Saturday 6th and Sunday 7th August 2016

[utopiandreams]

Why, tinyclanger, was she shitting in the street?

[AnatolyKasparov]

Now now, Roger. Grammar schools, look what they did for me. On second thoughts my sis failed her 11 plus and it wasn't until she was 13 and we moved elsewhere that she went up a set and what became of her? Head hunted by one of the major financial institutions. Oh I see they've been in the news again, possibly best left unsaid.

Obvious kite flying, I wouldn't worry about it too much at this stage.

When, two decades ago, Major developed some nostalgia for "a grammar school in every town" his opponents quickly turned round public opinion by pointing out this also (almost by definition) meant "a secondary modern in every town". Never forget, the main impulse for mass conversion into comprehensives was the middle classes - determined *their* kids wouldn't be labelled as failures at 11 any more. The Education Secretary who ended most grammar schools was.......?

[PorFavor]

Local people to get cash payments from fracking
Theresa May rewrites the rules so that private individuals will directly benefit (Observer)

Will people be susceptible to being bought off? Will they think that having tried to stop fracking and failed in the attempt they might as well get some (probably paltry, in the grand scheme of things) cash benefit? Will they see, or care, that they are selling the moral high-ground? Is there any point in simply having the moral high-ground if it's achieving nothing? Is everything for sale?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... heresa-may

[AnatolyKasparov]

You could argue it at least shows a recognition that opposition to fracking is a real thing.

[sputnikkers]

Addressed primarily to the moderators (this is not a complaint and not worthy of the 'Report' button) but also partly to HindleA and the following response to their post using this quote of my words 'out of context':

'either by accident, but more likely by design have damaged the Labour Party, perhaps willingly by whomever for their own political gain. In particular, they have astroturfed ill-feeling and resentment towards Labour MPs at a dangerous time of anti-politics and probably incited hurtful, personal attacks as a result.

So not addressed to 'you' or named individual - I don't know an would prefer not to do so - but 'whomever' by accidental or intentional, or no particular reasons without necessarily implying 'they' had intent to harm at all. This was taken as

... deliberately inciting personal attacks' a 'disgraceful slur ...

I think this is neither factually or evidentially correct nor was it even a small part of my intention. The 'extract' / part written does not include nor indicate the elisions that produced the remark so, I think, need to be included to show how such a (and 'beneath contempt') remark (also only including a short quote) came about.

If it was said before the election it is not relevant to my claim. That the incorrect claims of 'non-opposition' to this Bill, either by accident, but more likely by design have damaged the Labour Party, perhaps willingly by whomever for their own political gain. In particular, they have astroturfed ill-feeling and resentment towards Labour MPs at a dangerous time of anti-politics and probably incited hurtful, personal attacks as a result. ...

Is not the full paragraph but relevant excerpt which seemed to precipitate the remark. While, as is unfortunately my wont, I had some other previous overlong exchanges about what I perceive and was evidenced about the 'facts' of the Second Reading of the Welfare ... Bill. I had originally asked about the vitriol I'd seen primarily elsewhere and how it came about as, in my opinion, having 'checked', this was a misrepresentation of what happened.

I acknowledged earlier (I 'think' with Robert Snozers(?) but this simple question has like my writing style become labyrinthine in an attempt to address complexity), that the MPs (as an agreed strategy) would abstain against the Bill but oppose it via a 'Reasoned Amendment'. So yes, in that narrow literal sense they did 'abstain' and 'not oppose' in that particular vote. They opposed it in their manner so as not to fall into a trap substantially based on not looking silly and voting for (literally) NO control over spending and NO cap on benefits. So the 'overall' portrayal as 'not opposing' the Bill is also literally 'incorrect' if you understand that doing so by 'reasoned amendment' is opposing. If you disagree, then fine, but for full disclosure and complete representation, say so, acknowledge their (poor?) strategy and how this attempt at mitigation is wrong. Repeating the 'elided' accusation, fully with this knowledge, is then a different animal, and in my opinion, different motivations become factors.

I did not directly impugn anybody's integrity or slur any person. I understand that politics is a 'big boy's game' (was going to make that less sexist but decided to let it stand). I understand that it would have been "part of the MSM" to troll Labour voters with a literally correct reporting of the facts by 'leaving out' an important factor. I don't expect people to have to 'fact check' every single accusation in case there might be a different interpretation. 'Bad reps' for 'profit' like any form of 'cheaing' can have dangerous consequences for other people in both the financial and political arena. Proliferating these bad representations here with knowledge of the facts might indeed be 'justified' by some appeal to pragmatism as bringing about some 'more important' objectives. However, that justification is one of 'pragmatism' rather than 'principle' and one which necessarily does not mind some of the unfortunate fallout as a result - even if not fully foreseen.

