Saturday 9th January 2016

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 7:43 am

Morning all.

Dan Jarvis interview well worth reading.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... peed-dials" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 8:53 am

Joe Haines ;

" Labour will lose the next general election if Jeremy Corbyn is still its leader, and lose it by a substantial margin. A distrusted and unloved Conservative Party will win something resembling a landslide victory. No ifs or buts, as David Cameron might say: that is the plain, unpalatable truth. Either he goes or the party itself is a goner. Those who believe otherwise are the Flat Earthers of British politics. "

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk ... corbyn-now" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

: ScreenShot01382.jpg (226.82 KiB) Viewed 8273 times

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 8:58 am

Peter Oborne on the Haines article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... orbyn.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

: ScreenShot01383.jpg (88.79 KiB) Viewed 8270 times

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 9:26 am

TobyLatimer wrote:Peter Oborne on the Haines article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... orbyn.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ScreenShot01383.jpg

Acquiescence from the CLP? Really?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 9:38 am

It will be Mary Wilson's 100th Birthday next Tuesday.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 9:51 am

How she combined being a politicians wife with being in the Supremes,with nobody noticing I'll never know.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 10:37 am

StephenDolan wrote:Morning all.

Dan Jarvis interview well worth reading.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... peed-dials" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He makes a very valid point about how Labour now has two unilateralists heading up the defence review. I hadn't spotted that. It really is a very poor bungle. I appreciate Trident is important to Corbyn, but before he became leader, defence was not an electoral issue for Labour and now he's made it one, without really making much headway on the areas which were issues for Labour.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 10:38 am

TobyLatimer wrote:Joe Haines ;

" Labour will lose the next general election if Jeremy Corbyn is still its leader, and lose it by a substantial margin. A distrusted and unloved Conservative Party will win something resembling a landslide victory. No ifs or buts, as David Cameron might say: that is the plain, unpalatable truth. Either he goes or the party itself is a goner. Those who believe otherwise are the Flat Earthers of British politics. "

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk ... corbyn-now" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As a £3er, I'm sure it's possible for me to be more insulted by that piece but I'm not sure how (and the one about Jarvis - a mention of the vote to bomb Syria being the 'right thing to do' - how's that going Dan?...or maybe Hilary? Looking forward to you starting to hold Clouncy to account for the lies you believed(TM)...oh sorry, what?....not now...why's that again? Oh, I see - 'cos Corbyn)...

This sort of thing, combined with rabid vitriolic anti-Corbynista Labour telling us 'it's the end', 'you're wrong', 'Corbyn's awfulterribleawful', I'm starting to feel that, although 76% of voters did not vote Tory and would have liked the option of an anti-Austerity, anti-warfare party (it worked in Scotland...but of course, the Scots aren't the English - the English wouldn't be stupid enough to vote for an anti-nuke anti-austerity party if they had the choice....would they?), the vast majority are very happy with death by austerity, open-ended warfare achieved through lies and misinformation, the destruction of all semblance of social responsibility by government, massive corruption within the bubble and rule from Murkydochia...and then I come to my senses....and remember that I live in Hope (just North of Peterborough)...and remember that the anti-Corbyn message is getting more and more desperate...and, Corbyn and McDonnell are playing the long game, and not the MSM 'everythingmustbenowimmediatestraightawayanddon'tpauseforbreathotherwisethey'llrealisewhatwe'vebeendoing'.

BTW - below the Oborne 'ooh look, Labour now have a PLAN to get rid of the democratically elected leader' was this....

Our apologist for barbarism

JUST nine days ago, Britain’s closest Middle Eastern ally executed 47 prisoners.
The Saudi Arabian government claimed that the men were ‘terrorists’.
In fact, the only ‘crime’ many had committed was to have protested peacefully against the regime. Some had been arrested as children; others were mentally ill.
Most controversially, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond told the BBC’s Nick Robinson yesterday that the dead were ‘convicted terrorists’.Though some of those executed were, indeed, killers (such as Abel al-Dhubaiti who murdered BBC cameraman Simon Cumbers and left the Corporation’s security correspondent, Frank Gardner, paralysed in an attack 11 years ago), many others were not.
Mr Hammond was inanely repeating the propaganda issued by the bloodstained Saudi regime.
This is a very serious matter. It is disgraceful that a British Foreign Secretary should be an apologist for what is nothing less than judicial murder.
Mr Hammond’s comment was a wholly unjustified slur on those Saudi prisoners who were executed in a fashion that differed little from medieval barbarism.
As our representative abroad, does he really think that most British people subscribe to the repulsive values that he and the Saudi butchers advocate?

.....but look over there....LabourCorbyn etc

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 10:59 am

There are basically two "doomsday scenarios" about how the current tensions in the Labour party might play out.

One is the one put forward by Haines - though unlike Oborne I don't see it as a remotely feasible scenario any time soon. It *might*, just possibly, come into view if we were getting fairly close to the 2020 GE and Labour were obviously heading for calamity - but Corbyn refused to step down.

