Friday 5th August 2016

Post by **refitman** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 7:11 am

Morning all.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 7:43 am

Good Morning

I don't know whether that be title case or hankering after Deutsch. Even after a 10% drop in Sterling I'm tempted to take what little cash I have left and leave although Germany may not be my first choice. Besides I may have to determine where a Brit of my age is still welcome.

In news this morning I have gleaned that those who were absent during the referendum campaign point to another that did more for Remain than they... or so I believe. Truth is the msm were otherwise engaged and on a personal front I, someone who somewhat follows British politics hadn't heard of Owen Smith or had seen nothing of note before he stood against Jeremy. As for a parliamentary party, MPs are elected not appointed to parliament I do wish they appreciated that and nothing shall convince me that the initial coup was orchestrated by people that had won a GE since whenever it were, ten years or so. Mind you here speaks one that has never voted for a GE winner unless indirectly counting 2010.

Anyway I'm off to hospital again and still have to arrange another visit but am more than confident that I ain't got cancer, at least my lesser ailments are now diagnosed.

A final note to HindleA before I get ready. I was sure you were into crosswords hence my clue of several days ago. I'm not saying it escaped you but without confirmation shall throw it back at you: The antics of a jester called Tom (10).

Catch you later.

Edit: removed 'not' from 'that had not won a GE', double negative.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 7:52 am

@HindleA

Sorry, A, as it happened I was thinking of you and wondering how things were when lo and behold you spoke of your late partner's flowering rose. I myself had not long bought a Greco-Roman style statue of a young lady of very similar build to my late wife under which I placed her ashes and laid a circular rose garden around. Unfortunately having left said home I removed the statue to bring with me but have no garden now. I still have her ashes to be scattered with mine when I metaphorically join her. Instructions are that we are taken to the top of Snowdon and be scattered to the wind.

Edit: corrected Snowdon. I should know better of course, I hadn't meant on top of Edward wherever he be.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 8:10 am

Thanks for message.Mistake was perhaps more appropriate than you thought.Maiden name was Snowden.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 8:12 am

First name not Edward to be clear

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 8:17 am

If it is nine letters I would say fooleries,tomfoolery would satisfy ten,ususual to have part of answer in question unless hidden,hence my hesitation.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 8:47 am

Deleted

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 8:49 am

Morning all.

Very interesting post by Joshua Rozenberg about the resignation yesterday of Dame Lowell Goddard.

https://www.facebook.com/JoshuaRozenber ... 2100200381

Maybe I’m reading too much into it but I think the her resignation letter, though printed on the inquiry team’s letterhead, may have been drafted and typed for her by the home office. Rudd repeats the solecism in her reply, addressing it to “Hon Dame Lowell Goddard QC”.

And then look at what Rudd says to Goddard. “It is a testament to your commitment that you have taken the difficult decision to stand down now, having set the inquiry firmly on course, and allow someone else to lead it through to the end. With regret, I agree that this is the right decision.”

That suggests to me that Rudd wanted Goddard to stand down and offered her the option of resignation. How can Rudd say it’s the right decision unless she knows Goddard’s reasons? Or unless it was Rudd who told Goddard to go?

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 9:27 am

Morning all.

Caught up on the debate. I was surprised how OS came across, I'd been impressed with his presentation skills in the speeches prior, not so much last night. The opening round of a long fight as it were (and I remember Romney v Obama in their first debate) but even so, slightly underwhelmed. Is it reasonable to say OS was on 'home turf'?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 9:45 am

StephenDolan wrote:Morning all.

Caught up on the debate. I was surprised how OS came across, I'd been impressed with his presentation skills in the speeches prior, not so much last night. The opening round of a long fight as it were (and I remember Romney v Obama in their first debate) but even so, slightly underwhelmed. Is it reasonable to say OS was on 'home turf'?

I thought Owen Smith started well but fell off as things progressed. He was reluctant to say why he was challenging Jeremy Corbyn (purely in the interests of Party harmony, you understand) which is odd for someone who is, well, challenging Jeremy Corbyn.

