Wednesday 3rd August 2016

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 7:02 am

Morning.

A distraction from the Labour party tearing itself apart, Welsh Ukip have a civil war of their own.
Five of their AMs want Nathan Gill to quit his seat at the Assembly.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/polit ... n-11695231" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the same paper, Owen Smith to speak today about increasing the living wage.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/polit ... n-11695231" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 7:51 am

Good morning to everyone

I hope the new day brings a more optimistic view of things

I have been reflecting again during a few days away and my musings are below:

There is no need for Labour to tear itself apart, although there is a fight for the future direction of the party which should be looked as an opportunity not a threat

Corbyn was voted in because the membership, including me, was fed up of a vocal minority of the PLP trying to drive us towards the Tories and, at the same time, undermining a potentially very good PM

The membership, and the country, needs a more socialist approach......the neoliberal approach is not adapted to our needs now, we could be in the midst of a situation similar to the post-war years

He has only been in office for a few months and has had not even had a conference to work through policies at

There has been an undermining of the leadership by certain members of the PLP since the start, including senior ones. The party hierarchy is acting in an appalling way

There is a question, a fair one, about Corbyn's leadership but I find this debate a bit unfocused.....what is considered a good 'leader'. I always make the comment that people who criticise Corbyn seem to indicate that Cameron was a good 'leader' but he is probably the most corrupt, venal, incompetent liar that I have seen in this position......whatever we end up debating - it is not 'leadership'

The timing of the leadership challenge, post referendum, was in my view pre-meditated and extremely damaging....all involved should be thrown out of the party. I don't mean those who resigned but those who instigated it.

There are certain members of the PLP who are using their contacts in the media to propagate dubious stories about the party's values that are playing into the hands of the Tories - anti-semitism being one that I find particularly unpleasant

We are where we are now. We have a leadership challnge, eventually, and I have nothing personal against Owen Smith. His policy direction suggests a movement towards a direction that appeals to me but there is a question of trust. Is he realyl of that mind? Is he acting as a front for others?

I think it was said yesterday that the question for me is whether I trust Smith to deliver on his policy framework and, to be honest, I am not convinced. Not convinced at all. That does not mean I am right and he should be given a fair hearing but I am skeptical that someone with his policy views would be acceptable to those who oppose Corbyn.

I think it is pretty certain Corbyn will win the election, without any further antidemocratic shenanigans from the NEC, and I hope he reaches out to those who are prepared to accept the result and work with them. Perhaps some changes in his personnel will help that. He has to work for the party now.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 7:58 am

Morning HowSilly

Just wondering what you mean by your last sentence ? Do you mean he hasn't been working for the party and needs to ?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 8:16 am

yahyah wrote:Morning HowSilly

Just wondering what you mean by your last sentence ? Do you mean he hasn't been working for the party and needs to ?

Hi yahyah

I didn't express it that well did I?

It is difficult to tell how Corbyn has worked with the party as a whole up to now. He has been under constant attack and it is difficult to know what is truth or untruth.

I think a worry I have about Corbyn he has been an outsider all his career - nothing wrong with that - but now he has to develop into an insider.

He did try to reach out and was rebuffed in the early days

If he wins again then that has put to bed an immediate challenge under current rules. A likely more left-wing NEC will not make a challenge to him any more likely either..

There needs to be some reaching out from all sides then - acceptance that Corbyn is the leader, acceptance that the membership (and possibly voters as well) want a more 'socialist' approach but also an understanding that there are differet views within the party that have to be worked with. Corbyn is not right on everything and he has to use those talents around the party to help him (luckily most would appear to be on the left as well) - jamie Reed would not appaear in that list!

The party needs to stop looking inward after this election and a robust team needs to start looking at policies that will counter the effects of the policies since 1979 that have left us in this situation. The PLP has to understand that there is a place for socialism in the current world - Atlee is the example - and not to just bend to the will of the media which wants something very right wing

There is a real opportunity for a strong centre-left (and I focus more on left) to help those who have missed out on globalization, and to help define our new place in the world after Brexit.

Is Corbyn the leader for that....well if he wins then he has to show he is and I will expect to see some robust principles, eventually backed up by policies, from him...and his extended team

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 8:35 am

Shame you aren't standing HS. Sensible post. Thanks for clarifying the sentence.

