This is the problem the doctors have, they'll be linked with Momentum and their arguments, valid or not, will be completely lost.
Another example of idiot socialists, any sympathy for the JDs will disappear
98% of the junior docs voted for the strike, on a 76% turnout. They are not all Trots, indeed I know a few Con and UKIP voting juniors who will be striking. On Tuesday there will be emergency cover, it will be elective work that is cancelled so heart attacks and car crashes will be fine. Go right ahead.
Of course the picket lines will attract hangers on, they always do, but the BMA JDA stewards have had plenty of briefings. Of course they will not stop visitors or other staff crossing. The strike ballot does not cover me for example. The vote on the new Consultant contract is not for another month, the BMA has been confirming details for that ballot for a few weeks now.
Neither side is in a mood to compromise, but I suspect that when the first strike goes ahead there will be a lower threshold for further actions. They will no longer be virgins. I suspect that we will have intermittent strikes for months.
Get out of your bubble Mr Fox, ignore party allegiance, if doctors strike sympathy will disappear. It won't in your circle at work but pop into a pub and do a survey.
I think you will be surprised. And I do frequent pubs, as do many junior docs.
It shouldn't have got this far. Hunt has badly bodged the contract. This is an industrial action not a political one. Jrs would happily continue the existing contract, pay and conditions. The decision of Hunt to impose the new contract in August is what provoked the strike.
If it's an industrial action rather than a political one, why do all the doctors talking about it start with mentioning the SoS by name?
Because he is SoS and leading the employers negotiations?
This is the problem the doctors have, they'll be linked with Momentum and their arguments, valid or not, will be completely lost.
Another example of idiot socialists, any sympathy for the JDs will disappear
98% of the junior docs voted for the strike, on a 76% turnout. They are not all Trots, indeed I know a few Con and UKIP voting juniors who will be striking. On Tuesday there will be emergency cover, it will be elective work that is cancelled so heart attacks and car crashes will be fine. Go right ahead.
Of course the picket lines will attract hangers on, they always do, but the BMA JDA stewards have had plenty of briefings. Of course they will not stop visitors or other staff crossing. The strike ballot does not cover me for example. The vote on the new Consultant contract is not for another month, the BMA has been confirming details for that ballot for a few weeks now.
Neither side is in a mood to compromise, but I suspect that when the first strike goes ahead there will be a lower threshold for further actions. They will no longer be virgins. I suspect that we will have intermittent strikes for months.
Get out of your bubble Mr Fox, ignore party allegiance, if doctors strike sympathy will disappear. It won't in your circle at work but pop into a pub and do a survey.
I think you will be surprised. And I do frequent pubs, as do many junior docs.
It shouldn't have got this far. Hunt has badly bodged the contract. This is an industrial action not a political one. Jrs would happily continue the existing contract, pay and conditions. The decision of Hunt to impose the new contract in August is what provoked the strike.
If it's an industrial action rather than a political one, why do all the doctors talking about it start with mentioning the SoS by name?
This is the problem the doctors have, they'll be linked with Momentum and their arguments, valid or not, will be completely lost.
Another example of idiot socialists, any sympathy for the JDs will disappear
98% of the junior docs voted for the strike, on a 76% turnout. They are not all Trots, indeed I know a few Con and UKIP voting juniors who will be striking. On Tuesday there will be emergency cover, it will be elective work that is cancelled so heart attacks and car crashes will be fine. Go right ahead.
Of course the picket lines will attract hangers on, they always do, but the BMA JDA stewards have had plenty of briefings. Of course they will not stop visitors or other staff crossing. The strike ballot does not cover me for example. The vote on the new Consultant contract is not for another month, the BMA has been confirming details for that ballot for a few weeks now.
Neither side is in a mood to compromise, but I suspect that when the first strike goes ahead there will be a lower threshold for further actions. They will no longer be virgins. I suspect that we will have intermittent strikes for months.
Get out of your bubble Mr Fox, ignore party allegiance, if doctors strike sympathy will disappear. It won't in your circle at work but pop into a pub and do a survey.
I think you will be surprised. And I do frequent pubs, as do many junior docs.
It shouldn't have got this far. Hunt has badly bodged the contract. This is an industrial action not a political one. Jrs would happily continue the existing contract, pay and conditions. The decision of Hunt to impose the new contract in August is what provoked the strike.
If it's an industrial action rather than a political one, why do all the doctors talking about it start with mentioning the SoS by name?
Or why is Dr Chand on the BMA's council. The Dr Chand who seems to support Eoin Clarke's "Labour Left", and tweets comments comparing Conservative policies to Nazi propaganda.
Mr. Abroad, must disagree. Court martials = verb. Courts martial = plural noun.
It's like 'fewer' and 'less'. As well as people being lazy and wrong (it annoys me in Dragon Age: Inquisition when Blackwall kills someone and says "One less to worry about" ), it can also affect meaning, such as fewer qualified people versus less qualified people.
This is the problem the doctors have, they'll be linked with Momentum and their arguments, valid or not, will be completely lost.
Another example of idiot socialists, any sympathy for the JDs will disappear
98% of the junior docs voted for the strike, on a 76% turnout. They are not all Trots, indeed I know a few Con and UKIP voting juniors who will be striking. On Tuesday there will be emergency cover, it will be elective work that is cancelled so heart attacks and car crashes will be fine. Go right ahead.
Of course the picket lines will attract hangers on, they always do, but the BMA JDA stewards have had plenty of briefings. Of course they will not stop visitors or other staff crossing. The strike ballot does not cover me for example. The vote on the new Consultant contract is not for another month, the BMA has been confirming details for that ballot for a few weeks now.
Neither side is in a mood to compromise, but I suspect that when the first strike goes ahead there will be a lower threshold for further actions. They will no longer be virgins. I suspect that we will have intermittent strikes for months.
Get out of your bubble Mr Fox, ignore party allegiance, if doctors strike sympathy will disappear. It won't in your circle at work but pop into a pub and do a survey.
I think you will be surprised. And I do frequent pubs, as do many junior docs.
It shouldn't have got this far. Hunt has badly bodged the contract. This is an industrial action not a political one. Jrs would happily continue the existing contract, pay and conditions. The decision of Hunt to impose the new contract in August is what provoked the strike.
If it's an industrial action rather than a political one, why do all the doctors talking about it start with mentioning the SoS by name?
Exactly. They rarely begin by mentioning anything to do with patients, it's always Hunt, as the representative of the Tories. The political game is their for all to see.
Still, Momentum's involvement plays into the Governments hands. Doctors are fools to let them get involved.
The decision by Momentum activists to join the picket lines is a potential PR nightmare. Do they count as secondary and illegal or just friends showing support?
Either way, if I were the BMA, I'd want nothing to do with them. It makes it a political dispute.
Re the JD Strike...will the Union reinforced picket lines stop visitors and all non docs..
Momentum, ie Corbyn's mates, have instructed activists to picket hospitals on Tuesday. Might not be a good idea to have a heart attack or car crash next week.
This is the point Mr Fox is in denial about, the doctors have allowed (encouraged?) people with agendas to take over their campaign. The media will be full of rentamob outside hospitals, any remaining public sympathy will vanish.
It's got trouble written all over it. Someone is bound to have a bad outcome, they will be upset by the strike and will end up saying so in the press. They may even vote.
As a dispute or as an opportunity to weaponise the NHS by Labour, it's a giant hole filled with sharp sticks.
ScottP If Momentum become involved then they will drag Labour into the battle..and if there is an unfortunate incident due to the strike then Labour will pick up the blame..Labours enemies will be all over it..This is stupid politics..is no one running Labour at the moment..
I don't think Khan stands any chance of becoming LOTO for two reasons:
1) He would have to resign the mayoralty to do so. Assuming he takes over at a low point, there's a guaranteed early defeat for him. He might possibly be a kingmaker, as Labour's most senior and powerful politician, but not the king. However;
2) I genuinely believe that unless Corbyn dies, he's there until 2020. He's too stubborn to resign, too stupid to understand what's happening anyway, and in any case the Labour membership alone voted him in by a thumping margin (49%) so whether the new members stay or go is irrelevant to that question.
The only reason there is no possibility of Labour breaking the record for losing most seats at an election in 2020 is that they don't have 246 seats to start with (the number of seats the Unionists lost in 1906).
If Zac is mayor then Sadiq could become LOTO.
Interestingly, I recall Corbyn promising to serve the full 5 years in the summer, implying that he would not serve after 2020. Perhaps he meant before rather than after the election. Mind you, he did also suggest annual leadership contests too!
If Sadiq loses to Zac in London that what from that would imply he could beat Zac across the rest of the country?
This is the problem the doctors have, they'll be linked with Momentum and their arguments, valid or not, will be completely lost.
Another example of idiot socialists, any sympathy for the JDs will disappear
98% of the junior docs voted for the strike, on a 76% turnout. They are not all Trots, indeed I know a few Con and UKIP voting juniors who will be striking. On Tuesday there will be emergency cover, it will be elective work that is cancelled so heart attacks and car crashes will be fine. Go right ahead.
Of course the picket lines will attract hangers on, they always do, but the BMA JDA stewards have had plenty of briefings. Of course they will not stop visitors or other staff crossing. The strike ballot does not cover me for example. The vote on the new Consultant contract is not for another month, the BMA has been confirming details for that ballot for a few weeks now.
Neither side is in a mood to compromise, but I suspect that when the first strike goes ahead there will be a lower threshold for further actions. They will no longer be virgins. I suspect that we will have intermittent strikes for months.
Get out of your bubble Mr Fox, ignore party allegiance, if doctors strike sympathy will disappear. It won't in your circle at work but pop into a pub and do a survey.
I think you will be surprised. And I do frequent pubs, as do many junior docs.
It shouldn't have got this far. Hunt has badly bodged the contract. This is an industrial action not a political one. Jrs would happily continue the existing contract, pay and conditions. The decision of Hunt to impose the new contract in August is what provoked the strike.
If it's an industrial action rather than a political one, why do all the doctors talking about it start with mentioning the SoS by name?
Or why is Dr Chand on the BMA's council. The Dr Chand who seems to support Eoin Clarke's "Labour Left", and tweets comments comparing Conservative policies to Nazi propaganda.
Lambs led by Mao.
Chand sits on the BMA Council as a GP rep, as do a score or so others. He has nothing to do with this dispute, other than being an interested observer. He was elected by ballot.
Though both GPs and Consultant contract negotiations are not going well either.
@BBCNormanS: I'm Not aware of any detailed proposal to give NEC greater role in making Labour policy - Lord Falconer @MarrShow
@SamCoatesTimes: No mystery about origin of briefing that Corbyn wants change policy process b4 Trident vote: John McDonnell said it on Wednesday on C4News
This is the problem the doctors have, they'll be linked with Momentum and their arguments, valid or not, will be completely lost.
