I've got to hand it to Trump, I thought Johnson was going to run the griftiest campaign but Trump is beating him hands down. Campaign offices rented from his properties, campaign events renting spaces in his own resorts and, my favourite, the Secret Service paying Trump over a million dollars so far to travel with him as the Trump campaign is renting Trump's plane from a Trump company.
Is it possible that Trump personally and via his companies may come out at a profit at the expense of his campaign?
He can't make a play on the advertising spends - that's money out of the campaign/Trump cycle.
As always, an interesting piece from David (for which, as always, many thanks).
Remembering David writes from a Conservative perspective, it's a curious piece given what has happened in his Party in the past 15 months. In May 2015, David Cameron won the first Conservative overall majority in an election in a generation. Yet now he is out of the leadership and out of politics.
To an outsider, it's been a display of unpleasant, ill-tempered ruthlessness predicated solely on the principle the Conservative Party wants to, indeed needs to, stay in Government. Now, there are plenty of people who will tell me Cameron was the architect of his own downfall and there's a lot of truth in that.
The irony of Cameron saying all through the Referendum he would stay on as PM whatever the result and then walking away on the Friday morning isn't lost on me. After all, Cameron had said 72 hours before the 2010 GE there would be no deals with the Liberal Democrats yet by the Friday afternoon, he was "willing to talk".
I think it's the ingratitude I don't get - even Nick Clegg, who you would think would be anathema to most LDs, is welcomed to the Conference and allowed to speak and plug his book - the leader who oversaw the decimation of the councillor base and the loss of 7/8 of the Party's MPs. If he'd been a Conservative, one suspects, he'd have been put in a cage and pelted with rotten fruit.
That then is the nature and question of the political party - do you stay in Opposition with a leader you like, support, want to work for etc or do you sit in Government with a leader you don't like, doing things you don't necessarily support, changing loyalties and opinions as often as an extremely fastidious man obsessed with his personal appearance changes his socks but having the luxury of power ?
In the end, is it like supporting a football club - my Party, right or left, right or wrong ? I've always said if I liked the policies of a Government, I didn't care what colour rosette it had. That's not true of course but does it work the other way. If the team with your rosette starts introducing policies you don't support, what then ?
The Conservative Party operates on the principle that it is better to be feared than to be loved.
I've got to hand it to Trump, I thought Johnson was going to run the griftiest campaign but Trump is beating him hands down. Campaign offices rented from his properties, campaign events renting spaces in his own resorts and, my favourite, the Secret Service paying Trump over a million dollars so far to travel with him as the Trump campaign is renting Trump's plane from a Trump company.
Is it possible that Trump personally and via his companies may come out at a profit at the expense of his campaign?
Yes, this seems to be the plan. So assuming he loses this November, it's hard to see why he wouldn't try for repeat business in 2020.
Have we got an ETA on Jezza becoming king of all he survey's and Owen Who being to go back being, well... Owen Who?
1145
Thanks.
Have cleared all my morning chores to be able to witness this glorious moment in history!
Morning GIN, heavy rain and howling gale here so only thing for me today will be short drive for supplies early afternoon. I shall recline in bed and read papers, place bets on horses, etc etc. That is plan anyway, the Boss may interrupt those plans though.
Cameron's stock collapsed on the right because he not only divided his party but went on to scare-monger, didn't do any preparatory work [well, permit the Civil Service to do it] in case we voted Leave, had feeble arguments and belittled those who held a differing view. The bitterness came from Cameron.
Almost everyone here immediately recognised 'little Englanders' as offensive tosh (and stupid given most of the UK electorate is English).
In a few years, I imagine Cameron's Conservative stock will rise again due to his electoral achievements and granting a referendum in the first place.
No, Cameron didn't "divide his party" - the Party was already divided. He gave the Conservatives what they wanted.
It begs the question - what would "the Right" have done if REMAIN had won 52-48 ?
To be honest, what you described sounds very familiar to what happened with the Scottish Referendum so on that basis - if Scotland had voted to leave the UK, Cameron would have resigned immediately ?
More about how that Brexit Hate Crime surge came about:
"Of course it should be stressed that genuine hate crime is not to be tolerated. In Friday’s Mail, for example, the Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth described being sent 25,000 abusive messages by members of her party’s Corbyn-supporting far Left, one of which referred to her as a ‘yid c***’.
The problem, however, comes when the definition of what constitutes a hate crime becomes risibly vague. After all, the subjective way in which the police (who increasingly resemble glorified social workers) now categorise such offences is hardly forensic.
Under their official guidance, hate crime is now deemed to be ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice.’
Proof of such intent is not necessarily required, the guidance adds: ‘Evidence of … hostility is not required … [The] perception of the victim, or any other person, is the defining factor.’
In essence, this means that anyone, anywhere, can force officers to treat something as a hate crime. All it takes is a vague ‘perception’. Such rules are perverse and open to abuse. They mean that, in theory, a straight white male punched in a pub fight can falsely claim his assailant thought he was gay, and therefore motivated by homophobia.
Such an incident will duly be investigated as a hate crime, with the police and CPS under pressure to prosecute. If they fail, the ‘victim’ can potentially claim to have suffered so-called ‘secondary victimisation’ in which the ‘hate’ he or she experienced is compounded by the police’s lack of sensitivity.....
Consider, in this context, the aforementioned police website True Vision. It allows anyone, anywhere in Britain, to report an incident, even if they were not the victim, have no idea of the victim’s identity, can provide no supporting evidence, and would prefer to remain anonymous.
Their claims then get logged as official statistics and, as we have seen above, used by ‘experts’ to draw sweeping conclusions (invariably negative) about the state of the nation.
Seldom has such a system been more open to abuse than in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote, when Left-wing media outlets predicted a ‘surge of xenophobia’ and disheartened Remain voters attempted to prove them right. On Twitter, the hashtag #postbrexit racism went viral.
On Facebook, a forum called ‘worrying signs’ was established for ‘anyone dealing with post-Brexit fallout’ to post reports of hate crime. From here, users were directed to True Vision.
Unsurprisingly, many allegedly racist incidents they carried turned out to be anything but."
There is zero chance of that changing... We will continue to follow EU product type regulations.
Most importantly: you self-certify CE. The "expensive pile of bureacracy and paperwork" is a single page you can download here: [snipped]
Edit to add: that's the form for toys. The one for electronics is barely more complicated. It basically says "this is my product ID, name, and address and I certify that it doesn't blow up or emit dangerous levels of radiation. and if it causes problems I admit that it's my fault."
Have you ever had to carry out tests to demonstrate compliance with the Low Voltage and in particular the EMC directive?
They cost an absolute fortune and in low risk products, the EMC compliance adds little if any value.
Sure any manufacturer can fill out a form that says We RCS Widgets Ltd declare under our sole responsibility etc. etc. and assert that the product meets the essential requirements of EMC, Low Voltage and RoHS directive through blah blah (usually by a plethora of harmonised standards that cost about £100 each from the British standards institute.
Sell one to me in my professional capacity and I will say to you, "Prove it", and expect to receive detailed technical documentation including test reports from accredited test houses. Usually I find that (with the exception of German made products, for reason, see below) even where they have attempted to do it properly the test house have f***cked up at least one of the EMC tests (fiendishly complicated) and I have on occasion even demanded a retest at great cost to the seller. Trading standards are also entitled to do this and prosecute if the information is not in order.
Sell to Germany and you may to your cost discover that their authorities buy a large number of products themselves, put them through all the essential requirements tests and prosecute the selling company if it fails a test.
This is all very well and good with safety critical things like components for nuclear power stations. But a model railway colour light signal using LEDs operating at 5 Volts? Perhaps not. It just locks out competition for the big boys from small companies. I know of a small company that make very good model railway engines from a chap in the Isle of Man who makes them outside the single market and sells by circulation of price list to those who know.
You will also notice that all model railway products made in the UK with CE marks have a notice saying they are not toys and musnt be used by under 14s to get out of the childs toy CE tests.
This nonsense needs sweeping away in many sectors so that small companies wanting to compete with the big boys on low risk products don't need to go to the Isle of Man (or more usually they don't start up at all). Even if this parliament won't do anything about it, this parliament won't bind future parliaments. Brexit is a long term strategy for freedom.
Just watching Andy Burnham flapping about and gasping like a stranded fish on BBC1 at the moment. Presenter asks him how public are meant to take Labour MPs seriously if they back Corbyn, having only just expressed no confidence in him. Burnham changes the subject. He has no answer. He can't have any answer. Can he?
Cameron's stock collapsed on the right because he not only divided his party but went on to scare-monger, didn't do any preparatory work [well, permit the Civil Service to do it] in case we voted Leave, had feeble arguments and belittled those who held a differing view. The bitterness came from Cameron.
Almost everyone here immediately recognised 'little Englanders' as offensive tosh (and stupid given most of the UK electorate is English).
In a few years, I imagine Cameron's Conservative stock will rise again due to his electoral achievements and granting a referendum in the first place.
Perhaps but that begs the question - what would "the Right" have done if REMAIN had won 52-48 ?
To be honest, what you described sounds very familiar to what happened with the Scottish Referendum so on that basis - if Scotland had voted to leave the UK, Cameron would have resigned immediately ?
He would have resigned if the Scottish referendum had been for Yes, no PM can survive losing over a third of the land in his country.
During the referendum campaign, Cameron saw his personal ratings drop from hugely positive to hugely negative with his own supporters, not due the side he took in the referendum but the way he conducted himself and the Remain campaign - starting with the 'renegotiation' effort in February and finishing with talk of emergency budgets and punitive tax rises. Having promised Armageddon if Leave won, his position really was untenable when it did.
Can you imagine the uproar if it was a Conservative, male minister for domestic violence with such a history?
She's also said very little about domestic violence against men: DV against women seems to be her priority. Now we know why ...
From the article:
"We got into a heated argument and he said, “If you want to leave you’ll have to leave with nothing.”
Both husband and wife accepted cautions (and thereby their guilt).
For once we have a spokesperson with an interest and knowledge of their portfolio...
And I don't suppose some men who lash out might be terrified and make similar excuses? But those excuses don't count, obviously.
As for your last comment; that's crass. I look forward to you suggesting that Harold Shipman should have been made head of the BMA, or Nick Leeson in charge of the Serious Fraud Office ...
As her husband also accepted a caution, it seems to have been six of one and a half dozen of the other.
So while male victims report 40% of isolated crimes, females make up 89% of those suffering 4 or more attacks, and are most at risk of murder. Of the remaining 11% of repeated offences many are male vs male in the context of homosexual domestic relationships.
According to Lundy Bancroft, about a third of women in refuges have previously been arrested for domestic violence themselves. Some of this comes from both partners being arrested (as in Champions case) but some also as a result of controlling and manipulative behavior by male perpetrators.
