Thursday 19th November 2015

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 12:50 pm

tinybgoat wrote:Sleazyjet

I think John Prescott has already called it ConAir

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 12:50 pm

The flying pig

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 12:57 pm

StephenDolan wrote:The flying pig

Pig in a poke - Boom, boom.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 1:03 pm

Someone's noticed it, not the Guardian of course.

'David Blunkett Wants 'Sane' People To Rescue Labour From Corbyn'
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11 ... _hp_ref=uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 1:08 pm

PorFavor wrote:Fokker?

Or there is\was something called a Fairey Swordfish. It would give him something to point at.

Far too classy for Dave.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 1:11 pm

The Loon ?

http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/aea_loon.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(That's the bird of course, before anyone shouts 'disgusting' at me.

_)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 1:14 pm

yahyah wrote:The Loon ?

http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/aea_loon.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(That's the bird of course, before anyone shouts 'disgusting' at me. _)

The Bald Eagle?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 1:22 pm

Hunt says BMA strike vote "very disappointing"

Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, has described the decision of junior doctors to vote for strike action as “very disappointing”. He told Sky News:

This is very, very disappointing news today. We want to be able to promise NHS patients that they will get the same high-quality care every day of the week and study after study has shown that our mortality rates at weekends are too high. We’ve put forward a very fair offer for doctors which will see pay go up for three-quarters of junior doctors. We wanted to talk about this to them, but in the end they’ve chosen to strike so we will now have to put in place contingency plans to make sure that patients are safe over a very, very busy period for the NHS and we’ll be doing everything we can to make that happen.

I’ve taken the quote from PoliticsHome. (Politics Live, Guardian)

Can someone who's conversant with the staffing\rotas within the NHS suggest what these "contingency plans" might comprise of, please? The numbers don't seem to leave much leeway.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 1:26 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Fokker?

Or there is\was something called a Fairey Swordfish. It would give him something to point at.
Far too classy for Dave.

String Bags. My dad was in charge of loading the bombs on these during WW2.

Hobiejoe · Post by **Hobiejoe** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 1:29 pm

PorFavor wrote:
yahyah wrote:The Loon ?

http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/aea_loon.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(That's the bird of course, before anyone shouts 'disgusting' at me. _)
The Bald Eagle?

The Booby?

Especially because, according to Wikipedia, "Their name was possibly based on the Spanish slang term bobo, meaning "stupid", as these tame birds had a habit of landing on board sailing ships, where they were easily captured and eaten."

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 1:29 pm

Kevin Maguire ‏@Kevin_Maguire 1h1 hour ago
Labour's counter revolutionaries would sacrifice Sadiq Khan to topple Corbyn. Me in @NewStatesman http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/obs ... intentions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

... No wonder, when Jezza’s implacable opponents in Westminster are growing increasingly deranged. Aware that Corbyn must lose national elections if his support within the party is to be eroded, one moderate whispered that Blairite cohorts would be prepared to sacrifice Sadiq Khan at next May’s London mayoral contest if it would trigger a regime change.

Hoping the bus driver’s son is beaten by the Tory Zac Goldsmith is the latest counter-revolution by the dispossessed...

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 1:32 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Kevin Maguire ‏@Kevin_Maguire 1h1 hour ago
Labour's counter revolutionaries would sacrifice Sadiq Khan to topple Corbyn. Me in @NewStatesman http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/obs ... intentions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

... No wonder, when Jezza’s implacable opponents in Westminster are growing increasingly deranged. Aware that Corbyn must lose national elections if his support within the party is to be eroded, one moderate whispered that Blairite cohorts would be prepared to sacrifice Sadiq Khan at next May’s London mayoral contest if it would trigger a regime change.

Hoping the bus driver’s son is beaten by the Tory Zac Goldsmith is the latest counter-revolution by the dispossessed...