Another example of idiot socialists, any sympathy for the JDs will disappear
98% of the junior docs voted for the strike, on a 76% turnout. They are not all Trots, indeed I know a few Con and UKIP voting juniors who will be striking. On Tuesday there will be emergency cover, it will be elective work that is cancelled so heart attacks and car crashes will be fine. Go right ahead.
Of course the picket lines will attract hangers on, they always do, but the BMA JDA stewards have had plenty of briefings. Of course they will not stop visitors or other staff crossing. The strike ballot does not cover me for example. The vote on the new Consultant contract is not for another month, the BMA has been confirming details for that ballot for a few weeks now.
Neither side is in a mood to compromise, but I suspect that when the first strike goes ahead there will be a lower threshold for further actions. They will no longer be virgins. I suspect that we will have intermittent strikes for months.
Get out of your bubble Mr Fox, ignore party allegiance, if doctors strike sympathy will disappear. It won't in your circle at work but pop into a pub and do a survey.
I think you will be surprised. And I do frequent pubs, as do many junior docs.
It shouldn't have got this far. Hunt has badly bodged the contract. This is an industrial action not a political one. Jrs would happily continue the existing contract, pay and conditions. The decision of Hunt to impose the new contract in August is what provoked the strike.
If it's an industrial action rather than a political one, why do all the doctors talking about it start with mentioning the SoS by name?
Or why is Dr Chand on the BMA's council. The Dr Chand who seems to support Eoin Clarke's "Labour Left", and tweets comments comparing Conservative policies to Nazi propaganda.
Lambs led by Mao.
What a good point.
Not for the first time genuine people with genuine grievance are being manipulated by an agenda. 30 years ago it was coal miners.
This is the problem the doctors have, they'll be linked with Momentum and their arguments, valid or not, will be completely lost.
Another example of idiot socialists, any sympathy for the JDs will disappear
98% of the junior docs voted for the strike, on a 76% turnout. They are not all Trots, indeed I know a few Con and UKIP voting juniors who will be striking. On Tuesday there will be emergency cover, it will be elective work that is cancelled so heart attacks and car crashes will be fine. Go right ahead.
Of course the picket lines will attract hangers on, they always do, but the BMA JDA stewards have had plenty of briefings. Of course they will not stop visitors or other staff crossing. The strike ballot does not cover me for example. The vote on the new Consultant contract is not for another month, the BMA has been confirming details for that ballot for a few weeks now.
Neither side is in a mood to compromise, but I suspect that when the first strike goes ahead there will be a lower threshold for further actions. They will no longer be virgins. I suspect that we will have intermittent strikes for months.
Get out of your bubble Mr Fox, ignore party allegiance, if doctors strike sympathy will disappear. It won't in your circle at work but pop into a pub and do a survey.
I think you will be surprised. And I do frequent pubs, as do many junior docs.
It shouldn't have got this far. Hunt has badly bodged the contract. This is an industrial action not a political one. Jrs would happily continue the existing contract, pay and conditions. The decision of Hunt to impose the new contract in August is what provoked the strike.
If it's an industrial action rather than a political one, why do all the doctors talking about it start with mentioning the SoS by name?
Or why is Dr Chand on the BMA's council. The Dr Chand who seems to support Eoin Clarke's "Labour Left", and tweets comments comparing Conservative policies to Nazi propaganda.
Lambs led by Mao.
What a good point.
Not for the first time genuine people with genuine grievance are being manipulated by an agenda. 30 years ago it was coal miners.
A big difference is that Scargill refused a ballot. The BMA held one with 98% support (and a further 1.5% infavour of action short of strike) on a 76% turnout. The leaders have to represent their members views on this, they are being pushed by the grass roots, not leading them.
Charles, whilst you're on, you must be aware that the Green Bridge you support is taking a rather Orwellian slant:
"In November 2015, planning documents for the bridge revealed that the public's access to the bridge would be heavily controlled, including tracking visitors' mobile phone signals to guard against overcrowding, an "enhanced" video surveillance system and granting "visitor hosts" limited policing powers under a Community Safety Accreditation Scheme, including the right to issue minor fines. The rules of the bridge would prohibit "any exercise other than jogging, playing a musical instrument, taking part in a 'gathering of any kind', giving a speech or address, scattering ashes, releasing a balloon and flying a kite."[23]"
It's not going to be a 'public space' in any sense of the term.
Different public spaces have different applications.
When I talked through the designs with Heatherwick, the challenge is that there are only (relatively) narrow pathways for people to walk between the plants. If anyone is occupying these in a non-mobile way (except for the benches) then they could quickly become an obstruction for other users (this is the same reason, btw, that riding bikes is not permitted).
I wouldn't expect to be able to exercise (other than jogging), play a music instrument, give a speech or scatter ashes in the middle of the King's Road, for instance, but that is also a public space.
Not sure if that's intended as irony. I could make an argument for and against the miners, I had a beer with a couple of ex miners yesterday, even now they talk of little else.
Interesting move re Cameron and £140m to plan / consultation on renovating or rebuild poor housing estates. Lord Heseltine is leading it, and was behind Docklands/Liverpool IIRC projects.
This is the problem the doctors have, they'll be linked with Momentum and their arguments, valid or not, will be completely lost.
Another example of idiot socialists, any sympathy for the JDs will disappear
98% of the junior docs voted for the strike, on a 76% turnout. They are not all Trots, indeed I know a few Con and UKIP voting juniors who will be striking. On Tuesday there will be emergency cover, it will be elective work that is cancelled so heart attacks and car crashes will be fine. Go right ahead.
Of course the picket lines will attract hangers on, they always do, but the BMA JDA stewards have had plenty of briefings. Of course they will not stop visitors or other staff crossing. The strike ballot does not cover me for example. The vote on the new Consultant contract is not for another month, the BMA has been confirming details for that ballot for a few weeks now.
Neither side is in a mood to compromise, but I suspect that when the first strike goes ahead there will be a lower threshold for further actions. They will no longer be virgins. I suspect that we will have intermittent strikes for months.
Get out of your bubble Mr Fox, ignore party allegiance, if doctors strike sympathy will disappear. It won't in your circle at work but pop into a pub and do a survey.
I think you will be surprised. And I do frequent pubs, as do many junior docs.
It shouldn't have got this far. Hunt has badly bodged the contract. This is an industrial action not a political one. Jrs would happily continue the existing contract, pay and conditions. The decision of Hunt to impose the new contract in August is what provoked the strike.
If it's an industrial action rather than a political one, why do all the doctors talking about it start with mentioning the SoS by name?
Or why is Dr Chand on the BMA's council. The Dr Chand who seems to support Eoin Clarke's "Labour Left", and tweets comments comparing Conservative policies to Nazi propaganda.
Lambs led by Mao.
Chand sits on the BMA Council as a GP rep, as do a score or so others. He has nothing to do with this dispute, other than being an interested observer. He was elected by ballot.
Though both GPs and Consultant contract negotiations are not going well either.
He sits on the council. To say he has noting to do with the dispute seems silly, especially given his twitter.
The decision by Momentum activists to join the picket lines is a potential PR nightmare. Do they count as secondary and illegal or just friends showing support?
Either way, if I were the BMA, I'd want nothing to do with them. It makes it a political dispute.
Re the JD Strike...will the Union reinforced picket lines stop visitors and all non docs..
Momentum, ie Corbyn's mates, have instructed activists to picket hospitals on Tuesday. Might not be a good idea to have a heart attack or car crash next week.
This is the point Mr Fox is in denial about, the doctors have allowed (encouraged?) people with agendas to take over their campaign. The media will be full of rentamob outside hospitals, any remaining public sympathy will vanish.
The doctors' representatives that are being interviewed on TV seem to be looking forward to the strike a little too much. I'm not saying that doctors will quickly become as unpopular as Tube drivers or French air traffic controllers, but there's little sympathy among the general population for well-paid public sector professionals walking out. Especially doctors, they are supposed to be above that sort of behaviour.
This is the problem the doctors have, they'll be linked with Momentum and their arguments, valid or not, will be completely lost.
Another example of idiot socialists, any sympathy for the JDs will disappear
98% of the junior docs voted for the strike, on a 76% turnout. They are not all Trots, indeed I know a few Con and UKIP voting juniors who will be striking. On Tuesday there will be emergency cover, it will be elective work that is cancelled so heart attacks and car crashes will be fine. Go right ahead.
Of course the picket lines will attract hangers on, they always do, but the BMA JDA stewards have had plenty of briefings. Of course they will not stop visitors or other staff crossing. The strike ballot does not cover me for example. The vote on the new Consultant contract is not for another month, the BMA has been confirming details for that ballot for a few weeks now.
Neither side is in a mood to compromise, but I suspect that when the first strike goes ahead there will be a lower threshold for further actions. They will no longer be virgins. I suspect that we will have intermittent strikes for months.
Get out of your bubble Mr Fox, ignore party allegiance, if doctors strike sympathy will disappear. It won't in your circle at work but pop into a pub and do a survey.
I think you will be surprised. And I do frequent pubs, as do many junior docs.
It shouldn't have got this far. Hunt has badly bodged the contract. This is an industrial action not a political one. Jrs would happily continue the existing contract, pay and conditions. The decision of Hunt to impose the new contract in August is what provoked the strike. If it's an industrial action rather than a political one, why do all the doctors talking about it start with mentioning the SoS by name?
Or why is Dr Chand on the BMA's council. The Dr Chand who seems to support Eoin Clarke's "Labour Left", and tweets comments comparing Conservative policies to Nazi propaganda.
Lambs led by Mao.
What a good point.
Not for the first time genuine people with genuine grievance are being manipulated by an agenda. 30 years ago it was coal miners.
A big difference is that Scargill refused a ballot. The BMA held one with 98% support (and a further 1.5% infavour of action short of strike) on a 76% turnout. The leaders have to represent their members views on this, they are being pushed by the grass roots, not leading them.
Unfortunately Mr Fox on this occasion the ballot is neither here nor there, the doctor's cause has been hijacked, any sympathy has gone. It's the naivety that is so frustrating, doctors aren't politicians, they tend to mix with other doctors, they didn't foresee that Momentum and others were desperate to ride the bandwagon.
bb63 I am an ex miner..and I was also very close to the Scargill inner circle during the strike..even his close buddies said he was crackers..and could only lose..the strike was his own agenda .. sod the miners
I have some sympathy with the view one shouldn't be able to be both an MP and Mayor at the same time, or that the salary of the latter reduced if one is to be both given clearly it's responsibilities are not taking up that much time. I do wonder why people bring up Boris being a newspaper columnist in such arguments about double jobbing though - he only writes a column a week doesn't he? I don't wish to suggest that is not a job, and coming up with relevant, decent ideas and most importantly being a good columnist even at one column a week will take some work and no little skill, but I'm pretty sure in busy weeks Boris will have bashed out something in a couple of hours, hardly imposing on his time as Mayor or MP much.