I have had my fill of seeing victims of domestic violence over my 25 years as a doctor. It is worrying that since 2009 that while violent deaths of men are on a downward trend there has been a sharp uptick in female deaths. In part this may be because of austerity closing womens refuges, which particularly affects BME women, as they often have nowhere else to go.
As always, an interesting piece from David (for which, as always, many thanks).
Remembering David writes from a Conservative perspective, it's a curious piece given what has happened in his Party in the past 15 months. In May 2015, David Cameron won the first Conservative overall majority in an election in a generation. Yet now he is out of the leadership and out of politics.
To an outsider, it's been a display of unpleasant, ill-tempered ruthlessness predicated solely on the
The irony of Cameron saying all through the Referendum he would stay on as PM whatever the result and then walking away on the Friday morning isn't lost on me. After all, Cameron had said 72 hours before the 2010 GE there would be no deals with the Liberal Democrats yet by the Friday afternoon, he was "willing to talk".
I think it's the ingratitude I don't get - even Nick Clegg, who you would think would be anathema to most LDs, is welcomed to the Conference and allowed to speak and plug his book - the leader who oversaw the decimation of the councillor base and the loss of 7/8 of the Party's MPs. If he'd been a Conservative, one suspects, he'd have been put in a cage and pelted with rotten fruit.
That then is the nature and question of the political party - do you stay in Opposition with a leader you like, support, want to work for etc or do you sit in Government with a leader you don't like, doing things you don't necessarily support, changing loyalties and opinions as often as an extremely fastidious man obsessed with his personal appearance changes his socks but having the luxury of power ?
In the end, is it like supporting a football club - my Party, right or left, right or wrong ? I've always said if I liked the policies of a Government, I didn't care what colour rosette it had. That's not true of course but does it work the other way. If the team with your rosette starts introducing policies you don't support, what then ?
One big advantage Clegg had - which is topical as something for May to think about re. article 50, parliamentary votes and her backbenchers - is the special LibDem Conference where the (active) members endorsed the decision to go into coalition. At the time it was something of a charade as the deed had been done, but the fact that most leading LDs had their fingerprints on the biggest decision undoubtedly helped the party hold together through some difficult years. Also Liberals are a forgiving lot and most realise that Clegg had the most difficult of jobs and, whilst he made mistakes, the record of junior coalition partners is such that there was probably little he could have done to avoid his fate.
Blair had the same advantage that most of his MPs had backed him on Iraq. May would IMHO be exceptionally brave if she marches off towards her preferred Brexit without getting her MPs to vote for and publicly associate themselves with it.
I feared for the worst during the night, but it was a false alarm, Aldi have fitted it with a light detector so it dosent cuckoo in the dark (unlike some here I could mention)
My theory the first time around was that it was precisely to avoid a story of this type that Corby avoided all those reserved but empty seats, until well into the journey.
I've got to hand it to Trump, I thought Johnson was going to run the griftiest campaign but Trump is beating him hands down. Campaign offices rented from his properties, campaign events renting spaces in his own resorts and, my favourite, the Secret Service paying Trump over a million dollars so far to travel with him as the Trump campaign is renting Trump's plane from a Trump company.
Is it possible that Trump personally and via his companies may come out at a profit at the expense of his campaign?
Yes, this seems to be the plan. So assuming he loses this November, it's hard to see why he wouldn't try for repeat business in 2020.
Just watching Andy Burnham flapping about and gasping like a stranded fish on BBC1 at the moment. Presenter asks him how public are meant to take Labour MPs seriously if they back Corbyn, having only just expressed no confidence in him. Burnham changes the subject. He has no answer. He can't have any answer. Can he?
Liz Kendall was the same the other night. They're both desperate to avoid the wrestling with their own consciousness that would tell them the Labour Party under Corbyn just isn't their party any more.
Hi Paul, I have been involved in a solar battery company, and we created a product that had to be sold worldwide, and required FCC, CE and UL certification.
In general, if each of the components you use is CE or FCC certified, then your resulting device will be, so the bulk of testing ends up at the (usually Chinese) component maker level. It was perhaps a days work interlynal to make sure we were both CE and FCC compliant, not least because there's a huge amount of overlap as far as those two standards go.
The only test which was costly for us, as a small business, was UL.
Paul, if you want I can put you in touch with the MD of Sunbird Solar. As a low voltage device, with a battery, and (potential) electromagnetic emissions, it was covered by a bunch of different requirements in the EU and the US (and a bunch of other places too.) I'm sure he'd more than willing to take you through the stages involved. But, really, getting both our CE and our FCC marks, and being compliant was one of those items that we thought would be difficult but actually turned out to be very, very easy.
I can't help feeling that the outcome of today's vote is not going to be any truce or reconciliation but an acceleration of the war. Corbyn and his supporters will feel vindicated, they will be angry that the party has been put through this and they will somewhat hypocritically demand the kind of loyalty to the leadership that Corbyn steadfastly refused to provide throughout his career.
The PLP in contrast will be in despair, worrying about deselection (rightly so) and the loss of many marginal seats whether they are deselected or not. Many will wonder what the point is given that the opportunity to actually govern and make a difference is fading into the far distance. The few of genuine ability will wonder if there is something more productive they can do with their lives. Labour has been losing talent that way since Brown. There is not much left as Owen Smith demonstrated all too vividly.
Have we got an ETA on Jezza becoming king of all he survey's and Owen Who being to go back being, well... Owen Who?
1145
Thanks.
Have cleared all my morning chores to be able to witness this glorious moment in history!
Morning GIN, heavy rain and howling gale here so only thing for me today will be short drive for supplies early afternoon. I shall recline in bed and read papers, place bets on horses, etc etc. That is plan anyway, the Boss may interrupt those plans though.
Morning Malc.
Sounds like the perfect Saturday (except for the rain)
Mr. Mark, indeed, though it'd be getting more coverage if a man had done it. It seems a newspaper front page describes her as 'provoked and vulnerable'.
Right.
Excuses that would not be accepted if she was a man. Or a Tory.
It seems some Labour female MPs are getting police protection against constituents, and understandably so. Perhaps she needs police as well, to protect her constituents from her.
After all, who can tell when she will snap?
And I don't think she's got kids, or they'd need to be taken off her for their protection.
(The above are sometimes said about male perpetrators of violence).
Cameron's stock collapsed on the right because he not only divided his party but went on to scare-monger, didn't do any preparatory work [well, permit the Civil Service to do it] in case we voted Leave, had feeble arguments and belittled those who held a differing view. The bitterness came from Cameron.
Almost everyone here immediately recognised 'little Englanders' as offensive tosh (and stupid given most of the UK electorate is English).
In a few years, I imagine Cameron's Conservative stock will rise again due to his electoral achievements and granting a referendum in the first place.
No, Cameron didn't "divide his party" - the Party was already divided. He gave the Conservatives what they wanted.
It begs the question - what would "the Right" have done if REMAIN had won 52-48 ?
To be honest, what you described sounds very familiar to what happened with the Scottish Referendum so on that basis - if Scotland had voted to leave the UK, Cameron would have resigned immediately ?
The Conservatives must be enormously grateful that the vote didn't go 52/48 the other way.
I feared for the worst during the night, but it was a false alarm, Aldi have fitted it with a light detector so it dosent cuckoo in the dark (unlike some here I could mention)
As it was an Aldi purchase should it not be "Kuckucksuhren?"
In the same way the Labour Party have gone completely Kuckuck
Just watching Andy Burnham flapping about and gasping like a stranded fish on BBC1 at the moment. Presenter asks him how public are meant to take Labour MPs seriously if they back Corbyn, having only just expressed no confidence in him. Burnham changes the subject. He has no answer. He can't have any answer. Can he?
Liz Kendall was the same the other night. They're both desperate to avoid the wrestling with their own consciousness that would tell them the Labour Party under Corbyn just isn't their party any more.
Spot on. No doubt they retain hope it will, in time, become so again, and Corbyn shows the value of patiently waiting for the moment to transform the party, but as loyal as they are to the labour brand, the brand is not the same as it was right now, and pretending it is is silly. MPs will mostly by design be party fanatics, or calculating enough that they don't think they can survive switching or going Indy, and it shows when normal people would be able to at lest put their support for a party on hiatus, when what they are saying is essentially it doesn't matter what the party does or who leads it, they'll always support it.
Of course party members feel that way, but I feel like in ordinary times we can sort of pretend party support us based on reason, and now we cannot given the positions they find themselves in. And if they would support the party no matter what, they've not really assessed the party is better than others through reason, it's just a tribal reaction without thought. Usually true but we can usually pretend otherwise.
More about how that Brexit Hate Crime surge came about:
"Of course it should be stressed that genuine hate crime is not to be tolerated. In Friday’s Mail, for example, the Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth described being sent 25,000 abusive messages by members of her party’s Corbyn-supporting far Left, one of which referred to her as a ‘yid c***’.
In essence, this means that anyone, anywhere, can force officers to treat something as a hate crime. All it takes is a vague ‘perception’. Such rules are perverse and open to abuse. They mean that, in theory, a straight white male punched in a pub fight can falsely claim his assailant thought he was gay, and therefore motivated by homophobia.
Such an incident will duly be investigated as a hate crime, with the police and CPS under pressure to prosecute. If they fail, the ‘victim’ can potentially claim to have suffered so-called ‘secondary victimisation’ in which the ‘hate’ he or she experienced is compounded by the police’s lack of sensitivity.....
Consider, in this context, the aforementioned police website True Vision. It allows anyone, anywhere in Britain, to report an incident, even if they were not the victim, have no idea of the victim’s identity, can provide no supporting evidence, and would prefer to remain anonymous.
Their claims then get logged as official statistics and, as we have seen above, used by ‘experts’ to draw sweeping conclusions (invariably negative) about the state of the nation.
Seldom has such a system been more open to abuse than in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote, when Left-wing media outlets predicted a ‘surge of xenophobia’ and disheartened Remain voters attempted to prove them right. On Twitter, the hashtag #postbrexit racism went viral.
On Facebook, a forum called ‘worrying signs’ was established for ‘anyone dealing with post-Brexit fallout’ to post reports of hate crime. From here, users were directed to True Vision.
Unsurprisingly, many allegedly racist incidents they carried turned out to be anything but."
I am not sure what you are trying to prove here, Paul? Statistics in this area are notioriously problematic, because of the subjectivity involved and because most incidents constitute relatively minor verbal abuse which most people just want quickly to forget. Nevertheless there is no doubt at all that, in the weeks following the Brexit vote, both EU migrants and black and Asian British people were on the receiving end of a lot of verbal comments of a "go home" nature, with some violence and at least two murders. Try speaking to some of them; you'll have it confirmed soon enough.
