Monday 11th July 2016

Post by **refitman** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 7:10 am

Morning all.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 7:51 am

Good morning.

Sorry to lower the tone but with all this talk of motherhood, what does Andrea think of blooding the little darlings?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 7:51 am

Morning all

Just ventured acroso to UKPR - don't go there uch as find some of the posters pretty offensive and the moderation is very heavy and biased....some contributors are okay though

One poster has just made an interesting point about post-war politics

She said that the reason most modern Tories dislike Heath was that he was the last Tory who still believed in the post-war consensus. She made the comment that Atlee's influence lasted throughout that period although politically he was long gone

She also said that Thatcher was still fulfilling that position up to now....not personally but her political philosophy still has a guiding hand on what we have now

The main point she made (as a Labour member) was that the disappointing thing about the Blair Government was that actually he did nothing to change that....in the end he carried on the Thatcher philosophy (albeit less extreme as the Tories) and left no lasting Labour legacy

Before I get jumped on I think it is only fair to say that Blair did a lot of things, especially early on, that we would agree were very important in looking to distribute wealth etc but he never really challenged the 'private good, public bad' or the balnce of the economy away from production to services. What remains of the Blair legacy...EU membership, liberal intervention etc

I think this is an interesting view as it does, in simple terms, articulate some of the frustration I have with Labour and why someone like Corbyn has some appeal. I do not believe a Corbyn Prime Ministerial term would leave things unchanged and could banish Thatcher to where she belongs

The question is...who else can give me the confidence they will do that...and not just end up being another disappointment like Blair ended up being?

As I said this may be too simplistic but there was something there tta got me thinking

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 8:21 am

Morning.

At the risk of inciting Neil Hamilton's threat of 'armed revolution', if any Remain supporters have spare cash, there's a chance to crowd fund legal action against Brexit.

http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/brexitjustice" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
They've got £12,000 of the £100,000 they need to take legal action against VoteLeave Ltd for lying, and to fund a legal challenge to Brexit.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 8:27 am

What time is The Great Announcement?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 8:31 am

The announcement ?
Or the pre-announcement ?
Or the announcment about the pre-announcement to announce there will be an announcement ?
Or the announcement to say the announcement will be delayed until Friday/when the sun shines/when the heavens are in alignment ?

Thankfully I'm out today, will be away from the circus.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 8:46 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:What time is The Great Announcement?

Here's the latest update I can find

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 8:47 am

On the train so bit of time to think.....

If the Brexit A50 invocation went to Parliament, I expect is is perfectly reasonable for an MP to vote in accordance with their particular area....London MPs could then vote against as they are representing the will of their own electors

I suppose MPs could also take it on their own head to vote the other way....one of my least favourite Labour MPs, Stephen Kinnock, could go to his constituency and argue that to the voters that the EU has given so much to South Wales, that it otherwise would not have received, and that the problemswith Tata Steel lie in UK GIvernment policy. He could then explain to them that he is going to vote against their refrendum decision and go for Remain

I know that not all seats can easily be divided like that but would that give an opportunity for Remain to avoid Exit, and maintaining the respect for the referendum

It cannot just be done by MPs voting, to be that is not respecting the referendum, there has to be the legwork and courage to go into the constituencies and explain why.....if those MPs are reelected then it vindicates them

A lot of those having to go and have that discussion would be Tories in the South East as well....and LD....it is not just Labour

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 8:50 am

yahyah

Just seen your post on CiF..meeeoooowwwww!

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 8:57 am

It's true though. I'm May's age and have a lot less wrinkles than either. Leadsom looks far older than 53.
I'm starting to think Leadsom is a Grayson Perry alter ego. Have they been seen in the same room ?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 8:59 am

Me again!

Don't worry I am at work later.....

I have been reading a lot about how importnat it is for Labour to win!

I understand this sentiment and getting rid of the Tories is very important. To me though it is also important 'how' we win

If we have a right-wing Labour Government that just tries to mitigate the Tory poliicies rather than challenge or reverse them, then we are in danger surely of just stabilising the direction of travel, or even tacking slowly to the right which then gives momentum behind a more vicious turn to the right by an incoming Tory Government (which will happen at some point)

If we look at what bthe Tories have done since 2010, it is essentially just carry on policies (academies, NHS market etc) that Blair started or just carried on from the Thatcher/Major days

To make a difference we cannot just carry on with this acceptance of the prevailing wind pushing us continually towards the US

I want to see a Government that stops these programs and tries to turn the ship back to the left

So to me winning is importnat but it has to be more than winning....again who can win (if Corbyn can't - a view I do not wholly subscribbe to) but take on this challenge?