Yes. That's all we need - and it would really piss me off.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 1:33 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Hunt says BMA strike vote "very disappointing"

Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, has described the decision of junior doctors to vote for strike action as “very disappointing”. He told Sky News:

This is very, very disappointing news today. We want to be able to promise NHS patients that they will get the same high-quality care every day of the week and study after study has shown that our mortality rates at weekends are too high. We’ve put forward a very fair offer for doctors which will see pay go up for three-quarters of junior doctors. We wanted to talk about this to them, but in the end they’ve chosen to strike so we will now have to put in place contingency plans to make sure that patients are safe over a very, very busy period for the NHS and we’ll be doing everything we can to make that happen.

I’ve taken the quote from PoliticsHome. (Politics Live, Guardian)
Can someone who's conversant with the staffing\rotas within the NHS suggest what these "contingency plans" might comprise of, please? The numbers don't seem to leave much leeway.

I seem to remember the first day of proposed strike action wasn't actually a full walkout, only days two and three proposed for December would be walkouts if Hunt refuses to talk. I'll have to check as it seems to me Hunt is trying to take advance credit for protecting patients from a strike that has been designed by the strikers to protect the patients - at least to begin with.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 1:33 pm

Joe Murphy ‏@JoeMurphyLondon 3m3 minutes ago
Lynton Crosby's team is moving behind the Zac for Mayor campaign .... bring it on! http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 17661.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 1:37 pm

yahyah wrote:Blimey...didn't read the original interview because of the Sunday Times paywall.

''Over the weekend the BBC’s former political editor confessed — in an interview in the Sunday Times — that he had written to several BBC colleagues over concerns that the corporation’s political coverage is biased against Jeremy Corbyn. When asked by Lynn Barber whether he was ‘shocked’ by the way the BBC ‘rubbish Jeremy Corbyn’, Robinson replied ‘yes’:

‘Yes. Oddly, although I was off work, I did drop a note to a few people after his first weekend saying this is really interesting and we owe it to the audience to sound as if we’re
interested.’'
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/1 ... t-the-bbc/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nick Robinson turning into one of the good guys ?
No wonder things feel so weird at the moment.

Perhaps his illness (he's in remission with lung cancer) made him reappraise his life and ponder why a well intentioned man like Corbyn gets the appalling treatment he does. One doesn't have to agree with JC to realise that that's very wrong. At any rate, his advice to the likes to Kuennsberg seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

There was an opinion piece in the HuffPost a few days ago by a young Tory who said he was unhappy about Corbyn's vilification.

Jeremy Corbyn has genuinely ushered in a new style of politics, one that I hankered for and one that I had hoped the Cameron administration could deliver. I sat there watching PMQ's as Cameron got started in opposition and cheered at the idea we would see an end to 'Punch and Judy politics'. I also got excited when the Conservatives recently announced they would be the workers party and party of the NHS. Then along came Corbyn.

This mild mannered man that I had never heard of before swept to a legitimate democratic victory to be leader of his party. There was no doubt that the Labour voters wanted him. In fact Britain seemed to want him. 251,000 people put their voice behind his.

Corbyn began to speak and I began to listen.

PMQs with questions from the public. Finally, less of the pre-written jokes and slagging off that we get from the 'no Punch and Judy' Tory front bench or the Miliband Mili-tants before.

Challenging China on Human Rights issues. Is that really considered a controversial thing to do?

Better conditions for paternity leave. Who doesn't want that?

A genuine sense of concern and humanity towards foreign people and those whose homes are now occupied by jihadists. Sounds pretty alright to me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-t ... 55636.html

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 1:39 pm

Oh gawd ... please no. What has Wales done to deserve this?

The Tory defector Mark Reckless, Ukip’s former MP, is planning a comeback. After losing his Rochester seat last May, he aims to become a member of the Welsh Assembly. The “fat arse”, as David Cameron affectionately called his former colleague, is tipped to lead the Purple Shirts’ top-up list in South-East Wales, where the aptly named Reckless was recently seen loitering with political intent. The corner is easy to reach from London on the M4 and, according to my informant, Ukip fears he would be an unelectable liability standing for a normal constituency seat.

