Corbyn makes a good ambassador for it, because he's not a ranter like Scargill and seems devoid of personal ambition and greed (another common feature with e.g. Tsipras, who still benefits hugely from not being part of the comfortable and in Greece even corrupt old elite). But it's not primarily about him, which is why criticisms that he once was polite about Gerry Adams etc. miss the mark.
It's your party so you're entitled to do what you like.
But you're making a serious mistake if you believe this. Neither the Conservatives nor the newspapers have got started on this. The general public (as opposed to the Labour party electorate) haven't picked up too much about Jeremy Corbyn. And he has so much history that can be drip fed to the public in bite-sized portions.
Don't you worry that your opponents are so quiet right now? They're staying quiet for a very good reason.
It's all a bit reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain boasting that Mr Hitler missed the bus.
I imagine Nick's self-delusion is exquisite from a Tory perspective.
The economic case for the EU weakens a lot when the European single market is getting smaller relative to the UK economy every year, while the non-European market gets bigger and bigger.
We really need those trade deals with Canada and the US to go through. Strangely, there seems to be no urgency on the EU side despite economic stagnation.
The moment that the New Labour leadership realised it had lost control of the party.
When Corbyn becomes Labour leader, and moves to restrict the influence of the 90% of the PLP who don't support him, what's to stop them forming New Labour and leaving Corbyn and his fellow travellers behind (with the unions)?
1. Funding. 2. Activist support 3. The chances of them keeping their seats as New SDP is next to nil, even if Burnham or Cooper or whoever still ended as LotO.
A formal split will only come if the left moves first; the right won't jump (as in the early '80s; it was the introduction of mandatory re-selection that was the final straw for the SDP to break away).
During GE2015 the main message from the SNP from day one of the campaign was, vote SNP to ensure Scotland's interests are best protected at Westminster
..and the actual effect of the campaign was the lowest level of Scottish influence at Westminster in living memory (or longer)
Labour will be submitting its “resignation letter to the British people as a serious party of government” if it elects Jeremy Corbyn as leader, Liz Kendall said on Friday.
Kendall, in an interview on the BBC argued that Corbyn – the leftwinger who has become the surprise runaway favourite in the party’s election – was advocating policies that would lead to certain electoral defeat for Labour.
“He [Corbyn] is not offering anything new. His programme isn’t new, it’s exactly the same as it was in the 1980s and we’ll get the same result,” said Kendall, who is seen as the most Blairite of the four leadership contenders and on course to come last, according to the polls.
“I don’t want to see Labour submit our resignation letter to the British people as a serious party of government.”
The moment that the New Labour leadership realised it had lost control of the party.
When Corbyn becomes Labour leader, and moves to restrict the influence of the 90% of the PLP who don't support him, what's to stop them forming New Labour and leaving Corbyn and his fellow travellers behind (with the unions)?
A dream scenario. And I imagine such a party would raise a fair bit of cash. But Labour MPs are very loyal to Labour, the Red Tory jibes notwithstanding.
Janner fails to show at Westminster Mags Court. Defence arguing he would be prepared to appear by live video link. Magistrates refuse, and suggest proceedings are moved to Wood Green...
What is the normal procedure for someone who is unfit to stand trial? Do they have to appear in court at least once. I can't help feeling that the DPP is compensating massively for past failures in this case.
He should be arrested immediately.
I'm not sure that answers my question
I'm not sure how the numbers stack up, but the CPS will make a decision whether to drop charges or to call a trial of the facts. In Janner's case they are pursuing the latter, so yes, he does have to turn up - even though he can't be found guilty.
1. Funding. 2. Activist support 3. The chances of them keeping their seats as New SDP is next to nil, even if Burnham or Cooper or whoever still ended as LotO.
A formal split will only come if the left moves first; the right won't jump (as in the early '80s; it was the introduction of mandatory re-selection that was the final straw for the SDP to break away).
I agree SDP mark 2 has limited appeal, but that is why the branding is important.
Labour hasn't won a general election in decades. New Labour won 3
New Labour mark 2 would have brand appeal. The Blairites could argue they were elected on a more Blairite manifesto than Corbyn is now advocating so they don't need elected again.
Funding for Corbyn is already being called into question. New Labour would attract some Blairite donors
The New Puritism emanating from Corbynistas will provide great entertainment for those of us BBQing babies this Bank Holiday.
For fellow Labourites who knocked on doors only three months ago - it must be coming as quite a shock.
I'm trying to recall if Blairites/New Labour tried to deselect political rivals? I can't think of any examples.
Removing team mates who disagree the moment you get your mitts on the tiller, seems rather unattractive and fundamentalist. First they came for the Blairites...
@patrickwintour: Conservative Home back Yvette Cooper "In the absence of anyone else, she will have to do". Great campaign slogan. http://t.co/IoASUrUNLJ
Better than that image of her face with 'rubbish' in big letters next to it from her campaign apparently (from her speech, supposedly, calling something else rubbish, but only that word was really large and noticable)
I don't understand why Kendall hasn't just given up and thrown her lot in with one of the other candidates. It would save her blushes and (marginally) help with the 'stop Corbyn' effort.
The economic case for the EU weakens a lot when the European single market is getting smaller relative to the UK economy every year, while the non-European market gets bigger and bigger.
We really need those trade deals with Canada and the US to go through. Strangely, there seems to be no urgency on the EU side despite economic stagnation.
Thank you for this. Do you have the balance of trade figures for the UK and the EU and the UK and the rest of the world? I'd be interested to see them but I don't know where to look for them.
I don't understand why Kendall hasn't just given up and thrown her lot in with one of the other candidates. It would save her blushes and (marginally) help with the 'stop Corbyn' effort.
She can't pull out now, ballot papers are on their way. She's asked her supporters to use the AV system this morning.
The economic case for the EU weakens a lot when the European single market is getting smaller relative to the UK economy every year, while the non-European market gets bigger and bigger.
We really need those trade deals with Canada and the US to go through. Strangely, there seems to be no urgency on the EU side despite economic stagnation.