And, as you say, Owen Smith was on what could be described as home turf.

I've read the (pretty poor) Guardian Panel verdict - a panel of two, incidentally - and the only thing which resonated with me was Deborah Orr's observation about Jeremy Corbyn:

A man who is arrogant about his modesty is a terrible thing. (Guardian)

Oh, and the panel has now grown in number, I see.

Edited - typo

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 9:46 am

DT in "Hey, don't blame Brexit!" mode...

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 10:22 am

Just back and yes I do understand, A. Perhaps I should have said Thomas instead of Tom and yes, I had no doubt whatsoever that your lady was no Edward.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 10:23 am

“The timing is not great for the Labour party,” Watson told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme following Jeremy Corbyn’s decision to put Chakrabarti forward, a move that has attracted condemnation from other Labour MPs.

“I wasn’t aware, I wasn’t consulted whether Shami was going in. I didn’t know that we’d provided citations for this particular round, and I do think it’s a mistake,” Watson said.

The decision has also been criticised by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which said it compromised the independence of an inquiry into antisemitism in the party, recently headed by Chakrabarti for Labour.

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

I tend to agree with the above comment that Chakrabarti has been compromised by the nomination for a peerage. It was poor judgement on Corbyn's part. If he wanted to nominate her, a generally sound choice, he should have found someone else to head up the anti-Semitism inquiry.

I agree generally, that as long as the system is in place, Labour needs to nominate able, trustworthy people to balance out Tory crony appointments. This has been very clumsily done by Corbyn, however, and is confusing given he has previously said he would make no appointments. I'm glad he's changed his mind, but wish he'd thought more about how this particular nomination would look, not so much for his own sake, but for Chakrabarti's.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 10:38 am

That really could be a summary of his entire stint as leader

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 11:07 am

UD it was a good clue.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 11:11 am

Oh dear...

Exclusive: Ofsted chairman describes underperforming Isle of Wight as 'inbred, poor, white ghetto'

https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/br ... ght-inbred

Ofsted’s chairman, David Hoare, has described one of England’s most educationally underperforming areas as a poor white "ghetto" that suffers from "inbreeding".

The former City businessman has linked low school results on the Isle of Wight to social problems he says exist in the area.

Mr Hoare, who has a home near the island, told teachers last week that it was often a topic of conversation with his dinner party guests.

"They think of it as holiday land. But it is shocking," he said. "It’s a ghetto; there has been inbreeding.

"Seven state schools were all less than good. There is a mass of crime, drug problems, huge unemployment."

I suspect that this won't go down well...mind you, free speech an'all...

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 11:15 am

Willow904 wrote:
“The timing is not great for the Labour party,” Watson told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme following Jeremy Corbyn’s decision to put Chakrabarti forward, a move that has attracted condemnation from other Labour MPs.

“I wasn’t aware, I wasn’t consulted whether Shami was going in. I didn’t know that we’d provided citations for this particular round, and I do think it’s a mistake,” Watson said.

The decision has also been criticised by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which said it compromised the independence of an inquiry into antisemitism in the party, recently headed by Chakrabarti for Labour.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... nomination" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I tend to agree with the above comment that Chakrabarti has been compromised by the nomination for a peerage. It was poor judgement on Corbyn's part. If he wanted to nominate her, a generally sound choice, he should have found someone else to head up the anti-Semitism inquiry.

I agree generally, that as long as the system is in place, Labour needs to nominate able, trustworthy people to balance out Tory crony appointments. This has been very clumsily done by Corbyn, however, and is confusing given he has previously said he would make no appointments. I'm glad he's changed his mind, but wish he'd thought more about how this particular nomination would look, not so much for his own sake, but for Chakrabarti's.