Once a 'bad representation' is out the damage is essentially done and can be done with deniable impunity. Look at Ed Miliband in the debate(?) saying that Labour didn't spend too much prior to 2008. Even if he had taken a further two hours backed by evidence of charts, statistics, expert opinion, I think that would have been more damaging and seen as 'mealy mouthed'.

So if you want me to give a direct impugning of 'honour' and 'principle' it would be against Mr Corbyn in the debate against Mr Smith. I believe (not going to check that tedious debate again - so apologise if not true) he used that accusation 'you abstained ...'. So literally 'true' but would leave Mr Smith in an unfortunate place of relating the whole story and defending a strategy (that he himself might not have been totally in favour with - I don't know) that was the 'Party' (whipped I think?) position. OK, Mr Corbyn was trying to make his opponent look bad to his own benefit - 'politics' and all that! But, as Party Leader, I believe he has a 'duty of care' to his MPs that goes beyond any political animosity between them. He is totally conversant with the situation that night because he was there, and voted against the motion to read the Bill in its totality (rebelled against the whip? and evidentially did not support the reasoned amendment - against the Party stance determined by its Leader).

Mr Corbyn must also be aware of the abuse and threats as a consequence of such accusations against many of these 'principle-less' MPs? Yet he chose to exploit, what in my view is a 'misrepresentation' of the 'totality of events' that night and considerations leading up to that one vote. He was content to represent a complex situation with a simplistic summation using the words 'you abstained ...'. This seems to be used deliberately to impugn the 'principles' of the implicated MPs and continue the hateful campaigns directed towards them - which just happens to be for gains in his own personal political (and could be unfortunately but 'literally accurately' 'misportrayed' as consequence of being leader, concomitant financial) capital.

As it turns out and was easily predicted, trying to make the ridiculously simplistic ordoliberal Bill work involves egregious decisions about which benefits to include within The Cap. With politically unjustifiable consequent effects on children (particularly in London) and the WRAGroup - except 'the mandate made me do it' - there was no other less damaging way. These were luckily highlighted in the Reasoned Amendment - though that would not have excluded other not-named effects. The 'amendment' laid down such a 'marker' and effortlessly seems to demonstrate political foresight rather than just shouting 'Nasty Party'. What could not have been foreseen is the political gift that it is now Mrs May in charge of the 'Nasty Party' that 'hates children'! Did she not have similar foresight and misgivings when she voted against the amendment?

Once again, this is TL:DR but I appeal to the moderators that the response to HindleA's remark is not factually correct. If this makes my participation in this Forum unwelcome then let me know here, please, I am not overly bothered that my opinions are not welcome. I do however need any sanctions to be indicated here as the email associated with the account is not actually active. It is partly 'fake' and never monitored nor actively used - apparently like my principles. If I have cast slurs it can, or should, only be individuals (apart from Mr Corbyn) self-identifying, indirectly with the hypothetical chain of reasoning involving: deliberately1 and knowingly2 promulgating a misrepresentation3 for political gain4. Four requirements! If people believe it is not a misrepresentation then they should not really take offence. As I have said 'that is politics' - stuff happens!

The current Leadership of the Labour Party has lost my vote. If I end up voting against Labour for my first time ever, I accept that it will indeed appear that I am indeed without principles etc.. Just not the principles that 'The Leadership's' ownership of the brand portray to me, rather than claim to espouse. I won't be a Labour voter! No great loss in any one's opinion!

[RogerOThornhill]

So this is how it went.

Here's the evidence
Whataboutery. It's your opinion which is useless.
Here's some more evidence
Whataboutery. It's your opinion which is useless.
So where's your counter evidence?
Insult.
Sigh. Over and out.

Meanwhile England have a wicket.

If anyone wishes to check the accuracy of the above, here's the link. Lies? I don't think so.

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



Enough already.

[Temulkar]

Addressed primarily to the moderators (this is not a complaint and not worthy of the 'Report' button) but also partly to HindleA and the following response to their post using this quote of my words 'out of context':

'either by accident, but more likely by design have damaged the Labour Party, perhaps willingly by whomever for their own political gain. In particular, they have astroturfed ill-feeling and resentment towards Labour MPs at a dangerous time of anti-politics and probably incited hurtful, personal attacks as a result.

So not addressed to 'you' or named individual - I don't know an would prefer not to do so - but 'whomever' by accidental or intentional, or no particular reasons without necessarily implying 'they' had intent to harm at all. This was taken as

... deliberately inciting personal attacks' a 'disgraceful slur ...

I think this is neither factually or evidentially correct nor was it even a small part of my intention. The 'extract' / part written does not include nor indicate the elisions that produced the remark so, I think, need to be included to show how such a (and 'beneath contempt') remark (also only including a short quote) came about.

