Campbell or Blair into a police station, or carry out a citizen arrest, if they are so sure they should be in court ?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 5:59 pm

There is anger on the left.......a sense of powerlessness and it is manifesting itself in various ways, not always positive

Some are trolls and should be ignored but there are a lot who have seen Labour move to the right and a, probably justifiable, frustration at certain parts of the leadership. Remember the attacks on Ed M did not come from the left of the party and those crying the loudest now were happy to stick their knives in before and after the election!

As to the Blair/Campbell thing. I find it very sad that the good things done in the 97-2010 period have been overshadowed. Blair and his supporters damaged profoundly his legacy by Iraq and now they are trying to destroy it completely by agreeing with the 'Labour overspent' meme! That is not the fault of the left

I personally think Blair and Bush were an absolute disgrace over Iraq and their decisions have made the world a more dangerous place. Cameron also made the same mistakes in Libya but we do not hear about that so much. I don't know about war crimes as the truth is not always apparent but I do wish this man, who is thoroughly discredited, would go and retire to his large mansion in the country and stop further causing damage to the party that he once led so well in those heady days at the end of the last century.

He, and he alone, destroyed his legacy

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 6:10 pm

A lot of truth there HowSilly.

But most of what is being expressed isn't righteous anger, it verges on psychopathy.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 6:13 pm

yahyah

I agree there is a real problem with that - it is why Blair should just stay away.

Campbell has been unwise today - a surprise because he is normally pretty good at this. Maybe there is some past issue between him and Corbyn - wouldn't be surprised

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 6:15 pm

yahyah wrote:A lot of truth there HowSilly.

But most of what is being expressed isn't righteous anger, it verges on psychopathy.

Whatever we choose to call it - it seems to go with 'surges' and social media as a conduit.

Anyone else remember the bloke who used to always be standing on Oxford Street holding his huge boards with the Less Passion Less Meat messages? He would have hated (perhaps too strong a word for him) this.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 6:22 pm

A new political party has been created to take up the cause of Scottish independence after its founding members decided the SNP wasn’t pro-independence enough.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/decla ... bmW8Wq2NxD" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Scottish Independence party, known as SIP, was created last week after it was revealed that the SNP has no current plans to discuss independence or a second referendum at its conference in October.
The SIP will attempt to capitalise on disillusionment within sections of the SNP membership, some of whom have recently quit the party over concerns it has lost sight of the ultimate aim of independence since last September’s referendum.
SIP founder Coinneach Mac Eachain told BuzzFeed News he hoped to field candidates in every seat in Scotland for next May’s Holyrood election and reclaim the cause of independence from the SNP.
“The SNP has decided at their conference that they aren’t even going to discuss independence or even a referendum, so that was the catalyst,” said Mac Eachin. “There are so many people out there who are annoyed by the situation, that there’s no discussion, and they’re very welcome to join us.”...

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 6:22 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
yahyah wrote:A lot of truth there HowSilly.

But most of what is being expressed isn't righteous anger, it verges on psychopathy.
Whatever we choose to call it - it seems to go with 'surges' and social media as a conduit.

Anyone else remember the bloke who used to always be standing on Oxford Street holding his huge boards with the Less Passion Less Meat messages? He would have hated (perhaps too strong a word for him) this.

Used to see him regularly when I worked in the West End.
Didn't he have a thing about sitting down too ?

I really admire the Dalai Lama.
Millions of his people have been murdered and exiled but he doesn't spend his time ranting and swearing about the Chinese.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 6:25 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
A new political party has been created to take up the cause of Scottish independence after its founding members decided the SNP wasn’t pro-independence enough.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/decla ... bmW8Wq2NxD" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Scottish Independence party, known as SIP, was created last week after it was revealed that the SNP has no current plans to discuss independence or a second referendum at its conference in October.
The SIP will attempt to capitalise on disillusionment within sections of the SNP membership, some of whom have recently quit the party over concerns it has lost sight of the ultimate aim of independence since last September’s referendum.
SIP founder Coinneach Mac Eachain told BuzzFeed News he hoped to field candidates in every seat in Scotland for next May’s Holyrood election and reclaim the cause of independence from the SNP.
“The SNP has decided at their conference that they aren’t even going to discuss independence or even a referendum, so that was the catalyst,” said Mac Eachin. “There are so many people out there who are annoyed by the situation, that there’s no discussion, and they’re very welcome to join us.”...