On London being distinct in many ways from the rest of the country, I suspect is is over emphasized. Much like Scotland, where views are actually not as different as people in Scotland and England think they are, on most issues.
Not sure that Khan could pull off being an MP and Mayor at the same time though. I accept it is possible to do both jobs, apparently, and it suits leadership ambitions, but Boris at least had the 'only serving one year as both' argument in his defence.
You mean a trivial distinction that people have always been getting 'wrong' no matter how many times people try to teach them otherwise and so being insistent about it is pointless, as it is used 'incorrectly' all the time as a matter of course?
Mr. Abroad, must disagree. Court martials = verb. Courts martial = plural noun.
It's like 'fewer' and 'less'. As well as people being lazy and wrong (it annoys me in Dragon Age: Inquisition when Blackwall kills someone and says "One less to worry about" ), it can also affect meaning, such as fewer qualified people versus less qualified people.
You make my point for me. It's convention. Blackwall's choice of words annoys you - clearly it doesn't annoy lots of others. What you mean is that what annoys you ought to annoy others. I would call that authoritarianism. Perhaps that offends you - or perhaps it pleases you, how am I to tell?
I agree that where the meaning is affected, we should be precise. But in neither the Thornberry or Blackwall cases is the meaning less than clear.
TSE, thanks for the promised 33-1 tip. I think there is value in it. It requires Khan to win the mayoralty (likely) and not resign his seat (not what probability to assign to that - there's no real objection, Boris is an MP after all, but what would Khan choose to do?)
If he does win and remains an MP then he'll be well in the frame as Corbyn's successor.
bb63 I am an ex miner..and I was also very close to the Scargill inner circle during the strike..even his close buddies said he was crackers..and could only lose..the strike was his own agenda .. sod the miners
Thanks Mr Dodd, I agree entirely. History will repeat itself with the doctors.
Charles, whilst you're on, you must be aware that the Green Bridge you support is taking a rather Orwellian slant:
"In November 2015, planning documents for the bridge revealed that the public's access to the bridge would be heavily controlled, including tracking visitors' mobile phone signals to guard against overcrowding, an "enhanced" video surveillance system and granting "visitor hosts" limited policing powers under a Community Safety Accreditation Scheme, including the right to issue minor fines. The rules of the bridge would prohibit "any exercise other than jogging, playing a musical instrument, taking part in a 'gathering of any kind', giving a speech or address, scattering ashes, releasing a balloon and flying a kite."[23]"
It's not going to be a 'public space' in any sense of the term.
Different public spaces have different applications.
When I talked through the designs with Heatherwick, the challenge is that there are only (relatively) narrow pathways for people to walk between the plants. If anyone is occupying these in a non-mobile way (except for the benches) then they could quickly become an obstruction for other users (this is the same reason, btw, that riding bikes is not permitted).
I wouldn't expect to be able to exercise (other than jogging), play a music instrument, give a speech or scatter ashes in the middle of the King's Road, for instance, but that is also a public space.
In your view, what is the bridge's purpose? What you write above just confirms what I've written: it's got no real purpose. It's not a proper thoroughfare or transport link, and calling it a 'public space' seems odd given the stated and potential exclusions.
The obvious answer you should have given to Heatherwick is: "well make the paths wider."
You must realise that people like to stop in gardens (and not just at benches) to look at the plants?
I appreciate TSE not giving in to the fiction that Cameron allowing his Cabinet members a free vote was a sign of strength. People might argue it is sensible and only right, but it is not a sign of strength that he had no choice but to allow this option, whether he wanted to or not)
There is another scenario that could make this bet pay off. Sadiq Khan could decide to serve just one term and then restand as an MP in 2020. A poor result for Labour in GE 2020 with Khan easily recapturing Tooting which had been lost in the by-election, being the only Labour gain in England would set him up to be the favourite to replace Corbyn after the election.
This is the problem the doctors have, they'll be linked with Momentum and their arguments, valid or not, will be completely lost.
Another example of idiot socialists, any sympathy for the JDs will disappear
98% of the junior docs voted for the strike, on a 76% turnout. They are not all Trots, indeed
Neither side is in a mood to compromise, but I suspect that when the first strike goes ahead there will be a lower threshold for further actions. They will no longer be virgins. I suspect that we will have intermittent strikes for months.
Get out of your bubble Mr Fox, ignore party allegiance, if doctors strike sympathy will disappear. It won't in your circle at work but pop into a pub and do a survey.
I think you will be surprised. And I do frequent pubs, as do many junior docs.
It shouldn't have got this far. Hunt has badly bodged the contract. This is an industrial action not a political one. Jrs would happily continue the existing contract, pay and conditions. The decision of Hunt to impose the new contract in August is what provoked the strike.
If it's an industrial action rather than a political one, why do all the doctors talking about it start with mentioning the SoS by name?
Or why is Dr Chand on the BMA's council. The Dr Chand who seems to support Eoin Clarke's "Labour Left", and tweets comments comparing Conservative policies to Nazi propaganda.
Lambs led by Mao.
Chand sits on the BMA Council as a GP rep, as do a score or so others. He has nothing to do with this dispute, other than being an interested observer. He was elected by ballot.
Though both GPs and Consultant contract negotiations are not going well either.
He sits on the council. To say he has noting to do with the dispute seems silly, especially given his twitter.
The BMA Junior Doctors Committee is the BMA structure behind this strike. BMA council is a seperate body, as is the BMA Consultants Committee, and BMA GP Committee. There are a number of other negotiating committees for other staff groups.
Chand has no more influence on the JDC than BoJo has on the DoH.
just switched on Marr. Charlie Faulkender completely unrecognizable other than by voice. He's aged too fast. The danger of being a chameleon. God knows what Burnham will look like in a few months.
It got me thinking about politics and It occurred to me today that Labour as a Party could well be finished. literally in that it'll split and the half that isn't 'Corbyn's Labour Party' will become the dominant force. A bit like the SDP/Liberals.
I then wondered who when they come to write 'The Strange Death of Labour Britain' will be held most responsible. It came to me in an instant. Ed Milliband. Whoever dreamed up the 'Edstone' might have shown more forsight than most of us thought
Mr. Abroad, must disagree. Court martials = verb. Courts martial = plural noun.
It's like 'fewer' and 'less'. As well as people being lazy and wrong (it annoys me in Dragon Age: Inquisition when Blackwall kills someone and says "One less to worry about" ), it can also affect meaning, such as fewer qualified people versus less qualified people.
You make my point for me. It's convention. Blackwall's choice of words annoys you - clearly it doesn't annoy lots of others. What you mean is that what annoys you ought to annoy others.
The key point for me is that no person, generally, would be confused by what he meant with his choice of words. 'Correcting' it doesn't improve the clarity of what he meant at all, just enforces an arbitrary distinction about what he is 'allowed' to say in respect of categories of words, so even if it is a firm rule (I have doubts about that), it serves little purpose. With apologies to Mr Dancer, other writers and grammar sticklers.
Mr. Abroad, disagree. I'm not saying people can't bugger up English if they want to, just that they shouldn't. It's entirely possible to disapprove of something without wanting to ban it.
Mr. kle4, trivial? Pedantic? Me?
Surely not.
[On a serious note, it's a minor irritant only. With rare exceptions. People who say "I could care less" should be flung from a trebuchet into the sea].
Edited extra bit: and a special place in Hell is reserved for those who use 'pre-prepared'.
- I think the thread puts a good idea. I expect to be supporting Corbyn for as long as he wants to be leader (and I don't agree that "Power is everything"), but if a bus or a general election defeat were to intervene, I can see Khan as a possible leader: he has managed to combine being open to traditionally non-Labour groups with not burning his bridges with the left like some of the rebels. He's also notably serious, which isn't always an advantage (look how far Boris has got by being the opposite), but if it followed a long unsettled period it would be preferable.
- Being an MP is a bottomless pit of work if you're willing to do it - 70-80 hours a week are common - but because they're only scrutinised every 5 years some MPs get away with doing very little and pursuing other interests too. I knew a chair of a Select Committee who had a thriving private business - he had one aide write all his speeches and another do all his casework, and he simply did the media stuff. Irritatingly, he did just as well in elections as the workaholics. And Boris is of course an example of doing both.
- London politics is much, much more POLITICAL. Even the people I know on the hard left and far right in Broxtowe are quite mild-mannered people with hinterlands and diverse interests who just have quite definite views on politics when the subject comes up. You don't see any "never kissed a Tory" buttons, and when I chatted about my communist past it was met with friendly curiosity even by Tories. I offered to come and be grilled one a month by my CLP General Committee - they told me not to bother, it'd mean meeting on Fridays, and members were too busy with non-political stuff. In London, I often meet people who seem to live for politics and who are indignant about different opinions on anything.
- Charles asked me to clarify something on the last thread, but due I think to the vagaries of the "reply" function it isn't clear what. Please resend :-).
Mr. Abroad, disagree. I'm not saying people can't bugger up English if they want to, just that they shouldn't. It's entirely possible to disapprove of something without wanting to ban it.
Mr. kle4, trivial? Pedantic? Me?
Surely not.
[On a serious note, it's a minor irritant only. With rare exceptions. People who say "I could care less" should be flung from a trebuchet into the sea].
Fair and balanced. I probably would be mad at that one, but then I accept my own preferences on various uses of language are entirely consistent.
Editors have replied that they were following the official account of the Cologne police that the night had been “peaceful”. But it has also emerged that even after the story hit the national media, guests on public service television were asked not to mention asylum-seekers in interviews about the Cologne assaults.
The London Party wasn't a cheap jibe. What proportion of Labour's membership comes from London? More, to what extent do the philosophies of people like Miliband, Corbyn and Khan split the country between London and The Rest? It's true, as you say, that there have been a few Tory leaders from London, and many more senior figures from it, but that was more their representation rather than their intellectual background (Thatcher's political resonance remained in Grantham rather than the metropolis); Miliband, by contrast, while he was elected in Doncaster, in reality represented the views of Islington.
I don't wholly agree. Perhaps because I'm a Londoner myself, I don't appreciate or recognise this emerging cultural divide between "London" and "England". I think Margaret Thatcher represented suburban England in all its forms - for Grantham, read Beckenham or Bexley. The values resonated most strongly in those communities and were also the values of the wartime generation - my mother was of a similar age to Thatcher.
