Anyway, tonight I'm off to consider a very different State of the Nation, courtesy of New Order.
How does it feel?
As if it was January, 1963 ...
Sadly I didn't get there. My other half has got a lurgy.
Sorry to hear that - it would have been a fine time to go. Is he restless, and did you have temptation to go anyway? You might get to see them again one day- you should make sure your dreams never end.
Ron Paul offers his solution to Paris: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-16/ron-paul-what-should-be-done-about-paris 'Here is the alternative: Focus on trade and friendly relations, stop shipping weapons, abandon “regime change” and other manipulations, respect national sovereignty, and maintain a strong defense at home including protecting the borders from those who may seek to do us harm.
We should abandon the failed policies of the past, before it’s too late.'
-Like I said the other day, for its own good and the good of the world, America needs to recognise it is a power amongst powers; it cannot and should not rule over the entire world. Americanism in one country is what we need. Then the world can move forward.
I am not really a supporter of America as world policeman. But if we accept a reduced role of American policy in the world, we need something to fill the vacuum. Regionalism is all well and good, but conflict is increasingly internationalist and regional powers are often impotent when it comes to tackling significant problems with their neighbours.
Whether that means strengthening international bodies like the UN or not, I'm not sure. It's a difficult one. We have known no different world to one in which superpowers enforce peace and security (whether that has had bad geopolitical consequences or otherwise).
I think Cooper has a reasonable* chance of being Labour leader in 2020. Reasoning:
Corbyn cannot survive like this, he will have to go, even if not immediately.
Burnham has tied himself to Corbyn, so he cannot lead.
A female leader might provide a break from all of this - and she is standing up to the current leadership.
(* For some value of reasonable.)
Cooper is politically dead at the moment, she is not even in the Shadow Cabinet for starters and came a poor third in the leadership election. Benn is the only viable alternative, he is Shadow Foreign Secretary and still leftwing enough for the membership not to kick up too much of a fuss if he takes over, as showed yesterday by his reservations on Syrian airstrikes before a political solution and helped by his surname. In the same way the fact Michael Howard was clearly of the right helped Tory members avoid getting too annoyed he replaced IDS
Beaten by a marxist and a jellyfish.
Is it more embarassing than fellating Ed Balls ?
She can't even do that much at the moment as he spends half his time at Harvard
I think Cooper has a reasonable* chance of being Labour leader in 2020. Reasoning:
Corbyn cannot survive like this, he will have to go, even if not immediately.
Burnham has tied himself to Corbyn, so he cannot lead.
A female leader might provide a break from all of this - and she is standing up to the current leadership.
(* For some value of reasonable.)
Cooper is politically dead at the moment, she is not even in the Shadow Cabinet for starters and came a poor third in the leadership election. Benn is the only viable alternative, he is Shadow Foreign Secretary and still leftwing enough for the membership not to kick up too much of a fuss if he takes over, as showed yesterday by his reservations on Syrian airstrikes before a political solution and helped by his surname. In the same way the fact Michael Howard was clearly of the right helped Tory members avoid getting too annoyed he replaced IDS
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
I do not see any way they can. He will still get the votes of the Momentum bunch and we see every day that NP supports him
I remain of the view Hilary Benn will replace Corbyn in two years time in a Howard like manoeuvre with almost unanimous backing from the PLP, probably following Labour falling behind UKIP in a by-election in a formerly Labour held seat
How does Benn defeat Corbyn in a vote of the Labour / Momentum / Stop the War membership?
He doesn't need to, he would easily get the 20% of MPs required to launch a challenge, even if he does not authorise it, and Corbyn would not get enough MPs to nominate him so Benn would be elected unopposed
Seriously, we're going over this again?
A Labour Party historian on the Sunday Politics a few weeks ago said there was nothing in the rules that suggested this could not happen, once a challenge is launched and a challenger achieves sufficient nominations then Labour rules could well be interpreted to require reopening of nominations for a new ballot
Not going over this again.
Isnt there a strong risk that could tear apart the labour party. Corbyn did get 60 odd percent of the vote, that cant be denied or ignored.
If he starts failing when it comes to elections or is dire in opinion polls thats one thing, but i cam see how the MPs can really move against him without massive fallout
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
I do not see any way they can. He will still get the votes of the Momentum bunch and we see every day that NP supports him
I remain of the view Hilary Benn will replace Corbyn in two years time in a Howard like manoeuvre with almost unanimous backing from the PLP, probably following Labour falling behind UKIP in a by-election in a formerly Labour held seat
How does Benn defeat Corbyn in a vote of the Labour / Momentum / Stop the War membership?
He doesn't need to, he would easily get the 20% of MPs required to launch a challenge, even if he does not authorise it, and Corbyn would not get enough MPs to nominate him so Benn would be elected unopposed
Seriously, we're going over this again?
A Labour Party historian on the Sunday Politics a few weeks ago said there was nothing in the rules that suggested this could not happen, once a challenge is launched and a challenger achieves sufficient nominations then Labour rules could well be interpreted to require reopening of nominations for a new ballot
Not going over this again.
Nothing to go over, it is the most probable result
@paulwaugh: Corbyn spksmn insisted PLP united on overall position on Syria, points out Cameron tday came round to Lab position that coherent plan needed
Good grief. That's meaningless, it's not as if the PM was arguing for an incoherent plan.
I somehow doubt it. The issue isn't defence spending..
I should add that, IMHO, the issue in this country absolutely is defence spending.
We should be increasing it.
Doesn't seem likely. The public won't accept tax rises to pay for it or cuts of the size elsewhere to make up the difference, given the largest available budgets are health and welfare, and as popular as many welfare cuts might be, we seem to have reached the bottom of what has been deemed politically acceptable.
In the current climate, I think the public might well accept cuts elsewhere for defence spending.
It's a good job I'm not CoE. I would freeze education, health, international aid and abolish the triple-lock.
I would cut health. I cannot believe, even with increasing pressures, that there is no scope for even the most minimal of cutting within it, and yet it is always portrayed as on the verge of collapse no matter what is proposed and more money is always the answer. I doubt I would get elected with such a stance.
On more depressing matters, in my neck of the woods we have definitely moved onto another stage of the 'terror attack response' cycle, with people unprompted seeming angry that some others were reacting to France but not other acts of violence in other parts of the world, ie that even displays of sympathy can be an overreaction, let alone any suggested action. We are well on the way to acting normally again in a week or so.
The NHS is already going through a massive efficiency drive.
In terms of defence we are spending enough. It's not troop numbers or the number of fighter bombers we are building that is the point. We are suffering its true from labour's loss of procurement control. It is the need for more surveillance and intelligence and satellites and drones and special forces with enough elite back up, within current numbers. We have lots of armoured and mine resistant vehicles back in the uk now. It's not tanks and self propelled artillery we need. It's drones and the command and control to go with them in a fluid battle area that are needed. This rebalancing need not be driven by money.
A friend has placed on his FB timeline comparing ISIS's actions in France to Israel.
His favoured course of action? Dialogue with ISIS.
He just doesn't get it.
I might quit Facebook. It turns normal sensible people into wankers.
I probably include myself in that.
I've found that a good rule is to restrict Facebook to social and cultural comments, cat videos and family photos etc. With the odd wry/stupid philosophical remark.
Twitter is much better for abrasive and combative political statements. People on Twitter get just as offended yet it seems to matter less, as Twitter is perceived as a rather gladiatorial arena, in the first place.
I speak as someone who has nearly lost close friends by getting this wrong.
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
I do not see any way they can. He will still get the votes of the Momentum bunch and we see every day that NP supports him
I remain of the view Hilary Benn will replace Corbyn in two years time in a Howard like manoeuvre with almost unanimous backing from the PLP, probably following Labour falling behind UKIP in a by-election in a formerly Labour held seat
How does Benn defeat Corbyn in a vote of the Labour / Momentum / Stop the War membership?
He doesn't need to, he would easily get the 20% of MPs required to launch a challenge, even if he does not authorise it, and Corbyn would not get enough MPs to nominate him so Benn would be elected unopposed
Seriously, we're going over this again?
A Labour Party historian on the Sunday Politics a few weeks ago said there was nothing in the rules that suggested this could not happen, once a challenge is launched and a challenger achieves sufficient nominations then Labour rules could well be interpreted to require reopening of nominations for a new ballot
Or not. As incumbent Corbyn would just run again unnominated. Who is going to make him resign?
Ron Paul offers his solution to Paris: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-16/ron-paul-what-should-be-done-about-paris 'Here is the alternative: Focus on trade and friendly relations, stop shipping weapons, abandon “regime change” and other manipulations, respect national sovereignty, and maintain a strong defense at home including protecting the borders from those who may seek to do us harm.
We should abandon the failed policies of the past, before it’s too late.'
-Like I said the other day, for its own good and the good of the world, America needs to recognise it is a power amongst powers; it cannot and should not rule over the entire world. Americanism in one country is what we need. Then the world can move forward.