The thing that worries me is those who, not like yourself, or myself as I struggle with who to vote for, are supporting Corbyn in a gung ho way, who allow no room for doubt. That way lies trouble, in politics and religion, fundamentalism allows no doubt or grey areas. It also leads to the smears and silly photoshopped attacks that we hated when used against Corbyn, now being employed by those who hate Smith.

It would help if the Labour party issued stricter rules about what is allowable during times like this.
That might help, strong guidelines would stop the gap widening between the different groups as insults and silly photoshops are used to pour scorn on a potential Labour leader, be it Corbyn or Smith.

Whoever wins will have to lead Labour towards government, and as Stephen said yesterday both Corbyn and Smith have a role in helping that, and can offer good, and different, efforts.
That's always been the strength of Labour, being a broad church.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 8:43 am

Por Favor mentioned on the other thread about the wording of Smith's point about wanting equality of outcome, a shift from New Labour's equality of opportunity.

Just wondering if any of you bright folk have any thoughts/views/memory of the Blair years/Corbyn's position on that ? I've posted links to explanations of the definitions of the two ideas, but practical application via peer posts may give more life to the issue.

If the party is to survive compromise is necessary, finding common ground is one of the ways of stopping the self destructive anger and maliciousness, so it is useful to compare/contrast.

frog222 · Post by **frog222** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 9:10 am

yahyah 7.35

"It would help if the Labour party issued stricter rules about what is allowable during times like this.
That might help, strong guidelines would stop the gap widening between the different groups as insults and silly photoshops are used to pour scorn on a potential Labour leader, be it Corbyn or Smith."

I found some of the photoshops quite funny actually ! They make a point, then up to the reader to check out the truth ...

I'm afraid you can't legislate against stupidity and personality disorders . Ideally , an MP or other participant going over the top would be told to Shut Up by colleagues, in private .

But they're all(?) so devoted to instant public appearances on twitter that no-one sits down to do any thinking !

Nice to see the first few comments NOT being a foot long .

Makes reading back so much easier .

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 9:23 am

Hi Froggy. Is it you living under my pot of sweet peas ? Promise not to squash you, plenty of slugs around to snack on.

The type of photoshop I mean are the ones that make no meaningful point.

One, posted to sabotage Smith's thread yesterday had a pic of him and the caption ''I'm normal and I'm radical''
What ?
Do Corbyn zealots [we know they exist, like the hard core Nats & Kippers, so no complaints from anyone please] really think that it is impossible to be radical and normal ? Is it abnormal to be radical ?

Is that the sort of thing Corbyn, and Ian McNicol mean when they talk about playing it fair ?

I started out, when the chicken coup unfolded so badly, thinking I would likely vote for Corbyn again.
Having taken the time to actually check out some of Momentum's and Momentum supporters output on social media, and the way they are using what Peter Jukes referred to last night as 'Daily Mail' techniques to attack Smith, that has added to my being undecided.

As Dan pointed out last night, if you monster someone it can sometimes have the opposite effect.
The CyberNat extreme wing were very good at controlling social media, smearing, lying, misrepresenting, and in the end they didn't win. People become shy voters. I know I'm not the only person to be influence against voting for him again because of the likes of Momentum's attacks on Smith.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 9:24 am

yahyah wrote:Shame you aren't standing HS. Sensible post. Thanks for clarifying the sentence.

The thing that worries me is those who, not like yourself, or myself as I struggle with who to vote for, are supporting Corbyn in a gung ho way, who allow no room for doubt. That way lies trouble, in politics and religion, fundamentalism allows no doubt or grey areas. It also leads to the smears and silly photoshopped attacks that we hated when used against Corbyn, now being employed by those who hate Smith.

It would help if the Labour party issued stricter rules about what is allowable during times like this.
That might help, strong guidelines would stop the gap widening between the different groups as insults and silly photoshops are used to pour scorn on a potential Labour leader, be it Corbyn or Smith.

Whoever wins will have to lead Labour towards government, and as Stephen said yesterday both Corbyn and Smith have a role in helping that, and can offer good, and different, efforts.
That's always been the strength of Labour, being a broad church.

To be honest I have no great issue with people taking sides and passionately supporting a candidate as long as it does not get personal.