Splitting the splitters

How long before the Greens do the same ?
A lot of them weren't happy at Bennett's leadership and felt the environment got ditched in favour of her sucking up to Wood & Sturgeon's Labour bashing.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 6:25 pm

Here you go ... more on Mr Less Passion Less Protein ... from wikipedia. I remember him fondly.

Stanley Owen Green (22 February 1915 – 4 December 1993), known as the Protein Man, was a human billboard who became a well-known figure in central London in the latter half of the 20th century.[1]

Green patrolled Oxford Street in the West End for 25 years, from 1968 until 1993. His placard advocating "Less Lust, By Less Protein: Meat Fish Bird; Egg Cheese; Peas Beans; Nuts. And Sitting" recommended "protein wisdom", a low-protein diet for "better, kinder, happier people". For a few pence passers-by could purchase his 14-page pamphlet, Eight Passion Proteins with Care, which sold 87,000 copies over 20 years. Its front cover observed, "This booklet would benefit more, if it were read occasionally."[2]

Green's "campaign to suppress desire", as one commentator put it, was not always popular, but he became one of London's much-loved eccentrics and took great delight in his local fame. The Sunday Times interviewed him in 1985, and his "less passion, less protein" slogan was used by the fashion house Red or Dead.

When he died at the age of 78, the Daily Telegraph, Guardian and Times published his obituary, the Museum of London added his pamphlets, placards and letters to their collection, and in 2006 his biography was added to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.[1]

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 6:25 pm

Is that all NGOs?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 6:39 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:Is that all NGOs?

Not al but NGO's often have a political agenda as well so their evidence should be considered with the same skepticism as any other source

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 6:40 pm

Can't resist another extract. (Sorry, I'll stop now.)

On the streets

Green began his mission in June 1968, at the age of 53, initially in Harrow on Saturdays, becoming a full-time human billboard six months later on Oxford Street. He cycled there from Northolt with a sandwich board attached to the bicycle, a journey of 12 miles (19 km) that could take up to two hours, until he was given a bus pass when he turned 65.[4]

He rose early, and after porridge for breakfast made bread that would rise while he was out on patrol, ready for his evening meal. Apart from the porridge and bread, his diet consisted of steamed vegetables and pulses, and a pound of apples a day. Lunch was prepared on a Bunsen burner and eaten at 2:30 in a "warm and secret place" near Oxford Street.[4] He walked up and down the street six days a week, then four days from 1985 onwards, until 6:30 pm. Saturday evenings were spent with the cinema crowds in Leicester Square.[3] He would to go to bed at 12:30 am after saying a prayer. "Quite a good prayer, unselfish too", he told the Sunday Times. "It is a sort of acknowledgment of God, just in case there happens to be one."[4]

Peter Ackroyd wrote in London: The Biography that Green was for the most part ignored, becoming "a poignant symbol of the city's incuriosity and forgetfulness".[6] He was arrested for public obstruction twice, in 1980 and 1985.[3] "The injustice of it upsets me," he told the Sunday Times, "because I'm doing such a good job." He took to wearing overalls to protect himself from spit, several times finding it on his hat at the end of the day.[4]

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

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 6:45 pm

Mmm...I asked my husband if he remembered him, and he said Mr No Passion used to go into a cafe near The Spread Eagle pub off Oxford St.
Probably had a double portion of egg, beans, sausage and chips.

Those were the days, never sure if an IRA bomb wouldn't blow you up on your way to work.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 6:48 pm

yahyah wrote:Mmm...I asked my husband if he remembered him, and he said Mr No Passion used to go into a cafe near The Spread Eagle pub off Oxford St.
Probably had a double portion of egg, beans, sausage and chips.

Those were the days, never sure if an IRA bomb wouldn't blow you up on your way to work.

I'm not, repeating not, laughing at the IRA bomb ref ...

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 6:50 pm

My husband's pondering about his sign too...that he used to lean it up against a wall somewhere but can't remember where that was.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 6:55 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
yahyah wrote:Mmm...I asked my husband if he remembered him, and he said Mr No Passion used to go into a cafe near The Spread Eagle pub off Oxford St.
Probably had a double portion of egg, beans, sausage and chips.

