Monday 17th August 2015

Post by **refitman** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 7:09 am

Morning all.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 7:12 am

Morning.

Just ignore Mandelson. He isn't worth the rise in blood pressure.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 7:27 am

Morning.

I really get frustrated by some of the comments I hear about the young. Take Matthew Hancock this morning, why is it they think youth don't understand about the rigours of daily getting to the workplace? Did they not have a lifetime of doing so for school? Perhaps the problems lay elsewhere. Having said that far too many job applicants fail to turn up for interview, which is disappointing (as observed by my eldest, now in recruitment).

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 7:33 am

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

Seems a good summary.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 7:34 am

utopiandreams wrote:Morning.

I really get frustrated by some of the comments I hear about the young. Take Matthew Hancock this morning, why is it they think youth don't understand about the rigours of daily getting to the workplace? Did they not have a lifetime of doing so for school? Perhaps the problems lay elsewhere. Having said that far too many job applicants fail to turn up for interview, which is disappointing (as observed by my eldest, now in recruitment).

Morning.

Failure to turn up for appointments seems to be a bit of growing problem - and certainly not confined to the young - if we accept what we hear about lots of no shows at GPs, hospitals etc. And it's not just about whether you pay for a service or not. My dentist rings everybody with an appointment the day before to remind them and check that they are definitely coming because they have so many no shows - and want to be able to reallocate the appointment rather than have an empty slot. When I used to recruit ... approx 9 years ago there were always people who didn't turn up and they weren't just the younger applicants.

Is this a relatively modern issue - were we all much better at going to appointments or cancelling them in advance in years gone by?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 7:39 am

The Guardian Verified account
‏@guardian
Unemployed young people will be sent to work boot camp, says minister http://trib.al/F0KcJzD" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim Pickard ‏@PickardJE 16m16 minutes ago
The "boot camp" is in fact 70 hours of training at the youth's local job centre http://app.ft.com/cms/s/0/584bc9a6-4434 ... eda22.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Jim Pickard ‏@PickardJE 17m17 minutes ago
Jim Pickard retweeted The Guardian
Definition of boot camp: "a military training camp for new recruits, with very harsh discipline."

We really are going back to the 70s and 80s with this lot. Smacks of the 'short, sharp shock' borstal approach eh. But these young people are not criminals - although you'd be forgiven for thinking they are given the way this government seems to perceive and talk about them.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 7:45 am

Hancock is such a dimwit he makes Duncan Smith look like a genius in comparison. He started off his interview on BBC breakfast by saying what a great success the youth work programme has been. Bill Turnbull then asked him "how it can be deemed a success when hundreds of thousands are still without work"

His response "Yes that's right"

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 7:45 am

Still on appointments. Is there an issue nowadays with how relatively difficult it is to contact people / departments to both make and rearrange or cancel appointments? We now have so many bits of technology or interface between us and actually talking to the right person - it can take a lot of effort and time and the message still not get to them.

Thinking in particular of the stories we hear of those people who have had their benefits sanctioned for supposedly not showing up on time for or at all to an appointment at the job centre etc. Many of those involve not being able to get through - or leaving a message and that not getting through - or being delayed or frustrated by transport or other events beyond their control.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 7:49 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
The Guardian Verified account
‏@guardian
Unemployed young people will be sent to work boot camp, says minister http://trib.al/F0KcJzD" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim Pickard ‏@PickardJE 16m16 minutes ago
The "boot camp" is in fact 70 hours of training at the youth's local job centre http://app.ft.com/cms/s/0/584bc9a6-4434 ... eda22.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Jim Pickard ‏@PickardJE 17m17 minutes ago
Jim Pickard retweeted The Guardian
Definition of boot camp: "a military training camp for new recruits, with very harsh discipline."
We really are going back to the 70s and 80s with this lot. Smacks of the 'short, sharp shock' borstal approach eh. But these young people are not criminals - although you'd be forgiven for thinking they are given the way this government seems to perceive and talk about them.

I do agree with you, rebecca, and more than anything I think the language and tone of politicians unacceptable. However I can understand some of what they're discussing in not allowing a pattern of idleness to develop. Nevertheless there is so much work that needs to be done so bloody well pay people to do it. Don't think I'm against the progress that technology has brought but perhaps it's time to tax machinery for their output in our mechanised world. Much simpler, of course, would be increasing and enforcement of corporation tax instead of the chase to the bottom since Thatcherism. This is where international cooperation is sorely needed.