I am not really a supporter of America as world policeman. But if we accept a reduced role of American policy in the world, we need something to fill the vacuum. Regionalism is all well and good, but conflict is increasingly internationalist and regional powers are often impotent when it comes to tackling significant problems with their neighbours.
Whether that means strengthening international bodies like the UN or not, I'm not sure. It's a difficult one. We have known no different world to one in which superpowers enforce peace and security (whether that has had bad geopolitical consequences or otherwise).
September 11th shows that you cannot just draw up the drawbridge and mind your own business. People wanting to cause you ill will get in somehow.
And they will use any excuse. One excuse trotted out now is the Iraq War. Before that it was the US in the Middle East. Before that it was support for Israel.
The fact is that these Islamic terrorists do not agree with our way of life. Yet we are successful. They will use any excuse to hurt us,and ideally to take us down to their level.
I'd cut health too. The concept that we are putting huge amount of resources into ensuring that humans eek out an extra few days, months or years in the most unbearable circumstances, whether t's terminal illness, dementia, old age or whatever surely needs looking at. It's not about resources either, it's about morality.
I spent an afternoon today on an acute ward in Florence- akin to night of the living dead. A ward populated by really old, sick people being kept alive. I felt sorrier for the families actually than the patients who were too sick, old and ill to care about anything.
I somehow doubt it. The issue isn't defence spending..
In the current climate, I think the public might well accept cuts elsewhere for defence spending.
It's a good job I'm not CoE. I would freeze education, health, international aid and abolish the triple-lock.
I would cut health. I cannot believe, even with increasing pressures, that there is no scope for even the most minimal of cutting within it, and yet it is always portrayed as on the verge of collapse no matter what is proposed and more money is always the answer. I doubt I would get elected with such a stance.
On more depressing matters, in my neck of the woods we have definitely moved onto another stage of the 'terror attack response' cycle, with people unprompted seeming angry that some others were reacting to France but not other acts of violence in other parts of the world, ie that even displays of sympathy can be an overreaction, let alone any suggested action. We are well on the way to acting normally again in a week or so.
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
I do not see any way they can. He will still get the votes of the Momentum bunch and we see every day that NP supports him
I remain of the view Hilary Benn will replace Corbyn in two years time in a Howard like manoeuvre with almost unanimous backing from the PLP, probably following Labour falling behind UKIP in a by-election in a formerly Labour held seat
How does Benn defeat Corbyn in a vote of the Labour / Momentum / Stop the War membership?
He doesn't need to, he would easily get the 20% of MPs required to launch a challenge, even if he does not authorise it, and Corbyn would not get enough MPs to nominate him so Benn would be elected unopposed
Seriously, we're going over this again?
A Labour Party historian on the Sunday Politics a few weeks ago said there was nothing in the rules that suggested this could not happen, once a challenge is launched and a challenger achieves sufficient nominations then Labour rules could well be interpreted to require reopening of nominations for a new ballot
Or not. As incumbent Corbyn would just run again unnominated. Who is going to make him resign?
If he got no nominations the Labour Party would run no ballot and there would be no election whether he wanted it or not, by the time he got around to even thinking about it Hilary Benn would already be the new Leader of the Labour Party undertaking PMQs and with the Party machine already falling in line behind him
The Labour leader was elected on a tide of self-satisfied student politics which is at odds with our dangerous times
Labour is engaged in emoji politics despite the deadly serious times we live in. The choices facing the country — military, economic, cultural — could not be starker and yet the opposition seems more interested in party identity than in winning power. It is “happy face”, “sad face”, “help the poor” or “stop the war” because too much of the time Labour believes that feeling good about itself is more important than changing things. This is an abdication of responsibility — and an appalling self-indulgence when set against the tragic events in Paris.
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
I do not see any way they can. He will still get the votes of the Momentum bunch and we see every day that NP supports him
I remain of the view Hilary Benn will replace Corbyn in two years time in a Howard like manoeuvre with almost unanimous backing from the PLP, probably following Labour falling behind UKIP in a by-election in a formerly Labour held seat
How does Benn defeat Corbyn in a vote of the Labour / Momentum / Stop the War membership?
He doesn't need to, he would easily get the 20% of MPs required to launch a challenge, even if he does not authorise it, and Corbyn would not get enough MPs to nominate him so Benn would be elected unopposed
Seriously, we're going over this again?
A Labour Party historian on the Sunday Politics a few weeks ago said there was nothing in the rules that suggested this could not happen, once a challenge is launched and a challenger achieves sufficient nominations then Labour rules could well be interpreted to require reopening of nominations for a new ballot
Or not. As incumbent Corbyn would just run again unnominated. Who is going to make him resign?
If he got no nominations the Labour Party would run no ballot and there would be no election whether he wanted it or not, by the time he got around to even thinking about it Hilary Benn would already be the new Leader of the Labour Party with the Party machine already falling in line behind him
What scope is there for a breakaway bloc going to the Greens?
A friend has placed on his FB timeline comparing ISIS's actions in France to Israel.
His favoured course of action? Dialogue with ISIS.
He just doesn't get it.
I might quit Facebook. It turns normal sensible people into wankers.
I probably include myself in that.
I've found that a good rule is to restrict Facebook to social and cultural comments, cat videos and family photos etc. With the odd wry/stupid philosophical remark.
Twitter is much better for abrasive and combative political statements. People on Twitter get just as offended yet it seems to matter less, as Twitter is perceived as a rather gladiatorial arena, in the first place.
I speak as someone who has nearly lost close friends by getting this wrong.
I agree with this. I too have got it badly wrong, with near similar implications.
If he got no nominations the Labour Party would run no ballot and there would be no election whether he wanted it or not, by the time he got around to even thinking about it Hilary Benn would already be the new Leader of the Labour Party with the Party machine already falling in line behind him
You are straightforwardly wrong, HYUFD. An election triggered by a motion of no confidence does not require the incumbent leader to be nominated in order to stand again.* It would require somebody to be nominated to stand against him for there to be an election. Hilary Benn could not be elected unopposed unless Corbyn voluntarily chose to relinquish the leadership. The chances of Corbyn having sufficient self-awareness or courage to do that are approximately the same as my chances of getting a date with Margot Robbie.
Moreover, even if you were right, there are now sufficient fellow-travellers transferred across from Burnham (essentially those left wingers who for some unknown reason thought the smart career move was to support the frontrunner with long experience of government and a history of effective campaigning rather than some doddery old apologist for terrorists and Islington Labour Party who has never held any sort of public office and once had the hots for Diane Abbott) for Corbyn to make the ballot unaided.
A putsch against Corbyn raises the fear, as one MP gloomily observes, “of him just winning again”, leaving them looking both “unelectable and fucking stupid”.
This is becoming absolutely surreal to watch. There surely hasn't been a leader so divorced from his own party since the Corn Law Split of 1846. And at least Peel could console himself with the thought that he was doing something sensible and beneficial rather than arguing against taking eminently reasonable measures aimed at preventing or at least mitigating wholesale murder.
*Among the Tories, it triggers a confidence motion, which the incumbent leader wins or loses - if s/he loses, they cannot stand again. Under Labour rules, it would trigger a leadership election, with the incumbent running against whoever is nominated. Corbyn got 49% of the actual Labour membership and 60% of votes cast last time. Do you honestly think that the people who voted for him, knowing full well how evil he was already, are going to be swayed by the fact that he is an apologist for Islamist terrorists as well as Irish ones? Because I certainly don't.
'Hollande has become a very impressive leader as many thought he would be. 'Left-wing' is not the dirty word in France that it is on here.'
Every opinion poll confirms that.
The tragedy for the Labour Party is that people and I mean decent Labour folk just do not believe Corbyn would stand up to defend his country as Hollande is for France. Hollande is awful as French leader but even he knows what to do when his country is attacked.
I'd cut health too. The concept that we are putting huge amount of resources into ensuring that humans eek out an extra few days, months or years in the most unbearable circumstances, whether t's terminal illness, dementia, old age or whatever surely needs looking at. It's not about resources either, it's about morality.
I spent an afternoon today on an acute ward in Florence- akin to night of the living dead. A ward populated by really old, sick people being kept alive. I felt sorrier for the families actually than the patients who were too sick, old and ill to care about anything.
(snipped)
IMHO we need to have a serious re-think about what we expect from the NHS. Part of the problem is, it's just too huge.
But I doubt if that re-think will be effective until our society is prepared to accept that we all have to die some day.
An anecdote: a friend's mother was in a situation such as you describe - really elderly, really sick - and the patients there were being kept alive by continuing to give them the daily medication they'd been taking for years. Withdrawing those medications would have enabled natural death to occur far sooner, without any horror stories about euthanasia or dying of thirst.
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
I do not see any way they can. He will still get the votes of the Momentum bunch and we see every day that NP supports him
I remain of the view Hilary Benn will replace Corbyn in two years time in a Howard like manoeuvre with almost unanimous backing from the PLP, probably following Labour falling behind UKIP in a by-election in a formerly Labour held seat
How does Benn defeat Corbyn in a vote of the Labour / Momentum / Stop the War membership?