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/obs ... intentions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 1:39 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Kevin Maguire ‏@Kevin_Maguire 1h1 hour ago
Labour's counter revolutionaries would sacrifice Sadiq Khan to topple Corbyn. Me in @NewStatesman http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/obs ... intentions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

... No wonder, when Jezza’s implacable opponents in Westminster are growing increasingly deranged. Aware that Corbyn must lose national elections if his support within the party is to be eroded, one moderate whispered that Blairite cohorts would be prepared to sacrifice Sadiq Khan at next May’s London mayoral contest if it would trigger a regime change.

Hoping the bus driver’s son is beaten by the Tory Zac Goldsmith is the latest counter-revolution by the dispossessed...

Labour can't achieve anything without power. London mayor = power. As would winning the Welsh Assemby elections. Only from a position of power can Labour prove it's ready to return to government. Given that Kahn isn't a left candidate, his losing would only convince those on the left that moving to the right won't help, surely? If he won, but Labour did worse elsewhere, that would help Corbyn's opponents more, I would have thought.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 1:41 pm

HindleA wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... ect-impact

What effects have fit-for-work tests had on people's mental health?
Recent research suggests tougher work assessments testing eligibility for disability benefit may have taken a serious toll on mental health in England. Does the report ring true to you? Share your stories

Below the line people have been sharing these experiences for years, people have been giving factual testimony that this was and iss happening, and early on even the G's own were doing video reports that had some weight. Where was the outcry? Where was the support?

Does it ring true?!?!?

I've got a 40 year old family member who couldn't get to his PIP tribunal this week in spite of meticulously preparing his case over months, public awareness is so low that his long-term friend who was to drive him on the 50 mile round trip and actually get him into the building failed to show, not informing him till it was too late to get to the appointment. In spite of being told how important it was he though it didn't really matter and could be done another day. If your issue is one of mental health then not being taken seriously is part of the disabling process. Said person is unwell enough and with enough anxiety to have been unable to sit down for nearly a year. That might sound nothing much to many people, but in reality iis tiring, compulsive, and means sitting invokes terrifying feelings and thoughts. How every aspect of the assessment process can take a toll. The closer you are to these things the worse it looks, and this week my anger is there for the complicit and sycophantic hacks and editors who have ignored the human cost of things, while they held their voices back for political reasons, such as their beloved coalition.

-------------

For anyone who might not yet know and who might be reading, PIP is the gateway benefit for other support, not least of which is ESA, if PIP/DLA goes then ESA will be stopped and a person will be returned to JSA and things like the dysfunctional misbegotten Work Programme and the punitive sanctions regime. This means the extra costs of disability are not covered and income is wholly inadequate to sustain mental/physical health or wellbeing in this society and the potential for debt, loss of basic services, loss of home are hugely increased. If the person concerned has no support network then this almost guarantees that quality of life will drop well below any acceptable level consistent with a normal but frugal life here in one of the wealthiest nations in the world. The results can be self-starvation in order to fend off various payment demands, cut off services, the sell off of personal posessions of value which can include clothes, furniture, comms items like phones and computers which are a neccessity if you sign on and don't have a local library, loans sharks, court fines,debt collectors and bailiffs, loss of home and property. Because you are sick and unable to work.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 1:42 pm

Having just posted that item on Mark Reckless - former MP - trying to get elected to the Welsh Assembly - worth saying it does look as though there's more of a concerted effort by parties and the individuals themselves to get more senior (I'm not including Reckless in that descriptor btw) and experienced politicians to stand as AMs.

Very pleased Huw Irranca-Davies is standing and also Eluned Morgan.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 1:44 pm

PorFavor wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Kevin Maguire ‏@Kevin_Maguire 1h1 hour ago
Labour's counter revolutionaries would sacrifice Sadiq Khan to topple Corbyn. Me in @NewStatesman http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/obs ... intentions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

... No wonder, when Jezza’s implacable opponents in Westminster are growing increasingly deranged. Aware that Corbyn must lose national elections if his support within the party is to be eroded, one moderate whispered that Blairite cohorts would be prepared to sacrifice Sadiq Khan at next May’s London mayoral contest if it would trigger a regime change.