Edit: typo! Correct out to our.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 8:01 am

Mandelson has been practicing the dark arts again.

: ScreenShot00637.jpg (176.42 KiB) Viewed 8239 times

"Lord Mandelson, one of the architects of “new” Labour, privately appealed last week to the Kendall, Cooper and Burnham camps to quit the contest before ballot papers were sent out, according to sources.
One said: “Lord Mandelson and other Blairites were saying – this is a disgrace, let’s get this thing pulled. But it was not going to happen.”
The peer is understood to have believed that the party might suspend the contest if there was only one candidate, but he had to back down when officials said it would mean Mr Corbyn won.
There are also claims - made in a column by the Telegraph's Dan Hodges - that Miss Kendall approached Miss Cooper to ask if she would quit to back Mr Burnham and help him overhaul Mr Corbyn’s lead. Miss Cooper refused.

Sources close to Miss Kendall and Miss Cooper dismissed claims that they had discussed quitting. Lord Mandelson did not reply to requests for comment. Labour declined to comment”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... rship.html

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 8:15 am

A new post from Ephie on GrimSqueaker's blog.

https://thegrimsqueakerreturns.wordpres ... ng-begins/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hope all is well with Grim, I miss him and the way he used to look out for some of us.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 8:15 am

Oh dear ... Did she really say this ?

"Yes we must support the disabled, but we must support ordinary people as well."

: CMjjHpXWIAAYZE9.jpg (22.08 KiB) Viewed 8223 times

http://samedifference1.com/2015/08/17/m ... -comments/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 8:21 am

I don't see that it is an either or Toby.
Should she have said we will support disabled people but not ordinary people ?
Support means many things, and differing forms of it can be/should be applied.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 8:30 am

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 58299.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 8:30 am

Found it -

She actually said "We won in 1997 because people thought we had a message for the weak, the vulnerable and those who were suffering but for ordinary people too"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33951257

Which is totally different as to what is being presented on twitter (there is even a petition going on asking for an apology)

: ScreenShot00647.jpg (200.75 KiB) Viewed 8211 times

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 8:33 am

This swooping on one or two words, and the social media/Twitter outrage that follows is not just tiresome, it is also undermining politics in general.

I fall for it myself too often, am shamefaced to admit.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 8:36 am

Toni Pearce ‏@toni_pearce 20m20 minutes ago Camden Town, London
Why do they need to use words like boot camp and task force? - this is a skills programme! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... -camp.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Well quite, why do they? They certainly don't 'need' to use such words IMO.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 8:37 am

yahyah wrote:I don't see that it is an either or Toby.
Should she have said we will support disabled people but not ordinary people ?
Support means many things, and differing forms of it can be/should be applied.

The point being that disabled people are ordinary people.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 8:39 am

We are told socialism is a thing of the past, old hat.

But for the young, these ideas may be new after all the years of Thatcherism and New Labour's don't scare the horses approach.

If young people hear more about real alternatives, and not from the fringe parties or those with an investment as posing left wing to gain independence votes, socialism could resonate and be the next new thing. Am crossing all my fingers.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 8:41 am

Wondering if Yvette Cooper has had a little voice coaching recently. The snippet I heard of her on Radio 4 this morning sounded a bit slower (not much but a bit more measured) in a slightly lower tone and it seemed as though some of her inflection and emphasis was better placed. Good move if she has. I often think she says some quite good stuff but is a bit let down - it has less impact and gravitas - by her delivery.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 8:42 am

TobyLatimer wrote:
yahyah wrote:I don't see that it is an either or Toby.
Should she have said we will support disabled people but not ordinary people ?
Support means many things, and differing forms of it can be/should be applied.

The point being that disabled people are ordinary people.

Yes that false distinction is what stood out for me.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 8:43 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
TobyLatimer wrote:
yahyah wrote:I don't see that it is an either or Toby.
Should she have said we will support disabled people but not ordinary people ?
Support means many things, and differing forms of it can be/should be applied.

The point being that disabled people are ordinary people.
Yes that false distinction is what stood out for me.