Naturally, there's a generational and cultural divergence between those views and the children of the 60s and 70s. I'm not sure what the perjorative term "Islington" means in this context - I suppose it's a reference to a mindset that comes from a wholly different upbringing to that of the Thatcher generation, an upbringing devoid of privation or threat based on a different view of the world and Britain's place in that world, more internationalist and egalitarian undoubtedly.
As I'm part of that generation, it's a view I understand but I'm not blind to its faults.
Politically, I now think there's a huge divide in England and Wales, between London and Core Cities on the one hand, and smaller cities/large towns on the other. I accept that Bexley, Bromley, and Havering would identify with the latter.
Regarding the Labour leadership I wonder if we are overegging the point that the members will just re-elect Corbyn if he's on the ballot. They might not. We need to imagine the circumstances in which the contest would take place. A huge line-up of MPs, day after day, saying, with regret, that Jeremy wasn't up to it; increasingly shrill briefings from Milne; rehashing of arguments with sacked ministers; Corbyn saying he will "never never never" give it up. Reimposing Corbyn in those circumstances is a pretty nuclear option for the membership. I wonder if 50.001% would really do it.
Mr. Roger, not sure it'll split. That'd be courageous.
For Labour to fail it needs either a split or Lib Dems/UKIP to overtake them. The yellows are probably too far back, and whilst UKIP have a pretty good vote share base to build upon, they have a track record of under-achieving and stupid strategic decisions in General Elections.
If the purples had focused on 4-12 seats, they would have multiple MPs and be on an upward curve.
- I think the thread puts a good idea. I expect to be supporting Corbyn for as long as he wants to be leader (and I don't agree that "Power is everything"), but if a bus or a general election defeat were to intervene, I can see Khan as a possible leader: he has managed to combine being open to traditionally non-Labour groups with not burning his bridges with the left like some of the rebels. He's also notably serious, which isn't always an advantage (look how far Boris has got by being the opposite), but if it followed a long unsettled period it would be preferable.
- Being an MP is a bottomless pit of work if you're willing to do it - 70-80 hours a week are common - but because they're only scrutinised every 5 years some MPs get away with doing very little and pursuing other interests too. I knew a chair of a Select Committee who had a thriving private business - he had one aide write all his speeches and another do all his casework, and he simply did the media stuff. Irritatingly, he did just as well in elections as the workaholics. And Boris is of course an example of doing both.
- London politics is much, much more POLITICAL. Even the people I know on the hard left and far right in Broxtowe are quite mild-mannered people with hinterlands and diverse interests who just have quite definite views on politics when the subject comes up. You don't see any "never kissed a Tory" buttons, and when I chatted about my communist past it was met with friendly curiosity even by Tories. I offered to come and be grilled one a month by my CLP General Committee - they told me not to bother, it'd mean meeting on Fridays, and members were too busy with non-political stuff. In London, I often meet people who seem to live for politics and who are indignant about different opinions on anything.
- Charles asked me to clarify something on the last thread, but due I think to the vagaries of the "reply" function it isn't clear what. Please resend :-).
What an excellent post Nick, your point about people living for politics and being indignant of other views ought to resonate with some on here.
Mr. Roger, not sure it'll split. That'd be courageous.
For Labour to fail it needs either a split or Lib Dems/UKIP to overtake them. The yellows are probably too far back, and whilst UKIP have a pretty good vote share base to build upon, they have a track record of under-achieving and stupid strategic decisions in General Elections.
If the purples had focused on 4-12 seats, they would have multiple MPs and be on an upward curve.
Briskin and Co live at 10ish (was gonna email this as a potential thread-header - What d'yall think???)
Just how well will the SNP do in May? (aka One Party State?)
When the SNP won the fist overall majority in the Scottish Parliament history it not escape the minds of politically aware Scots that the parliament had been specifically designed so that coalition governments would be the Norm (It is Semi-PR, so despite it's uniquness, somewhat in line with European democracies).
At the time Yessers were no doubt worried that their democratic mandate for an independence vote could have been blocked by a stubborn UK parliament. They needn't have worried - Cameron's democratic principles shown through and I'm not aware of any major quibbles with the Edinburgh Agreement (other than from me who finds 16 y/olds voting a bit silly)
It's now time for the next Scottish elections. The only question is - How much of a majority will the SNP have this time?? (most seats currently trading at 1.01)
Mr. Roger, not sure it'll split. That'd be courageous.
For Labour to fail it needs either a split or Lib Dems/UKIP to overtake them. The yellows are probably too far back, and whilst UKIP have a pretty good vote share base to build upon, they have a track record of under-achieving and stupid strategic decisions in General Elections.
If the purples had focused on 4-12 seats, they would have multiple MPs and be on an upward curve.
Well - yes. But think of Hereford, where the Liberal Democrats cam from nowhere to win in 1997. That was because the government was seen as out of touch with rural views. Or Northavon, which shouldn't even have been in play and where Labour and the Liberal Democrats had finished quite close together in 1992. They didn't want a London party representing them (Lab or Con)and went for one they thought was rooted in the local area and local issues.
No, Hereford was certainly not a "come from nowhere" gain from the LDs in 1997. The old Liberal Party had been very close in 1983 and 1987 so this was always a likely gain.
Northavon was a less likely target but the LDs had always been clearly in second and got a healthy swing off the Conservatives in 1997 despite a rising labour vote.
A seat like Folkestone & Hythe is an example of my point - had the LDs (in second) got the swing from the Conservatives rather than the third placed Labour candidate, Michael Howard would have lost the seat. That may have been as much to do with the local politics on Shepway Council.
Look at Hertford & Stortford as another example - Labour needed a 16% swing to take it and captured other seats on swings of that scale. The fall in the Conservative share was a typical 13.4% but that was, if you like, spread round Labour, the LDs and other parties so the swing to Labour was more like 10% and the seat was retained. In neighbouring Hertsmere, on the other hand, Labour needed a 16.5% swing and got a 13% swing, taking votes off the LDs as well but the hill was too steep though the majority was cut from 18,000 to 3,000.
Mr. Roger, not sure it'll split. That'd be courageous.
For Labour to fail it needs either a split or Lib Dems/UKIP to overtake them. The yellows are probably too far back, and whilst UKIP have a pretty good vote share base to build upon, they have a track record of under-achieving and stupid strategic decisions in General Elections.
If the purples had focused on 4-12 seats, they would have multiple MPs and be on an upward curve.
Regarding the doctors, there is no way the public will side with politicians (one of the least trusted groups in the country) vs doctors (one of the most trusted). It's dreaming to think otherwise.
Momentum picketing hospitals is a wild-card element though and a seriously bad idea.
Not sure if that's intended as irony. I could make an argument for and against the miners, I had a beer with a couple of ex miners yesterday, even now they talk of little else.
Well they should have stuck to mining rather than trying to hold the country to ransom and bringing down democratically elected governments ( labour & Tory). Their own fault really.
let's always keep in mind that Wilson closed down twice as many mines in half the time as the Tories did. ( recorded fact) . Of course Labor close twice as many mines = good ! Tories close half as many mines = bad. . Just sick of this bollox that Thatcher destroyed the coal industry .That's precisely what made this political and continues to do so to this day. They did have some bloody good colliery brass bands though
This of course is Next to that other meme Thatcher destroyed manufacturing. More was lost before and after by Labour than during her terms. Again Labour manufacturing more loses = good Tory less loses = bad. Better if we had no loss but that's not normally within total control. . Worth noting Miners also went on strike in WW2. Actually so did American miners.
The Junior Doctors lost me irrevocably when one of their reps appeared on TV demanding that in his early 30s his potential salary of £52k, combined with his partner - also a Junior Doc - who could also earn similarly, did not have enough to live and bring up one toddler in London. They don't know that they are born, or that they don't have a natural right to live in Zone 1 or 2.
In my view they are now just another monopoly producer lobby wanting a bigger slice of the cake. The best comparison imo would be Tube Drivers. Essential service = strong position, in theory.
That they have got themselves tangled up with anti-austerity / Peoples' Assembly / Socialist Worker types is quite a large shot in their own foot.
That the members of the BMA are electing fruitcakes who can't tell the difference between Goebbels and the UK in in the 21C to their national committees, suggests that there are deeper problems.
PS I am on Sadiq Khan at 1000:1 to be next PM in my Mad As A Hatter portfolio. For £2. Still don't see it happening !
Regarding the Labour leadership I wonder if we are overegging the point that the members will just re-elect Corbyn if he's on the ballot. They might not. We need to imagine the circumstances in which the contest would take place. A huge line-up of MPs, day after day, saying, with regret, that Jeremy wasn't up to it; increasingly shrill briefings from Milne; rehashing of arguments with sacked ministers; Corbyn saying he will "never never never" give it up. Reimposing Corbyn in those circumstances is a pretty nuclear option for the membership. I wonder if 50.001% would really do it.
Of course they would re-elect him, the Labour membership now is made up largely of Trotskyite entryists. There was a reason Tory MPs refused to allow Tory members a say when they toppled IDS, because of the real reason they would re-elect him. If Labour members are consulted there is no point challenging Corbyn at all. Indeed once IDS was deposed several Tory members defected to UKIP making it easier to pick Cameron in 2005
Not sure if that's intended as irony. I could make an argument for and against the miners, I had a beer with a couple of ex miners yesterday, even now they talk of little else.
Well they should have stuck to mining rather than trying to hold the country to ransom and bringing down democratically elected governments ( labour & Tory). Their own fault really.
let's always keep in mind that Wilson closed down twice as many mines in half the time as the Tories did. ( recorded fact) . Of course Labor close twice as many mines = good ! Tories close half as many mines = bad. . Just sick of this bollox that Thatcher destroyed the coal industry .That's precisely what made this political and continues to do so to this day. They did have some bloody good colliery brass bands though
This of course is Next to that other meme Thatcher destroyed manufacturing. More was lost before and after by Labour than during her terms. Again Labour manufacturing more loses = good Tory less loses = bad. Better if we had no loss but that's not normally within total control. . Worth noting Miners also went on strike in WW2. Actually so did American miners.
Cameron on Marr said he is hopeful of a renegotiation but if it is an Out vote he will have to work with that. Jeremy Corbyn and Leonardo Di Caprio on next week.
Mr. Abroad, disagree. I'm not saying people can't bugger up English if they want to, just that they shouldn't. It's entirely possible to disapprove of something without wanting to ban it.
Mr. kle4, trivial? Pedantic? Me?
Surely not.
[On a serious note, it's a minor irritant only. With rare exceptions. People who say "I could care less" should be flung from a trebuchet into the sea].
