Friday 18th December 2015

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 12:57 pm

utopiandreams wrote:
rustinpeace wrote:... It’d be one thing from a politics lifer who thinks ‘The Thick of It’ is a documentary and has gone from ‘bag carrier’ to MP without ever encountering the real world in between. From a ‘Big 4’-trained professional with a very impressive pre-politics corporate CV it’s very dispiriting.
On that point, rip, and I would be interested in your view, there seems a total lack of professionalism in politics today. All the more surprising given how many have studied politics or worked as spads beforehand. Perhaps that's the issue too much academia rather than real world experience, but even this doesn't account for much of what I refer. Take risk or impact assessments or examples of the minutes of meetings that RoT often highlights, they're simply not fit for purpose. I have to say that I'm particularly surprised with the inadequate standard of such reports coming from government or the civil service compared to academia... or local government for that matter.

As for Westminster politics, particularly since Cameron and Osborne, it's just a joke or treated as a big game with all the jibes, the laughter or guffaws over serious and sometimes distressing issues. You may have gathered that I particularly despise Cameron, nevertheless the Speaker should take a much firmer grasp of proceedings... and that is without even touching on the expense, the lies or misdirection that takes place, let alone complicity in acting against national interests.

Quite a few "senior Tories" (anonymously, of course) think the Speaker actually interferes too much as it is. Motwyw.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 1:01 pm

StephenDolan wrote:"As for Westminster politics, particularly since Cameron and Osborne, it's just a joke or treated as a big game "

Sorry UD, but I initially read this as
'a pig game '

I don't blame you, Stephen. Every time I see some foreign statesman shaking pig-fuckers hand I think to myself that it's something that I couldn't do. I refer of course to shaking his hand, I have never found pork particularly appealing.

'And on that note, HindleA, not that I really wish to upset but I am minded of the sound of piggies shrieks being herded to their death at a Robirch factory many moons ago, not to mention the smell. Sorry I'd better change the subject. Oh yeah, my daughter's birthday tomorrow, better get her a card.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 1:02 pm

@Anatoly

Motwyw?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 1:07 pm

utopiandreams wrote:@Anatoly

Motwyw?

I think it's probably 'make of that what you will' utopian. By gads I'm fast today (I didn't know it either).

rustinpeace · Post by **rustinpeace** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 1:11 pm

utopiandreams wrote:On that point, rip, and I would be interested in your view, there seems a total lack of professionalism in politics today. All the more surprising given how many have studied politics or worked as spads beforehand.

I think it's a big problem. The fact that many have only ever studied politics or worked as spads before is part of the problem, rather than something which might help alleviate it.

I admire people who have had real jobs and real life experience before entering politics. On the Conservative side, the likes of Sajid Javid and my own MP Justine Greening are people who have actually worked under both Conservative and Labour governments before entering political life. Labour has a few as well - Sadiq Khan is a strong candidate for London Mayor as a result of this. He's lived in the real world, he's held real jobs. Compare that with someone like Osborne, who does undoubtedly see politics as more of a 'game' than he should; and don't get me started on the likes of Andy 'If you don't like these principles, I've got others' Burnham. (As an aside, the London Mayoral elections will be fascinating. I have had the pleasure of meeting Zac a couple of times. He's honourable, honest, intelligent and extremely articulate. But then Khan's campaign is off to a good start as well.)

Lucy Allan falls in to the former category too. My personal opinion about her former employee is increasingly 'spiteful young lady now pursuing a vendetta', but I suspect I'm in the minority with that view and I'd bet she'll end up losing her job over this. She just keeps digging.

We'll have to disagree on Cameron, as for the most part I am a fan of his and think he's doing a solid job. He does undeniably go too far with the personal attacks at times and it's a pity, because it's unbecoming of a prime minister and it detracts from just how good he can be in his more serious moments.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 1:14 pm

Until Corbyn led the Labour party, we were all wonderfully polite
If the Labour Leader had any decency he’d behave like a proper MP and go to a dinner with arms traders or offshore bankers
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/unt ... 77416.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very funny.

So funny I couldn't single out one bit to quote ... I would have had to paste it all.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 1:30 pm

From Paul Waugh's daily email:

... Jonathan Portes, the NIESR think tank chief and former Treasury economist, is stepping down (earlier than scheduled) and I bet Downing Street can’t wait. It was Portes’ blog late on Wednesday that revealed the Government had EU migration stats but was refusing to publish them. HMRC said that to release the data would be ‘unhelpful to the negotiation process’ being conducted by the PM with EU states.