Mr. Mark, indeed, though it'd be getting more coverage if a man had done it. It seems a newspaper front page describes her as 'provoked and vulnerable'.
Right.
Excuses that would not be accepted if she was a man. Or a Tory.
It seems some Labour female MPs are getting police protection against constituents, and understandably so. Perhaps she needs police as well, to protect her constituents from her.
After all, who can tell when she will snap?
And I don't think she's got kids, or they'd need to be taken off her for their protection.
(The above are sometimes said about male perpetrators of violence).
Not an Archers listener, then?
One thing we do know is that Ms Champion's former husband has refused to comment.
We have Ms Champion's version of what happened. Whilst she doesn't entirely absolve herself of blame, she certainly puts a huge chunk of the blame on the behaviour of her ex-husband.
In the circumstances, it is rather noble & restrained of her ex-husband not to comment, or offer his version of events.
Cameron's stock collapsed on the right because he not only divided his party but went on to scare-monger, didn't do any preparatory work [well, permit the Civil Service to do it] in case we voted Leave, had feeble arguments and belittled those who held a differing view. .
To be honest, what you described sounds very familiar to what happened with the Scottish Referendum so on that basis - if Scotland had voted to leave the UK, Cameron would have resigned immediately ?
That was COMPLETELY different 'cos..err, umm.. just 'cos!
Mr. Rook, expecting a good answer from Burnham is like expecting the shipping forecast from a Siamese cat.
To be fair to Mascara Man, the question is unanswerable. The PLP's impotence may well be confirmed today. [Even if it isn't, Smith is awful too].
Poor Andy Burnham. Although at least he gets to put several hundred miles between himself and this nonsense soon when he is crowned Mayor of Greater Manchester.
The game isn't quite over for the PLP but you have to feel that the moment is coming. My understanding of the Labour Party machinery isn't particularly advanced, but I believe that the Corbynites have nearly half of the seats on the NEC: presumably, if they can obtain a bare majority and then lower the nomination threshold for leadership elections, then it's all over. And even if they can't do that, what prospect a mass purge of the moderates through targeted deselection campaigns by the new majority of hard left-leaning members?
Dom Perignon all round at Conservative central office, methinks.
My own view, for what its worth, is that Corbyn can't be challenged again this side of the GE unless the 'moderates' have developed their own mass membership organization, capable of banging the phones, Facebook etc etc.
Cameron's stock collapsed on the right because he not only divided his party but went on to scare-monger, didn't do any preparatory work [well, permit the Civil Service to do it] in case we voted Leave, had feeble arguments and belittled those who held a differing view. The bitterness came from Cameron.
Almost everyone here immediately recognised 'little Englanders' as offensive tosh (and stupid given most of the UK electorate is English).
In a few years, I imagine Cameron's Conservative stock will rise again due to his electoral achievements and granting a referendum in the first place.
No, Cameron didn't "divide his party" - the Party was already divided. He gave the Conservatives what they wanted.
It begs the question - what would "the Right" have done if REMAIN had won 52-48 ?
To be honest, what you described sounds very familiar to what happened with the Scottish Referendum so on that basis - if Scotland had voted to leave the UK, Cameron would have resigned immediately ?
Blimey, if Cameron had lost Sindy then even the suggestion of the idea he would have stayed on is laughable. Could you imagine the Conservatives going into the next election with the man who lost Britain as their leader?
Seeing the Labour Party turn into the SWP must be tricky for them, especially if they're rusty on the Trotskyite slogans. But pragmatism will win out and most will scurry back and keep their heads down. It'll be interesting to see who stays loyal to their consciences.
Cameron's stock collapsed on the right because he not only divided his party but went on to scare-monger, didn't do any preparatory work [well, permit the Civil Service to do it] in case we voted Leave, had feeble arguments and belittled those who held a differing view. The bitterness came from Cameron.
Almost everyone here immediately recognised 'little Englanders' as offensive tosh (and stupid given most of the UK electorate is English).
In a few years, I imagine Cameron's Conservative stock will rise again due to his electoral achievements and granting a referendum in the first place.
No, Cameron didn't "divide his party" - the Party was already divided. He gave the Conservatives what they wanted.
It begs the question - what would "the Right" have done if REMAIN had won 52-48 ?
To be honest, what you described sounds very familiar to what happened with the Scottish Referendum so on that basis - if Scotland had voted to leave the UK, Cameron would have resigned immediately ?
Probably. I think you have it right on the division. I'm fairly well disposed toward Cameron, and it seems to me he did a decent job in most areas, a little crapily in others, but the big failure was just not being up to the task of healing the division in the party. And since leaving is a o e way street but remaining was not, only leaving has a chance of healing it, albeit unintentionally.
Cameron's stock collapsed on the right because he not only divided his party but went on to scare-monger, didn't do any preparatory work [well, permit the Civil Service to do it] in case we voted Leave, had feeble arguments and belittled those who held a differing view. The bitterness came from Cameron.
Almost everyone here immediately recognised 'little Englanders' as offensive tosh (and stupid given most of the UK electorate is English).
In a few years, I imagine Cameron's Conservative stock will rise again due to his electoral achievements and granting a referendum in the first place.
No, Cameron didn't "divide his party" - the Party was already divided. He gave the Conservatives what they wanted.
It begs the question - what would "the Right" have done if REMAIN had won 52-48 ?
To be honest, what you described sounds very familiar to what happened with the Scottish Referendum so on that basis - if Scotland had voted to leave the UK, Cameron would have resigned immediately ?
The Conservatives must be enormously grateful that the vote didn't go 52/48 the other way.
It's fair to say that the party would be considerably more divided now, if the result had gone the other way.
As things are, we have the popcorn warming up and the champagne on ice, in anticipation of today's proceedings in Liverpool!
Cameron's stock collapsed on the right because he not only divided his party but went on to scare-monger, didn't do any preparatory work [well, permit the Civil Service to do it] in case we voted Leave, had feeble arguments and belittled those who held a differing view. The bitterness came from Cameron.
Almost everyone here immediately recognised 'little Englanders' as offensive tosh (and stupid given most of the UK electorate is English).
In a few years, I imagine Cameron's Conservative stock will rise again due to his electoral achievements and granting a referendum in the first place.
Perhaps but that begs the question - what would "the Right" have done if REMAIN had won 52-48 ?
To be honest, what you described sounds very familiar to what happened with the Scottish Referendum so on that basis - if Scotland had voted to leave the UK, Cameron would have resigned immediately ?
He would have resigned if the Scottish referendum had been for Yes, no PM can survive losing over a third of the land in his country.
During the referendum campaign, Cameron saw his personal ratings drop from hugely positive to hugely negative with his own supporters, not due the side he took in the referendum but the way he conducted himself and the Remain campaign - starting with the 'renegotiation' effort in February and finishing with talk of emergency budgets and punitive tax rises. Having promised Armageddon if Leave won, his position really was untenable when it did.
It is also clear that the Remain side were hampered by effectively having a Tory-led campaign with the PM vetoing many of the campaigning ideas that came from non-Tory campaigners, particularly being a lot tougher on the likes of Gove and Boris. Cameron thought he would win anyway and wanted to reduce the collateral damage on his party. Big mistake.
I feared for the worst during the night, but it was a false alarm, Aldi have fitted it with a light detector so it dosent cuckoo in the dark (unlike some here I could mention)
As my political analysis and and interpretation has once again proved uncannily accurate and outstanding I wonder whether @Stuartinromford will remove the "Off Topic" flag in this post?
Seeing the Labour Party turn into the SWP must be tricky for them, especially if they're rusty on the Trotskyite slogans. But pragmatism will win out and most will scurry back and keep their heads down. It'll be interesting to see who stays loyal to their consciences.
No I think some MPs now have nothing more to lose.
The vacuous Liz Kendall will probably keep her head down. But some MPs are seeing their constituency disappear, with little chance of winning the nomination for the redrawn constituencies.
For example, Tristram Hunt (Stoke on Trent Central) or Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) look doomed, whether they stay or whether they go. Theirs seats are disappearing.
Surely, glamorous Tristram will be eyeing well-paid meejah jobs, as opposed to slogging out and losing the nomination in the redrawn Stoke seats.
In the defections to the SDP, I think there were again boundary changes that prompted some of the defections. If you are not going to be re-selected for the re-drawn seat, you might as well go.
Cameron's stock collapsed on the right because he not only divided his party but went on to scare-monger, didn't do any preparatory work [well, permit the Civil Service to do it] in case we voted Leave, had feeble arguments and belittled those who held a differing view. The bitterness came from Cameron.
Almost everyone here immediately recognised 'little Englanders' as offensive tosh (and stupid given most of the UK electorate is English).
In a few years, I imagine Cameron's Conservative stock will rise again due to his electoral achievements and granting a referendum in the first place.
No, Cameron didn't "divide his party" - the Party was already divided. He gave the Conservatives what they wanted.
It begs the question - what would "the Right" have done if REMAIN had won 52-48 ?
To be honest, what you described sounds very familiar to what happened with the Scottish Referendum so on that basis - if Scotland had voted to leave the UK, Cameron would have resigned immediately ?
The Conservatives must be enormously grateful that the vote didn't go 52/48 the other way.
It's fair to say that the party would be considerably more divided now, if the result had gone the other way.
As things are, we have the popcorn warming up and the champagne on ice, in anticipation of today's proceedings in Liverpool!
Had the vote gone the other way, the Tories would be in real danger of losing their Thames Estuary/North Kent seats to UKIP.
Mr. Rook, expecting a good answer from Burnham is like expecting the shipping forecast from a Siamese cat.
To be fair to Mascara Man, the question is unanswerable. The PLP's impotence may well be confirmed today. [Even if it isn't, Smith is awful too].
Poor Andy Burnham. Although at least he gets to put several hundred miles between himself and this nonsense soon when he is crowned Mayor of Greater Manchester.
The game isn't quite over for the PLP but you have to feel that the moment is coming. My understanding of the Labour Party machinery isn't particularly advanced, but I believe that the Corbynites have nearly half of the seats on the NEC: presumably, if they can obtain a bare majority and then lower the nomination threshold for leadership elections, then it's all over. And even if they can't do that, what prospect a mass purge of the moderates through targeted deselection campaigns by the new majority of hard left-leaning members?
Dom Perignon all round at Conservative central office, methinks.
The latest is that the changes to give reserved Scot and Welsh places on the NEC are likely to neuter the extra places the Corbis will get from the member vote. Labour may be useless at most things, but both sides do have black belts in political fixing.
In general, if each of the components you use is CE or FCC certified, then your resulting device will be, .
That is a big assumption and one that has caught out a lot of people in the sense that assumptions are the mother of all f***ups.