He doesn't need to, he would easily get the 20% of MPs required to launch a challenge, even if he does not authorise it, and Corbyn would not get enough MPs to nominate him so Benn would be elected unopposed
Seriously, we're going over this again?
A Labour Party historian on the Sunday Politics a few weeks ago said there was nothing in the rules that suggested this could not happen, once a challenge is launched and a challenger achieves sufficient nominations then Labour rules could well be interpreted to require reopening of nominations for a new ballot
Or not. As incumbent Corbyn would just run again unnominated. Who is going to make him resign?
If he got no nominations the Labour Party would run no ballot and there would be no election whether he wanted it or not, by the time he got around to even thinking about it Hilary Benn would already be the new Leader of the Labour Party undertaking PMQs and with the Party machine already falling in line behind him
No way can 300 MPs overthrow the leader democratically elected 251,417 members /supporters no matter how much PB Tories and Simon Danczuk would wish it so.
He is on the ballot without being nominated, apparently
Yet on the Daily Politics it was put that that was not clearly the case and the rules could well be interpreted to require Corbyn too to be nominated once a challenger had received sufficient nominations to force a ballot, otherwise the challenger would be elected unopposed
As expected the previous thread brought out the usual suspects who consider all NHS workers as little better than benefit scroungers sponging off the tax payers doing jobs of no consequence.
1. the junior doctors dispute is NOT about money and none of them will get any more money out of it. 2. health is expensive, and becomingly increasingly more so, however you pay for it. We could be foolish as the Americans and privatise everything for about twice the cost and worst outcomes, or we can pool the risk so that the unfortunate and poor do not lose out and have some measure of efficiency about the process.
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
I do not see any way they can. He will still get the votes of the Momentum bunch and we see every day that NP supports him
I remain of the view Hilary Benn will replace Corbyn in two years time in a Howard like manoeuvre with almost unanimous backing from the PLP, probably following Labour falling behind UKIP in a by-election in a formerly Labour held seat
How does Benn defeat Corbyn in a vote of the Labour / Momentum / Stop the War membership?
He doesn't need to, he would easily get the 20% of MPs required to launch a challenge, even if he does not authorise it, and Corbyn would not get enough MPs to nominate him so Benn would be elected unopposed
Seriously, we're going over this again?
A Labour Party historian on the Sunday Politics a few weeks ago said there was nothing in the rules that suggested this could not happen, once a challenge is launched and a challenger achieves sufficient nominations then Labour rules could well be interpreted to require reopening of nominations for a new ballot
Or not. As incumbent Corbyn would just run again unnominated. Who is going to make him resign?
If he got no nominations the Labour Party would run no ballot and there would be no election whether he wanted it or not, by the time he got around to even thinking about it Hilary Benn would already be the new Leader of the Labour Party with the Party machine already falling in line behind him
What scope is there for a breakaway bloc going to the Greens?
Corbyn and co seem virtually indistinguishable.
A handful of Tories defected to UKIP when IDS went down too, it made little difference
He is on the ballot without being nominated, apparently
Yet on the Daily Politics it was put that that was not clearly the case and the rules could well be interpreted to require Corbyn too to be nominated once a challenger had received sufficient nominations to force a ballot, otherwise the challenger would be elected unopposed
I don't trust the Daily Politics, and I do trust the advice I have had, although of course it has never actually been tested in practice as no Labour leader has faced, never mind lost, a confidence motion since 1935 - and then Lansbury elected not to contest the election.
However, as I have pointed out, Corbyn could make the ballot even if he were required to be nominated. Merely because 190 of the PLP hate his guts is no reason to assume the other 41 would not back him.
I think in John Mann's shoes I would have hit the bugger.
How can he not have an answer for this? There's a legitimate way of saying a 'shoot to kill' policy I have reservations about. It is possible to draw on plenty of problems in the US where it has become a divisive issue about the point at which the police use their firearms.
He cannot with all serious credibility not think it was a good idea to shoot people dead who are currently holding loaded automatic machine guns.
It isnt even a 'scruple' there are no things to weigh up here. It is a clear and obvious position to hold that you shoot to kill.
As expected the previous thread brought out the usual suspects who consider all NHS workers as little better than benefit scroungers sponging off the tax payers doing jobs of no consequence.
Sorry I missed it but I would hazard a guess Watford 30 was a lead nasty.
I'd cut health too. The concept that we are putting huge amount of resources into ensuring that humans eek out an extra few days, months or years in the most unbearable circumstances, whether t's terminal illness, dementia, old age or whatever surely needs looking at. It's not about resources either, it's about morality.
I spent an afternoon today on an acute ward in Florence- akin to night of the living dead. A ward populated by really old, sick people being kept alive. I felt sorrier for the families actually than the patients who were too sick, old and ill to care about anything.
I somehow doubt it. The issue isn't defence spending..
In the current climate, I think the public might well accept cuts elsewhere for defence spending.
It's a good job I'm not CoE. I would freeze education, health, international aid and abolish the triple-lock.
I would cut health. I cannot believe, even with increasing pressures, that there is no scope for even the most minimal of cutting within it, and yet it is always portrayed as on the verge of collapse no matter what is proposed and more money is always the answer. I doubt I would get elected with such a stance.
On more depressing matters, in my neck of the woods we have definitely moved onto another stage of the 'terror attack response' cycle, with people unprompted seeming angry that some others were reacting to France but not other acts of violence in other parts of the world, ie that even displays of sympathy can be an overreaction, let alone any suggested action. We are well on the way to acting normally again in a week or so.
Yes you could ration and NICE was meant to do that but not mention the R word until Cameron drove a coach and horses through it with the Cancer Drugs Fund - the most stupid piece of health policy ever devised anywhere. Basically saying to drugs companies you tell us what to pay and we'll pay it to get the Daily Mail off our back.
Lots of modern healthcare is expensive, and I too despair of the seeming rationale which has gained hold that we must keep everyone alive at all costs. But there are differences in outcomes such as very expensive biologicals which have transformed the lives of people with diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and similar for cancer where they may give a month or two at the end of life. It's the latter which need a proper cost benefit anaylsis and NICE should be left to get on with the job.
If he got no nominations the Labour Party would run no ballot and there would be no election whether he wanted it or not, by the time he got around to even thinking about it Hilary Benn would already be the new Leader of the Labour Party with the Party machine already falling in line behind him
You are straightforward
Moreover, even if you were right, there are now sufficient fellow-travellers transferred across from Burnham (essen It is hard not to sympathise with the following Labour MP, who commented:
A putsch against Corbyn raises the fear, as one MP gloomily observes, “of him just winning again”, leaving them looking both “unelectable and fucking stupid”.
This is becoming absolutely surreal to watch. There surely hasn't been a leader so divorced from his own party since the Corn Law Split of 1846. And at least Peel could console himself with the thought that he was doing something sensible and beneficial rather than arguing against taking eminently reasonable measures aimed at preventing or at least mitigating wholesale murder.
*Among the Tories, it triggers a confidence motion, which the incumbent leader wins or loses - if s/he loses, they cannot stand again. Under Labour rules, it would trigger a leadership election, with the incumbent running against whoever is nominated. Corbyn got 49% of the actual Labour membership and 60% of votes cast last time. Do you honestly think that the people who voted for him, knowing full well how evil he was already, are going to be swayed by the fact that he is an apologist for Islamist terrorists as well as Irish ones? Because I certainly don't.
No, I am afraid I am not wrong. Once a challenger has received sufficient nominations to force a contest then that contest would be held under normal rules, as was the case in 1987 when Tony Benn challenged Neil Kinnock.
Given the challenge would only be initiated in the event of, say, Labour being beaten by UKIP in a by-election any potential nominees Corbyn had would collapse like ninepins. Labour rules say a challenger is required to initiate a contest, it does not then also excuse the incumbent from getting the nominations required to enter the contest himself once underway as per normal Labour Party rules.
IDS also got 60% of Tory members votes, he too was out in two years
As expected the previous thread brought out the usual suspects who consider all NHS workers as little better than benefit scroungers sponging off the tax payers doing jobs of no consequence.
Sorry I missed it but I would hazard a guess Watford 30 was a lead nasty.
I don't recall any such thing. Mind you, we should be used to lefties sashaying on here and erecting their dreary little straw men. It's all they have left these days.
You could cut defence spending at a slash and improve our armed forces by getting rid of the fantasy that is Trident. In what way were ISIS deterred by the French nuclear arsenal. We can't afford it, it's not necessary and politicians should grow up.
I'd cut health too. The concept that we are putting huge amount of resources into ensuring that humans eek out an extra few days, months or years in the most unbearable circumstances, whether t's terminal illness, dementia, old age or whatever surely needs looking at. It's not about resources either, it's about morality.