Hoping the bus driver’s son is beaten by the Tory Zac Goldsmith is the latest counter-revolution by the dispossessed...
Yes. That's all we need - and it would really piss me off.

And how exactly do they think deliberately throwing elections will get the wider party to look at them in a more positive light?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 1:47 pm

The NHS has 45,000 trainee doctors in England. On a first strike day, they would provide only emergency care for 24 hours starting at 8am on Tuesday 1 December, reducing hospitals to the low level of service usually seen on Christmas Day.

They intend to follow that with two all-out stoppages, in which all junior doctors will refuse to work. Those walkouts are expected for Tuesday 8 December and Wednesday 16 December, subject to the result of a ballot by the British Medical Association (BMA) of the 30,000 juniors it represents.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... s-approved" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This seems reasonable to me. It gives Hunt a week from the first action to prevent a walkout. I'm sure this subtle initial gambit will be omitted from the media. The Express is already in full "UK Hospitals to grind to a halt as 53000 Junior Doctors plan TWO-DAY mass walk-out" territory.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 2:02 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Yes. That's all we need - and it would really piss me off.
And how exactly do they think deliberately throwing elections will get the wider party to look at them in a more positive light?

I don't think they could give a toss for the "wider party".

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 2:07 pm

Spencer Livermore (Labour's 2015 election chief) in the G:

Q: Why was Labour not trusted on the economy?

Livermore says the party had not taken the difficult decisions early in the parliament on welfare and on the deficit.

Having worked for several campaigns, he now thinks elections are won early on in the parliament - not in the final weeks or in the final year.

I'm trying to work out if he's right or not. Any thoughts?

Post by **refitman** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 2:22 pm

Willow904 wrote:Spencer Livermore (Labour's 2015 election chief) in the G:

Q: Why was Labour not trusted on the economy?

Livermore says the party had not taken the difficult decisions early in the parliament on welfare and on the deficit.

Having worked for several campaigns, he now thinks elections are won early on in the parliament - not in the final weeks or in the final year.
I'm trying to work out if he's right or not. Any thoughts?

The earlier you get a message out there, the more people will remember it. It's what the Tories did and it's one of the reasons Labour aren't trusted on the economy.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 2:24 pm

BBC axes popular shows to keep 74 managers earning MORE than David Cameron

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/620562 ... id-Cameron

The Beeb aren't exactly helping themselves are they....

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 2:26 pm

refitman wrote:
Willow904 wrote:Spencer Livermore (Labour's 2015 election chief) in the G:

Q: Why was Labour not trusted on the economy?

Livermore says the party had not taken the difficult decisions early in the parliament on welfare and on the deficit.

Having worked for several campaigns, he now thinks elections are won early on in the parliament - not in the final weeks or in the final year.
I'm trying to work out if he's right or not. Any thoughts?
The earlier you get a message out there, the more people will remember it. It's what the Tories did and it's one of the reasons Labour aren't trusted on the economy.

True. And it also serves to dilute the "they're only saying that to win an impending election" thing.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 2:37 pm

refitman wrote:
Willow904 wrote:Spencer Livermore (Labour's 2015 election chief) in the G:

Q: Why was Labour not trusted on the economy?

Livermore says the party had not taken the difficult decisions early in the parliament on welfare and on the deficit.

Having worked for several campaigns, he now thinks elections are won early on in the parliament - not in the final weeks or in the final year.
I'm trying to work out if he's right or not. Any thoughts?
The earlier you get a message out there, the more people will remember it. It's what the Tories did and it's one of the reasons Labour aren't trusted on the economy.

I've been reviewing the polls when Cameron was elected leader of the Tory party. After trailing Labour for the first 6 months of the 2005-2010 parliament, they went into the lead immediately on Cameron being elected and stayed mostly ahead until 2007 and the beginning of the credit crunch. By the end of 2007 the Tories were back in front, however, and with such a lead it's hard to fathom how they faded so much to need the Libdems by the end.

Meanwhile, in 1992 the Tories had lost the lead in the polls by September of that year and never won it back again.