(though JC has said before that he would not insist on staying put in those circumstances)

The other might transpire were the PLP to try an old fashioned coup in the relatively near future - depose Jez, prevent him from standing in any new election (as previously discussed, the present party rulebook is ambiguous on whether this would be legitimate) and use the current high nomination threshold amongst MPs to ensure that no other left candidate appears on the ballot (we can expect the "PLP represents all 9 million people who voted Labour last time, not the £3 entryists" canard to be much used in this scenario)

In that case, a breakaway left wing party - which could well end up with more members, more union backing and maybe even more money than "official" Labour - might actually become a feasible proposition. Paul Mason said this, with remarkable prescience, the morning after the GE and his analysis remains compelling IMO.

That is where we are. I remain confident that neither of these extreme outcomes will happen, but it is as well to be aware of them.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 11:24 am

@Lonewolfie

You mention in your post above that the Scots overwhelmingly voted for a party with an anti-Trident stance. I feel I should point out that they did so safe in the knowledge that the SNP were unlikely to ever be in a position to make that happen while both Tories and Labour supported renewal, so it's difficult to judge just how popular unilateralism is in Scotland. Furthermore, now independence is off the agenda for a while at least, I predict that if the SNP stick to their anti-austerity, anti-Trident stance they will inevitably lose votes to the right, to the Tories in fact. A win-win all round for Murdoch.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 11:28 am

I went to see my 91 year old great aunt this morning. She is still as sharp as a knife and a bit of a politico. Not a surprise really she was born in the year Labour first became a government, her husband was a Labour councillor for many years. She, like my mother, is not a hard left entryist.

They both see Doughty et al as prepared to destroy Labour because of Corbyn. They both told me that 'kicking the traitors out' is Labour's only hope of survival.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 11:31 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:There are basically two "doomsday scenarios" about how the current tensions in the Labour party might play out.

One is the one put forward by Haines - though unlike Oborne I don't see it as a remotely feasible scenario any time soon. It *might*, just possibly, come into view if we were getting fairly close to the 2020 GE and Labour were obviously heading for calamity - but Corbyn refused to step down.

(though JC has said before that he would not insist on staying put in those circumstances)

The other might transpire were the PLP to try an old fashioned coup in the relatively near future - depose Jez, prevent him from standing in any new election (as previously discussed, the present party rulebook is ambiguous on whether this would be legitimate) and use the current high nomination threshold amongst MPs to ensure that no other left candidate appears on the ballot (we can expect the "PLP represents all 9 million people who voted Labour last time, not the £3 entryists" canard to be much used in this scenario)

In that case, a breakaway left wing party - which could well end up with more members, more union backing and maybe even more money than "official" Labour - might actually become a feasible proposition. Paul Mason said this, with remarkable prescience, the morning after the GE and his analysis remains compelling IMO.

That is where we are. I remain confident that neither of these extreme outcomes will happen, but it is as well to be aware of them.

To be frank(instead of Rebecca),I am so fed up with many Labour MPs at the moment I would feel relieved if the second option did happen.
The abc MPs have been sulking long enough.And if anyone comes out with the 'but,but they were elected on the Miliband manifesto',perhaps they could consider that we lost the election VERY badly last May,and I also can't remember an option of 'vote ME as your Labour MP and I will do my very best to ignore my constituency,and spend my time dissing our party Leader to the press,on social media,on the radio and tv,and basically agreeing with Cameron and Osborne in order to spite Corbyn' manifesto.
For the first time in my life I am glad to be living in a one hundred percent safe Tory seat.I would be mortified to have voted for a Labour MP who behaved like some of these shower of shits are.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 11:39 am

Willow904 wrote:@Lonewolfie

You mention in your post above that the Scots overwhelmingly voted for a party with an anti-Trident stance. I feel I should point out that they did so safe in the knowledge that the SNP were unlikely to ever be in a position to make that happen while both Tories and Labour supported renewal, so it's difficult to judge just how popular unilateralism is in Scotland. Furthermore, now independence is off the agenda for a while at least, I predict that if the SNP stick to their anti-austerity, anti-Trident stance they will inevitably lose votes to the right, to the Tories in fact. A win-win all round for Murdoch.

So your saying they voted for a party that stood vociferously on an anti-trident platform by a ratio of what 58-3? but it was ok they weren't voting for an anti trident party because they knew that a pro trident party would get in. So trident would be safe? Are you seriously trying to peddle that line?

So they werent really voting for an anti austerity party then because they knew that a pro austerity party would get in. So austerity was safe

They voted for an anti-union party because they knew a unionist party would get in?

They didnt vote Labour because Labour failed them. It failed on austerity, it failed on inequality, it failed on basic decency with Rachel Reeves and her 'tougher than the tories' schtick. It failed because it was pro trident, pro austerity and pro the union. Those are the three pillars of the independence movement. I would have thought after Labour's wipeout in Scotland the PLP might start actually listening to the people who no longer vote for them instead of making up fantasies about what happened.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 11:39 am

Had an email from that mob Momentum yesterday.
Bastards are only asking for support for those hard left,militant ,student nurses and junior doctors.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 11:43 am

On the same subject...