If it was said before the election it is not relevant to my claim. That the incorrect claims of 'non-opposition' to this Bill, either by accident, but more likely by design have damaged the Labour Party, perhaps willingly by whomever for their own political gain. In particular, they have astroturfed ill-feeling and resentment towards Labour MPs at a dangerous time of anti-politics and probably incited hurtful, personal attacks as a result. ...

Is not the full paragraph but relevant excerpt which seemed to precipitate the remark. While, as is unfortunately my wont, I had some other previous overlong exchanges about what I perceive and was evidenced about the 'facts' of the Second Reading of the Welfare ... Bill. I had originally asked about the vitriol I'd seen primarily elsewhere and how it came about as, in my opinion, having 'checked', this was a misrepresentation of what happened.

I acknowledged earlier (I 'think' with Robert Snozers(?) but this simple question has like my writing style become labyrinthine in an attempt to address complexity), that the MPs (as an agreed strategy) would abstain against the Bill but oppose it via a 'Reasoned Amendment'. So yes, in that narrow literal sense they did 'abstain' and 'not oppose' in that particular vote. They opposed it in their manner so as not to fall into a trap substantially based on not looking silly and voting for (literally) NO control over spending and NO cap on benefits. So the 'overall' portrayal as 'not opposing' the Bill is also literally 'incorrect' if you understand that doing so by 'reasoned amendment' is opposing. If you disagree, then fine, but for full disclosure and complete representation, say so, acknowledge their (poor?) strategy and how this attempt at mitigation is wrong. Repeating the 'elided' accusation, fully with this knowledge, is then a different animal, and in my opinion, different motivations become factors.

I did not directly impugn anybody's integrity or slur any person. I understand that politics is a 'big boy's game' (was going to make that less sexist but decided to let it stand). I understand that it would have been "part of the MSM" to troll Labour voters with a literally correct reporting of the facts by 'leaving out' an important factor. I don't expect people to have to 'fact check' every single accusation in case there might be a different interpretation. 'Bad reps' for 'profit' like any form of 'cheaing' can have dangerous consequences for other people in both the financial and political arena. Proliferating these bad representations here with knowledge of the facts might indeed be 'justified' by some appeal to pragmatism as bringing about some 'more important' objectives. However, that justification is one of 'pragmatism' rather than 'principle' and one which necessarily does not mind some of the unfortunate fallout as a result - even if not fully foreseen.

Once a 'bad representation' is out the damage is essentially done and can be done with deniable impunity. Look at Ed Miliband in the debate(?) saying that Labour didn't spend too much prior to 2008. Even if he had taken a further two hours backed by evidence of charts, statistics, expert opinion, I think that would have been more damaging and seen as 'mealy mouthed'.

So if you want me to give a direct impugning of 'honour' and 'principle' it would be against Mr Corbyn in the debate against Mr Smith. I believe (not going to check that tedious debate again - so apologise if not true) he used that accusation 'you abstained ...'. So literally 'true' but would leave Mr Smith in an unfortunate place of relating the whole story and defending a strategy (that he himself might not have been totally in favour with - I don't know) that was the 'Party' (whipped I think?) position. OK, Mr Corbyn was trying to make his opponent look bad to his own benefit - 'politics' and all that! But, as Party Leader, I believe he has a 'duty of care' to his MPs that goes beyond any political animosity between them. He is totally conversant with the situation that night because he was there, and voted against the motion to read the Bill in its totality (rebelled against the whip? and evidentially did not support the reasoned amendment - against the Party stance determined by its Leader).

Mr Corbyn must also be aware of the abuse and threats as a consequence of such accusations against many of these 'principle-less' MPs? Yet he chose to exploit, what in my view is a 'misrepresentation' of the 'totality of events' that night and considerations leading up to that one vote. He was content to represent a complex situation with a simplistic summation using the words 'you abstained ...'. This seems to be used deliberately to impugn the 'principles' of the implicated MPs and continue the hateful campaigns directed towards them - which just happens to be for gains in his own personal political (and could be unfortunately but 'literally accurately' 'misportrayed' as consequence of being leader, concomitant financial) capital.

As it turns out and was easily predicted, trying to make the ridiculously simplistic ordoliberal Bill work involves egregious decisions about which benefits to include within The Cap. With politically unjustifiable consequent effects on children (particularly in London) and the WRAGroup - except 'the mandate made me do it' - there was no other less damaging way. These were luckily highlighted in the Reasoned Amendment - though that would not have excluded other not-named effects. The 'amendment' laid down such a 'marker' and effortlessly seems to demonstrate political foresight rather than just shouting 'Nasty Party'. What could not have been foreseen is the political gift that it is now Mrs May in charge of the 'Nasty Party' that 'hates children'! Did she not have similar foresight and misgivings when she voted against the amendment?

