@AndyJS - "The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming,”
Cheers Andy, that does sound familiar, although I’m sure Nick also mentioned designing one.
[edit. It was years ago now so could be barking up the wrong tree]
Thanks for the good wishes, all. Yes, I wrote three books on games and that one was the success - sold 100,000 copies in 5 editions. I designed a computer game (Their Finest Hour), a board game (Strike!) long out of print and a couple of games for conventions.
Danny - I'm leaning to Yvette as I think voters rate us a great deal (too much IMO) on whether the LOTO is imaginable in Number 10. On the whole I think Yvette ticks that box best of the contenders, as well as adding a certain freshness by virtue of gender - I think people will take the trouble to have a closer look at her, whereas they already think they know about Andy and Jeremy (I don't honestly think Liz has any chance). I have reservations about her media performance, but that's something one can learn, and it's not really Cameron's longest suit either.
'On the whole I think Yvette ticks that box best of the contenders'
That sounds a lot like the 'best of a bad lot' arguement from you Nick...
Let's hope other Lab people are coming to this sensible conclusion.
"But there is an arrogance at the heart of our politics that is going to make it difficult to really understand why we lost. It is an arrogance that says that we alone own morality and that we alone want the best for people. It says that our instincts and our motives alone are pure. It’s an arrogance that belittles others’ fears and concerns as “isms” whilst raising ours as righteous. We then mistakenly define ourselves as being distinctive from our opponents because we are morally superior rather than because we have different diagnoses and solutions. It is lazy, wrong and politically dangerous."
Incidentally, those are pretty dark places you have to voyage to. The kind of place where the nutjob wags have taken to talking about the evil terrorist group, "Israeli State". But they're out there.
These days it's hard to find anything which is 'neutral'. The Guardian are becoming more and more comical - even the NS are less biased than them. The Telegraph may as well be called the Torygraph, the Mail is for the permanently shocked and outraged and the tabloid give a simplified view of the world.
Since you and kle4 are both about I'll add something to our conversation last night...
If you go into the deepest and darkest green corners of the internet, you will discover the unpalatable truth. JEREMY CORBYN IS A VILE NEOLIBERAL. He mouths socialist platitudes in order to gain popularity, but is only splitting the left by doing so (in the sense that he is persuading members of the Greens or Left Unity etc to affiliate with Labour, hence breaking up genuine left-wing organisations and rupturing the radical left).
You might not have thought there are places where Corbyn is called a "neoliberal", but just like Telegraph kippers calling Cameron a left-wing liberal or Labour's lefties calling Harman a Tory sell-out, political positioning is clearly relative. For folk to the left of Corbyn (who is basically traditional "hard left" without encroaching anywhere near "far left") he is just a vicious right-winger like any other.
Jesus H Christ, those people surely must be communists! There's no way any sane person can think that Corbyn is a secret neo-liberal. The only commentator who I think would be mad enough to actually think that though, is Seamus Milne....
These days it's hard to find anything which is 'neutral'. The Guardian are becoming more and more comical - even the NS are less biased than them. The Telegraph may as well be called the Torygraph, the Mail is for the permanently shocked and outraged and the tabloid give a simplified view of the world.
Since you and @kle4 are both about I'll add something to our conversation last night...
If you go into the deepest and darkest green corners of the internet, you will discover the unpalatable truth. JEREMY CORBYN IS A VILE NEOLIBERAL. He mouths socialist platitudes in order to gain popularity, but is only splitting the left by doing so (in the sense that he is persuading members of the Greens or Left Unity etc to affiliate with Labour, hence breaking up genuine left-wing organisations and rupturing the radical left).
You might not have thought there are places where Corbyn is called a "neoliberal", but just like Telegraph kippers calling Cameron a left-wing liberal or Labour's lefties calling Harman a Tory sell-out, political positioning is clearly relative. For folk to the left of Corbyn (who is basically traditional "hard left" without encroaching anywhere near "far left") he is just a vicious right-winger like any other.
These days it's hard to find anything which is 'neutral'. The Guardian are becoming more and more comical - even the NS are less biased than them. The Telegraph may as well be called the Torygraph, the Mail is for the permanently shocked and outraged and the tabloid give a simplified view of the world.
Since you and kle4 are both about I'll add something to our conversation last night...
If you go into the deepest and darkest green corners of the internet, you will discover the unpalatable truth. JEREMY CORBYN IS A VILE NEOLIBERAL. He mouths socialist platitudes in order to gain popularity, but is only splitting the left by doing so (in the sense that he is persuading members of the Greens or Left Unity etc to affiliate with Labour, hence breaking up genuine left-wing organisations and rupturing the radical left).
You might not have thought there are places where Corbyn is called a "neoliberal", but just like Telegraph kippers calling Cameron a left-wing liberal or Labour's lefties calling Harman a Tory sell-out, political positioning is clearly relative. For folk to the left of Corbyn (who is basically traditional "hard left" without encroaching anywhere near "far left") he is just a vicious right-winger like any other.
Jesus H Christ, those people surely must be communists!
Ah yes, but are they the sensible marxist-leninists of the CPGB-ML, or traitorous neo-fascist trotskyites?
I'm talking my own book, but I think Yvette Cooper is too long in the Labour leadership market at present. She is very well-placed to pick up preferences.
I've more or less decided to vote for her, and have recommended her to the Broxtowe membership.
Off to California, Las Vegas, and a board games convention in Peensylvania tomorrow - first long holiday I've had for about 6 years. This not being obsessed with politics stuff is growing on me.
These days it's hard to find anything which is 'neutral'. The Guardian are becoming more and more comical - even the NS are less biased than them. The Telegraph may as well be called the Torygraph, the Mail is for the permanently shocked and outraged and the tabloid give a simplified view of the world.
Since you and kle4 are both about I'll add something to our conversation last night...
If you go into the deepest and darkest green corners of the internet, you will discover the unpalatable truth. JEREMY CORBYN IS A VILE NEOLIBERAL. He mouths socialist platitudes in order to gain popularity, but is only splitting the left by doing so (in the sense that he is persuading members of the Greens or Left Unity etc to affiliate with Labour, hence breaking up genuine left-wing organisations and rupturing the radical left).
You might not have thought there are places where Corbyn is called a "neoliberal", but just like Telegraph kippers calling Cameron a left-wing liberal or Labour's lefties calling Harman a Tory sell-out, political positioning is clearly relative. For folk to the left of Corbyn (who is basically traditional "hard left" without encroaching anywhere near "far left") he is just a vicious right-winger like any other.
Jesus H Christ, those people surely must be communists!
Ah yes, but are they the sensible marxist-leninists of the CPGB-ML, or traitorous neo-fascist trotskyites?
Last winter, two bodies in identical wetsuits were found in Norway and the Netherlands. Police in three countries failed to identify them - and then the trail led to Calais.
This is a very moving tale of woe in the NS. Actually the translation of a piece in Dagbladet.
Mouaz held out for six months before fleeing to Jordan, too.
He couldn’t get a place at the university in Amman, and with his father struggling to find work, he felt increasingly responsible for the family’s welfare. He decided to travel to Turkey in the hope of studying there, and that his family would be able to follow. But his university application was again unsuccessful, his sister said. Mouaz now faced a conundrum: he couldn’t return to Jordan as a refugee because he had already left the country voluntarily. He decided to try to make it to England.
“They have good laws for refugees, he could study there and our uncle lives there,” Rahaf says.
A fatal mistake so to think. But so long as people think Jerusalem is builded here, the tide will keep coming. Whatever you think the government response should be, the human cost of the present situation across Europe is something tragic.
These days it's hard to find anything which is 'neutral'. The Guardian are becoming more and more comical - even the NS are less biased than them. The Telegraph may as well be called the Torygraph, the Mail is for the permanently shocked and outraged and the tabloid give a simplified view of the world.
Since you and kle4 are both about I'll add something to our conversation last night...
If you go into the deepest and darkest green corners of the internet, you will discover the unpalatable truth. JEREMY CORBYN IS A VILE NEOLIBERAL. He mouths socialist platitudes in order to gain popularity, but is only splitting the left by doing so (in the sense that he is persuading members of the Greens or Left Unity etc to affiliate with Labour, hence breaking up genuine left-wing organisations and rupturing the radical left).
You might not have thought there are places where Corbyn is called a "neoliberal", but just like Telegraph kippers calling Cameron a left-wing liberal or Labour's lefties calling Harman a Tory sell-out, political positioning is clearly relative. For folk to the left of Corbyn (who is basically traditional "hard left" without encroaching anywhere near "far left") he is just a vicious right-winger like any other.
Jesus H Christ, those people surely must be communists!
Ah yes, but are they the sensible marxist-leninists of the CPGB-ML, or traitorous neo-fascist trotskyites?
It's not even that long since I did Russia (we did it at A-Level) but I can't even remember the difference between Marxist Leninist and Trotskyites!
These days it's hard to find anything which is 'neutral'. The Guardian are becoming more and more comical - even the NS are less biased than them. The Telegraph may as well be called the Torygraph, the Mail is for the permanently shocked and outraged and the tabloid give a simplified view of the world.
Since you and kle4 are both about I'll add something to our conversation last night...
If you go into the deepest and darkest green corners of the internet, you will discover the unpalatable truth. JEREMY CORBYN IS A VILE NEOLIBERAL. He mouths socialist platitudes in order to gain popularity, but is only splitting the left by doing so (in the sense that he is persuading members of the Greens or Left Unity etc to affiliate with Labour, hence breaking up genuine left-wing organisations and rupturing the radical left).
You might not have thought there are places where Corbyn is called a "neoliberal", but just like Telegraph kippers calling Cameron a left-wing liberal or Labour's lefties calling Harman a Tory sell-out, political positioning is clearly relative. For folk to the left of Corbyn (who is basically traditional "hard left" without encroaching anywhere near "far left") he is just a vicious right-winger like any other.
Jesus H Christ, those people surely must be communists!
Ah yes, but are they the sensible marxist-leninists of the CPGB-ML, or traitorous neo-fascist trotskyites?