The Mail has splashed the story on its front page (and others have done it in great detail), pointing out 1.9m national insurance numbers have been given out to EU migrants, but only 751,000 arrivals have been logged. So where are the missing 1.1m?.

I see the HMRC have now issued a statement trying a reverse ferret: “It was wrong to suggest information was withheld because of the EU renegotiation. Not all the information that has been requested is held by HMRC. The information that is held is not in a collated, publishable form. HMRC will release that data when it is properly collated early in the New Year.” So that’s alright then.

The Home Affairs Committee report today attacks the Government’s net migration target for it’s ‘counterproductive’ cap on numbers from outside the EU - which it says has helped fuel the EU rise while excluding skilled workers...

I hope Portes is going to continue digging for the real statistics and data wherever he is going to ... shame if his forensic examination disappears.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 1:31 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Until Corbyn led the Labour party, we were all wonderfully polite
If the Labour Leader had any decency he’d behave like a proper MP and go to a dinner with arms traders or offshore bankers
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/unt ... 77416.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Very funny.

So funny I couldn't single out one bit to quote ... I would have had to paste it all.

That quote got thousands of re-Tweets. Best one of the year...

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 1:51 pm

Scott Nelson ☭ ‏@TheMockneyRebel 22 mins22 minutes ago

Tendring Council to charge £26 'falling fee' if elderly need helping back to their feet

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pe ... ar_twitter

Whoooo! That's a money spinner.

My uncle had five falls and call outs, before he was taken into care. A dear friend had at least ten until Social Services started tying her into her wheelchair because her husband who was equally frail, wouldn't let them take her into care.

I'm picturing old people falling, but not calling for help because they can't afford it.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 2:07 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:From Paul Waugh's daily email:
... Jonathan Portes, the NIESR think tank chief and former Treasury economist, is stepping down (earlier than scheduled) and I bet Downing Street can’t wait. It was Portes’ blog late on Wednesday that revealed the Government had EU migration stats but was refusing to publish them. HMRC said that to release the data would be ‘unhelpful to the negotiation process’ being conducted by the PM with EU states.

The Mail has splashed the story on its front page (and others have done it in great detail), pointing out 1.9m national insurance numbers have been given out to EU migrants, but only 751,000 arrivals have been logged. So where are the missing 1.1m?.

I see the HMRC have now issued a statement trying a reverse ferret: “It was wrong to suggest information was withheld because of the EU renegotiation. Not all the information that has been requested is held by HMRC. The information that is held is not in a collated, publishable form. HMRC will release that data when it is properly collated early in the New Year.” So that’s alright then.

The Home Affairs Committee report today attacks the Government’s net migration target for it’s ‘counterproductive’ cap on numbers from outside the EU - which it says has helped fuel the EU rise while excluding skilled workers...
I hope Portes is going to continue digging for the real statistics and data wherever he is going to ... shame if his forensic examination disappears.

At a guess I'd say their agency contract has finished and they are safely back home (where ever that is) replaced by the next 6 /12 month contract/agency workers who will be issued with new NI numbers ?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 2:10 pm

Back from a shower and an eat but just thought I'd add to getting my daughter a birthday card. Of course much more thought and effort would go into my drawing one instead but I've been put off the idea by a recent experience. My granddaughter was around a week or so ago and wanted me to play with her Magiclips, I think. Yeah, yeah, she sometimes states and then laughs that Granddad plays with dolls. I said I didn't want to and suggested we drew something or other then said I'd draw her anyway when she insisted on playing with them. So after a couple of minutes sketching I presented her with a slightly angled picture of herself. She seized said picture and threw it aside saying it wasn't her at all. Truth is it didn't really look like a three year old but a rather attractive young lady. Just to be clear there is nothing untoward, I am of course referring to the picture.

Anyway while I'm here, I'll catch up with other posts over this coffee.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 2:24 pm

rustinpeace wrote:... We'll have to disagree on Cameron, as for the most part I am a fan of his and think he's doing a solid job. He does undeniably go too far with the personal attacks at times and it's a pity, because it's unbecoming of a prime minister and it detracts from just how good he can be in his more serious moments.

Disagree indeed, there is not one redeeming factor that I can see. He's an incorrigible liar, even when there is no point to his deception. As for a sterling or solid job as you put it, in what way? Political trickery and machinations? If it's strength of argument you refer to, he would never have been awarded a first by me, his arguments are circular or based on false premise. Then again it has been remarked on occasion that I can be a little harsh with marking, but then that has only been when course teams have been similarly mistaken. Still, wrong is wrong and I have absolutely no qualms in saying so.

