He's using the powers at his disposal. His enemies have shown that they won't hesitate to do the same. He wouldn't have to do it if his MPs were willing to defer more to his personal mandate.
He only has a mandate from a small selectorate. The MPs have a mandate from a real thing - the electorate.
They should have the balls to act accordingly
Labour do not contract out the selection of their leaders to Labour constituency voters. He got a landslide from the party members and supporters. More senior party members who dislike that outcome need to accept that and either seek to change members' minds or shut up. At the moment they're doing neither.
If one is going to reason in those terms then Corbyn should simply withdraw the whip from dissenters. If that's half the PLP, well, fiat justitia etc.
But surely the reality is that his leadership is weak because he's so inept. If he looked like the potential election-winner his fans think he is he'd have few problems.
He only has a mandate from a small selectorate. The MPs have a mandate from a real thing - the electorate.
They should have the balls to act accordingly
Labour do not contract out the selection of their leaders to Labour constituency voters. He got a landslide from the party members and supporters. More senior party members who dislike that outcome need to accept that and either seek to change members' minds or shut up. At the moment they're doing neither.
They were elected by their constituents. Those are the voters they have to represent.
Their duty is to their electorate not Corbyn.
Corbyn showed previous Labour leaders ZERO loyalty. He has no right to demand anything less than he was prepared to offer others in his position.
He is a leader in name only. His Shadow Cabinet is against him. His MPs are against him.
Let him run round the country leading his 'members' - and let the real politicians get on with trying to rebuild a Labour Party.
We need a proper opposition party - Corbyn is not capable of delivering that.
Democracy is inconvenient. Labour MPs seem unable to accept that Jeremy Corbyn won fair and square and so cannot reach an accommodation with themselves about what that means.
It's fine to be appalled by Jeremy Corbyn. I'm not a fan of him myself. But whose party is it? If MPs are out of step with the membership, why should the membership be ignored?
The MPs have rethinking to do if they want members to rethink. If they don't like where the Labour party is going, the exit is clearly marked. If they don't want to leave, they need to fight their corner showing respect to the views that clearly won in September. Never mind Jeremy Corbyn, there are hundreds of thousands of party members to respect. That does not mean carrying on as before and treating the leader as an inconvenience to be ignored.
The Labour Party is going into electoral oblivion. Corbyn is exactly the man to lead this.
The sensible wing of the Party has to take a stand and drive Corbyn out - and quickly.
They need to deal with that bloodbath and move on.
And yes, the membership should be ignored - to a large extent. There aren't enough Labour members to deliver a Labour victory - you have to build a coalition of support. Corbyn should be trying to achieve that - but he isn't. He is pushing further and further to the left - a place which has never delivered electoral success.
The time to act is now. Corbyn has to go and go before the end of the year. There are mechanisms that can be exploited to make this happen.
Given the obvious quality (or lack thereof) of your research (witness your IHH embarrassment last night), why should anyone take anything you say about medicine seriously?
Do you have any medical qualifications, or did you just get it from Alex Jones or a.n.other conspiracy website?
Was I embarrassed last night? Unlike you I don't trawl the threads of a morning on tenterhooks to see what you may have said the previous evening. By all means complete my utter degradation by repeating whatever incisive shard of wisdom from you I may have missed if that will please you.
As I've repeated (how many times are we up to now?) I expect intelligent readers to read my post, and decide whether they agree with the points made therein. If they think my post is utterly ridiculous they may choose to ignore. If they're not sure and want more information or supporting evidence, if I'm around I'll oblige. I wouldn't have thought this was a hard concept to assimilate, but we seem to be having great difficulty.
I suggest you go back and read it. But basically IHH was not banned by the Netherlands: it was another organisation with the same initials. Since that was the core of your 'argument', it all falls down.
You would have discovered this if you'd gone to Wikipedia and elsewhere rather than a conspiracy site. But that was probably too much 'research' for you.
Which is the problem you face when getting 'facts' through conspiracy websites. Especially with your much-vaunted 'rules' regarding sources, which have been shown to be so much self-aggrandising bunkum.
"As I've repeated (how many times are we up to now?) I expect intelligent readers to read my post, and decide whether they agree with the points made therein."
No, you spam this website with ridiculous sh*t. Truth does not matter to you, only that you get to promote your perverted view. Which strangely almost always matches Russia's best interests.
Everything you say on here is untrustworthy and should be taken with a few kilos of salt.
He's using the powers at his disposal. His enemies have shown that they won't hesitate to do the same. He wouldn't have to do it if his MPs were willing to defer more to his personal mandate.
He only has a mandate from a small selectorate. The MPs have a mandate from a real thing - the electorate.
They should have the balls to act accordingly
Labour do not contract out the selection of their leaders to Labour constituency voters. He got a landslide from the party members and supporters. More senior party members who dislike that outcome need to accept that and either seek to change members' minds or shut up. At the moment they're doing neither.
They were elected by their constituents. Those are the voters they have to represent.
Their duty is to their electorate not Corbyn.
Corbyn showed previous Labour leaders ZERO loyalty. He has no right to demand anything less than he was prepared to offer others in his position.
He is a leader in name only. His Shadow Cabinet is against him. His MPs are against him.
Let him run round the country leading his 'members' - and let the real politicians get on with trying to rebuild a Labour Party.
We need a proper opposition party - Corbyn is not capable of delivering that.
Democracy is inconvenient. Labour MPs seem unable to accept that Jeremy Corbyn won fair and square and so cannot reach an accommodation with themselves about what that means.
It's fine to be appalled by Jeremy Corbyn. I'm not a fan of him myself. But whose party is it? If MPs are out of step with the membership, why should the membership be ignored?