And he had some even better ones about the Juche Idea Study Group of England. If North Korea is the answer, then you have to be asking the kind of question in which the regular Marxists-Leninists are not proper lefties, let alone the Trotskyists...
These days it's hard to find anything which is 'neutral'. The Guardian are becoming more and more comical - even the NS are less biased than them. The Telegraph may as well be called the Torygraph, the Mail is for the permanently shocked and outraged and the tabloid give a simplified view of the world.
Since you and kle4 are both about I'll add something to our conversation last night...
If you go into the deepest and darkest green corners of the internet, you will discover the unpalatable truth. JEREMY CORBYN IS A VILE NEOLIBERAL. He mouths socialist platitudes in order to gain popularity, but is only splitting the left by doing so (in the sense that he is persuading members of the Greens or Left Unity etc to affiliate with Labour, hence breaking up genuine left-wing organisations and rupturing the radical left).
You might not have thought there are places where Corbyn is called a "neoliberal", but just like Telegraph kippers calling Cameron a left-wing liberal or Labour's lefties calling Harman a Tory sell-out, political positioning is clearly relative. For folk to the left of Corbyn (who is basically traditional "hard left" without encroaching anywhere near "far left") he is just a vicious right-winger like any other.
Jesus H Christ, those people surely must be communists!
Ah yes, but are they the sensible marxist-leninists of the CPGB-ML, or traitorous neo-fascist trotskyites?
And he had some even better ones about the Juche Idea Study Group of England. If North Korea is the answer, then you have to be asking the kind of question in which the regular Marxists-Leninists are not proper lefties, let alone the Trotskyists...
The Nats were reckless about the effects of their Scottish strategy on public opinion in the rest of the UK, and when it became clear that it was damaging Mr Miliband’s chances in England, Ms Sturgeon did not change tack.
Change tack and do what, exactly? What alternative strategy could she have pursued that would have been more helpful to the "progressive alliance"?
These days it's hard to find anything which is 'neutral'. The Guardian are becoming more and more comical - even the NS are less biased than them. The Telegraph may as well be called the Torygraph, the Mail is for the permanently shocked and outraged and the tabloid give a simplified view of the world.
Since you and kle4 are both about I'll add something to our conversation last night...
If you go into the deepest and darkest green corners of the internet, you will discover the unpalatable truth. JEREMY CORBYN IS A VILE NEOLIBERAL. He mouths socialist platitudes in order to gain popularity, but is only splitting the left by doing so (in the sense that he is persuading members of the Greens or Left Unity etc to affiliate with Labour, hence breaking up genuine left-wing organisations and rupturing the radical left).
You might not have thought there are places where Corbyn is called a "neoliberal", but just like Telegraph kippers calling Cameron a left-wing liberal or Labour's lefties calling Harman a Tory sell-out, political positioning is clearly relative. For folk to the left of Corbyn (who is basically traditional "hard left" without encroaching anywhere near "far left") he is just a vicious right-winger like any other.
Jesus H Christ, those people surely must be communists!
Ah yes, but are they the sensible marxist-leninists of the CPGB-ML, or traitorous neo-fascist trotskyites?
It's not even that long since I did Russia (we did it at A-Level) but I can't even remember the difference between Marxist Leninist and Trotskyites!
I am sure to an outsider there is no difference, but this link provided the other day seems measured www.cpgb-ml.org/download/leaflets/trotskyism_20141027.pdf
Mr. Isam, come on. You were complaining recently of bickering putting off readers of the site, and then go overboard quite unnecessarily.
I understated it! Wasn't a scare story, the most famous bridge in the world closes then reopens due to a bomb scare.
A real story is 4 people still missing presumed really dead after a real explosion - in a wood mill blast - which really injured other real people. Meantime you cannot wait to get excited enough to spread scares about a fake explosion that never actually happened.
Let me make a little confession, back in the very late '70s I was innocently involved in being a party to a quite accidental (IRA) bomb scare. A friend of mine and myself met a group of friends we had holidayed with behind Lime St Station. He brought his ever so posh at the time cine camera projector equipment. In all the excitement of packing bags into car boots and rushing off to the pub he left his bag behind. Half way through his first pint he remembered and rushed back hoping it had not been stolen. Instead he was met by a forest of flashing blue lights, police ambulance and fire engines. When stopped he pointed out his bag (the suspicious package in question) with cables still sticking out of it and explained it all. ''Call off the Red Alert'' said the officer in charge into his police radio.
These days it's hard to find anything which is 'neutral'. The Guardian are becoming more and more comical - even the NS are less biased than them. The Telegraph may as well be called the Torygraph, the Mail is for the permanently shocked and outraged and the tabloid give a simplified view of the world.
Since you and kle4 are both about I'll add something to our conversation last night...
If you go into the deepest and darkest green corners of the internet, you will discover the unpalatable truth. JEREMY CORBYN IS A VILE NEOLIBERAL. He mouths socialist platitudes in order to gain popularity, but is only splitting the left by doing so (in the sense that he is persuading members of the Greens or Left Unity etc to affiliate with Labour, hence breaking up genuine left-wing organisations and rupturing the radical left).
You might not have thought there are places where Corbyn is called a "neoliberal", but just like Telegraph kippers calling Cameron a left-wing liberal or Labour's lefties calling Harman a Tory sell-out, political positioning is clearly relative. For folk to the left of Corbyn (who is basically traditional "hard left" without encroaching anywhere near "far left") he is just a vicious right-winger like any other.
Jesus H Christ, those people surely must be communists!
Ah yes, but are they the sensible marxist-leninists of the CPGB-ML, or traitorous neo-fascist trotskyites?
And he had some even better ones about the Juche Idea Study Group of England. If North Korea is the answer, then you have to be asking the kind of question in which the regular Marxists-Leninists are not proper lefties, let alone the Trotskyists...
The Juche Idea Idea Study Group of England and the Association for the Study of Songun Politics UK held a meeting in central London on January 30th to celebrate the birth of the great leader comrade Kim Jong Il, the greatest national holiday of the Korean people.
Sounds questionable - surely Kim Il Sung > Kim Jong Il > Kim Jong Un, with birthdays of descending greatness?
"But there is an arrogance at the heart of our politics that is going to make it difficult to really understand why we lost. It is an arrogance that says that we alone own morality and that we alone want the best for people. It says that our instincts and our motives alone are pure. It’s an arrogance that belittles others’ fears and concerns as “isms” whilst raising ours as righteous. We then mistakenly define ourselves as being distinctive from our opponents because we are morally superior rather than because we have different diagnoses and solutions. It is lazy, wrong and politically dangerous."
Very true Casino, but not a problem from my perspective that Labour people such as Don Brind and the gang of 4 running for Leadership above do not get it. As a "Rick Ardo" says: May 13, 2015 at 1:54 pm "Amazing that he original blogpost written after Labour’s 2010 defeat exposes all the same issues that Labour is discussing again in May 2015. Seems like Labour didn’t learn from the last defeat as the moral-high-ground brigade are once again out in force. Plus ca change, eh?"
the moral-high-ground brigade are once again out in force
A few days in Sausalito with visits to SF, Muir Woods, etc. Then driving gradually south visiting friends at Google (just curious about the place really), possibly a night on the beach, ending up with LA and Disneyland. Then fly to Las Vegas for 4 days' poker. Then to Lancaster, PA for the World Boardgaming Convention. A bit of everything really. I know the east coast fairly well but have never been to the west coast, or LV. The latter is on a strict budget, partly to enjoy the cheesy flavour and partly to see if my poker skills match up to American standards - I won a tournament at Aspers (£1165 prize) a couple of weeks ago, which pays for most of the air fares.
Yes...tempted to give Jeremy 2nd and Andy third but might be the other way round.
Curiously, I might even yet be tempted for first choice by Jeremy for the same reason that I liked Tony Blair - not a comparison either would like. They both have a reasonably coherent idea of where they want to take Britain - Jeremy to socialist egalitarianism (Sweden plus model, strong welfare state), Tony to Christian democracy (German model, strong public sector run by private companies), both of which seem to me preferable to our current chaotic society.
In both 2010 and 2015, I felt we had too many fragmentary policies (electricity freeze, 48 hours to see a GP, etc.) without any real sense of wanting to get from A to B. Yes, "stop the Tories" is a fallback, but really politics is pretty boring if you're only trying to stop someone else. I don't demand grand visions and am suspicious of them, but a sketch map would be nice.
The Juche Idea Idea Study Group of England and the Association for the Study of Songun Politics UK held a meeting in central London on January 30th to celebrate the birth of the great leader comrade Kim Jong Il, the greatest national holiday of the Korean people.
I've always thought that "comrade" as used by left-wing groups was supposed to be a levelling term, indicating a classless brotherhood of man. Seems a bit weird for these guys to use it to refer to the Kims, whom they regard as supernatural entities.
Ireland lost to Hong Kong in the cricket today at Malahide (World T20 qualification). They were beaten by Papua New Guinea a few days ago, too. Not that this represents any great consolation, but there are worse places to be than being thwonked around Lords by the Aussies.
"But there is an arrogance at the heart of our politics that is going to make it difficult to really understand why we lost. It is an arrogance that says that we alone own morality and that we alone want the best for people. It says that our instincts and our motives alone are pure. It’s an arrogance that belittles others’ fears and concerns as “isms” whilst raising ours as righteous. We then mistakenly define ourselves as being distinctive from our opponents because we are morally superior rather than because we have different diagnoses and solutions. It is lazy, wrong and politically dangerous."
Very true Casino, but not a problem from my perspective that Labour people such as Don Brind and the gang of 4 running for Leadership above do not get it. As a "Rick Ardo" says: May 13, 2015 at 1:54 pm "Amazing that he original blogpost written after Labour’s 2010 defeat exposes all the same issues that Labour is discussing again in May 2015. Seems like Labour didn’t learn from the last defeat as the moral-high-ground brigade are once again out in force. Plus ca change, eh?"
the moral-high-ground brigade are once again out in force
Arguably Peter Watts comments apply equally to the Tories. No lack of self-righteousness on the right and they are not immune to dismiss the values of others.