Couldn't agree more.

Tory policy on so many things right now is a complete car crash e.g. DWP, economic, NHS*, EU, Probabtion, courts, Education, Foreign policy etc but only a few Labour MPs are making any noise about them and they're getting drowned out by the noisy ones who get the headlines.

* which incidentally is a little odd when some blame the NHS for all its current problems where before it was always Andy Burnham. Not sure how that works...is it called hypocrisy?

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 11:43 am

Temulkar wrote:I went to see my 91 year old great aunt this morning. She is still as sharp as a knife and a bit of a politico. Not a surprise really she was born in the year Labour first became a government, her husband was a Labour councillor for many years. She, like my mother, is not a hard left entryist.

They both see Doughty et al as prepared to destroy Labour because of Corbyn. They both told me that 'kicking the traitors out' is Labour's only hope of survival.

Hello Tem, and morning all.

It's interesting, this. One of our CLP members is getting on in years, and she was saying the same thing after the leadership contest.
(I say "our CLP" - in fact I'm not a member any more)

The membership - including the long-term members, and not just the new ones - voted for Corbyn. They voted in sufficient numbers to ensure his victory without any need for further ballots.

For years, the more left-leaning MPs in the PLP kept quiet and supported Blair and Brown in the interests of party unity; now it's the turn of the "moderates", and they just won't do it.

That's why I left the party. I am forever hearing about what "broad church" the Labour Party is - but that is no excuse for flagrant disloyalty to the leader the membership voted for.

Sick of it, I am.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 11:44 am

Morning

Nuclear weapon renewal is an irrelevance to me, and irrelevance to the security of the country

It is just a case of a country that is on its uppers wanting to show it is important......

Can anyone please tell me how having nuclear weapons did the following in the last 10 years:

Prevented lots of people losing their homes due to the first influences of climate change
Prevented terrorist attacks on London, Paris or New York
Prevented the financial crash that led to lots of people feeling a lot less secure etc

If we want security for the future then we need to deal with the radicalisation of certain religious groups and how to prevent that - soft and hard measures will be required.

We need to put in place a financial system that allows for people to get a 'normal' job and they can access a home, healthcare, education and food as a standard, also knowing if some misfortune befalls them that there is a safety net in place that will support them without being stigmatised

We need to invest in non-carbon power and electricity storage technology - not cut it!

The only claim is that nuclear weapons have prevented nuclear war between the nuclear powers but I am not sure how the UK deterrent has made any difference there....Germany or Japan not having them doesn't seem to have been a problem!

I personally feel it is wrong to spend money on Trident and we can use the money better, as well as showing the way forward to other nuclear powers. Taking the moral high ground!

I would not use it as the deciding matter for my vote though - not by a long way - although I do worry when the proponents of nuclear weapons are asked why they have such weak answers

My opinion of Jarvis has plummeted recently...perhaps he really is just one of these 'wishy-washy' right-wing Labour politicians who don't have a radical thought in their minds...just see it as a game trying to triangulate and outmanoeuvre the Tories without realising they are playing right into their hands.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 11:53 am

A missive from Planet Osborne.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... lence.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Britain’s capital spending should insulate us from global turbulence
The UK government has also been keen to support investment in housing and public infrastructure, despite the constraints on public borrowing
By Andrew Sentance

I can't wait to see what Blanchflower has to say about it.

One of the more positive features of this recovery for the UK economy has been the performance of capital investment. The Government, and the coalition government before it, has been targeting a more balanced recovery, driven by exports and investment and less dependent on consumer spending. That objective has largely been realised.

?!!?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 11:55 am

Just seen this.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 11:59 am

I'm not keen on Jarvis.

Starmer, on the other hand, voted against action in Syria, and explained why, and is currently visiting Calais, according to twitter.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 12:00 pm

Temulkar wrote:
Willow904 wrote:@Lonewolfie

You mention in your post above that the Scots overwhelmingly voted for a party with an anti-Trident stance. I feel I should point out that they did so safe in the knowledge that the SNP were unlikely to ever be in a position to make that happen while both Tories and Labour supported renewal, so it's difficult to judge just how popular unilateralism is in Scotland. Furthermore, now independence is off the agenda for a while at least, I predict that if the SNP stick to their anti-austerity, anti-Trident stance they will inevitably lose votes to the right, to the Tories in fact. A win-win all round for Murdoch.
So your saying they voted for a party that stood vociferously on an anti-trident platform by a ratio of what 58-3? but it was ok they weren't voting for an anti trident party because they knew that a pro trident party would get in. So trident would be safe? Are you seriously trying to peddle that line?

So they werent really voting for an anti austerity party then because they knew that a pro austerity party would get in. So austerity was safe

They voted for an anti-union party because they knew a unionist party would get in?