Once again, this is TL:DR but I appeal to the moderators that the response to HindleA's remark is not factually correct. If this makes my participation in this Forum unwelcome then let me know here, please, I am not overly bothered that my opinions are not welcome. I do however need any sanctions to be indicated here as the email associated with the account is not actually active. It is partly 'fake' and never monitored nor actively used - apparently like my principles. If I have cast slurs it can, or should, only be individuals (apart from Mr Corbyn) self-identifying, indirectly with the hypothetical chain of reasoning involving: deliberately1 and knowingly2 promulgating a misrepresentation3 for political gain4. Four requirements! If people believe it is not a misrepresentation then they should not really take offence. As I have said 'that is politics' - stuff happens!

The current Leadership of the Labour Party has lost my vote. If I end up voting against Labour for my first time ever, I accept that it will indeed appear that I am indeed without principles etc.. Just not the principles that 'The Leadership's' ownership of the brand portray to me, rather than claim to espouse. I won't be a Labour voter! No great loss in any one's opinion!

Your accusation is quite clear above, granted your incoherent and verbose rants are largely unintelligble despite your wonderfully bolded sections (arent you a clever lilttle puppy working that one out).

You accuse me and anyone else of 'deliberately' 'by design' and 'probably incited hurtful personal attacks' your words, perhaps if you chose them with more care your meaning wouldnt be lost, but at the moment your smear stands. If that was not your intention may I suggest an apology for smearing me and others with your ill-judged words rather than yet another kinnockesque empty monologue.

I put up with the snide comments about the Greens on here every day, but I will be damned if I put up with anyone accusing me of inciting attacks.

Apologise of HTFU.

[ephemerid]

Oh stop this. Please.

It's bad enough when ORCT starts - don't need you two at it as well.

Play nice.

[utopiandreams]

Well I for one don't want to see you leaving, sputnikkers, or anybody else for that matter. However I cannot help but counter supposed 'duty of care' by a leader toward those that usurp his position. Regarding attacks directed at you personally or likewise by you toward others then may I humbly suggest that everybody wind their necks in.

No offence I have literally been tickling a tortoise under the chin. I may add that I lose any sense of decorum when it gets heated here. I thought that many of us suggested that nesting at the G would encourage such behaviour as indeed it seemingly has. Please let us not bring that here and at least acknowledge different viewpoints without taking things personally. Mind you I did note one extremely curt comment very much directed at someone yesterday (was it you?) that deserved admonishment.

Postscript: when I ask was it you, I mean directed at you.... Just to be clear it wasn't Tem who made said comment either.

[Temulkar]

Oh stop this. Please.

It's bad enough when ORCT starts - don't need you two at it as well.

Play nice.

Frankly I am fucking sick of the bullshit being spouted by the haters, they have no political argument and resort to personal smears instead. I also don't hide my real identity - its well known on here - so Im not putting up with some unknown accusing me of something that is a criminal offence, with no justification nor indeed evidence.

I want an apology not another essay.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Look, I'm very likely going to vote for Smith but even I can see the behaviour towards Corbyn by much of the PLP (and others in the party "establishment") has been genuinely disgusting. Anybody who refuses to accept that is simply in denial.

[tinyclanger2]

I spend enough time with my brain and don't come here to post messages to myself. Suggest we restrain and/or ignore tone on occasion to avoid abandoning me to such a fate.

[tinyclanger2]

Or let me put it this way:

One 'man's' demanding an apology, insisting people behave in a certain way, requiring expertise regarding input, or other such thing, is another 'man's' impoverished experience on this board.

[Temulkar]

Or let me put it this way:

One 'man's' demanding an apology, insisting people behave in a certain way, requiring expertise regarding input, or other such thing, is another 'man's' impoverished experience on this board.

Ive been accused of a criminal offence, I do not hide my identity, and no apology or retraction is forthcoming. That's actually a very serious matter, not something to be brushed off, and not something I am going to drop.

If sputnikkers did not mean to libel me then an apology will suffice. Two words rather than an essay.

[tinyclanger2]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 75961.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Samia Omar, an Olympian sprinter who had once competed for her home country, Somalia, could not be among the athletes representing their countries. She drowned while trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea in 2012, aged 21.

This + increase in British racism bothers me a lot more.

Edited to say this is NOT a response to Temulkar's post above!

[tinyclanger2]

Or let me put it this way:

One 'man's' demanding an apology, insisting people behave in a certain way, requiring expertise regarding input, or other such thing, is another 'man's' impoverished experience on this board.