The Juche Idea Idea Study Group of England and the Association for the Study of Songun Politics UK held a meeting in central London on January 30th to celebrate the birth of the great leader comrade Kim Jong Il, the greatest national holiday of the Korean people.
I've always thought that "comrade" as used by left-wing groups was supposed to be a levelling term, indicating a classless brotherhood of man. Seems a bit weird for these guys to use it to refer to the Kims, whom they regard as supernatural entities.
Quite. I don't think all comrades are equally comradey I guess. Or maybe they're trying to make it the next 'Caesar' - an ironic nickname to family name to multiple language word for ruler - in terms of divorcing the original meaning from its eventual meaning.
I'm not a fan of Harriet Harman. I think this woman has done more to destroy the family unit than other politician I can think of. I am, however, disappointed but not surprised that she has succumbed to the "forces of hell" within her party. Perhaps it might be an eye-opener for her to witness what her party has been doing to others for years.
Does anyone know the true story of what happened to Esther McVey (with regards to the intimidation she was subjected to?)
''there is every hope that Osbo carefully crafted and presented package will unravel.'' Yes, let's HOPE the country goes to the dogs! That comment, alone, says it all about Labour and its supporters. There is HOPE that the country might end-up in the kind of dire economic circumstances that the last Labour government left it in. That is Labour's 'HOPE'. What a total disgrace you are!
''there is every hope that Osbo carefully crafted and presented package will unravel.'' Yes, let's HOPE the country goes to the dogs! That comment, alone, says it all about Labour and its supporters. There is HOPE that the country might end-up in the kind of dire economic circumstances that the last Labour government left it in. That is Labour's 'HOPE'. What a total disgrace you are!
Alternatively, what he means is that voters will see that what Osborne promised in the budget is not what it will deliver.
A few days in Sausalito with visits to SF, Muir Woods, etc. Then driving gradually south visiting friends at Google (just curious about the place really), possibly a night on the beach, ending up with LA and Disneyland. Then fly to Las Vegas for 4 days' poker. Then to Lancaster, PA for the World Boardgaming Convention. A bit of everything really. I know the east coast fairly well but have never been to the west coast, or LV. The latter is on a strict budget, partly to enjoy the cheesy flavour and partly to see if my poker skills match up to American standards - I won a tournament at Aspers (£1165 prize) a couple of weeks ago, which pays for most of the air fares.
Yes...tempted to give Jeremy 2nd and Andy third but might be the other way round.
Curiously, I might even yet be tempted for first choice by Jeremy for the same reason that I liked Tony Blair - not a comparison either would like. They both have a reasonably coherent idea of where they want to take Britain - Jeremy to socialist egalitarianism (Sweden plus model, strong welfare state), Tony to Christian democracy (German model, strong public sector run by private companies), both of which seem to me preferable to our current chaotic society.
In both 2010 and 2015, I felt we had too many fragmentary policies (electricity freeze, 48 hours to see a GP, etc.) without any real sense of wanting to get from A to B. Yes, "stop the Tories" is a fallback, but really politics is pretty boring if you're only trying to stop someone else. I don't demand grand visions and am suspicious of them, but a sketch map would be nice.
But I need to pack, so I'll leave it there.
I have been to the Google campus in Mountain View a few times. It is pretty impressive. If you work there everything is laid on free from haircuts through laundry to food so that you do not have to worry about anything except your work. The most amazing thing is that everyone looks exactly the same, except the patent lawyers. They all look the same as each other, but they are ten years older than everyone else.
A few days in Sausalito with visits to SF, Muir Woods, etc. Then driving gradually south visiting friends at Google (just curious about the place really), possibly a night on the beach, ending up with LA and Disneyland. Then fly to Las Vegas for 4 days' poker. Then to Lancaster, PA for the World Boardgaming Convention. A bit of everything really. I know the east coast fairly well but have never been to the west coast, or LV. The latter is on a strict budget, partly to enjoy the cheesy flavour and partly to see if my poker skills match up to American standards - I won a tournament at Aspers (£1165 prize) a couple of weeks ago, which pays for most of the air fares.
Yes...tempted to give Jeremy 2nd and Andy third but might be the other way round.
Curiously, I might even yet be tempted for first choice by Jeremy for the same reason that I liked Tony Blair - not a comparison either would like. They both have a reasonably coherent idea of where they want to take Britain - Jeremy to socialist egalitarianism (Sweden plus model, strong welfare state), Tony to Christian democracy (German model, strong public sector run by private companies), both of which seem to me preferable to our current chaotic society.
In both 2010 and 2015, I felt we had too many fragmentary policies (electricity freeze, 48 hours to see a GP, etc.) without any real sense of wanting to get from A to B. Yes, "stop the Tories" is a fallback, but really politics is pretty boring if you're only trying to stop someone else. I don't demand grand visions and am suspicious of them, but a sketch map would be nice.
But I need to pack, so I'll leave it there.
I have been to the Google campus in Mountain View a few times. It is pretty impressive. If you work there everything is laid on free from haircuts through laundry to food so that you do not have to worry about anything except your work. The most amazing thing is that everyone looks exactly the same, except the patent lawyers. They all look the same as each other, but they are ten years older than everyone else.
Google provides the support for employees that most corporations did up to the 80s and 90s.
"But there is an arrogance at the heart of our politics that is going to make it difficult to really understand why we lost. It is an arrogance that says that we alone own morality and that we alone want the best for people. It says that our instincts and our motives alone are pure. It’s an arrogance that belittles others’ fears and concerns as “isms” whilst raising ours as righteous. We then mistakenly define ourselves as being distinctive from our opponents because we are morally superior rather than because we have different diagnoses and solutions. It is lazy, wrong and politically dangerous."
Very true Casino, but not a problem from my perspective that Labour people such as Don Brind and the gang of 4 running for Leadership above do not get it. As a "Rick Ardo" says: May 13, 2015 at 1:54 pm "Amazing that he original blogpost written after Labour’s 2010 defeat exposes all the same issues that Labour is discussing again in May 2015. Seems like Labour didn’t learn from the last defeat as the moral-high-ground brigade are once again out in force. Plus ca change, eh?"
the moral-high-ground brigade are once again out in force
Arguably Peter Watts comments apply equally to the Tories. No lack of self-righteousness on the right and they are not immune to dismiss the values of others.
Good stuff Jonathan, ignore the issues in your party.
the moral-high-ground brigade are once again out in force
A few days in Sausalito with visits to SF, Muir Woods, etc. Then driving gradually south visiting friends at Google (just curious about the place really), possibly a night on the beach, ending up with LA and Disneyland. Then fly to Las Vegas for 4 days' poker. Then to Lancaster, PA for the World Boardgaming Convention. A bit of everything really. I know the east coast fairly well but have never been to the west coast, or LV. The latter is on a strict budget, partly to enjoy the cheesy flavour and partly to see if my poker skills match up to American standards - I won a tournament at Aspers (£1165 prize) a couple of weeks ago, which pays for most of the air fares.
Yes...tempted to give Jeremy 2nd and Andy third but might be the other way round.
Curiously, I might even yet be tempted for first choice by Jeremy for the same reason that I liked Tony Blair - not a comparison either would like. They both have a reasonably coherent idea of where they want to take Britain - Jeremy to socialist egalitarianism (Sweden plus model, strong welfare state), Tony to Christian democracy (German model, strong public sector run by private companies), both of which seem to me preferable to our current chaotic society.
In both 2010 and 2015, I felt we had too many fragmentary policies (electricity freeze, 48 hours to see a GP, etc.) without any real sense of wanting to get from A to B. Yes, "stop the Tories" is a fallback, but really politics is pretty boring if you're only trying to stop someone else. I don't demand grand visions and am suspicious of them, but a sketch map would be nice.
But I need to pack, so I'll leave it there.
I have been to the Google campus in Mountain View a few times. It is pretty impressive. If you work there everything is laid on free from haircuts through laundry to food so that you do not have to worry about anything except your work. The most amazing thing is that everyone looks exactly the same, except the patent lawyers. They all look the same as each other, but they are ten years older than everyone else.
Google provides the support for employees that most corporations did up to the 80s and 90s.
I worked in a FTSE top 10 corporation in 1980s and 1990s and knew lots of folk in other corporations in that period and none in the UK provided these things.
"But there is an arrogance at the heart of our politics that is going to make it difficult to really understand why we lost. It is an arrogance that says that we alone own morality and that we alone want the best for people. It says that our instincts and our motives alone are pure. It’s an arrogance that belittles others’ fears and concerns as “isms” whilst raising ours as righteous. We then mistakenly define ourselves as being distinctive from our opponents because we are morally superior rather than because we have different diagnoses and solutions. It is lazy, wrong and politically dangerous."
Very true Casino, but not a problem from my perspective that Labour people such as Don Brind and the gang of 4 running for Leadership above do not get it. As a "Rick Ardo" says: May 13, 2015 at 1:54 pm "Amazing that he original blogpost written after Labour’s 2010 defeat exposes all the same issues that Labour is discussing again in May 2015. Seems like Labour didn’t learn from the last defeat as the moral-high-ground brigade are once again out in force. Plus ca change, eh?"
the moral-high-ground brigade are once again out in force
Arguably Peter Watts comments apply equally to the Tories. No lack of self-righteousness on the right and they are not immune to dismiss the values of others.
Good stuff Jonathan, ignore the issues in your party.
the moral-high-ground brigade are once again out in force
Ignores nothing, but I do question your position to judge. Get your own house in order.
I worked in a FTSE top 10 corporation in 1980s and 1990s and knew lots of folk in other corporations in that period and none in the UK provided these things.
Well in my personal experience ICI had more than one staff bar and a few sports clubs. British Airways had all this, a hairdresser and quite a lot more. They were not alone. You missed out.
"But there is an arrogance at the heart of our politics that is going to make it difficult to really understand why we lost. It is an arrogance that says that we alone own morality and that we alone want the best for people. It says that our instincts and our motives alone are pure. It’s an arrogance that belittles others’ fears and concerns as “isms” whilst raising ours as righteous. We then mistakenly define ourselves as being distinctive from our opponents because we are morally superior rather than because we have different diagnoses and solutions. It is lazy, wrong and politically dangerous."