In other words, Labour needs to get its mojo back pdq!

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 2:43 pm

Very apt!

http://www.independent.co.uk/#gallery" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 2:43 pm

Labour actually re-took the lead in the summer of 2007 when Brown took over, but as we all doubtless recall he blew that not long after with the "election that never was".

Though I'm not convinced the rule above always holds - Tories were ahead almost unbroken (sometimes by big margins) all the way from the 1987 GE until early 1989, over 18 months. Barely a year later, they were 20+ points behind and so feared for their future they ultimately dumped Thatcher.

I think the last parliament might actually have been *slightly* unusual in how much got effectively decided so early on.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 2:45 pm

An opener on Momentum, which I can see becoming both a bone of contention and a stick to beat Labour with. It is so new that anything I write is from this single point in England, and may not apply elsewhere.

From the invitations and original info I got on Momentum it would seem it is a genuine attempt to harness the energies of local grassroots campaigners who are Labour members and are active in Labour-leaning, left thinking movements, groups circles etc. Most of these are interested in single issues and have and share local or specialist information that is often more detailed than that of politicians. The best of these are serious campaigners who have been responsible for raising and supporting awareness in the media and in government. Any agreement or otherwise on this?

Here I am viewing this from a slight distance, as I am unable to get out. The stae of Momentum here is currently this, invitations have been sent out and some publicity prepared for initial meeting to start to look at how to proceed, with a further meeting planned at where things will be opened out into a more public consultation. There is no formal structure, and it is not at all like a consultation which has fixed endpoints and required outcomes. From what I can see there are some very competent people who are well equipped to deal with any silly stuff, halfbaked ideas etc., or any of the usual suspects who can make campaigning a pain.

We shall see how it goes, but at this time it looks very much like something that could be a very useful bridge between government, local and national, parliamentary representation and the concerns of local people on a wide range of issues. It is very much in the conception stage, not yet born really.

I can only see a little about other Momentum nodes, some encouraging, others less so. There is going to be all sorts of initial input, and it will take time I tthink to settle into what it could become. It certainly isn't a party within a party from where I can see it. The people I've noticed are more interested in progress on the specific issues they are concerned about and have no political ambitions of their own. I can't speak for their motivation, but they do have the kind of passion and energy that was perhaps a good part of the motor for positive change in other times, and they do, as I mentioned have a depth of knowledge on specific issues and see the realities on the ground, which is where we as people are directly affected by politics.

I would be surprised if anywhere else was much further into the process than Momentum is here, it surprises me more though when people talk about it as being something fully representative of anything.
it is a nascent movement which may or may not get off the ground, a good idea that is subject to the same things as all ideas, of which many sink without trace and a few make it to the light. Having said that, I know a few of our locals and they are seriously good at what they do, so I'm hoping for them. A few here have the same kind of commitment, so I'm hoping that there are other places where the potential is positive too.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 2:46 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Very apt!

http://www.independent.co.uk/#gallery" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hello. Which bit am I meant to be looking at, please?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 2:48 pm

Livermore says Corbyn must be seen as prime ministerial. That includes singing the national anthem.(Politics Live, Guardian)

Oh, for God's sake! Just keep that theme going, why don't you?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 2:58 pm

UK manufacturers fear bleak outlook as export orders tumble

CBI’s snapshot of sector reveals strong pound and jitters over global growth are likely to dent factory output
(Guardian)

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... al-economy

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 2:58 pm

Something he actually did most recently, no? Didn't anyone actually point that out to him??

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 3:00 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Labour actually re-took the lead in the summer of 2007 when Brown took over, but as we all doubtless recall he blew that not long after with the "election that never was".

Though I'm not convinced the rule above always holds - Tories were ahead almost unbroken (sometimes by big margins) all the way from the 1987 GE until early 1989, over 18 months. Barely a year later, they were 20+ points behind and so feared for their future they ultimately dumped Thatcher.

I think the last parliament might actually have been *slightly* unusual in how much got effectively decided so early on.