Fair and balanced. I probably would be mad at that one, but then I accept my own preferences on various uses of language are entirely consistent.
I think (but am open to correction) that "I could care less" is acceptable as verbal US English - it certainly isn't English English yet - perhaps we have a grammarian here who can estimate the speed at which Americanisms enter conversational English English
Of course they would re-elect him, the Labour membership now is made up largely of Trotskyite entryists.
Many of them deny this though and say they just voted for Corbyn because he was "refreshing" (or whatever). They may be telling the truth. Also, I'm not sure there are several hundred thousand Trotskyists in the UK.
I knew a chair of a Select Committee who had a thriving private business - he had one aide write all his speeches and another do all his casework, and he simply did the media stuff.
Cameron on Marr said he is hopeful of a renegotiation but if it is an Out vote he will have to work with that. Jeremy Corbyn and Leonardo Di Caprio on next week.
I've never understood why Cameron should be expected to resign if Leave wins. If Leave wins, then it means a very clear majority of Conservative voters will have voted that way.
PS I am on Sadiq Khan at 1000:1 to be next PM in my Mad As A Hatter portfolio. For £2. Still don't see it happening !
I don't understand who lays at 1000/1 on this sort of market or why.
Even assuming you win then that'd be (if I understand it correctly) a 0.1% return on investment after years of waiting. Before Betfair (or whichever other market) takes their commission and without taking into account the possibility and consequences of actually losing 1000/1 shots.
Surely there are better ways to get more than 0.1% return after a few years?
Mr. Abroad, disagree. I'm not saying people can't bugger up English if they want to, just that they shouldn't. It's entirely possible to disapprove of something without wanting to ban it.
Mr. kle4, trivial? Pedantic? Me?
Surely not.
[On a serious note, it's a minor irritant only. With rare exceptions. People who say "I could care less" should be flung from a trebuchet into the sea].
Fair and balanced. I probably would be mad at that one, but then I accept my own preferences on various uses of language are entirely consistent.
Mr. Stodge, never been to London, but I do think the divide seems (often, not always) overplayed.
Mrs Stodge and I went to Longleat in late November to look at the Christmas Lights and we stayed in a lovely pub in a small village about five miles from Warminster. We went into the pub dining room on the Friday evening for dinner. Delightful dinner but we came to notice there was not a single non-white face and everyone was speaking English. Now, we live in East Ham and that was a noticeable difference.
On the other hand, if I want to walk on a crowded pavement and be pestered by people trying to sell me everything from sex to life insurance while surrounded by people of all creeds and colours, there's very little difference between East Ham High Street and the Las Vegas Strip.
Just another brief holiday anecdote - we went to Palm Springs for New Year. More Canadians (some 450,000) visit the Coachella Valley in December and January than Americans. Palm Springs International Airport is replete with flights from Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and the like (please can someone organise a direct flight from London ??!!).
When I went up to Durness in the northwest of Scotland to fracture my elbow (*) in July, I was surprised to find a very large number of foreigners up there - especially French, Dutch and Germans, including working in the pub and accommodations.
It's a spectacularly lovely place, but so far from anywhere I'm quite surprised foreigners want to work up there, even for a season. As I found, the nearest A&E was a three-hour drive away ...
(*) That wasn't the reason I went up there, but it was the effect.
Did you visit Cocao Mountain shop? We went to Durness last February (far less traffic than in summer on a fery narrow road) and got some very good chocolate there.
Also don't forget boundary changes will likely be introduced by the Tories before the 2020 election cutting the number of seats to 600 and the number of seats they need for a majority to 300, with most of the seats lost Labour inner city ones it also makes it easier for the Tories to do a deal with the Unionists and maybe UKIP to retain a majority and harder for a Rainbow Coalition to get a majority
Mr. Abroad, some Americans are just as disgusted at the idiotic phrase "I could care less" as Britons and others are. It features in Weird Al's Word Crimes song.
It just makes the speaker sound like they're a moron failing in a bid to be sarcastic.
Mr. Divvie, if Brown had been forced to resign for saying 'pre-prepared' one suspects the country would be in better shape.
The Junior Doctors lost me irrevocably when one of their reps appeared on TV demanding that in his early 30s his potential salary of £52k, combined with his partner - also a Junior Doc - who could also earn similarly, did not have enough to live and bring up one toddler in London. They don't know that they are born, or that they don't have a natural right to live in Zone 1 or 2.
In my view they are now just another monopoly producer lobby wanting a bigger slice of the cake. The best comparison imo would be Tube Drivers. Essential service = strong position, in theory.
That they have got themselves tangled up with anti-austerity / Peoples' Assembly / Socialist Worker types is quite a large shot in their own foot.
That the members of the BMA are electing fruitcakes who can't tell the difference between Goebbels and the UK in in the 21C to their national committees, suggests that there are deeper problems.
PS I am on Sadiq Khan at 1000:1 to be next PM in my Mad As A Hatter portfolio. For £2. Still don't see it happening !
Perhaps we should withdraw the NHS from zones 1 and 2, since doctors can't afford to live there anyway.
Regarding the Labour leadership I wonder if we are overegging the point that the members will just re-elect Corbyn if he's on the ballot. They might not. We need to imagine the circumstances in which the contest would take place. A huge line-up of MPs, day after day, saying, with regret, that Jeremy wasn't up to it; increasingly shrill briefings from Milne; rehashing of arguments with sacked ministers; Corbyn saying he will "never never never" give it up. Reimposing Corbyn in those circumstances is a pretty nuclear option for the membership. I wonder if 50.001% would really do it.
Of course they would re-elect him, the Labour membership now is made up largely of Trotskyite entryists. There was a reason Tory MPs refused to allow Tory members a say when they toppled IDS, because of the real reason they would re-elect him. If Labour members are consulted there is no point challenging Corbyn at all. Indeed once IDS was deposed several Tory members defected to UKIP making it easier to pick Cameron in 2005
The difference is that Tory rules meant if the MPs "no confidence" IDS then he's out. Labour rules mean that if the MPs challenge Corbyn then he is automatically on the ballot unless he decides otherwise.
Cameron on Marr said he is hopeful of a renegotiation but if it is an Out vote he will have to work with that. Jeremy Corbyn and Leonardo Di Caprio on next week.
I've never understood why Cameron should be expected to resign if Leave wins. If Leave wins, then it means a very clear majority of Conservative voters will have voted that way.
I guess the reasoning is that his recommendation will have been rejected so that it's kind of like losing a confidence vote (except the Government doesn't fall, so it's not). It doesn't make complete sense to me.
PS I am on Sadiq Khan at 1000:1 to be next PM in my Mad As A Hatter portfolio. For £2. Still don't see it happening !
I don't understand who lays at 1000/1 on this sort of market or why.
Even assuming you win then that'd be (if I understand it correctly) a 0.1% return on investment after years of waiting. Before Betfair (or whichever other market) takes their commission and without taking into account the possibility and consequences of actually losing 1000/1 shots.
Surely there are better ways to get more than 0.1% return after a few years?
If you only lay one 1000/1 shot, you are right. If you lay all the no-hopers, the sums look a bit different.
It got me thinking about politics and It occurred to me today that Labour as a Party could well be finished. literally in that it'll split and the half that isn't 'Corbyn's Labour Party' will become the dominant force. A bit like the SDP/Liberals.
I then wondered who when they come to write 'The Strange Death of Labour Britain' will be held most responsible. It came to me in an instant. Ed Milliband. Whoever dreamed up the 'Edstone' might have shown more forsight than most of us thought
Not sure I agree, Roger. There are more obvious candidates such as Tony or Gordon but that's a discussion for another time and place.
So, would Labour split and how ? Splits are either ideological or personal though can be both. The Liberals split as much on the basis of the personal conflict between Lloyd George and Asquith than on any ideological basis. The SDP split was more ideological in nature.
The problem for those wishing to detach from Corbyn is that re-hashed Brownite or even neo-Blairite policies aren't going to get you very far. Arguably, the Brownites are tarnished by the May 2015 defeat and the Blairites see their policies taken over by Cameron and the Conservatives (for now).
Where is the ideological "new path" for the centre or centre-left ? Internationalist without being slavishly pro-EU, devolutionary, environmentally conscious (without eco-fascism), fiscally responsible but recognising the need for redistributive policies. These are just headings, nothing more. There's an angle, I think, to develop on "life quality" issues. London isn't a nice place to live even if you can afford to live there and the mantra "I work to live, I don't live to work" may have more resonance than "alarm clock Britain" or mentioning "hard working families" in every sentence.
The question for me is whether "liberal conservatism" has run its course - Cameron's unideological ideology has been popular but I just wonder if his successor will be much less liberal and much more conservative and whether that will provide an opportunity for a new centrist party to fill the gap.
His own party, on an issue many will claim to be the most important issue facing this country, will have gone against him - it would be natural for anyone opposed to Cameron to call for a challenge to his authority on the basis he no longer represents the views of the party or country and someone who does should be party leader.
This is the problem the doctors have, they'll be linked with Momentum and their arguments, valid or not, will be completely lost.
Another example of idiot socialists, any sympathy for the JDs will disappear
98% of the junior docs voted for the strike, on a 76% turnout. They are not all Trots, indeed
Neither side is in a mood to compromise, but I suspect that when the first strike goes ahead there will be a lower threshold for further actions. They will no longer be virgins. I suspect that we will have intermittent strikes for months.
Get out of your bubble Mr Fox, ignore party allegiance, if doctors strike sympathy will disappear. It won't in your circle at work but pop into a pub and do a survey.
I think you will be surprised. And I do frequent pubs, as do many junior docs.
It shouldn't have got this far. Hunt has badly bodged the contract. This is an industrial action not a political one. Jrs would happily continue the existing contract, pay and conditions. The decision of Hunt to impose the new contract in August is what provoked the strike.
If it's an industrial action rather than a political one, why do all the doctors talking about it start with mentioning the SoS by name?
Or why is Dr Chand on the BMA's council. The Dr Chand who seems to support Eoin Clarke's "Labour Left", and tweets comments comparing Conservative policies to Nazi propaganda.
Lambs led by Mao.
Chand sits on the BMA Council as a GP rep, as do a score or so others. He has nothing to do with this dispute, other than being an interested observer. He was elected by ballot.
Though both GPs and Consultant contract negotiations are not going well either.
He sits on the council. To say he has noting to do with the dispute seems silly, especially given his twitter.
The BMA Junior Doctors Committee is the BMA structure behind this strike. BMA council is a seperate body, as is the BMA Consultants Committee, and BMA GP Committee. There are a number of other negotiating committees for other staff groups.
Chand has no more influence on the JDC than BoJo has on the DoH.
