Monday 25th July 2016

Post by **refitman** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 7:11 am

Morning all.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 7:42 am

Good morfternoon.

The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said: “If Philip Green won’t do the right thing by the members of the BHS pension fund then he should have his knighthood removed. And if he says he can’t afford it then he should sell up his extra yacht.” (Guardian)

Just what I was thinking.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ing-report

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 7:46 am

I thought this very interesting. By an historian of the Labour party (and a confirmed socialist). Ignore the heading, it isn't really about Corbyn personally or the current battles

https://historyonthedole.wordpress.com/ ... te-labour/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 8:05 am

Thanks, that was an interesting read. Calm, reasoned, more of that needed to do what Corbyn has called for, a lowering of the political temperature.

From a quote in the article by Keir Hardie: ''If Labour candidates are not elected the fault will not be of your employers, not of the well-to-do people, but ''your fault alone and yours exclusively''.

If Hardie were around to say that today there'd be a hate fest of social media posts and tweets raging about his 'victim blaming'. That's what makes it all so difficult today.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 8:11 am

A report from the Trussell Trust in Wales, says 31% of parents will skip a meal during the summer holiday to make sure their children eat.

They are launching holiday clubs to help families.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... y-11657307" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 8:25 am

Morning all

I too found that an interesting read and I I cannot disagree with much

The problem, though, looking back at historical similes is the context that it was written in can be different even if the overall picture looks similar (and I think the author actually understands this)

The problem I have is that Corbyn is not, or ever was, an ideal leader.....he came to leadership on the back of the pendulum shifting too far to the right in the perception of a lot of the members.

I am sure if there had been a credible left winger to stand against him then he could have won. A Miliband with a little bit more confidence and stubbornness if you will.

The current situation, as I have always maintained, is due to a rejection of the neoliberal economic model that has really only succeeded in undermining the economic, environmental and social health of the country.

There are some in the PLP who do not meet my definition of socialist in any way I would describe, and neither does Blair now...the idea that they should continue to lead the party in a 'slightly more social conscious than the Tories' is one I reject fully

The current coup and all its ramifications, also led to the membership feeling betrayed.....a more intelligent way to manage the future of Labour and transition to the next leadership could have left us in a stronger position. The fault for this lies on both sides but the argument in favour of the PLP is massively undermined by the behaviour of the PLP since 2010

So, as I will repeat again for the hundredth time.

Labour had to move back to the left after 2015.....it tried a bit under Miliband but he was undermined by his own PLP.
The only candidate who was going to do this in 2015 was Corbyn. The other candidates were oblivious
The attempted coup has removed any chance of a compromise in the short term
Corbyn is not at all my preferred type of leader, but there is no-one else out there at the moment. Smith is too green

The fault for all this, if we are looking to blame, goes back again to Blair and his post-Iraq desire to move to the right incessantly...allowing the Tories to continue. A mid 1990s Blair would do again!

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 8:29 am

This, I thought, was an interesting article. You can substitute almost any grouping of people affected by austerity policies for "disabled people". (I just about managed to cope with the free "reign" at the end.)

It's in a sort of similar vein to SpinningHugo's link.

Why Jeremy Corbyn’s support for disabled people is not enough Frances Ryan (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... not-enough

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 8:29 am

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

Martin Rowson, excellent as usual.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 8:32 am

Ok. I put my hands up. I added a space to my last post.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 8:39 am

PorFavor wrote:Ok. I put my hands up. I added a space to my last post.

I've said it before and I shall no doubt say it again:

tsk

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 8:40 am

Just to note that if this is a "holiday" I shan't be having another in a hurry.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 8:42 am

Bad weather ? Poor company ? Accomodation poor ? Scarcity of Noilly Prat ?

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 8:47 am

Family
Dynamics
(other people's)
plus
Personality
(own)

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 8:55 am

None of those coming out with 'Corbyn will be accused of killing kittens or eating babies next' stuff address Ryan's comments in paragraph nine. [Can't cut and paste it here with Windows 10].

Jess the Crip doesn't seem to have registered what Ryan wrote. It isn't about his lack of concern or support, but the need to be in a position to be able to actually change things.

All another version of Rowson's Punch & Judy.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 8:56 am

Not that it is my problem any more. Thank goodness.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 9:02 am

yahyah wrote:None of those coming out with 'Corbyn will be accused of killing kittens or eating babies next' stuff address Ryan's comments in paragraph nine. [Can't cut and paste it here with Windows 10].