One of the aspects of a good leader,in my view, is to engender loyalty

I don't even mind the photoshopping etc

I think it is also okay to call some out out as a liar if they have lied, Cameron as an example or is incompetent, Cameron again

Some always will go too far on all sides but, if just members, they have very little influence

What I object to is briefings to the press, repeated untruths or things taken out of context on purpose etc. Often by the press but aided and abetted by Labour MPs

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 9:24 am

http://www.niesr.ac.uk/media/niesr-pres ... 6GqHHrTVpV" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NIESR Press Release: UK GDP expected to grow by 1.7 per cent in 2016, slowing to just 1 per cent in 2017

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 9:28 am

yahyah wrote:Por Favor mentioned on the other thread about the wording of Smith's point about wanting equality of outcome, a shift from New Labour's equality of opportunity.

Just wondering if any of you bright folk have any thoughts/views/memory of the Blair years/Corbyn's position on that ? I've posted links to explanations of the definitions of the two ideas, but practical application via peer posts may give more life to the issue.

If the party is to survive compromise is necessary, finding common ground is one of the ways of stopping the self destructive anger and maliciousness, so it is useful to compare/contrast.

I've just popped over there to have a look. It's clarified things a bit for me now and makes sense. Thanks.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 9:28 am

Good morfternoon.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 9:32 am

yahyah wrote:Hi Froggy. Is it you living under my pot of sweet peas ? Promise not to squash you, plenty of slugs around to snack on.

The type of photoshop I mean are the ones that make no meaningful point.

One, posted to sabotage Smith's thread yesterday had a pic of him and the caption ''I'm normal and I'm radical''
What ?
Do Corbyn zealots [we know they exist, like the hard core Nats & Kippers, so no complaints from anyone please] really think that it is impossible to be radical and normal ? Is it abnormal to be radical ?

Is that the sort of thing Corbyn, and Ian McNicol mean when they talk about playing it fair ?

I started out, when the chicken coup unfolded so badly, thinking I would likely vote for Corbyn again.
Having taken the time to actually check out some of Momentum's and Momentum supporters output on social media, and the way they are using what Peter Jukes referred to last night as 'Daily Mail' techniques to attack Smith, that has added to my being undecided.

As Dan pointed out last night, if you monster someone it can sometimes have the opposite effect.
The Nats were very good at controlling social media, smearing, lying, misrepresenting, and in the end they didn't win. People become shy voters. I know I'm not the only person to be influence against voting for him again because of the likes of Momentum's attacks on Smith.

Yahyah

That photoshop is not unreasonable to be honest and this type of poster is just a development from all the political advertising we see

I actually read it as pro-Smith to begin with

I think it is also fair for both candidates to explain why they did certain things in the past but we should be careful not to extrapolate from them. Just as Corbyn is no friend of terrorists so Smith is not a wholesale privatiser of the NHS

I think we are all intelligent enough to read into them and I wouldn't take too much notice

The MSM is the real propaganda issue and neither Corbyn or Smith will get a fair hearing, although Corbyn is the biggest target from them

The PLP, as the most reported, have to be very careful that they are not used to support those mistrust and extrapolations I mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, there are some who seem to enjoy doing just that

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 9:47 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:
yahyah wrote:Hi Froggy. Is it you living under my pot of sweet peas ? Promise not to squash you, plenty of slugs around to snack on.

The type of photoshop I mean are the ones that make no meaningful point.

One, posted to sabotage Smith's thread yesterday had a pic of him and the caption ''I'm normal and I'm radical''
What ?
Do Corbyn zealots [we know they exist, like the hard core Nats & Kippers, so no complaints from anyone please] really think that it is impossible to be radical and normal ? Is it abnormal to be radical ?

Is that the sort of thing Corbyn, and Ian McNicol mean when they talk about playing it fair ?

I started out, when the chicken coup unfolded so badly, thinking I would likely vote for Corbyn again.
Having taken the time to actually check out some of Momentum's and Momentum supporters output on social media, and the way they are using what Peter Jukes referred to last night as 'Daily Mail' techniques to attack Smith, that has added to my being undecided.

As Dan pointed out last night, if you monster someone it can sometimes have the opposite effect.
The Nats were very good at controlling social media, smearing, lying, misrepresenting, and in the end they didn't win. People become shy voters. I know I'm not the only person to be influence against voting for him again because of the likes of Momentum's attacks on Smith.