Very true Casino, but not a problem from my perspective that Labour people such as Don Brind and the gang of 4 running for Leadership above do not get it. As a "Rick Ardo" says: May 13, 2015 at 1:54 pm "Amazing that he original blogpost written after Labour’s 2010 defeat exposes all the same issues that Labour is discussing again in May 2015. Seems like Labour didn’t learn from the last defeat as the moral-high-ground brigade are once again out in force. Plus ca change, eh?"
the moral-high-ground brigade are once again out in force
Arguably Peter Watts comments apply equally to the Tories. No lack of self-righteousness on the right and they are not immune to dismiss the values of others.
The Tories just won a general election. Labour have lost two in a row.
They ignored this (entirely accurate) analysis last time. Will they do so a third time?
Arrogance is the monopoly of no-one. But it's Labour that are currently demonstrating it - just look at Don Brind's article, and the quote from Mark Thompson.
Last winter, two bodies in identical wetsuits were found in Norway and the Netherlands. Police in three countries failed to identify them - and then the trail led to Calais.
This is a very moving tale of woe in the NS. Actually the translation of a piece in Dagbladet.
Mouaz held out for six months before fleeing to Jordan, too.
He couldn’t get a place at the university in Amman, and with his father struggling to find work, he felt increasingly responsible for the family’s welfare. He decided to travel to Turkey in the hope of studying there, and that his family would be able to follow. But his university application was again unsuccessful, his sister said. Mouaz now faced a conundrum: he couldn’t return to Jordan as a refugee because he had already left the country voluntarily. He decided to try to make it to England.
“They have good laws for refugees, he could study there and our uncle lives there,” Rahaf says.
A fatal mistake so to think. But so long as people think Jerusalem is builded here, the tide will keep coming. Whatever you think the government response should be, the human cost of the present situation across Europe is something tragic. The tales are very sad. But the motive for risking lives to leave a safe place of asylum in order to try to get to an alternative is still bizarre. The problem is this line from the NS article about an uncle of one of the dead -- ''He came to England as a refugee in 2013, hiding in a trailer at Dunkirk, just north of Calais, and travelling through the Channel Tunnel. Badi was granted limited leave to remain in England...'' The uncle was not a refugee, he was an illegal immigrant. If he came from calais he was already either a refugee or illegal immigrant in France. The NS perversly refuses to admit this. As long as we grant limited stay to people who are illegal immigrants from France then further illegal immigrants who are perfectly safe will continue to risk their lives trying to copy them.
''there is every hope that Osbo carefully crafted and presented package will unravel.'' Yes, let's HOPE the country goes to the dogs! That comment, alone, says it all about Labour and its supporters. There is HOPE that the country might end-up in the kind of dire economic circumstances that the last Labour government left it in. That is Labour's 'HOPE'. What a total disgrace you are!
Alternatively, what he means is that voters will see that what Osborne promised in the budget is not what it will deliver.
I am so sorry that you didn't understand her comment.
''there is every hope that Osbo carefully crafted and presented package will unravel.'' Yes, let's HOPE the country goes to the dogs! That comment, alone, says it all about Labour and its supporters. There is HOPE that the country might end-up in the kind of dire economic circumstances that the last Labour government left it in. That is Labour's 'HOPE'. What a total disgrace you are!
Alternatively, what he means is that voters will see that what Osborne promised in the budget is not what it will deliver.
I am so sorry that you didn't understand her comment.
I think the BBC is fundamentally a good idea, it's just very badly run, I read somewhere that it has 11 layers of management. The sensible thing to do would be to strip out all the unnecessary management, barmy programming and see where that gets us to. It also costs around £125 million to collect the licence fee. Why not just fund the BBC 50/50 between government and say the national lottery?
I think just focusing on the BBC is perhaps the wrong perspective. Taking ITV as an example, they generated over £1.6 Billion last year in advertising revenue - paid for by whom? All of us consumers whether you like watching Ant & Dec, Keith Lemon, X-Factor etc - or not.
Turing to Sky - I think we pay around £60 a month (without sports channels) - Sky also will no doubt generate advertising revenue - paid for by guess who?
I'm sure Channel 4 & 5 etc - us consumers are paying more than we realise.
We pay £6.99 for Netflix - some good original programming but we can go months without watching anything.
I think the BBC is fundamentally a good idea, it's just very badly run, I read somewhere that it has 11 layers of management. The sensible thing to do would be to strip out all the unnecessary management, barmy programming and see where that gets us to.
The only way that will ever happen is by a hostile takeover.....
I worked in a FTSE top 10 corporation in 1980s and 1990s and knew lots of folk in other corporations in that period and none in the UK provided these things.
Well in my personal experience ICI had more than one staff bar and a few sports clubs. British Airways had all this, a hairdresser and quite a lot more. They were not alone. You missed out.
Company bars - most of the 80s but not 90s. Not subsidised. Sports club - most of 80s but ended by mid 90s. Hairdresser and other freebies No Free Food No Laundry No
"But there is an arrogance at the heart of our politics that is going to make it difficult to really understand why we lost. It is an arrogance that says that we alone own morality and that we alone want the best for people. It says that our instincts and our motives alone are pure. It’s an arrogance that belittles others’ fears and concerns as “isms” whilst raising ours as righteous. We then mistakenly define ourselves as being distinctive from our opponents because we are morally superior rather than because we have different diagnoses and solutions. It is lazy, wrong and politically dangerous."
Very true Casino, but not a problem from my perspective that Labour people such as Don Brind and the gang of 4 running for Leadership above do not get it. As a "Rick Ardo" says: May 13, 2015 at 1:54 pm "Amazing that he original blogpost written after Labour’s 2010 defeat exposes all the same issues that Labour is discussing again in May 2015. Seems like Labour didn’t learn from the last defeat as the moral-high-ground brigade are once again out in force. Plus ca change, eh?"
the moral-high-ground brigade are once again out in force
Arguably Peter Watts comments apply equally to the Tories. No lack of self-righteousness on the right and they are not immune to dismiss the values of others.
Good stuff Jonathan, ignore the issues in your party.
the moral-high-ground brigade are once again out in force
Ignores nothing, but I do question your position to judge. Get your own house in order.
I do not judge. I am happy that your party has a very weak top team and shows no sign of listening to the voting majority.
The tales are very sad. But the motive for risking lives to leave a safe place of asylum in order to try to get to an alternative is still bizarre. The problem is this line from the NS article about an uncle of one of the dead -- ''He came to England as a refugee in 2013, hiding in a trailer at Dunkirk, just north of Calais, and travelling through the Channel Tunnel. Badi was granted limited leave to remain in England...'' The uncle was not a refugee, he was an illegal immigrant. If he came from calais he was already either a refugee or illegal immigrant in France. The NS perversly refuses to admit this. As long as we grant limited stay to people who are illegal immigrants from France then further illegal immigrants who are perfectly safe will continue to risk their lives trying to copy them.
In fact in many cases the migrants went through several countries where they would have been safe and been able to make a comfortable-ish life for themselves. This myth of Britain as a beacon where everything is laid on for you is pernicious, really dangerous, and causing a lot of harm. The desperation of donning a wetsuit and paddles and swimming for Dover is extraordinary.
But then again, the British beacon is clearly not entirely myth. One aspect from that story that got me is the migrants in France trying to get back to Britain who have already been kicked out - but clearly didn't "get the message" they weren't welcome, or legal. Yet despite having first hand experience of one of the most heavy-handed parts of the migration system, and tasted what a life in the British underclass is like, they wanted another bash at it. Another aspect that stuck in my craw was the success of "multiculturalism" in the multi-ethnic, multilingual refugee encampments. Rival groups of nationalities violently fighting it out for lucrative trafficking opportunities or the best spots for access to lorries, even burning each other alive in their tents. (Exactly the kind of people the cynics want coming to Britain, and perfect evidence that such disparate and competing groups will integrate well into our society...)
I'd pick you up a bit on "not a refugee, he was an illegal immigrant". I think in practice people often fall into several categories at once: in particular a lot of people are fleeing oppressive regimes, and yet the main impetus for coming to Britain rather than another potential destination comes down to economics. So plenty of people have a passable chance at claiming they are fleeing for political reasons - especially the Eritreans and Syrians who we're getting a lot of at the moment - and yet the are also economic migrants
I think the BBC is fundamentally a good idea, it's just very badly run, I read somewhere that it has 11 layers of management. The sensible thing to do would be to strip out all the unnecessary management, barmy programming and see where that gets us to.
The only way that will ever happen is by a hostile takeover..... Isn't that right, Rupert?
Callum thinks the BBC is 'fundamentally a good idea'. However it is not. In the far off dawn of steam radio and 405-line TV there was perhaps a reason for a licence. There is not now. The notion of 'public service TV' is not served by a £145 licence fee, £5bn expenditure (leading to wall to wall Eastenders bookended by crass no-talent shows) and a byzantine politically corrupt bureaucracy. A public service broadcasting remit can still be funded from advertising rather than threat of jail and need not be anything like so expensive or extensive. The vast majority of BBC output can be catered for by a non BBC inspired channel and in the digital Freeview age there is still plenty of spare spectrum for a public service so-called terrestrial broadcaster. All this of course assumes that the 'national broadcaster' is not actually meant to be a propaganda tool as it is in so many countries. Equally of course if we look to say America we can see that just because a channel is 'commercial' or subscription does not mean it is not riven with trendy liberals of an institutional lefty bias. The eager willingness of ABC (I think) to smear GW Bush with fake airforce records demonstrates that. You will probably know far better than me Mark, but the world of media and luvvidome does not need the BBC to sway it in its institutionalised bias.
First, if Nick P is still about - enjoy Vegas and try Maggiano's in the Fashion Show Mall - best Italian food I've ever had.
Second, excellent 24 hours for Tim Farron and the LDs - I see the waspish attacks are already underway from the Telegraph and the Mail. The typical tactic of denigration by smear and vitriol for all non-Conservative political figures.