The MPs have rethinking to do if they want members to rethink. If they don't like where the Labour party is going, the exit is clearly marked. If they don't want to leave, they need to fight their corner showing respect to the views that clearly won in September. Never mind Jeremy Corbyn, there are hundreds of thousands of party members to respect. That does not mean carrying on as before and treating the leader as an inconvenience to be ignored.
The question is, what loyalty does the current Labour leadership and current PLP owe to the 9m people who voted for a rather different Labour party to represent them from that which is now in place?
Put simply, correlation is not causation. Pre industrialised diets contain virtually no refined sugar. The actual foods eaten are entirely irrelevant, what matters is no sugar. That's the core here and dressed up in all the insane psuedo-science doesn't change the basic concept.
Now, clearly you went with the reduction in sugar and for people willing to do that, good luck to them. Personally I think sugar is a damn fine addition to diets and science has developed ways we can deal with relatively higher (but not completely stupidly high) levels of refined sugar through regular brushing and flouridation.
But your nonsense about rinsing and the "evil" of flouride isn't a factor. The lack of sugar is.
Brave of you to talk about nonsense when you just told us that wine had about 1000 times more fluoride than it does.
Your attitude is rather sad - you of all people I would have thought would be interested in a diet that historically made the Scottish population so healthy. Haggis (nutrient rich organ meats - a common theme), soaked oats (as I described), turnips - all very much part of the Weston A Price school of thought. Far healthier than England's contemporary diet of wheat (albeit that all bread was soaked in those days).
As opposed to now when despite (or perhaps because) of Scotland's public health efforts, it has a sick population getting sicker.
Yes, reduction in sugar is key, but I think the cultured dairy was as important.
As for 'nonsense about rinsing' - this is the first time I've heard this non-rinsing bollocks, and I'm frankly amazed anyone is actually stupid enough to believe or do it.
He's using the powers at his disposal. His enemies have shown that they won't hesitate to do the same. He wouldn't have to do it if his MPs were willing to defer more to his personal mandate.
He only has a mandate from a small selectorate. The MPs have a mandate from a real thing - the electorate.
They should have the balls to act accordingly
Labour do not contract out the selection of their leaders to Labour constituency voters. He got a landslide from the party members and supporters. More senior party members who dislike that outcome need to accept that and either seek to change members' minds or shut up. At the moment they're doing neither.
If one is going to reason in those terms then Corbyn should simply withdraw the whip from dissenters. If that's half the PLP, well, fiat justitia etc.
But surely the reality is that his leadership is weak because he's so inept. If he looked like the potential election-winner his fans think he is he'd have few problems.
His fans would argue that Labour MPs' dissent have sabotaged his chances. While I don't agree with that, their dissent certainly hasn't helped.
He and his supporters are under no obligation to make their own life more difficult. They can treat the MPs as delinquents and have them replaced in due by deselection in accordance with party rules.
It all depends whether you see the Labour party as belonging to the MPs or the membership. It's not obvious to me that the MPs have the right to launch a coup when the membership apparently remains firmly behind the leader. They should get out, shut up or argue their corner. Right now they're doing none of those things effectively.
The MPs have rethinking to do if they want members to rethink. If they don't like where the Labour party is going, the exit is clearly marked. If they don't want to leave, they need to fight their corner showing respect to the views that clearly won in September. Never mind Jeremy Corbyn, there are hundreds of thousands of party members to respect. That does not mean carrying on as before and treating the leader as an inconvenience to be ignored.
Nothing says they have to respect those views. They would be better off making quite a few lot of them leave.
Ultimately a split seems very likely from here; the key is to try to be the part that stays as the Labour Party. At least for now - there might come a point where the brand is so trashed a new party is a better bet for the moderates.
Given the obvious quality (or lack thereof) of your research (witness your IHH embarrassment last night), why should anyone take anything you say about medicine seriously?
Do you have any medical qualifications, or did you just get it from Alex Jones or a.n.other conspiracy website?
Was I embarrassed last night? Unlike you I don't trawl the threads of a morning on tenterhooks to see what you may have said the previous evening. By all means complete my utter degradation by repeating whatever incisive shard of wisdom from you I may have missed if that will please you.
As I've repeated (how many times are we up to now?) I expect intelligent readers to read my post, and decide whether they agree with the points made therein. If they think my post is utterly ridiculous they may choose to ignore. If they're not sure and want more information or supporting evidence, if I'm around I'll oblige. I wouldn't have thought this was a hard concept to assimilate, but we seem to be having great difficulty.
I suggest you go back and read it. But basically IHH was not banned by the Netherlands: it was another organisation with the same initials. Since that was the core of your 'argument', it all falls down.
How could the parliamentary Labour party have been so far divorced from reality that they didn't realise that their membership base was waaaaaaaaaaaay to the left of what they thought it would be ?!
It sounded extremely patronising to me the way alot of them talked about "bringing Jeremy into the debate", without expecting anyone to vote for him !
The question is, what loyalty does the current Labour leadership and current PLP owe to the 9m people who voted for a rather different Labour party to represent them from that which is now in place?
The current Labour MPs derive their mandate from those 9m people who voted for Labour in May based on the manifesto that was put to the people.
That is where their focus should be - not on the 250k who voted for Corbyn over the summer.
Labour is there to represent the wishes of the electorate not their membership.
He's using the powers at his disposal. His enemies have shown that they won't hesitate to do the same. He wouldn't have to do it if his MPs were willing to defer more to his personal mandate.
He only has a mandate from a small selectorate. The MPs have a mandate from a real thing - the electorate.
They should have the balls to act accordingly
Labour do not contract out the selection of their leaders to Labour constituency voters. He got a landslide from the party members and supporters. More senior party members who dislike that outcome need to accept that and either seek to change members' minds or shut up. At the moment they're doing neither.