I spent an afternoon today on an acute ward in Florence- akin to night of the living dead. A ward populated by really old, sick people being kept alive. I felt sorrier for the families actually than the patients who were too sick, old and ill to care about anything.
(snipped)
IMHO we need to have a serious re-think about what we expect from the NHS. Part of the problem is, it's just too huge.
But I doubt if that re-think will be effective until our society is prepared to accept that we all have to die some day.
An anecdote: a friend's mother was in a situation such as you describe - really elderly, really sick - and the patients there were being kept alive by continuing to give them the daily medication they'd been taking for years. Withdrawing those medications would have enabled natural death to occur far sooner, without any horror stories about euthanasia or dying of thirst.
A friend has placed on his FB timeline comparing ISIS's actions in France to Israel.
His favoured course of action? Dialogue with ISIS.
He just doesn't get it.
I might quit Facebook. It turns normal sensible people into wankers.
I probably include myself in that.
I've found that a good rule is to restrict Facebook to social and cultural comments, cat videos and family photos etc. With the odd wry/stupid philosophical remark.
Twitter is much better for abrasive and combative political statements. People on Twitter get just as offended yet it seems to matter less, as Twitter is perceived as a rather gladiatorial arena, in the first place.
I speak as someone who has nearly lost close friends by getting this wrong.
I agree with this. I too have got it badly wrong, with near similar implications.
Facebook is like a fete on a village green, where lots of people get together to do lots of different things, you have a little meander round, you often find yourself casually getting interested in something you hadnt seen before, but after a few minutes, you move on. A facebook timeline shows what your friends and relatives, their friends and their friends friends are interested in. Sometimes its political. But unless you only have friends and relatives who agree with you on everything, you get a wide, more subtle set of opinions and posts.
Twitter is not like that, it is visceral, it is meat head. It is a gigantic jupitor size echo chamber, which continually reinforces itself into repeated orgasm of righteousness.
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
I do not see any way they can. He will still get the votes of the Momentum bunch and we see every day that NP supports him
I remain of the view Hilary Benn will replace Corbyn in two years time in a Howard like manoeuvre with almost unanimous backing from the PLP, probably following Labour falling behind UKIP in a by-election in a formerly Labour held seat
How does Benn defeat Corbyn in a vote of the Labour / Momentum / Stop the War membership?
He doesn't need to, he would easily get the 20% of MPs required to launch a challenge, even if he does not authorise it, and Corbyn would not get enough MPs to nominate him so Benn would be elected unopposed
Seriously, we're going over this again?
A Labour Party historian on the Sunday Politics a few weeks ago said there was nothing in the rules that suggested this could not happen, once a challenge is launched and a challenger achieves sufficient nominations then Labour rules could well be interpreted to require reopening of nominations for a new ballot
Or not. As incumbent Corbyn would just run again unnominated. Who is going to make him resign?
If he got no nominations the Labour Party would run no ballot and there would be no election whether he wanted it or not, by the time he got around to even thinking about it Hilary Benn would already be the new Leader of the Labour Party undertaking PMQs and with the Party machine already falling in line behind him
No way can 300 MPs overthrow the leader democratically elected 251,417 members /supporters no matter how much PB Tories and Simon Danczuk would wish it so.
Of course they can, as the Tories did in 2003, the PLP still determines the candidates to face any membership vote under Labour Party rules
You could cut defence spending at a slash and improve our armed forces by getting rid of the fantasy that is Trident. In what way were ISIS deterred by the French nuclear arsenal. We can't afford it, it's not necessary and politicians should grow up.
As long as Putin and N Korea have nuclear weapons so should we and who knows what ISIS could acquire in future
First saw New Order in Brum at the Tower Ballroom on 9th May 1983. Weirdest venue - looked like everything had been under dust sheets for fifteen years. It literally had plastic palm trees.
They opened with Love Will Tear Us Apart. Support was James.
Lets not scoff at suggestions by Corbyn and the greens that we should enter into talks with IS, we should encourage the nut jobs to meet with jihadi John and his mates and film it.
If Corbyn can't answer that pressing question he can't lead the country, and if he can't lead the country what the hell is he doing as the leader of the Labour Party?
He is on the ballot without being nominated, apparently
Yet on the Daily Politics it was put that that was not clearly the case and the rules could well be interpreted to require Corbyn too to be nominated once a challenger had received sufficient nominations to force a ballot, otherwise the challenger would be elected unopposed
I don't trust the Daily Politics, and I do trust the advice I have had, although of course it has never actually been tested in practice as no Labour leader has faced, never mind lost, a confidence motion since 1935 - and then Lansbury elected not to contest the election.
However, as I have pointed out, Corbyn could make the ballot even if he were required to be nominated. Merely because 190 of the PLP hate his guts is no reason to assume the other 41 would not back him.
So where does this oracle of advice come from? Nothing in Labour Party rules states that once a challenger has got the nominations to force a contest Corbyn is then automatically excused from getting any nominations to enter the contest himself.
Given as I said the trigger for a challenge would be Labour falling behind UKIP in a by election or something similar he has virtually no chance of getting the nominations required
ChrisA 'dispair of keeping people malice at all costs' Yes until you are rationed out of a cancer drug or something similar. Or your wife, daughter or mother grandmother.
As expected the previous thread brought out the usual suspects who consider all NHS workers as little better than benefit scroungers sponging off the tax payers doing jobs of no consequence.
1. the junior doctors dispute is NOT about money and none of them will get any more money out of it. 2. health is expensive, and becomingly increasingly more so, however you pay for it. We could be foolish as the Americans and privatise everything for about twice the cost and worst outcomes, or we can pool the risk so that the unfortunate and poor do not lose out and have some measure of efficiency about the process.
or, we could go for a system somewhere in between the two extremes? USA is not the only nation with a different health care set up
If he got no nominations the Labour Party would run no ballot and there would be no election whether he wanted it or not, by the time he got around to even thinking about it Hilary Benn would already be the new Leader of the Labour Party with the Party machine already falling in line behind him
You are straightforward
Moreover, even if you were right, there are now sufficient fellow-travellers transferred across from Burnham (essen It is hard not to sympathise with the following Labour MP, who commented:
A putsch against Corbyn raises the fear, as one MP gloomily observes, “of him just winning again”, leaving them looking both “unelectable and fucking stupid”.
This is becoming absolutely surreal to watch. There surely hasn't been a leader so divorced from his own party since the Corn Law Split of 1846. And at least Peel could console himself with the thought that he was doing something sensible and beneficial rather than arguing against taking eminently reasonable measures aimed at preventing or at least mitigating wholesale murder.
*Among the Tories, it triggers a confidence motion, which the incumbent leader wins or loses - if s/he loses, they cannot stand again. Under Labour rules, it would trigger a leadership election, with the incumbent running against whoever is nominated. Corbyn got 49% of the actual Labour membership and 60% of votes cast last time. Do you honestly think that the people who voted for him, knowing full well how evil he was already, are going to be swayed by the fact that he is an apologist for Islamist terrorists as well as Irish ones? Because I certainly don't.
No, I am afraid I am not wrong. Once a challenger has received sufficient nominations to force a contest then that contest would be held under normal rules, as was the case in 1987 when Tony Benn challenged Neil Kinnock.
Given the challenge would only be initiated in the event of, say, Labour being beaten by UKIP in a by-election any potential nominees Corbyn had would collapse like ninepins. Labour rules say a challenger is required to initiate a contest, it does not then also excuse the incumbent from getting the nominations required to enter the contest himself once underway as per normal Labour Party rules.
IDS also got 60% of Tory members votes, he too was out in two years
The rules are only ambiguous if you wanted to interpret them in an odd way.
A reasonable person would say only challengers need the nominations (not the existing leader), as that's what the rules state.
Indeed having higher percentages for nominations (20% instead of 15%) would make no sense using your interpretation.
He is on the ballot without being nominated, apparently
Yet on the Daily Politics it was put that that was not clearly the case and the rules could well be interpreted to require Corbyn too to be nominated once a challenger had received sufficient nominations to force a ballot, otherwise the challenger would be elected unopposed
I don't trust the Daily Politics, and I do trust the advice I have had, although of course it has never actually been tested in practice as no Labour leader has faced, never mind lost, a confidence motion since 1935 - and then Lansbury elected not to contest the election.
However, as I have pointed out, Corbyn could make the ballot even if he were required to be nominated. Merely because 190 of the PLP hate his guts is no reason to assume the other 41 would not back him.
So where does this oracle of advice come from? Nothing in Labour Party rules states that once a challenger has got the nominations to force a contest Corbyn is then automatically excused from getting any nominations to enter the contest himself.
Given as I said the trigger for a challenge would be Labour falling behind UKIP in a by election or something similar he has virtually no chance of getting the nominations required
Nothing in the Labour party rules says an incumbent needs to be nominated. There is nowhere in the Labour Party rules that says how an incumbent would be nominated, only challengers if there is no vacancy.
As expected the previous thread brought out the usual suspects who consider all NHS workers as little better than benefit scroungers sponging off the tax payers doing jobs of no consequence.