They didnt vote Labour because Labour failed them. It failed on austerity, it failed on inequality, it failed on basic decency with Rachel Reeves and her 'tougher than the tories' schtick. It failed because it was pro trident, pro austerity and pro the union. Those are the three pillars of the independence movement. I would have thought after Labour's wipeout in Scotland the PLP might start actually listening to the people who no longer vote for them instead of making up fantasies about what happened.

Excuse me but a) I'm not the PLP and b) I said we don't know how anti-Trident Scotland is, not that they are pro-Trident. Also, I never said the Scots didn't vote for anti-austerity as this is something the SNP can influence, in Holyrood if not in Westminster. So far the SNP have talked about anti-austerity more than they have implemented it. I don't think suggesting that if they keep genuinely moving to the left, they will lose votes on the right is a particularly controversial suggestion. I find it more likely than a whole country sharing the exact same political outlook. The SNP vote is made up of more than just ex-Labour votes. Will they be able to hang on to those other votes as they move further left to cover off Labour, is all I'm asking. It's tricky being all things to all people.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 12:00 pm

@TobyL good to see you're looking in, hope you're feeling better.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 12:07 pm

gilsey wrote:A missive from Planet Osborne.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... lence.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Britain’s capital spending should insulate us from global turbulence
The UK government has also been keen to support investment in housing and public infrastructure, despite the constraints on public borrowing
By Andrew Sentance

I can't wait to see what Blanchflower has to say about it.

Osborne has some gall and no mistake. Reminds me of when he started going around saying he was "allowing the automatic stabilisers to operate" at the exact same time he cut the link between benefits and inflation, which is, of course, interfering with the automatic stabilizers and stopping them from operating fully. He's just so blatant.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 12:08 pm

Willow904 wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
Willow904 wrote:@Lonewolfie

You mention in your post above that the Scots overwhelmingly voted for a party with an anti-Trident stance. I feel I should point out that they did so safe in the knowledge that the SNP were unlikely to ever be in a position to make that happen while both Tories and Labour supported renewal, so it's difficult to judge just how popular unilateralism is in Scotland. Furthermore, now independence is off the agenda for a while at least, I predict that if the SNP stick to their anti-austerity, anti-Trident stance they will inevitably lose votes to the right, to the Tories in fact. A win-win all round for Murdoch.
So your saying they voted for a party that stood vociferously on an anti-trident platform by a ratio of what 58-3? but it was ok they weren't voting for an anti trident party because they knew that a pro trident party would get in. So trident would be safe? Are you seriously trying to peddle that line?

So they werent really voting for an anti austerity party then because they knew that a pro austerity party would get in. So austerity was safe

They voted for an anti-union party because they knew a unionist party would get in?

They didnt vote Labour because Labour failed them. It failed on austerity, it failed on inequality, it failed on basic decency with Rachel Reeves and her 'tougher than the tories' schtick. It failed because it was pro trident, pro austerity and pro the union. Those are the three pillars of the independence movement. I would have thought after Labour's wipeout in Scotland the PLP might start actually listening to the people who no longer vote for them instead of making up fantasies about what happened.
Excuse me but a) I'm not the PLP and b) I said we don't know how anti-Trident Scotland is, not that they are pro-Trident. Also, I never said the Scots didn't vote for anti-austerity as this is something the SNP can influence, in Holyrood if not in Westminster. So far the SNP have talked about anti-austerity more than they have implemented it. I don't think suggesting that if they keep genuinely moving to the left, they will lose votes on the right is a particularly controversial suggestion. I find it more likely than a whole country sharing the exact same political outlook. The SNP vote is made up of more than just ex-Labour votes. Will they be able to hang on to those other votes as they move further left to cover off Labour, is all I'm asking. It's tricky being all things to all people.

Easy to find out - google is your friend: 48% of Scots want rid of Trident. 25% dont, 27% dont know.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 12:12 pm

Willow904 wrote:@Lonewolfie

You mention in your post above that the Scots overwhelmingly voted for a party with an anti-Trident stance. I feel I should point out that they did so safe in the knowledge that the SNP were unlikely to ever be in a position to make that happen while both Tories and Labour supported renewal, so it's difficult to judge just how popular unilateralism is in Scotland. Furthermore, now independence is off the agenda for a while at least, I predict that if the SNP stick to their anti-austerity, anti-Trident stance they will inevitably lose votes to the right, to the Tories in fact. A win-win all round for Murdoch.

Call me pedantic, but 50% of a 70% turnout doesn't imo, constitute 'overwhelmingly voting for a party with an anti-Trident stance'. The disproportionate number of SNP MPs is due to the vagaries of FPTP.

Independence is never off the agenda as far as the single policy SNP is concerned:

Nicola Sturgeon has said she is “confident” of winning a second referendum as she announced the SNP will lead a renewed debate for independence ahead of this year’s Scottish election.

The First Minister made the claim as she kick-started the SNP’s drive to win this year’s Scottish election in a speech yesterday at Holyrood as MSPs sat for the first time in 2016.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/s ... -1-3992394

One can only hope that the UK government sticks to the Edinburgh agreement and withholds authority for a future referendum 'for a generation'.