Sorry, I failed on that.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 8:46 am

Am probably ending up trying to be devil's advocate for Kendall.
I don't warm to her, I wouldn't vote for her but I think she has often been attacked unfairly for what are her beliefs.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 8:53 am

SpinningHugo wrote:

Seems a good summary.

It's an opinion piece from a comedian. That's all.

David Mitchell and his partner in comedy Robert Webb both support Yvette Cooper; the latter described Corbyn as "fucking awful".
Classy.

They have both said that Corbyn wants to nationalise everything at vast expense rather than keep SureStart centres open. This is something that Polly Toynbee has accused Corbyn of, and it seems that this lie from Coopers' campaign has developed a life of its' own.

The 13 points Mitchell argues are nothing more than his opinion on what Corbyn stands for. An opinion he is perfectly entitled to, but a "good summary" of what Corbyn stands for it isn't.
Mitchell quotes unemployment figures in Greece and Spain to discredit Syriza and Podemos - ignoring the fact that this situation is not the fault of those parties but one of the reasons why they are popular.

He says that non-voters don't vote. Well done, David. Then he claims that when the non-voters who don't vote actually do vote (which he has just informed us is something they don't do) they vote Tory. How does he know? THEY DON'T VOTE. D'oh.
He says that Corbyn will not shift the country leftwards, and voting for him will "give the Tories a free hand" - conveniently ignoring the recent abstentions, and the possibility that Corbyn could mount an effective opposition with other parties.

Mitchell equates the large numbers of people attending his rallies with the supporters of a football team. He thinks that Corbyn is speaking only to people who already support him. This is not true.
He also says that getting a few thousand people to attend a rally is not the same thing as getting support from the country at large. This is actually true - but irrelevant now as the only people who matter at this particular point in time are the Labour Party members and affiliates who have a vote in this contest - and 57% of them support Corbyn.

Personally, I wish these slebs would just stop. Whilst i have some respect for a few of them, they are no more special or informed than the man on the Clapham Omnibus. I don't care if Steve Coogan and David Walliams like Burnham; I don't care if nobody famous has offered support to Kendall; I don't care if Cooper has the vote of the cast of Peep Show. I don't care if Billy Bragg and Charlotte Church want to vote for Corbyn.

What matters is what the majority of Labour Party members think, and what matters is policy. Mitchell actually has no more idea of what would happen than you or i do - I think you are exhibiting confirmation bias.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 8:55 am

yahyah wrote:Am probably ending up trying to be devil's advocate for Kendall.
I don't warm to her, I wouldn't vote for her but I think she has often been attacked unfairly for what are her beliefs.

Yes I don't agree with any of the abusive attacks on any of the candidates (I just don't get why anyone thinks it's OK to do that). I think Kendall started off with the wrong tone for her campaign ... it felt like quite an attack on parts of the party that had worked pretty hard for the election / Miliband at a time when people were feeling very down and tired. And whilst she has rowed back from the berating a bit recently - the early impression sticks. I'm also daft / soft enough to think that I'd like to see a collegiate, respectful approach from the candidates ... rather than the more competitive approach she started with. I know they want to beat the other candidates but showing that you can respect different perspectives and will be able to work with others who hold them is an important element of leadership IMO.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 9:00 am

A Billy Bragg endorsement would have me running in the opposite direction.
He's the bright spark who thought, just after the May 2010 election, that the Tory/Lib coalition could be more radical than Labour.
He was right, but not in a good way or about the issues he claims to support.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 9:00 am

yahyah wrote:Am probably ending up trying to be devil's advocate for Kendall.
I don't warm to her, I wouldn't vote for her but I think she has often been attacked unfairly for what are her beliefs.

And now there is a twitter storm attacking her over something she didn't say.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 9:02 am

[quote="TobyLatimer"]Found it -

She actually said "We won in 1997 because people thought we had a message for the weak, the vulnerable and those who were suffering but for ordinary people too"

I've got news for Liz.

The weak, the vulnerable, and the suffering are ordinary people too. The message they got in 1997 was "things can only get better".
They did for a while. Then along came ESA, the WCA, Atos.....a whole new message...

Since when were "ordinary people" different from ordinary people who happen to be suffering?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 9:04 am

That's why modern politics is so difficult.
At one time her comments probably wouldn't even have made it into the press, and at most a few 'letters to the editor' may have resulted.