Ive been accused of a criminal offence, I do not hide my identity, and no apology or retraction is forthcoming. That's actually a very serious matter, not something to be brushed off, and not something I am going to drop.

If sputnikkers did not mean to libel me then an apology will suffice. Two words rather than an essay.

The comment was not aimed at you specifically and I have to admit not having followed the conversation between yourself and anyone else. But in general there have been some bilateral spats here of late that I would be happier not to see.

[Temulkar]

Or let me put it this way:

One 'man's' demanding an apology, insisting people behave in a certain way, requiring expertise regarding input, or other such thing, is another 'man's' impoverished experience on this board.

Ive been accused of a criminal offence, I do not hide my identity, and no apology or retraction is forthcoming. That's actually a very serious matter, not something to be brushed off, and not something I am going to drop.

If sputnikkers did not mean to libel me then an apology will suffice. Two words rather than an essay.

The comment was not aimed at you specifically and I have to admit not having followed the conversation between yourself and anyone else. But in general there have been some bilateral spats here of late that I would be happier not to see.

The comment was in reply to me and directed at me. If there was no intention to accuse me of a criminal offence then fine, but that has to be stated by the person making the accusation. Accusing someone of criminality is a really serious matter - do people on here not understand that?

[tinyclanger2]

Temulkar - when I say "the comment" in my post above I mean the comment I made and to which you have responded. But in your reply you are talking - I assume - about the comment that someone else made to you on a previous occasion.

It's a path to confusion.

(edited for clarity (!))

[AngryAsWell]

In response to sputnikkers, although I admit I am not sure I understand the point being made, so may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

This is my understanding. When parliament voted the Welfare Reform and Work Bill a second reading, Labour put forward an amendment saying what it did and didn't agree with in the bill. That amendment was defeated. Labour then abstained from the vote on the second reading itself, according to Hilary Benn, because of the things Labour agreed with (although as many Labour MPs pointed out, there was not universal agreement with these thing e.g. The Tory vision of apprenticeships). This effectively wiped away the earlier amendment and signalled that Labour did not oppose the bill as a whole.

It worries me that we are still fighting these year-old battles that we catastrophically lost. If Labour can't learn that equivocating and playing the percentages rather than full-throatedly opposing Tory policy looks craven and weak, then we might as well not bother. If anyone wants to hold to the old position of 'principled' amendment that's doomed to failure and little understood by the people Labour needs to vote for it, then fine, but it demonstrably isn't a winning strategy.

They voted "for" the amendment. Therefore, they voted against the bill, no need for a further vote either for or against as by putting forward the amendment they had already "voted against" - opposed - the bill.
Point being made is that many on the left already know this, yet perpetuate the myth that Labour "didn't vote against" the bill
Post truth politics in action.
Edit to add :
Knowing that at the 3rd reading they would vote "against" it in the entirety as the amendment attempt had failed.

[AngryAsWell]

In response to sputnikkers, although I admit I am not sure I understand the point being made, so may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

This is my understanding. When parliament voted the Welfare Reform and Work Bill a second reading, Labour put forward an amendment saying what it did and didn't agree with in the bill. That amendment was defeated. Labour then abstained from the vote on the second reading itself, according to Hilary Benn, because of the things Labour agreed with (although as many Labour MPs pointed out, there was not universal agreement with these thing e.g. The Tory vision of apprenticeships). This effectively wiped away the earlier amendment and signalled that Labour did not oppose the bill as a whole.

It worries me that we are still fighting these year-old battles that we catastrophically lost. If Labour can't learn that equivocating and playing the percentages rather than full-throatedly opposing Tory policy looks craven and weak, then we might as well not bother. If anyone wants to hold to the old position of 'principled' amendment that's doomed to failure and little understood by the people Labour needs to vote for it, then fine, but it demonstrably isn't a winning strategy.

They voted "for" the amendment. Therefore, they voted against the bill, no need for a further vote either for or against as by putting forward the amendment they had already "voted against" - opposed - the bill.
Point being made is that many on the left already know this, yet perpetuate the myth that Labour "didn't vote against" the bill
Post truth politics in action.

Not really. Having indicated what they did and didn't like about the bill, when the amendment was defeated, Labour still had a choice as to what to do next. Many Labour MPs felt it was wrong to abstain, so they voted against. There was no consensus about this at the time within Labour so it's wrong to suggest that those who voted against, and say that Labour should have voted against, somehow didn't get Labour's position or were being disingenuous. Harman was hedging and she screwed up. This is surely not a controversial observation.

The fact is that Labour got a drubbing for the way it tried to escape from the perceived trap. The fury that many members felt over this was reflected in the strong support that Corbyn began to gain after this point. Understanding the response to the abstention can't simply be put down to post-truth politics. Of course those other leftist parties made hay with it, that's their job, but many within Labour felt it was wrong too, and understanding that is an important part of understanding why Corbyn won.