Co-incidentally, I today received a leaflet from a local councillor, blaming local authority cutbacks on both the Scottish and UK governments (despite LA finance being devolved and a freeze on council tax being imposed by Holyrood for the last 9 years). Nowhere in the leaflet does it mention that she's a Labour councillor.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 12:18 pm

Temulkar wrote: Easy to find out - google is your friend: 48% of Scots want rid of Trident. 25% dont, 27% dont know.

Just 25% of UK respondents want it scrapped compared with 48% in Scotland, the poll of 1,656 adults on January 25 and 26 found.
When Scotland's 144 respondents are removed, support for Trident south of the border rises to around three-fifths while support for scrapping it falls further.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1319 ... p_Trident/

Reliable?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 12:23 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Just seen this.

I've just posted it on my local Labour Party Facebook page.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 12:26 pm

Willow904 wrote:
gilsey wrote:A missive from Planet Osborne.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... lence.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Britain’s capital spending should insulate us from global turbulence
The UK government has also been keen to support investment in housing and public infrastructure, despite the constraints on public borrowing
By Andrew Sentance

I can't wait to see what Blanchflower has to say about it.
Osborne has some gall and no mistake. Reminds me of when he started going around saying he was "allowing the automatic stabilisers to operate" at the exact same time he cut the link between benefits and inflation, which is, of course, interfering with the automatic stabilizers and stopping them from operating fully. He's just so blatant.

He thinks we're as financially illiterate as he is. And if you take me as an example, that's going some.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 12:30 pm

Eric_WLothian wrote:
Temulkar wrote: Easy to find out - google is your friend: 48% of Scots want rid of Trident. 25% dont, 27% dont know.

Just 25% of UK respondents want it scrapped compared with 48% in Scotland, the poll of 1,656 adults on January 25 and 26 found.
When Scotland's 144 respondents are removed, support for Trident south of the border rises to around three-fifths while support for scrapping it falls further.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1319 ... p_Trident/

Reliable?

As reliable as any poll, but given we had the best polling indicator in May and the SNP won 50% of the vote in Scotland, I would say it looks pretty spot on that SNP voters overwhelmingly dont want trident. The only pro trident parties left in Scotland are the Tories and Liberals. Collectively they managed 22% of the general election vote. If trident was so important to the scots they would have done a lot better, no?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 12:31 pm

Morning / afternoon all.

Sam Freedman ‏@Samfr 2h2 hours ago
If you haven't heard of Michaela yet - it's a very different type of school. Here's @jo_facer on her first week: http://readingallthebooks.com/2016/01/0 ... -michaela/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Why does this account make me feel a bit uneasy?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 12:36 pm

Even in 1997 Labour only managed 45% of the vote in Scotland. 50% of the vote for the SNP in 2015 is huge. I really don't think I'm saying anything controversial in suggesting all 50% probably didn't agree with all policies in the SNP manifesto. It will be hard for the SNP to retain all those votes and if they are determined to occupy the left it seems likely to me that the Tories in Scotland will be the main beneficiaries. Which is why I said a win-win for Murdoch as it signifies both a blow to the left for the rest of the UK in the shape of a rout of Labour and a boost for the right in Scotland with the possibility of the Tories becoming the main opposition in Holyrood later this year. I hope I'm wrong.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 12:38 pm

gilsey wrote:@TobyL good to see you're looking in, hope you're feeling better.

Thank you very much. I'm a little more lifelike this morning, but not out of the woods yet. Apart from the horrendous uti that has been lingering and getting gradually worse since October, I have a nasty chest infection, and a pressure wound on the butt that also has been deteriorating with a nasty skin infection, to the point that the Dr who visited mid week was concerned that the infection had penetrated the pelvic bone, something called osteomyelitis.

My reluctance and indeed stubbornness to refuse antibiotics due to my history of having c-difficile twice means that I am ultimately a magnet and breeding ground for all sorts of treatable nasties. I haven't had a peaceful night without profusely sweating with fever for weeks again, and generally feeling exhausted, no appetite etc.

I had to cave in and start the antibiotics, I was between a rock and a hard place, going to end up hospitalized either way.

Just had a weeks course of Nitrofurantoin which seems to have cleared up the uti, yesterday I spent most of the morning in hospital having the pelvis x-rayed to see of the bone infection had occurred.

Had a call last evening to say i was clear of that, but infection is still in wound, so now I have a week of Flucloxacillin, which will hopefully clear it up. Also had a new bed two days ago with an airflow mattress from the heath authority, which is noisy as hell and feels like a li-lo , but if it does the job, well hey ho.

If I were in the USA, I would have had to spend millions on all the treatment I have had over the last decade or so, that thought is one of the things that keeps me going mentally, I have a moan and chunter sometimes but our health service really is a treasure to behold.