Yahyah

That photoshop is not unreasonable to be honest and this type of poster is just a development from all the political advertising we see

I actually read it as pro-Smith to begin with

I think it is also fair for both candidates to explain why they did certain things in the past but we should be careful not to extrapolate from them. Just as Corbyn is no friend of terrorists so Smith is not a wholesale privatiser of the NHS

I think we are all intelligent enough to read into them and I wouldn't take too much notice

The MSM is the real propaganda issue and neither Corbyn or Smith will get a fair hearing, although Corbyn is the biggest target from them

The PLP, as the most reported, have to be very careful that they are not used to support those mistrust and extrapolations I mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, there are some who seem to enjoy doing just that

This last point is huge. Streeting and Philips for example don't seem keen on olive branch carrying.

On another point I know someone who went to the unofficial Wallasey meeting. They're not what you'd call a Corbyn supporter (indeed they put him last last year) but like a few here and elsewhere aren't too impressed with how the PLP are acting.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 9:51 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:Good morning to everyone

I hope the new day brings a more optimistic view of things

I have been reflecting again during a few days away and my musings are below:

There is no need for Labour to tear itself apart, although there is a fight for the future direction of the party which should be looked as an opportunity not a threat

Corbyn was voted in because the membership, including me, was fed up of a vocal minority of the PLP trying to drive us towards the Tories and, at the same time, undermining a potentially very good PM

The membership, and the country, needs a more socialist approach......the neoliberal approach is not adapted to our needs now, we could be in the midst of a situation similar to the post-war years

He has only been in office for a few months and has had not even had a conference to work through policies at

There has been an undermining of the leadership by certain members of the PLP since the start, including senior ones. The party hierarchy is acting in an appalling way

There is a question, a fair one, about Corbyn's leadership but I find this debate a bit unfocused.....what is considered a good 'leader'. I always make the comment that people who criticise Corbyn seem to indicate that Cameron was a good 'leader' but he is probably the most corrupt, venal, incompetent liar that I have seen in this position......whatever we end up debating - it is not 'leadership'

The timing of the leadership challenge, post referendum, was in my view pre-meditated and extremely damaging....all involved should be thrown out of the party. I don't mean those who resigned but those who instigated it.

There are certain members of the PLP who are using their contacts in the media to propagate dubious stories about the party's values that are playing into the hands of the Tories - anti-semitism being one that I find particularly unpleasant

We are where we are now. We have a leadership challnge, eventually, and I have nothing personal against Owen Smith. His policy direction suggests a movement towards a direction that appeals to me but there is a question of trust. Is he realyl of that mind? Is he acting as a front for others?

I think it was said yesterday that the question for me is whether I trust Smith to deliver on his policy framework and, to be honest, I am not convinced. Not convinced at all. That does not mean I am right and he should be given a fair hearing but I am skeptical that someone with his policy views would be acceptable to those who oppose Corbyn.

I think it is pretty certain Corbyn will win the election, without any further antidemocratic shenanigans from the NEC, and I hope he reaches out to those who are prepared to accept the result and work with them. Perhaps some changes in his personnel will help that. He has to work for the party now.

Owen Smith has said that anti-semitism and misogyny have risen since Corbyn became leader.He has no evidence of this,especially since Shami Chakrabati found this was not the case.In a review swiftly carried out at Corbyns' request.

Smith must be an intelligent man,he wouldn't have risen so high in his previous career in pr for big Pharm if he did not know the power of smears such as these.
Yet he said it all to the media,loud and clear,during his leadership campaign.

He should not stoop to these levels.But has.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 10:10 am

From todays Mail.Strangely.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was mobbed by hundreds of his supporters at a rally in Brighton.
Scores of his fans,many wearing 'Jeremy for Labour' or 'I love Jeremy' tee shirts,queued for hours to get a seat at the sell out event in the Hilton Metropole on Tuesday evening.
Mr Corbyn addressed a crowd of about 500 outside the venue before speaking to 1,000 inside the event.
He was greeted by a standing ovation and stopped to shake hands with dozens of people as he made his way up to the stage.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 10:24 am

Dan Hannan really has no sense of humour whatsoever.

Daniel Hannan Verified account
‏@DanielJHannan
Daniel Hannan Retweeted Daniel Hannan
To see why people voted Leave, read the sneering responses to this Tweet. Mocking your country is rarely attractive.