Sorry Robert I put an edit in whilst you were replying
"Knowing that at the 3rd reading they would vote "against" it in the entirety as the amendment attempt had failed."
Bills get passed back & forward like this all the time. After the 2nd reading it goes back to committee for more amendments, then to report stage and finally back for third reading, which is the stage to vote "against" because there are no more chances to amend it.
The problem here was many thought the tax credit cuts were in it. They were not, which is why Osborne had to do his statutory bill to try and get them in via the back door, the one that failed in the Lords.

[ephemerid]

I am inclined to agree with the following -

1. We ALL need to wind our necks in at times, actually, and we could ALL be a little less precious. That includes me and anyone who the cap fits.

2. Robert makes the point that all this stuff about the bill was a year ago. I thought I understood this stuff, but it took HindleA's patient explanation of what "reasoned amendments" meant etc. before I twigged what had really happened - thus, I don't expect a significant cohort of people to see anything other than an abstention when what they might have wanted to see was something else. Wot Rob sez.

[citizenJA]

Good-afternoon, everyone.

[AngryAsWell]

How Liam Fox got into bed with Azerbaijan’s kleptocrats
Nick Cohen

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

[citizenJA]

@sputnikkers
I like a lot of your commentary. I appreciate your work.

[Willow904]

In response to sputnikkers, although I admit I am not sure I understand the point being made, so may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

This is my understanding. When parliament voted the Welfare Reform and Work Bill a second reading, Labour put forward an amendment saying what it did and didn't agree with in the bill. That amendment was defeated. Labour then abstained from the vote on the second reading itself, according to Hilary Benn, because of the things Labour agreed with (although as many Labour MPs pointed out, there was not universal agreement with these thing e.g. The Tory vision of apprenticeships). This effectively wiped away the earlier amendment and signalled that Labour did not oppose the bill as a whole.

It worries me that we are still fighting these year-old battles that we catastrophically lost. If Labour can't learn that equivocating and playing the percentages rather than full-throatedly opposing Tory policy looks craven and weak, then we might as well not bother. If anyone wants to hold to the old position of 'principled' amendment that's doomed to failure and little understood by the people Labour needs to vote for it, then fine, but it demonstrably isn't a winning strategy.

I agree the decision on the welfare bill by Harman was the wrong decision. I don't really see why Labour couldn't oppose it and then list which specific bits they were opposed to when challenged, there were plenty of specifics worth taking issue with. They could still say they agreed with this or that, whilst opposing overall.

I may have confused things yesterday by talking about the Charter for Budget Responsibility vote under Ed Miliband at the same time others were discussing the welfare vote under Harman. I do feel that was a different case, because there wasn't really anything specific in it that needed opposing and if Labour had been able to put across the message that it simply meant ensuring tax receipts covered outgoings and in no way committed them to austerity cuts, it wouldn't have been an issue. The failure to communicate, the failure to get past the media's attempts to obfuscate in the Tories favour and to Labour's detriment was the failure under Ed, not the actual vote imo.

Edited to add, I hold Harman responsible for her mistake on the welfare bill, not those who voted as instructed out of loyalty. With a Tory majority and no rebels, it didn't make a difference. Debating the pros and cons of the strategy within the party and maybe agreeing Labour should move away from these fudges in future is fine. Didn't McDonnell almost make a similar mistake early on before acting on general advice and opposing? Sorry, can't remember the details. My point is the way in which individual Labour MPs are being demonized for voting as instructed by the leader is disproportionate to my mind. The criticism should be of the leader's choice, not MPs loyalty which, indeed, at other times is held up as a positive.

[AngryAsWell]

Batting on a fair wicket?
"Last year we won the Ashes! Hooray!
And no one rang me to ask my opinion. But that’s not surprising because I know very little about cricket. Ian Botham does. He was one of England’s greatest ever players, indeed a true cricketing legend, so his opinion would actually be of some value.
You will have noticed that ‘Beefy’ has become a spokesman for a campaigning body called ‘You Forgot the Birds’."..

http://www.chrispackham.co.uk/news/batt ... air-wicket" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

'Sack eco warrior Packham', BBC is told as countryside campaigners including Sir Ian Botham rally against Springwatch presenter Chris and his outspoken attacks on hunting

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nting.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AnatolyKasparov]

It wasn't just the decision Harman made, far from it. Arguably much worse was the "justification" offered for that position.

(something which is now never mentioned by those who wish to gloss over this episode)

Does anybody here - even the most ardent anti-Corbynite - find "the Tories won the election and these proposals are popular" acceptable? Because that was what she said, almost word for word. Accompanied by some gleeful anonymous (of course) briefing about how Burnham had been "humiliated" in the Shadow Cabinet meeting.