Jess the Crip doesn't seem to have registered what Ryan wrote. It isn't about his lack of concern or support, but the need to be in a position to be able to actually change things.

All another version of Rowson's Punch & Judy.

And here is - for your delight and delectation - paragraph nine:

The truth is, it is not enough to speak of being anti-austerity or to ignite passion in thousands of party members. The real job is to communicate ideas to a wider electorate. Similarly, it is not sufficient to care about the people suffering through Conservative policy. Ultimately, the only thing that will actually help them is leading the party to government and reversing the inhumane cuts. (Guardian)

frog222 · Post by **frog222** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 9:15 am

Smith was particularly critical of Corbyn’s performances at shadow cabinet meetings. Asked if she was impressed by him, she said: “No. I wanted to be, I would have liked to be, but I wasn’t. And I wasn’t alone. He was good at giving people their say, but I wanted to see more engagement in the debate. He listened politely but the role of leadership is to bring those strands together.”

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

Yet another Red Tory, for some people ?

From Hugo's link at 6.46 --

And, you know, the Labour Left works best when it is able to be the conscience of the movement, able not to compromise its firm beliefs in peace, social justice, public ownership, and all those other things that make the Left such a vital element in politics.

But the bitter truth is it can’t do that from the leader’s office.

Nobody has said that JC isn't a caring MP, etc, but that is not enough .

A good day to all

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 10:15 am

yahyah wrote:Not that it is my problem any more. Thank goodness.

It is, though.

I understand how you are feeling, but what is currently going on in politics will affect us all.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 10:22 am

All of this is leading us back to the age-old question. If you wish to effect permanent, positive change, it is necessary to attain a position where one can effect change. In a world where the pursuit of power is controlled by those who do not wish to see their advantages taken away, how much of that change are you prepared to sacrifice in order to reach the point at which you can effect it?

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 10:28 am

We warned Brexit would have consequences’ – Calais politician as Brits queue for TWO DAYS
Xavier Bertrand, president of the Calais area regional council, condemned the queues as “unacceptable” but said they underlined how Brexit would have “consequences”.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/692847 ... ues-delays" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Motorists spent up to 15 hours at a standstill on the M20, forcing police and a Sikh humanitarian relief organisation to deliver emergency water supplies in the sweltering heat.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 10:45 am

Good posts by Robert S this morning. *tips hat*

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 10:52 am

mbc1955 wrote:All of this is leading us back to the age-old question. If you wish to effect permanent, positive change, it is necessary to attain a position where one can effect change. In a world where the pursuit of power is controlled by those who do not wish to see their advantages taken away, how much of that change are you prepared to sacrifice in order to reach the point at which you can effect it?

A good question, and maybe part of the problem is that neither "side" in the current Labour debate has it quite right?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 11:02 am

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said: “If Philip Green won’t do the right thing by the members of the BHS pension fund then he should have his knighthood removed. And if he says he can’t afford it then he should sell up his extra yacht.” (Guardian)
Just what I was thinking.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ing-report

It's all in his wife's name. And she's registered abroad. The knighthood is under review I believe.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 11:03 am

I suppose one of the differences between me and some of the more radical members of the left is that I am a bit more optimistic about what can and needs to be done. I don't think the world is going to hell in a handcart, and so the entire system doesn't need destroying. Indeed I am very doubtful about whether radical steps (equivalent to Brexit) would be anything other than destructive. To that extent I am conservative (NB size of c).

I see parallels between left and right here. So, there is a good piece today in the NYT by Krugman on the false perception that crime is on the increase (exactly the same story could be told about the UK)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/opini ... d=tw-share" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Insofar as economic reforms are concerned, what needs to be done when interest rates are stuck at zero (as in the UK) is use fiscal policy to raise activity, through investment spending. The easiest and best way to deal with inequality is to use tax and spend: as Brown did.

Now my perspective is of course shaped by the fact that I don't have to worry about food, nor am I living on benefits. One of the maddening facts about the Tory cuts to benefits is how small the sums of money involved are in the overall scheme of things. It is small beer. Cruel, basically.

Those who want radical solutions are not just making the Best the enemy of the Good.

They are making the unachievable Best the enemy of the achievable Good.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 11:09 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
mbc1955 wrote:All of this is leading us back to the age-old question. If you wish to effect permanent, positive change, it is necessary to attain a position where one can effect change. In a world where the pursuit of power is controlled by those who do not wish to see their advantages taken away, how much of that change are you prepared to sacrifice in order to reach the point at which you can effect it?
A good question, and maybe part of the problem is that neither "side" in the current Labour debate has it quite right?