Third, I'm of the view the Conservatives won in may purely and simply because of David Cameron. Had there been a David Cameron Party standing, I'm sure they would have done well. My anecdotal experience was many people wanted Cameron to remain Prime Minister - he provided stability, security and continuity against the perceived "threat" of a Miliband-Sturgeon Government.
In the end, Cameron was able to provide a rationale for non-Conservatives to vote Conservative but they didn't vote for the Conservative Party, they voted for David Cameron. As Thatcher and Blair before him, but not quite to the same extent, Cameron has been able to reach beyond the Conservative core and attract hundreds of thousands of voters to the blue team simply because they believe him to be doing a good job and they want him to continue doing that job.
Had the LDs openly and clearly supported another Coalition with the Conservatives, would it have prevented the meltdown ? We'll never know but what we do know is the very thought the party might do a deal with or allow Labour/SNP into Government was enough to send tens of thousands of ex-LD supporters into the blue corner.
Did you know Britain now has a "cutting season"? Yes, we do. It's a bit like the cricket season - it happens in the summer - except its 20,000 girls being shipped abroad, annually, to be genitally mutilated.
Just savour that phrase. And despair. This is the UK in 2015.
I'm just being pedantic here rather than attempting to score a political point, but the figure quoted in the article was 20,000 girls "at risk of" FGM (which quite probably means something like "20,000 girls of ethnic origin where FGM has historically been practised") as opposed to "20,000 girls are taken abroad and cut".
No idea what the actual figures are.
I'm not too keen on the headline on that BBC article either. "'Fifty girls' taken from UK to Somalia for FGM" does not make it clear that the "for FGM" is just part of Jenny Tonge's allegation, not a proven fact. The facts of the matter are simply that Jenny Tonge saw approximately 50 girls and their families en route to their ancestral homeland and wider families in Somalia on a plane at the start of the summer holidays. It seems a bit of a push to assume that 100% of them are about to be mutilated. "Fifty girls seen taking a plane back back to see family at start of summer break" is admittedly not such a great headline. But even some repositioning of quote marks would have done it: "'Fifty girls' taken from UK 'for FGM'" is an improvement.
E Had the LDs openly and clearly supported another Coalition with the Conservatives, would it have prevented the meltdown ? We'll never know but what we do know is the very thought the party might do a deal with or allow Labour/SNP into Government was enough to send tens of thousands of ex-LD supporters into the blue corner.
I seem to recall at least one LD ex-MP has felt that should have been their approach and things would not have been quite so bad at least. Hard to say though - I do think there is something in regions like the SW were what I would now call Blue Liberals, and with Cameron de-toxifyed for them (by having worked with the LDs for five years and presented by his own hard right as preferring it), felt much more comfortable going full Blue.
It is interesting to look back at what the polls were saying ten weeks following the Tory wins in 1983, 1987 and 1992. All were recording Tory leads of between 10 and 18% at that stage. In each case they were significantly exaggerating how they went on to perform at the following general election. Currently we have polls showing Tory leads ranging from 4 to 12% - so Labour is now performing better than at the same stage in 1992.
I really hope we get regular polls back by the time of the new Labour leader. Even if they're flawed overall, polls will surely still be useful in tracking trends atleast.
Did you know Britain now has a "cutting season"? Yes, we do. It's a bit like the cricket season - it happens in the summer - except its 20,000 girls being shipped abroad, annually, to be genitally mutilated.
Just savour that phrase. And despair. This is the UK in 2015.
20,000 'at risk' doesn't quite equate to 'being shipped'.
Anyway the whole thing is clearly horrible, and very non-British. It's a bit shocking that we have managed to distill under the guise of multi-culturalism such horrors. I'd like to be able to say it's a tiny minority, but the truth is that all sorts of oddities are imported with the immigrant communities which we no longer seem able to integrate into some sort of national picture. I think that's a great shame as the enormous good for the UK, and just people more generally, that comes from mixing well is a bit lost at the moment.
E Had the LDs openly and clearly supported another Coalition with the Conservatives, would it have prevented the meltdown ? We'll never know but what we do know is the very thought the party might do a deal with or allow Labour/SNP into Government was enough to send tens of thousands of ex-LD supporters into the blue corner.
I seem to recall at least one LD ex-MP has felt that should have been their approach and things would not have been quite so bad at least. Hard to say though - I do think there is something in regions like the SW were what I would now call Blue Liberals, and with Cameron de-toxifyed for them (by having worked with the LDs for five years and presented by his own hard right as preferring it), felt much more comfortable going full Blue.
I think Farron's Lib Dems could potentially do quite well against an Osborne-led Tories in the poorer/culturally-conservative parts of the South West.
I really hope we get regular polls back by the time of the new Labour leader. Even if they're flawed overall, polls will surely still be useful in tracking trends atleast.
I suspect we'll get something regular back eventually - flawed or not, the media know the great british public cannot resist something boiled down to percentages aye and nay, even voodoo polls entice us so.
It is interesting to look back at what the polls were saying ten weeks following the Tory wins in 1983, 1987 and 1992. All were recording Tory leads of between 10 and 18% at that stage. In each case they were significantly exaggerating how they went on to perform at the following general election. Currently we have polls showing Tory leads ranging from 4 to 12% - so Labour is now performing better than at the same stage in 1992.
It would be a bit odd for the winning side not to get a bit of a bump I suppose, although I won't be ignoring that the opposition doing well, but not as well as usual, in mid term polling again!
First, if Nick P is still about - enjoy Vegas and try Maggiano's in the Fashion Show Mall - best Italian food I've ever had.
Second, excellent 24 hours for Tim Farron and the LDs - I see the waspish attacks are already underway from the Telegraph and the Mail. The typical tactic of denigration by smear and vitriol for all non-Conservative political figures.
Third, I'm of the view the Conservatives won in may purely and simply because of David Cameron. Had there been a David Cameron Party standing, I'm sure they would have done well. My anecdotal experience was many people wanted Cameron to remain Prime Minister - he provided stability, security and continuity against the perceived "threat" of a Miliband-Sturgeon Government.
In the end, Cameron was able to provide a rationale for non-Conservatives to vote Conservative but they didn't vote for the Conservative Party, they voted for David Cameron. As Thatcher and Blair before him, but not quite to the same extent, Cameron has been able to reach beyond the Conservative core and attract hundreds of thousands of voters to the blue team simply because they believe him to be doing a good job and they want him to continue doing that job.
Had the LDs openly and clearly supported another Coalition with the Conservatives, would it have prevented the meltdown ? We'll never know but what we do know is the very thought the party might do a deal with or allow Labour/SNP into Government was enough to send tens of thousands of ex-LD supporters into the blue corner.
That is one interpretation of history.
It is hard to reconcile the Cameron effect you identify with the steep steady and consistent decline of the LibDems throughout the last parliament. That fact may run counter to your theory.
Did you know Britain now has a "cutting season"? Yes, we do. It's a bit like the cricket season - it happens in the summer - except its 20,000 girls being shipped abroad, annually, to be genitally mutilated.
Just savour that phrase. And despair. This is the UK in 2015.
I'm just being pedantic here rather than attempting to score a political point, but the figure quoted in the article was 20,000 girls "at risk of" FGM (which quite probably means something like "20,000 girls of ethnic origin where FGM has historically been practised") as opposed to "20,000 girls are taken abroad and cut".
No idea what the actual figures are.
I'm not too keen on the headline on that BBC article either. "'Fifty girls' taken from UK to Somalia for FGM" does not make it clear that the "for FGM" is just part of Jenny Tonge's allegation, not a proven fact. The facts of the matter are simply that Jenny Tonge saw approximately 50 girls and their families en route to their ancestral homeland and wider families in Somalia on a plane at the start of the summer holidays. It seems a bit of a push to assume that 100% of them are about to be mutilated. "Fifty girls seen taking a plane back back to see family at start of summer break" is admittedly not such a great headline. But even some repositioning of quote marks would have done it: "'Fifty girls' taken from UK 'for FGM'" is an improvement.
Brilliant, so your instant reaction is not abhorrence or disgust but to quibble with the BBC subeditor, to loftily wonder about the "actual" figures, to kinda smear the journaliast, to question the intent of Jenny Tonge, on and on and on and on and on... equivocate here, squirrel there, insinuate the other way....
As to the act of FGM, you offer not a word.
And then you admit you have no idea "what the actual figures are".
I resist further comment, as I might be moderated.
Look, do we all need to wear a bloody badge saying "I happen to think that cutting up vulnerable young women's private parts is a bad thing"? And assume anyone not wearing such a badge is some sort of evil bastard?
I don't buy that. Look, of course I think FGM is wrong and I hope that goes without saying. But that BBC article you linked to was an utterly crap piece of "journalism", and the claim that 20,000 British girls per year are being cut is a misrepresentation of what the article says. Even one is one too many - there's no need to bandy the wrong figure around.
It is interesting to look back at what the polls were saying ten weeks following the Tory wins in 1983, 1987 and 1992. All were recording Tory leads of between 10 and 18% at that stage. In each case they were significantly exaggerating how they went on to perform at the following general election. Currently we have polls showing Tory leads ranging from 4 to 12% - so Labour is now performing better than at the same stage in 1992.
That's it - no need for panic/one more heave/Tories doomed/ nasty/baby eating/voters are bastards/vote Corbyn..............................................just watch the polls like in May 2015..oh wait....
It is interesting to look back at what the polls were saying ten weeks following the Tory wins in 1983, 1987 and 1992. All were recording Tory leads of between 10 and 18% at that stage. In each case they were significantly exaggerating how they went on to perform at the following general election. Currently we have polls showing Tory leads ranging from 4 to 12% - so Labour is now performing better than at the same stage in 1992.
Except: this is not 1992; and Scotland. If Labour are 4-12% behind in England and Wales and no longer have the Scottish seat advantage, I'd warrant that their overall position is in fact worse than it was in 1992.