Just because individual components comply does not mean that when you assemble them into a product they still comply, because the electrical/electromagnetic interactions they have between each other can have unpredictable effects.
In your case Im guessing the product was principally batteries (passive), solar panels (passive) and an inverter bought as a complete certified unit, meaning the assumption you refer to was deemed reasonable.
If however you were manufacturing the inverter, then no way would you get away with the assumption that the active components and modules inside it are compliant so the whole lot is once you assemble it.
My own particular field (railways) also trips a lot of people up because compliance with environment specific standards are required over and above normal 'retail' requirements. But that is not really relevant to this debate.
Some EMC engineers can be absolutely anal. I heard of one case where exhaustive testing and documentation was done only for it to be apparently rejected because components (resistors, capacitors, integrated circuit chips etc) on the device used for the EMC tests were not from the same manufacturing batch as the ones being sold to his client so how could they guarantee that they had identical characteristcs.
Cameron's stock collapsed on the right because he not only divided his party but went on to scare-monger, didn't do any preparatory work [well, permit the Civil Service to do it] in case we voted Leave, had feeble arguments and belittled those who held a differing view. The bitterness came from Cameron.
Almost everyone here immediately recognised 'little Englanders' as offensive tosh (and stupid given most of the UK electorate is English).
In a few years, I imagine Cameron's Conservative stock will rise again due to his electoral achievements and granting a referendum in the first place.
Perhaps but that begs the question - what would "the Right" have done if REMAIN had won 52-48 ?
To be honest, what you described sounds very familiar to what happened with the Scottish Referendum so on that basis - if Scotland had voted to leave the UK, Cameron would have resigned immediately ?
He would have resigned if the Scottish referendum had been for Yes, no PM can survive losing over a third of the land in his country.
During the referendum campaign, Cameron saw his personal ratings drop from hugely positive to hugely negative with his own supporters, not due the side he took in the referendum but the way he conducted himself and the Remain campaign - starting with the 'renegotiation' effort in February and finishing with talk of emergency budgets and punitive tax rises. Having promised Armageddon if Leave won, his position really was untenable when it did.
It is also clear that the Remain side were hampered by effectively having a Tory-led campaign with the PM vetoing many of the campaigning ideas that came from non-Tory campaigners, particularly being a lot tougher on the likes of Gove and Boris. Cameron thought he would win anyway and wanted to reduce the collateral damage on his party. Big mistake.
Cameron and Osborne clearly decided the strategy and put themselves at the front of it. They should have used Alan Johnson more but they believed in their image. Consequences flowed from that with the eurosceptic leaning Conservative party turning against the pair each time they opened their mouths in the campaign. But, since Cameron piled up votes in his leadership campaign through taking a hard eurosceptic line towards the MEP grouping, Cameron & Osborne's deceit eventually brought them down. Just deserts.
Corbyn seems to be intending to try and gather everyone together by distracting them with a fight against grammars and talk of being on a ge footing, but it would be hilarious if the first act was to introduce a loyalty oath to the leader, or blood oath. See people squirm as they cannot hide from the question 'will you now support him.'
As it is most will say yes, grudgingly or not, a few not confirm but say they respect the members decision, the malcontents will stay mostly silent, and we will find out the handful of new Corbyn's from those who straight away say they won't.
Tough for them. JC is the way, the truth and the light.
Seeing the Labour Party turn into the SWP must be tricky for them, especially if they're rusty on the Trotskyite slogans. But pragmatism will win out and most will scurry back and keep their heads down. It'll be interesting to see who stays loyal to their consciences.
No I think some MPs now have nothing more to lose.
The vacuous Liz Kendall will probably keep her head down. But some MPs are seeing their constituency disappear, with little chance of winning the nomination for the redrawn constituencies.
For example, Tristram Hunt (Stoke on Trent Central) or Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) look doomed, whether they stay or whether they go. Theirs seats are disappearing.
Surely, glamorous Tristram will be eyeing well-paid meejah jobs, as opposed to slogging out and losing the nomination in the redrawn Stoke seats.
In the defections to the SDP, I think there were again boundary changes that prompted some of the defections. If you are not going to be re-selected for the re-drawn seat, you might as well go.
Mr. Mark, indeed, though it'd be getting more coverage if a man had done it. It seems a newspaper front page describes her as 'provoked and vulnerable'.
Right.
Excuses that would not be accepted if she was a man. Or a Tory.
It seems some Labour female MPs are getting police protection against constituents, and understandably so. Perhaps she needs police as well, to protect her constituents from her.
After all, who can tell when she will snap?
And I don't think she's got kids, or they'd need to be taken off her for their protection.
(The above are sometimes said about male perpetrators of violence).
Not an Archers listener, then?
Sadly not recently. Although I hear Helen Kitchener's got off scot-free, and has been granted custody of the kids.
Thus somewhat proving my point.
That entire storyline was so predictable and so utterly BBC. They should have been much more adventurous.
Just watching Andy Burnham flapping about and gasping like a stranded fish on BBC1 at the moment. Presenter asks him how public are meant to take Labour MPs seriously if they back Corbyn, having only just expressed no confidence in him. Burnham changes the subject. He has no answer. He can't have any answer. Can he?
No, and nor can those MPs other than the one they've already given. It's going to dog both sides as long as both remain in place.
I feared for the worst during the night, but it was a false alarm, Aldi have fitted it with a light detector so it dosent cuckoo in the dark (unlike some here I could mention)
As it was an Aldi purchase should it not be "Kuckucksuhren?"
In the same way the Labour Party have gone completely Kuckuck
Made in Blackpool though and it has an albino red breasted starling instead of a cuckoo.
Cameron's stock collapsed on the right because he not only divided his party but went on to scare-monger, didn't do any preparatory work [well, permit the Civil Service to do it] in case we voted Leave, had feeble arguments and belittled those who held a differing view. The bitterness came from Cameron.
Almost everyone here immediately recognised 'little Englanders' as offensive tosh (and stupid given most of the UK electorate is English).
In a few years, I imagine Cameron's Conservative stock will rise again due to his electoral achievements and granting a referendum in the first place.
Perhaps but that begs the question - what would "the Right" have done if REMAIN had won 52-48 ?
To be honest, what you described sounds very familiar to what happened with the Scottish Referendum so on that basis - if Scotland had voted to leave the UK, Cameron would have resigned immediately ?
He would have resigned if the Scottish referendum had been for Yes, no PM can survive losing over a third of the land in his country.
During the referendum campaign, Cameron saw his personal ratings drop from hugely positive to hugely negative with his own supporters, not due the side he took in threferendum but the way he conducted himself and the Remain campaign - starting with the 'renegotiation' effort in February and finishing with talk of emergency budgets and punitive tax rises. Having promised Armageddon if Leave won, his position really was untenable when it did.
It is also clear that the Remain side were hampered by effectively having a Tory-led campaign with the PM vetoing many of the campaigning ideas that came from non-Tory campaigners, particularly being a lot tougher on the likes of Gove and Boris. Cameron thought he would win anyway and wanted to reduce the collateral damage on his party. Big mistake.
Cameron and Osborne clearly decided the strategy and put themselves at the front of it. They should have used Alan Johnson more but they believed in their image. Consequences flowed from that with the eurosceptic leaning Conservative party turning against the pair each time they opened their mouths in the campaign. But, since Cameron piled up votes in his leadership campaign through taking a hard eurosceptic line towards the MEP grouping, Cameron & Osborne's deceit eventually brought them down. Just deserts.
I still think it more probable in explaining their actions that they knew it was close and felt they couldn't risk taking a back seat, since they'd be gone, Cameron at least, no matter they fix in the campaign if they lost. Pretending otherwise is like pretending he'd have continued on over Scotland.
Spot on. No doubt they retain hope it will, in time, become so again, and Corbyn shows the value of patiently waiting for the moment to transform the party, but as loyal as they are to the labour brand, the brand is not the same as it was right now, and pretending it is is silly. MPs will mostly by design be party fanatics, or calculating enough that they don't think they can survive switching or going Indy, and it shows when normal people would be able to at lest put their support for a party on hiatus, when what they are saying is essentially it doesn't matter what the party does or who leads it, they'll always support it.
Of course party members feel that way, but I feel like in ordinary times we can sort of pretend party support us based on reason, and now we cannot given the positions they find themselves in. And if they would support the party no matter what, they've not really assessed the party is better than others through reason, it's just a tribal reaction without thought. Usually true but we can usually pretend otherwise.
To be fair to most of these moderates, they have been placed in a most invidious position through no particular fault of their own. The conundrum has no satisfactory responses. Stay and fight for the party that you may well have been devoted to for decades, and it's likely that you will lose and simply end up being thrown out by the activists. Break away and form a new party, and past experience also suggests that you're likely to fail: even if most of the MPs were to leave Labour en masse, the risk is that (a) the left's two halves would fight each other to the death, splitting the vote and allowing the Tories to come through the middle and capture dozens of their seats; and (b) Corbyn Labour might well find itself coming out on top, through holding on to most of the ultra-safe inner city seats whilst the moderates fall like nine pins out in the suburbs.
Ultimately Labour seems to have been swallowed whole by the crisis of confidence in social democracy - and the resultant radical left challenge to it - that has been sweeping across most of Europe. But if you want to single out anybody for criticism in this whole sorry saga then it must surely be the moderates who nominated Corbyn in 2015 in order to "broaden the debate," when the idea of his actually winning would surely have appalled them? Margaret Beckett, Jon Cruddas, Frank Field and Sadiq Khan are amongst the more prominent of the guilty names who really should have known better.
Lol. Did you hear that "whooshing" sound? It was the sound of the point flying past your cavernous skull, setting up a resonance within that I expect has given you tinnitus.
Still, I'm hardly surprised it's a position you take.
Just a passing observation - you default to personal snidery very quickly: it's not a political thing aimed at any particular type of belief, just something you do. You seem basically a reasonable bloke with interesting opinions, so perhaps something to rein in a bit?
As always, an interesting piece from David (for which, as always, many thanks).
Remembering David writes from a Conservative perspective, it's a curious piece given what has happened in his Party in the past 15 months. In May 2015, David Cameron won the first Conservative overall majority in an election in a generation. Yet now he is out of the leadership and out of politics.
To an outsider, it's been a display of unpleasant, ill-tempered ruthlessness predicated solely on the principle the Conservative Party wants to, indeed needs to, stay in Government. Now, there are plenty of people who will tell me Cameron was the architect of his own downfall and there's a lot of truth in that.
The irony of Cameron saying all through the Referendum he would stay on as PM whatever the result and then walking away on the Friday morning isn't lost on me. After all, Cameron had said 72 hours before the 2010 GE there would be no deals with the Liberal Democrats yet by the Friday afternoon, he was "willing to talk".