I'd agree there. A lot of the problem is the set-up, which has been gamed for centuries in favour of those already on top. If your politics are a matter of principle, every manner of interference will ensure you are not allowed to come close to changing that situation. You are only allowed to take the reins of power if you can demonstrate a complete disinterest in changing things in any more than the most superficial degree. The post-War impulse towards a genuine re-balancing has been allowed to run its course and is now being rolled back. Time always tells and it is inertia and entropy that prevail.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 11:17 am

bloody bus wifi

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 11:26 am

RobertSnozers wrote:Finally this morning, the point that 'Labour has to be in power to reverse the inhuman cuts'...

Straw man. Of course Labour has to be in power. It won't be if it has the wrong leader, granted. It also won't be if it MPs spend more time attacking the leadership than the government. The notion that changing a leader who hasn't been the disaster many predicted will automatically lead to electoral success is as pie-in-the-sky as the idea that deposing Saddam Hussein would magically lead to Western-style democracy blooming in Iraq.

And what happens in Labour gets into power, accepting the neoliberal consensus and just starts a new wave of mechanisms that make it easier for the Tories to complete their own work? And once again failing to challenge the basic unfairness at the heart of neoliberal economics which leads to victimisation of the working poor, the unemployed, the long term sick, people with disabilities etc? I do not want to see another Labour government that enables that kind of thinking.

There's a struggle at the heart of Labour at the moment. Both sides may have the best intentions, but I firmly believe the PLP/Smith/Progress side of it is wrong. I also don't happen to accept the argument that Corbyn= not in power/ any other leader = in power.

I think it's a strong point about "electability". That argument was used against Ed and was clearly nonsense, at least in as much as he was clearly "electable" enough to attract 9m votes. I stopped supporting Corbyn because of political direction after the referendum and statements from him and McDonnell which make me feel they would not make the right choices on the economy. They blurt things out, without thinking things through, McDonnell especially spends his whole time backtracking on pretty basic stuff. The loss of support from the economics experts is key to my losing faith, plus the fact so many MP's have clearly had enough. I still feel the "Blairite plotters", for want of a better description, would not have swayed so many MPs if they were happy with general policy. I was never impressed by Corbyn, couldn't warm to him, but while Labour were on the right track under him, I was willing to give him a go, albeit with huge reservations. I don't think Labour are on the right track anymore. I think Corbyn and McDonnell are misinterpreting the "leave" vote to suit their own agenda. I don't mean maliciously, I just think they are mistaken in some of their assumptions and as a result are taking Labour down a blind alley. I could well be wrong, it's just my opinion, but I can only act on my instincts like everyone else.

I can respect that other people think Corbyn is mostly right and will support him and I hope others will respect that I think Corbyn is wrong on some basic points and as such I can't. Owen Smith has made a good pitch to those who are pro-EU like myself with the idea of a referendum on the proposed shape of Brexit. This was an approach suggested by Jolyon Maugham and I think it a good approach for Labour to rally round and lobby the government for. It offers me hope in the face of Brexit and something positive and specific to vote for. As always the focus of the press is to undermine the whole of Labour, not just Corbyn, and Corbyn supporters becoming ever more hostile to non-Corbyn supporters and vice versa is exactly what our right wing media want and I for one refuse to play along.

fedup59 · Post by **fedup59** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 11:40 am

Morning all

Just a couple of points I'd like to make that I think are important in the broader debate about what kind of politics we might be seeking at the moment. While unfortunately it seems to be locked into the current personality focus that the world would have us believe is the only factor that matters.

The first links directly with that and is about leadership. The nature of leadership is constantly researched and explained in terms of the alpha male (although gender blind that seems to cover the concept) striding the world like a colossus with minions rushing to do their bidding. These super people somehow know all the levers to push, fill us all with the desire to take their dream forward, marry your and mine disparate beliefs in their visionary focus on our collective good/profit/management and without them we would be nothing.

Apart from the fact that it belittles my beliefs, denies my agency and ignores my intelligence as any part of a collective commitment to achieve what I would argue are shared aims, it's drivel. The proof of its efficacy (lovely word that) is based on research paid for by leaders, effectiveness gauged by fellow leaders, in terms of stratospheric pay inequalities and culturally embedded through layers of leadership training, networking and PR established to reinforce its role. Seems to me that, historically, the stronger this model is culturally embedded the more frightening the consequences have been.