E Had the LDs openly and clearly supported another Coalition with the Conservatives, would it have prevented the meltdown ? We'll never know but what we do know is the very thought the party might do a deal with or allow Labour/SNP into Government was enough to send tens of thousands of ex-LD supporters into the blue corner.
I seem to recall at least one LD ex-MP has felt that should have been their approach and things would not have been quite so bad at least. Hard to say though - I do think there is something in regions like the SW were what I would now call Blue Liberals, and with Cameron de-toxifyed for them (by having worked with the LDs for five years and presented by his own hard right as preferring it), felt much more comfortable going full Blue.
I think Farron's Lib Dems could potentially do quite well against an Osborne-led Tories in the poorer/culturally-conservative parts of the South West.
Did you know Britain now has a "cutting season"? Yes, we do. It's a bit like the cricket season - it happens in the summer - except its 20,000 girls being shipped abroad, annually, to be genitally mutilated.
Just savour that phrase. And despair. This is the UK in 2015.
I'm just being pedantic here rather than attempting to score a political point, but the figure quoted in the article was 20,000 girls "at risk of" FGM (which quite probably means something like "20,000 girls of ethnic origin where FGM has historically been practised") as opposed to "20,000 girls are taken abroad and cut".
No idea what the actual figures are.
I suggest you might be slightly less sanguine if there was a "Bollock Cutting Season". Target: you....
In fact, make that the full Meat and Two Veg Cutting Season.
'Except: this is not 1992; and Scotland. If Labour are 4-12% behind in England and Wales and no longer have the Scottish seat advantage, I'd warrant that their overall position is in fact worse than it was in 1992.'
Plus the 50 seat reduction and new boundaries is going to make it worse for Labour.
'Second, excellent 24 hours for Tim Farron and the LDs - I see the waspish attacks are already underway from the Telegraph and the Mail. The typical tactic of denigration by smear and vitriol for all non-Conservative political figures.'
You obviously missed the recent article in the Guardian, but because it was in the Guardian I guess it does't count as a smear.
Don is right but Harman is wrong for one other simple reason: she has no mandate to impose this kind of change. At the very least, she should have sought the full agreement of the shadow cabinet first. More probably, the role of a acting leader - particularly one departing as deputy as well - should be to simply keep the party ticking over while the leadership contest plays itself out. Holding the government to account is fine; making major changes in policy on the hoof is not. If the winning candidate would have done it anyway, it steals their thunder; if they wouldn't, then it places them in the unenviable position of having to either U-turn again or busk along with a policy they disagree with.
Look, do we all need to wear a bloody badge saying "I happen to think that cutting up vulnerable young women's private parts is a bad thing"? And assume anyone not wearing such a badge is some sort of evil bastard?
I don't buy that. Look, of course I think FGM is wrong and I hope that goes without saying. But that BBC article you linked to was an utterly crap piece of "journalism", and the claim that 20,000 British girls per year are being cut is a misrepresentation of what the article says. Even one is one too many - there's no need to bandy the wrong figure around.
"Look.."
"Look..."
"Look.."
Or, in your case, Look Away.
You yourself are deflecting from the issue that the link you shared was pap, which suggests you know it just as well as I do.
20,000 "at risk" does not mean the same as 20,000 shipped abroad and mutilated. There are only 100,000 Somalis in the UK, for comparison. A wee bit of digging suggests the 20,000 figure comes from Dorkenoo et al 2007 - there is more recent research (e.g. here, though I haven't read the whole thing) that suggest the numbers at risk are now higher. The raised number at risk simply reflects the fact there are more people from at risk countries (Somalia is a case in point but not the only one) living in the UK. Nobody is seriously claiming that 20,000 girls are being cut every year in the UK. Nobody. Not even the BBC article you linked to. The estimates are done by ethnic headcount, and are only estimates for population at risk for parental cultural reasons. It's not an attempt to enumerate the amount of FGM that actually takes place. Goodness knows what the actual figures are, but they won't be the same as the "number at risk".
I will reiterate my astonishment at that BBC article. "Lib Dem peer sees fifty girls going back to their ancestral homeland with their families at the start of summer holidays and rings police" has become "'Fifty girls' taken from UK to Somalia for FGM" - that is crappy journalism of the first order.
It is hard to reconcile the Cameron effect you identify with the steep steady and consistent decline of the LibDems throughout the last parliament. That fact may run counter to your theory.
Perhaps my wording was a shade clumsy - it is Friday evening after all. I don't think there was ever any hope of getting back those anti-Conservative 2010 LD voters (perhaps 50% of the total) but there was a possibility of recovering the others.
Those (and there were many) who thought 8% at the start of the campaign might have been 12-13% by its end hadn't reckoned on the toxicity of the prospect of Miliband-Sturgeon and the recognition of that which enabled the Conservatives to hold on to a significant slice of the 2010 LD vote (perhaps 20%) which left only the core vote for Nick Clegg.
The early post-election signs are perversely much more encouraging. In Grove (Kingston LB) the LD vote came out strongly but it was noticeable how many on the doorstep were happy to come back to the Party now it was no longer in Coalition - there were plenty of LAB, Green and indeed some CON voters who switched back and the superb results in Battle and Wrexham also showed the party getting back on the ground as well.
Don is right but Harman is wrong for one other simple reason: she has no mandate to impose this kind of change. At the very least, she should have sought the full agreement of the shadow cabinet first. More probably, the role of a acting leader - particularly one departing as deputy as well - should be to simply keep the party ticking over while the leadership contest plays itself out. Holding the government to account is fine; making major changes in policy on the hoof is not. If the winning candidate would have done it anyway, it steals their thunder; if they wouldn't, then it places them in the unenviable position of having to either U-turn again or busk along with a policy they disagree with.
Sorry but either Harriet is acting leader or she is not.
What I said all along is that Milliband was weak in resigning and disappearing immediately; in contrast to Howard staying on after defeat until Cameron got elected and became leader. If Milliband had stayed on he could have been in position to do a mea culpa or not, but Harriet is in an inenviable position of being leader-but-not-really-leader. It is silly and it's Ed's unnecessary legacy once more.
FGM has been illegal since 1985. How many successful prosecutions? Zero. How many prosecutions in total? One.
You've got proof that its been done that can be used in the courtroom?
If a girl has been subject to FGM and she was born in this country, you have an automatic proof.
It's the job of the law enforcement agencies to enforce the law. There should be plenty of evidence if they do their job properly. The truth is they've been turning a blind eye to it until a couple of years ago.
'Second, excellent 24 hours for Tim Farron and the LDs - I see the waspish attacks are already underway from the Telegraph and the Mail. The typical tactic of denigration by smear and vitriol for all non-Conservative political figures.'
You obviously missed the recent article in the Guardian, but because it was in the Guardian I guess it does't count as a smear.
Not at all though I expect The Guardian does it a bit differently. Farron is obviously seen as a threat by both Conservative and Labour so the attacks are under way (and it would have been exactly the same if Norman Lamb had won).
That's how politics functions at one level - have a go at someone for their beliefs, the way they look, the school they went to, how they eat a bacon sandwich. Much easier than to talk about issues and policies.
Here's one for you - the London Evening Standard carried a damning report about the toxicity of the smog in London which caused up to 6,000 deaths last year alone. What was the political response ? Nothing - Boris wibbled on about his bikes and taxis with low emissions while nothing from Labour or the LDs, UKIP, Greens or anyone else.
A serious health and environmental issue affecting the capital city, causing deaths and no doubt health issues for thousands of people and no one has any kind of solution.
Never mind, we can always talk about how to eat bacon sandwiches, say "wowsers" like something out of a Billy Bunter book or say for the umpteenth time why my side is great and all the others are rubbish and quote some reference from the Punic Wars.
Don is right but Harman is wrong for one other simple reason: she has no mandate to impose this kind of change. At the very least, she should have sought the full agreement of the shadow cabinet first. More probably, the role of a acting leader - particularly one departing as deputy as well - should be to simply keep the party ticking over while the leadership contest plays itself out. Holding the government to account is fine; making major changes in policy on the hoof is not. If the winning candidate would have done it anyway, it steals their thunder; if they wouldn't, then it places them in the unenviable position of having to either U-turn again or busk along with a policy they disagree with.
Sorry but either Harriet is acting leader or she is not.
What I said all along is that Milliband was weak in resigning and disappearing immediately; in contrast to Howard staying on after defeat until Cameron got elected and became leader. If Milliband had stayed on he could have been in position to do a mea culpa or not, but Harriet is in an inenviable position of being leader-but-not-really-leader. It is silly and it's Ed's unnecessary legacy once more.
I'd say the same if Ed was still in place. Leaders, whether acting or just in a lame-duck period should not lumber their successor with policies they've not signed up to. Whether or not Harman's stance makes sense in isolation (I don't think it does but that's beside the point), it doesn't make sense in the context in which it's been taken. Apart from anything else, how can she enforce it if the candidates are opposed? Who will MPs listen to, particularly when many of them will also disagree? All she's done is undermine her own position.
I'm just being pedantic here rather than attempting to score a political point, but the figure quoted in the article was 20,000 girls "at risk of" FGM (which quite probably means something like "20,000 girls of ethnic origin where FGM has historically been practised") as opposed to "20,000 girls are taken abroad and cut".
No idea what the actual figures are.
I suggest you might be slightly less sanguine if there was a "Bollock Cutting Season". Target: you....
In fact, make that the full Meat and Two Veg Cutting Season.
If something is a serious and horrific issue (and there is not one person reading this who does not believe FGM is a serious and horrific issue), I do not believe it logically follows that we should misquote or sensationalise the research about the problem, nor that we should become more tolerant of poor journalism, nor that we should dispense of our critical faculties.
There are lots of controversial issues where the media do a really crappy job - sometimes because there are people or organisations with agendas to push, sometimes because they want the story to have a more sensational slant, sometimes because the journos do not have don't have a grip on the complexity of an issue. Migrants trafficked into forced prostitution is one example: it isn't helpful to conflate Hungarian working girls who move to London because the businessmen here pay better, with the smaller number of migrants who are effectively slave labour kept under lock and key - but the more shocking statistics simply include both. Similarly, tax evasion/avoidance is a politically sensitive issue where claims made by the likes of UK Uncut often make their way into the press as uncritically-accepted background facts. Everybody I know with a strong professional/academic background in an area can name instances where the press get stuff wrong on a regular basis.