I think it's the ingratitude I don't get - even Nick Clegg, who you would think would be anathema to most LDs, is welcomed to the Conference and allowed to speak and plug his book - the leader who oversaw the decimation of the councillor base and the loss of 7/8 of the Party's MPs. If he'd been a Conservative, one suspects, he'd have been put in a cage and pelted with rotten fruit.
That then is the nature and question of the political party - do you stay in Opposition with a leader you like, support, want to work for etc or do you sit in Government with a leader you don't like, doing things you don't necessarily support, changing loyalties and opinions as often as an extremely fastidious man obsessed with his personal appearance changes his socks but having the luxury of power ?
In the end, is it like supporting a football club - my Party, right or left, right or wrong ? I've always said if I liked the policies of a Government, I didn't care what colour rosette it had. That's not true of course but does it work the other way. If the team with your rosette starts introducing policies you don't support, what then ?
The Conservative Party operates on the principle that it is better to be feared than to be loved.
Respect is the quality usually aimed at. 'Loved', to some, smacks to much of cultism.
"In my lifetime, only one man has taken Labour from opposition into government — Tony Blair. The chances of anyone emulating him in the next few years strike me as infinitesimal. In fact, I genuinely think there is more chance of Mary Berry becoming the next James Bond than there is of Jeremy Corbyn walking into Downing Street as our next Prime Minister."
Mr. Mark, indeed, though it'd be getting more coverage if a man had done it. It seems a newspaper front page describes her as 'provoked and vulnerable'.
Right.
Excuses that would not be accepted if she was a man. Or a Tory.
It seems some Labour female MPs are getting police protection against constituents, and understandably so. Perhaps she needs police as well, to protect her constituents from her.
After all, who can tell when she will snap?
And I don't think she's got kids, or they'd need to be taken off her for their protection.
(The above are sometimes said about male perpetrators of violence).
Not an Archers listener, then?
Sadly not recently. Although I hear Helen Kitchener's got off scot-free, and has been granted custody of the kids.
Thus somewhat proving my point.
That entire storyline was so predictable and so utterly BBC. They should have been much more adventurous.
Titchener.
You've not listened to a story line and yet you know it's entirely predictable and so utterly BBC? Your critical faculties must be well nigh miraculous.
Spot on. No doubt they retain hope it will, in time, become so again, and Corbyn shows the value of patiently waiting for the moment to transform the party, but as loyal as they are to the labour brand, the brand is not the same as it was right now, and pretending it is is silly. MPs will mostly by design be party fanatics, or calculating enough that they don't think they can survive switching or going Indy, and it shows when normal people would be able to at lest put their support for a party on hiatus, when what they are saying is essentially.
Of course party members feel that way, but I feel like in ordinary times we can sort of in. And if they would support the party no matter what, they've not really assessed the party is better than others through reason, it's just a tribal reaction without thought. Usually true but we can usually pretend otherwise.
To be fair to most of these moderates, they have been placed in a most invidious position through no particular fault of their own. The conundrum has no satisfactory responses. Stay and fight for the party that you may well have been devoted to for decades, and it's likely that you will lose and simply end up being thrown out by the activists. Break away and form a new party, and past experience also suggests that you're likely to fail: even if most of the MPs were to leave Labour en masse, the risk is that (a) the left's two halves would fight each other to the death, splitting the vote and allowing the Tories to come through the middle and capture dozens of their seats; and (b) Corbyn Labour might well find itself coming out on top, through holding on to most of the ultra-safe inner city seats whilst the moderates fall like nine pins out in the suburbs.
Ultimately Labour seems to have been swallowed whole by the crisis of confidence in social democracy - and the resultant radical left challenge to it - that has been sweeping across most of Europe. But if you want to single out anybody for criticism in this whole sorry saga then it must surely be the moderates who nominated Corbyn in 2015 in order to "broaden the debate," when the idea of his actually winning would surely have appalled them? Margaret Beckett, Jon Cruddas, Frank Field and Sadiq Khan are amongst the more prominent of the guilty names who really should have known better.
Certainly agree on the last point. If having a broad debate was key to them, why did they approve rules which were designed to restrict it to PLP approved candidates in the first place? Why do that then ignore the purpose of those rules?
They have few options, indeed, and fighting on looks pointless right now, but I have little sympathy for them.
But on the flip side, though I think Corbynist labour would lose, like the MPs in England the labour brand is currently too strong to be destroyed.
Lol. Did you hear that "whooshing" sound? It was the sound of the point flying past your cavernous skull, setting up a resonance within that I expect has given you tinnitus.
Still, I'm hardly surprised it's a position you take.
Just a passing observation - you default to personal snidery very quickly: it's not a political thing aimed at any particular type of belief, just something you do. You seem basically a reasonable bloke with interesting opinions, so perhaps something to rein in a bit?
Nick, I'm not sure that's something you should really throw in my direction. I mean, its hard for me to respond because you'd just call it 'personal snidery', but you might remember something you said about stalkers?
Pot, kettle, black and all that. But I daresay you'd just call that snide.
Still, to get to the point do you think Champion's position is tenable given the revelation?
Mr. Mark, indeed, though it'd be getting more coverage if a man had done it. It seems a newspaper front page describes her as 'provoked and vulnerable'.
Right.
Excuses that would not be accepted if she was a man. Or a Tory.
It seems some Labour female MPs are getting police protection against constituents, and understandably so. Perhaps she needs police as well, to protect her constituents from her.
After all, who can tell when she will snap?
And I don't think she's got kids, or they'd need to be taken off her for their protection.
(The above are sometimes said about male perpetrators of violence).
Not an Archers listener, then?
Sadly not recently. Although I hear Helen Kitchener's got off scot-free, and has been granted custody of the kids.
Thus somewhat proving my point.
That entire storyline was so predictable and so utterly BBC. They should have been much more adventurous.
Sweet Poison, by Dorothy Sayers, is far more entertaining in terms of it's social commentary (everyone's enormously sympathetic to the protagonist, who's accused of murdering, with arsenic, the cad who seduced her, with a promise of marriage, and then abandoned her. So much so that some jurors refuse to convict her, on the basis it was no more than he deserved).
What we do know s that Cameron and Osborne's ratings plummeted during the long campaign. Why they ignored that and just gave themselves more media time is inexplicable. At GE2010 Cameron and Osborne made very little use of research to test ideas and messages. GE2015 was run differently by the Aussie, however the referendum appears to have gone back to the GE2010 approach allied with Lib Dem and Labour people who had mainly run losing campaigns...... For example after their disaster at GE2015, how would any Lib Dems involved with that be regarded as the best people to have a say in the strategy for REMAIN?
To be fair to most of these moderates, they have been placed in a most invidious position through no particular fault of their own. The conundrum has no satisfactory responses. Stay and fight for the party that you may well have been devoted to for decades, and it's likely that you will lose and simply end up being thrown out by the activists. Break away and form a new party, and past experience also suggests that you're likely to fail: even if most of the MPs were to leave Labour en masse, the risk is that (a) the left's two halves would fight each other to the death, splitting the vote and allowing the Tories to come through the middle and capture dozens of their seats; and (b) Corbyn Labour might well find itself coming out on top, through holding on to most of the ultra-safe inner city seats whilst the moderates fall like nine pins out in the suburbs.
Ultimately Labour seems to have been swallowed whole by the crisis of confidence in social democracy - and the resultant radical left challenge to it - that has been sweeping across most of Europe. But if you want to single out anybody for criticism in this whole sorry saga then it must surely be the moderates who nominated Corbyn in 2015 in order to "broaden the debate," when the idea of his actually winning would surely have appalled them? Margaret Beckett, Jon Cruddas, Frank Field and Sadiq Khan are amongst the more prominent of the guilty names who really should have known better.
Certainly agree on the last point. If having a broad debate was key to them, why did they approve rules which were designed to restrict it to PLP approved candidates in the first place? Why do that then ignore the purpose of those rules?
They have few options, indeed, and fighting on looks pointless right now, but I have little sympathy them.
But on the flip side, though I think Corbynist labour would lose, like the MPs in England the labour brand is currently too strong to be destroyed.
I have zero sympathy for moderate Labour MPs - they've done nothing but bitch and whine. No alternative agenda, no credible candidate to challenge Jezza. When all you offer is carp and Owen Who - what did they expect? Disenfranchising your own members was another - along with taking each other to court.
Mr. Mark, indeed, though it'd be getting more coverage if a man had done it. It seems a newspaper front page describes her as 'provoked and vulnerable'.
Right.
Excuses that would not be accepted if she was a man. Or a Tory.
It seems some Labour female MPs are getting police protection against constituents, and understandably so. Perhaps she needs police as well, to protect her constituents from her.
After all, who can tell when she will snap?
And I don't think she's got kids, or they'd need to be taken off her for their protection.
(The above are sometimes said about male perpetrators of violence).
Not an Archers listener, then?
Sadly not recently. Although I hear Helen Kitchener's got off scot-free, and has been granted custody of the kids.
Thus somewhat proving my point.
That entire storyline was so predictable and so utterly BBC. They should have been much more adventurous.
Titchener.
You've not listened to a story line and yet you know it's entirely predictable and so utterly BBC? Your critical faculties must be well nigh miraculous.
I've not listened in the last couple of weeks (last during the trial), but have it on catch-up upstairs (I'm sad enough to listen to it sometimes on podcast when I'm out and about). I've just read that she was granted custody.
I still think it more probable in explaining their actions that they knew it was close and felt they couldn't risk taking a back seat, since they'd be gone, Cameron at least, no matter they fix in the campaign if they lost. Pretending otherwise is like pretending he'd have continued on over Scotland.
Following on from the publication of the new LSE research yesterday, I would go further. It is possible that the Tory high command suspected, based on anecdotal evidence and their own private polling, that they were losing, and their tactics during the short campaign can therefore be explained by desperation. The media and the commentariat didn't advance this simple explanation because the publicly available polls suggested a very close contest (and a fair number of them still gave Remain leads.)
As with the general election, slightly off-kilter headline VI figures wrote the media narrative, when the likely outcome was predictable by taking the time to look at what was going on only just beneath the surface. Surveys suggested the Tories were well ahead on leadership and economic competence before they won the 2015 election, and likewise immigration (not the economy) was the number one issue of public concern in the run-up to the EU referendum vote. The referendum situation was a little more complex, not least because the aforementioned LSE data suggests that Leave was ahead well before the vote and may have had a long-term, settled advantage baked in - but nonetheless, evidence that the headline polls were wrong was there for anybody who chose to look for it.
Mr. Mark, indeed, though it'd be getting more coverage if a man had done it. It seems a newspaper front page describes her as 'provoked and vulnerable'.
Right.