Missing the point. Where you draw your leader from the parliamentary party then if he is so far out of agreement with them, then it is quite untenable. Corbyn Momentum Stopthewar know this and are intent on replacing the MPs to be in their own image. Labour is being transmogrified and those that do not like it will be wasting their breath trying to influence the members. They need to get out now. They need to blatantly start a parliamentary party that owes no loyalty to Corbyn and then all resign Corbyn's Labour. Do something or do nothing, the labour party they joined is finished.
Spot on. But just as they could not act against Brown or EdMiliband, they lack the cojones to act decisively in numbers. A few may attempt a coup, but just look at the political appeasers in the shadow cabinet.
Brown and Miliband were not conspiring to hand over the labour party to trotskyist (etc) entryists and defenestrate them. It's not cojones they need, its coherency. But why should I care about Labour, even their more rational leaders are wrong headed.
A prize worth winning for sure.Differential turnout can be a decisive factor and the various GOTV operations will be crucial.The cold weather is likely to be a major factor in this.This is where any members or supporters with decent,warm,motors can be persuaded to lend them to the party for the day so,effectively,there are door-to-door taxis in operation throughout the day.Minibuses are a tremendous asset too. On the next Labour leader market,Dan Jarvis has,as reported on PB,said he is ready to throw his hat into the ring and is still favourite.He has set out his 5 tests on assessing Cameron's proposals and has indicated he is considering it all.This is a big call for him and may define his chances.Until he announces his decision,which may or not sway others,I have not parted with any of my money.
How could the parliamentary Labour party have been so far divorced from reality that they didn't realise that their membership base was waaaaaaaaaaaay to the left of what they thought it would be ?!
It sounded extremely patronising to me the way alot of them talked about "bringing Jeremy into the debate", without expecting anyone to vote for him !
I think they thought that Diane Abbott had shown them that it was safe enough to do so. To be fair, nearly everybody agreed at the time. There was still some 100/1 available after the nominations were in.
I would be careful given your track record of 'research'.
In all seriousness, be very careful about believing what you read on websites (and to a lesser extent the media) about medical issues. Too much of it is quackery, clickbait or money-fodder. Some of it can be actively injurious to your health.
Actually, the opposite is true of the diet protocol I 'follow' (I'm not slavish). I follow a 'Weston A Price' diet. Price was a dentist who noted declining dental (and general) health in the US population in the early 20th century. He embarked on a mission to go around the world learning about the healthiest and longest lived societies - largely those untouched by industrialisation etc. From Eskimos, to African tribes, to Swiss villages. Such a thing can't be done these days - these peoples are gone.
He found each society, though some were nearly vegeterian, some almost entirely carniverous etc., had in common certain 'sacred foods' that kept them healthy, free from disease and long lived.
Look at today's society - we're being kept alive a bit longer by medical advances and greatly reduced deprivation, but healthier? Allergies and intolerances are out of control, cancer, heart and other diseases likewise. Who says our diet is healthier? 20 years ago fat was the enemy. It's now sugar. These are trends, not nutritional truths. The past is really the only place we can look to find out what's healthy - what worked generation to generation when there were no doctors. The unfashionable concept of wisdom. The 'risk' lies in following today's food fads.
I think a good start to healthy eating is simply to avoid preservatives and processed foods other than those processed traditionally (e.g. cheese, fermented products, leavened bread etc...). In addition, I eat hardly any refined sugar. Processed sugar was not a part of most people's lives until relatively recently. For the rest, so long as you keep your calories in balance, I really don't think it matters what you eat provided you get all the nutrients the body needs.
I would be careful given your track record of 'research'.
In all seriousness, be very careful about believing what you read on websites (and to a lesser extent the media) about medical issues. Too much of it is quackery, clickbait or money-fodder. Some of it can be actively injurious to your health.
Actually, the opposite is true of the diet protocol I 'follow' (I'm not slavish). I follow a 'Weston A Price' diet. Price was a dentist who noted declining dental (and general) health in the US population in the early 20th century. He embarked on a mission to go around the world learning about the healthiest and longest lived societies - largely those untouched by industrialisation etc. From Eskimos, to African tribes, to Swiss villages. Such a thing can't be done these days - these peoples are gone.
He found each society, though some were nearly vegeterian, some almost entirely carniverous etc., had in common certain 'sacred foods' that kept them healthy, free from disease and long lived.
Look at today's society - we're being kept alive a bit longer by medical advances and greatly reduced deprivation, but healthier? Allergies and intolerances are out of control, cancer, heart and other diseases likewise. Who says our diet is healthier? 20 years ago fat was the enemy. It's now sugar. These are trends, not nutritional truths. The past is really the only place we can look to find out what's healthy - what worked generation to generation when there were no doctors. The unfashionable concept of wisdom. The 'risk' lies in following today's food fads.
Again more pure unadulterated nonsense.
Put simply, correlation is not causation. Pre industrialised diets contain virtually no refined sugar. The actual foods eaten are entirely irrelevant, what matters is no sugar. That's the core here and dressed up in all the insane psuedo-science doesn't change the basic concept.
Now, clearly you went with the reduction in sugar and for people willing to do that, good luck to them. Personally I think sugar is a damn fine addition to diets and science has developed ways we can deal with relatively higher (but not completely stupidly high) levels of refined sugar through regular brushing and flouridation.
But your nonsense about rinsing and the "evil" of flouride isn't a factor. The lack of sugar is.
Given the obvious quality (or lack thereof) of your research (witness your IHH embarrassment last night), why should anyone take anything you say about medicine seriously?
Do you have any medical qualifications, or did you just get it from Alex Jones or a.n.other conspiracy website?