Refers to this.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As someone pointed out

Matt Leys
‏@mattleys
Matt Leys Retweeted Daniel Hannan
I know this is hard, mate, but they're not mocking their country, they're mocking you #smallfaraway

frog222 · Post by **frog222** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 10:39 am

Rebecca 8.51

" Owen Smith has said that anti-semitism and misogyny have risen since Corbyn became leader.He has no evidence of this,especially since Shami Chakrabati found this was not the case.In a review swiftly carried out at Corbyns' request.

Smith must be an intelligent man,he wouldn't have risen so high in his previous career in pr for big Pharm if he did not know the power of smears such as these.
Yet he said it all to the media,loud and clear,during his leadership campaign."

He should not stoop to these levels.But has."

That is a bad mark against him, and does raise doubts about his higher mental capacities, although the same applies to Corbyn and apparently most of the rest of the political and media classes .

I'd say that there is a widespread residual anti-semitism found in all parties and classes, but it's a low percentage all round, and for Corbyn and so many others in the LP and the Press to let themselves go along with the childish "Yes you are" "No, I'm not!" exchanges and subsequent bullshit gets no-one anywhere .

The Israeli Lobby and its useful idiots have the initial responsibility for that furore and the continuing dripdrip of manufactured controversy .

A politician with higher qualities than this present lot would have seen through the BS, taken the lead and counter-attacked, (STFU !) but we've seen most(?) of them playing along, as though A-S were really a Great Menace to society, and easy to define too, which it ain't.

The Nazis and the minority of Muslim youth who preach hatred and commit crime are a job for the police.

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

On a general point, ain't it amazing how the Brick through the Window lie survives !

Almost as good as Russian troops with snow on their boots, and German soldiers killing babies in WW1.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5495 ... n-war-time" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And of course we must not forget those poor Kuweiti babies thrown out of their incubators

EDIT -- Falsehood In War Time: Containing An Assortment Of Lies Circulated Throughout The Nations During The Great War
by Arthur Ponsonby

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 10:52 am

With the greatest of respect to all, I do not think there is anyone who posts here regularly who hates or adores either candidate in Labour's leadership contest to any degree - what I am reading, mainly, is posting from people who may tend one way but are aware of the limitations of their favoured candidate. It may have been inappropriate to post some pics in the threads not designed for them, but that's not the end of the world.

On equality of opportunity and/or outcome - you can't have the second without the first unless you impose a standard national income for all with removal of assets. Equality of outcome in its purest sense means that everyone has the same.
In a wider sense it means that all people have an expectation and/or a right to basic things, ie. shelter, sufficient food, vital utilities; then access to health care, education, and justice, etc. so the two terms overlap somewhat in my view.

If we are to have equality of opportunity, in terms of education/work and that hideous expression "life chances", we have to start not just with legislation to ensure all people have free access to all those things (which we already have, to a degree), but we must also find a way to provide a secure home and income to those who do not have them.
Any politician who is serious about this has to seriously consider a universal citizens income, and state-supplied housing/utilities; without that, no amount of equality legislation will make much difference. It could be argued that the 3.7 Million children currently living in poverty in the UK (figure from Barnardo's) already have equality of opportunity, in that they have the same access to health care and education as everyone else, but in reality they don't because of their parents' circumstances.

I'd like to see more detail on how equal outcomes could be achieved without completely changing how this country actually works.....

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 10:52 am

frog222 wrote:Rebecca 8.51
" Owen Smith has said that anti-semitism and misogyny have risen since Corbyn became leader.He has no evidence of this,especially since Shami Chakrabati found this was not the case.In a review swiftly carried out at Corbyns' request.

Smith must be an intelligent man,he wouldn't have risen so high in his previous career in pr for big Pharm if he did not know the power of smears such as these.
Yet he said it all to the media,loud and clear,during his leadership campaign."

He should not stoop to these levels.But has."
That is a bad mark against him, and does raise doubts about his higher mental capacities, although the same applies to Corbyn and apparently most of the rest of the political and media classes .

I'd say that there is a widespread residual anti-semitism found in all parties and classes, but it's a low percentage all round, and for Corbyn and so many others in the LP and the Press to let themselves go along with the childish "Yes you are" "No, I'm not!" exchanges and subsequent bullshit gets no-one anywhere .

The Israeli Lobby and its useful idiots have the initial responsibility for that furore and the continuing dripdrip of manufactured controversy .