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 9:00 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:Morning all

Just ventured acroso to UKPR - don't go there uch as find some of the posters pretty offensive and the moderation is very heavy and biased....some contributors are okay though

One poster has just made an interesting point about post-war politics

She said that the reason most modern Tories dislike Heath was that he was the last Tory who still believed in the post-war consensus. She made the comment that Atlee's influence lasted throughout that period although politically he was long gone

She also said that Thatcher was still fulfilling that position up to now....not personally but her political philosophy still has a guiding hand on what we have now

The main point she made (as a Labour member) was that the disappointing thing about the Blair Government was that actually he did nothing to change that....in the end he carried on the Thatcher philosophy (albeit less extreme as the Tories) and left no lasting Labour legacy

Before I get jumped on I think it is only fair to say that Blair did a lot of things, especially early on, that we would agree were very important in looking to distribute wealth etc but he never really challenged the 'private good, public bad' or the balnce of the economy away from production to services. What remains of the Blair legacy...EU membership, liberal intervention etc

I think this is an interesting view as it does, in simple terms, articulate some of the frustration I have with Labour and why someone like Corbyn has some appeal. I do not believe a Corbyn Prime Ministerial term would leave things unchanged and could banish Thatcher to where she belongs

The question is...who else can give me the confidence they will do that...and not just end up being another disappointment like Blair ended up being?

As I said this may be too simplistic but there was something there tta got me thinking

Thanks for this post howsilly

I'm sure there is something in this. I tend to think like this a lot.

There are clearly things that happen in society, we could call them fashions or movements, where change occurs in ways that it's almost impossible to understand at the time. Think of Hobsbawm's writings on the 19th century and his reflection about how hard it was for him to treat the 20th in the same way.

My instincts are, like yours, that something fundamental is shifting in the world. Probably, with hindsight, a future Hobsbawm will write about the fading US empire and the rise of the southern hemisphere. This is why I get frustrated with the current discourses. It may very well be true that Corbyn is not the best Labour leader, but surely even Blairy McBlairite can see that he's tapping into a groundswell of thought about a different kind of world. As on the right are the likes of Farage and Leadsom.

You are surely correct that the neoliberal establishment is struggling to hold. Anyone who claims to know what comes next is, as I've said before, IMO simply deluded.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 9:13 am

The sort of silly thing (not silly for her) that might finally provoke change in the UK would be the Queen dying.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 9:55 am

Loathesome Leadsome has published her tax returns!!!!!!

Except she hasn't. She has published a summary prepared by her accountants.

So she earned £76,597 in 2014/15 from her employment, says the summary.
The basic MP salary in 2014/15 was £67,060. But she was a minister at the time, so her salary was £89,740.

Actually, I don't really care about her tax any more than I cared about Dave's - what I do care about is how easily the lies trip off their poisonous tongues and how easily some people fall for them if those lies are listed on a piece of paper by professionals paid to writ what they're told.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 9:58 am

http://jackofkent.com/2016/07/how-corby ... ouldnt-be/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How Corbyn could be left off the ballot – and why he shouldn’t be.

I posted this last night, but thought it worth posting again because this guy genuinely knows his stuff. I tried to warn yesterday the rules about a leadership challenge aren't clear and got shouted down because people thought it obvious Corbyn should be on the ballot. If it helps, this guy thinks Corbyn should be on the ballot regardless, but it's worth reading to understand why the decision is completely in the hands of the NEC. New members can help shape a new NEC and new rules in due course, but I got frustrated yesterday because many here seemed to be arguing that those who have just joined should immediately get to overrule those already in charge just because there are more of them. I'm not sure I agree with his assumption that putting Corbyn on the ballot is some kind of solution, as it simply sets us off on a circle that leads straight back to the impasse we started from, but I guess that's what will happen, what has to happen, which is why I see no way forward.

I know my arguments got erratic yesterday, as I was tired, and I'm still very upset about the referendum result and Corbyn's disappointing response to it, but I hope this link helps to better explain what I was trying to communicate about the lack of clarity in the rules.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 10:18 am

ephemerid wrote:Loathesome Leadsome has published her tax returns!!!!!!

Except she hasn't. She has published a summary prepared by her accountants.

So she earned £76,597 in 2014/15 from her employment, says the summary.
The basic MP salary in 2014/15 was £67,060. But she was a minister at the time, so her salary was £89,740.

Actually, I don't really care about her tax any more than I cared about Dave's - what I do care about is how easily the lies trip off their poisonous tongues and how easily some people fall for them if those lies are listed on a piece of paper by professionals paid to writ what they're told.

The difference is almost certainly a pension contribution which gets deducted before calculating tax.

Edit - morning all.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 10:24 am

Roger - yeah. You're right. I'm still sure that this is not a tax return, mind.....

)

Willow - JackOfKent is good, and he makes the case well; however, I'm still with the QC I quoted yesterday.