1. the junior doctors dispute is NOT about money and none of them will get any more money out of it. 2. health is expensive, and becomingly increasingly more so, however you pay for it. We could be foolish as the Americans and privatise everything for about twice the cost and worst outcomes, or we can pool the risk so that the unfortunate and poor do not lose out and have some measure of efficiency about the process.
or, we could go for a system somewhere in between the two extremes? USA is not the only nation with a different health care set up
We will have too unless we raise taxes sufficiently for people to get a service which they deem to be worthwhile. What ever it will be less efficient and it will cost more.
Nigel Farage absolutely on the button. The most dangerous nation in the Arab world is Saudi Arabia and we should stop dealing with them immediately.
(He then went on to say we shouldn't take refugees come what may but at least he started well)'
He also stated that polls showed 27% of UK muslims had sympathy with the Charlie Hebdo terrorists.
"even a stopped clock is right twice a day"
So Farage wants to diss all of Europe and all the gulf as well. Africa is an obvious no no and the Indian sub continent and China a given. So then messers exporters, er.... ?
I would have thought Labour's experience at leaping into the dark without a parachute should be a salutory lesson.
No, I am afraid I am not wrong. Once a challenger has received sufficient nominations to force a contest then that contest would be held under normal rules, as was the case in 1987 when Tony Benn challenged Neil Kinnock.
Given the challenge would only be initiated in the event of, say, Labour being beaten by UKIP in a by-election any potential nominees Corbyn had would collapse like ninepins. Labour rules say a challenger is required to initiate a contest, it does not then also excuse the incumbent from getting the nominations required to enter the contest himself once underway as per normal Labour Party rules.
IDS also got 60% of Tory members votes, he too was out in two years
Yes the contest in 1988 is a good example as Benn required nominations but Kinnock did not. Kinnock as incumbent went straight into the ballot without getting re-nominated as would Corbyn.
As expected the previous thread brought out the usual suspects who consider all NHS workers as little better than benefit scroungers sponging off the tax payers doing jobs of no consequence.
1. the junior doctors dispute is NOT about money and none of them will get any more money out of it. 2. health is expensive, and becomingly increasingly more so, however you pay for it. We could be foolish as the Americans and privatise everything for about twice the cost and worst outcomes, or we can pool the risk so that the unfortunate and poor do not lose out and have some measure of efficiency about the process.
'You could cut defence spending at a slash and improve our armed forces by getting rid of the fantasy that is Trident. In what way were ISIS deterred by the French nuclear arsenal. We can't afford it, it's not necessary and politicians should grow up.'
You really believe a single weapon 'fits all' in terms of defeating every form & format of enemy that comes along,maybe it's you that needs to do the growing up.
I had no idea Phillip Hammond said this after the Metrojet tragedy:
'Mr. Hammond also said that his government suspected that the Islamic State or operatives “inspired” by the organization were behind the destruction of a Russian airliner in Egypt on Oct. 31. He added that he hoped that would persuade President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to take a more flexible posture in the Syria talks.
“We’ll see whether the Russians now double down or whether they decide that they never wanted to be too deeply engaged anyway in Syria and that this is a warning shot to them and we’ll sense a greater willingness to engage in the talks in Vienna this coming Saturday,” he said.'
Wow. What a loathsome dead behind the eyes hypocrite.
You could cut defence spending at a slash and improve our armed forces by getting rid of the fantasy that is Trident. In what way were ISIS deterred by the French nuclear arsenal. We can't afford it, it's not necessary and politicians should grow up.
That would give us about £2-3 billion a year, not a vast increase, and besides that there are threats other than ISIS. Only a few days ago there were stories about the Russians daydreaming about 100 Megaton "torpedoes".
First saw New Order in Brum at the Tower Ballroom on 9th May 1983. Weirdest venue - looked like everything had been under dust sheets for fifteen years. It literally had plastic palm trees.
They opened with Love Will Tear Us Apart. Support was James.
It cost £3.50.
One of my all-time great gigs.
I saw New Order headlining at Glastonbury in 1987. They were pretty good.
ChrisA 'dispair of keeping people malice at all costs' Yes until you are rationed out of a cancer drug or something similar. Or your wife, daughter or mother grandmother.
ChrisA 'dispair of keeping people malice at all costs' Yes until you are rationed out of a cancer drug or something similar. Or your wife, daughter or mother grandmother.
The alternative of course favoured by many of here is you ration by the ability to pay and then sod you wife, daughter, or mother if the pay day lenders won't let you have any more.
That would give us about £2-3 billion a year, not a vast increase, and besides that there are threats other than ISIS. Only a few days ago there were stories about the Russians daydreaming about 100 Megaton "torpedoes".
And do you really think that Putin would be at all deterred by our puny force? In any case if he's bothered he need only nuke Ireland and let the prevailing winds do their stuff.
I keep repeating on this site..there is not a financial problem with the NHS..all we have to do is pump more money in and all the population has to do is pay more taxes..problem solved..until the screaming starts
You could cut defence spending at a slash and improve our armed forces by getting rid of the fantasy that is Trident. In what way were ISIS deterred by the French nuclear arsenal. We can't afford it, it's not necessary and politicians should grow up.
That would give us about £2-3 billion a year, not a vast increase, and besides that there are threats other than ISIS. Only a few days ago there were stories about the Russians daydreaming about 100 Megaton "torpedoes".
The bogeyman of Islamic terrorism will be enough for the rest of the world to be getting on with for around the next fifty years or so I reckon.
No, I am afraid I am not wrong. Once a challenger has received sufficient nominations to force a contest then that contest would be held under normal rules, as was the case in 1987 when Tony Benn challenged Neil Kinnock.
Given the challenge would only be initiated in the event of, say, Labour being beaten by UKIP in a by-election any potential nominees Corbyn had would collapse like ninepins. Labour rules say a challenger is required to initiate a contest, it does not then also excuse the incumbent from also getting the nominations required to enter the contest himself once underway as per normal Labour Party rules.
IDS also got 60% of Tory members votes, he too was out in two years
I have double-checked the Kinnock contest (which I had forgotten about in my earlier comments on Lansbury). He did not require to be renominated. However, that was before the rules on nominations were changed - challengers only needed a proposer and a seconder.
It is technically possible, I suppose, that the new rules could be interpreted in such a way as you describe. However, even if they were (1) can you imagine the trouble if they were so interpreted on a technicality to keep Corbyn out (because I can - vividly) and (2) you are wildly optimistic if you think the likes of Jon Trickett and Clive Lewis temper their views with something akin to reality. They will support Corbyn because they believe that he is right in all the dreadful things he says and does, and that the rest of the world is wrong. Moreover, they will support him because he will undoubtedly win again when it goes to the membership, who also as we have seen on these very threads do not care about the fact that normal sane humans see them as monsters.
Interestingly the Campaign Group secretary in 1988 and the man who therefore organised the process that triggered the contest was a certain JB Corbyn MP.
(In response to your later posts, the oracle of advice in question was a leading member of the local Labour party. But since others have already effectively demolished your points and your arguments that he would not be renominated anyway are still not credible, I think you would be wiser to drop this.)
You could cut defence spending at a slash and improve our armed forces by getting rid of the fantasy that is Trident. In what way were ISIS deterred by the French nuclear arsenal. We can't afford it, it's not necessary and politicians should grow up.
As long as Putin and N Korea have nuclear weapons so should we and who knows what ISIS could acquire in future
Russia (and probably North Korea, the state we're in) could invade us several times over and we couldn't stop them. That's more of a real worry than domesday weapon top trumps. Trident no thanks. Conventional forces yes.
If he got no nominations the Labour Party would run no ballot and there would be no election whether he wanted it or not, by the time he got around to even thinking about it Hilary Benn would already be the new Leader of the Labour Party with the Party machine already falling in line behind him
You are straightforward
Moreover, even if you were right, there are now sufficient fellow-travellers transferred across from Burnham (essen It is hard not to sympathise with the following Labour MP, who commented:
A putsch against Corbyn raises the fear, as one MP gloomily observes, “of him just winning again”, leaving them looking both “unelectable and fucking stupid”.
This is becoming absolutely surreal to watch. There surely hasn't been a leader so divorced from his own party since the Corn Law Split of 1846. And at least Peel could console himself with the thought that he was doing something sensible and beneficial rather than arguing against taking eminently reasonable measures aimed at preventing or at least mitigating wholesale murder.
No, I am afraid I am not wrong. Once a challenger has received sufficient nominations to force a contest then that contest would be held under normal rules, as was the case in 1987 when Tony Benn challenged Neil Kinnock.
Given the challenge would only be initiated in the event of, say, Labour being beaten by UKIP in a by-election any potential nominees Corbyn had would collapse like ninepins. Labour rules say a challenger is required to initiate a contest, it does not then also excuse the incumbent from getting the nominations required to enter the contest himself once underway as per normal Labour Party rules.