Have you read the content of TTIP? I'll be quite honest, I haven't. But I'm very confused that people seem to be advocating it without reading the big print, let alone the fine print.
It would seem a bit odd for Labour activist to fill in one ballot paper for Corbyn and then a few seconds later fill in another one for Jowell. Even if they had written off the 2020 General Election but felt they were in with a shout of capturing City Hall it is hard to make sense of it. Then again, trying to apply the sense of Labour Party members in order to formulate a prediction strikes me as imprudent."
Janner fails to show at Westminster Mags Court. Defence arguing he would be prepared to appear by live video link. Magistrates refuse, and suggest proceedings are moved to Wood Green...
What is the normal procedure for someone who is unfit to stand trial? Do they have to appear in court at least once. I can't help feeling that the DPP is compensating massively for past failures in this case.
He should be arrested immediately.
I'm not sure that answers my question
I'm not sure how the numbers stack up, but the CPS will make a decision whether to drop charges or to call a trial of the facts. In Janner's case they are pursuing the latter, so yes, he does have to turn up - even though he can't be found guilty.
Can't he be arrested for failing to attend court though ?
And with the boundary changes coming up - it'll be a field day for Corbynistas across the country to select their latest UNITE candidate.
Lenny has already caused this to happen in several constituences by packing the membership with his drones. There was a great Labour UnCut article about this - I'll see if I can find it. Falkirk was just a screw up that came to light.
The moment that the New Labour leadership realised it had lost control of the party.
When Corbyn becomes Labour leader, and moves to restrict the influence of the 90% of the PLP who don't support him, what's to stop them forming New Labour and leaving Corbyn and his fellow travellers behind (with the unions)?
Janner fails to show at Westminster Mags Court. Defence arguing he would be prepared to appear by live video link. Magistrates refuse, and suggest proceedings are moved to Wood Green...
What is the normal procedure for someone who is unfit to stand trial? Do they have to appear in court at least once. I can't help feeling that the DPP is compensating massively for past failures in this case.
He should be arrested immediately.
I'm not sure that answers my question
I'm not sure how the numbers stack up, but the CPS will make a decision whether to drop charges or to call a trial of the facts. In Janner's case they are pursuing the latter, so yes, he does have to turn up - even though he can't be found guilty.
The economic case for the EU weakens a lot when the European single market is getting smaller relative to the UK economy every year, while the non-European market gets bigger and bigger.
We really need those trade deals with Canada and the US to go through. Strangely, there seems to be no urgency on the EU side despite economic stagnation.
Thank you for this. Do you have the balance of trade figures for the UK and the EU and the UK and the rest of the world? I'd be interested to see them but I don't know where to look for them.
The economic case for the EU weakens a lot when the European single market is getting smaller relative to the UK economy every year, while the non-European market gets bigger and bigger.
We really need those trade deals with Canada and the US to go through. Strangely, there seems to be no urgency on the EU side despite economic stagnation.
Have you read the content of TTIP? I'll be quite honest, I haven't. But I'm very confused that people seem to be advocating it without reading the big print, let alone the fine print.
I have read most of the reports, yes. Obviously the treaty itself has not been released yet.
The moment that the New Labour leadership realised it had lost control of the party.
When Corbyn becomes Labour leader, and moves to restrict the influence of the 90% of the PLP who don't support him, what's to stop them forming New Labour and leaving Corbyn and his fellow travellers behind (with the unions)?
Brilliant - except the union donations are the only thing keeping the Labour party afloat.
Janner fails to show at Westminster Mags Court. Defence arguing he would be prepared to appear by live video link. Magistrates refuse, and suggest proceedings are moved to Wood Green...
What is the normal procedure for someone who is unfit to stand trial? Do they have to appear in court at least once. I can't help feeling that the DPP is compensating massively for past failures in this case.
He should be arrested immediately.
I'm not sure that answers my question
I'm not sure how the numbers stack up, but the CPS will make a decision whether to drop charges or to call a trial of the facts. In Janner's case they are pursuing the latter, so yes, he does have to turn up - even though he can't be found guilty.
Ta. How common are trial of the facts?
Doesn't look as though they happen very often, although it was used not that long ago for our old friend Margaret Moran MP of dry rot fame. About 15-16 times a year is suggested as an average.
Some information on what they are and why they happen here (you need to scroll down to 'Fitness to Plead'):
The economic case for the EU weakens a lot when the European single market is getting smaller relative to the UK economy every year, while the non-European market gets bigger and bigger.
We really need those trade deals with Canada and the US to go through. Strangely, there seems to be no urgency on the EU side despite economic stagnation.
Thank you for this. Do you have the balance of trade figures for the UK and the EU and the UK and the rest of the world? I'd be interested to see them but I don't know where to look for them.
Thank you yes, that answers a few questions. Bit concerning that we have imbalances with China and Germany the wrong way, while we have surpluses with such mighty economies as Ireland and the UAE (and the USA, of course).
Further for Ms Plato, here's Paul Mason's definition of Neoliberalism from his new book (via a comment on Richard Mutphy's site):
"By neoliberalism I mean the global capitalist system shaped around a core of neoliberal practices and institutions , themselves guided by a widespread and spontaneously reproduced ideology, and ruled by an elite which acts in a neoliberal way, whatever conflicting and moderating ideas it holds in its head - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/10/paul-mason-postcapitalism-my-book-of-the-year-so-far/ "
Yep. These Leftists certainly know what they are talking about. I haven't read the context in the book.
I profoundly disagree with this 'what's the point of sticking with our principles if we don't win power' nonsense. The point it you represent the democratic wishes of your supporters, and if you stand by that and fail to convince enough people, you lose, and simply use whatever numbers your support has given you to make your case in parliament.
The other two alternatives are: -You dissemble, appear to represent a more 'moderate' view, but sneak your policies in when you win, or -You abandon your principles to gain power
The first is fundamentally undemocratic, and the second is an entirely pointless exercise whose only benefit is to get the trappings of office.
Janner fails to show at Westminster Mags Court. Defence arguing he would be prepared to appear by live video link. Magistrates refuse, and suggest proceedings are moved to Wood Green...