I'm failing to follow the plot on this one,
I don't see what's wrong with nominating her,
the criticism from the Board of deputies' sounds contrived, and don't see that Corbyn should have appointed someone else in the off chance that he might want to nominate her in some (presumably) unexpected peerage list.
I can understand that Tom Watson might be miffed & probably should have been consulted in the first place , but suspect he's part of the real problem anyway.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 11:19 am

Shami Chakrabarti gets CBE in the Queen's birthday honours in 2007.
Not a peep.
Shami Chakrabarti gets peerage in PMs leaving honours in 2016.
Cue outrage.

This woman has served this country for years - see her Wikipedia entry.
One of the few people on the list who actually deserves a gong.

It would appear that most of the critics of this nomination think one or all of these are reasons why she should not be honoured -
Tom Watson thinks it's poor judgement because he is Tom Watson and he wasn't consulted;
Wes Streeting has decided that the anti-semitism report was a whitewash and SC is rubbish;
Lots of people don't approve of PMs having the right to confer honours when they run away;
Cameron's choice of who to honour is crap and that means SC must be crap as well.........

This is risible. And obviously it's all Corbyn's fault. FFS.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 11:22 am

I have never been a "dinner party guest" not least because they have the wrong name for the meal.Must be their lacking of breeding.tsk.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 11:24 am

By way of a change from the usual media commentators, here's Brian Back, a sociology lecturer and Labour campaigner, eulogising Jeremy Corbyn:

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/16/je ... more-20141" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

so he's hardly what one might call a disinterested commentator.

Here's his thoughts on last nights debate:

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/08/05/i- ... more-21025" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Presentation matters whether we like it or not & Corbyn is simply not up to the task of presenting a coherent programme for government. Additionally, his muffled belching throughout his speeches is very off-putting & really should get some medical advice for that - perhaps some dietary changes would help.

His twitter a/c shows he's no right-winger https://twitter.com/brianback4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 11:31 am

Actually - it's no wonder some folks have decided not to post here until it's all over.

I can't say I blame them.

"Stint" indeed. OED - "To supply a very ungenerous amount of something"; "A fixed or allotted period of work".

What he's actually had is ten months of disloyalty, orchestrated attempts at removal, vituperative abuse on social media, downright mendacity on the part of certain members of the PLP, heckling in the House from his own side whenever he stands up, manufactured scenarios of "bullying" which subsequently turn out to be nothing of the kind....the fact he's still standing tells me he's as tough as old boots and could be a good leader if only he was given the chance.

I'm sick of this.

BTW - if Smith agrees with Corbyn on almost every bloody policy (apart from Trident) why the hell is he fighting him for the leadership?
If Smith's policies are pretty much the same as Corbyn's (and that's a big if), why didn't he support the man when he had the chance?
I can only conclude that it's either because his policies will not be the same when it comes to the crunch and/or he wants the top job.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 11:37 am

Well thanks for that, A, albeit not needed. I used to be into crosswords many moons ago, even compiling them before I addled my brain. My father used to photocopy Times, Guardian and Telegraph crosswords and race my brother and I, or should that be me with no implied verb. He always won so we used to wonder whether he played with a straight bat, after all he stopped playing chess with me after I regularly beat him.

Speaking of my late father he would show me off amongst his (engineering) friends by setting convoluted problems to solve with their calculators. I'd beat them by doing them in my head. Perhaps that was also prompted by PorFavor's quote, A man who is arrogant about his modesty is a terrible thing. (Guardian) but while I'm at it he also had a Birmingham Uni chess champion play me when I was about ten, but as I've said before I was put off chess by tournaments and the like.

On a separate note, partially prompted by childhood sexual abuse my father wanted me to go to Oxford to study Maths and I was invited after nearly qualifying to represent Britain in some international competition but there was no way I would do anything he wanted by then. Did anybody see that Child Genius programme that was on recently? I have to say that I felt for Dom although I bloody well hope I was nowhere near as precocious as he. Regarding the others... well I have a few years on them so must make allowances even if I have forgotten most everything I knew. Which reminds me...

Edit: corrected typo!