'And then there's his PR background and lack of diplomacy or just plain salesmanship as I see it. I know and recognise all the tricks but far prefer building mutually rewarding relationships. Cameron has none of those qualities. I suppose I can compliment him on one thing but wonder how many hours a day he spends on it, and that would be his smooth complexion; I believe there are ladies that may even be jealous.

Post by **refitman** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 2:43 pm

They've opened a Sell Out Shirl thread on LDV. I've left my message, they're not biting.

refitman 18th Dec '15 - 7:31am

I liked it when she helped pass the Health & Social Care Act, and told everyone there was nothing to worry about.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 2:46 pm

'Watch David Cameron's crest fall over in perfect metaphor for his EU struggle'
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wa ... ll-7033685" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 2:47 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
Scott Nelson ☭ ‏@TheMockneyRebel 22 mins22 minutes ago

Tendring Council to charge £26 'falling fee' if elderly need helping back to their feet

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pe ... ar_twitter
Whoooo! That's a money spinner.

My uncle had five falls and call outs, before he was taken into care. A dear friend had at least ten until Social Services started tying her into her wheelchair because her husband who was equally frail, wouldn't let them take her into care.

I'm picturing old people falling, but not calling for help because they can't afford it.
It seems to be an annual fee added to the 'Careline' service, enabling people to who have subscribed to have someone come round and help them after they've fallen. But what happens if someone has a fall and hasn't paid the subscription? Won't they just have to call an ambulance? This smacks of a two-tier service for people who can afford it.

This is the district council for the area where I grew up. Seriously not proud.

My uncle had a contract with a careline service, but when he fell and pressed his buzzer all they did was ring his daughter, and someone would call an ambulance crew. They in turn called out the doctor and the doctor got fed up with it. She sent him to hospital and from there, he went straight into a home. Never got a chance to sort out what he wanted to take...It was dreadful for him. He's 89, and still pines for his home.

None of it sounded right to me...

sputnikkers · Post by **sputnikkers** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 2:49 pm

Although now appearing on the BBC and Guardian websites it is strange how little attention today's ONS release is receiving as part of informing both economic and political debate.
Wealth and Assets Survey: July 2012 to June 2014 (link to 'Main points' below)

Main points
In July 2012 to June 2014:

- aggregate total wealth of all private households in Great Britain was £11.1 trillion

- the wealthiest 10% of households owned 45% of total aggregate household wealth

- the least wealthy half of households owned 9% of total aggregate household wealth

- median household total wealth was £225,100

Changes in wealth between July 2010 to June 2012 and July 2012 to June 2014:

- aggregate total wealth increased by 18% (aggregate total wealth excluding pension wealth increased by 13%)

- for the wealthiest 10% of households, aggregate total wealth increased by 21%

- for the least wealthy 50% of households, aggregate total wealth increased by 7%

- median total wealth increased by 4% from £216,500 to £225,100.

The economic context for political debate should always recognise such facts that "Growth" even as poorly captured by GDP has different distributional and therefore political effects. So, for example, the 'material wealth' of a nation (as captured by GDP - the 'best measure' if needing a national statistic?) will double every 35 years if a 'paltry' 2% annual growth figure is achieved. Thus using 2% average as a very low indicator for this we have a very nice easy reckoner that 'material wealth' has (more than) quadrupled in the 70 years since World War II.

There are elements within the above release that need further examination (how such surveys fail to 'count' those at either end of the spectrum properly and also how ineffective the various 'Ginis' are at indicating such changes so it might have been nice to see if a Palma index would work better. Although, to be fair the Lorenz curves the ONS do provide a nice graphical representation of the inequalities that they have measured for various kinds of wealth over the distribution they are able to compare). Remember this is for a short period shortly after a severe downturn during a time when a 'recovery' both was supposed to happen and had to happen if the 'causes' had been removed and damage to bank balance sheets was being repaired in a prudent fashion?