IDS also got 60% of Tory members votes, he too was out in two years
The rules are only ambiguous if you wanted to interpret them in an odd way.
A reasonable person would say only challengers need the nominations (not the existing leader), as that's what the rules state.
Indeed having higher percentages for nominations (20% instead of 15%) would make no sense using your interpretation.
But this has all been done over already.
Yet that is precisely not the case as the rules do not state the existing leader is not required to get nominations once a challenger has received sufficient nominations to force a contest. The 20% is required to launch a challenge, the 15% of nominations would be required as under the normal rules which clearly the challenger will already have achieved, if the incumbent does not then get 15% of nominations the challenger would then be elected unopposed
He is on the ballot without being nominated, apparently
Yet on the Daily Politics it was put that that was not clearly the case and the rules could well be interpreted to require Corbyn too to be nominated once a challenger had received sufficient nominations to force a ballot, otherwise the challenger would be elected unopposed
I don't trust the Daily Politics, and I do trust the advice I have had, although of course it has never actually been tested in practice as no Labour leader has faced, never mind lost, a confidence motion since 1935 - and then Lansbury elected not to contest the election.
However, as I have pointed out, Corbyn could make the ballot even if he were required to be nominated. Merely because 190 of the PLP hate his guts is no reason to assume the other 41 would not back him.
So where does this oracle of advice come from? Nothing in Labour Party rules states that once a challenger has got the nominations to force a contest Corbyn is then automatically excused from getting any nominations to enter the contest himself.
Given as I said the trigger for a challenge would be Labour falling behind UKIP in a by election or something similar he has virtually no chance of getting the nominations required
Nothing in the Labour party rules says an incumbent needs to be nominated. There is nowhere in the Labour Party rules that says how an incumbent would be nominated, only challengers if there is no vacancy.
Yet once a challenger has received the nominations to force a contest if the incumbent does not get the nominations to enter that new contest the challenger is elected unopposed
You could cut defence spending at a slash and improve our armed forces by getting rid of the fantasy that is Trident. In what way were ISIS deterred by the French nuclear arsenal. We can't afford it, it's not necessary and politicians should grow up.
That would give us about £2-3 billion a year, not a vast increase, and besides that there are threats other than ISIS. Only a few days ago there were stories about the Russians daydreaming about 100 Megaton "torpedoes".
That torpedo was fairly old technology apparently - something that could be built quite easily if it doesn't exist already. I say why don't we just get them? Stick a nuclear payload in it, and you can basically hit anywhere with a coast. Good deal cheaper than Trident. Can't be shot down.
No, I am afraid I am not wrong. Once a challenger has received sufficient nominations to force a contest then that contest would be held under normal rules, as was the case in 1987 when Tony Benn challenged Neil Kinnock.
Given the challenge would only be initiated in the event of, say, Labour being beaten by UKIP in a by-election any potential nominees Corbyn had would collapse like ninepins. Labour rules say a challenger is required to initiate a contest, it does not then also excuse the incumbent from getting the nominations required to enter the contest himself once underway as per normal Labour Party rules.
IDS also got 60% of Tory members votes, he too was out in two years
Yes the contest in 1988 is a good example as Benn required nominations but Kinnock did not. Kinnock as incumbent went straight into the ballot without getting re-nominated as would Corbyn.
Similarly if a leadership contest had been forced it would be conducted under normal rules with candidates required to get nominations from the PLP before they were put before the membership
Yet that is precisely not the case as the rules do not state the existing leader is not required to get nominations once a challenger has received sufficient nominations to force a contest. The 20% is required to launch a challenge, the 15% of nominations would be required as under the normal rules which clearly the challenger will already have achieved, if the incumbent does not then get 15% of nominations the challenger would then be elected unopposed
Sorry, but that's just fantasy.
There's nothing to say that they "revert to normal rules". In the contest you have the leader plus any 20% challengers. That's it. These are the normal rules for the situation when there is an existing leader.
As expected the previous thread brought out the usual suspects who consider all NHS workers as little better than benefit scroungers sponging off the tax payers doing jobs of no consequence.
1. the junior doctors dispute is NOT about money and none of them will get any more money out of it. 2. health is expensive, and becomingly increasingly more so, however you pay for it. We could be foolish as the Americans and privatise everything for about twice the cost and worst outcomes, or we can pool the risk so that the unfortunate and poor do not lose out and have some measure of efficiency about the process.
The fundamental problem is that District General Hospitals are absolutely useless in terms of how a modern health service should be organised. They suck up vast amounts of resource and are politically very difficult to close.
The key is to get as much as possible out of the prime real estate that DGHs represent. I had a very interesting chat with the head of a specialist healthcare consultant last week about what is going on in the US and the shift of much healthcare provision to a retail (mall) setting. Imaging and diagnostics I can get, although I was rather startled at the concept of A&E in a retail environment... apparently they use A&E as triage and then have a fleet of ambulances out back to take people to hospital if they really need it, which sounds pretty sensible.
'I keep repeating on this site..there is not a financial problem with the NHS..all we have to do is pump more money in and all the population has to do is pay more taxes..problem solved..until the screaming starts'
You missed out,no improvements in productivity, no reorganisations ,no overtime and the BMA will always put patient's interests ahead of their own.
Marquee Mark- great stuff. Those nights stay with you.
New Order are one of my get to go's on You Tube- I have seen every last documentary, every last live gig. I adore New Order. 24 Hr Party People is a masterpiece. I've seen Hooky live twice this year, and he's coming to Florence in December and am counting the days. I saw New Order at the Hacienda and Free Trade Hall in the 80's. I love the fact that my enthusiasm for New Order is as vibrant thirty years on.
New Order, the Stone Roses and the Smiths. And the Happy Mondays. Go Manchester.
First saw New Order in Brum at the Tower Ballroom on 9th May 1983. Weirdest venue - looked like everything had been under dust sheets for fifteen years. It literally had plastic palm trees.
They opened with Love Will Tear Us Apart. Support was James.
It cost £3.50.
One of my all-time great gigs.
I saw New Order headlining at Glastonbury in 1987. They were pretty good.
You could cut defence spending at a slash and improve our armed forces by getting rid of the fantasy that is Trident. In what way were ISIS deterred by the French nuclear arsenal. We can't afford it, it's not necessary and politicians should grow up.
ISIS is precisely the sort of enemy on whom we might need to call upon our nuclear arsenal.
No, I am afraid I am not wrong. Once a challenger has received sufficient nominations to force a contest then that contest would be held under normal rules, as was the case in 1987 when
IDS also got 60% of Tory members votes, he too was out in two years
I have double-checked the Kinnock contest (which I had forgotten about in my earlier comments on Lansbury). He did not require to be renominated. However, that was before the rules on nominations were changed - challengers only needed a proposer and a seconder.
It is technically possible, I suppose, that the new rules could be interpreted in such a way as you describe. However, even if they were (1) can you imagine the trouble if they were so interpreted on a technicality to keep Corbyn out (because I can - vividly) and (2) you are wildly optimistic if you think the likes of Jon Trickett and Clive Lewis temper their views with something akin to reality. They will support Corbyn because they believe that he is right in all the dreadful things he says and does, and that the rest of the world is wrong. Moreover, they will support him because he will undoubtedly win again when it goes to the membership, who also as we have seen on these very threads do not care about the fact that normal sane humans see them as monsters.
Interestingly the Campaign Group secretary in 1988 and the man who therefore organised the process that triggered the contest was a certain JB Corbyn MP.
(In response to your later posts, the oracle of advice in question was a leading member of the local Labour party. But since others have already effectively demolished your points and your arguments that he would not be renominated anyway are still not credible, I think you would be wiser to drop this.)
Yes but in 1988 Kinnock had to get support from the PLP in the electoral college, as you state there was no nominations threshold at that time. Now the PLP element has shifted from the electoral college to nominating candidates.
Given the contest would only be triggered if, say, Labour fell behind UKIP in a by election who cares less what Corbyn supporters think given the dire state they have placed the party in? In any case as I also pointed out it would only work if the replacement was an experienced figure from the party's left, like Hilary Benn, that would temper any dissent, as Howard being a rightwinger tempered any dissent when he replaced IDS. IDS won 60% of the Tory membership too, Howard was elected unopposed without even being put to the membership, Benn would be elected in a similar way.
A 'leading member of the local Labour Party' is not the same as the Labour Party historian on the Daily Politics who supported my argument, what is clear is that the rules could well be interpreted in the way I suggest
Last word before I have to go to bed, from the Labour party rule book, chapter 4, clause II, Section 2:
B. Nomination i. In the case of a vacancy for leader or deputy leader, each nomination must be supported by 12.5 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void. ii. Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.