In democratic terms that seems to indicate that we need a stronger model than consensus to develop alternative strategies to challenge the apparent ever diminishing returns of political engagement on offer.

This sort of links to the second point I want to make. It's back to some of the tensions inherent in the Labour party throughout its existence. Organised struggle to achieve power to improve the lot of members, (party, union,) voters and their wider electorate along the lines of Labour party beliefs and values, within the existing system has always been a driving force. For all that I found unacceptable in New Labour I actually do think the intent was there, even when I disagreed with some of the solutions. But if the early history of Labour tells us anything it is that to achieve fundamental change that challenges the system (workers' rights, economic justice and social rights for instance) structural analysis, linked to political action and focused on change has to be part of the way the current inhumane political decisions are challenged.

To me that says that consensus can only take us so far. What's need is an accommodation, acknowledging the tensions but working with them rather than stifling them. I actually think Ed M tried to do this in steering policy developments, but found the lack of interest/belief or commitment from those who believed that New Labour had all the solutions meant there was no space to develop challenge or changes that shifted the PLP and acknowledged the world had moved on and the economic system had tilted. That still seems to be the main problem.

A leadership contest seems an awfully narrow way to deal with such fundamental challenges but as someone who would like to see a Labour party true to what I think are its roots I'd really like the next 8 weeks to at least get away from his leadership biceps are bigger than his.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 11:59 am

I do think that Smith's present political positioning is largely genuine (it was when he was claiming to be a good Blairite a decade ago that he was faking it somewhat) What really convinces me there is that he was clearly starting to position himself on the left in the *last* parliament, compare that with supreme opportunist Chuka for instance.

The point about whether he really accepts the structure of the party needs to change is a salient one, I agree. He needs to be pressed on that in the coming weeks.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 12:01 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:I suppose one of the differences between me and some of the more radical members of the left is that I am a bit more optimistic about what can and needs to be done. I don't think the world is going to hell in a handcart, and so the entire system doesn't need destroying. Indeed I am very doubtful about whether radical steps (equivalent to Brexit) would be anything other than destructive. To that extent I am conservative (NB size of c).

I see parallels between left and right here. So, there is a good piece today in the NYT by Krugman on the false perception that crime is on the increase (exactly the same story could be told about the UK)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/opini ... d=tw-share" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Insofar as economic reforms are concerned, what needs to be done when interest rates are stuck at zero (as in the UK) is use fiscal policy to raise activity, through investment spending. The easiest and best way to deal with inequality is to use tax and spend: as Brown did.

Now my perspective is of course shaped by the fact that I don't have to worry about food, nor am I living on benefits. One of the maddening facts about the Tory cuts to benefits is how small the sums of money involved are in the overall scheme of things. It is small beer. Cruel, basically.

Those who want radical solutions are not just making the Best the enemy of the Good.

They are making the unachievable Best the enemy of the achievable Good.

Which sort of echoes my point that whilst your logic is flawless, your starting premise is false.

The world really is going to hell inn a handcart, and our species faces an existential threat, the economic system that you don't think needs to be "destroyed" will destroy us unless it is fundementally changed.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 12:06 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
yahyah wrote:None of those coming out with 'Corbyn will be accused of killing kittens or eating babies next' stuff address Ryan's comments in paragraph nine. [Can't cut and paste it here with Windows 10].

Jess the Crip doesn't seem to have registered what Ryan wrote. It isn't about his lack of concern or support, but the need to be in a position to be able to actually change things.

All another version of Rowson's Punch & Judy.
That's hardly fair. Her article was a bit of a mess of points that didn't really hang together. She claims he wasn't that interested, admits that he is, then says none of it matters anyway if Labour isn't in power.

Someone makes a point. Someone responds to that point, challenging it with evidence. That isn't punch and judy, that's debate. I'm getting a little tired of being treated like I'm attacking people just for challenging the content of their posts.

yahyah's post is fair.

Ryan acknowledges the excellence of Corbyn's work in her article, Labour can do nothing other than provide defensive measures in opposition.
Labour is unable to reverse Tory laws or enact Labour policy while not in government. The comment below the line doesn't acknowledge Ryan's
content above it.