A politician with higher qualities than this present lot would have seen through the BS, taken the lead and counter-attacked, (STFU !) but we've seen most(?) of them playing along, as though A-S were really a Great Menace to society, and easy to define too, which it ain't.

The Nazis and the minority of Muslim youth who preach hatred and commit crime are a job for the police.

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

On a general point, ain't it amazing how the Brick through the Window lie survives !

Almost as good as Russian troops with snow on their boots, and German soldiers killing babies in WW1.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5495 ... n-war-time" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And of course we must not forget those poor Kuweiti babies thrown out of their incubators

EDIT -- Falsehood In War Time: Containing An Assortment Of Lies Circulated Throughout The Nations During The Great War

by Arthur Ponsonby

Has Corbyn said similar things about Smith?About anti-semitism etc?
Have missed that,but agree that it is wrong.Totally.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 10:53 am

Good-morning, everyone.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 11:04 am

yahyah wrote:Morning.

A distraction from the Labour party tearing itself apart, Welsh Ukip have a civil war of their own.
Five of their AMs want Nathan Gill to quit his seat at the Assembly.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/polit ... n-11695231" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the same paper, Owen Smith to speak today about increasing the living wage.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/polit ... n-11695231" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not just Welsh UKIP either, the national party's NEC is today going to decide whether Steven Woolfe should be allowed onto their leadership ballot.

Lots of fuming from his supporters about a "stitch up" and even talk of a party split. Sound familiar?

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 11:23 am

And the DFH award of the day goes to the NEC candidate Luke Akehurst.

New Labour brought fresh hope; Jeremy Corbyn has returned us to old despair

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ht-despair" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 11:24 am

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... ation-2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Widening participation in higher education: 2016

Annual statistics on young peoples' participation in higher education, including their social background and occupation after graduating.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 11:28 am

StephenDolan wrote:And the DFH award of the day goes to the NEC candidate Luke Akehurst.

New Labour brought fresh hope; Jeremy Corbyn has returned us to old despair

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ht-despair" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Given that Smith's policy outlines are all but identical to Corbyn's, by his logic, with the exception of Trident, electing Smith will also return 'us' to old despair. But don't tell anyone the obvious fricking flaw in his article, heh.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 11:35 am

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/about ... ign=buffer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Employers and government must do more to close health and disability employment gap

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 11:40 am

New Labour brought fresh hope - until it went wrong and then collapsed under its own contradictions.

Akehurst's pieces for LabourList were significantly more nuanced tbf. Still, any old dashed off rubbish will do for the Graun these days as long as its anti Jez

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 11:45 am

Ironically it was the old DHSS that was the best employer as far as accommodating for sickness/disabity needs which against much colleague resentment-a factor little mentioned-facillitated retention of employment and thirty years more of employment,not least giving hope.She could have easilly satisfied criteria for not having to.Genuine choice is the key IMHO

frog222 · Post by **frog222** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 11:50 am

Rebecca 9.52

" Has Corbyn said similar things about Smith?About anti-semitism etc?
Have missed that,but agree that it is wrong.Totally. "

As far as i can see the Corbyn party have been attacking Smith in a fairly restrained fashion, tho fun that Guido began the Pfizer Publicity .

My poorly expressed point about AS was that most or all politicians accept the journalists' frame of reference/choice of vocabulary instead of counter-attacking and insisting that THEY define first what they mean by "shoot to kill" ''anti-semitism" and all the other stock phrases .

I did see one youtube of Corbyn on Shoot to Kill, and he was so bloody hopeless that I was embarrassed for him .

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 11:51 am

Never understood the sick jealousy towards others receiving basic provisions to negate barriers or the reasons why, they don't face.Never will.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 11:53 am

StephenDolan wrote:And the DFH award of the day goes to the NEC candidate Luke Akehurst.

New Labour brought fresh hope; Jeremy Corbyn has returned us to old despair

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ht-despair" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Could that possibly be the same Luke Akehurst who spent 10 years at Weber Shandwick, the global PR firm which represents arms manufacturers and lobbies for Israeli government?

Why yes! It is he - see this from 2011:
http://www.electronicintifada.net/blogs ... rael-lobby" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No surprise that he shoehorns in a mention of anti-semitism at every possible opportunity, relevant or not.