Now, within minutes, hate campaigns ensue. Death or rape threats if you are really unlucky.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 9:09 am

ephemerid wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:

Seems a good summary.

It's an opinion piece from a comedian. That's all.

David Mitchell and his partner in comedy Robert Webb both support Yvette Cooper; the latter described Corbyn as "fucking awful".
Classy.

They have both said that Corbyn wants to nationalise everything at vast expense rather than keep SureStart centres open. This is something that Polly Toynbee has accused Corbyn of, and it seems that this lie from Coopers' campaign has developed a life of its' own.

The 13 points Mitchell argues are nothing more than his opinion on what Corbyn stands for. An opinion he is perfectly entitled to, but a "good summary" of what Corbyn stands for it isn't.
Mitchell quotes unemployment figures in Greece and Spain to discredit Syriza and Podemos - ignoring the fact that this situation is not the fault of those parties but one of the reasons why they are popular.

He says that non-voters don't vote. Well done, David. Then he claims that when the non-voters who don't vote actually do vote (which he has just informed us is something they don't do) they vote Tory. How does he know? THEY DON'T VOTE. D'oh.
He says that Corbyn will not shift the country leftwards, and voting for him will "give the Tories a free hand" - conveniently ignoring the recent abstentions, and the possibility that Corbyn could mount an effective opposition with other parties.

Mitchell equates the large numbers of people attending his rallies with the supporters of a football team. He thinks that Corbyn is speaking only to people who already support him. This is not true.
He also says that getting a few thousand people to attend a rally is not the same thing as getting support from the country at large. This is actually true - but irrelevant now as the only people who matter at this particular point in time are the Labour Party members and affiliates who have a vote in this contest - and 57% of them support Corbyn.

Personally, I wish these slebs would just stop. Whilst i have some respect for a few of them, they are no more special or informed than the man on the Clapham Omnibus. I don't care if Steve Coogan and David Walliams like Burnham; I don't care if nobody famous has offered support to Kendall; I don't care if Cooper has the vote of the cast of Peep Show. I don't care if Billy Bragg and Charlotte Church want to vote for Corbyn.

What matters is what the majority of Labour Party members think, and what matters is policy. Mitchell actually has no more idea of what would happen than you or i do - I think you are exhibiting confirmation bias.

Ephemeris

You have confused the identity of the author with the images used.

I have never understood why anyone, when presented with an argument, thinks that the response "That is like, just so your opinion" is adequate.

Of course it is. What else could it be? Supported, on this occasion, with lots of facts and references. I didn't give it to you because of the source, but because it gives an (overly fair) summary of the downsides of your choice.

But, in any event, I think you are best off just ignoring anything I say or write. i am not sure it is doing either of us any good.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 9:10 am

TobyLatimer wrote:
yahyah wrote:I don't see that it is an either or Toby.
Should she have said we will support disabled people but not ordinary people ?
Support means many things, and differing forms of it can be/should be applied.

The point being that disabled people are ordinary people.

Well yes, Toby, which brings me back to the amount of attention we received from Social Services because of our Downs Syndrome daughter. True it was her disability that attracted them in the first place but far too much emphasis is placed on that difference instead of a more general acceptance of the individual. For example and this was a cause of disagreement but I did get my way, a pre-school teacher came in to help her development (not a parent herself). Early on she would get 'educational' toys and activities out for her then proceed to push away our eldest, only thirteen months older.

I was infuriated, but obviously more delicate in how I put it, but insisted that if she were to come into our home that she treat both children as equals. To be honest we noticed a reversal in our lad's progress as he started to act dumb for attention. At least that was my perception but may be typical with any new arrival.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 9:19 am

Ian Dunt ‏@IanDunt 6m6 minutes ago
It's Labour right, not Jeremy Corbyn, who are out of touch http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... corbyn-who" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; … Ken Livingstone writes for us on the Corbyn phenomenon

and also on politics uk from a few days ago

Comment: The Greens would welcome a coalition with Jeremy Corbyn
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... jeremy-cor" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

N.B. I am merely posting links ... I'm not having a love in with them.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 9:24 am

RobertSnozers wrote:... The media used to try and get people to say things they wanted them to say. They don't bother these days, they just paraphrase increasingly loosely until they can 'quote' what they want to.