Belittling the Labour MP challenging Corbyn's leadership and blanket condemnation and accusations of dishonourable conduct of Labour MPs
doesn't strengthen people, country, Labour party, Labour members, supporters, affiliates or Corbyn's leadership. It's also not debate.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... not-enough
https://discussion.theguardian.com/comm ... k/79805672

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 12:16 pm

Temulkar wrote:
The world really is going to hell inn a handcart, and our species faces an existential threat, the economic system that you don't think needs to be "destroyed" will destroy us unless it is fundementally changed.

Well, in a way I agree about climate change. That does pose an existential threat. Again however, I think we now have the economic tools and understanding to tackle it: what is lacking is political will. I am not a supporter of the Green Party however. (I could explain why not if you like).

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 12:21 pm

Chocolate roll supply has been replenished!
Please help yourselves.
Good-afternoon.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 12:22 pm

citizenJA wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
yahyah wrote:None of those coming out with 'Corbyn will be accused of killing kittens or eating babies next' stuff address Ryan's comments in paragraph nine. [Can't cut and paste it here with Windows 10].

Jess the Crip doesn't seem to have registered what Ryan wrote. It isn't about his lack of concern or support, but the need to be in a position to be able to actually change things.

All another version of Rowson's Punch & Judy.
That's hardly fair. Her article was a bit of a mess of points that didn't really hang together. She claims he wasn't that interested, admits that he is, then says none of it matters anyway if Labour isn't in power.

Someone makes a point. Someone responds to that point, challenging it with evidence. That isn't punch and judy, that's debate. I'm getting a little tired of being treated like I'm attacking people just for challenging the content of their posts.
yahyah's post is fair.

Ryan acknowledges the excellence of Corbyn's work in her article, Labour can do nothing other than provide defensive measures in opposition.
Labour is unable to reverse Tory laws or enact Labour policy while not in government. The comment below the line doesn't acknowledge Ryan's
content above it.

Belittling the Labour MP challenging Corbyn's leadership and blanket condemnation and accusations of dishonourable conduct of Labour MPs
doesn't strengthen people, country, Labour party, Labour members, supporters, affiliates or Corbyn's leadership. It's also not debate.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... not-enough
https://discussion.theguardian.com/comm ... k/79805672

Well said JA, not the bit about my post but what you say.

Also, Rob S, my comment was not aimed at you, so cannot understand your crossness in response to me. I used Punch & Judy because of the Rowson cartoon, and because most of the posts below Ryan's article were Punch and Judyesque. My mention of people saying Corbyn will be accused of killing kittens next did not refer to anyone here, but an actual comment, and similar ones, under Ryan's article. If that was not clear I apologise, but would ask that we try at least to act in the spirit that Angry as Well suggested. Don't presume malice or that is about 'you' [generically, not referring to Rob], it may not be.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 12:23 pm

MPs and peers demand review of Prevent duty
http://schoolsweek.co.uk/mps-and-peers- ... ign=buffer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 12:27 pm

@yahyah
Copy & paste in Edge (Win10 browser) is an acknowledge problem, I now use Chrome and the problem is resolved.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 12:31 pm

I use Chrome and it still doesn't work. Will have another bash at trying to sort it.
Have got used to this new laptop now so am less nervous about tinkering.
It will cut and paste url addresses.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 12:37 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:MPs and peers demand review of Prevent duty
http://schoolsweek.co.uk/mps-and-peers- ... ign=buffer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Standard "We need to do something. This is something. Therefore we must do this" kneejerk approach to policy-making.

Was there a problem? Yes, of course but nowhere near what the media made it out to be. There's a far bigger problem with unregistered schools!

I've been MIA this morning - thought it time to have a go at school paperwork - my annual "Do I need to keep this? No, into recycling then..."

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 12:40 pm

Not trying to put any pressure on you Rog, but will you have time over the summer to put together your ideas on Fascism & its rise ?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 12:45 pm

yahyah wrote:Not trying to put any pressure on you Rog, but will you have time over the summer to put together your ideas on Fascism & its rise ?

I'd forgotten about that! I'll see if I can find time in amongst preparing for the viva - less than a month to go.

Quite fancied doing something on free speech too - a lot of silly whining about some shouty nonentity being banned from twitter last week - "end of free speech as we know it" from the usual suspects. No, it really isn't...

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 12:46 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
yahyah wrote:Not trying to put any pressure on you Rog, but will you have time over the summer to put together your ideas on Fascism & its rise ?
I'd forgotten about that! I'll see if I can find time in amongst preparing for the viva - less than a month to go.