Odd thing - I cannot find a Wikipedia entry for this person. That's unusual in someone so high-profile.
The only thing I can find there relates to his attempt to be elected for Castle Point in 2005, where he lost 11.7% of the Labour vote.

Conclusion? Prat.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 12:00 pm

Do people think the High Court will rule tomorrow that the NEC decision to put a time limit on voting rights was illegal?

(It seems quite possible to me given that it was false advertising otherwise)

If not, then at a minimum the Labour Party should face a pretty stiff fine and could be forced to refund 150,000 members.

If it does, then presumably it could delay the contest at huge cost because a further 150,000 people will need 'vetting' and sending ballots.

Either outcome will not do much to help alter the perception that the Party is tremendously incompetent, will it.

Edited for formatting so my points were more clearly made.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 12:03 pm

I think such a ruling is unlikely tbh, but even if it happened I don't see why a delay of the contest would be necessary - just give the people concerned voting rights.

(nobody has received their ballot papers yet, after all - the deadline for union/affiliate supporters to sign up only expires next Monday)

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 12:05 pm

Without the vital 'have you ever supported another party other than New Labour, particularly one led by Jeremy Corbyn' vetting process? Perish the thought.

Edit: I had thought that ballots were already being sent but I realise now that this was for the NEC vote, not the leadership.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 12:09 pm

Oh dear...

Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 1m1 minute ago

UKIP leadership election, candidates:
J. Arnott
P. Broughton
L. Duffy
B. Etheridge
D. James
E. Jones
7 retweets 1 like

Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 35s35 seconds ago

Steven Woolfe is not on the ballot for the UKIP leadership.
0 retweets 0 likes

That's their only chance of attracting Labour voters gone then!

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 12:10 pm

Anybody got industrial sized bags of popcorn ready?

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 12:13 pm

No, but Arron Banks with his industrial sized bags of money is not going to be pleased. Good.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 12:15 pm

http://wol.iza.org/articles/disability- ... rkets%20mj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Disability and labor market outcomes

Disability is associated with labor market disadvantage; recent evidence points to a causal relationship
Melanie Jones (Cardiff University, UK)

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 12:20 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Oh dear...
Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 1m1 minute ago

UKIP leadership election, candidates:
J. Arnott
P. Broughton
L. Duffy
B. Etheridge
D. James
E. Jones
7 retweets 1 like

Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 35s35 seconds ago
Steven Woolfe is not on the ballot for the UKIP leadership.
0 retweets 0 likes

Just me or does that list sound like the opening batsmen of an England second XI from the 50s? Quite apt, yes?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 12:25 pm

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... population" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Future of an ageing population

A bit old,I've never heard of the Government Office For Science,tbh

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 12:32 pm

Why Labour cannot split, despite both sides wanting to do so

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9744" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is the path those who voted for Corbyn took us down last summer. It was all entirely foreseeable.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 12:35 pm

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1445054 ... ll-inquiry" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Baroness Royall Report into allegations at OULC

sputnikkers · Post by **sputnikkers** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 12:40 pm

I find the timing of some comments above a little unfortunate. As is coming to light, while the NEC commissioned the following Baroness Royall report into the Oxford University Labour Club, it was suppressed by the NEC - according to this third party article. And it claims that her report was not mentioned in the wider inquiry led by Shami Chakrabarti to whom she had referred her findings and seven further issues. I am not personally familiar with these results so this could (hopefully?) be wrong? Or it might be claimed that the results and recommendations were 'subsumed' into other data? Bad practise not to credit her work at all though unless you want to reject or ignore it?:
Baroness Royall report reveals Oxford Labour students engaged in antisemitism

The full report can be found linked from that article. It seems well balanced and acknowledges false as well as true claims of prejudicial actions. Mr Corbyn is mentioned just once for context, in a generous and more than favourable way. So the problem is why treat the report in such a way. 'Suppression', IF that's what it was or even presenting opportunities for how it can be portrayed is far more damaging than any contents of the report itself. Recognise the problems and take remedial actions as far as these are available.

Pretending that Labour and many with anti-imperial, anti-western, mainly 'hard left' groups do not have an "anti-Semitism problem" seems divorced from realities of the world. This happened before and will after Mr Corbyn. It is for each to say whether that danger is increasing or decreasing.