If there is no vacancy, that is because there is a leader. You will notice that it says that challenger nominations will trigger an election, but it only says that challengers have to attain nominations. The leader would still be in place. In practice, this means the leader would go ahead to the ballot without needing to be renominated. The suggestion to the contrary is therefore still straightforwardly wrong and I would be curious to know who gave the Daily Politics their advice. They get such things wrong far too often - I've never quite forgotten the very serious conversation in c. 2006 about how Bill Clinton would be a serious contender for the Presidency in 2008 because 'there was nothing in the US constitution to prevent him running again,' which could only have been dreamed up by somebody who had (A) never heard of the 22nd Amendment or (B) was smoking hard drugs at the time they read it.
Leaving aside any other consideration, a legal challenge brought if Corbyn were forced to get nominations again would almost certainly succeed and leave Labour (1) having to do the whole thing again (2) looking as though they couldn't even run their own party properly and (3) still having him as leader!
LG83 What the fuck has that got to do with it.. at the moment I am filming in the UK...now how would Russians and the North Koreans invade the British Isles..do tell..
You could cut defence spending at a slash and improve our armed forces by getting rid of the fantasy that is Trident. In what way were ISIS deterred by the French nuclear arsenal. We can't afford it, it's not necessary and politicians should grow up.
That would give us about £2-3 billion a year, not a vast increase, and besides that there are threats other than ISIS. Only a few days ago there were stories about the Russians daydreaming about 100 Megaton "torpedoes".
That torpedo was fairly old technology apparently - something that could be built quite easily if it doesn't exist already. I say why don't we just get them? Stick a nuclear payload in it, and you can basically hit anywhere with a coast. Good deal cheaper than Trident. Can't be shot down.
No wonder you support such a weapon - most places of massive strategic importance in Russia would be out of range of it.
The US is a different matter ...
Aside from that, it's a much 'nastier' weapon than a 'normal' nuke, as it is designed to give maximum radioactive contamination to act as a long-term area-denial weapon. This is especially true if it is, as speculated, a cobalt bomb.
Yet that is precisely not the case as the rules do not state the existing leader is not required to get nominations once a challenger has received sufficient nominations to force a contest. The 20% is required to launch a challenge, the 15% of nominations would be required as under the normal rules which clearly the challenger will already have achieved, if the incumbent does not then get 15% of nominations the challenger would then be elected unopposed
Sorry, but that's just fantasy.
There's nothing to say that they "revert to normal rules". In the contest you have the leader plus any 20% challengers. That's it. These are the normal rules for the situation when there is an existing leader.
The rules ONLY state the mechanism for a challenger to force a contest, once a contest is forced the presumption is it will be conducted under normal rules and the incumbent will then also be required to obtain nominations to enter it.
Russia (and probably North Korea, the state we're in) could invade us several times over and we couldn't stop them. That's more of a real worry than domesday weapon top trumps. Trident no thanks. Conventional forces yes.
Neither country could invade the UK. For that, you need a functioning blue water navy. North Korea has never had more than a brown water navy (and would either have to march across all of Asia and Europe to get to us, or sail around Africa and up the entire Atlantic - our subs would have a jolly old time), and Russia's is barely recovering from its collapse during perestroika. Even with such a navy, Russia would have to either sail from Archangel or the Crimea. Plenty of bottlenecks along the way to destroy the invasion force.
Comments
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/666339702497263616
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/666340113367105536
Whether that means strengthening international bodies like the UN or not, I'm not sure. It's a difficult one. We have known no different world to one in which superpowers enforce peace and security (whether that has had bad geopolitical consequences or otherwise).
If he starts failing when it comes to elections or is dire in opinion polls thats one thing, but i cam see how the MPs can really move against him without massive fallout
In terms of defence we are spending enough. It's not troop numbers or the number of fighter bombers we are building that is the point. We are suffering its true from labour's loss of procurement control.
It is the need for more surveillance and intelligence and satellites and drones and special forces with enough elite back up, within current numbers. We have lots of armoured and mine resistant vehicles back in the uk now. It's not tanks and self propelled artillery we need. It's drones and the command and control to go with them in a fluid battle area that are needed. This rebalancing need not be driven by money.
And they will use any excuse. One excuse trotted out now is the Iraq War. Before that it was the US in the Middle East. Before that it was support for Israel.
The fact is that these Islamic terrorists do not agree with our way of life. Yet we are successful. They will use any excuse to hurt us,and ideally to take us down to their level.
I spent an afternoon today on an acute ward in Florence- akin to night of the living dead. A ward populated by really old, sick people being kept alive. I felt sorrier for the families actually than the patients who were too sick, old and ill to care about anything.
I somehow doubt it. The issue isn't defence spending..
In the current climate, I think the public might well accept cuts elsewhere for defence spending.
It's a good job I'm not CoE. I would freeze education, health, international aid and abolish the triple-lock.
I would cut health. I cannot believe, even with increasing pressures, that there is no scope for even the most minimal of cutting within it, and yet it is always portrayed as on the verge of collapse no matter what is proposed and more money is always the answer. I doubt I would get elected with such a stance.
On more depressing matters, in my neck of the woods we have definitely moved onto another stage of the 'terror attack response' cycle, with people unprompted seeming angry that some others were reacting to France but not other acts of violence in other parts of the world, ie that even displays of sympathy can be an overreaction, let alone any suggested action. We are well on the way to acting normally again in a week or so.
'Hollande has become a very impressive leader as many thought he would be. 'Left-wing' is not the dirty word in France that it is on here.'
Every opinion poll confirms that.
Corbyn and co seem virtually indistinguishable.
Moreover, even if you were right, there are now sufficient fellow-travellers transferred across from Burnham (essentially those left wingers who for some unknown reason thought the smart career move was to support the frontrunner with long experience of government and a history of effective campaigning rather than some doddery old apologist for terrorists and Islington Labour Party who has never held any sort of public office and once had the hots for Diane Abbott) for Corbyn to make the ballot unaided.
It is hard not to sympathise with the following Labour MP, who commented: This is becoming absolutely surreal to watch. There surely hasn't been a leader so divorced from his own party since the Corn Law Split of 1846. And at least Peel could console himself with the thought that he was doing something sensible and beneficial rather than arguing against taking eminently reasonable measures aimed at preventing or at least mitigating wholesale murder.
*Among the Tories, it triggers a confidence motion, which the incumbent leader wins or loses - if s/he loses, they cannot stand again. Under Labour rules, it would trigger a leadership election, with the incumbent running against whoever is nominated. Corbyn got 49% of the actual Labour membership and 60% of votes cast last time. Do you honestly think that the people who voted for him, knowing full well how evil he was already, are going to be swayed by the fact that he is an apologist for Islamist terrorists as well as Irish ones? Because I certainly don't.
I'm sure ISIS will be trembling in fear at this colossus of a man
Hollande is awful as French leader but even he knows what to do when his country is attacked.
But I doubt if that re-think will be effective until our society is prepared to accept that we all have to die some day.
An anecdote: a friend's mother was in a situation such as you describe - really elderly, really sick - and the patients there were being kept alive by continuing to give them the daily medication they'd been taking for years. Withdrawing those medications would have enabled natural death to occur far sooner, without any horror stories about euthanasia or dying of thirst.
1. the junior doctors dispute is NOT about money and none of them will get any more money out of it.
2. health is expensive, and becomingly increasingly more so, however you pay for it. We could be foolish as the Americans and privatise everything for about twice the cost and worst outcomes, or we can pool the risk so that the unfortunate and poor do not lose out and have some measure of efficiency about the process.
Nigel Farage absolutely on the button. The most dangerous nation in the Arab world is Saudi Arabia and we should stop dealing with them immediately.
(He then went on to say we shouldn't take refugees come what may but at least he started well)'
He also stated that polls showed 27% of UK muslims had sympathy with the Charlie Hebdo terrorists.
However, as I have pointed out, Corbyn could make the ballot even if he were required to be nominated. Merely because 190 of the PLP hate his guts is no reason to assume the other 41 would not back him.
He cannot with all serious credibility not think it was a good idea to shoot people dead who are currently holding loaded automatic machine guns.
It isnt even a 'scruple' there are no things to weigh up here. It is a clear and obvious position to hold that you shoot to kill.
In the current climate, I think the public might well accept cuts elsewhere for defence spending.
It's a good job I'm not CoE. I would freeze education, health, international aid and abolish the triple-lock.
I would cut health. I cannot believe, even with increasing pressures, that there is no scope for even the most minimal of cutting within it, and yet it is always portrayed as on the verge of collapse no matter what is proposed and more money is always the answer. I doubt I would get elected with such a stance.
On more depressing matters, in my neck of the woods we have definitely moved onto another stage of the 'terror attack response' cycle, with people unprompted seeming angry that some others were reacting to France but not other acts of violence in other parts of the world, ie that even displays of sympathy can be an overreaction, let alone any suggested action. We are well on the way to acting normally again in a week or so.
Yes you could ration and NICE was meant to do that but not mention the R word until Cameron drove a coach and horses through it with the Cancer Drugs Fund - the most stupid piece of health policy ever devised anywhere. Basically saying to drugs companies you tell us what to pay and we'll pay it to get the Daily Mail off our back.