Perhaps this might also be a reminder of the irrelevance of much of the political bullshit being bandied about in both major parties to the majority of the electorate who could, perhaps, be considered to have left/right-wing multipersonality disorder - neoliberal/socialist - when it comes to different aspects of their lives and the complexities of different household and individual circumstances and degree of control over them. ie 'Wealth' is always being accumulated by people in different parts of the distribution in different ways. eg Some do this via debt (mortgages) and its repayment while others utilise assets to create debt, leveraging relative risk for their own benefit. 'Government' actions via the Bank or England (QE/interest rates) and discretionary fiscal policy ('consolidation'/austerity) have had theoretically countering effects on GDP growth - according to the BoE's own(!) analysis (and its distribution for QE) and the OBR analysis, respectively.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 2:58 pm

Farage hints Carswell could be SACKED after MP tells Ukip leader to stand down

NIGEL FARAGE today hinted Ukip bosses could take action after MP Douglas Carswell called on his party leader to step down.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... or-shut-up" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 3:03 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Farage hints Carswell could be SACKED after MP tells Ukip leader to stand down

NIGEL FARAGE today hinted Ukip bosses could take action after MP Douglas Carswell called on his party leader to step down.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... or-shut-up" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **refitman** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 3:32 pm

I don't know if we've had this yet:

populist-right-surging-across-europe-ukip-trails-its-wake-unrisen-fruitcakes
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/2 ... fruitcakes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 3:59 pm

: CWf4qEpWsAASlGM.jpg (90.49 KiB) Viewed 12442 times

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 4:06 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
CWf4qEpWsAASlGM.jpg

Who are making them?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 4:34 pm

Bet Samantha doesn't have them on her shopping list.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 5:03 pm

If it is not paid, in addition to the existing £21.60-a-month Careline fee, then an ambulance would need to be called.

What exactly do they do for the £21.60 a month apart from answer the phone quickly and then ring a relative?

http://www.telecare24.co.uk/lifeline-ca ... wgod1PwJDA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 5:06 pm

ohsocynical wrote:If it is not paid, in addition to the existing £21.60-a-month Careline fee, then an ambulance would need to be called.

What exactly do they do for the £21.60 a month apart from answer the phone quickly and then ring a relative?

http://www.telecare24.co.uk/lifeline-ca ... wgod1PwJDA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As my dad used to say 'money for old rope'.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 5:20 pm

''The father of Elliott Johnson today accused the Tories of “trying to gag” the women who spoke out about alleged bullying at the hands of Lucy Allan MP.

Ray Johnson, whose son committed suicide after claiming he was threatened by ‘Tatler Tory’ Mark Clarke, said messages sent to the women show the party wants to “cover up” bullying. ''

''Ms Woodland has now also received a letter from her Conservative association, telling her she faces enforcement action - she claimed today it would put off other whistleblowers coming forward.''

''Both Ms Woodland and Ms Plumbly received voice messages from Allan before the Standard went to print this week, telling them confidentiality agreements would “be enforced”.

Ms Woodland also received a letter from Telford Conservative Association last night telling her “your confidentiality agreement will be enforced”.''
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 40266.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 5:28 pm

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

McTernan sticking the knife in Gordon Brown and praising St Tony in the Telegraph.

Surprised some Labour MPs have any time to deal with parliamentary or constituency business, they spend so much time writing pieces for the Tory press.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 5:28 pm

Labour, Lib Dems and Greens Need To Form A Progressive Alliance to Beat The Tories, Says Caroline Lucas
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12 ... 37520.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Play nice with this one chaps. She's saying things that need to be said now IMO. She's right that seeing the damage the Tories have done in just six months of unfettered rule is chilling - and they can't be allowed to go unchallenged for the next 5 or, perish the thought, 10 years.

She suggests joint tickets, PR as an agreed outcome etc.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 5:35 pm

Will play nicely RR, but dare one suggest the small parties might need to curb their ambitions to help keep the Tories out ?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 5:36 pm

Isabel Oakeshott ‏@IsabelOakeshott 54s55 seconds ago
Hmmm, seems recording of Lucy Allen I heard earlier was an edited version. Now heard full shrieking rant. Withdraw earlier semi defence

Blimey - what's she heard that I haven't heard?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 5:39 pm

yahyah wrote:Will play nicely RR, but dare one suggest the small parties might need to curb their ambitions to help keep the Tories out ?

The terrible thought I've had - and yes, I know how terrible it is - is that it might take Brexit to shake things up enough to dislodge the Tories.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 5:46 pm

Don't depress me RR. Have had a bad enough day.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 5:48 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
yahyah wrote:Will play nicely RR, but dare one suggest the small parties might need to curb their ambitions to help keep the Tories out ?
The terrible thought I've had - and yes, I know how terrible it is - is that it might take Brexit to shake things up enough to dislodge the Tories.