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 11:48 am

HindleA wrote:I have never been a "dinner party guest" not least because they have the wrong name for the meal.Must be their lacking of breeding.tsk.

I grew up with them, A. My brother and I used to disappear between courses and do press-ups. Not that I can understand why but doing so made it easier to stomach the next course. It's surprising we aren't any larger than we are.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 12:09 pm

Btw if you have seen anything claiming to be "instant" polling figures from last night's debate, ignore it. They're fake, apparently.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 12:23 pm

Sorry for one more non-political post, prompted by mention of dinner parties. There are those that suggest full time work is an excuse for ready meals; maybe on occasion but please, not as a rule. My mother worked full time reared three kids and always cooked from scratch, not least the weekly dinner parties. Besides back then she didn't have all the advantages of modern appliances.

Obviously not directed at anybody here so please don't be offended. Apologies if I have.

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 12:30 pm

ephemerid wrote: If Smith's policies are pretty much the same as Corbyn's (and that's a big if), why didn't he support the man when he had the chance?

Be fair, Smith might be a firmly commited left-wing socialist today, but a couple of weeks ago he wasn't. He's a changed man, honest. After all, would a high-flying PR man and corporate lobbyist ever try and sell us a pup?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 12:36 pm

Apparent the Green party are calling on Ofsted chair David Hoare to resign over those comments about the Isle of Wight.

And this from a teacher...

Natalie Scott ‏@nataliehscott 30m30 minutes ago

Natalie Scott Retweeted TES

Having worked on this pretty island and in the mud of an illegal refugee camp, I know which one I'd call a 'ghetto'.

Quite.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 12:42 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
pk1 wrote:Additionally, his muffled belching throughout his speeches is very off-putting & really should get some medical advice for that - perhaps some dietary changes would help.

OK, I can see Back is no Blairite, but putting this in a public article comes off as rude. If he's concerned about Corbyn's health and diet, wouldn't addressing it privately be more appropriate? It seems a bit of a low blow, something we've seen too much of from supporters on both sides.

Speaking as someone who has voiced reservations about Corbyn, his presentational style is not something I have a problem with. I don't need soaring and essentially empty rhetoric.

I think that's pk1's comment. It's not in the linked article.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 12:43 pm

Freedomofthepress wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:That really could be a summary of his entire stint as leader
Whereas with Owen Smith, it will be all sleek, sneeky and spin.

It really won't, tbh. As well as being "not-Corbyn" he's not Chuka Umunna either, you know.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 12:46 pm

ephemerid wrote:Actually - it's no wonder some folks have decided not to post here until it's all over.

I can't say I blame them.

"Stint" indeed. OED - "To supply a very ungenerous amount of something"; "A fixed or allotted period of work".

What he's actually had is ten months of disloyalty, orchestrated attempts at removal, vituperative abuse on social media, downright mendacity on the part of certain members of the PLP, heckling in the House from his own side whenever he stands up, manufactured scenarios of "bullying" which subsequently turn out to be nothing of the kind....the fact he's still standing tells me he's as tough as old boots and could be a good leader if only he was given the chance.

I'm sick of this.

BTW - if Smith agrees with Corbyn on almost every bloody policy (apart from Trident) why the hell is he fighting him for the leadership?
If Smith's policies are pretty much the same as Corbyn's (and that's a big if), why didn't he support the man when he had the chance?
I can only conclude that it's either because his policies will not be the same when it comes to the crunch and/or he wants the top job.

Smith disagrees quite substantially with Corbyn on the EU and is offering to fight for a second referendum on the proposed exit arrangements, something Corbyn is opposed to. For people who have the EU and remaining in the single market as their top priorities, this is a very substantial and important difference.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 12:48 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Oh dear...

Exclusive: Ofsted chairman describes underperforming Isle of Wight as 'inbred, poor, white ghetto'

https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/br ... ght-inbred

Ofsted’s chairman, David Hoare, has described one of England’s most educationally underperforming areas as a poor white "ghetto" that suffers from "inbreeding".