Lots of modern healthcare is expensive, and I too despair of the seeming rationale which has gained hold that we must keep everyone alive at all costs. But there are differences in outcomes such as very expensive biologicals which have transformed the lives of people with diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and similar for cancer where they may give a month or two at the end of life. It's the latter which need a proper cost benefit anaylsis and NICE should be left to get on with the job.
*Among the Tories, it triggers a confidence motion, which the incumbent leader wins or loses - if s/he loses, they cannot stand again. Under Labour rules, it would trigger a leadership election, with the incumbent running against whoever is nominated. Corbyn got 49% of the actual Labour membership and 60% of votes cast last time. Do you honestly think that the people who voted for him, knowing full well how evil he was already, are going to be swayed by the fact that he is an apologist for Islamist terrorists as well as Irish ones? Because I certainly don't.
No, I am afraid I am not wrong. Once a challenger has received sufficient nominations to force a contest then that contest would be held under normal rules, as was the case in 1987 when Tony Benn challenged Neil Kinnock.
Given the challenge would only be initiated in the event of, say, Labour being beaten by UKIP in a by-election any potential nominees Corbyn had would collapse like ninepins. Labour rules say a challenger is required to initiate a contest, it does not then also excuse the incumbent from getting the nominations required to enter the contest himself once underway as per normal Labour Party rules.
IDS also got 60% of Tory members votes, he too was out in two years
I- a fit an active forty something- would not want to be kept alive in the circumstances I saw people today. Not anywhere close.
Note to Doctors- can we please stop keeping people alive in deplorable circumstances. Is that what they came into medicine to do?
Twitter is not like that, it is visceral, it is meat head. It is a gigantic jupitor size echo chamber, which continually reinforces itself into repeated orgasm of righteousness.
They opened with Love Will Tear Us Apart. Support was James.
It cost £3.50.
One of my all-time great gigs.
That would make for unmissable TV.
Given as I said the trigger for a challenge would be Labour falling behind UKIP in a by election or something similar he has virtually no chance of getting the nominations required
'dispair of keeping people malice at all costs'
Yes until you are rationed out of a cancer drug or something similar. Or your wife, daughter or mother grandmother.
Given the challenge would only be initiated in the event of, say, Labour being beaten by UKIP in a by-election any potential nominees Corbyn had would collapse like ninepins. Labour rules say a challenger is required to initiate a contest, it does not then also excuse the incumbent from getting the nominations required to enter the contest himself once underway as per normal Labour Party rules.
IDS also got 60% of Tory members votes, he too was out in two years
The rules are only ambiguous if you wanted to interpret them in an odd way.
A reasonable person would say only challengers need the nominations (not the existing leader), as that's what the rules state.
Indeed having higher percentages for nominations (20% instead of 15%) would make no sense using your interpretation.
But this has all been done over already.
I would have thought Labour's experience at leaping into the dark without a parachute should be a salutory lesson.
'You could cut defence spending at a slash and improve our armed forces by getting rid of the fantasy that is Trident. In what way were ISIS deterred by the French nuclear arsenal. We can't afford it, it's not necessary and politicians should grow up.'
You really believe a single weapon 'fits all' in terms of defeating every form & format of enemy that comes along,maybe it's you that needs to do the growing up.
'Mr. Hammond also said that his government suspected that the Islamic State or operatives “inspired” by the organization were behind the destruction of a Russian airliner in Egypt on Oct. 31. He added that he hoped that would persuade President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to take a more flexible posture in the Syria talks.
“We’ll see whether the Russians now double down or whether they decide that they never wanted to be too deeply engaged anyway in Syria and that this is a warning shot to them and we’ll sense a greater willingness to engage in the talks in Vienna this coming Saturday,” he said.'
Wow. What a loathsome dead behind the eyes hypocrite.
How many Labour MPs are putting in a shift at Oldham?
"Ann seems to have given up and gone to help in neighbouring constituencies"
It is technically possible, I suppose, that the new rules could be interpreted in such a way as you describe. However, even if they were (1) can you imagine the trouble if they were so interpreted on a technicality to keep Corbyn out (because I can - vividly) and (2) you are wildly optimistic if you think the likes of Jon Trickett and Clive Lewis temper their views with something akin to reality. They will support Corbyn because they believe that he is right in all the dreadful things he says and does, and that the rest of the world is wrong. Moreover, they will support him because he will undoubtedly win again when it goes to the membership, who also as we have seen on these very threads do not care about the fact that normal sane humans see them as monsters.
Interestingly the Campaign Group secretary in 1988 and the man who therefore organised the process that triggered the contest was a certain JB Corbyn MP.
(In response to your later posts, the oracle of advice in question was a leading member of the local Labour party. But since others have already effectively demolished your points and your arguments that he would not be renominated anyway are still not credible, I think you would be wiser to drop this.)
A reasonable person would say only challengers need the nominations (not the existing leader), as that's what the rules state.
Indeed having higher percentages for nominations (20% instead of 15%) would make no sense using your interpretation.
But this has all been done over already.
Yet that is precisely not the case as the rules do not state the existing leader is not required to get nominations once a challenger has received sufficient nominations to force a contest. The 20% is required to launch a challenge, the 15% of nominations would be required as under the normal rules which clearly the challenger will already have achieved, if the incumbent does not then get 15% of nominations the challenger would then be elected unopposed
Similarly if a leadership contest had been forced it would be conducted under normal rules with candidates required to get nominations from the PLP before they were put before the membership
There's nothing to say that they "revert to normal rules". In the contest you have the leader plus any 20% challengers. That's it. These are the normal rules for the situation when there is an existing leader.
The key is to get as much as possible out of the prime real estate that DGHs represent. I had a very interesting chat with the head of a specialist healthcare consultant last week about what is going on in the US and the shift of much healthcare provision to a retail (mall) setting. Imaging and diagnostics I can get, although I was rather startled at the concept of A&E in a retail environment... apparently they use A&E as triage and then have a fleet of ambulances out back to take people to hospital if they really need it, which sounds pretty sensible.
'I keep repeating on this site..there is not a financial problem with the NHS..all we have to do is pump more money in and all the population has to do is pay more taxes..problem solved..until the screaming starts'
You missed out,no improvements in productivity, no reorganisations ,no overtime and the BMA will always put patient's interests ahead of their own.
New Order are one of my get to go's on You Tube- I have seen every last documentary, every last live gig. I adore New Order. 24 Hr Party People is a masterpiece. I've seen Hooky live twice this year, and he's coming to Florence in December and am counting the days. I saw New Order at the Hacienda and Free Trade Hall in the 80's. I love the fact that my enthusiasm for New Order is as vibrant thirty years on.
New Order, the Stone Roses and the Smiths. And the Happy Mondays. Go Manchester.
Jeremy, what is the first duty of a government?
Given the contest would only be triggered if, say, Labour fell behind UKIP in a by election who cares less what Corbyn supporters think given the dire state they have placed the party in? In any case as I also pointed out it would only work if the replacement was an experienced figure from the party's left, like Hilary Benn, that would temper any dissent, as Howard being a rightwinger tempered any dissent when he replaced IDS. IDS won 60% of the Tory membership too, Howard was elected unopposed without even being put to the membership, Benn would be elected in a similar way.
A 'leading member of the local Labour Party' is not the same as the Labour Party historian on the Daily Politics who supported my argument, what is clear is that the rules could well be interpreted in the way I suggest
B. Nomination
i. In the case of a vacancy for leader or
deputy leader, each nomination must be
supported by 12.5 per cent of the Commons
members of the PLP. Nominations not
attaining this threshold shall be null and
void.
ii. Where there is no vacancy, nominations
may be sought by potential challengers
each year prior to the annual session of
party conference. In this case any
nomination must be supported by 20 per
cent of the Commons members of the PLP.
Nominations not attaining this threshold
shall be null and void.
If there is no vacancy, that is because there is a leader. You will notice that it says that challenger nominations will trigger an election, but it only says that challengers have to attain nominations. The leader would still be in place. In practice, this means the leader would go ahead to the ballot without needing to be renominated. The suggestion to the contrary is therefore still straightforwardly wrong and I would be curious to know who gave the Daily Politics their advice. They get such things wrong far too often - I've never quite forgotten the very serious conversation in c. 2006 about how Bill Clinton would be a serious contender for the Presidency in 2008 because 'there was nothing in the US constitution to prevent him running again,' which could only have been dreamed up by somebody who had (A) never heard of the 22nd Amendment or (B) was smoking hard drugs at the time they read it.
Leaving aside any other consideration, a legal challenge brought if Corbyn were forced to get nominations again would almost certainly succeed and leave Labour (1) having to do the whole thing again (2) looking as though they couldn't even run their own party properly and (3) still having him as leader!
The US is a different matter ...
Aside from that, it's a much 'nastier' weapon than a 'normal' nuke, as it is designed to give maximum radioactive contamination to act as a long-term area-denial weapon. This is especially true if it is, as speculated, a cobalt bomb.