Goodness me this is desperate stuff. How any medical professional could ever strike in pursunace of a pay rise and an easier life is incomprehensible to me.
PS I am on Sadiq Khan at 1000:1 to be next PM in my Mad As A Hatter portfolio. For £2. Still don't see it happening !
I don't understand who lays at 1000/1 on this sort of market or why.
Even assuming you win then that'd be (if I understand it correctly) a 0.1% return on investment after years of waiting. Before Betfair (or whichever other market) takes their commission and without taking into account the possibility and consequences of actually losing 1000/1 shots.
Surely there are better ways to get more than 0.1% return after a few years?
I've always thought the same thing. While I'm eternally grateful to whoever it was that laid me the tenner on Corbyn at 100, I have no idea why that bet was attractive to them. It's not even as if it's useful as part of a portfolio, as if the odds come in then it's better to lay at that point.
Can anyone who's laid bets for big odds explain why?
@BBCNormanS: I'm Not aware of any detailed proposal to give NEC greater role in making Labour policy - Lord Falconer @MarrShow
@SamCoatesTimes: No mystery about origin of briefing that Corbyn wants change policy process b4 Trident vote: John McDonnell said it on Wednesday on C4News
Why would we expect Falconer to be told anything by anybody in Labour, let alone anyone from Corbyn's circle?
Regarding the Labour leadership I wonder if we are overegging the point that the members will just re-elect Corbyn if he's on the ballot. They might not. We need to imagine the circumstances in which the contest would take place. A huge line-up of MPs, day after day, saying, with regret, that Jeremy wasn't up to it; increasingly shrill briefings from Milne; rehashing of arguments with sacked ministers; Corbyn saying he will "never never never" give it up. Reimposing Corbyn in those circumstances is a pretty nuclear option for the membership. I wonder if 50.001% would really do it.
Yes, if the current crop of dissidents had forced the election. The members I know, some of whom didn't vote for Corbyn, are far more annoyed with people who go to the media with damaging quotes than they are with the leadership. They might change their minds if a period of relative peace is followed by bad election results anyway, but right now they would simply blame the dissidents for not giving Jeremy a fair chance.
Cameron on Marr said he is hopeful of a renegotiation but if it is an Out vote he will have to work with that. Jeremy Corbyn and Leonardo Di Caprio on next week.
I've never understood why Cameron should be expected to resign if Leave wins. If Leave wins, then it means a very clear majority of Conservative voters will have voted that way.
Leaving aside any moral imperative which, as you say, might not really exist, especially if David Cameron does not lead the campaign himself (and he does have a day job) there is the question of emboldened rivals but a bigger factor might simply be that, depending on the timing, he intends to resign not long after the referendum in any case.
If Khan becomes Mayor of London he will be the second most powerful person in the country, he is not going to be able to do that job and leader of the opposition and I doubt he would want to, especially immediately post defeat. Even Boris served two terms, so Khan would unlikely be available about 2023/24 anyway
Regarding the Labour leadership I wonder if we are overegging the point that the members will just re-elect Corbyn if he's on the ballot. They might not. We need to imagine the circumstances in which the contest would take place. A huge line-up of MPs, day after day, saying, with regret, that Jeremy wasn't up to it; increasingly shrill briefings from Milne; rehashing of arguments with sacked ministers; Corbyn saying he will "never never never" give it up. Reimposing Corbyn in those circumstances is a pretty nuclear option for the membership. I wonder if 50.001% would really do it.
Of course they would re-elect him, the Labour membership now is made up largely of Trotskyite entryists. There was a reason Tory MPs refused to allow Tory members a say when they toppled IDS, because of the real reason they would re-elect him. If Labour members are consulted there is no point challenging Corbyn at all. Indeed once IDS was deposed several Tory members defected to UKIP making it easier to pick Cameron in 2005
The difference is that Tory rules meant if the MPs "no confidence" IDS then he's out. Labour rules mean that if the MPs challenge Corbyn then he is automatically on the ballot unless he decides otherwise.
Yep, he's there till he resigns or is hit by a bus.
If he's challenged then the election will again be open to *anyone* who wants to participate for three quid, same as last time. The only hope would be for massive participation at that level by horrified Labour-voting centrists, such that a several million people are involved to kick Corbyn out.
The question for me is whether "liberal conservatism" has run its course - Cameron's unideological ideology has been popular but I just wonder if his successor will be much less liberal and much more conservative and whether that will provide an opportunity for a new centrist party to fill the gap.
The Conservative Party has been very adept at finding a way to take centrist votes. It's not even a year ago that some on here were saying that a 13% UKIP vote would rob the Tories of power (until it folded and became subsumed into Farage's party....). And yet, here they are with a majority in Westminster. A majority that smart minds on here told us was impossible.
I'd start writing the obituary for the Labour Party rather than Conservative Party if I were you.
Regarding the Labour leadership I wonder if we are overegging the point that the members will just re-elect Corbyn if he's on the ballot. They might not. We need to imagine the circumstances in which the contest would take place. A huge line-up of MPs, day after day, saying, with regret, that Jeremy wasn't up to it; increasingly shrill briefings from Milne; rehashing of arguments with sacked ministers; Corbyn saying he will "never never never" give it up. Reimposing Corbyn in those circumstances is a pretty nuclear option for the membership. I wonder if 50.001% would really do it.
Of course they would re-elect him, the Labour membership now is made up largely of Trotskyite entryists. There was a reason Tory MPs refused to allow Tory members a say when they toppled IDS, because of the real reason they would re-elect him. If Labour members are consulted there is no point challenging Corbyn at all. Indeed once IDS was deposed several Tory members defected to UKIP making it easier to pick Cameron in 2005
The difference is that Tory rules meant if the MPs "no confidence" IDS then he's out. Labour rules mean that if the MPs challenge Corbyn then he is automatically on the ballot unless he decides otherwise.
Not according to Labour's lawyers, they have said that if a challenger to Corbyn gets sufficient nominations he would then also need to get at least 35 nominations from MPs to go forward
The question for me is whether "liberal conservatism" has run its course - Cameron's unideological ideology has been popular but I just wonder if his successor will be much less liberal and much more conservative and whether that will provide an opportunity for a new centrist party to fill the gap.
I would argue the opposite - whereas 10 years ago a liberal conservative (like me!) would have to chose between the Lib Dems, the Tories or New Labour (in that order, perhaps, until the election of DC) now there is a clear choice of which party to join or support if you are of a centrist/liberal conservative tendency.
The choice of next Tory party leader will be crucial and I hope that it will be someone on the liberal/centrist/'one nation' end of party spectrum... I will of course be voting in the election and will probably vote for the 'one nation' candidate (I suspect the final two - for the membership to chose from - will be one from the 'one nation' camp and one from the right/more conservative end of the party). A 'one nation' leader of the party in 2020 - with the Lib Dems finished, Labour split and lead by a lefty-loon (be it JC or his successor), and UKIP in their post-referendum "what is the point of our party now" stage - will sweep to power with a healthy majority. Especially if the boundary changes go through.
In short, the Conservative party will (hopefully - but I think quite likely) increasingly become a broad church, spreading from the centre to the right, encompassing many liberals (of the classic meaning, not the socialist sort of course)... the idea of a new centrist party (made up of non-Corbynista Labour MPs and the Lib Dems) is a nice idea, but doesn't seem like happening due to massive inertia. (I don't think it has sunk in yet with many Labour MPs how their party is being fundamentally altered beneath their Parliamentary feet..!) Post-2020 may be a different story though.
Cameron on Marr said he is hopeful of a renegotiation but if it is an Out vote he will have to work with that. Jeremy Corbyn and Leonardo Di Caprio on next week.
PS I am on Sadiq Khan at 1000:1 to be next PM in my Mad As A Hatter portfolio. For £2. Still don't see it happening !
I don't understand who lays at 1000/1 on this sort of market or why.
Even assuming you win then that'd be (if I understand it correctly) a 0.1% return on investment after years of waiting. Before Betfair (or whichever other market) takes their commission and without taking into account the possibility and consequences of actually losing 1000/1 shots.
Surely there are better ways to get more than 0.1% return after a few years?
If you only lay one 1000/1 shot, you are right. If you lay all the no-hopers, the sums look a bit different.
How? Unless you're not expected to cover your exposure I don't see how it changes the maths.
The Junior Doctors lost me irrevocably when one of their reps appeared on TV demanding that in his early 30s his potential salary of £52k, combined with his partner - also a Junior Doc - who could also earn similarly, did not have enough to live and bring up one toddler in London. They don't know that they are born, or that they don't have a natural right to live in Zone 1 or 2.
In my view they are now just another monopoly producer lobby wanting a bigger slice of the cake. The best comparison imo would be Tube Drivers. Essential service = strong position, in theory.
That they have got themselves tangled up with anti-austerity / Peoples' Assembly / Socialist Worker types is quite a large shot in their own foot.
That the members of the BMA are electing fruitcakes who can't tell the difference between Goebbels and the UK in in the 21C to their national committees, suggests that there are deeper problems.
PS I am on Sadiq Khan at 1000:1 to be next PM in my Mad As A Hatter portfolio. For £2. Still don't see it happening !
Perhaps we should withdraw the NHS from zones 1 and 2, since doctors can't afford to live there anyway.
OK. If those who live, work and run businesses in those areas are exempted from paying anything towards a service they won't be receiving.
Charles, whilst you're on, you must be aware that the Green Bridge you support is taking a rather Orwellian slant:
"In November 2015, planning documents for the bridge revealed that the public's access to the bridge would be heavily controlled, including tracking visitors' mobile phone signals to guard against overcrowding, an "enhanced" video surveillance system and granting "visitor hosts" limited policing powers under a Community Safety Accreditation Scheme, including the right to issue minor fines. The rules of the bridge would prohibit "any exercise other than jogging, playing a musical instrument, taking part in a 'gathering of any kind', giving a speech or address, scattering ashes, releasing a balloon and flying a kite."[23]"
It's not going to be a 'public space' in any sense of the term.
Different public spaces have different applications.
When I talked through the designs with Heatherwick, the challenge is that there are only (relatively) narrow pathways for people to walk between the plants. If anyone is occupying these in a non-mobile way (except for the benches) then they could quickly become an obstruction for other users (this is the same reason, btw, that riding bikes is not permitted).
I wouldn't expect to be able to exercise (other than jogging), play a music instrument, give a speech or scatter ashes in the middle of the King's Road, for instance, but that is also a public space.
In your view, what is the bridge's purpose? What you write above just confirms what I've written: it's got no real purpose. It's not a proper thoroughfare or transport link, and calling it a 'public space' seems odd given the stated and potential exclusions.