Polling wise, the Tories were slightly behind almost from the get go in 2010. The coalition, Tories and Libdems combined, however, were always comfortably ahead. If you look at it like that, Ed was never going to win. The public supported the government throughout and returned the main chunk of it. The "change" elections had the opposition doing very well for much of the preceding parliament. You have to go back to 1979 to find a real break from that pattern.

As you say, doing well initially in 1987 didn't carry Labour through in 1992. Dumping Thatcher turned things around for the Tories, but they still only squeaked it, though, so you could say that early good start for Labour almost clinched it. A change in leader does seem to be the biggest factor in significantly shifting polls, though.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 3:07 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
BBC axes popular shows to keep 74 managers earning MORE than David Cameron

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/620562 ... id-Cameron
The Beeb aren't exactly helping themselves are they....

The Beeb is a lot more than its TV services. It broadcasts to much of the world. I'm not sure that what this article calls the iPlayer loophole is that significant, it has run free services for donkeys years to people who have never been near a licence let alone been liable to have one. I think this is about cuts, pure and simple, to make it leaner and a better proposition for privatisation. Word is out that the cuts are wider than described, that people are being fired from longstanding jobs then re-hired on short term contracts. That way you retain the talent but with none of the financial liability, whether it gets sold off or not a government like this would see that as a bonus. Those huge wage earners are the distraction.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 3:11 pm

No, my point is that it was a *bad* start for Labour in the 1987-92 parliament - but later on the Tories were in mortal danger.

And of course I know that they still won in the end - the interesting thing is, many of them now think that keeping Thatcher and taking the hit in 1991/92 would have been better long term. I also definitely recall (though I can't pin it down, annoyingly) Kinnock saying he thought about emulating Maggie and stepping down as Labour leader after Major took over, and at least partly regretting not doing so - he knew that marked a real change and Labour people denying it just made them seem a bit silly.

That period of British politics is actually a fascinating one to study - many of the things that have only really come to fruition recently originated then.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 3:22 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Kevin Maguire ‏@Kevin_Maguire 1h1 hour ago
Labour's counter revolutionaries would sacrifice Sadiq Khan to topple Corbyn. Me in @NewStatesman http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/obs ... intentions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

... No wonder, when Jezza’s implacable opponents in Westminster are growing increasingly deranged. Aware that Corbyn must lose national elections if his support within the party is to be eroded, one moderate whispered that Blairite cohorts would be prepared to sacrifice Sadiq Khan at next May’s London mayoral contest if it would trigger a regime change.

Hoping the bus driver’s son is beaten by the Tory Zac Goldsmith is the latest counter-revolution by the dispossessed...

Let's hope this is just stupidity from that one whispering moderate. Otherwise, it's an insult to the dozen or more members of my CLP who turned out in this morning's incessant chilly drizzle to canvas in support of Sadiq and and our London Assembly candidates - and to all the people out across the UK canvassing for their own candidates for other Assembly or Local Authority elections next May.

Hobiejoe · Post by **Hobiejoe** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 3:51 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Fokker?

Or there is\was something called a Fairey Swordfish. It would give him something to point at.
Far too classy for Dave.

Blimey, talk about coincidence - a Swordfish has just flown very low over my house! I think it's something to do with BRNC commemorating last week's anniversary of the Battle of Taranto, which they do every year with a big dinner. The Navy don't seem to be too good with dates - the college put on a firework party for friends and family of people who work there, and managed to hold it two days before Halloween. Good fun though.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 3:53 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:No, my point is that it was a *bad* start for Labour in the 1987-92 parliament - but later on the Tories were in mortal danger.

And of course I know that they still won in the end - the interesting thing is, many of them now think that keeping Thatcher and taking the hit in 1991/92 would have been better long term. I also definitely recall (though I can't pin it down, annoyingly) Kinnock saying he thought about emulating Maggie and stepping down as Labour leader after Major took over, and at least partly regretting not doing so - he knew that marked a real change and Labour people denying it just made them seem a bit silly.

That period of British politics is actually a fascinating one to study - many of the things that have only really come to fruition recently originated then.