Of course, that was because she had decided she wanted a woman leader - pretty much irrespective of their actual politics. Empty identity politics at its worst.

Is anybody surprised so many people reacted as they did?

[mbc1955]

Batting on a fair wicket?
"Last year we won the Ashes! Hooray!
And no one rang me to ask my opinion. But that’s not surprising because I know very little about cricket. Ian Botham does. He was one of England’s greatest ever players, indeed a true cricketing legend, so his opinion would actually be of some value.
You will have noticed that ‘Beefy’ has become a spokesman for a campaigning body called ‘You Forgot the Birds’."..

http://www.chrispackham.co.uk/news/batt ... air-wicket" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

'Sack eco warrior Packham', BBC is told as countryside campaigners including Sir Ian Botham rally against Springwatch presenter Chris and his outspoken attacks on hunting

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nting.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ian Botham was indeed a great cricketer, and I have indelible memories of watching him play. One of England's greatest.

And also one of England's greatest dickheads.

Botham is a Monarchist who has expressed the opinion that republicans should all be hung, and that he would do it personally.

I sort of took against him after that. You shouldn't be surprised if he's into hunting. Or anything else reactionary.

[citizenJA]

I am inclined to agree with the following -

1. We ALL need to wind our necks in at times, actually, and we could ALL be a little less precious. That includes me and anyone who the cap fits.

2. Robert makes the point that all this stuff about the bill was a year ago. I thought I understood this stuff, but it took HindleA's patient explanation of what "reasoned amendments" meant etc. before I twigged what had really happened - thus, I don't expect a significant cohort of people to see anything other than an abstention when what they might have wanted to see was something else. Wot Rob sez.

(my emphasis)

A lot of people still blame Labour for the 2008 global financial crisis. Many people believe what they hear regularly repeated. The truth is sometimes more complicated.

[PorFavor]

@mbc1955

Just to point out that I'm in no way endorsing your comments about cricketing prowess - about which I know absolutely nothing!

[PorFavor]

Good morfternoon.

[PorFavor]

Oh - can we all bust a gut and get to Page 9, please? Then I can regale you all with a "Paganini" joke.

No? Oh, alright.

[PorFavor]

Thanks all, appreciate the discussion.

For me, the problem with the Welfare Reform and Work bill was partly one of perception rather than reality, which normally I would have little truck with, but the preception was so powerful in this case that it overwhelmed anything else, and it was avoidable. I've heard the suggestion that Harman was trying to hamstring Burnham. I don't know whether that's true, but it probably did put Burnham in the most invidious position of anyone. The worst thing was that it was avoidable.

The fiscal responsibility charter was a slightly different matter, and much more an issue of post-truth politics. It was the SNP that really made hay with that, though the other Left parties did jump on the bandwagon a bit. I think it would have been possible to oppose without loss of face, not least as McDonnell has come up with a better fiscal rule showing that it was not necessary to agree with the detail of Osborne's policy.

Easy to say with hindsight of course, but the utter failure of Osborne's fiscal policy means Labour need not tarnish itself by agreeing with anything he said, even if some aspects weren't by themselves awful. We still have the legacy of expecting monetary policy to magic up demand while fiscal policy depresses it. We need fiscal and monetary policy to stop pulling in different directions

Yes. To oversimplify it, it goes back to the "I welcome the . . . . but" thing, where so o often Labour should be saying "That's crap and here's what we'd do. Our way still addresses the problem but in a completely different way. And here is our way. "


Edited - typo

[Willow904]

I am inclined to agree with the following -

1. We ALL need to wind our necks in at times, actually, and we could ALL be a little less precious. That includes me and anyone who the cap fits.

2. Robert makes the point that all this stuff about the bill was a year ago. I thought I understood this stuff, but it took HindleA's patient explanation of what "reasoned amendments" meant etc. before I twigged what had really happened - thus, I don't expect a significant cohort of people to see anything other than an abstention when what they might have wanted to see was something else. Wot Rob sez.

(my emphasis)

A lot of people still blame Labour for the 2008 global financial crisis. Many people believe what they hear regularly repeated. The truth is sometimes more complicated.

This is why I felt the economists panel was such a good idea and why I'm so disappointed it's fallen apart. Labour need more voices from other areas echoing what they say in order for any of it to get through. They need back up so to speak. If Labour can get a strong economic message right and repeat it ad nauseam, with support from third parties, they can start to dispel the myth of economic incompetence, but it's going to be a long slog. They need to be committed and very organised, no making things up on the hoof in interviews, but carefully mapped out, thoroughly familiarised with by all MPs and stuck to consistently.