Was I embarrassed last night? Unlike you I don't trawl the threads of a morning on tenterhooks to see what you may have said the previous evening. By all means complete my utter degradation by repeating whatever incisive shard of wisdom from you I may have missed if that will please you.
As I've repeated (how many times are we up to now?) I expect intelligent readers to read my post, and decide whether they agree with the points made therein. If they think my post is utterly ridiculous they may choose to ignore. If they're not sure and want more information or supporting evidence, if I'm around I'll oblige. I wouldn't have thought this was a hard concept to assimilate, but we seem to be having great difficulty.
I suggest you go back and read it. But basically IHH was not banned by the Netherlands: it was another organisation with the same initials. Since that was the core of your 'argument', it all falls down.
What different organisation was that?
As I said, do some of the 'research' you are so proud of, and either read last night's thread or wiki.
Seems to be a lot more going on than meets the eye e.g.
Johnson’s relationship with Clarke is also not as straightforward as many are making out. Even after his confrontations with Clarke and associate Andre Walker, which Johnson surreptitiously recorded, he appeared to be on good, albeit strained, terms with them. He talked daily with Walker about how best to retract his complaint. And even his parents noted how Johnson seemed optimistic about a new potential journalism job Walker was said to be lining up for him.
How could the parliamentary Labour party have been so far divorced from reality that they didn't realise that their membership base was waaaaaaaaaaaay to the left of what they thought it would be ?!
It sounded extremely patronising to me the way alot of them talked about "bringing Jeremy into the debate", without expecting anyone to vote for him !
I think they thought that Diane Abbott had shown them that it was safe enough to do so. To be fair, nearly everybody agreed at the time. There was still some 100/1 available after the nominations were in.
Was 20 May 2010 the most serendipitous moment in electoral history for UKIP ?
Given the obvious quality (or lack thereof) of your research (witness your IHH embarrassment last night), why should anyone take anything you say about medicine seriously?
Do you have any medical qualifications, or did you just get it from Alex Jones or a.n.other conspiracy website?
Was I embarrassed last night? Unlike you I don't trawl the threads of a morning on tenterhooks to see what you may have said the previous evening. By all means complete my utter degradation by repeating whatever incisive shard of wisdom from you I may have missed if that will please you.
As I've repeated (how many times are we up to now?) I expect intelligent readers to read my post, and decide whether they agree with the points made therein. If they think my post is utterly ridiculous they may choose to ignore. If they're not sure and want more information or supporting evidence, if I'm around I'll oblige. I wouldn't have thought this was a hard concept to assimilate, but we seem to be having great difficulty.
I suggest you go back and read it. But basically IHH was not banned by the Netherlands: it was another organisation with the same initials. Since that was the core of your 'argument', it all falls down.
What different organisation was that?
Yesterday, a couple of us posted the links to the names of three different organizations (Turkish, Dutch, German) with the same initials. The latter two are banned, the Turkish one is not, and it was their bakery that was targeted.
How could the parliamentary Labour party have been so far divorced from reality that they didn't realise that their membership base was waaaaaaaaaaaay to the left of what they thought it would be ?!
It sounded extremely patronising to me the way alot of them talked about "bringing Jeremy into the debate", without expecting anyone to vote for him !
Without Corbyn then Burnham would have been the natural left wing choice. With Corbyn in the race then he was left running round like a headless chicken.
He's using the powers at his disposal. His enemies have shown that they won't hesitate to do the same. He wouldn't have to do it if his MPs were willing to defer more to his personal mandate.
He only has a mandate from a small selectorate. The MPs have a mandate from a real thing - the electorate.
They should have the balls to act accordingly
Labour do not contract out the selection of their leaders to Labour constituency voters. He got a landslide from the party members and supporters. More senior party members who dislike that outcome need to accept that and either seek to change members' minds or shut up. At the moment they're doing neither.
They were elected by their constituents. Those are the voters they have to represent.
Their duty is to their electorate not Corbyn.
Corbyn showed previous Labour leaders ZERO loyalty. He has no right to demand anything less than he was prepared to offer others in his position.
He is a leader in name only. His Shadow Cabinet is against him. His MPs are against him.
Let him run round the country leading his 'members' - and let the real politicians get on with trying to rebuild a Labour Party.
We need a proper opposition party - Corbyn is not capable of delivering that.
Democracy is inconvenient. Labour MPs seem unable to accept that Jeremy Corbyn won fair and square and so cannot reach an accommodation with themselves about what that means.
It's fine to be appalled by Jeremy Corbyn. I'm not a fan of him myself. But whose party is it? If MPs are out of step with the membership, why should the membership be ignored?
The MPs have rethinking to do if they want members to rethink. If they don't like where the Labour party is going, the exit is clearly marked. If they don't want to leave, they need to fight their corner showing respect to the views that clearly won in September. Never mind Jeremy Corbyn, there are hundreds of thousands of party members to respect. That does not mean carrying on as before and treating the leader as an inconvenience to be ignored.
New Labour took over the Labour Party from the 'loony left' and have now lost it again. It makes sense that Labour MPs, by the very fact that they have won election as MPs, are going to be more pragmatic on average than the Labour Party members. They are on to a loser short term if they try to defenestrate Corbyn. They have to make up their minds to defect/start a new party or keep quiet (in public) for a couple of years until the party members have concluded it's time to let Corbyn go. It's not an easy decision, but they should be talking to each other to form a consensus.
The truth is, there is no answer to the conundrum facing moderate Labour MPs. It's not lack of brains, or lack of resolve, or lack of cojones, or lack of desire, which is preventing them saving the party from destruction at the hands of the entryists and extremists, it is lack of means.