What is the normal procedure for someone who is unfit to stand trial? Do they have to appear in court at least once. I can't help feeling that the DPP is compensating massively for past failures in this case.
He should be arrested immediately.
I'm not sure that answers my question
I'm not sure how the numbers stack up, but the CPS will make a decision whether to drop charges or to call a trial of the facts. In Janner's case they are pursuing the latter, so yes, he does have to turn up - even though he can't be found guilty.
Janner fails to show at Westminster Mags Court. Defence arguing he would be prepared to appear by live video link. Magistrates refuse, and suggest proceedings are moved to Wood Green...
What is the normal procedure for someone who is unfit to stand trial? Do they have to appear in court at least once. I can't help feeling that the DPP is compensating massively for past failures in this case.
He should be arrested immediately.
I'm not sure that answers my question
I'm not sure how the numbers stack up, but the CPS will make a decision whether to drop charges or to call a trial of the facts. In Janner's case they are pursuing the latter, so yes, he does have to turn up - even though he can't be found guilty.
Can't he be arrested for failing to attend court though ?
Yes, he can. Trails of the facts are ordinary criminal proceedings with respect to procedure and evidence.
Janner fails to show at Westminster Mags Court. Defence arguing he would be prepared to appear by live video link. Magistrates refuse, and suggest proceedings are moved to Wood Green...
What is the normal procedure for someone who is unfit to stand trial? Do they have to appear in court at least once. I can't help feeling that the DPP is compensating massively for past failures in this case.
He should be arrested immediately.
I'm not sure that answers my question
I'm not sure how the numbers stack up, but the CPS will make a decision whether to drop charges or to call a trial of the facts. In Janner's case they are pursuing the latter, so yes, he does have to turn up - even though he can't be found guilty.
Ta. How common are trial of the facts?
Rare, but not unheard of. However, very few are reported, if they get that far at all. I suspect most are the subject of agreement over the nature of the charges, agreement on the facts, etc.
Janner fails to show at Westminster Mags Court. Defence arguing he would be prepared to appear by live video link. Magistrates refuse, and suggest proceedings are moved to Wood Green...
What is the normal procedure for someone who is unfit to stand trial? Do they have to appear in court at least once. I can't help feeling that the DPP is compensating massively for past failures in this case.
He should be arrested immediately.
I'm not sure that answers my question
I'm not sure how the numbers stack up, but the CPS will make a decision whether to drop charges or to call a trial of the facts. In Janner's case they are pursuing the latter, so yes, he does have to turn up - even though he can't be found guilty.
Ta. How common are trial of the facts?
Doesn't look as though they happen very often, although it was used not that long ago for our old friend Margaret Moran MP of dry rot fame. About 15-16 times a year is suggested as an average.
Some information on what they are and why they happen here (you need to scroll down to 'Fitness to Plead'):
Thanks for the link. If I'm reading this correctly, it used to be the case that being found unfit for trial meant the court assumed you had committed the crime!
Further for Ms Plato, here's Paul Mason's definition of Neoliberalism from his new book (via a comment on Richard Mutphy's site):
"By neoliberalism I mean the global capitalist system shaped around a core of neoliberal practices and institutions , themselves guided by a widespread and spontaneously reproduced ideology, and ruled by an elite which acts in a neoliberal way, whatever conflicting and moderating ideas it holds in its head - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/10/paul-mason-postcapitalism-my-book-of-the-year-so-far/ "
Yep. These Leftists certainly know what they are talking about. I haven't read the context in the book.
So neoliberalism is correctly defined as er, neoliberalism. It's wot it is, that's wot it is, innit?
You can tell he used to work for Channel 4 News, can't you?
Further for Ms Plato, here's Paul Mason's definition of Neoliberalism from his new book (via a comment on Richard Mutphy's site):
"By neoliberalism I mean the global capitalist system shaped around a core of neoliberal practices and institutions , themselves guided by a widespread and spontaneously reproduced ideology, and ruled by an elite which acts in a neoliberal way, whatever conflicting and moderating ideas it holds in its head - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/10/paul-mason-postcapitalism-my-book-of-the-year-so-far/ "
Yep. These Leftists certainly know what they are talking about. I haven't read the context in the book.
I read that sentence as "neoliberalism is defined as neoliberal practices guided by a neoliberal ideology and ruled by a neoliberal elite."
A major and very important difference between the SNP and Corbyn Labour is that the SNP has a flag to wave and does so enthusiastically.
Strange how saltire cuffinks, jogging in a Scotland football top and vowing to 'reclaim the saltire from the SNP' didn't work for Irn Bru-swigging Jim Murphy. It's all in how you wave it I guess.
Janner fails to show at Westminster Mags Court. Defence arguing he would be prepared to appear by live video link. Magistrates refuse, and suggest proceedings are moved to Wood Green...
What is the normal procedure for someone who is unfit to stand trial? Do they have to appear in court at least once. I can't help feeling that the DPP is compensating massively for past failures in this case.
He should be arrested immediately.
I'm not sure that answers my question
I'm not sure how the numbers stack up, but the CPS will make a decision whether to drop charges or to call a trial of the facts. In Janner's case they are pursuing the latter, so yes, he does have to turn up - even though he can't be found guilty.
Ta. How common are trial of the facts?
Doesn't look as though they happen very often, although it was used not that long ago for our old friend Margaret Moran MP of dry rot fame. About 15-16 times a year is suggested as an average.
Some information on what they are and why they happen here (you need to scroll down to 'Fitness to Plead'):
Thanks for the link. If I'm reading this correctly, it used to be the case that being found unfit for trial meant the court assumed you had committed the crime!
Yes, although that appears to have been the legal technicality that if you were unfit to plead you were sectioned by order of the court for public safety under the then criminal code.
It's still, as you imply, a very remarkable inversion of the principle of innocent until proven guilty and one I must admit I have not come across before. However, it seems similar in principle to the idea that if you fail to turn up to plead, you were convicted of the crime in your absence by default (which is also no longer the case since I think 1984, although it might be 1991).