The former City businessman has linked low school results on the Isle of Wight to social problems he says exist in the area.

Mr Hoare, who has a home near the island, told teachers last week that it was often a topic of conversation with his dinner party guests.

"They think of it as holiday land. But it is shocking," he said. "It’s a ghetto; there has been inbreeding.

"Seven state schools were all less than good. There is a mass of crime, drug problems, huge unemployment."
I suspect that this won't go down well...mind you, free speech an'all...

Sounds as if he's picked that up in a mainland pub' (one near where he lives, and near the IoW.)

It's bit of a standard, poor taste joke in these parts.

Edited - typo

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 12:55 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Sounds as if he's picked that up in a mainland pub' (one near where he lives, and near the IOW.)

It's bit of a standard, poor taste joke in these parts.

I know that there are particular issues with education on the IoW - i remember the deputy director of education for Hampshire appearing before the Edu Select Committee - he'd been asked by the DfE to oversee the IoW. But there are ways of saying things and this really was not the right way...

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 1:08 pm

Afternoon all

Interesting interview with Peter Kilfoyle

https://www.theguardian.com/membership/ ... emy-corbyn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, on the Chakrabarti peerage - the only moaning about it I have seen is from Labour MPs...actually compared to the scandal of Cameron's choices it is very small potatoes indeed

Streeting again showing what a fool he is, and Watson being unable to judiciously keep his gob shut

This continued going on about anti-semitism is starting to get on my nerves a bit now.....I have posted before about the left being currently anti-Israeli Government and, as a state that defines itself by its religion then it can be portrayed as anti-Semitic

There is true anti-Semitism about, and when it happens then it needs to be stamped out. I would like to have seen the same continued howling from certain commentators and MPs when Cameron was making some very dodgy comments about muslims (something Corbyn has never been accused of doing against Jews)

The pro-Israel lobby is very good at making any critticism of their appalling Netanyahu led Government seem racist.....and I am convinced ther is a political motive about many of these claims

Jews are recognised as a race of course, whereas muslims are not.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 1:18 pm

What "big beasts" do you have in mind?

But yes, part of the problem is that both Blair and Brown wanted to be surrounded by obedient on-message drones rather than people with actual talent (who might, you know, come to be seen as a rival in some way - the horror!) The 2010 and especially 2015 intake of Labour MPs are better, but equally aren't quite ready yet.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 1:20 pm

Breaking...

BBC Breaking News Verified account
‏@BBCBreaking

Dame Lowell Goddard to be asked in front of MPs for "thorough explanation" of resignation from child abuse inquiry

Might be somewhat of an embarrassment for the Home Secretary if she really was pushed...

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 1:20 pm

http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/do ... 0-tragedy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Documents show WCA suicide death mirrored 2010 tragedy

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 1:24 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: OK, I can see Back is no Blairite, but putting this in a public article comes off as rude. If he's concerned about Corbyn's health and diet, wouldn't addressing it privately be more appropriate? It seems a bit of a low blow, something we've seen too much of from supporters on both sides.

Speaking as someone who has voiced reservations about Corbyn, his presentational style is not something I have a problem with. I don't need soaring and essentially empty rhetoric.
I think that's pk1's comment. It's not in the linked article.
Oh, I see. Fair enough to Back then. I still think it's a cheap shot.

I only caught a bit of the debate myself but didn't really notice anything beyond the fact Corbyn appeared to be looking at his feet rather a lot. I don't know if that's his normal style. What is said is more important and style is only relevant in so far as how much it helps people understand and remember what is said. I do find Corbyn a little bland in his delivery and find myself drifting off a bit, but that may just be me. I found Smith's delivery more dynamic, but not what I would call "slick". He's clearly a very good communicator generally, but certainly not polished in a debate setting, his relative inexperience coming across a little.