I think that the only thing they can do is what Hilary Benn and Lord Falconer are doing: try to hang on whilst resisting the worst lunacies. I expect, however, that that effort, though in some ways admirable, is doomed to failure anyway. Still, it's the best that can be done.
Meanwhile, others such as Chukka, Dan Jarvis, and Keir Starmer need to lie low and try to remain as untainted as possible, whilst waiting for an opportunity to start rebuilding from the ashes. It looks like being a long wait, however,
He's using the powers at his disposal. His enemies have shown that they won't hesitate to do the same. He wouldn't have to do it if his MPs were willing to defer more to his personal mandate.
He only has a mandate from a small selectorate. The MPs have a mandate from a real thing - the electorate.
They should have the balls to act accordingly
Labour do not contract out the selection of their leaders to Labour constituency voters. He got a landslide from the party members and supporters. More senior party members who dislike that outcome need to accept that and either seek to change members' minds or shut up. At the moment they're doing neither.
If one is going to reason in those terms then Corbyn should simply withdraw the whip from dissenters. If that's half the PLP, well, fiat justitia etc.
But surely the reality is that his leadership is weak because he's so inept. If he looked like the potential election-winner his fans think he is he'd have few problems.
His fans would argue that Labour MPs' dissent have sabotaged his chances. While I don't agree with that, their dissent certainly hasn't helped.
He and his supporters are under no obligation to make their own life more difficult. They can treat the MPs as delinquents and have them replaced in due by deselection in accordance with party rules.
It all depends whether you see the Labour party as belonging to the MPs or the membership. It's not obvious to me that the MPs have the right to launch a coup when the membership apparently remains firmly behind the leader. They should get out, shut up or argue their corner. Right now they're doing none of those things effectively.
Yes it does come down to who the party belongs to. I think the answer is that it belongs to both the members and MPs and that pound-for-pound the MPs count for a lot more. The old Labour leadership electoral system reflected that, of course. I don't think it's tenable for a party's membership to choose a leader who has such minimal support amongst MPs and we are seeing the effects of that.
For what it's worth, I think that "get out" is the only real option. Staying put and shutting up is obviously a non-starter and trying to persuade the membership is futile. Getting out is a desperate course but has at least some chance of success.
For those wondering at Ken's apologia for the 7/7 bombers, it is worth looking at the speech he gave at the time. It was widely praised but there was one bit in it which grated with me at the time and it is in this quote:-
"This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at ordinary working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old."
Why the reference to "working-class Londoners"? Would the attack have been justified if it had been aimed at "middle class" or "upper class" Londoners? Even here Ken could not help himself and had to make a class issue out of such an atrocity.
BTW we have another Labour MP - sometimes cited as a possible future leader, Clive Lewis, who came out after the PLP meeting threatening those who voted for bombing with being held responsible for any subsequent terrorist attacks. Another MP who simply cannot or won't bring himself to attach blame to those who carry out terrorist atrocities; another MP lacking in a moral compass. Listen to him on this morning's Today programme.
Put simply, correlation is not causation. Pre industrialised diets contain virtually no refined sugar. The actual foods eaten are entirely irrelevant, what matters is no sugar. That's the core here and dressed up in all the insane psuedo-science doesn't change the basic concept.
Now, clearly you went with the reduction in sugar and for people willing to do that, good luck to them. Personally I think sugar is a damn fine addition to diets and science has developed ways we can deal with relatively higher (but not completely stupidly high) levels of refined sugar through regular brushing and flouridation.
But your nonsense about rinsing and the "evil" of flouride isn't a factor. The lack of sugar is.
Dair, for me the danger of sugar is not the potential damage it does to teeth, but the effect it has on our insulin levels, ultimately resulting in insulin resistance and much worse potential adverse health impacts. Also, the rapid rise and crash of blood glycogen caused by sugars contributes, in my view, through snacking, to overeating and hence obesity, with all its adverse health impacts on top of insulin resistance.
BTW we have another Labour MP - sometimes cited as a possible future leader, Clive Lewis, who came out after the PLP meeting threatening those who voted for bombing with being held responsible for any subsequent terrorist attacks. Another MP who simply cannot or won't bring himself to attach blame to those who carry out terrorist atrocities; another MP lacking in a moral compass. Listen to him on this morning's Today programme.
Yes, he was pretty disgusting, lightened only by the fact that he seems to think Ms Abbott's first name is Diana.
I would be careful given your track record of 'research'.
In all seriousness, be very careful about believing what you read on websites (and to a lesser extent the media) about medical issues. Too much of it is quackery, clickbait or money-fodder. Some of it can be actively injurious to your health.
Actually, the opposite is true of the diet protocol I 'follow' (I'm not slavish). I follow a 'Weston A Price' diet. Price was a dentist who noted declining dental (and general) health in the US population in the early 20th century. He embarked on a mission to go around the world learning about the healthiest and longest lived societies - largely those untouched by industrialisation etc. From Eskimos, to African tribes, to Swiss villages. Such a thing can't be done these days - these peoples are gone.
He found each society, though some were nearly vegeterian, some almost entirely carniverous etc., had in common certain 'sacred foods' that kept them healthy, free from disease and long lived.
Look at today's society - we're being kept alive a bit longer by medical advances and greatly reduced deprivation, but healthier? Allergies and intolerances are out of control, cancer, heart and other diseases likewise. Who says our diet is healthier? 20 years ago fat was the enemy. It's now sugar. These are trends, not nutritional truths. The past is really the only place we can look to find out what's healthy - what worked generation to generation when there were no doctors. The unfashionable concept of wisdom. The 'risk' lies in following today's food fads.
Again more pure unadulterated nonsense.