Labour will be submitting its “resignation letter to the British people as a serious party of government” if it elects Jeremy Corbyn as leader, Liz Kendall said on Friday.
Kendall, in an interview on the BBC argued that Corbyn – the leftwinger who has become the surprise runaway favourite in the party’s election – was advocating policies that would lead to certain electoral defeat for Labour.
“He [Corbyn] is not offering anything new. His programme isn’t new, it’s exactly the same as it was in the 1980s and we’ll get the same result,” said Kendall, who is seen as the most Blairite of the four leadership contenders and on course to come last, according to the polls.
“I don’t want to see Labour submit our resignation letter to the British people as a serious party of government.”
Ladbrokes Corbyn 1st Pref Vote Share 12/1 Under 40% 11/4 40-50% 6/4 50-60% 11/4 60-70% 6/1 Over 70%
Hurrah. I was going to write a thread this evening on the absence of exactly this market. Stingy odds, mind (overround of 15%), though probably some value still in the 50-60 band, which I think should be close to evens.
The other market I was going to suggest was 'round of Corbyn victory', which I think should be something like:
Janner fails to show at Westminster Mags Court. Defence arguing he would be prepared to appear by live video link. Magistrates refuse, and suggest proceedings are moved to Wood Green...
What is the normal procedure for someone who is unfit to stand trial? Do they have to appear in court at least once. I can't help feeling that the DPP is compensating massively for past failures in this case.
He should be arrested immediately.
I'm not sure that answers my question
I'm not sure how the numbers stack up, but the CPS will make a decision whether to drop charges or to call a trial of the facts. In Janner's case they are pursuing the latter, so yes, he does have to turn up - even though he can't be found guilty.
Ta. How common are trial of the facts?
Doesn't look as though they happen very often, although it was used not that long ago for our old friend Margaret Moran MP of dry rot fame. About 15-16 times a year is suggested as an average.
Some information on what they are and why they happen here (you need to scroll down to 'Fitness to Plead'):
Thanks for the link. If I'm reading this correctly, it used to be the case that being found unfit for trial meant the court assumed you had committed the crime!
Yes, although that appears to have been the legal technicality that if you were unfit to plead you were sectioned by order of the court for public safety under the then criminal code.
It's still, as you imply, a very remarkable inversion of the principle of innocent until proven guilty and one I must admit I have not come across before. However, it seems similar in principle to the idea that if you fail to turn up to plead, you were convicted of the crime in your absence by default (which is also no longer the case since I think 1984, although it might be 1991).
Although the trial on the facts cannot find you guilty, it can make a hospitalisation order. In that respects it looks a lot more like existing powers under the Mental Health acts to detain persons considered a threat to the public. I suspect that is part of the reason for their rarity.
The economic case for the EU weakens a lot when the European single market is getting smaller relative to the UK economy every year, while the non-European market gets bigger and bigger.
We really need those trade deals with Canada and the US to go through. Strangely, there seems to be no urgency on the EU side despite economic stagnation.
Thank you for this. Do you have the balance of trade figures for the UK and the EU and the UK and the rest of the world? I'd be interested to see them but I don't know where to look for them.
Thank you yes, that answers a few questions. Bit concerning that we have imbalances with China and Germany the wrong way, while we have surpluses with such mighty economies as Ireland and the UAE (and the USA, of course).
The UK's trade figures have been awful for decades, our biggest export is and has been for some time the nation's wealth and capital (so much of that inward investment politicians like to boast about is little more than asset stripping).
Further for Ms Plato, here's Paul Mason's definition of Neoliberalism from his new book (via a comment on Richard Mutphy's site):
"By neoliberalism I mean the global capitalist system shaped around a core of neoliberal practices and institutions , themselves guided by a widespread and spontaneously reproduced ideology, and ruled by an elite which acts in a neoliberal way, whatever conflicting and moderating ideas it holds in its head - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/10/paul-mason-postcapitalism-my-book-of-the-year-so-far/ "
Yep. These Leftists certainly know what they are talking about. I haven't read the context in the book.
Further for Ms Plato, here's Paul Mason's definition of Neoliberalism from his new book (via a comment on Richard Mutphy's site):
"By neoliberalism I mean the global capitalist system shaped around a core of neoliberal practices and institutions , themselves guided by a widespread and spontaneously reproduced ideology, and ruled by an elite which acts in a neoliberal way, whatever conflicting and moderating ideas it holds in its head - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/10/paul-mason-postcapitalism-my-book-of-the-year-so-far/ "
Yep. These Leftists certainly know what they are talking about. I haven't read the context in the book.
I read that sentence as "neoliberalism is defined as neoliberal practices guided by a neoliberal ideology and ruled by a neoliberal elite."
Is that fair?
if only there was a free and comprehensive online encyclopedia where you could look up this sort of thing
Ladbrokes Corbyn 1st Pref Vote Share 12/1 Under 40% 11/4 40-50% 6/4 50-60% 11/4 60-70% 6/1 Over 70%
Hurrah. I was going to write a thread this evening on the absence of exactly this market. Stingy odds, mind (overround of 15%), though probably some value still in the 50-60 band, which I think should be close to evens.
The other market I was going to suggest was 'round of Corbyn victory', which I think should be something like:
1st 1/3 2nd 20/1 3rd 5/1 Won't win 20/1
If YouGov's polling readjustment causes a 53 to 57 move, I would be wary of their figures plus or minus a good 10%.
It is remarkable really that such a mistake would still see Corbyn win.
I recall the story of the pollster sacked in 2001 for calling it right, but getting the figures "badly" wrong someone posted here.
Further for Ms Plato, here's Paul Mason's definition of Neoliberalism from his new book (via a comment on Richard Mutphy's site):
"By neoliberalism I mean the global capitalist system shaped around a core of neoliberal practices and institutions , themselves guided by a widespread and spontaneously reproduced ideology, and ruled by an elite which acts in a neoliberal way, whatever conflicting and moderating ideas it holds in its head - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/10/paul-mason-postcapitalism-my-book-of-the-year-so-far/ "
Yep. These Leftists certainly know what they are talking about. I haven't read the context in the book.