[citizenJA]

Local people to get cash payments from fracking
Theresa May rewrites the rules so that private individuals will directly benefit (Observer)

Will people be susceptible to being bought off? Will they think that having tried to stop fracking and failed in the attempt they might as well get some (probably paltry, in the grand scheme of things) cash benefit? Will they see, or care, that they are selling the moral high-ground? Is there any point in simply having the moral high-ground if it's achieving nothing? Is everything for sale?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... heresa-may

Please don't do it, people, don't take their money. You'll never be paid enough to compensate for the incessant noise, lack of drinkable water or comprised well integrity.

[citizenJA]

To oversimplify it, it goes back to the "I welcome the . . . . but" thing, where so o often Labour should be saying "That's crap and here's what we'd do. Our way still addresses the problem but in a completely different way. And here is our way. "


Edited - typo

(cJA edit)

Can a party member do that in the House without getting thrown out on their ear by Mr. Speaker for not speaking Parliament Lingo? Serious question. Add to list of Things Requiring Reform, if no.

[tinyclanger2]

Wholehearted agreement with PF above. I can't see much value in an opposition party that agrees with the party in power in order to seem more like it and so get in next time. I can see value in an opposition party that actually has a rational and substantially different view on how things can actually work out.

[citizenJA]

Wholehearted agreement with PF above. I can't see much value in an opposition party that agrees with the party in power in order to seem more like it and so get in next time. I can see value in an opposition party that actually has a different view on how things can work out.

AYE

[PorFavor]

To oversimplify it, it goes back to the "I welcome the . . . . but" thing, where so o often Labour should be saying "That's crap and here's what we'd do. Our way still addresses the problem but in a completely different way. And here is our way. "


Edited - typo

(cJA edit)

Can a party member do that in the House without getting thrown out on their ear by Mr. Speaker for not speaking Parliament Lingo? Serious question. Add to list of Things Requiring Reform, if no.

Ha! I don't think using my exact wording would be a recommended path to take - but I don't actually think it's technically unparliamentary language. But I'm not an expert on the subject.

[PorFavor]

Just popped over for another gander at the Guardian.

The rowing's off in Rio - bad weather, apparently. Well, that's ruined my day.

[citizenJA]

To oversimplify it, it goes back to the "I welcome the . . . . but" thing, where so o often Labour should be saying "That's crap and here's what we'd do. Our way still addresses the problem but in a completely different way. And here is our way. "
Edited - typo

(cJA edit)

Can a party member do that in the House without getting thrown out on their ear by Mr. Speaker for not speaking Parliament Lingo? Serious question. Add to list of Things Requiring Reform, if no.

Ha! I don't think using my exact wording would be a recommended path to take - but I don't actually think it's technically unparliamentary language. But I'm not an expert on the subject.

I don't think there's anything wrong with your wording. Please know my question was a genuine one - it seems to me there's a lot of archaic rules surrounding seating arrangements, who may speak when (hollering from back sections don't provide meaningful transmission of information to the electorate) and other protocol demands not fit for 21st century purpose. It's fun sometimes. But it's usually messy and convoluted most often.

[thatchersorphan]

Amendments to make bills 'a bit better' also doesn't go down as well as you might expect. This is again a perception thing and is due to the lib dems spending years telling us their amendments and interventions stopped the tories being quite so bad

[PorFavor]

@citizenJA

Yes - I know yours was a genuine question so there's no problem there. I'm just sorry I'm not equipped to answer it.

[AngryAsWell]

"This sort of ignorance postulated by Leavers is astounding:"

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

...and 170 have signed it.....

[tinyclanger2]

If we got rid of all foreign-derived words, we'd have about none.

[PorFavor]

"This sort of ignorance postulated by Leavers is astounding:"

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

...and 170 have signed it.....

171 now I've added my name . . . .

What?

[PorFavor]

Further to the fracking article -

Trying to bribe public to accept fracking won't work, say campaigners

Greenpeace accuses Theresa May of wanting to ‘silence concerns with a wad of cash’ as Labour and Green party join attack (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... enpeace-la

[tinyclanger2]

not strictly speaking politics, but these windmills somehow bring to mind an invasion of daleks

kinderdijk daleks 1.jpg (9.35 KiB) Viewed 9536 times

[tinyclanger2]

"This sort of ignorance postulated by Leavers is astounding:"

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

...and 170 have signed it.....

171 now I've added my name . . . .

What?

I bet in a previous life you were a real inkhornist (if that's the right term)

[utopiandreams]

No doubt you've seen those getting your money's worth ads. Well I had some Lucozade for an energy boost left from an enforced liquid diet. Yuk! No way, even for a skinflint like me. I don't care how hot it is, a much needed strong coffee now just to take the taste away.