I suppose there's a case that if the press are "raising awareness" of a difficult and important issue, then that somehow makes up for faults in the individual stories. Well that argument can sod off and go home. Things that run slipshod over factual accuracy undermine trust in the press. If you want the next Rotherham to be flagged up and acted on faster, then you need fearless journalism that is also good journalism: which does not sensationalise, which is accurate, which does not push an agenda, which is trusted and taken seriously. This isn't even a left/right issue: we're all tempted to be more forgiving of factual accuracy if the broad tenor of an article agrees with us. We shouldn't be. There is a legitimate place for scepticism and critical thought. On serious issues, more so, not less.
Those (and there were many) who thought 8% at the start of the campaign might have been 12-13% by its end hadn't reckoned on the toxicity of the prospect of Miliband-Sturgeon and the recognition of that which enabled the Conservatives to hold on to a significant slice of the 2010 LD vote (perhaps 20%) which left only the core vote for Nick Clegg.
The early post-election signs are perversely much more encouraging. In Grove (Kingston LB) the LD vote came out strongly but it was noticeable how many on the doorstep were happy to come back to the Party now it was no longer in Coalition - there were plenty of LAB, Green and indeed some CON voters who switched back and the superb results in Battle and Wrexham also showed the party getting back on the ground as well.
There was also a very near miss in Brecon, where the Lib Dem candidate came within two votes of taking another Labour seat. This seems to have been overlooked so far. The case for a Lib Dem revival is quite a strong one - patchy as yet, but certainly there.
'Labour's acting leader has privately expressed concern that too many of the new Labour MPs are content to sit on their large majorities in safe Labour seats'
This is so reminiscent of the problems faced by the Conservative party while in Opposition between 1997-2005.
Those (and there were many) who thought 8% at the start of the campaign might have been 12-13% by its end hadn't reckoned on the toxicity of the prospect of Miliband-Sturgeon and the recognition of that which enabled the Conservatives to hold on to a significant slice of the 2010 LD vote (perhaps 20%) which left only the core vote for Nick Clegg.
The early post-election signs are perversely much more encouraging. In Grove (Kingston LB) the LD vote came out strongly but it was noticeable how many on the doorstep were happy to come back to the Party now it was no longer in Coalition - there were plenty of LAB, Green and indeed some CON voters who switched back and the superb results in Battle and Wrexham also showed the party getting back on the ground as well.
There was also a very near miss in Brecon, where the Lib Dem candidate came within two votes of taking another Labour seat. This seems to have been overlooked so far. The case for a Lib Dem revival is quite a strong one - patchy as yet, but certainly there.
I think a Lib Dem revival could occur more strongly and more quickly than many of us have assumed. There's certainly a vacancy waiting to be filled by an economically-sensible opposition to the Tories, and Labour appear unwilling to occupy it. Admittedly, I think Lamb would have been a more convincing leader in this respect, but still if Farron's sensible, there is a distinct opportunity emerging.
If Kendall is massively rejected and then decides to resign or announces she will not stand for re-election then it will do considerable damage to Labour. But this is all speculation. However when we can see the rubbish spouted in the article above by this Mr Brind about a classic bleeding heart leftie then you see the desperate straits Labour is in. It strikes me from what it (that is its MPs and Activists) is saying about itself then why, it seems perfectly logical for Miliband to be appointed Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would fit in nicely.
BTW Mr Nash - you are right - well actually wrong - this is more than a good article, it is a sublime commentary riven with insights. Ones that Mr Brind is too blind to see and one which this blog is sadly never going to be blessed with. We should all be grateful for you drawing it to our attention.
Comments
"But there is an arrogance at the heart of our politics that is going to make it difficult to really understand why we lost. It is an arrogance that says that we alone own morality and that we alone want the best for people. It says that our instincts and our motives alone are pure. It’s an arrogance that belittles others’ fears and concerns as “isms” whilst raising ours as righteous. We then mistakenly define ourselves as being distinctive from our opponents because we are morally superior rather than because we have different diagnoses and solutions. It is lazy, wrong and politically dangerous."
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/05/10/6080/
Last winter, two bodies in identical wetsuits were found in Norway and the Netherlands. Police in three countries failed to identify them - and then the trail led to Calais.
This is a very moving tale of woe in the NS. Actually the translation of a piece in Dagbladet. A fatal mistake so to think. But so long as people think Jerusalem is builded here, the tide will keep coming. Whatever you think the government response should be, the human cost of the present situation across Europe is something tragic.
Change tack and do what, exactly? What alternative strategy could she have pursued that would have been more helpful to the "progressive alliance"?
Trotskyism is a tool of the capitalists!
Let me make a little confession, back in the very late '70s I was innocently involved in being a party to a quite accidental (IRA) bomb scare. A friend of mine and myself met a group of friends we had holidayed with behind Lime St Station. He brought his ever so posh at the time cine camera projector equipment. In all the excitement of packing bags into car boots and rushing off to the pub he left his bag behind. Half way through his first pint he remembered and rushed back hoping it had not been stolen.
Instead he was met by a forest of flashing blue lights, police ambulance and fire engines. When stopped he pointed out his bag (the suspicious package in question) with cables still sticking out of it and explained it all. ''Call off the Red Alert'' said the officer in charge into his police radio.
Sounds questionable - surely Kim Il Sung > Kim Jong Il > Kim Jong Un, with birthdays of descending greatness?
As a "Rick Ardo" says: May 13, 2015 at 1:54 pm
"Amazing that he original blogpost written after Labour’s 2010 defeat exposes all the same issues that Labour is discussing again in May 2015. Seems like Labour didn’t learn from the last defeat as the moral-high-ground brigade are once again out in force. Plus ca change, eh?"
the moral-high-ground brigade are once again out in force
Curiously, I might even yet be tempted for first choice by Jeremy for the same reason that I liked Tony Blair - not a comparison either would like. They both have a reasonably coherent idea of where they want to take Britain - Jeremy to socialist egalitarianism (Sweden plus model, strong welfare state), Tony to Christian democracy (German model, strong public sector run by private companies), both of which seem to me preferable to our current chaotic society.
In both 2010 and 2015, I felt we had too many fragmentary policies (electricity freeze, 48 hours to see a GP, etc.) without any real sense of wanting to get from A to B. Yes, "stop the Tories" is a fallback, but really politics is pretty boring if you're only trying to stop someone else. I don't demand grand visions and am suspicious of them, but a sketch map would be nice.
But I need to pack, so I'll leave it there.
Does anyone know the true story of what happened to Esther McVey (with regards to the intimidation she was subjected to?)
(Was talking to somebody about Michael Foot the other day. I was told he had absolutely enormous feet....)
the moral-high-ground brigade are once again out in force
They ignored this (entirely accurate) analysis last time. Will they do so a third time?
Arrogance is the monopoly of no-one. But it's Labour that are currently demonstrating it - just look at Don Brind's article, and the quote from Mark Thompson.
The tales are very sad. But the motive for risking lives to leave a safe place of asylum in order to try to get to an alternative is still bizarre.
The problem is this line from the NS article about an uncle of one of the dead -- ''He came to England as a refugee in 2013, hiding in a trailer at Dunkirk, just north of Calais, and travelling through the Channel Tunnel. Badi was granted limited leave to remain in England...''
The uncle was not a refugee, he was an illegal immigrant. If he came from calais he was already either a refugee or illegal immigrant in France. The NS perversly refuses to admit this. As long as we grant limited stay to people who are illegal immigrants from France then further illegal immigrants who are perfectly safe will continue to risk their lives trying to copy them.
I think just focusing on the BBC is perhaps the wrong perspective. Taking ITV as an example, they generated over £1.6 Billion last year in advertising revenue - paid for by whom? All of us consumers whether you like watching Ant & Dec, Keith Lemon, X-Factor etc - or not.
Turing to Sky - I think we pay around £60 a month (without sports channels) - Sky also will no doubt generate advertising revenue - paid for by guess who?
I'm sure Channel 4 & 5 etc - us consumers are paying more than we realise.
We pay £6.99 for Netflix - some good original programming but we can go months without watching anything.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=108
#Enjoy
Isn't that right, Rupert?
Sports club - most of 80s but ended by mid 90s.
Hairdresser and other freebies No
Free Food No
Laundry No
https://twitter.com/SimonNRicketts/status/622080877829472256?s=09
In fact in many cases the migrants went through several countries where they would have been safe and been able to make a comfortable-ish life for themselves. This myth of Britain as a beacon where everything is laid on for you is pernicious, really dangerous, and causing a lot of harm. The desperation of donning a wetsuit and paddles and swimming for Dover is extraordinary.
But then again, the British beacon is clearly not entirely myth. One aspect from that story that got me is the migrants in France trying to get back to Britain who have already been kicked out - but clearly didn't "get the message" they weren't welcome, or legal. Yet despite having first hand experience of one of the most heavy-handed parts of the migration system, and tasted what a life in the British underclass is like, they wanted another bash at it. Another aspect that stuck in my craw was the success of "multiculturalism" in the multi-ethnic, multilingual refugee encampments. Rival groups of nationalities violently fighting it out for lucrative trafficking opportunities or the best spots for access to lorries, even burning each other alive in their tents. (Exactly the kind of people the cynics want coming to Britain, and perfect evidence that such disparate and competing groups will integrate well into our society...)
I'd pick you up a bit on "not a refugee, he was an illegal immigrant". I think in practice people often fall into several categories at once: in particular a lot of people are fleeing oppressive regimes, and yet the main impetus for coming to Britain rather than another potential destination comes down to economics. So plenty of people have a passable chance at claiming they are fleeing for political reasons - especially the Eritreans and Syrians who we're getting a lot of at the moment - and yet the are also economic migrants
However it is not.
In the far off dawn of steam radio and 405-line TV there was perhaps a reason for a licence.