Those were the days, never sure if an IRA bomb wouldn't blow you up on your way to work.
I'm not, repeating not, laughing at the IRA bomb ref ...

As someone who did my growing up in the 70s and 80s I miss the Cold War, kind of, in a funny kind of way..

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 6:56 pm

Chinese SNP councillor quits amid ‘racism’ claims
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3852813" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 7:10 pm

British Politics is in a constant battle with the youth and the Lib Dems should be on the frontline
http://www.libdemvoice.org/british-poli ... 47088.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As a party we have, despite recent results, a lot going for us. We have thousands of enthusiastic members, a huge amount of dedication and heaps of potential. Potential is the key word. The key values that the Liberal Democrats stand for are: liberalism, freedom and equality for all. These match very closely with what today’s young believe. So why in the last election did UKIP (10%) and the Greens (9%) perform better with the youth vote than the Lib Dems (8%)?...

Thank you LDV - for a good belly laugh.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 7:14 pm

What about an independently funded NGO compared to a commercially funded scientist?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 7:15 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
British Politics is in a constant battle with the youth and the Lib Dems should be on the frontline
http://www.libdemvoice.org/british-poli ... 47088.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As a party we have, despite recent results, a lot going for us. We have thousands of enthusiastic members, a huge amount of dedication and heaps of potential. Potential is the key word. The key values that the Liberal Democrats stand for are: liberalism, freedom and equality for all. These match very closely with what today’s young believe. So why in the last election did UKIP (10%) and the Greens (9%) perform better with the youth vote than the Lib Dems (8%)?...
Thank you LDV - for a good belly laugh.

Strangely enough, dusting my books this morning and found a piece of paper with the following on it.

Quote: Danny Alexander. "The Tories couldn't have done it without us."

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 7:20 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:What about an independently funded NGO compared to a commercially funded scientist?

A scientist working for an NGO is funded by the NGO so there is not much difference than a scientist who is funded by a commercial enterprise - all though most commercial funds to scientists are controlled and any scientist falsifying results is finished - not saying it doesn't happen but I think that NGO get a bit of an easy ride

Do you think the Soil Association does not have an agenda?

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 7:24 pm

Obviously they have a political agenda - that is the point of their existence - but organisations not funded by large corporations have an independence which many scientists now lack.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 7:31 pm

tinyclanger2

I think that is a bit naïve if I may say so, and 'many scientists' is pushing it a bit

I am a scientist working for a multinational and I have never ever been asked to falsify results or hide anything from the authorities. My work is audited and we all have to work within the regulatory guidelines defined by the Government - which I can tell you are incredibly strict. Far stricter than proper risk analysis would require, because 'hazard' is what they focus on.

Of course we try to push the limits and also fund work to challenge some of the decisions of the authorities but in my 20 years of experience I have never, or seen one of my colleagues, falsifying results at the behest of the company

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 7:35 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:yahyah

I agree there is a real problem with that - it is why Blair should just stay away.

Campbell has been unwise today - a surprise because he is normally pretty good at this. Maybe there is some past issue between him and Corbyn - wouldn't be surprised

Campbell is trying to stop a train wreck. Fair play to him for telling it like it is.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 7:38 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
mikems wrote:
If I remember correctly the '83 and '87 elections did not really discuss nuclear disarmament at all,
You memory is profoundly defective. It was central to both campaigns. Healey, one of the party's major assets, didn't support it, was humiliated on it at both elections.

You are equally wrong about car manufacturing.

UK car manufacturing is just short of its all time peak in terms of units, and is far above it in terms of value (inflation adjusted) because so much UK manufacturing is now high end. We are the third largest car producer in Europe (ahead of France) and if current rates of growth continue can expect to be second, behind Germany, by 2017.

To echo SH, the nuclear issue was question 1 page 1 of every bloody interview in both elections. Kinnock dumped CND the day after the 87 vowing never again was he prepared to defend such a profoundly stupid position.

It wasn't an issue in 92.

Also SH is right on car manufacturing. What is true though is that it is all foreign owned. If we left the EU it would vanish overnight.

Amusingly talking to somebody at Jaguar Land Rover, the Chinese (where they also have a factory) will actually pay a premium for a Midlands built vehicle. That is pretty amazing if you remember the shambles of the latter days of BL/Rover.