Put simply, correlation is not causation. Pre industrialised diets contain virtually no refined sugar. The actual foods eaten are entirely irrelevant, what matters is no sugar. That's the core here and dressed up in all the insane psuedo-science doesn't change the basic concept.
Now, clearly you went with the reduction in sugar and for people willing to do that, good luck to them. Personally I think sugar is a damn fine addition to diets and science has developed ways we can deal with relatively higher (but not completely stupidly high) levels of refined sugar through regular brushing and flouridation.
But your nonsense about rinsing and the "evil" of flouride isn't a factor. The lack of sugar is.
BTW we have another Labour MP - sometimes cited as a possible future leader, Clive Lewis, who came out after the PLP meeting threatening those who voted for bombing with being held responsible for any subsequent terrorist attacks. Another MP who simply cannot or won't bring himself to attach blame to those who carry out terrorist atrocities; another MP lacking in a moral compass. Listen to him on this morning's Today programme.
It sounds like he's enhancing his chances of succeeding Corbyn to me.
The truth is, there is no answer to the conundrum facing moderate Labour MPs. It's not lack of brains, or lack of resolve, or lack of cojones, or lack of desire, which is preventing them saving the party from destruction at the hands of the entryists and extremists, it is lack of means.
I think that the only thing they can do is what Hilary Benn and Lord Falconer are doing: try to hang on whilst resisting the worst lunacies. I expect, however, that that effort, though in some ways admirable, is doomed to failure anyway. Still, it's the best that can be done.
Meanwhile, others such as Chukka, Dan Jarvis, and Keir Starmer need to lie low and try to remain as untainted as possible, whilst waiting for an opportunity to start rebuilding from the ashes. It looks like being a long wait, however,
The left of the Labour party waited at least 32 years by my reckoning to get back in charge. Doubt they'll give it back any time soon.
I would be careful given your track record of 'research'.
In all seriousness, be very careful about believing what you read on websites (and to a lesser extent the media) about medical issues. Too much of it is quackery, clickbait or money-fodder. Some of it can be actively injurious to your health.
Actually, the opposite is true of the diet protocol I 'follow' (I'm not slavish). I follow a 'Weston A Price' diet. Price was a dentist who noted declining dental (and general) health in the US population in the early 20th century. He embarked on a mission to go around the world learning about the healthiest and longest lived societies - largely those untouched by industrialisation etc. From Eskimos, to African tribes, to Swiss villages. Such a thing can't be done these days - these peoples are gone.
He found each society, though some were nearly vegeterian, some almost entirely carniverous etc., had in common certain 'sacred foods' that kept them healthy, free from disease and long lived.
Look at today's society - we're being kept alive a bit longer by medical advances and greatly reduced deprivation, but healthier? Allergies and intolerances are out of control, cancer, heart and other diseases likewise. Who says our diet is healthier? 20 years ago fat was the enemy. It's now sugar. These are trends, not nutritional truths. The past is really the only place we can look to find out what's healthy - what worked generation to generation when there were no doctors. The unfashionable concept of wisdom. The 'risk' lies in following today's food fads.
Again more pure unadulterated nonsense.
Put simply, correlation is not causation. Pre industrialised diets contain virtually no refined sugar. The actual foods eaten are entirely irrelevant, what matters is no sugar. That's the core here and dressed up in all the insane psuedo-science doesn't change the basic concept.
Now, clearly you went with the reduction in sugar and for people willing to do that, good luck to them. Personally I think sugar is a damn fine addition to diets and science has developed ways we can deal with relatively higher (but not completely stupidly high) levels of refined sugar through regular brushing and flouridation.
But your nonsense about rinsing and the "evil" of flouride isn't a factor. The lack of sugar is.
Fook me, Dair is a genius
He's right.
About this, at least.
About sugar and teeth maybe, but not about sugar in general.
I heard a brief extract of a Corbyn interview. He used so many idiotic and meaningless sound bites, here is one:
This rush to war
I say chaps over there in IS, could you hang on a couple of weeks while we debate our position? We don't want to rush the decision to annihilate you.
Of course there is a rush to war. It isn't an option that goes through predetermined steps and has a set timetable. You make a decision, it is what leadership is about, Jeremy.
I think cancelling PMQs and having an extended day entirely on Syria was a neat compromise to JC's request for 2 days discussion on the matter. Like sticking 180 overs into a day-night session of test cricket ^^;
The left of the Labour party waited at least 32 years by my reckoning to get back in charge. Doubt they'll give it back any time soon.
No, the earliest opportunity for wrenching it out of their hands will be after a catastrophic defeat in 2020, but that is being very optimistic from the moderates' point of view. More likely after 2025, and maybe not even then.
Louise Haigh MP @LouHaigh 1h National Security Adviser confirms "it's the figure from the joint intelligence committee" "no suggestion it was confidential briefing"
Felicitous post-meridian work period, fellow citizen-comrades of Jezikistan.
Behold the unassailable power of the Chairman, as the vile lies spread by capitalist media barons about the Politburo are proven false! The entire Politburo stands staunchly behind the Chairman's firm position of total uncertainty.
Never has the Party been more united. As our loyal friends in Stop The War march to congratulate the Inner Party members and the leading thespian Comrade Rylance gives the Chairman his support, watch as the Conservative pigdogs tremble in fear, and rightly so.
I heard a brief extract of a Corbyn interview. He used so many idiotic and meaningless sound bites, here is one:
This rush to war
I say chaps over there in IS, could you hang on a couple of weeks while we debate our position? We don't want to rush the decision to annihilate you.
Of course there is a rush to war. It isn't an option that goes through predetermined steps and has a set timetable. You make a decision, it is what leadership is about, Jeremy.
Its not like this decision has any practical impact, so what exactly is the hurry?