I was more drawn to the comment in which Corbyn appeared to deny demanding Cameron invoke article 50 straight away after the EU ref, which was discussed on Twitter after. I didn't see this bit of the debate, so haven't heard the whole exchange. Given Corbyn was still asking Cameron to invoke article 50 immediately in the PMQ's the following week, I find it hard to understand how his meaning could have been misconstrued so am at a loss as to how he could reasonably deny it so am a bit of a loss as to what to make of it. I must be missing something. I certainly don't trust Twitter to give an accurate account!

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 1:25 pm

Following on from yesterday, a few thoughts about Churchill and the 1945 election.

It's a bit strange watching something my parent's generation experienced fade into history and acquire a bundle of myths, but I suppose that's how modern PR works.

Short version - Churchill was not popular before 1940 and he wasn't very popular after then.

My father's father, who died when I was in my teens, despised Churchill. My grandfather was a miner and National Federation of Mineworkers official during the General Strike. He despised Churchill, as did many others, for Churchill's role in defeating the strike, his ferocious opposition to anything remotely socialist and his support for the existing class order of things. Churchill in the 1920s and 30s was anti-communist/socialist (and he considered Labour to be both) to the extent of demanding state violence against strikers. In modern terms he was IDS crossed with Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson.

I've heard from people who were there, and I've read in accounts of the time, that there was a great deal of political discussion going on in the army as the war drew to a close. The general feeling being that neither a repeat of the 1918 broken promises or a return to the 1930s was in any way acceptable. There was also the knowledge that the European fascists who caused the war (the second global conflict in a single generation) had in the 30s received a lot of approval and support from conservative British politicians. While Churchill never sought to appease Hitler, he was quite the Mussolini fan, seeing Mussolini as a powerful counter to any of that horrid socialism.

Churchill was, quite correctly I think, widely regarded as a vicious, extreme political and economic reactionary at home and abroad, who was very willing to use force to suppress independence movements in the colonies; Churchill's answer to Indian independence, for example, was to enquire why, if Gandhi is causing so much trouble, is Gandhi still alive?

He was also associated with bloody military disasters. While he made an effective wartime PM every so often he'd dabble in military affairs directly, generally with a lack of success. His first dabble was when he was First Lord of the Admiralty and in 1914 attempted to create for himself what amounted to a small private army, which against advice he sent off to relieve Antwerp. The expedition was, as foreseen by cooler heads, a messy failure. In 1915 he was the mastermind behind the failed and costly Gallipoli campaign.

In 1918 he sent British troops, who mostly just wanted to stop fighting, go home and not get shot at any more to Russia for two years as part of the international intervention force to help "strangle the Bolshevik infant at birth".

In 1944 he insisted on Operation Market Garden, again against the advice of the generals who thought at the planning stage that Arnhem was "a bridge too far" because the terrain and road infrastructure of the area made success nigh on impossible.

Churchill's military escapades resulted in a lot of men not named Churchill dying or being maimed for life, and after Gallipoli Churchill did a Boris and ran away from responsibility. He went to the western front, and his personal courage is not remotely in doubt, but even some of his contemporaries suggested he was an egotist gambling and posturing in the hope he'd get reinstated - which he was.

He made a wartime PM in part because he was one of the few on the right of the Tories who didn't have a record of being very nice to Herr Hitler, and a Labour or Liberal PM would have been unacceptable to the Tories so doomed from the start. By and large he was successful, though he alienated many experts and professionals of the time because Churchill always knew better than any expert and he had a reputation of being offhand and difficult to work with.

He was, clearly, not regarded as representing what the British people wanted after the war because he epitomised what had been bad in Britain before the war. It's been suggested that Churchill's switch from praising his Labour colleagues in the wartime national government to sneering about them, their abilities and their backgrounds during the election campaign didn't help his chances either.