Excuses that would not be accepted if she was a man. Or a Tory.
It seems some Labour female MPs are getting police protection against constituents, and understandably so. Perhaps she needs police as well, to protect her constituents from her.
After all, who can tell when she will snap?
And I don't think she's got kids, or they'd need to be taken off her for their protection.
(The above are sometimes said about male perpetrators of violence).
Not an Archers listener, then?
Sadly not recently. Although I hear Helen Kitchener's got off scot-free, and has been granted custody of the kids.
Thus somewhat proving my point.
That entire storyline was so predictable and so utterly BBC. They should have been much more adventurous.
Sweet Poison, by Dorothy Sayers, is far more entertaining in terms of it's social commentary (everyone's enormously sympathetic to the protagonist, who's accused of murdering, with arsenic, the cad who seduced her, with a promise of marriage, and then abandoned her. So much so that some jurors refuse to convict her, on the basis it was no more than he deserved).
Cameron's stock collapsed on the right because he not only divided his party but went on to scare-monger, didn't do any preparatory work [well, permit the Civil Service to do it] in case we voted Leave, had feeble arguments and belittled those who held a differing view. The bitterness came from Cameron.
Almost everyone here immediately recognised 'little Englanders' as offensive tosh (and stupid given most of the UK electorate is English).
In a few years, I imagine Cameron's Conservative stock will rise again due to his electoral achievements and granting a referendum in the first place.
No, Cameron didn't "divide his party" - the Party was already divided. He gave the Conservatives what they wanted.
The party was divided three ways, roughly 10% Clarkeite federalist, 50% Leave and 40% "whatever, follow the leader". Then Cameron chose the 50/50 split rather than the 90/10.
I am not sure what you are trying to prove here, Paul? Statistics in this area are notioriously problematic, because of the subjectivity involved and because most incidents constitute relatively minor verbal abuse which most people just want quickly to forget. Nevertheless there is no doubt at all that, in the weeks following the Brexit vote, both EU migrants and black and Asian British people were on the receiving end of a lot of verbal comments of a "go home" nature, with some violence and at least two murders. Try speaking to some of them; you'll have it confirmed soon enough.
Im sure there were unpleasant incidents but the thrust of that article is that such incidents are being systematically exagerrated in number and severity for both doctrinal and troughing reasons.
Personally I abhor the hate laws for the following reasons.
They establish a heirachy of victim priorities meaning we are no longer equal under the law.
Someone who beats someone up to steal their purse is just as evil as someone who beats someone up because they are black. But the law no longer recognises this. The latter now is a special offence with a higher sentence and higher priority to investigate and prosecute.
The authorities should prosecute because of illegal actions. If the intent behind those actions aggravates it that is a matter for the sentencing judge.
Secondly it never occurred to the fools drawing up hate crime legislation that they are opening the doors to a pogrom of those they seek to protect if politicians of a different shade are elected.
If we had a le pen government all her home secretary would have to do is to give guidance to police that hate crimes by ethnic minorities against the native population and by homosexuals against heterosexuals are the priority for investigation and a severe persecution could be unleashed without even the need for secondary legislation.
Mr. Mark, indeed, though it'd be getting more coverage if a man had done it. It seems a newspaper front page describes her as 'provoked and vulnerable'.
Right.
Excuses that would not be accepted if she was a man. Or a Tory.
It seems some Labour female MPs are getting police protection against constituents, and understandably so. Perhaps she needs police as well, to protect her constituents from her.
After all, who can tell when she will snap?
And I don't think she's got kids, or they'd need to be taken off her for their protection.
(The above are sometimes said about male perpetrators of violence).
Not an Archers listener, then?
Sadly not recently. Although I hear Helen Kitchener's got off scot-free, and has been granted custody of the kids.
Thus somewhat proving my point.
That entire storyline was so predictable and so utterly BBC. They should have been much more adventurous.
BBC is institutionally unable to make drama anymore. The moral always comes first, rendering characters as cardboard cut-outs.
From costume drama, to police procedural -- when was the last great BBC drama?
I've got to hand it to Trump, I thought Johnson was going to run the griftiest campaign but Trump is beating him hands down. Campaign offices rented from his properties, campaign events renting spaces in his own resorts and, my favourite, the Secret Service paying Trump over a million dollars so far to travel with him as the Trump campaign is renting Trump's plane from a Trump company.
Is it possible that Trump personally and via his companies may come out at a profit at the expense of his campaign?
Yes, this seems to be the plan. So assuming he loses this November, it's hard to see why he wouldn't try for repeat business in 2020.
oh dear lord i hope not.
I assume its a one off con
He can tell the marks the election was rigged, he's the legitimate president, justice will triumph next time...
Whilst Labour has, impressively, had four ever-worsening leaders in a row, it won't last forever. With Lib Dems weak and UKIP uncertain (we'll see how James does), Labour will likely maintain its position as one of the big two parties.
Edited extra bit: slight miswording. Three worsening leaders, over the last four there's been continual decline.
Mr. Mark, indeed, though it'd be getting more coverage if a man had done it. It seems a newspaper front page describes her as 'provoked and vulnerable'.
Right.
Excuses that would not be accepted if she was a man. Or a Tory.
It seems some Labour female MPs are getting police protection against constituents, and understandably so. Perhaps she needs police as well, to protect her constituents from her.
After all, who can tell when she will snap?
And I don't think she's got kids, or they'd need to be taken off her for their protection.
(The above are sometimes said about male perpetrators of violence).
Not an Archers listener, then?
Sadly not recently. Although I hear Helen Kitchener's got off scot-free, and has been granted custody of the kids.
Thus somewhat proving my point.
That entire storyline was so predictable and so utterly BBC. They should have been much more adventurous.
Sweet Poison, by Dorothy Sayers, is far more entertaining in terms of it's social commentary (everyone's enormously sympathetic to the protagonist, who's accused of murdering, with arsenic, the cad who seduced her, with a promise of marriage, and then abandoned her. So much so that some jurors refuse to convict her, on the basis it was no more than he deserved).
Agreed.
But wasn't it 'Strong Poison'?
Drama works best when there's nuance in the characterisation, which there wasn't in the Archers storyline.
This champion business does seem 6 of 1, half a dozen of another - from her own account admittedly, but he also accepted a caution apparently- but as the question was put is I think the essence of reasonableness : would people react the same way if the gender of the MP was different. I always ask with 'scandals' whether Tories or labour or whoever would be so outraged about things if it was one of their own, and this is a similar question.
Certainly agree on the last point. If having a broad debate was key to them, why did they approve rules which were designed to restrict it to PLP approved candidates in the first place? Why do that then ignore the purpose of those rules?
They have few options, indeed, and fighting on looks pointless right now, but I have little sympathy for them.
But on the flip side, though I think Corbynist labour would lose, like the MPs in England the labour brand is currently too strong to be destroyed.
Oh indeed, Labour brand loyalty is extremely strong. Any alternative centre-left offering would probably need three, maybe more, electoral cycles to gradually wear down any hard left party that retained the Labour name and the support of at least a substantial fraction of the trades unions. It's a pretty desperate situation for them.
I reckon that, as things stand, somewhere between 15-20% of the electorate is willing to give serious consideration to the arguments of a radical left platform, and if you top that up with voter groups strongly likely to lean strongly to Labour under any likely circumstances (e.g. poorer, urban black and Muslim voters) then a united Labour under Corbyn ought still to be able to poll 25% in the next election. If a split were to occur then all bets are off - the SDP successor might be able to steal Lib Dems and wet Tory votes, and there would presumably be large regional variations in support for the left's two halves - but we shouldn't necessarily assume that Corbyn Labour would emerge from a ballot the weaker of the two. And even if it didn't, the moderate faction would still be highly unlikely to be in a position to go into Government at any subsequent GE without Commons support from both Corbyn Labour and the SNP, which would cripple them in the struggle to expand their support.
Spot on. No doubt they retain hope it will, in time, become so again, and Corbyn shows the value of patiently waiting for the moment to transform the party, but as loyal as they are to the labour brand, the brand is not the same as it was right now, and pretending it is is silly.
Of course party members feel that way, but I feel like in ordinary times we can sort of in. And if they would support the party no matter what, they've not really assessed the party is better than others through reason, it's just a tribal reaction without thought. Usually true but we can usually pretend otherwise.
To be fair to most of these moderates, they have been placed in a most invidious position through no particular fault of their own. The conundrum has no satisfactory responses. Stay and fight for the party that you may well have been devoted to for decades, and it's likely that you will lose and simply end up being thrown out by the activists. Break away and form a new party, and past experience also suggests that you're likely to fail: even if most of the MPs were to leave Labour en masse, the risk is that (a) the left's two halves would fight each other to the death, splitting the vote and allowing the Tories to come through the middle and capture dozens of their seats; and (b) Corbyn Labour might well find itself coming out on top, through holding on to most of the ultra-safe inner city seats whilst the moderates fall like nine pins out in the suburbs.
Ultimately Labour seems to have been swallowed whole by the crisis of confidence in social democracy - and the resultant radical left challenge to it - that has been sweeping across most of Europe. But if you want to single out anybody for criticism in this whole sorry saga then it must surely be the moderates who nominated Corbyn in 2015 in order to "broaden the debate," when the idea of his actually winning would surely have appalled them? Margaret Beckett, Jon Cruddas, Frank Field and Sadiq Khan are amongst the more prominent of the guilty names who really should have known better.
Certainly agree on the last point. If having a broad debate was key to them, why did they approve rules which were designed to restrict it to PLP approved candidates in the first place? Why do that then ignore the purpose of those rules?
They have few options, indeed, and fighting on looks pointless right now, but I have little sympathy for them.
But on the flip side, though I think Corbynist labour would lose, like the MPs in England the labour brand is currently too strong to be destroyed.
They do however seem to have lost sight of the fact that, at root, politics is about ideas rather than personalities. Having a few might be a good place to start?
Cameron's stock collapsed on the right because he not only divided his party but went on to scare-monger, didn't do any preparatory work [well, permit the Civil Service to do it] in case we voted Leave, had feeble arguments and belittled those who held a differing view. The bitterness came from Cameron.
Almost everyone here immediately recognised 'little Englanders' as offensive tosh (and stupid given most of the UK electorate is English).
In a few years, I imagine Cameron's Conservative stock will rise again due to his electoral achievements and granting a referendum in the first place.
No, Cameron didn't "divide his party" - the Party was already divided. He gave the Conservatives what they wanted.
The party was divided three ways, roughly 10% Clarkeite federalist, 50% Leave and 40% "whatever, follow the leader". Then Cameron chose the 50/50 split rather than the 90/10.