So neoliberalism is correctly defined as er, neoliberalism. It's wot it is, that's wot it is, innit?
You can tell he used to work for Channel 4 News, can't you?
Paul Mason still does? Essential to be a leftie there.
Thank you for this. Do you have the balance of trade figures for the UK and the EU and the UK and the rest of the world? I'd be interested to see them but I don't know where to look for them.
I'm so appalled by that rubbish singing I'm going to add a different clip by a choir who had some dim idea of pitch and voice projection. Not the best quality recording but still a million times better:
It's actually a pretty powerful piece of music if you have a good crowd singing it well, accompanied on a decent sized instrument (say a 3-manual organ with a decent flute chorus and a trumpet for the emphasis).
@TheWhiteRabbit thank you. As you say, a bit of a confusion on the old legal boundaries but that seems to leave Janner a bit caught in the middle whatever is decided.
All that we can say for definite is that the whole process is rapidly moving from chaos to farce, which is not exactly helpful for anybody, least of all the accusers.
Further for Ms Plato, here's Paul Mason's definition of Neoliberalism from his new book (via a comment on Richard Mutphy's site):
"By neoliberalism I mean the global capitalist system shaped around a core of neoliberal practices and institutions , themselves guided by a widespread and spontaneously reproduced ideology, and ruled by an elite which acts in a neoliberal way, whatever conflicting and moderating ideas it holds in its head - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/10/paul-mason-postcapitalism-my-book-of-the-year-so-far/ "
Yep. These Leftists certainly know what they are talking about. I haven't read the context in the book.
I read that sentence as "neoliberalism is defined as neoliberal practices guided by a neoliberal ideology and ruled by a neoliberal elite."
Is that fair?
if only there was a free and comprehensive online encyclopedia where you could look up this sort of thing
I'm so appalled by that rubbish singing I'm going to add a different clip by a choir who had some dim idea of pitch and voice projection. Not the best quality recording but still a million times better:
It's actually a pretty powerful piece of music if you have a good crowd singing it well, accompanied on a decent sized instrument (say a 3-manual organ with a decent flute chorus and a trumpet for the emphasis).
@TheWhiteRabbit thank you. As you say, a bit of a confusion on the old legal boundaries but that seems to leave Janner a bit caught in the middle whatever is decided.
All that we can say for definite is that the whole process is rapidly moving from chaos to farce, which is not exactly helpful for anybody, least of all the accusers.
I think the general rule is that a trial of the facts will only be used where there is some public interest in establishing the facts.
Using a trial of the facts as a way to get a hospitalisation/supervision order seems secondary to using the mental health procedures which are carefully considered in their own right and with the proper label attached.
Equally where an order is not sought, it will rarely be worth pursing a trial of the facts, where those facts would not in any case only have given rise to a minor crime.
She looks to be having more fun than the other candidates!
Or the Kids. Is this where she gave her interview about Labour giving up being a serious party if they dont elect a bouncing blair babe. Today Alton Towers Tomorrow the party will see sense and vote for me. FFS she is a complete joke
Alternatively if you don't want to like people you can find all sorts of silly reasons not to like them.
Guido compares outsider Jeremy Corbyn to outsider Donald Trump
One is a dangerous megalomaniac with a wealth of financial firepower and a Wikipedia page full of his questionable views. The other is Donald Trump… http://order-order.com/#:zNsN-nAj6hrTsA
''Well, Corbyn stayed in the Labour party despite thinking its leader was a warmongering criminal.''
You have a point! That's not quite the same as saying your leader is a deluded mega loser ( a far worse crime for a politician than warmongering criminal).
Further for Ms Plato, here's Paul Mason's definition of Neoliberalism from his new book (via a comment on Richard Mutphy's site):
"By neoliberalism I mean the global capitalist system shaped around a core of neoliberal practices and institutions , themselves guided by a widespread and spontaneously reproduced ideology, and ruled by an elite which acts in a neoliberal way, whatever conflicting and moderating ideas it holds in its head - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/10/paul-mason-postcapitalism-my-book-of-the-year-so-far/ "
Yep. These Leftists certainly know what they are talking about. I haven't read the context in the book.
I read that sentence as "neoliberalism is defined as neoliberal practices guided by a neoliberal ideology and ruled by a neoliberal elite."
Is that fair?
if only there was a free and comprehensive online encyclopedia where you could look up this sort of thing
do you need all your terms precisely defined? I don't think it's really that difficult to understand. I think you and others refuse to understand terms you are not keen on which don't correspond to your beliefs.
Further for Ms Plato, here's Paul Mason's definition of Neoliberalism from his new book (via a comment on Richard Mutphy's site):
"By neoliberalism I mean the global capitalist system shaped around a core of neoliberal practices and institutions , themselves guided by a widespread and spontaneously reproduced ideology, and ruled by an elite which acts in a neoliberal way, whatever conflicting and moderating ideas it holds in its head - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/10/paul-mason-postcapitalism-my-book-of-the-year-so-far/ "
Yep. These Leftists certainly know what they are talking about. I haven't read the context in the book.
I read that sentence as "neoliberalism is defined as neoliberal practices guided by a neoliberal ideology and ruled by a neoliberal elite."
Is that fair?
if only there was a free and comprehensive online encyclopedia where you could look up this sort of thing
1. "Neoliberalism is a term whose usage and definition have changed over time."
2. I like to know how people are actually using it. Banging on about 'neoliberalism' when its simply "stuff wot I don't like" is kind of tiresome.
if only there was a free and comprehensive online encyclopedia where you could look up this sort of thing
May I recommend one small addition?
'if only there was a free and comprehensive AND TRUSTWORTHY online encyclopedia where you could look up this sort of thing.'
Unfortunately of course there isn't. I remember once reading an article which stated that Wikipedia had fewer errors than the Britannica. However, it lost a little credibility by virtue of having been written by, er, Wikipedia. In fact, since it was based on original research, it should not have been allowed under Wikipedia's own rules anyway!
Didn't stop the very unpleasant American I was at that time investigating trying to use it to prove some of his deliberate falsifications of history surrounding Hitler, of course, but these things happen.
