Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » JC getting better at PMQs but still work in progress
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » JC getting better at PMQs but still work in progress
I was quite impressed with Corbyn at only his second PMQs. He came better prepared than his first outing and he had some good put downs for both Cameron and heckling CON back benches.
0
Comments
I think this was answered on the previous thread - if he had raised it, he'd have left himself exposed to Cameron pointing out Corbyn's links to the Middle East.
Pauline Cafferkey, the nurse being treated for Ebola, has "deteriorated" and is "critically ill", says the Royal Free Hospital.
http://news.sky.com/story/1569424/ebola-nurse-cafferkey-now-critically-ill
(And someone should sellotape Katie Hopkins' gob)
Fat lot of good it did for him.
(R)evolutionary spirit. Jezza, in all of his forms; Jezza for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And Jezza, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK.
Thank you very much.
MPs have no protection from having their communications read by UK security agencies, a tribunal has said.
Green Party politicians Caroline Lucas MP and Baroness Jenny Jones argued a long-standing doctrine protecting MPs' communications was being breached.
But in a landmark decision the Investigatory Powers Tribunal said the so-called "Wilson Doctrine" was no bar to the incidental collection of data.
Ms Lucas said the decision was a "body blow" for democracy.
http://bbc.in/1NGJfoq
Didn't watch PMQs, but...
Given where he started, Corbyn would appear impressive on any improvement.
And it would have been very impressive if he'd managed to do worse.
I’m very pro NHS, but really!
He drifted off to Turkey in his opening statement (he seems incapable of avoiding bringing up the region) and then did his dull LBC radio-chat-show host questioning before drifting into miffed, sanctimonious lecturer. Miliband's unkempt dad.
It's a matter of time before one of his e-mails is showed up to be fabricated unless his team are thoroughly checking them. hoho.
Sass warfare???
If you start off with a dodgy electoral roll then you will always have problems.
Such markers are at least objectively present or absent, but their relationship to an underlying disease is generally going to be probabilistic unless and until how the underlying biological processes work are fully known.
I'm not so up to date with the biochemical research, but I hope their methodologies are much quicker than they were 20 years ago, because they are going to be getting an unbelievable number of clues to follow up on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI
and
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ourwork/successes/evoting
Pause
I may have gotten a bit carried away there...:-)
Hope she’s eventually OK, anyway!
Not least becuase her immune system should have been much less due to all the drugs and antibotics etc.
However, the more I learn about epigenetics, the more I appreciate (and wonder at!) the complexity of Mother Nature. She doesn't give up Her secrets easily.
Besides, security software can be pretty robust these days. The efforts that would be needed would not be worth the cost (or, for that matter, the risk).
Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.
- Stalin.
Computer hacking of e-voting, by either an outsider, man-in-the-middle, or the organisation itself could alter thousands of vote with one button. It would also be much harder to detect.
Note: I'm not in favour of the PV system we have at the moment either: the reasons for having a PV needs cutting back.
And I don't believe that the efforts needed to rig elections wouldn't be worth it to someone. I'm sure the Russians would love to encourage industrial unrest in the UK.
I watched and commented live here the whole debate last night, I can assure you that Hillary was beaten by Sanders and especially O'Malley, in fact she was at the same levels as Chafee which isn't stellar.
O'Malley had the most polished and solid performance despite the occasional loop into green energy, he had a better than average closing statement. Rating 7/10
Sanders was bumpy raging from a good performance on the economy to a terrible one on gun control, his best moment was at Hillary's emails. Rating 6/10
Hillary was terrible on the economy ("I represented Wall Street" for example), foreign affairs, and domestic affairs (especially the accusation of being a weather-vane), she was good on immigration and her emails thanks to Sanders and used her gender many times to sideline questions (like Obama's 3rd term). Rating 5/10
Chaffe was pretty generic and average, so average that on average he was without bumps or good moments (the exception was Glass-Steagal when he said he didn't knew what he voted for). Rating 5/10
Webb is in the wrong party, "I'm a liberal republcan" "I support nuclear power" are just an example of how badly he came out in the democratic primary debate. Rating 1/10.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting
In his/her own interests s/he ought now to get themselves checked out, I would have thought.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
Whether those methods would be appropriate for political elections is another matter; I'd argue that an extra degree of reassurance is necessary there (hence open and public(ish) counts). But for a strike ballot I have no problem.