There is not now.
The notion of 'public service TV' is not served by a £145 licence fee, £5bn expenditure (leading to wall to wall Eastenders bookended by crass no-talent shows) and a byzantine politically corrupt bureaucracy.
A public service broadcasting remit can still be funded from advertising rather than threat of jail and need not be anything like so expensive or extensive. The vast majority of BBC output can be catered for by a non BBC inspired channel and in the digital Freeview age there is still plenty of spare spectrum for a public service so-called terrestrial broadcaster.
All this of course assumes that the 'national broadcaster' is not actually meant to be a propaganda tool as it is in so many countries.
Equally of course if we look to say America we can see that just because a channel is 'commercial' or subscription does not mean it is not riven with trendy liberals of an institutional lefty bias. The eager willingness of ABC (I think) to smear GW Bush with fake airforce records demonstrates that. You will probably know far better than me Mark, but the world of media and luvvidome does not need the BBC to sway it in its institutionalised bias.
First, if Nick P is still about - enjoy Vegas and try Maggiano's in the Fashion Show Mall - best Italian food I've ever had.
Second, excellent 24 hours for Tim Farron and the LDs - I see the waspish attacks are already underway from the Telegraph and the Mail. The typical tactic of denigration by smear and vitriol for all non-Conservative political figures.
Third, I'm of the view the Conservatives won in may purely and simply because of David Cameron. Had there been a David Cameron Party standing, I'm sure they would have done well. My anecdotal experience was many people wanted Cameron to remain Prime Minister - he provided stability, security and continuity against the perceived "threat" of a Miliband-Sturgeon Government.
In the end, Cameron was able to provide a rationale for non-Conservatives to vote Conservative but they didn't vote for the Conservative Party, they voted for David Cameron. As Thatcher and Blair before him, but not quite to the same extent, Cameron has been able to reach beyond the Conservative core and attract hundreds of thousands of voters to the blue team simply because they believe him to be doing a good job and they want him to continue doing that job.
Had the LDs openly and clearly supported another Coalition with the Conservatives, would it have prevented the meltdown ? We'll never know but what we do know is the very thought the party might do a deal with or allow Labour/SNP into Government was enough to send tens of thousands of ex-LD supporters into the blue corner.
No idea what the actual figures are.
I'm not too keen on the headline on that BBC article either. "'Fifty girls' taken from UK to Somalia for FGM" does not make it clear that the "for FGM" is just part of Jenny Tonge's allegation, not a proven fact. The facts of the matter are simply that Jenny Tonge saw approximately 50 girls and their families en route to their ancestral homeland and wider families in Somalia on a plane at the start of the summer holidays. It seems a bit of a push to assume that 100% of them are about to be mutilated. "Fifty girls seen taking a plane back back to see family at start of summer break" is admittedly not such a great headline. But even some repositioning of quote marks would have done it: "'Fifty girls' taken from UK 'for FGM'" is an improvement.
Anyway the whole thing is clearly horrible, and very non-British. It's a bit shocking that we have managed to distill under the guise of multi-culturalism such horrors. I'd like to be able to say it's a tiny minority, but the truth is that all sorts of oddities are imported with the immigrant communities which we no longer seem able to integrate into some sort of national picture. I think that's a great shame as the enormous good for the UK, and just people more generally, that comes from mixing well is a bit lost at the moment.
It is hard to reconcile the Cameron effect you identify with the steep steady and consistent decline of the LibDems throughout the last parliament. That fact may run counter to your theory.
I don't buy that. Look, of course I think FGM is wrong and I hope that goes without saying. But that BBC article you linked to was an utterly crap piece of "journalism", and the claim that 20,000 British girls per year are being cut is a misrepresentation of what the article says. Even one is one too many - there's no need to bandy the wrong figure around.
In fact, make that the full Meat and Two Veg Cutting Season.
'Except: this is not 1992; and Scotland. If Labour are 4-12% behind in England and Wales and no longer have the Scottish seat advantage, I'd warrant that their overall position is in fact worse than it was in 1992.'
Plus the 50 seat reduction and new boundaries is going to make it worse for Labour.
'Second, excellent 24 hours for Tim Farron and the LDs - I see the waspish attacks are already underway from the Telegraph and the Mail. The typical tactic of denigration by smear and vitriol for all non-Conservative political figures.'
You obviously missed the recent article in the Guardian, but because it was in the Guardian I guess it does't count as a smear.
Don is right but Harman is wrong for one other simple reason: she has no mandate to impose this kind of change. At the very least, she should have sought the full agreement of the shadow cabinet first. More probably, the role of a acting leader - particularly one departing as deputy as well - should be to simply keep the party ticking over while the leadership contest plays itself out. Holding the government to account is fine; making major changes in policy on the hoof is not. If the winning candidate would have done it anyway, it steals their thunder; if they wouldn't, then it places them in the unenviable position of having to either U-turn again or busk along with a policy they disagree with.
20,000 "at risk" does not mean the same as 20,000 shipped abroad and mutilated. There are only 100,000 Somalis in the UK, for comparison. A wee bit of digging suggests the 20,000 figure comes from Dorkenoo et al 2007 - there is more recent research (e.g. here, though I haven't read the whole thing) that suggest the numbers at risk are now higher. The raised number at risk simply reflects the fact there are more people from at risk countries (Somalia is a case in point but not the only one) living in the UK. Nobody is seriously claiming that 20,000 girls are being cut every year in the UK. Nobody. Not even the BBC article you linked to. The estimates are done by ethnic headcount, and are only estimates for population at risk for parental cultural reasons. It's not an attempt to enumerate the amount of FGM that actually takes place. Goodness knows what the actual figures are, but they won't be the same as the "number at risk".
I will reiterate my astonishment at that BBC article. "Lib Dem peer sees fifty girls going back to their ancestral homeland with their families at the start of summer holidays and rings police" has become "'Fifty girls' taken from UK to Somalia for FGM" - that is crappy journalism of the first order.
Those (and there were many) who thought 8% at the start of the campaign might have been 12-13% by its end hadn't reckoned on the toxicity of the prospect of Miliband-Sturgeon and the recognition of that which enabled the Conservatives to hold on to a significant slice of the 2010 LD vote (perhaps 20%) which left only the core vote for Nick Clegg.
The early post-election signs are perversely much more encouraging. In Grove (Kingston LB) the LD vote came out strongly but it was noticeable how many on the doorstep were happy to come back to the Party now it was no longer in Coalition - there were plenty of LAB, Green and indeed some CON voters who switched back and the superb results in Battle and Wrexham also showed the party getting back on the ground as well.
What I said all along is that Milliband was weak in resigning and disappearing immediately; in contrast to Howard staying on after defeat until Cameron got elected and became leader. If Milliband had stayed on he could have been in position to do a mea culpa or not, but Harriet is in an inenviable position of being leader-but-not-really-leader. It is silly and it's Ed's unnecessary legacy once more.
It's the job of the law enforcement agencies to enforce the law. There should be plenty of evidence if they do their job properly. The truth is they've been turning a blind eye to it until a couple of years ago.
That's how politics functions at one level - have a go at someone for their beliefs, the way they look, the school they went to, how they eat a bacon sandwich. Much easier than to talk about issues and policies.
Here's one for you - the London Evening Standard carried a damning report about the toxicity of the smog in London which caused up to 6,000 deaths last year alone. What was the political response ? Nothing - Boris wibbled on about his bikes and taxis with low emissions while nothing from Labour or the LDs, UKIP, Greens or anyone else.
A serious health and environmental issue affecting the capital city, causing deaths and no doubt health issues for thousands of people and no one has any kind of solution.
Never mind, we can always talk about how to eat bacon sandwiches, say "wowsers" like something out of a Billy Bunter book or say for the umpteenth time why my side is great and all the others are rubbish and quote some reference from the Punic Wars.
And they are still not really interested.
There are lots of controversial issues where the media do a really crappy job - sometimes because there are people or organisations with agendas to push, sometimes because they want the story to have a more sensational slant, sometimes because the journos do not have don't have a grip on the complexity of an issue. Migrants trafficked into forced prostitution is one example: it isn't helpful to conflate Hungarian working girls who move to London because the businessmen here pay better, with the smaller number of migrants who are effectively slave labour kept under lock and key - but the more shocking statistics simply include both. Similarly, tax evasion/avoidance is a politically sensitive issue where claims made by the likes of UK Uncut often make their way into the press as uncritically-accepted background facts. Everybody I know with a strong professional/academic background in an area can name instances where the press get stuff wrong on a regular basis.
I suppose there's a case that if the press are "raising awareness" of a difficult and important issue, then that somehow makes up for faults in the individual stories. Well that argument can sod off and go home. Things that run slipshod over factual accuracy undermine trust in the press. If you want the next Rotherham to be flagged up and acted on faster, then you need fearless journalism that is also good journalism: which does not sensationalise, which is accurate, which does not push an agenda, which is trusted and taken seriously. This isn't even a left/right issue: we're all tempted to be more forgiving of factual accuracy if the broad tenor of an article agrees with us. We shouldn't be. There is a legitimate place for scepticism and critical thought. On serious issues, more so, not less.
'Labour's acting leader has privately expressed concern that too many of the new Labour MPs are content to sit on their large majorities in safe Labour seats'
This is so reminiscent of the problems faced by the Conservative party while in Opposition between 1997-2005.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/analysis/1324740-commentary-stephen-daisley-on-liz-kendall-labour-and-the-conservatives/
However when we can see the rubbish spouted in the article above by this Mr Brind about a classic bleeding heart leftie then you see the desperate straits Labour is in. It strikes me from what it (that is its MPs and Activists) is saying about itself then why, it seems perfectly logical for Miliband to be appointed Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would fit in nicely.
'There's certainly a vacancy waiting to be filled by an economically-sensible opposition to the Tories, and Labour appear unwilling to occupy it.'
Problem is that with only 8 MP's and relegated to minor party status they will get about as much oxygen as the DUP.
Agree with you Lamb would have been a more serious leader,Farron comes across as an overgrown student's union rep.