Enough of such heretical thoughts

Seriously, a very nasty outbreak of right wing populism is just as possible - as could also have happened if Scotland had voted for independence.

Re your comments on Lucas punting some anti-Tory electoral alliance - I'm not convinced electoral pacts are either necessary, or that they will actually work. There weren't any in 1997 (save the total one-off that was Tatton) but there was still in effect a very powerful "common front" against the Tories.

Whereas this year, for various reasons, nearly all other non-Tory parties chose to give preference to attacking Labour. Often highly spitefully and mendaciously

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 5:55 pm

Dave Burns ‏@daveburns422 36 mins36 minutes ago Birmingham, England
Dave Burns Retweeted Mike Gingell

Shame Mike you missed rees mogg telling dimbleby he was at Eton with his son no us and them eh!!!

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 5:56 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
yahyah wrote:Will play nicely RR, but dare one suggest the small parties might need to curb their ambitions to help keep the Tories out ?
The terrible thought I've had - and yes, I know how terrible it is - is that it might take Brexit to shake things up enough to dislodge the Tories.
Enough of such heretical thoughts

Seriously, a very nasty outbreak of right wing populism is just as possible - as could also have happened if Scotland had voted for independence.

Re your comments on Lucas punting some anti-Tory electoral alliance - I'm not convinced electoral pacts are either necessary, or that they will actually work. There weren't any in 1997 (save the total one-off that was Tatton) but there was still in effect a very powerful "common front" against the Tories.

Whereas this year, for various reasons, nearly all other non-Tory parties chose to give preference to attacking Labour. Often highly spitefully and mendaciously

Which is why I think some olive branches are well due - we can't get anywhere if everyone is attacking Labour instead of the Tories. Plus - the boundary changes are going to be challenging to say the least - and we do need the Lib Dems to revive - at least partially - in the south west and south east. It's asking too much for Labour to sweep the board in those areas from where we are now.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 5:58 pm

yahyah wrote:Don't depress me RR. Have had a bad enough day.

I hope tomorrow will be better and brighter for you yahyah.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 6:05 pm

yahyah wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... bully.html

McTernan sticking the knife in Gordon Brown and praising St Tony in the Telegraph.

Surprised some Labour MPs have any time to deal with parliamentary or constituency business, they spend so much time writing pieces for the Tory press.

Well, he has never been an MP (glorified SPAD is as far as it has got)

Same with Hodges, of course (it is speculated his bitterness is partly caused by not getting the safe seat he "expected")

And even Tom Harris is an ex-MP now (thankfully)

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 6:09 pm

Oh dear, I knew my mind was a bit mashed....thought he was an MP, he seems to get a lot of mentions in the press, can be relied on for an anti-membership or anti-Corbyn quote.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 6:21 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:At the moment, for whatever reason, the public isn't nearly as sick of the Tories as they should be. Possibly not regarding this as quite the same government as the coalition, partly weariness and not wanting to invest in anyone the same hope that greeted Blair. The damage of the expenses scandal is still with us in the feeling that 'they're all the same'

At the moment, yes. But this could change - the potential is certainly there in several ways.

An important reason for Major's "surprise" win in 1992 was that a lot of people - even naturally non-Tory types - actually liked him. Cameron is, by contrast, largely grudgingly tolerated - and his likely successors are, if anything, even more problematic.

None of this is to deny that Labour and the centre-left more generally have real problems - but its not all one way. And there is another elephant in the room of course - the likelihood that the Tories won't be the only party to change its leadership before the election.......

(by which I mean, to avoid any doubt, Jez standing aside in his own time and on his own terms - certainly not any half-assed "coup")

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 6:24 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Is it possible Carswell might even defect back to the Tories? Would they have him? He seems to vote with them most of the time so not necessarily a benefit to be seized re Cameron's slim (nay tiny) majority.

I don't think Carswell will go back to the Tories, more likely he'd go independent if necessary, but why give up the useful campaign money if you don't have to? His comments don't strike me as a full on attack on Farage, more a casual prod to see how shaky his leadership is.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 6:34 pm

Good piece by Abi Wilkinson:

''Are Jeremy Corbyn's supporters really that sexist?''
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/fe ... lly-sexist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 6:40 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Labour, Lib Dems and Greens Need To Form A Progressive Alliance to Beat The Tories, Says Caroline Lucas
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12 ... 37520.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Play nice with this one chaps. She's saying things that need to be said now IMO. She's right that seeing the damage the Tories have done in just six months of unfettered rule is chilling - and they can't be allowed to go unchallenged for the next 5 or, perish the thought, 10 years.