Quite fancied doing something on free speech too - a lot of silly whining about some shouty nonentity being banned from twitter last week - "end of free speech as we know it" from the usual suspects. No, it really isn't...

Too many now seem to think "free speech" means that you *should* be able to shout "FIRE!!" in a crowded theatre......

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 12:48 pm

Oh dear, oh dear. This is so far below the belt it is dragging along the floor.
My 'a pox on both their houses' seems a good position to have taken.

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/07/2 ... rpetrator/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 12:50 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said: “If Philip Green won’t do the right thing by the members of the BHS pension fund then he should have his knighthood removed. And if he says he can’t afford it then he should sell up his extra yacht.” (Guardian)
Just what I was thinking.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ing-report
It's all in his wife's name. And she's registered abroad. The knighthood is under review I believe.

It appalls me that the only leverage on the Greens to do the right thing on the BHS pension scheme is the removal of his knighthood.

The top companies in the UK have been tearing up their obligations to their workforce pension schemes since the mid eighties. First contribution holidays when the stock market was booming, then discovering that there was nothing to stop them just winding the final salary schemes up and moving to defined contributions. Tory and Labour governments alike looking on and praising the UK's flourishing private sector.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 12:54 pm

yahyah wrote:Oh dear, oh dear. This is so far below the belt it is dragging along the floor.
My 'a pox on both their houses' seems a good position to have taken.

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/07/2 ... rpetrator/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I saw this earlier but hesitated to post it.
Pretty despicable, it reflects more on the on going dispute between Sivier & Owen Smith (about the disabled lady) than facts, and has diminished Mike Sivier greatly in my eye's.
Utter gutter trollop - and nasty with it.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 12:55 pm

The political editor of Buzz Feed asks 'How the hell have we got to the point where someone could write and then publish something like this' about the Sivier piece.

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 1:00 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
yahyah wrote:Oh dear, oh dear. This is so far below the belt it is dragging along the floor.
My 'a pox on both their houses' seems a good position to have taken.

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/07/2 ... rpetrator/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I saw this earlier but hesitated to post it.
Pretty despicable, it reflects more on the on going dispute between Sivier & Owen Smith (about the disabled lady) than facts, and has diminished Mike Sivier greatly in my eye's.
Utter gutter trollop - and nasty with it.

I thought the same, the risk of repeating the smear, but it just shows how silly this whole thing has become. Any of us who have been on a course, or received counselling/therapy could describe anyone via an interpretation like that.

As for the woman who didn't want to identify herself for suggesting such rubbish, she ought to be ashamed of herself. As for Sivier, and his weak defence of publishing the rubbish.
Will not comment on what I think of him because I don't want to break the spirit of Corbyn's 'no personal abuse' I'm trying to follow.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 1:03 pm

Does he call himself a journalist ?

I read it to my husband, he said he felt soiled just listening to it.
That some one had been through the whole process of writing it and still thought fit to publish.

Let's just say it isn't helping Corbyn, is it ? So it is counterproductive.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 1:28 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
The world really is going to hell inn a handcart, and our species faces an existential threat, the economic system that you don't think needs to be "destroyed" will destroy us unless it is fundementally changed.

Well, in a way I agree about climate change. That does pose an existential threat. Again however, I think we now have the economic tools and understanding to tackle it: what is lacking is political will. I am not a supporter of the Green Party however. (I could explain why not if you like).

Yes that's called cognitve dissonance, you display it a lot. We most certainly do not have the economic tools to tackle it. The economic system is predicated on growth. In a world of finite resources there cannot be infinite growth. In the end it is the resource system that will collapse, and given that it has happened to every advanced civilisation in our planets history, the lesson is very very clear. We either change the system radically and quickly or we go the way of the Mayans as a society and possibly the way of the dodo as a species.

Have you ever read Priscus? It is illuminating how it shows the refusal of the Roman establishment to either understand the existential threat to their society, nor take the measures needed to save it - even though there were Cassandras like me wandering around in the 5th century.

History is not a march of progress - it is Marx's fundemental mistake - regression can and does happen, and that is what we face now. A new dark age, where experts are scorned, and society collapses.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 1:30 pm

Part of the problem is only having two candidates. It never should have happened in the way it has.
Was always going to cause huge ructions.

Am going to find solace in some craft work.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 25 Jul, 2016 1:33 pm

Rule [1] Never believe what a politician says.

Rule [2] Always obey rule one.