Pretending that embedding, establishing, or simply portraying an essentially 'anti-Israel' stance does not attract anti-Semitist sentiments is like saying UKIP establishing an anti-immigrant stance does not attract or give credence to (BNP-)racist type sentiments. Either case is reasonable by definition but both have 'unfortunate' consequences in reality. Ones, even if the 'reasonable' stance can be defended, the associated 'baggage' which can only be damned and mitigated to a greater or lesser extent but will have to be judged as 'worth it' - 'a price worth paying' in the longer term? (Condemnatory words alone are cheap and taken/portrayed as 'a wink and a nod' by some)

The OULC and York University Student Union, who had to publicly apologise and paid out a token £1,000 payment back in June can be seen as potentially symptomatic. However, the slippery scale of being portrayed as harbouring anti-Semitism can surely be seen by Mr Galloway's previous 2014 declaration of Bradford as an 'Israel-free zone'. While a little more radical and aggressive in his views, he has the same 'defence' that this is not racist, per se. Perhaps not, but such sophistry is inflammatory. It is certainly not trying to solve an almost insoluble problem?

NB The linked article has been changed and updated since I composed the above(!) to include responses by Business Sec. John Trickett and some shambolic hedging by the Labour Press Office.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 12:40 pm

http://www.transportforall.org.uk/news/ ... -on-buses-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What is being done to ensure that disabled and older people can travel with independence on buses?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 12:52 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

UK services sector contraction adds to recession fears
Purchasing managers index for July fell from 52.3 to 47.4 in June, the sharpest drop on record

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 12:59 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:Why Labour cannot split, despite both sides wanting to do so

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9744" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is the path those who voted for Corbyn took us down last summer. It was all entirely foreseeable.

Nothing whatsoever to do with PLP of course. If only we all were intellectual Giants!

sputnikkers · Post by **sputnikkers** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 1:14 pm

For quick updates on my anti-Semitism post above (maybe too quick?), I am finding Marcus Dysch (@MarcusDysch) on Twitter [*edited for working link - apologies tried to update too quickly!] very useful, if 'one-sided' because of outrage. Of course, he might seem to have a particular agenda, but ... that's also what happens in the real world.

He now has links to other third party source (also published in The Jewish Chronicle) about Shami Chakrabarti's response. Might be a time for me to let things settle down on this on - let more proper information come out and then I can judge how well it has been handled?
Shami Chakrabarti is yet to comment on release of Royall report into Labour antisemitism | The Jewish Chronicle

Speaking to the JC about the Royall report in July, Ms Chakrabarti said: “My impression is that the NEC redacted it because there were individuals involved who were then referred for disciplined.
“So my understanding is that is what happened there.”
Ms Chakrabarti, the former director of human rights group Liberty, added: “I know it is going to upset people when you can’t publish in full, but I almost feel like it was a hybrid enquiry.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 1:18 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:Why Labour cannot split, despite both sides wanting to do so

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9744" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is the path those who voted for Corbyn took us down last summer. It was all entirely foreseeable.

The path being that the Labour Party stays as it was prior to Corbyn or Smith winning and nothing actually changes other than the winner has stuck their mast to quite a left wing set of ideals that your side of the Party despises? Erm. Okay.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 1:18 pm

frightful_oik wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Why Labour cannot split, despite both sides wanting to do so

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9744" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is the path those who voted for Corbyn took us down last summer. It was all entirely foreseeable.
Nothing whatsoever to do with PLP of course. If only we all were intellectual Giants!

Entirely predictable that the PLP would react as it did. This is whay happens when you elect a leader with next to no Parliamentary support and the active hostility of most. They gave it a go but there was bound to be a break point, it just happened to be the EU.

It was pointed out at the time that it couldn't be made to work.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 03 Aug, 2016 1:19 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
frightful_oik wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Why Labour cannot split, despite both sides wanting to do so

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9744" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is the path those who voted for Corbyn took us down last summer. It was all entirely foreseeable.
Nothing whatsoever to do with PLP of course. If only we all were intellectual Giants!
Entirely predictable that the PLP would react as it did. This is whay happens when you elect a leader with next to no Parliamentary support and the active hostility of most. They gave it a go but there was bound to be a break point, it just happened to be the EU.

It was pointed out at the time that it couldn't be made to work.

The article you're quoting is saying that it will have to work irrespective of who wins. Otherwise it'd be saying that a split is inevitable, not that it can't happen at all.