Further for Ms Plato, here's Paul Mason's definition of Neoliberalism from his new book (via a comment on Richard Mutphy's site):
"By neoliberalism I mean the global capitalist system shaped around a core of neoliberal practices and institutions , themselves guided by a widespread and spontaneously reproduced ideology, and ruled by an elite which acts in a neoliberal way, whatever conflicting and moderating ideas it holds in its head - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/10/paul-mason-postcapitalism-my-book-of-the-year-so-far/ "
Yep. These Leftists certainly know what they are talking about. I haven't read the context in the book.
I read that sentence as "neoliberalism is defined as neoliberal practices guided by a neoliberal ideology and ruled by a neoliberal elite."
Is that fair?
if only there was a free and comprehensive online encyclopedia where you could look up this sort of thing
On the other hand, I should perhaps apologise if I have caused you offense, time difference meaning I am a bit more pissed than you at this time in the morning.
Judge says Janner has been "summonsed", and must appear.
At each step in the process, Janner's side keep trying to block the legal process. Legal yes. But it stinks.
Quite possibly true, and he may be as guilty as hell. But if you are incapable of defending yourself how can a trial be fair? This little bit of awkward civil rights may be bypassed perhaps with some actual proof of the accusations. Is there any proof of the accusations, other than the accusations themselves, to put to a jury?
She looks to be having more fun than the other candidates!
Or the Kids. Is this where she gave her interview about Labour giving up being a serious party if they dont elect a bouncing blair babe. Today Alton Towers Tomorrow the party will see sense and vote for me. FFS she is a complete joke
Alternatively if you don't want to like people you can find all sorts of silly reasons not to like them.
Any other serious politicians make a speech about their party not being a serious party of Government within hours of happily performing on a bouncy castle.
Wouldnt defend Mrs BJ if she did that TBF.
I mean seriously I like Monty Python but she is beyond parody.
Further for Ms Plato, here's Paul Mason's definition of Neoliberalism from his new book (via a comment on Richard Mutphy's site):
"By neoliberalism I mean the global capitalist system shaped around a core of neoliberal practices and institutions , themselves guided by a widespread and spontaneously reproduced ideology, and ruled by an elite which acts in a neoliberal way, whatever conflicting and moderating ideas it holds in its head - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/10/paul-mason-postcapitalism-my-book-of-the-year-so-far/ "
Yep. These Leftists certainly know what they are talking about. I haven't read the context in the book.
I read that sentence as "neoliberalism is defined as neoliberal practices guided by a neoliberal ideology and ruled by a neoliberal elite."
Is that fair?
if only there was a free and comprehensive online encyclopedia where you could look up this sort of thing
On the other hand, I should perhaps apologise if I have caused you offense, time difference meaning I am a bit more pissed than you at this time in the morning.
I thought the golden rule was never to use the word you are trying to define in the explanation of the definition. (at least that is what my logic master at school taught us)
This is a trick used by people who use long words to confuse and muddle their reader and try to make their reader feel inferior because they cannot understand what is being said.
Further for Ms Plato, here's Paul Mason's definition of Neoliberalism from his new book (via a comment on Richard Mutphy's site):
"By neoliberalism I mean the global capitalist system shaped around a core of neoliberal practices and institutions , themselves guided by a widespread and spontaneously reproduced ideology, and ruled by an elite which acts in a neoliberal way, whatever conflicting and moderating ideas it holds in its head - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/10/paul-mason-postcapitalism-my-book-of-the-year-so-far/ "
Yep. These Leftists certainly know what they are talking about. I haven't read the context in the book.
if only there was a free and comprehensive online encyclopedia where you could look up this sort of thing
May I recommend one small addition?
'if only there was a free and comprehensive AND TRUSTWORTHY online encyclopedia where you could look up this sort of thing.'
Unfortunately of course there isn't. I remember once reading an article which stated that Wikipedia had fewer errors than the Britannica. However, it lost a little credibility by virtue of having been written by, er, Wikipedia. In fact, since it was based on original research, it should not have been allowed under Wikipedia's own rules anyway!
Didn't stop the very unpleasant American I was at that time investigating trying to use it to prove some of his deliberate falsifications of history surrounding Hitler, of course, but these things happen.
No, the study of WIkipedia v EB was not done by Wikipedia.
The accuracy of Wikipedia across major topics* is now very good, as long as you think of accuracy as representing the secondary sources.
Thus most of the critique tends to be that an article is taking a revisionist/orthodox viewpoint, based on the complainant asserting the truth of half the literature and the falsity of the other half.
*Discrete topics, that is. Wikipedia really struggles to write the article on "History", since it is very difficult to step outside it.
Assuming Liz et al want to keep their leadership hopes alive until the inevitable extinction level event happens to Comrade Corbyn - they can nail colours to their masts quite usefully.
Whatever Corbynistas threaten re deselection - the worst is becoming an ex-MP in five years time. That sounds better than life between now and then.
The economic case for the EU weakens a lot when the European single market is getting smaller relative to the UK economy every year, while the non-European market gets bigger and bigger.
We really need those trade deals with Canada and the US to go through. Strangely, there seems to be no urgency on the EU side despite economic stagnation.
Thank you for this. Do you have the balance of trade figures for the UK and the EU and the UK and the rest of the world? I'd be interested to see them but I don't know where to look for them.
Thank you yes, that answers a few questions. Bit concerning that we have imbalances with China and Germany the wrong way, while we have surpluses with such mighty economies as Ireland and the UAE (and the USA, of course).
Our balance of trade with the EU is getting worse, as the weak Euro means they can sell stuff cheaply to us, but can't afford to buy our products. There is also the problem that our competitive strength is in service exports, and while the EU has a very free single market in goods, the French keep on stifling efforts to get a free trade in services.
Further for Ms Plato, here's Paul Mason's definition of Neoliberalism from his new book (via a comment on Richard Mutphy's site):
"By neoliberalism I mean the global capitalist system shaped around a core of neoliberal practices and institutions , themselves guided by a widespread and spontaneously reproduced ideology, and ruled by an elite which acts in a neoliberal way, whatever conflicting and moderating ideas it holds in its head - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/10/paul-mason-postcapitalism-my-book-of-the-year-so-far/ "
Yep. These Leftists certainly know what they are talking about. I haven't read the context in the book.