@PickardJE · 2m2 minutes ago Sounds like Labour MPs buckling under pressure: leader's office briefing 100 Syria rebels - others suggest it may be down to 30 or 40 now.
Is the meeting to which Ms Haigh refers not confidential ? Must say I'm somewhat surprised she assumes it not to be so, if I was in a meeting with the Foreign Sec and a top spook I'd assume it was confidential, unless told otherwise.
@PickardJE · 2m2 minutes ago Sounds like Labour MPs buckling under pressure: leader's office briefing 100 Syria rebels - others suggest it may be down to 30 or 40 now.
Not exactly surprising. We know the PLP are basically spineless, and hence why Corbyn isn't going anywhere. They will brief friendly journos until the cows come home, but when the big moment comes, they won't do anything.
@PickardJE · 2m2 minutes ago Sounds like Labour MPs buckling under pressure: leader's office briefing 100 Syria rebels - others suggest it may be down to 30 or 40 now.
The Oldham optics could yet be focussing minds - seeing as UKIP are (I think) against bombing.
@PickardJE · 2m2 minutes ago Sounds like Labour MPs buckling under pressure: leader's office briefing 100 Syria rebels - others suggest it may be down to 30 or 40 now.
Felicitous post-meridian work period, fellow citizen-comrades of Jezikistan.
Behold the unassailable power of the Chairman, as the vile lies spread by capitalist media barons about the Politburo are proven false! The entire Politburo stands staunchly behind the Chairman's firm position of total uncertainty.
Never has the Party been more united. As our loyal friends in Stop The War march to congratulate the Inner Party members and the leading thespian Comrade Rylance gives the Chairman his support, watch as the Conservative pigdogs tremble in fear, and rightly so.
@PickardJE · 2m2 minutes ago Sounds like Labour MPs buckling under pressure: leader's office briefing 100 Syria rebels - others suggest it may be down to 30 or 40 now.
Not exactly surprising. We know the PLP are basically spineless, and hence why Corbyn isn't going anywhere. They will brief friendly journos until the cows come home, but when the big moment comes, they won't do anything.
''More likely after 2025, and maybe not even then.''
I don't see the moderates ever winning again. The great mass movement of working people that used to be labour no longer exists.
This depends what you mean by "moderates". There's never going to be a swivel-eyed ultra-Blairite winning the leadership again, true.
But the Soft Left is still near-unbeatable in Labour leadership elections IF they offer a good candidate; most members want to win elections while still having just about enough non-negotiable principles to make it worthwhile. The problem was there was perceived to be no Soft Left candidate in this year's leadership election (Burnham could've been it but destroyed it by following Liz Kendall down the Blairite rabbit-hole in the first couple of weeks of the contest, and even though he tried to swerve back later people had stopped trusting him).
''The Oldham optics could yet be focussing minds - seeing as UKIP are (I think) against bombing.'' It also shows that all this stuff about the McMahon candidate being on the right of the party, much needed counterweight and voice of sense is utter b8llocks. Another spineless aparatchik.
''More likely after 2025, and maybe not even then.''
I don't see the moderates ever winning again. The great mass movement of working people that used to be labour no longer exists.
This depends what you mean by "moderates". There's never going to be a swivel-eyed ultra-Blairite winning the leadership again, true.
But the Soft Left is still near-unbeatable in Labour leadership elections IF they offer a good candidate; most members want to win elections while still having just about enough principles to make it worthwhile. The problem was there was perceived to be no Soft Left candidate in this year's leadership election (Burnham could've been it but destroyed it by following Liz Kendall down the Blairite rabbit-hole in the first couple of weeks of the contest, and even though he tried to swerve back later people had stopped trusting him).
Comments
But surely the reality is that his leadership is weak because he's so inept. If he looked like the potential election-winner his fans think he is he'd have few problems.
The sensible wing of the Party has to take a stand and drive Corbyn out - and quickly.
They need to deal with that bloodbath and move on.
And yes, the membership should be ignored - to a large extent. There aren't enough Labour members to deliver a Labour victory - you have to build a coalition of support. Corbyn should be trying to achieve that - but he isn't. He is pushing further and further to the left - a place which has never delivered electoral success.
The time to act is now. Corbyn has to go and go before the end of the year. There are mechanisms that can be exploited to make this happen.
I can't think why this didn't meet with editorial approval.
I forgot to put in my winner. But from my prediction it is clear who I expect to win.
You would have discovered this if you'd gone to Wikipedia and elsewhere rather than a conspiracy site. But that was probably too much 'research' for you.
Which is the problem you face when getting 'facts' through conspiracy websites. Especially with your much-vaunted 'rules' regarding sources, which have been shown to be so much self-aggrandising bunkum. No, you spam this website with ridiculous sh*t. Truth does not matter to you, only that you get to promote your perverted view. Which strangely almost always matches Russia's best interests.
Everything you say on here is untrustworthy and should be taken with a few kilos of salt.
Will the collective view of PBers be Royton Thursday?
Your attitude is rather sad - you of all people I would have thought would be interested in a diet that historically made the Scottish population so healthy. Haggis (nutrient rich organ meats - a common theme), soaked oats (as I described), turnips - all very much part of the Weston A Price school of thought. Far healthier than England's contemporary diet of wheat (albeit that all bread was soaked in those days).
As opposed to now when despite (or perhaps because) of Scotland's public health efforts, it has a sick population getting sicker.
Yes, reduction in sugar is key, but I think the cultured dairy was as important.
As for 'nonsense about rinsing' - this is the first time I've heard this non-rinsing bollocks, and I'm frankly amazed anyone is actually stupid enough to believe or do it.