The obvious answer you should have given to Heatherwick is: "well make the paths wider."
You must realise that people like to stop in gardens (and not just at benches) to look at the plants?
The purpose is, of course, to make it easier for punters to get to my museum.
(And to regenerate the Northbank, as well as to provide additional lungs for the city. There will also be room to stop and smell the flowers - people do that at the edge of paths, not in the middle. But, yes, the width of the paths was a compromise vs the garden design and the cost).
The public money argument is slightly disingenous. The TfL contribution was the existing budget they had set aside for redeveloping Temple Tube. The central government contribution is waiving VAT which wouldn't arise if there was no project
Of course they would re-elect him, the Labour membership now is made up largely of Trotskyite entryists.
Many of them deny this though and say they just voted for Corbyn because he was "refreshing" (or whatever). They may be telling the truth. Also, I'm not sure there are several hundred thousand Trotskyists in the UK.
The latest Times poll on this a month or so ago had Corbyn winning almost exactly the same majority with members as in September in any new ballot, as I said there is absolutely no point even launching a challenge to him if the members are consulted, Labour MPs will just have to accept he leads them into the election if that is the case. If they want to get rid of him they will have to find a way to launch a coup to topple him by themselves without consulting the membership, as Tory MPs did when they ousted IDS and replaced him with Michael Howard
The Junior Doctors lost me irrevocably when one of their reps appeared on TV demanding that in his early 30s his potential salary of £52k, combined with his partner - also a Junior Doc - who could also earn similarly, did not have enough to live and bring up one toddler in London. They don't know that they are born, or that they don't have a natural right to live in Zone 1 or 2.
In my view they are now just another monopoly producer lobby wanting a bigger slice of the cake. The best comparison imo would be Tube Drivers. Essential service = strong position, in theory.
That they have got themselves tangled up with anti-austerity / Peoples' Assembly / Socialist Worker types is quite a large shot in their own foot.
That the members of the BMA are electing fruitcakes who can't tell the difference between Goebbels and the UK in in the 21C to their national committees, suggests that there are deeper problems.
PS I am on Sadiq Khan at 1000:1 to be next PM in my Mad As A Hatter portfolio. For £2. Still don't see it happening !
Perhaps we should withdraw the NHS from zones 1 and 2, since doctors can't afford to live there anyway.
OK. If those who live, work and run businesses in those areas are exempted from paying anything towards a service they won't be receiving.
Corporations pay taxes without receiving benefits, except defence and a few police functions. But maybe you oppose Corporation Tax too.
Briskin and Co live at 10ish (was gonna email this as a potential thread-header - What d'yall think???)
Just how well will the SNP do in May? (aka One Party State?)
When the SNP won the fist overall majority in the Scottish Parliament history it not escape the minds of politically aware Scots that the parliament had been specifically designed so that coalition governments would be the Norm (It is Semi-PR, so despite it's uniquness, somewhat in line with European democracies).
At the time Yessers were no doubt worried that their democratic mandate for an independence vote could have been blocked by a stubborn UK parliament. They needn't have worried - Cameron's democratic principles shown through and I'm not aware of any major quibbles with the Edinburgh Agreement (other than from me who finds 16 y/olds voting a bit silly)
It's now time for the next Scottish elections. The only question is - How much of a majority will the SNP have this time?? (most seats currently trading at 1.01)
A bargain at those odds, if ever there was a certainty that is it, only a case of how many will the system stop them getting. It does mean that there will be no talent Labour and Tories who get seats which they would never get based on FPTP.
Cameron on Marr said he is hopeful of a renegotiation but if it is an Out vote he will have to work with that. Jeremy Corbyn and Leonardo Di Caprio on next week.
I've never understood why Cameron should be expected to resign if Leave wins. If Leave wins, then it means a very clear majority of Conservative voters will have voted that way.
Plus Cameron not be standing as leader in 2020 anyway. There is no suggestion as yet that he will not stand as an MP is there?
Of course they would re-elect him, the Labour membership now is made up largely of Trotskyite entryists.
Many of them deny this though and say they just voted for Corbyn because he was "refreshing" (or whatever). They may be telling the truth. Also, I'm not sure there are several hundred thousand Trotskyists in the UK.
The latest Times poll on this a month or so ago had Corbyn winning almost exactly the same majority with members as in September in any new ballot, as I said there is absolutely no point even launching a challenge to him if the members are consulted, Labour MPs will just have to accept he leads them into the election if that is the case. If they want to get rid of him they will have to find a way to launch a coup to topple him by themselves without consulting the membership, as Tory MPs did when they ousted IDS and replaced him with Michael Howard
The thing is, even if Corbyn resigns or is toppled, the leadership election rules remain the same, as does the membership (which may have moved even further to the left since the glorious summer of 2015!) and so his successor will likely be not much different...
If they do find a way of replacing him as leader without consulting the membership, then expect an actual split in the Labour party (ie actually becoming two political parties) on a Parliamentary-Membership basis, which of course would be terminal.
If Khan becomes Mayor of London he will be the second most powerful person in the country, he is not going to be able to do that job and leader of the opposition and I doubt he would want to, especially immediately post defeat. Even Boris served two terms, so Khan would unlikely be available about 2023/24 anyway
LOL, you must be barking if you think that. A PR roll for buffoons who fill their pockets and disappear afterwards.
Miss Cyclefree, she said she had no idea why she was appointed Shadow Defence Secretary. Maybe Thornberry and Corbyn's mutual friends recommended her.
Mr. HYUFD, I think that's an exaggeration. Khan, more powerful than Osborne?
Perhaps Osborne is more powerful in policy terms, but Khan certainly would have a larger mandate and of course Cameron could replace or move Osborne at any time, Khan stays in place
The Junior Doctors lost me irrevocably when one of their reps appeared on TV demanding that in his early 30s his potential salary of £52k, combined with his partner - also a Junior Doc - who could also earn similarly, did not have enough to live and bring up one toddler in London. They don't know that they are born, or that they don't have a natural right to live in Zone 1 or 2.
In my view they are now just another monopoly producer lobby wanting a bigger slice of the cake. The best comparison imo would be Tube Drivers. Essential service = strong position, in theory.
That they have got themselves tangled up with anti-austerity / Peoples' Assembly / Socialist Worker types is quite a large shot in their own foot.
That the members of the BMA are electing fruitcakes who can't tell the difference between Goebbels and the UK in in the 21C to their national committees, suggests that there are deeper problems.
PS I am on Sadiq Khan at 1000:1 to be next PM in my Mad As A Hatter portfolio. For £2. Still don't see it happening !
Perhaps we should withdraw the NHS from zones 1 and 2, since doctors can't afford to live there anyway.
OK. If those who live, work and run businesses in those areas are exempted from paying anything towards a service they won't be receiving.
Corporations pay taxes without receiving benefits, except defence and a few police functions. But maybe you oppose Corporation Tax too.
Comments
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3386666/The-anti-Government-medics-doctors-strike-said-Tory-lies-shame-Goebbels-backed-Jeremy-Corbyn-make-Britain-great-again.html
And in large part about money. As from day one of the NHS doctors mouths are to be stuffed with gold to make it work.
Lambs led by Mao.
It's like 'fewer' and 'less'. As well as people being lazy and wrong (it annoys me in Dragon Age: Inquisition when Blackwall kills someone and says "One less to worry about"
Still, Momentum's involvement plays into the Governments hands. Doctors are fools to let them get involved.
As a dispute or as an opportunity to weaponise the NHS by Labour, it's a giant hole filled with sharp sticks.
The shot dead would-be attacker on a Parisian police station had been living in a German asylum seekers' shelter:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35274765
Unclear if he arrived in Germany last year (may have been arrested in France in 2013, although the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive).
Though both GPs and Consultant contract negotiations are not going well either.
@SamCoatesTimes: No mystery about origin of briefing that Corbyn wants change policy process b4 Trident vote: John McDonnell said it on Wednesday on C4News
Not for the first time genuine people with genuine grievance are being manipulated by an agenda. 30 years ago it was coal miners.
When I talked through the designs with Heatherwick, the challenge is that there are only (relatively) narrow pathways for people to walk between the plants. If anyone is occupying these in a non-mobile way (except for the benches) then they could quickly become an obstruction for other users (this is the same reason, btw, that riding bikes is not permitted).
I wouldn't expect to be able to exercise (other than jogging), play a music instrument, give a speech or scatter ashes in the middle of the King's Road, for instance, but that is also a public space.
Anyone caught up in criminality and associated with Arab world immigration is lumped together.
The same happened with drowned child. The facts didn't dent the emotional response much.
https://twitter.com/kailashchandobe
This is the problem the doctors have, they'll be linked with Momentum and their arguments, valid or not, will be completely lost.
Another example of idiot socialists, any sympathy for the JDs will disappear
98% of the junior docs voted for the strike, on a 76% turnout. They are not all Trots, indeed I know a few Con and UKIP voting juniors who will be striking. On Tuesday there will be emergency cover, it will be elective work that is cancelled so heart attacks and car crashes will be fine. Go right ahead.
Of course the picket lines will attract hangers on, they always do, but the BMA JDA stewards have had plenty of briefings. Of course they will not stop visitors or other staff crossing. The strike ballot does not cover me for example. The vote on the new Consultant contract is not for another month, the BMA has been confirming details for that ballot for a few weeks now.
Neither side is in a mood to compromise, but I suspect that when the first strike goes ahead there will be a lower threshold for further actions. They will no longer be virgins. I suspect that we will have intermittent strikes for months.
Get out of your bubble Mr Fox, ignore party allegiance, if doctors strike sympathy will disappear. It won't in your circle at work but pop into a pub and do a survey.
I think you will be surprised. And I do frequent pubs, as do many junior docs.
It shouldn't have got this far. Hunt has badly bodged the contract. This is an industrial action not a political one. Jrs would happily continue the existing contract, pay and conditions. The decision of Hunt to impose the new contract in August is what provoked the strike.
If it's an industrial action rather than a political one, why do all the doctors talking about it start with mentioning the SoS by name?
Or why is Dr Chand on the BMA's council. The Dr Chand who seems to support Eoin Clarke's "Labour Left", and tweets comments comparing Conservative policies to Nazi propaganda.
Lambs led by Mao.
What a good point.
Not for the first time genuine people with genuine grievance are being manipulated by an agenda. 30 years ago it was coal miners.
A big difference is that Scargill refused a ballot. The BMA held one with 98% support (and a further 1.5% infavour of action short of strike) on a 76% turnout. The leaders have to represent their members views on this, they are being pushed by the grass roots, not leading them.