Whether its a cross in a box or a button on a machine - as long as it is robust there are no complaints.
Very different from texting in a vote.
If the flawed and bogus system is used for strike ballots, then not only does it risk the country being bought to its knees by undemocratic hacked (by whatever means) strikes, it will lead for Labour to call for e-voting in elections.
I don't want us to get our feet even on the top step of that ladder down into the democratic sewers.
1. Free and relatively easy access to register parties and voters (and robust procedures to prevent fraudulent registration).
2. Freedom for parties / candidates to campaign, and freedom for fair coverage in the media.
3. Access for all registered voters to cast a vote, without undue (and particularly without biased) hindrance.
4. An accurate and quick count of ballots cast, and publicly announced.
5. That the results translate into action (i.e. a defeated government resigns and is replaced by that which won), peacefully and in line with due process.
http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/we-let-programmers-run-our-lives-so-hows-their-moral-code/
The comments under the line seem to understand the issue better than the author.
The VW problem was not caused by software engineers. It was caused by the managers who decided to specify and use the software in this manner. The software engineers involved, the QA testers and others who would have known are complicit.
But the blame lies with the management.
"I was only following orders !"
But besides, that's missing the point.
1. I think Cameron, who has had a good schooling in manners, cannot help respecting the older mild-mannered bespectacled gentleman opposite. This is in contrast to Cameron's sneering disdain for Miliband. JC has the natural authority of an old-fashioned schollteacher and can silence the tittering from the opposite benches by a glance over the top of his glasses. This is a real strength and I think it is a natural gift.
2. JC has a big problem with McDonnell. I have recently heard McDonnell tell two obvious porkies. One was on Panorama when he attempted to explain why Corbyn hadn't sung the National Anthem. The other is to say the U-Turn on Fiscal Strategy was caused by a visit to Redcar. It reminds me of Clegg's explanation on the Saturday after the 2010 election that he had changed his mind on austerity because of what happened in Greece that weekend. Telling porkies destroys trust. Corbyn must be very irritated with his friend McDonnell.
I predict a Shadow Cabinet reshuffle next spring with McDonnell out, perhaps with Burnham to Shadow CoE and perhaps some other big names agreeing to join the Shadow Cabinet.
I'm sure Cameron is not complacent about JC but may be puzzled in how best to combat him.
I noticed during the Tory Party conference, that "9 out of 10 will not lose" was changed to "8 out of 10 will not lose"
2 out of 10 is one hell of a lot of people. And, they remember !
The person was already earning what the national living wage will rise to, so the 70p increase in the national minimum wage, which would be worth £1,300 in extra wages. Already doing 40 hours, so the weird way that its not worth your while to do more than 16 hours no longer applies. The disabled child bit was just thrown in on top.
In general the move away from having tax credits topping up employers to moving the level of the min wage is a pretty good way of transferring, rightly employment costs back to the employer.
There are going to be some big big losers in this, which is why George must smooth out the changes. Reduce the tax credits in the incremental way that you are introducing the NLW to £9. Remember to someone currently on NMW thats the equivalent of a £4,800 pay increase putting their salary up to £17,316. With the personal tax allowance moving to £12,500.
Lets look at 2010.
In 2010 National Min Wage was £5.93 37hrs = £11,409.
Personal tax allowance was £6,475, 20% over = £986 income tax £625 ni
Take home pay: £10,575
2015 (oct) national min wage £6.70 37 hrs = £12,890
Personal tax allowance £10,600 = £458 income tax £579 ni
Take home pay: £11,852
2020 National living wage £9 37hrs = £17,316
Personal tax allowance £12,500 = £963 tax (NI unknown, guess at £700
Take home pay £15,653
The Government cant let themselves lose the argument on this.
These were often quite small amounts at the higher end of the income scales. The big tax credit losers are those at the bottom of the scale. The government has a good story to tell on this.