Ha! Have I been reading the data back to front? Scratch the above on 1992, then. Maybe you're right. Maybe Kinnock should have stepped down, if he hadn't done well enough early on, which it seems he didn't pre-1989.

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 3:56 pm

I'm starting to think the Labour PLP and bureaucracy "moderates" are quite willing to sacrifice whoever and whatever it takes to get rid of Corbyn then complete the Mandelson-Blairite project and arrange a broad two-party Republicans/Democrats style consensus on all significant issues. Labour being the "B" team to the Natural Party of Government, kept around to take over for a while if the Tories are in disarray then it's back to the changing rooms for a bit of principled abstaining and reluctant support for whatever the Tories do the rest of the time.

Since 1979 sustained campaigns in the media have claimed the scalps of:

Jim Callaghan

Michael Foot

Neil Kinnock

Gordon Brown

Ed Miliband

That's five out of the last seven Labour leaders, all character asssassinated, lied about and increasingly misreported by the media. Miliband had difficulty in even getting Labour policy reported at all, other than selectively when it could be misrepresented and used to discredit him. John Smith escaped the assault mostly because he died before the bandwagon picked up speed and Blair because he resigned before the Tories were properly organised and ready to take the reins again.

The scalps of Keir Hardie (pacifist who thought a world war wasn't a good idea) and Labour as a whole was given the smear treatment in 1924 when the Daily Mail front-paged the forged "Zinoviev letter", which claimed Labour were run by the Bolsheviks, four days before the 1924 general election. Even Ramsay MacDonald was portrayed as a Bolshevik in disguise despite being the Blair of his time.

The noisy Labour "moderates" must know that no matter who leads the party the leader will be dragged through the mire on a daily basis, the media leading and the social media hit squads backing them up with ever more outrageous and outraged claims. If someone other than Corbyn had won the leadership election they would be getting the same treatment, personalised to fit them. And the so-called "moderates" are now providing all the assistance and dirty tricks they can to tear down a democratically elected Labour leader and are relaxed about discrediting their own party in the process.

And if it costs them seats and a general election or three I suspect they'll regard that as a price worth paying. After all, there's very profitable wars to be fought and taxes for the wealthy to be cut.

I just wonder who they expect to be knocking on doors for them or generally trying day in day out to boost Labour support. Or who they expect to fund the party...

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 3:59 pm

https://www.rt.com/uk/322699-cameron-pr ... government

In 2008, plans for an American-style Air Force One plane were dropped by then-PM Gordon Brown, who said it would be too expensive.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 4:01 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Hunt says BMA strike vote "very disappointing"

Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, has described the decision of junior doctors to vote for strike action as “very disappointing”. He told Sky News:

This is very, very disappointing news today. We want to be able to promise NHS patients that they will get the same high-quality care every day of the week and study after study has shown that our mortality rates at weekends are too high. We’ve put forward a very fair offer for doctors which will see pay go up for three-quarters of junior doctors. We wanted to talk about this to them, but in the end they’ve chosen to strike so we will now have to put in place contingency plans to make sure that patients are safe over a very, very busy period for the NHS and we’ll be doing everything we can to make that happen.

I’ve taken the quote from PoliticsHome. (Politics Live, Guardian)
Can someone who's conversant with the staffing\rotas within the NHS suggest what these "contingency plans" might comprise of, please? The numbers don't seem to leave much leeway.

One hopes that the contingency plans are to let the consultants and nurses deal with it.
God help us if *unt gets involved.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 4:04 pm

Nice of Livermore to give his opinion, why should the political media be allowed to concentrate on the junior doctors potential strike action.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 4:08 pm

TR'sGhost wrote:I'm starting to think the Labour PLP and bureaucracy "moderates" are quite willing to sacrifice whoever and whatever it takes to get rid of Corbyn then complete the Mandelson-Blairite project and arrange a broad two-party Republicans/Democrats style consensus on all significant issues. Labour being the "B" team to the Natural Party of Government, kept around to take over for a while if the Tories are in disarray then it's back to the changing rooms for a bit of principled abstaining and reluctant support for whatever the Tories do the rest of the time.