Unfortunately Mr Fox on this occasion the ballot is neither here nor there, the doctor's cause has been hijacked, any sympathy has gone. It's the naivety that is so frustrating, doctors aren't politicians, they tend to mix with other doctors, they didn't foresee that Momentum and others were desperate to ride the bandwagon.
On London being distinct in many ways from the rest of the country, I suspect is is over emphasized. Much like Scotland, where views are actually not as different as people in Scotland and England think they are, on most issues.
Not sure that Khan could pull off being an MP and Mayor at the same time though. I accept it is possible to do both jobs, apparently, and it suits leadership ambitions, but Boris at least had the 'only serving one year as both' argument in his defence. You mean a trivial distinction that people have always been getting 'wrong' no matter how many times people try to teach them otherwise and so being insistent about it is pointless, as it is used 'incorrectly' all the time as a matter of course?
I agree that where the meaning is affected, we should be precise. But in neither the Thornberry or Blackwall cases is the meaning less than clear.
If he does win and remains an MP then he'll be well in the frame as Corbyn's successor.
The obvious answer you should have given to Heatherwick is: "well make the paths wider."
You must realise that people like to stop in gardens (and not just at benches) to look at the plants?
Chand has no more influence on the JDC than BoJo has on the DoH.
It got me thinking about politics and It occurred to me today that Labour as a Party could well be finished. literally in that it'll split and the half that isn't 'Corbyn's Labour Party' will become the dominant force. A bit like the SDP/Liberals.
I then wondered who when they come to write 'The Strange Death of Labour Britain' will be held most responsible. It came to me in an instant. Ed Milliband. Whoever dreamed up the 'Edstone' might have shown more forsight than most of us thought
Mr. kle4, trivial? Pedantic? Me?
Surely not.
[On a serious note, it's a minor irritant only. With rare exceptions. People who say "I could care less" should be flung from a trebuchet into the sea].
Edited extra bit: and a special place in Hell is reserved for those who use 'pre-prepared'.
- I think the thread puts a good idea. I expect to be supporting Corbyn for as long as he wants to be leader (and I don't agree that "Power is everything"), but if a bus or a general election defeat were to intervene, I can see Khan as a possible leader: he has managed to combine being open to traditionally non-Labour groups with not burning his bridges with the left like some of the rebels. He's also notably serious, which isn't always an advantage (look how far Boris has got by being the opposite), but if it followed a long unsettled period it would be preferable.
- Being an MP is a bottomless pit of work if you're willing to do it - 70-80 hours a week are common - but because they're only scrutinised every 5 years some MPs get away with doing very little and pursuing other interests too. I knew a chair of a Select Committee who had a thriving private business - he had one aide write all his speeches and another do all his casework, and he simply did the media stuff. Irritatingly, he did just as well in elections as the workaholics. And Boris is of course an example of doing both.
- London politics is much, much more POLITICAL. Even the people I know on the hard left and far right in Broxtowe are quite mild-mannered people with hinterlands and diverse interests who just have quite definite views on politics when the subject comes up. You don't see any "never kissed a Tory" buttons, and when I chatted about my communist past it was met with friendly curiosity even by Tories. I offered to come and be grilled one a month by my CLP General Committee - they told me not to bother, it'd mean meeting on Fridays, and members were too busy with non-political stuff. In London, I often meet people who seem to live for politics and who are indignant about different opinions on anything.
- Charles asked me to clarify something on the last thread, but due I think to the vagaries of the "reply" function it isn't clear what. Please resend :-).
For Labour to fail it needs either a split or Lib Dems/UKIP to overtake them. The yellows are probably too far back, and whilst UKIP have a pretty good vote share base to build upon, they have a track record of under-achieving and stupid strategic decisions in General Elections.
If the purples had focused on 4-12 seats, they would have multiple MPs and be on an upward curve.
You know, the ones that call other posters thick.
Briskin and Co live at 10ish (was gonna email this as a potential thread-header - What d'yall think???)
Just how well will the SNP do in May? (aka One Party State?)
When the SNP won the fist overall majority in the Scottish Parliament history it not escape the minds of politically aware Scots that the parliament had been specifically designed so that coalition governments would be the Norm (It is Semi-PR, so despite it's uniquness, somewhat in line with European democracies).
At the time Yessers were no doubt worried that their democratic mandate for an independence vote could have been blocked by a stubborn UK parliament. They needn't have worried - Cameron's democratic principles shown through and I'm not aware of any major quibbles with the Edinburgh Agreement (other than from me who finds 16 y/olds voting a bit silly)
It's now time for the next Scottish elections. The only question is - How much of a majority will the SNP have this time?? (most seats currently trading at 1.01)
Northavon was a less likely target but the LDs had always been clearly in second and got a healthy swing off the Conservatives in 1997 despite a rising labour vote.
A seat like Folkestone & Hythe is an example of my point - had the LDs (in second) got the swing from the Conservatives rather than the third placed Labour candidate, Michael Howard would have lost the seat. That may have been as much to do with the local politics on Shepway Council.
Look at Hertford & Stortford as another example - Labour needed a 16% swing to take it and captured other seats on swings of that scale. The fall in the Conservative share was a typical 13.4% but that was, if you like, spread round Labour, the LDs and other parties so the swing to Labour was more like 10% and the seat was retained. In neighbouring Hertsmere, on the other hand, Labour needed a 16.5% swing and got a 13% swing, taking votes off the LDs as well but the hill was too steep though the majority was cut from 18,000 to 3,000.
Momentum picketing hospitals is a wild-card element though and a seriously bad idea.
let's always keep in mind that Wilson closed down twice as many mines in half the time as the Tories did. ( recorded fact) . Of course Labor close twice as many mines = good ! Tories close half as many mines = bad. . Just sick of this bollox that Thatcher destroyed the coal industry .That's precisely what made this political and continues to do so to this day. They did have some bloody good colliery brass bands though
This of course is Next to that other meme Thatcher destroyed manufacturing. More was lost before and after by Labour than during her terms. Again Labour manufacturing more loses = good Tory less loses = bad. Better if we had no loss but that's not normally within total control.
.
Worth noting Miners also went on strike in WW2. Actually so did American miners.
In my view they are now just another monopoly producer lobby wanting a bigger slice of the cake. The best comparison imo would be Tube Drivers. Essential service = strong position, in theory.
That they have got themselves tangled up with anti-austerity / Peoples' Assembly / Socialist Worker types is quite a large shot in their own foot.
That the members of the BMA are electing fruitcakes who can't tell the difference between Goebbels and the UK in in the 21C to their national committees, suggests that there are deeper problems.
PS I am on Sadiq Khan at 1000:1 to be next PM in my Mad As A Hatter portfolio. For £2. Still don't see it happening !
Even assuming you win then that'd be (if I understand it correctly) a 0.1% return on investment after years of waiting. Before Betfair (or whichever other market) takes their commission and without taking into account the possibility and consequences of actually losing 1000/1 shots.
Surely there are better ways to get more than 0.1% return after a few years?
It just makes the speaker sound like they're a moron failing in a bid to be sarcastic.
Mr. Divvie, if Brown had been forced to resign for saying 'pre-prepared' one suspects the country would be in better shape.
Labour rules mean that if the MPs challenge Corbyn then he is automatically on the ballot unless he decides otherwise.
So, would Labour split and how ? Splits are either ideological or personal though can be both. The Liberals split as much on the basis of the personal conflict between Lloyd George and Asquith than on any ideological basis. The SDP split was more ideological in nature.
The problem for those wishing to detach from Corbyn is that re-hashed Brownite or even neo-Blairite policies aren't going to get you very far. Arguably, the Brownites are tarnished by the May 2015 defeat and the Blairites see their policies taken over by Cameron and the Conservatives (for now).
Where is the ideological "new path" for the centre or centre-left ? Internationalist without being slavishly pro-EU, devolutionary, environmentally conscious (without eco-fascism), fiscally responsible but recognising the need for redistributive policies. These are just headings, nothing more. There's an angle, I think, to develop on "life quality" issues. London isn't a nice place to live even if you can afford to live there and the mantra "I work to live, I don't live to work" may have more resonance than "alarm clock Britain" or mentioning "hard working families" in every sentence.
The question for me is whether "liberal conservatism" has run its course - Cameron's unideological ideology has been popular but I just wonder if his successor will be much less liberal and much more conservative and whether that will provide an opportunity for a new centrist party to fill the gap.
Can anyone who's laid bets for big odds explain why?
If he's challenged then the election will again be open to *anyone* who wants to participate for three quid, same as last time. The only hope would be for massive participation at that level by horrified Labour-voting centrists, such that a several million people are involved to kick Corbyn out.
Mr. HYUFD, I think that's an exaggeration. Khan, more powerful than Osborne?
I'd start writing the obituary for the Labour Party rather than Conservative Party if I were you.
The choice of next Tory party leader will be crucial and I hope that it will be someone on the liberal/centrist/'one nation' end of party spectrum... I will of course be voting in the election and will probably vote for the 'one nation' candidate (I suspect the final two - for the membership to chose from - will be one from the 'one nation' camp and one from the right/more conservative end of the party). A 'one nation' leader of the party in 2020 - with the Lib Dems finished, Labour split and lead by a lefty-loon (be it JC or his successor), and UKIP in their post-referendum "what is the point of our party now" stage - will sweep to power with a healthy majority. Especially if the boundary changes go through.
In short, the Conservative party will (hopefully - but I think quite likely) increasingly become a broad church, spreading from the centre to the right, encompassing many liberals (of the classic meaning, not the socialist sort of course)... the idea of a new centrist party (made up of non-Corbynista Labour MPs and the Lib Dems) is a nice idea, but doesn't seem like happening due to massive inertia. (I don't think it has sunk in yet with many Labour MPs how their party is being fundamentally altered beneath their Parliamentary feet..!) Post-2020 may be a different story though.
(And to regenerate the Northbank, as well as to provide additional lungs for the city. There will also be room to stop and smell the flowers - people do that at the edge of paths, not in the middle. But, yes, the width of the paths was a compromise vs the garden design and the cost).
The public money argument is slightly disingenous. The TfL contribution was the existing budget they had set aside for redeveloping Temple Tube. The central government contribution is waiving VAT which wouldn't arise if there was no project
Should only parents pay for schools?
https://www.spreadshirt.co.uk/im-silently-correcting-your-grammar-A23108333
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12090822/Revealed-Government-body-helps-asylum-seekers-quash-convictions-for-illegal-entry-to-Britain.html
If they do find a way of replacing him as leader without consulting the membership, then expect an actual split in the Labour party (ie actually becoming two political parties) on a Parliamentary-Membership basis, which of course would be terminal.
http://www.thewhatandthewhy.com/the-cologne-attacks/