I read that sentence as "neoliberalism is defined as neoliberal practices guided by a neoliberal ideology and ruled by a neoliberal elite."
Is that fair?
if only there was a free and comprehensive online encyclopedia where you could look up this sort of thing
On the other hand, I should perhaps apologise if I have caused you offense, time difference meaning I am a bit more pissed than you at this time in the morning.
well, then I'm 2 hours ahead of you I'm in for robust debate, but I honestly don't intend to cause offence
if only there was a free and comprehensive online encyclopedia where you could look up this sort of thing
May I recommend one small addition?
'if only there was a free and comprehensive AND TRUSTWORTHY online encyclopedia where you could look up this sort of thing.'
Unfortunately of course there isn't. I remember once reading an article which stated that Wikipedia had fewer errors than the Britannica. However, it lost a little credibility by virtue of having been written by, er, Wikipedia. In fact, since it was based on original research, it should not have been allowed under Wikipedia's own rules anyway!
Didn't stop the very unpleasant American I was at that time investigating trying to use it to prove some of his deliberate falsifications of history surrounding Hitler, of course, but these things happen.
No, the study of WIkipedia v EB was not done by Wikipedia.
The accuracy of Wikipedia across major topics is now very good, as long as you think of accuracy as representing the secondary sources.
Thus most of the critique tends to be that an article is taking a revisionist/orthodox viewpoint, based on the complainant asserting the truth of half the literature and the falsity of the other half.
The study I saw came from the Jimmy Wales foundation. It was a while ago and if there was a genuine study behind it, I'd be glad to see it.
I find very often that there is gentle agenda-pushing even on its major topics, in particular attempts to play up or play down key arguments and the habit of 'quote mining' to support points of view, or randomly removing sourced materials because they reveal information that discredits the subject or at least, shows them in an unflattering light. That may be simply because my areas of expertise are in fairly controversial topics (as some on here may have noted)!
I have tended to take the view that it is a worthy guide to further reading, but nothing else. Since some of the articles still don't have footnotes, they seem to me to be pretty useless.
I thought the golden rule was never to use the word you are trying to define in the explanation of the definition. (at least that is what my logic master at school taught us)
This is a trick used by people who use long words to confuse and muddle their reader and try to make their reader feel inferior because they cannot understand what is being said.
Further for Ms Plato, here's Paul Mason's definition of Neoliberalism from his new book (via a comment on Richard Mutphy's site):
"By neoliberalism I mean the global capitalist system shaped around a core of neoliberal practices and institutions , themselves guided by a widespread and spontaneously reproduced ideology, and ruled by an elite which acts in a neoliberal way, whatever conflicting and moderating ideas it holds in its head - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/10/paul-mason-postcapitalism-my-book-of-the-year-so-far/ "
Yep. These Leftists certainly know what they are talking about. I haven't read the context in the book.
A major and very important difference between the SNP and Corbyn Labour is that the SNP has a flag to wave and does so enthusiastically.
Labour will have their Red flag soon!
Though Andrew Burnham flinch and the voters sneer...
Can't wait for the end of the labour party conference when they'll all have to stand up and sing it.... Jez has to bring back that tradition surely...
Does £3 get you into the conference? To what extent will entryism infiltrate the constituency parties?People who do not applaud loudly enough will no doubt be disappeared. It could all get quite hysteric.
Comments
http://order-order.com/2015/08/13/dan-hodges-labour-leadership-journey-in-full/#:eMnyaBFnxNZZGQ !
Germany: 1.6%
France: 0.0%
Italy: 0.8%
Eurozone: 1.2%
EU: 1.6%
UK: 2.8%
USA: 2.4%
The economic case for the EU weakens a lot when the European single market is getting smaller relative to the UK economy every year, while the non-European market gets bigger and bigger.
We really need those trade deals with Canada and the US to go through. Strangely, there seems to be no urgency on the EU side despite economic stagnation.
2. Activist support
3. The chances of them keeping their seats as New SDP is next to nil, even if Burnham or Cooper or whoever still ended as LotO.
A formal split will only come if the left moves first; the right won't jump (as in the early '80s; it was the introduction of mandatory re-selection that was the final straw for the SDP to break away).
Genius.
Labour hasn't won a general election in decades. New Labour won 3
New Labour mark 2 would have brand appeal. The Blairites could argue they were elected on a more Blairite manifesto than Corbyn is now advocating so they don't need elected again.
Funding for Corbyn is already being called into question. New Labour would attract some Blairite donors
Corbyn 1st Pref Vote Share
12/1 Under 40%
11/4 40-50%
6/4 50-60%
11/4 60-70%
6/1 Over 70%
It would seem a bit odd for Labour activist to fill in one ballot paper for Corbyn and then a few seconds later fill in another one for Jowell. Even if they had written off the 2020 General Election but felt they were in with a shout of capturing City Hall it is hard to make sense of it. Then again, trying to apply the sense of Labour Party members in order to formulate a prediction strikes me as imprudent."
http://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2015/08/is-corbynmania-a-threat-to-dame-tessa.html
Lenny has already caused this to happen in several constituences by packing the membership with his drones. There was a great Labour UnCut article about this - I'll see if I can find it. Falkirk was just a screw up that came to light.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/balance-of-trade
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade
Some information on what they are and why they happen here (you need to scroll down to 'Fitness to Plead'):
http://www.jaapl.org/content/34/4/466.full
"By neoliberalism I mean the global capitalist system shaped around a core of neoliberal practices and institutions , themselves guided by a widespread and spontaneously reproduced ideology, and ruled by an elite which acts in a neoliberal way, whatever conflicting and moderating ideas it holds in its head - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/10/paul-mason-postcapitalism-my-book-of-the-year-so-far/
"
Yep. These Leftists certainly know what they are talking about. I haven't read the context in the book.