Since 1979 sustained campaigns in the media have claimed the scalps of:

Jim Callaghan

Michael Foot

Neil Kinnock

Gordon Brown

Ed Miliband

That's five out of the last seven Labour leaders, all character asssassinated, lied about and increasingly misreported by the media. Miliband had difficulty in even getting Labour policy reported at all, other than selectively when it could be misrepresented and used to discredit him. John Smith escaped the assault mostly because he died before the bandwagon picked up speed and Blair because he resigned before the Tories were properly organised and ready to take the reins again.

The scalps of Keir Hardie (pacifist who thought a world war wasn't a good idea) and Labour as a whole was given the smear treatment in 1924 when the Daily Mail front-paged the forged "Zinoviev letter", which claimed Labour were run by the Bolsheviks, four days before the 1924 general election. Even Ramsay MacDonald was portrayed as a Bolshevik in disguise despite being the Blair of his time.

The noisy Labour "moderates" must know that no matter who leads the party the leader will be dragged through the mire on a daily basis, the media leading and the social media hit squads backing them up with ever more outrageous and outraged claims. If someone other than Corbyn had won the leadership election they would be getting the same treatment, personalised to fit them. And the so-called "moderates" are now providing all the assistance and dirty tricks they can to tear down a democratically elected Labour leader and are relaxed about discrediting their own party in the process.

And if it costs them seats and a general election or three I suspect they'll regard that as a price worth paying. After all, there's very profitable wars to be fought and taxes for the wealthy to be cut.

I just wonder who they expect to be knocking on doors for them or generally trying day in day out to boost Labour support. Or who they expect to fund the party...

I can't bring myself to thank you for that, it's just too depressing. I wish you were wrong.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 4:11 pm

TR'sGhost wrote: I just wonder who they expect to be knocking on doors for them or generally trying day in day out to boost Labour support. Or who they expect to fund the party...

I think people like Mandelson and similar entitled "grandees" genuinely believe that doesn't matter.

As long as they get media plutocrats and the super-rich being indulgent to them, all else will magically fall into place.

Of course, this contempt for actual political activism is hardly a new thing. The entire SDP "project" was based on the idea elections are basically won on the TV and you only need a barely nominal "zombie" party behind you. How did that go in the end?

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 4:19 pm

TR'sGhost wrote: And if it costs them seats and a general election or three I suspect they'll regard that as a price worth paying. After all, there's very profitable wars to be fought and taxes for the wealthy to be cut.

Quite. Not forgetting the lucrative consultancies (Alan Milburn et al)

I just wonder who they expect to be knocking on doors for them or generally trying day in day out to boost Labour support. Or who they expect to fund the party...

Door knocking is so passe.

All they need is a few Lord Sainsbury's. I'm sure Mandleson can get a few of his mates to stump up some cash

55DegreesNorth · Post by **55DegreesNorth** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 4:21 pm

Willow904 wrote:Spencer Livermore (Labour's 2015 election chief) in the G:

Q: Why was Labour not trusted on the economy?

Livermore says the party had not taken the difficult decisions early in the parliament on welfare and on the deficit.

Having worked for several campaigns, he now thinks elections are won early on in the parliament - not in the final weeks or in the final year.
I'm trying to work out if he's right or not. Any thoughts?

For some reason, they chose not to challenge the 'Labour spent all the money and Gordon Brown crashed the world' bollocks and thus handed the Tories the economic high ground. A stupid decision then and one they are still suffering for.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 4:32 pm

PorFavor wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:Very apt!

http://www.independent.co.uk/#gallery" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The cartoon. Dave in his plane...

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Thu 19 Nov, 2015 4:41 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:Very apt!

http://www.independent.co.uk/#gallery" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The cartoon. Dave in his plane...[/quote
Today's cartoon in The Times (next to an editorial supporting our involvement in Syria) showed Cameron flying a plane which was being held back by a parachute with Corbyn's face on it. So what happened to the overall majority?