'And therein lies the problem, Robert, which brings me back to Leveson. As an aside I shall never forget Tory ministers perjuring themselves. The difficulty is the separation of opinion pieces and news, not that I'm advocating a Ministry of News of course. I'll say no more other than what I used to tell my students; uncorroborated statements are merely opinion. The trouble is that others' views are all too often used as such. What a difficult task Leveson had.

It does make me wonder how Cameron feels he can waste so much for no more than appearance sake when he had no intention of implementing the findings. No matter, I must be bonkers.

Edit: I did say more.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 9:43 am

RobertSnozers wrote:... I suspect Cameron misjudged the viciousness with which the media would fight to avoid being held to account...

I disagree, Robert, he was backed into a corner and buckled. That's my opinion anyway. Expect more pronouncements from Cameron for their PR value to be kicked into the long grass and the more unpopular things to slip quietly by. When I say quietly, I am of course speaking of the msm as much as anything.

Edit: when I say backed into a corner, I'm speaking of establishing the inquiry rather than the media's subsequent reaction. After all, what was one of the first things he did? Spend a million quid perfecting his cabinet's lies.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 9:52 am

SpinningHugo wrote:

Ephemeris

You have confused the identity of the author with the images used.

I have never understood why anyone, when presented with an argument, thinks that the response "That is like, just so your opinion" is adequate.

Of course it is. What else could it be? Supported, on this occasion, with lots of facts and references. I didn't give it to you because of the source, but because it gives an (overly fair) summary of the downsides of your choice.

But, in any event, I think you are best off just ignoring anything I say or write. i am not sure it is doing either of us any good.

Dear Spiffing Whoknows,

Again - my user name is Ephemerid with a "d".

As this is now the 4th time you have misspelt it recently, I'm beginning to wonder if it's deliberate. As you rarely misspell anything else, maybe I'm right and you do it to annoy. Assuming it's a genuine, if regular, mistake, perhaps you could pay more attention as you type.

I have not confused the identity of the writer with the images used. The author of the piece is David Mitchell.

I do not think it is adequate to respond as you describe when presented with an argument. The piece is not an argument.
And my response was rather more detailed than you infer.

There are no facts in the piece, there is opinion; the references are, obviously, supportive of that opinion. That doesn't make them right.

I have been ignoring what you write for a while; I had intended not to respond to your posts but I have changed my mind.
I do not think you present cogent arguments, I do not think that you are immune from spin (hah!), and others have noted that you resort to hyperbole if all else fails, and so I will engage with you as and when I see fit. I'm a bit fed up with being polite to you, frankly, and you are doing here exactly what you did on CIF - the sort of thing that this "haven" was designed to allow us to escape.

You, of course, are perfectly at liberty to ignore me.

There as many "downsides" to the other candidates as there are to my choice. My choice now is Corbyn - but I have said here and elsewhere that should one of the others offer something better I would consider a vote for them. So far they haven't.

I am more persuaded by arguments put forward by posters like Technical Ephemera and Tubby Isaacs - with whom I do not agree - than I am by opinion pieces linked to other opinion pieces. TE and TI support their views with links to actual policy documents, official figures, and factual articles. I may not like their choices but I respect how they made those choices and how they explain them.

What I do not like is deliberate baiting, relentless circular arguments, and spin bordering on concern trolling.

Have a nice day.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 9:58 am

Government growth voucher scheme branded a failure
Only 7,000 of targeted 20,000 small firms accessed vouchers, with Labour citing lack of promotion and business leaders saying it was too confusing
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -a-failure" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A £30m government scheme to help small businesses pay for expert advice has been branded a flop after only a fraction of the cash was handed out. Labour said the growth voucher scheme was a victim of underwhelming marketing, while business groups accused the government of promoting an array of initiatives that small firms found confusing.

The Department of Business Innovation & Skills (BIS) handed out £3.6m of the £30m set aside to pay for technical and financial advice under a 50/50 funding plan that allowed state funds to match business costs up to a maximum of £2,000. Ministers had hoped that 20,000 firms would take up the vouchers, but by the close of the scheme earlier this year, the number of successful recipients came to little more than 7,000.

and

The growth voucher scheme was launched in January 2014 and billed by the coalition government as “a pioneering programme to help support 20,000 small businesses get the advice they need to achieve their growth potential”.