She suggests joint tickets, PR as an agreed outcome etc.
Happy to play nice - as long as the Greens do as well. I must say, the almost total silence from Natalie Bennett since the election has been welcome, but I'm still a little wary. It's hard to forget, as AK said, just how hard the supposedly leftwing parties went for Labour during the election campaign, presumably over 'market share' or in the hope of getting some influence post hung-parliament. Perhaps if the true likelihood of a Tory majority was known, they'd have acted differently, but even so it's hard not to be cautious. Personally, I wouldn't be unhappy for Labour to leave Brighton Pavilion for the Greens, as they're unlikely to win it back anytime soon, but there are no other seats where Green has a cat in hell's chance - although I suppose they might have just about taken enough votes off Labour to have let the Tories in in one or two places.

(Apropos of very little, it's interesting to see how utterly delusional the remaining LibDems seem to have become, still regarding themselves as an important political force and thinking that all those 'non-Corbynite' Labour supporters will up and join them any minute now.)

I think there would undoubtedly be some contentious seats - where various parties don't want to stand down or find a joint ticket candidate. Yahyah and I might find ourselves in a fisticuffs seat if the boundary changes go ahead and North Pembs is merged into Ceredigion. Plaid and Green couldn't agree an alliance last May - the seat has recently been considered a fight between Plaid and Lib Dem but the Greens were having their surge. So it's one of the few holds for the Lib Dems at present. But it was previously a Plaid / Green joint ticket and won seat. Interesting that Caroline Lucas didn't refer to Plaid - maybe she wasn't including Wales in her suggestion. I could just about, but only just, vote Lib Dem if that was what was agreed (and the candidate wasn't going to kill badgers) ... but not Plaid. That would have to be me not voting at all. But such agreements might help focus ground campaign troops of each of the alliance parties in areas where they can help those with a better chance of winning.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 6:53 pm

Goodmorfternoon.

(I wanted to touch base.)

I've been reading all your posts with interest (nothing unusual about that!) - thanks.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 6:53 pm

yahyah wrote:Good piece by Abi Wilkinson:

''Are Jeremy Corbyn's supporters really that sexist?''
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/fe ... lly-sexist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is little doubt that some are trying to use "online abuse" to shut down criticism of the status quo generally. Its highly transparent.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 6:54 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote: Play nice with this one chaps. She's saying things that need to be said now IMO. She's right that seeing the damage the Tories have done in just six months of unfettered rule is chilling - and they can't be allowed to go unchallenged for the next 5 or, perish the thought, 10 years.

She suggests joint tickets, PR as an agreed outcome etc.
Happy to play nice - as long as the Greens do as well. I must say, the almost total silence from Natalie Bennett since the election has been welcome, but I'm still a little wary. It's hard to forget, as AK said, just how hard the supposedly leftwing parties went for Labour during the election campaign, presumably over 'market share' or in the hope of getting some influence post hung-parliament. Perhaps if the true likelihood of a Tory majority was known, they'd have acted differently, but even so it's hard not to be cautious. Personally, I wouldn't be unhappy for Labour to leave Brighton Pavilion for the Greens, as they're unlikely to win it back anytime soon, but there are no other seats where Green has a cat in hell's chance - although I suppose they might have just about taken enough votes off Labour to have let the Tories in in one or two places.

(Apropos of very little, it's interesting to see how utterly delusional the remaining LibDems seem to have become, still regarding themselves as an important political force and thinking that all those 'non-Corbynite' Labour supporters will up and join them any minute now.)
I think there would undoubtedly be some contentious seats - where various parties don't want to stand down or find a joint ticket candidate. Yahyah and I might find ourselves in a fisticuffs seat if the boundary changes go ahead and North Pembs is merged into Ceredigion. Plaid and Green couldn't agree an alliance last May - the seat has recently been considered a fight between Plaid and Lib Dem but the Greens were having their surge. So it's one of the few holds for the Lib Dems at present. But it was previously a Plaid / Green joint ticket and won seat. Interesting that Caroline Lucas didn't refer to Plaid - maybe she wasn't including Wales in her suggestion. I could just about, but only just, vote Lib Dem if that was what was agreed (and the candidate wasn't going to kill badgers) ... but not Plaid. That would have to be me not voting at all. But such agreements might help focus ground campaign troops of each of the alliance parties in areas where they can help those with a better chance of winning.