Believing the split is like that is to say masses of MPs and members are liars. It also makes his decision to go remain seem entirely irrational. He didn't strike me as irrational. What it also does is say that most Tory remainers were not really remainers at all, which is hugely disrespectful. Frankly, when the view was advanced during the campaign it just came across as leaver Tories saying remainer Tories were illegitimate, since it states they didn't really support what they said they did.
It comforts to think people opposing them are not really opposing them. But it doesn't accord with what happened. If it were that simple, they'd not have had such ructions over the damn issue inthe first place.
More about how that Brexit Hate Crime surge came about:
"Of course it should be stressed that genuine hate crime is not to be tolerated. In Friday’s Mail, for example, the Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth described being sent 25,000 abusive messages by members of her party’s Corbyn-supporting far Left, one of which referred to her as a ‘yid c***’.
In essence, snip. If they fail, the ‘victim’ can potentially claim to have suffered so-called ‘secondary victimisation’ in which the ‘hate’ he or she experienced is compounded by the police’s lack of sensitivity.....
Consider, in this context, the aforementioned police website True Vision. It allows anyone, anywhere in Britain, to report an incident, even if they were not the victim, have no idea of the victim’s identity, can provide no supporting evidence, and would prefer to remain anonymous.
Their claims then get logged as official statistics and, as we have seen above, used by ‘experts’ to draw sweeping conclusions (invariably negative) about the state of the nation.
Seldom has such a system been more open to abuse than in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote, when Left-wing media outlets predicted a ‘surge of xenophobia’ and disheartened Remain voters attempted to prove them right. On Twitter, the hashtag #postbrexit racism went viral.
On Facebook, a forum called ‘worrying signs’ was established for ‘anyone dealing with post-Brexit fallout’ to post reports of hate crime. From here, users were directed to True Vision.
Unsurprisingly, many allegedly racist incidents they carried turned out to be anything but."
I am not sure what you are trying to prove here, Paul? Statistics in this area are notioriously problematic, because of the subjectivity involved and because most incidents constitute relatively minor verbal abuse which most people just want quickly to forget. Nevertheless there is no doubt at all that, in the weeks following the Brexit vote, both EU migrants and black and Asian British people were on the receiving end of a lot of verbal comments of a "go home" nature, with some violence and at least two murders. Try speaking to some of them; you'll have it confirmed soon enough.
On yet another hand, I believe - and it seems intuitively likely - that football hooligans are more vicious after their team loses, so we do not know that a remain vote would not have triggered an equal or greater amount of violence. So perhaps the real blame lies with David Cameron for having a referendum at all.
I read that piece the other day. It requires you to imagine yourself living in a parallel universe in which 40% of the electorate in England is ready to embrace radical socialism, if only a sufficiently skilled salesman were available to talk them into it.
I suppose that you can't completely rule out this prospect, a bit like the fact that you can't absolutely rule out Northern Ireland winning the World Cup at some point during our lifetimes, But I wouldn't stake any money on it. Would you?
As always, an interesting piece from David (for which, as always, many thanks).
[snip]
Morning, Stodge.
I'd hope not to be writing from a Conservative perspective in the leader. In terms of both analysis and prediction, I think any writer does themselves a disservice if trying to be partisan, to spin or simply to fail to counter any innate bias. Events won't work according to a conservative, socialist, Marxist or liberal viewpoint and one loses credibility if trying to Pangloss a take. I'd rather keep my credibility and do the best to predict things as they'll be - and that means trying to be as impartial as possible.
On your comments, I think we come at this from different stances; perhaps inevitably given our different party experiences. As you rightly say, for Conservatives, power ranks extremely highly: you can do very little without it. Policies and tactics therefore have to be trimmed to that overriding objective and feeling good about yourself and your ideological purity is a luxury, as is having a leader who promotes exactly what you want, unless the electorate can be persuaded. Hence the tolerance of Cameron for 11 years, despite him being out of step with much of the party; hence the supreme example of bringing down Thatcher when it became necessary. Labour wouldn't have done that in a million years, though many within the party at least understand the reasoning; they just see it as 'not our way'. The Lib Dems too.
That's one aspect of the 'ingratitude'. Cameron was never truly taken to the party's heart, so didn't have much political capital to draw on when he took on his own party in the EURef and rapidly exhausted that with such a negative campaign.
So yes, had Cameron lost 250 MPs, he would indeed be in the stocks - though in reality, he'd never have had the chance to lead the party through to an election were the polling and the election results that bad.
But the post-Cameron contrast also has to be made with Labour. Far from it having been "a display of unpleasant, ill-tempered ruthlessness", the party came together quickly after Cameron's departure. Even the departure stands in contrast. Cameron fell on his sword; Corbyn behaved like the Black Knight. Thereafter, the Tories held a relatively civilised leadership contest. Ruthless it might have been but it was collective ruthlessness looking out, with not only Cameron but Boris and Leadsom willing to sacrifice their ambitions to future party unity.
Does that simply come down to 'my party right or wrong'? No, it's more nuanced than that. Policy is still hotly debated but the implicit agreement still stands (and it's one that Labour has broken), which is that in return for a fairly blank cheque in running things, the leadership will not become too ideological and too far out of step with the public.
This champion business does seem 6 of 1, half a dozen of another - from her own account admittedly, but he also accepted a caution apparently- but as the question was put is I think the essence of reasonableness : would people react the same way if the gender of the MP was different. I always ask with 'scandals' whether Tories or labour or whoever would be so outraged about things if it was one of their own, and this is a similar question.
Indeed.
Though there is another factor here, and that is her role. Her own personal experience (which she seemed rather reticent to mention in the past) shows that abuse is not just from men towards women, but is often much more complex.
She needs to speak not only for the estimated 4.5 million female victims, but also the estimated 2.2 million male victims.
Yet I find her comments she has given wrt her role (as reported in the press at least) to be much simpler than that. Women are victims. Men are the abusers.
At best, it makes her a hypocrite.
Much better if, on being given the role, she had been open about it and much more nuanced about what is a massively complex topic which has many causes.
I read that piece the other day. It requires you to imagine yourself living in a parallel universe in which 40% of the electorate in England is ready to embrace radical socialism, if only a sufficiently skilled salesman were available to talk them into it.
I suppose that you can't completely rule out this prospect, a bit like the fact that you can't absolutely rule out Northern Ireland winning the World Cup at some point during our lifetimes, But I wouldn't stake any money on it. Would you?
Move on 15 years, tories exhausted and scandal ridden. Young radical left Labour leader with all the cunning and charisma of Blair. All to easy to see how it could happen.
In fact Blairisms greatest success was to hide its Frankfurt School extreme left nature under a cloak of neo-conservative economics.
Whilst Labour has, impressively, had four ever-worsening leaders in a row, it won't last forever. With Lib Dems weak and UKIP uncertain (we'll see how James does), Labour will likely maintain its position as one of the big two parties.
Edited extra bit: slight miswording. Three worsening leaders, over the last four there's been continual decline.
I agree the voting system will shore up Labour despite its travails, but the point of the article was more that politics and political opinions are becoming unpredictable; that it is possible to prompt major changes in attitudes and policy without being in power (cf Farage, Trump, insurgent parties across Europe), and that Corbyn has an army of young enthused activists but the Tories do not. The article also observed that the political environment is already forcing May towards left-type proposals (workers on boards etc,) despite the Tories being effectively unchallenged.
I took the bottom line to be that, despite Corbyn's chances of electoral victory being low, the state of things should be giving the Government a lot to think, and worry, about.
"Another Einstein observation was that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
He absolutely did not say that, and it is not something he would have said - it is obviously wrong, because in the cases of flipping a coin or throwing dice insanity is expecting the same result each time, and many if not most human actions have an element of chance in them. (For example, it would not be sane, if one failed a job interview, to conclude that all future job applications were bound to produce the same result). Nor that all challenges to Corbyn were doomed to fail.
Comments
It begs the question - what would "the Right" have done if REMAIN had won 52-48 ?
To be honest, what you described sounds very familiar to what happened with the Scottish Referendum so on that basis - if Scotland had voted to leave the UK, Cameron would have resigned immediately ?
They cost an absolute fortune and in low risk products, the EMC compliance adds little if any value.
Sure any manufacturer can fill out a form that says We RCS Widgets Ltd declare under our sole responsibility etc. etc. and assert that the product meets the essential requirements of EMC, Low Voltage and RoHS directive through blah blah (usually by a plethora of harmonised standards that cost about £100 each from the British standards institute.
Sell one to me in my professional capacity and I will say to you, "Prove it", and expect to receive detailed technical documentation including test reports from accredited test houses. Usually I find that (with the exception of German made products, for reason, see below) even where they have attempted to do it properly the test house have f***cked up at least one of the EMC tests (fiendishly complicated) and I have on occasion even demanded a retest at great cost to the seller. Trading standards are also entitled to do this and prosecute if the information is not in order.
Sell to Germany and you may to your cost discover that their authorities buy a large number of products themselves, put them through all the essential requirements tests and prosecute the selling company if it fails a test.
This is all very well and good with safety critical things like components for nuclear power stations. But a model railway colour light signal using LEDs operating at 5 Volts? Perhaps not. It just locks out competition for the big boys from small companies. I know of a small company that make very good model railway engines from a chap in the Isle of Man who makes them outside the single market and sells by circulation of price list to those who know.
You will also notice that all model railway products made in the UK with CE marks have a notice saying they are not toys and musnt be used by under 14s to get out of the childs toy CE tests.
This nonsense needs sweeping away in many sectors so that small companies wanting to compete with the big boys on low risk products don't need to go to the Isle of Man (or more usually they don't start up at all). Even if this parliament won't do anything about it, this parliament won't bind future parliaments. Brexit is a long term strategy for freedom.
During the referendum campaign, Cameron saw his personal ratings drop from hugely positive to hugely negative with his own supporters, not due the side he took in the referendum but the way he conducted himself and the Remain campaign - starting with the 'renegotiation' effort in February and finishing with talk of emergency budgets and punitive tax rises. Having promised Armageddon if Leave won, his position really was untenable when it did.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/10858831/Domestic-violence-viral-ad-the-real-difference-between-attacks-on-women-and-attacks-on-men.html
So while male victims report 40% of isolated crimes, females make up 89% of those suffering 4 or more attacks, and are most at risk of murder. Of the remaining 11% of repeated offences many are male vs male in the context of homosexual domestic relationships.
According to Lundy Bancroft, about a third of women in refuges have previously been arrested for domestic violence themselves. Some of this comes from both partners being arrested (as in Champions case) but some also as a result of controlling and manipulative behavior by male perpetrators.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Does-He-That-Controlling/dp/0425191656/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1401825949&sr=1-1&keywords=why+does+he+do+that
I have had my fill of seeing victims of domestic violence over my 25 years as a doctor. It is worrying that since 2009 that while violent deaths of men are on a downward trend there has been a sharp uptick in female deaths. In part this may be because of austerity closing womens refuges, which particularly affects BME women, as they often have nowhere else to go.