ScarletGas · Post by **ScarletGas** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 12:43 pm

Apologies if this has been mentioned before (been out of the country for a couple of months)

Couple of interesting titbits I picked up this morning.

The insufferable, personification of smug (you can tell I am a fan already can't you) Isobel Oakeshott has taken the Beaverbrook shilling and will from February become the Daily Mail "Political Editor at large". Obviously her patch will cover Charlbury (her Cotswold home) to Chipping Norton to tell us what a wonderful and inspiring couple my friends (exchange Christmas cards you know) David and Samantha are and that little spat regarding the pigs head and Davids member has been consigned to joke status between us.

Meanwhile her erstwhile colleague of Sunday Politics Rowenna Davis has parked her journalistic career for the time being to become an English teacher (whilst still flying the flag for blue labour) in the Southampton area.

Others can decide there own view of this relative to the different particular political persuasions but I know who I think is contributing most to the community at large and on the other hand who has the most vacuous and shallow role. It is indicative of the crassness of our modern society that one will probably be rewarded (I will not use the word earn) ten times the other whilst contributing ten times less.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 12:44 pm

This is the same Joe Haines who was advocating in the torygraph, 2014, for the forcible removal of Ed Miliband?

I see there's a regular Saturday spot now for Labour leader baiting; funny I could have sworn that was happening before the election. Who says it won't happen with any other potential Labour 'leaders' ? Did I spot Rachel Reeves' name somewhere? Isn't Dan Jarvis Reeves with a military background and balls? Realism, btw, is UC conditionality, which is being implemented ahead of any properly working hardware, and could potentially, in the next four years, become the substitute for the social security that used to underpin our society. What do all the hopefuls propose to do about it, and about housing, because that it. what voters will want to know by 2020.

Perhaps a good litmus test might be to ask exactly who did attend Camerons pre-Syria vote soiree? Because all of that turned out well, didn't it. I'm inclined to agree with whoever it was that suggested that the vote was held with a different motive than the stated one, given the subsequent bizarre situation regarding UK involvement.

They play good politics, the tories, it is the only thing they do well. In the meantime plenty of people are still dying in government driven poverty and sickness at home while Dave and his media pals orchestrate the demise of Labour, and the party keeps supplying the people to dig the hole to bury it in. And the peoples' hopes of any honesty in politics start to wither away.

In the meantime we lost one party yesterday, but watch out for Pegida UK, if the kippers decline continue this is where you will find the usual suspects. Ah, joy, this is 21st century England.

Good afternoon, all.

One flash of the odd glowy thing in the sky before the grey returned today, though we had a longer sighting yesterday.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 12:48 pm

Temulkar wrote:
Eric_WLothian wrote:
Temulkar wrote: Easy to find out - google is your friend: 48% of Scots want rid of Trident. 25% dont, 27% dont know.

Just 25% of UK respondents want it scrapped compared with 48% in Scotland, the poll of 1,656 adults on January 25 and 26 found.
When Scotland's 144 respondents are removed, support for Trident south of the border rises to around three-fifths while support for scrapping it falls further.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1319 ... p_Trident/

Reliable?
As reliable as any poll, but given we had the best polling indicator in May and the SNP won 50% of the vote in Scotland, I would say it looks pretty spot on that SNP voters overwhelmingly dont want trident. The only pro trident parties left in Scotland are the Tories and Liberals. Collectively they managed 22% of the general election vote. If trident was so important to the scots they would have done a lot better, no?

Polls also indicate people trust Labour more on the NHS than the Tories and that the NHS is an important issue for many voters, but the Tories still won.
We're getting very off topic though. Even if we agree half of Scotland, where Trident is based with the natural concerns that raises for those living nearby, are keen to vote for an anti-Trident party, it doesn't follow an anti-Trident Labour could win a general election. England and Wales only need to be very slightly more pro-Trident than Scotland and Labour will struggle with such a policy, especially given Scotland, where the policy could be more popular, has become less fertile ground for them for other reasons. So I still think Lonewolfie is over optimistic about the chances of an anti -Trident Labour winning a GE.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 12:53 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning / afternoon all.

Sam Freedman ‏@Samfr 2h2 hours ago
If you haven't heard of Michaela yet - it's a very different type of school. Here's @jo_facer on her first week: http://readingallthebooks.com/2016/01/0 ... -michaela/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Why does this account make me feel a bit uneasy?

Who - Sam Freedman?

He's fine. He was a DfE adviser to Gove (not a SpAd) and I find him very even-handed.