All - this is very good -
blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/welfare-reforms-are-based-on-the-wrong-assumptions-about-benefit-recipients-motivations-and-actions/

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 10:38 am

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolic ... d-actions/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

frog222 · Post by **frog222** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 10:41 am

Hindle - I was preparing that too !

Moien .

Like the first commenter on the lse article, i was just reading this one

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ts-officer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The secret life of a benefits officer: we are the human face of bad government decisions

We fall into two camps: those who want to help people keep a roof over their heads and those who seek to weed out fraudulent claimants

Says it all really, but the reasons for the punitive approach of DWP in particular are very clearly the result of government and management choices to apply all possible pressure, and cut payments .

frog222 · Post by **frog222** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 11:01 am

" Received wisdom dictates that benefit receipt is the outcome of making ‘wrong choices’. Welfare reforms have become increasingly punitive on the rationale that strong disincentives and coercion are required to prompt the ‘right choices’. "

Carrots work for senior management, but sticks only for the lower orders .

That's an old one, I know, but accurate ...

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 11:03 am

For anyone who's interested, an article I did for Deborah Swift about my book.

http://www.deborahswift.com/2016/07/11/ ... h-century/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 11:12 am

yahyah wrote:It's true though. I'm May's age and have a lot less wrinkles than either. Leadsom looks far older than 53.
I'm starting to think Leadsom is a Grayson Perry alter ego. Have they been seen in the same room ?

Leadsom reminds me of the late Teresa Gorman, another barmy Europhobe. She knocked ten years off her age (claiming to have been born in 1941 instead of 1931).

The first time I became aware of Leadsom's existence was listening to R4's Week at Westminster whilst doing some Sunday evening ironing. Leadsom was newly elected and going hammer and tongs about 'clearing up Labour's mess'. I think Liz Kendall was pitted against her and not getting a word in edge ways. I thought she sounded a terrible old bag. She's been trying to present a rather more emollient image since then, but the ranty version is the real her.

frog222 · Post by **frog222** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 11:20 am

Temulkar wrote:For anyone who's interested, an article I did for Deborah Swift about my book.

http://www.deborahswift.com/2016/07/11/ ... h-century/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rosemary Sutcliff strikes again ! I didn't know she'd written one on the Civil War .

More on the power of the written word another time, must go out .

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 11:22 am

On Twitter, people have been reminding Cameron of his claim in 2015 that voting for him and his government would guarantee stability, whereas voting for Ed M would have resulted in chaos - and asking him how that's working out.

Cameron was using the sound bite 'competence versus chaos' extensively during the GE campaign. At the time I thought the very opposite was true, but the utter chaos we're now in was worse than I could have imagined.

Never did anyone more deserve to get booed, as he did at Wimbledon yesterday. The worst PM in history. Lying scumbag.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 11:23 am

When looking in a mirror,I look relatively young as far as I can see,but in photos not;and close up as recent passport photos about 100 with bags under my eyes reaching chin level.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 11:25 am

nickyinnorfolk wrote:On Twitter, people have been reminding Cameron of his claim in 2015 that voting for him and his government would guarantee stability, whereas voting for Ed M would have resulted in chaos - and asking him how that's working out.

Cameron was using the sound bite 'competence versus chaos' extensively during the GE campaign. At the time I thought the very opposite was true, but the utter chaos we're now in was worse than I could have imagined.

Never did anyone more deserve to get booed, as he did at Wimbledon yesterday. The worst PM in history. Lying scumbag.

He's managed to seriously let down his natural supporters, let alone everyone else, which is really going some.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 11:30 am

frog222 wrote:
Temulkar wrote:For anyone who's interested, an article I did for Deborah Swift about my book.

http://www.deborahswift.com/2016/07/11/ ... h-century/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Rosemary Sutcliff strikes again ! I didn't know she'd written one on the Civil War .

More on the power of the written word another time, must go out .

Simon is a brilliant book, one of her best I think. I devoured her stuff as a kid, along with Henry Treece, Ronald Welch, Mary Renault and Geoffery Trease.

I didnt appreciated then just how much research had gone into what are essentially kids books.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 11:34 am

I apologise for being duped into saying what I did say by the devious method of the asking of questions.The answers of which were the exact opposite of what I actually gave.There is no robust evidence of a link between words spoken and the words heard and IDS agrees.

Sent by text

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 11:39 am

BBC reporting that Andrea Leadsom about to quit leadership race.

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 11:44 am

Willow904 wrote:BBC reporting that Andrea Leadsom about to quit leadership race.

Evil Edna wins ...

http://wtw.tarka.org/edna.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 11:48 am

She is due to "make a statement" at noon apparently.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 11:50 am

"Should Leadsom withdraw, appears "it is the duty" of 1922 Committee to find a second candidate to put to membership. "

Jo Maugham.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 11:57 am

HindleA wrote:When looking in a mirror,I look relatively young as far as I can see,but in photos not;and close up as recent passport photos about 100 with bags under my eyes reaching chin level.