At that time, BIS said: “This £30m programme will provide an immediate cash injection of up to £2,000 for eligible small businesses to gain professional business advice in areas such as marketing, recruitment and finance.” Business groups said the scheme was little understood by small firms, which found the government scheme “overly vague or too complex to access”.

Never mind, I'm sure their latest scheme to use the bra tycoon, Ms Mone, to support (pun intended utopiandreams) small business start ups will be much much more successful (probably because it will have few or no measures to judge it by ...).

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 10:02 am

@ephemerid

Not so much here, but definitely at the G, I found it far better to simply skip by posts from those who annoy. It really isn't worth the upset. Fuck what anybody else thinks, preserve your own sanity. What you don't know can't hurt you. Mind you I would tell them first and usually why.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 10:09 am

Morning all.

This excellent - busting the myth of those nasty local authorities tightly managing their schools and lacking the 'freedoms' that academies have.

http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/d ... ref/150815" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Birbalsingh is so shallow - "bureaucracy is always a bad thing". We use our freedoms...we teach from the front!

Rabbit caught in the headlinghts...

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 10:17 am

SpinningHugo wrote: But, in any event, I think you are best off just ignoring anything I say or write. i am not sure it is doing either of us any good.

It would suit me if everyone here ignored SH.

When SH is about, only one subject is discussed, the Labour party. It becomes a bit like the MSM.

It's good to talk about the wider issues, god knows there's plenty of them.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 10:27 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
TobyLatimer wrote:
yahyah wrote:Am probably ending up trying to be devil's advocate for Kendall.
I don't warm to her, I wouldn't vote for her but I think she has often been attacked unfairly for what are her beliefs.

And now there is a twitter storm attacking her over something she didn't say.
This has very much become the problem in this campaign. Burnham was somewhat misreported the other day on his comments about Corbyn and I'm guilty of taking how the media reported it at face value. Corbyn was misquoted (gleefully and frequently repeated here) about reopening coal mines.

The media used to try and get people to say things they wanted them to say. They don't bother these days, they just paraphrase increasingly loosely until they can 'quote' what they want to.

The media makes up stories & publishes the concoction as truth though it's not truth.

Good morning, everyone.
I've been away with my partner visiting family.
How are we getting on?
I've made an excellent rhubarb crumble - how many want ice cream on top?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 10:31 am

utopiandreams wrote:I'll say no more other than what I used to tell my students; uncorroborated statements are merely opinion.

You're a wise teacher.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 10:45 am

utopiandreams wrote:@ephemerid

Not so much here, but definitely at the G, I found it far better to simply skip by posts from those who annoy. It really isn't worth the upset. Fuck what anybody else thinks, preserve your own sanity. What you don't know can't hurt you. Mind you I would tell them first and usually why.

I do as you advocate at the G. There are far too many obvious trolls there who manage to escape the mods - clickbait......

"It really isn't worth the upset" - this is true. Well, if I was upset it would be true. I'm not.

But I am definitely annoyed. I am more than annoyed, actually, I am absolutely furious in the OhSo fashion.

There is now an article at the G on Mandelsons' machinations. It has attracted 9 pages of comments in less than an hour.
People are - rightly - very annoyed at this latest attempt to derail Corbyn's campaign for the leadership.

So far we have had: Mann and Danzcuk attempting to smear Corbyn on a child abuse scandal he had nothing to do with; Sheerman calling for the contest to be paused; Harman policing the membership; Beckett saying she regrets having nominated Corbyn; McTiernan expressing the view that MPs who nominated Corbyn to have a debate were all morons; Blair wading in with his heart transplant thingie; Campbell saying a vote for Corbyn would drive Labour off a cliff; Johnson asking us to end the madness of support for Corbyn; Ivan Lewis very nearly accusing Corbyn of anti-semitism; Brown suggesting Corbyns' ideas would be wrong; a bunch of MPs apparently planning a coup on day one of a Corbyn leadership; two of the contenders refusing to work with him in any cabinet Corbyn leads; one of the contenders saying he will work with Corbyn then listing all the reasons why it couldn't work.....on and on it goes.

Can these people not see that this behaviour is undemocratic? The Labour Party voted for the new leadership voting system.
Some of them might be regretting it now, but there are invariably unintended consequences involved with any change.