He and his supporters are under no obligation to make their own life more difficult. They can treat the MPs as delinquents and have them replaced in due by deselection in accordance with party rules.
It all depends whether you see the Labour party as belonging to the MPs or the membership. It's not obvious to me that the MPs have the right to launch a coup when the membership apparently remains firmly behind the leader. They should get out, shut up or argue their corner. Right now they're doing none of those things effectively.
Ultimately a split seems very likely from here; the key is to try to be the part that stays as the Labour Party. At least for now - there might come a point where the brand is so trashed a new party is a better bet for the moderates.
It sounded extremely patronising to me the way alot of them talked about "bringing Jeremy into the debate", without expecting anyone to vote for him !
That is where their focus should be - not on the 250k who voted for Corbyn over the summer.
Labour is there to represent the wishes of the electorate not their membership.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/world/2015/12/01/Iran-s-bad-gamble-over-Syria.html
On the next Labour leader market,Dan Jarvis has,as reported on PB,said he is ready to throw his hat into the ring and is still favourite.He has set out his 5 tests on assessing Cameron's proposals and has indicated he is considering it all.This is a big call for him and may define his chances.Until he announces his decision,which may or not sway others,I have not parted with any of my money.
Johnson’s relationship with Clarke is also not as straightforward as many are making out. Even after his confrontations with Clarke and associate Andre Walker, which Johnson surreptitiously recorded, he appeared to be on good, albeit strained, terms with them. He talked daily with Walker about how best to retract his complaint. And even his parents noted how Johnson seemed optimistic about a new potential journalism job Walker was said to be lining up for him.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/elliott-johnson-tory-bullying/17686#.Vl2yFnbhC71
http://show.nojam.com/a2t7/summary.php
Search
Summary
They are on to a loser short term if they try to defenestrate Corbyn. They have to make up their minds to defect/start a new party or keep quiet (in public) for a couple of years until the party members have concluded it's time to let Corbyn go. It's not an easy decision, but they should be talking to each other to form a consensus.
I think that the only thing they can do is what Hilary Benn and Lord Falconer are doing: try to hang on whilst resisting the worst lunacies. I expect, however, that that effort, though in some ways admirable, is doomed to failure anyway. Still, it's the best that can be done.
Meanwhile, others such as Chukka, Dan Jarvis, and Keir Starmer need to lie low and try to remain as untainted as possible, whilst waiting for an opportunity to start rebuilding from the ashes. It looks like being a long wait, however,
For what it's worth, I think that "get out" is the only real option. Staying put and shutting up is obviously a non-starter and trying to persuade the membership is futile. Getting out is a desperate course but has at least some chance of success.
"This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at ordinary working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old."
Why the reference to "working-class Londoners"? Would the attack have been justified if it had been aimed at "middle class" or "upper class" Londoners? Even here Ken could not help himself and had to make a class issue out of such an atrocity.
BTW we have another Labour MP - sometimes cited as a possible future leader, Clive Lewis, who came out after the PLP meeting threatening those who voted for bombing with being held responsible for any subsequent terrorist attacks. Another MP who simply cannot or won't bring himself to attach blame to those who carry out terrorist atrocities; another MP lacking in a moral compass. Listen to him on this morning's Today programme.
For info on insulin resistance, see http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/Diabetes/insulin-resistance-prediabetes/Pages/index.aspx#resistance
About this, at least.
They've been very nicely upgraded.
I hope they have WiFi
85% of the UKIP vote will turn out
50% of conservatives
50% of libdem
This rush to war
I say chaps over there in IS, could you hang on a couple of weeks while we debate our position? We don't want to rush the decision to annihilate you.
Of course there is a rush to war. It isn't an option that goes through predetermined steps and has a set timetable. You make a decision, it is what leadership is about, Jeremy.
Is this the writing on the wall?
https://twitter.com/SDoughtyMP/status/671705001220116480
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_374
Day 1: Safer presents thanks to European Commission Rapid alert system
*steps away from PB for an hour*
http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/press/frontpage/2015/125_en.htm
National Security Adviser confirms
"it's the figure from the joint intelligence committee"
"no suggestion it was confidential briefing"
Errm
Behold the unassailable power of the Chairman, as the vile lies spread by capitalist media barons about the Politburo are proven false! The entire Politburo stands staunchly behind the Chairman's firm position of total uncertainty.
Never has the Party been more united. As our loyal friends in Stop The War march to congratulate the Inner Party members and the leading thespian Comrade Rylance gives the Chairman his support, watch as the Conservative pigdogs tremble in fear, and rightly so.
I don't see the moderates ever winning again. The great mass movement of working people that used to be labour no longer exists.
Sounds like Labour MPs buckling under pressure: leader's office briefing 100 Syria rebels - others suggest it may be down to 30 or 40 now.
Must say I'm somewhat surprised she assumes it not to be so, if I was in a meeting with the Foreign Sec and a top spook I'd assume it was confidential, unless told otherwise.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
About Syria, or Corbyn?
https://twitter.com/AllenWest/status/671708898814992385
But the Soft Left is still near-unbeatable in Labour leadership elections IF they offer a good candidate; most members want to win elections while still having just about enough non-negotiable principles to make it worthwhile. The problem was there was perceived to be no Soft Left candidate in this year's leadership election (Burnham could've been it but destroyed it by following Liz Kendall down the Blairite rabbit-hole in the first couple of weeks of the contest, and even though he tried to swerve back later people had stopped trusting him).
It also shows that all this stuff about the McMahon candidate being on the right of the party, much needed counterweight and voice of sense is utter b8llocks. Another spineless aparatchik.
I'm generous like that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12026844/The-Labour-Party-is-asleep-to-the-damage-Ukips-doing-it.html
What happens next will shock you.