That was the only benefit of having cataracts. When I looked in the mirror the face was airbrush smooth. It was like being in in my thirties. Now I don't look.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 11:57 am

Willow904 wrote:http://jackofkent.com/2016/07/how-corby ... ouldnt-be/
How Corbyn could be left off the ballot – and why he shouldn’t be.
I posted this last night, but thought it worth posting again because this guy genuinely knows his stuff. I tried to warn yesterday the rules about a leadership challenge aren't clear and got shouted down because people thought it obvious Corbyn should be on the ballot. If it helps, this guy thinks Corbyn should be on the ballot regardless, but it's worth reading to understand why the decision is completely in the hands of the NEC. New members can help shape a new NEC and new rules in due course, but I got frustrated yesterday because many here seemed to be arguing that those who have just joined should immediately get to overrule those already in charge just because there are more of them. I'm not sure I agree with his assumption that putting Corbyn on the ballot is some kind of solution, as it simply sets us off on a circle that leads straight back to the impasse we started from, but I guess that's what will happen, what has to happen, which is why I see no way forward.

I know my arguments got erratic yesterday, as I was tired, and I'm still very upset about the referendum result and Corbyn's disappointing response to it, but I hope this link helps to better explain what I was trying to communicate about the lack of clarity in the rules.

His argument is that Labour would be treated as a private club or association , but I'd have thought seeing as it is the official opposition and the leader has an official paid position in government, there should be more too it than that.

It might not be relevant, but found this on wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_ ... d_Kingdom)

The 1937 Act also contains an important provision to decide who is the Leader of the Opposition, if this is in doubt. Under section 10(3) "If any doubt arises as to which is or was at any material time the party in opposition to His Majesty's Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons, or as to who is or was at any material time the leader in that House of such a party the question shall be decided for the purposes of this Act by the Speaker of the House of Commons, and his decision, certified in writing under his hand, shall be final and conclusive".

Could the situation arise whereby leadership of Labour was disputed and the Speaker chose who should be leader of opposition?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 12:03 pm

Yes, that has been speculated on.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 12:04 pm

Heard on the news that May has promised to put workers on the boards of major companies!

Oh my aching sides - the frothing right will go nuts at this. May in "Even worse than the EU."

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 12:04 pm

HindleA wrote:"Should Leadsom withdraw, appears "it is the duty" of 1922 Committee to find a second candidate to put to membership. "

Jo Maugham.

Return of Gove?

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 12:06 pm

HindleA wrote:"Should Leadsom withdraw, appears "it is the duty" of 1922 Committee to find a second candidate to put to membership. "

Jo Maugham.

Angela Eagle seems to be available

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 12:09 pm

Well, if it's a "coronation" of Theresa May all I can say to David Cameron is, "Pack and load!"

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 12:09 pm

Good morfternoon.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 12:10 pm

Oh dear, AE's long planned leadership launch overshadowed!

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 12:12 pm

Good-afternoon, everyone.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 12:13 pm

Poor old Iain Smith. Must be all gall and wormwood to him (unless, God help us, he's had a better offer).

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 12:13 pm

Sima Kotecha @sima_kotecha
Up to 1922 committee whether Gove brought back into contest or May becomes new PM after Leadsom quits race
12:07 PM - 11 Jul 2016

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 12:15 pm

I missed the Angela Eagle launch. Somewhat eclipsed by other events now, I feel.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 12:16 pm

Neil Perryman ‏@wifeinspace · 33m33 minutes ago

I bet she still puts PM on her fucking CV. #Leadsom

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 12:18 pm

PorFavor wrote:I missed the Angela Eagle launch. Somewhat eclipsed by other events now, I feel.

She was on Twitter saying she couldn't do it all on her own and needed everyone to join Labour to support her campaign.

Which is fine, but.....

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 12:18 pm

Willow904 wrote:
Sima Kotecha @sima_kotecha
Up to 1922 committee whether Gove brought back into contest or May becomes new PM after Leadsom quits race
12:07 PM - 11 Jul 2016

This is "getting our country back"...a committee effectively decides who the new PM is.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 12:19 pm

It was 17 new members just over a week ago at a small neighbouring Labour party branch.
The secretary has just posted:

New member update - 49!!! yes 49! new members to the Crowthorne, Sandhurst, Finchampstead, Wokingham Without Branch! That's in the last couple of weeks! Pretty amazing!

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 11 Jul, 2016 12:21 pm

ohsocynical wrote:It was 17 just over a week ago and a small neighbouring Labour party branch.
The secretary has just posted:

New member update - 49!!! yes 49! new members to the Crowthorne, Sandhurst, Finchampstead, Wokingham Without Branch! That's in the last couple of weeks! Pretty amazing!

Are you sure there hasn't been a sudden surge since this morning when Eagle put her call out?