Looking back, I think the great mythologising of Churchill as the greatest PM ever really took off during the 1980s when the Sun, Mail and our second greatest ever PM continually harked back to the war and Churchill, whose intransigence became lauded as a virtue despite exasperating many of the people who actually had to work with him during his career.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 1:25 pm

http://www.parliament.uk/business/commi ... ter-16-17/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Benefit underpayments target welcomed by Committee

The Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, Frank Field, has welcomed the DWP's (Department for Work and Pensions) change of heart on a target for benefit underpayments.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 1:27 pm

I think it actually started with his state funeral in 1965 and the mystique that grew up about it.

(back in the 1970s "crisis" there were certainly fairly regular demands for a "new Churchill" to save us)

Tizme1 · Post by **Tizme1** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 1:34 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Freedomofthepress wrote: Whereas with Owen Smith, it will be all sleek, sneeky and spin.
It really won't, tbh. As well as being "not-Corbyn" he's not Chuka Umunna either, you know.
I don't find Umunna remotely slick, in terms of his presentation anyway. Smith strikes me as shooting for a rhetorical style that he doesn't have the gravitas to pull off, and the effect is a little used-car salesman. Time will tell if these are his actual beliefs or just positioning. I don't hold the view that he was a PR man so everything he says is a lie - I was a PR man, and I still have actual sincerely held beliefs. But we haven't had any time to test Smith's. And that, for me, is the real problem - we just don't know enough about him. Angela Eagle's campaign launch may have been dreadful, but at least she had some experience and we knew what we were getting. I'm beginning to wonder what on earth is going on in the PLP that the more experienced politician by far couldn't muster the support of as many MPs as the untested Smith. If one of the complaints about Corbyn was that he had never held a senior post, Smith doesn't offer a great deal more in that regard. Where are the big beasts? Is Labour really so devoid of talent at the top?

Presumably the 'big beasts' [or those that consider themselves to be big beasts], are waiting for a future leadership election without Corbyn in the running.

Greetings all btw.

Edited to include greetings therby covering up my lack of manners.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 1:42 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I think it actually started with his state funeral in 1965 and the mystique that grew up about it.

(back in the 1970s "crisis" there were certainly fairly regular demands for a "new Churchill" to save us)

When I was a child, it seemed to me that Winston Churchill's death\funeral went on for months although I don't remember anyone in my orbit saying anything much about him or being particularly interested or moved. He certainly wasn't idolised by people around me - many of those people being relatives directly affected by the war; and certainly very few of whom who would have been considered remotely left-wing. My memory is of the impression that he wasn't a universally popular man. Of course most of them loved all the pomp and ceremony, the Quing's involvement and all that rubbish, though. But it could have been about anyone.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 1:44 pm

A very belated good morfternoon.

Edited to add -

It is Page 2, when all's said and done . . . .

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 1:59 pm

Willow904 wrote:
I was more drawn to the comment in which Corbyn appeared to deny demanding Cameron invoke article 50 straight away after the EU ref, which was discussed on Twitter after. I didn't see this bit of the debate, so haven't heard the whole exchange. Given Corbyn was still asking Cameron to invoke article 50 immediately in the PMQ's the following week, I find it hard to understand how his meaning could have been misconstrued so am at a loss as to how he could reasonably deny it so am a bit of a loss as to what to make of it. I must be missing something. I certainly don't trust Twitter to give an accurate account!

On the morning of 24th he said it both on tv and radio more than once. How he can deny now having said it is bizarre to me. I know he has backtacked, and I suppose he can say he was 'misconstrued' but it is very odd to deny having said something he clearly did, and which was the immediate trigger for the entire challenge.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 2:05 pm

Tizme1 wrote:
Presumably the 'big beasts' [or those that consider themselves to be big beasts], are waiting for a future leadership election without Corbyn in the running.

1. Labour doesn't have that many 'Big beasts'- see the 2015 leadership election.

2. Those who stood in 2015 (Cooper) couldn't stand again this year.

3. Any successful challenge has to come from the 'soft' (ie AK) left. There are no Big Beasts at all from that part of Labour.

4. Any challenger this year is almost certain to lose, next year looks more hopeful. So wait, and let Smith take the hits.