Does it even need to be that formal? If all the progressive parties concentrate their resources on the seats where they are currently second to the Tories, and all offered PR, voters are more than capable of making their own minds up as to whether to vote tactically. Labour wasted money and effort on Brighton and Sheffield Hallam. It's not that they shouldn't be standing in these places, just that they need to be clear that they want (and need) to win the Tory marginals more. A little bit more respect from Labour for the progressive policies of the Greens and Libdems would be a positive, in my opinion, but the nationalist parties are a different kettle of fish. I see Plaid and the SNP as posing the same problems for Labour as Ukip and need to be fought as energetically as the Tories, imo. If agreeing with Lucas that Labour, Libdems and Greens are all part of a happy progressive alliance helps to re-enforce the perception that the SNP and Plaid are most definitely not, then I'm all for it.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 7:02 pm

Willow904 wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: Happy to play nice - as long as the Greens do as well. I must say, the almost total silence from Natalie Bennett since the election has been welcome, but I'm still a little wary. It's hard to forget, as AK said, just how hard the supposedly leftwing parties went for Labour during the election campaign, presumably over 'market share' or in the hope of getting some influence post hung-parliament. Perhaps if the true likelihood of a Tory majority was known, they'd have acted differently, but even so it's hard not to be cautious. Personally, I wouldn't be unhappy for Labour to leave Brighton Pavilion for the Greens, as they're unlikely to win it back anytime soon, but there are no other seats where Green has a cat in hell's chance - although I suppose they might have just about taken enough votes off Labour to have let the Tories in in one or two places.

(Apropos of very little, it's interesting to see how utterly delusional the remaining LibDems seem to have become, still regarding themselves as an important political force and thinking that all those 'non-Corbynite' Labour supporters will up and join them any minute now.)
I think there would undoubtedly be some contentious seats - where various parties don't want to stand down or find a joint ticket candidate. Yahyah and I might find ourselves in a fisticuffs seat if the boundary changes go ahead and North Pembs is merged into Ceredigion. Plaid and Green couldn't agree an alliance last May - the seat has recently been considered a fight between Plaid and Lib Dem but the Greens were having their surge. So it's one of the few holds for the Lib Dems at present. But it was previously a Plaid / Green joint ticket and won seat. Interesting that Caroline Lucas didn't refer to Plaid - maybe she wasn't including Wales in her suggestion. I could just about, but only just, vote Lib Dem if that was what was agreed (and the candidate wasn't going to kill badgers) ... but not Plaid. That would have to be me not voting at all. But such agreements might help focus ground campaign troops of each of the alliance parties in areas where they can help those with a better chance of winning.
Does it even need to be that formal? If all the progressive parties concentrate their resources on the seats where they are currently second to the Tories, and all offered PR, voters are more than capable of making their own minds up as to whether to vote tactically. Labour wasted money and effort on Brighton and Sheffield Hallam. It's not that they shouldn't be standing in these places, just that they need to be clear that they want (and need) to win the Tory marginals more. A little bit more respect from Labour for the progressive policies of the Greens and Libdems would be a positive, in my opinion, but the nationalist parties are a different kettle of fish. I see Plaid and the SNP as posing the same problems for Labour as Ukip and need to be fought as energetically as the Tories, imo. If agreeing with Lucas that Labour, Libdems and Greens are all part of a happy progressive alliance helps to re-enforce the perception that the SNP and Plaid are most definitely not, then I'm all for it.

No it doesn't have to be that formal Willow - I agree with you - and I'd imagined the set up more as you outline. I think one of the big benefits - alongside not ripping chunks out of other left / progressive / non Tory parties - is the much better use of our resources to combat the big bucks of the Tories. I was just setting out that there will be a few places - and ours is one of them - where it could get contentious - further complicated by the Greens in Wales being a separate entity from the Greens in England (I believe - ready to be corrected).

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 7:07 pm

john spellar ‏@spellar 10m10 minutes ago
john spellar Retweeted HuffPostUK Pictures
what generosity to offer to add her ONE seat and Lib-Dems EIGHT to our 232 ,the breathtaking arrogance

Oh dear. Not a helpful attitude. Completely misses the bigger point that it's about hitting the seats which the Tories currently hold but which could potentially be won by a left party if we work together cannily.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 7:17 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
john spellar ‏@spellar 10m10 minutes ago
john spellar Retweeted HuffPostUK Pictures
what generosity to offer to add her ONE seat and Lib-Dems EIGHT to our 232 ,the breathtaking arrogance
Oh dear. Not a helpful attitude. Completely misses the bigger point that it's about hitting the seats which the Tories currently hold but which could potentially be won by a left party if we work together cannily.