Some of those who nominated Corbyn, but will not now be voting for him, have said that they wanted a debate - the law of unintended consequences applies to them, big time. Clearly they had no idea that his campaign would be so successful; it would seem that they thought they ought to have a proper leftie on the ballot but such is their arrogance they assumed he'd get nowhere. Whoops!

None of these shenanigans is likely to change the views of those who genuinely support Corbyn. If anything, it will just entrench them further and close off all reasonable debate.
I read somewhere that all this attempted manipulation of the vote is "Machiavellian". Not so. Machiavelli was a genius in political manipulation, and the people listed above are intellectual pygmies in comparison.

It seems to me that whatever happens after this contest, whoever wins, the Labour Party needs to take a long hard look at itself - and from the top. It's the "grandees" who are doing the party the most damage with all of this.

Tonibel · Post by **Tonibel** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 10:48 am

I shall be so disappointed/disillusioned if They persuade Ed to come out against Corbyn. I think and hope he's better than that.

CitJA. Yes please, if it's Marmite icecream

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 10:51 am

Tonibel wrote:I shall be so disappointed/disillusioned if They persuade Ed to come out against Corbyn. I think and hope he's better than that.

Seconded.

Good morfternoon, everyone.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 10:52 am

Live blog now up at the Graun, for those who venture there http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... rs-edition

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 11:03 am

citizenJA wrote:
utopiandreams wrote:I'll say no more other than what I used to tell my students; uncorroborated statements are merely opinion.
You're a wise teacher.

To be fair, гражданка (or is that wearing a bit thin now?), it was in the context of written or researched work, which requires references. Nevertheless it's something I find particularly annoying about Cameron. Much of what he expresses as fact are uncorroborated figures for example. Without immediate access to contrary evidence interviewers accept them as sounding reasonable , by which time he's moved on to his arguments. They should of course be better prepared, which is one reason I like Stephen Sackur.

Then again there is much to be said for the format, fifteen minute interviews rather than snippets. I don;'t see Cameron exposing himself to such scrutiny however.

Edit: removed a spurious Cameron. I'd better seek help for my fixation.

Further edit: ... oh sod the typos!

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 11:07 am

Tonibel wrote:I shall be so disappointed/disillusioned if They persuade Ed to come out against Corbyn. I think and hope he's better than that.

CitJA. Yes please, if it's Marmite icecream

I agree with you about Ed, Tonibel.

I am actually getting very cross with all these people insisting that Corbyn is bad for Labour. Nobody knows - this is uncharted territory.
We've had New Labour for 13 years, and it's interesting to note that more than a handful of the new Labour MPs are more to the left.

Yesterday, our pudding was strawberries (tiny little wild ones) and raspberries (from a neighbour) marinated in a bit of orange juice, with Kelly's Cornish salted caramel ice cream, and crushed ginger-nut biscuit sprinkled over the whole shebang. Luvverly.

Marmite is delicious and how I wish I'd had some to mix in with the fruit.

Showmaster is having his final checks today, and is off to have his arteries bypassed on Wednesday, cancellations notwithstanding.
He is in dire need of treats over the next few days, hospital food being what it is.

I am now planning his menu.

For this evening's dinner, I have the following in mind:
To start - Pate of blended pork brawn and raw tuna, served on toasted chelsea bun with raspberry coulis;
For main - Ostrich cooked sous-vide, haricot bean salad with a lemon meringue topping, peanut butter and marmalade sauce;
Pudding - Sardine and egg ice cream, with plum gravy and almond tuiles dusted with oregano.

On Tuesday, I will expect our Water Closet to be occupied. When Show is admitted, there will be no need for a pre-op purge.

Splendid.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 11:15 am

When I speak of Cameron not exposing himself to scrutiny (his refusal to be interviewed by Andrew Neil for example), I am assuming without vetting the questions beforehand.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 11:17 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
yahyah wrote:Morning.

Just ignore Mandelson. He isn't worth the rise in blood pressure.
I think everyone but the media has been ignoring him for a decade

OBM's nicked your line on twitter.

Or great minds think alike.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 17 Aug, 2015 11:19 am

Morning

And verilly,the non enjoiners of the Corbyn road to electoral oblivion will be scrutinised for exhibiting any possible deviance from the chosen path.Long term members will be castigated as betraying their values.Each word will be examined as to pureness of thought by a self selecting committee of his disciples and held up as proof of impurity if found to be wanting.