I didn't realise until a few weeks back that he's the son of Sir Lawrence Freedman, professor of War Studies at Kings College London.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 12:57 pm

Willow904 wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
Eric_WLothian wrote: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1319 ... p_Trident/

Reliable?
As reliable as any poll, but given we had the best polling indicator in May and the SNP won 50% of the vote in Scotland, I would say it looks pretty spot on that SNP voters overwhelmingly dont want trident. The only pro trident parties left in Scotland are the Tories and Liberals. Collectively they managed 22% of the general election vote. If trident was so important to the scots they would have done a lot better, no?
Polls also indicate people trust Labour more on the NHS than the Tories and that the NHS is an important issue for many voters, but the Tories still won.
We're getting very off topic though. Even if we agree half of Scotland, where Trident is based with the natural concerns that raises for those living nearby, are keen to vote for an anti-Trident party, it doesn't follow an anti-Trident Labour could win a general election. England and Wales only need to be very slightly more pro-Trident than Scotland and Labour will struggle with such a policy, especially given Scotland, where the policy could be more popular, has become less fertile ground for them for other reasons. So I still think Lonewolfie is over optimistic about the chances of an anti -Trident Labour winning a GE.

Whys being anti-Trident the be all and end all to winning an election!!!!!

How about making it impossible for a Government doing eff all about climate change being unelectable? Or one that sells of all the country's assets to overseas, or who is destroying our health service, or is failing to provide a home for the people, or who allows corporations to run roughshod over our society!

But no, Labour MPs starts wittering on about Trident as if keeping it is the only thing that matters......we can, and should, spend that money on something else!

It is stupidity in the greater extreme.....

Perhaps if we focused on what security actually means rather than a theoretical construct such as MAD ad how it applies to the current world then we may get somewhere!!!

We should shove Trident into the bin of irrelevance where it belongs and make a case for spending the money on something more relevant to our needs!

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 1:05 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning / afternoon all.

Sam Freedman ‏@Samfr 2h2 hours ago
If you haven't heard of Michaela yet - it's a very different type of school. Here's @jo_facer on her first week: http://readingallthebooks.com/2016/01/0 ... -michaela/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Why does this account make me feel a bit uneasy?

Those shiny eyes. A bit Midwich cuckoos? The prospect of what insufferably orthodox adults they might become?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 1:14 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning / afternoon all.

Sam Freedman ‏@Samfr 2h2 hours ago
If you haven't heard of Michaela yet - it's a very different type of school. Here's @jo_facer on her first week: http://readingallthebooks.com/2016/01/0 ... -michaela/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Why does this account make me feel a bit uneasy?
Who - Sam Freedman?

He's fine. He was a DfE adviser to Gove (not a SpAd) and I find him very even-handed.

I didn't realise until a few weeks back that he's the son of Sir Lawrence Freedman, professor of War Studies at Kings College London.

I was meaning the article that he links to Roger. I can't articulate why I'm not wholly swayed by the wonderful picture she paints of the school systems and culture ... I hoped someone else might put their finger on it for me.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 1:16 pm

seeingclearly wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning / afternoon all.

Sam Freedman ‏@Samfr 2h2 hours ago
If you haven't heard of Michaela yet - it's a very different type of school. Here's @jo_facer on her first week: http://readingallthebooks.com/2016/01/0 ... -michaela/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Why does this account make me feel a bit uneasy?
Those shiny eyes. A bit Midwich cuckoos? The prospect of what insufferably orthodox adults they might become?

Thank you seeingclearly. I was struggling - but you've articulated it for me. It's all a bit too nice.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 1:21 pm

seeingclearly wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning / afternoon all.

Sam Freedman ‏@Samfr 2h2 hours ago
If you haven't heard of Michaela yet - it's a very different type of school. Here's @jo_facer on her first week: http://readingallthebooks.com/2016/01/0 ... -michaela/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Why does this account make me feel a bit uneasy?
Those shiny eyes. A bit Midwich cuckoos? The prospect of what insufferably orthodox adults they might become?

I wonder what those kids are like when they get home, after being in a straight jacket all day. Absolute hell, I imagine! I feel sorry for their parents, they'll be the ones facing any backlash or spin out as a consequence of conforming so intensely all day.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 1:52 pm

Toby, glad to see you here, best wishes for the antibioitic stuff, watched a friend go through very similar with multiple resistant infections. The NHS were amazing, though hospitals and treatments can be exhausting and irksome they are there, people are so cavalier in not appreciating what we actually have, our system may not be perfect but it is there and it is ours for when we need it, just wish it was not being starved out of existence. Keep getting better, hope the infections resolve and you are able to be more comfortable than you've been. Hope you are getting the care you need, too.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 1:58 pm

I can't find "Jo" here on the staff list.

http://mcsbrent.co.uk/teaching-staff/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Am I missing something?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:01 pm

gilsey wrote:A missive from Planet Osborne.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... lence.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Britain’s capital spending should insulate us from global turbulence
The UK government has also been keen to support investment in housing and public infrastructure, despite the constraints on public borrowing
By Andrew Sentance

I can't wait to see what Blanchflower has to say about it.

One of the more positive features of this recovery for the UK economy has been the performance of capital investment. The Government, and the coalition government before it, has been targeting a more balanced recovery, driven by exports and investment and less dependent on consumer spending. That objective has largely been realised.
?!!?