The other two alternatives are:
-You dissemble, appear to represent a more 'moderate' view, but sneak your policies in when you win, or
-You abandon your principles to gain power
The first is fundamentally undemocratic, and the second is an entirely pointless exercise whose only benefit is to get the trappings of office.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136072/Depressed-suicidal-MP-Margaret-Moran-fit-stand-trial-80-000-expense-fiddling-charges.html
You can tell he used to work for Channel 4 News, can't you?
Is that fair?
It's all in how you wave it I guess.
As an aside populus polled me yesterday asking me something similar might be for Lord A
It's still, as you imply, a very remarkable inversion of the principle of innocent until proven guilty and one I must admit I have not come across before. However, it seems similar in principle to the idea that if you fail to turn up to plead, you were convicted of the crime in your absence by default (which is also no longer the case since I think 1984, although it might be 1991).
Exactly all serious party leaders should follow Kendalls lead and get a bouncy castle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYonhCGy5vw
(She can't sing either - too warbly, not capable of holding the pitch, very unpleasing effect).
The other market I was going to suggest was 'round of Corbyn victory', which I think should be something like:
1st 1/3
2nd 20/1
3rd 5/1
Won't win 20/1
It is about the mental health / law boundary.
Although the trial on the facts cannot find you guilty, it can make a hospitalisation order. In that respects it looks a lot more like existing powers under the Mental Health acts to detain persons considered a threat to the public. I suspect that is part of the reason for their rarity.
Neither would cover Janner, of course.
Is this where she gave her interview about Labour giving up being a serious party if they dont elect a bouncing blair babe.
Today Alton Towers Tomorrow the party will see sense and vote for me.
FFS she is a complete joke
It is remarkable really that such a mistake would still see Corbyn win.
I recall the story of the pollster sacked in 2001 for calling it right, but getting the figures "badly" wrong someone posted here.
http://news.sky.com/story/1535696/lord-janner-fails-to-show-at-child-sex-hearing
https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/Pages/Monthly-Tables.aspx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDIuApfVxBg
It's actually a pretty powerful piece of music if you have a good crowd singing it well, accompanied on a decent sized instrument (say a 3-manual organ with a decent flute chorus and a trumpet for the emphasis).
@TheWhiteRabbit thank you. As you say, a bit of a confusion on the old legal boundaries but that seems to leave Janner a bit caught in the middle whatever is decided.
All that we can say for definite is that the whole process is rapidly moving from chaos to farce, which is not exactly helpful for anybody, least of all the accusers.
Legal yes. But it stinks.
(Courtesy of Jules & Sandy)
Using a trial of the facts as a way to get a hospitalisation/supervision order seems secondary to using the mental health procedures which are carefully considered in their own right and with the proper label attached.
Equally where an order is not sought, it will rarely be worth pursing a trial of the facts, where those facts would not in any case only have given rise to a minor crime.
One is a dangerous megalomaniac with a wealth of financial firepower and a Wikipedia page full of his questionable views. The other is Donald Trump…
http://order-order.com/#:zNsN-nAj6hrTsA
Suspect Tom Watson will become defacto leader in the Margret of Anjou role with JC as the bewildered Henry VI..
You have a point! That's not quite the same as saying your leader is a deluded mega loser ( a far worse crime for a politician than warmongering criminal).
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/portrait-of-the-week/9607262/portrait-of-the-week-455/
2. I like to know how people are actually using it. Banging on about 'neoliberalism' when its simply "stuff wot I don't like" is kind of tiresome.
Didn't stop the very unpleasant American I was at that time investigating trying to use it to prove some of his deliberate falsifications of history surrounding Hitler, of course, but these things happen.
http://www.skibbereeneagle.ie/web/wp-content/uploads/blogger/_Nf5FfHNth64/TI4eBml7jdI/AAAAAAAAKME/Volpfpd8VHw/s1600/2[1].jpg
Imagine Liz and Yvette in TV interviews....'you describe your own leader as a (quote)' and his policies as (quote).'
Mincemeat doesn't describe it.
Wouldnt defend Mrs BJ if she did that TBF.
I mean seriously I like Monty Python but she is beyond parody.
*hic*
This is a trick used by people who use long words to confuse and muddle their reader and try to make their reader feel inferior because they cannot understand what is being said.
Didn't stop the very unpleasant American I was at that time investigating trying to use it to prove some of his deliberate falsifications of history surrounding Hitler, of course, but these things happen.
No, the study of WIkipedia v EB was not done by Wikipedia.
The accuracy of Wikipedia across major topics* is now very good, as long as you think of accuracy as representing the secondary sources.
Thus most of the critique tends to be that an article is taking a revisionist/orthodox viewpoint, based on the complainant asserting the truth of half the literature and the falsity of the other half.
*Discrete topics, that is. Wikipedia really struggles to write the article on "History", since it is very difficult to step outside it.
Whatever Corbynistas threaten re deselection - the worst is becoming an ex-MP in five years time. That sounds better than life between now and then.
The accuracy of Wikipedia across major topics is now very good, as long as you think of accuracy as representing the secondary sources.
Thus most of the critique tends to be that an article is taking a revisionist/orthodox viewpoint, based on the complainant asserting the truth of half the literature and the falsity of the other half.
The study I saw came from the Jimmy Wales foundation. It was a while ago and if there was a genuine study behind it, I'd be glad to see it.
I find very often that there is gentle agenda-pushing even on its major topics, in particular attempts to play up or play down key arguments and the habit of 'quote mining' to support points of view, or randomly removing sourced materials because they reveal information that discredits the subject or at least, shows them in an unflattering light. That may be simply because my areas of expertise are in fairly controversial topics (as some on here may have noted)!
I have tended to take the view that it is a worthy guide to further reading, but nothing else. Since some of the articles still don't have footnotes, they seem to me to be pretty useless.
None of it was technical or specific to the trade - just there to exclude those who weren't in the clique.
'Andy Burnham has been a Blairite, Brownite and now appears to be a Corbynite. '
Just like Mr Palmer who also was an Ed fan for a while,it's called 'Positive Politics' you just follow the crowd.
and is "prepared to arrest Janner today"...