Quite. Surely much better to accept an offer, rather than to later find that you might be in a position where you feel you have to make the offer - which could be rebuffed, to great press fanfare.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 7:17 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote: I think there would undoubtedly be some contentious seats - where various parties don't want to stand down or find a joint ticket candidate. Yahyah and I might find ourselves in a fisticuffs seat if the boundary changes go ahead and North Pembs is merged into Ceredigion. Plaid and Green couldn't agree an alliance last May - the seat has recently been considered a fight between Plaid and Lib Dem but the Greens were having their surge. So it's one of the few holds for the Lib Dems at present. But it was previously a Plaid / Green joint ticket and won seat. Interesting that Caroline Lucas didn't refer to Plaid - maybe she wasn't including Wales in her suggestion. I could just about, but only just, vote Lib Dem if that was what was agreed (and the candidate wasn't going to kill badgers) ... but not Plaid. That would have to be me not voting at all. But such agreements might help focus ground campaign troops of each of the alliance parties in areas where they can help those with a better chance of winning.
Does it even need to be that formal? If all the progressive parties concentrate their resources on the seats where they are currently second to the Tories, and all offered PR, voters are more than capable of making their own minds up as to whether to vote tactically. Labour wasted money and effort on Brighton and Sheffield Hallam. It's not that they shouldn't be standing in these places, just that they need to be clear that they want (and need) to win the Tory marginals more. A little bit more respect from Labour for the progressive policies of the Greens and Libdems would be a positive, in my opinion, but the nationalist parties are a different kettle of fish. I see Plaid and the SNP as posing the same problems for Labour as Ukip and need to be fought as energetically as the Tories, imo. If agreeing with Lucas that Labour, Libdems and Greens are all part of a happy progressive alliance helps to re-enforce the perception that the SNP and Plaid are most definitely not, then I'm all for it.
No it doesn't have to be that formal Willow - I agree with you - and I'd imagined the set up more as you outline. I think one of the big benefits - alongside not ripping chunks out of other left / progressive / non Tory parties - is the much better use of our resources to combat the big bucks of the Tories. I was just setting out that there will be a few places - and ours is one of them - where it could get contentious - further complicated by the Greens in Wales being a separate entity from the Greens in England (I believe - ready to be corrected).

The pay off would be to use areas where Labour, Libdems and Greens agree, in contrast and opposition to the Tories, to set a pattern where everyone agrees except the Tories. The more diverse range of people that agree on something, the more it starts to seem they must be right - the "I agree with Nick" effect - it's mutually re-enforcing. If you have several parties proposing PR and all agreeing with each other, for instance, it starts to seem the right answer. Of course the right wing parties will gang up to counter any such effect, but as 3 out of the 4 right wing parties are currently posing as left wing, it could be very telling.

Edited to add that of course this does hinge on Labour, Libdem and Green MPs all being genuinely left-wing and progressive. The right always have the advantage of putting power before principle so don't have to genuinely believe in anything other than expediency in order to back each other up!

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 7:27 pm

Just to add a bit more context - the Green Party in Wales has just elected a new leader / spokesperson.

Alice Hooker-Stroud elected as Wales Green Party leader, Hannah Pudner as deputy leader
http://bright-green.org/2015/12/16/alic ... ty-leader/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've no idea how she might differ in direction and qualities from her predecessor - Pippa Bartolotti. Temulkar might be along and able to tell us.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 18 Dec, 2015 7:34 pm

Willow904 wrote: The pay off would be to use areas where Labour, Libdems and Greens agree, in contrast and opposition to the Tories, to set a pattern where everyone agrees except the Tories. The more diverse range of people that agree on something, the more it starts to seem they must be right - the "I agree with Nick" effect - it's mutually re-enforcing. If you have several parties proposing PR and all agreeing with each other, for instance, it starts to seem the right answer. Of course the right wing parties will gang up to counter any such effect, but as 3 out of the 4 right wing parties are currently posing as left wing, it could be very telling.

Edited to add that of course this does hinge on Labour, Libdem and Green MPs all being genuinely left-wing and progressive. The right always have the advantage of putting power before principle so don't have to genuinely believe in anything other than expediency in order to back each other up!

Ukip need PR too ... could be some very strange campaigns and hustings!