(my emphasis)

This is straight up lies - absolutely the opposite of reality - Tory government haven't done this and this is a lie.
It's horrifying to see someone has published this expecting people to believe it. Cognitive dissonance, barrage
of information telling stories, not events as they happen, combined with projected enemies magnified in media,
doing anything in order to take eyes and minds off outrageous lies, dangerous actions for almost six years of
Tory government.

Whoever it is, whoever has the best chance of handing Tory government their hat, vote for it, get rid of Tory
government as soon as legally possible, because the rest is noise.

I'm writing my heart, my best advice to you. I've survived terrifying ordeals in my lifetime, I was brutalised
by people stronger, fiscally dominant, telling me and others they loved and cared for me. It wasn't love or
care. I knew this but was trapped. To get out required my distilling action into one purpose, a single goal,
get way from the danger. I was successful. Now, I live with people who know love and care, they're not
insane or brutal, most people aren't. It's not perfect now, lives lived aren't a fairytale, I knew it wouldn't be
- wholesome life is about give and take, disagreement, sometimes heated, fine, that's still good, it's done
without hatred, insanity, lies.

I know and live regular life, compromises made not offending the soul, loving friends and family even when
we don't like each other for little while, but still loving, still together, just like my friends likely live this too
(I say likely because I've not had the pleasure of meeting all of you in person, it takes time to get to know
people).

The UK has one problem and that is current government and those keeping them in government.
One problem. The rest can and will be negotiated between people who aren't insane, not desperately evil.

I'll never write a more honest post describing what I see as the best course of action. I'm not unaware of
nuances, I've distilled a lot of differences into a single problem. Is that wise or meaningful? Am I projecting
or making the situation too facile? I don't think so. It's impossible to negotiate with people who refuse to do
so, and those people are Tory government. I write again: Whoever it is, whoever has the best chance of
handing Tory government their hat, vote for it, get rid of Tory government as soon as legally possible,
because the rest is noise.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:02 pm

Temulkar wrote:
Eric_WLothian wrote:
Temulkar wrote: Easy to find out - google is your friend: 48% of Scots want rid of Trident. 25% dont, 27% dont know.

Just 25% of UK respondents want it scrapped compared with 48% in Scotland, the poll of 1,656 adults on January 25 and 26 found.
When Scotland's 144 respondents are removed, support for Trident south of the border rises to around three-fifths while support for scrapping it falls further.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1319 ... p_Trident/

Reliable?
As reliable as any poll, but given we had the best polling indicator in May and the SNP won 50% of the vote in Scotland, I would say it looks pretty spot on that SNP voters overwhelmingly dont want trident. The only pro trident parties left in Scotland are the Tories and Liberals. Collectively they managed 22% of the general election vote. If trident was so important to the scots they would have done a lot better, no?

How do the Scots feel about NATO membership and spending what the UK does anyway on Defence? They voted for that too.

I've hardly seen a Cybernat make a point about Trident as a flawed strategy. I've just seen stuff about what it costs, and all the stuff it could pay for- ie virtually nothing in Scotland compared with the cost of independence in the short term.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:03 pm

Good-afternoon, everyone.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:10 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:I can't find "Jo" here on the staff list.

http://mcsbrent.co.uk/teaching-staff/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Am I missing something?

Could be out of date - our staff list hasn't actually appeared yet! It's not a legal requirement like lists of governors are.

Incidentally, I notice that the celeb governors all seem to have gone if the list can be believed. I also note that they're not following DfE current rules i.e. no appointment date, term of office, register of interests, meetings attended for last year. All very well having fancy biogs but the basics aren't there. they're also missing information about how pupil premium and sports premium gets spent.

I take that back - the PP spend is there under Parents - not very detailed though.

http://mcsbrent.co.uk/governors/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:13 pm

Good point.

I assume you're not taking this article too seriously?

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:16 pm

seeingclearly wrote:Toby, glad to see you here, best wishes for the antibioitic stuff, watched a friend go through very similar with multiple resistant infections. The NHS were amazing, though hospitals and treatments can be exhausting and irksome they are there, people are so cavalier in not appreciating what we actually have, our system may not be perfect but it is there and it is ours for when we need it, just wish it was not being starved out of existence. Keep getting better, hope the infections resolve and you are able to be more comfortable than you've been. Hope you are getting the care you need, too.

Thanks for the wishes x,

The irony is that my multiple infections are treatable, it's my flat refusal to take antibiotics that costs me in other ways. Pressure sores are difficult to shift once they take hold though, and not always avoidable regardless of how much care we take to do so. I know a disabled lad round the corner from me who has had one for ten years that won't budge.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:19 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... o-leave-eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

About Northern Ireland and the EU Referendum.

Theresa Villiers seems to have made a fool of herself by supporting Brexit.

This bit jumped out.

One of the major factors in holding the DUP back from supporting an exit from the EU is the politically influential Protestant farming community, which has done relatively well out of European agricultural subsidies.

Not sure of the specifics but farmers tend to do pretty well everywhere. Perhaps they don't fancy being dependent on a load of parish pump clown Northern Irish politicians for their livelihood.