5. It has to be a man as I don't think the Labour selectorate will ever elect a woman as leader. No woman has as yet out polled any man in any contest.

Lost Soul · Post by **Lost Soul** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 2:08 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
I was more drawn to the comment in which Corbyn appeared to deny demanding Cameron invoke article 50 straight away after the EU ref, which was discussed on Twitter after. I didn't see this bit of the debate, so haven't heard the whole exchange. Given Corbyn was still asking Cameron to invoke article 50 immediately in the PMQ's the following week, I find it hard to understand how his meaning could have been misconstrued so am at a loss as to how he could reasonably deny it so am a bit of a loss as to what to make of it. I must be missing something. I certainly don't trust Twitter to give an accurate account!
On the morning of 24th he said it both on tv and radio more than once. How he can deny now having said it is bizarre to me. I know he has backtacked, and I suppose he can say he was 'misconstrued' but it is very odd to deny having said something he clearly did, and which was the immediate trigger for the entire challenge.

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

I was wondering if I'd imagined it - but no...

Maeght · Post by **Maeght** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 2:25 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/membership/ ... emy-corbyn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I thought this was a very good article.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 2:27 pm

Lost Soul wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
I was more drawn to the comment in which Corbyn appeared to deny demanding Cameron invoke article 50 straight away after the EU ref, which was discussed on Twitter after. I didn't see this bit of the debate, so haven't heard the whole exchange. Given Corbyn was still asking Cameron to invoke article 50 immediately in the PMQ's the following week, I find it hard to understand how his meaning could have been misconstrued so am at a loss as to how he could reasonably deny it so am a bit of a loss as to what to make of it. I must be missing something. I certainly don't trust Twitter to give an accurate account!
On the morning of 24th he said it both on tv and radio more than once. How he can deny now having said it is bizarre to me. I know he has backtacked, and I suppose he can say he was 'misconstrued' but it is very odd to deny having said something he clearly did, and which was the immediate trigger for the entire challenge.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I was wondering if I'd imagined it - but no...

But did he deny it in the debate?

Maeght · Post by **Maeght** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 2:29 pm

Apologies if this is not a good link. Am on phone out and about and it won't let me check.

The article I mean is an interview in the Guardian with Peter Kilfoyle.

Post by **refitman** » Fri 05 Aug, 2016 2:41 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:1. Labour doesn't have that many 'Big beasts'- see the 2015 leadership election.
After 13 years of government this is mystifying. It wasn't as though Labour was devastated like the Tories were in 1997.

SpinningHugo wrote:2. Those who stood in 2015 (Cooper) couldn't stand again this year.
I don't entirely understand why. If Corbyn had failed so comprehensively wouldn't that suggest that Labour was wrong not to choose at least Burnham or Cooper? If Cooper had been remotely visible in the last year, it might have been different. If Burnham hadn't set his sights on the Manchester Mayor post, he might have been ideal - soft left (these days), loyal to Corbyn, and experienced.

SpinningHugo wrote:3. Any successful challenge has to come from the 'soft' (ie AK) left. There are no Big Beasts at all from that part of Labour.
See above, though Burnham is about the only one - not that the centre left is abundant with heavyweights.

SpinningHugo wrote:4. Any challenger this year is almost certain to lose, next year looks more hopeful. So wait, and let Smith take the hits.
You seriously want to go through all this again? And if next year looked so rosy, why spring the rebellion now?

SpinningHugo wrote:5. It has to be a man as I don't think the Labour selectorate will ever elect a woman as leader. No woman has as yet out polled any man in any contest.
Correlation does not imply causation. Labour has elected at least two female deputy leaders since the membership got the ability to vote in these contests IIRC. And might I add that your repeated characterisation of the Labour membership as sexist is one of the things I do not believe you can support and therefore would be grateful if, having stated your opinion on the matter for what it is worth, desist from asserting it again?

When the options are Kendall and Cooper, is it any wonder they weren't elected?