"Jeremy Corbyn sat in my reserved train seat" .. MIkey Smith of the Mirror. NIce story nicely handled.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-ram-packed-virgin-8901399
Blair had the same advantage that most of his MPs had backed him on Iraq. May would IMHO be exceptionally brave if she marches off towards her preferred Brexit without getting her MPs to vote for and publicly associate themselves with it.
I feared for the worst during the night, but it was a false alarm, Aldi have fitted it with a light detector so it dosent cuckoo in the dark (unlike some here I could mention)
To be fair to Mascara Man, the question is unanswerable. The PLP's impotence may well be confirmed today. [Even if it isn't, Smith is awful too].
I assume its a one off con
Hi Paul, I have been involved in a solar battery company, and we created a product that had to be sold worldwide, and required FCC, CE and UL certification.
In general, if each of the components you use is CE or FCC certified, then your resulting device will be, so the bulk of testing ends up at the (usually Chinese) component maker level. It was perhaps a days work interlynal to make sure we were both CE and FCC compliant, not least because there's a huge amount of overlap as far as those two standards go.
The only test which was costly for us, as a small business, was UL.
Paul, if you want I can put you in touch with the MD of Sunbird Solar. As a low voltage device, with a battery, and (potential) electromagnetic emissions, it was covered by a bunch of different requirements in the EU and the US (and a bunch of other places too.) I'm sure he'd more than willing to take you through the stages involved. But, really, getting both our CE and our FCC marks, and being compliant was one of those items that we thought would be difficult but actually turned out to be very, very easy.
I can't help feeling that the outcome of today's vote is not going to be any truce or reconciliation but an acceleration of the war. Corbyn and his supporters will feel vindicated, they will be angry that the party has been put through this and they will somewhat hypocritically demand the kind of loyalty to the leadership that Corbyn steadfastly refused to provide throughout his career.
The PLP in contrast will be in despair, worrying about deselection (rightly so) and the loss of many marginal seats whether they are deselected or not. Many will wonder what the point is given that the opportunity to actually govern and make a difference is fading into the far distance. The few of genuine ability will wonder if there is something more productive they can do with their lives. Labour has been losing talent that way since Brown. There is not much left as Owen Smith demonstrated all too vividly.
Sounds like the perfect Saturday (except for the rain)
Enjoy it.
In the same way the Labour Party have gone completely Kuckuck
Of course party members feel that way, but I feel like in ordinary times we can sort of pretend party support us based on reason, and now we cannot given the positions they find themselves in. And if they would support the party no matter what, they've not really assessed the party is better than others through reason, it's just a tribal reaction without thought. Usually true but we can usually pretend otherwise.
4 beat the cops and public last time - a remarkable feat over 28 days IMO
We have Ms Champion's version of what happened. Whilst she doesn't entirely absolve herself of blame, she certainly puts a huge chunk of the blame on the behaviour of her ex-husband.
In the circumstances, it is rather noble & restrained of her ex-husband not to comment, or offer his version of events.
The game isn't quite over for the PLP but you have to feel that the moment is coming. My understanding of the Labour Party machinery isn't particularly advanced, but I believe that the Corbynites have nearly half of the seats on the NEC: presumably, if they can obtain a bare majority and then lower the nomination threshold for leadership elections, then it's all over. And even if they can't do that, what prospect a mass purge of the moderates through targeted deselection campaigns by the new majority of hard left-leaning members?
Dom Perignon all round at Conservative central office, methinks.
No sign of that so far.
Seeing the Labour Party turn into the SWP must be tricky for them, especially if they're rusty on the Trotskyite slogans. But pragmatism will win out and most will scurry back and keep their heads down. It'll be interesting to see who stays loyal to their consciences.
As things are, we have the popcorn warming up and the champagne on ice, in anticipation of today's proceedings in Liverpool!
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1200887#Comment_1200887
I said I can't see Owen Who being any match for Jezza... And he hasn't!
The vacuous Liz Kendall will probably keep her head down. But some MPs are seeing their constituency disappear, with little chance of winning the nomination for the redrawn constituencies.
For example, Tristram Hunt (Stoke on Trent Central) or Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) look doomed, whether they stay or whether they go. Theirs seats are disappearing.
Surely, glamorous Tristram will be eyeing well-paid meejah jobs, as opposed to slogging out and losing the nomination in the redrawn Stoke seats.
In the defections to the SDP, I think there were again boundary changes that prompted some of the defections. If you are not going to be re-selected for the re-drawn seat, you might as well go.
The first episode featured an area I know very well - Wimpole Hall and its environs. In fact I was there on Tuesday.
Something about that sequence didn't quite add up. It seems a fair amount of artistic licence is being used on the series.
A fun watch though.
Just because individual components comply does not mean that when you assemble them into a product they still comply, because the electrical/electromagnetic interactions they have between each other can have unpredictable effects.
In your case Im guessing the product was principally batteries (passive), solar panels (passive) and an inverter bought as a complete certified unit, meaning the assumption you refer to was deemed reasonable.
If however you were manufacturing the inverter, then no way would you get away with the assumption that the active components and modules inside it are compliant so the whole lot is once you assemble it.
My own particular field (railways) also trips a lot of people up because compliance with environment specific standards are required over and above normal 'retail' requirements. But that is not really relevant to this debate.
Some EMC engineers can be absolutely anal. I heard of one case where exhaustive testing and documentation was done only for it to be apparently rejected because components (resistors, capacitors, integrated circuit chips etc) on the device used for the EMC tests were not from the same manufacturing batch as the ones being sold to his client so how could they guarantee that they had identical characteristcs.
As it is most will say yes, grudgingly or not, a few not confirm but say they respect the members decision, the malcontents will stay mostly silent, and we will find out the handful of new Corbyn's from those who straight away say they won't.
Tough for them. JC is the way, the truth and the light.
Thus somewhat proving my point.
That entire storyline was so predictable and so utterly BBC. They should have been much more adventurous.
Ultimately Labour seems to have been swallowed whole by the crisis of confidence in social democracy - and the resultant radical left challenge to it - that has been sweeping across most of Europe. But if you want to single out anybody for criticism in this whole sorry saga then it must surely be the moderates who nominated Corbyn in 2015 in order to "broaden the debate," when the idea of his actually winning would surely have appalled them? Margaret Beckett, Jon Cruddas, Frank Field and Sadiq Khan are amongst the more prominent of the guilty names who really should have known better.
In fact, I genuinely think there is more chance of Mary Berry becoming the next James Bond than there is of Jeremy Corbyn walking into Downing Street as our next Prime Minister."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3804952/Death-Labour-Party-Today-barring-miracle-Corbyn-elected-leader-heralding-end-great-reforming-party-s-killed-hard-Left-Britain-poorer-it.html#ixzz4LA4KJhra
'The Trotskyist weevil in the Labour party' - The Times, 35 years ago today. https://t.co/kCDHl2XPHQ
You've not listened to a story line and yet you know it's entirely predictable and so utterly BBC? Your critical faculties must be well nigh miraculous.
They have few options, indeed, and fighting on looks pointless right now, but I have little sympathy for them.
But on the flip side, though I think Corbynist labour would lose, like the MPs in England the labour brand is currently too strong to be destroyed.
Pot, kettle, black and all that. But I daresay you'd just call that snide.
Still, to get to the point do you think Champion's position is tenable given the revelation?
https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/779439606676742144
Mmm, equality.
It's the handbook for How Not To Win.
Is that not correct?
As with the general election, slightly off-kilter headline VI figures wrote the media narrative, when the likely outcome was predictable by taking the time to look at what was going on only just beneath the surface. Surveys suggested the Tories were well ahead on leadership and economic competence before they won the 2015 election, and likewise immigration (not the economy) was the number one issue of public concern in the run-up to the EU referendum vote. The referendum situation was a little more complex, not least because the aforementioned LSE data suggests that Leave was ahead well before the vote and may have had a long-term, settled advantage baked in - but nonetheless, evidence that the headline polls were wrong was there for anybody who chose to look for it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/23/dont-be-afraid-of-jeremy-corbyn-be-afraid-of-what-comes-after-hi/
But wasn't it 'Strong Poison'?
Momentum event parallel to conf-'Like World Cup finale but better. Live stream of ... announcement-come and scream/laugh/cry/dance with us'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37460682
There need to be some serious discussions about the way tech is altering perceptions of personal privacy, and the lack thereof.
Personally I abhor the hate laws for the following reasons.
They establish a heirachy of victim priorities meaning we are no longer equal under the law.
Someone who beats someone up to steal their purse is just as evil as someone who beats someone up because they are black. But the law no longer recognises this. The latter now is a special offence with a higher sentence and higher priority to investigate and prosecute.
The authorities should prosecute because of illegal actions. If the intent behind those actions aggravates it that is a matter for the sentencing judge.
Secondly it never occurred to the fools drawing up hate crime legislation that they are opening the doors to a pogrom of those they seek to protect if politicians of a different shade are elected.
If we had a le pen government all her home secretary would have to do is to give guidance to police that hate crimes by ethnic minorities against the native population and by homosexuals against heterosexuals are the priority for investigation and a severe persecution could be unleashed without even the need for secondary legislation.
From costume drama, to police procedural -- when was the last great BBC drama?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/23/dont-be-afraid-of-jeremy-corbyn-be-afraid-of-what-comes-after-hi/
Whilst Labour has, impressively, had four ever-worsening leaders in a row, it won't last forever. With Lib Dems weak and UKIP uncertain (we'll see how James does), Labour will likely maintain its position as one of the big two parties.
Edited extra bit: slight miswording. Three worsening leaders, over the last four there's been continual decline.
I reckon that, as things stand, somewhere between 15-20% of the electorate is willing to give serious consideration to the arguments of a radical left platform, and if you top that up with voter groups strongly likely to lean strongly to Labour under any likely circumstances (e.g. poorer, urban black and Muslim voters) then a united Labour under Corbyn ought still to be able to poll 25% in the next election. If a split were to occur then all bets are off - the SDP successor might be able to steal Lib Dems and wet Tory votes, and there would presumably be large regional variations in support for the left's two halves - but we shouldn't necessarily assume that Corbyn Labour would emerge from a ballot the weaker of the two. And even if it didn't, the moderate faction would still be highly unlikely to be in a position to go into Government at any subsequent GE without Commons support from both Corbyn Labour and the SNP, which would cripple them in the struggle to expand their support.
It comforts to think people opposing them are not really opposing them. But it doesn't accord with what happened. If it were that simple, they'd not have had such ructions over the damn issue inthe first place.
I suppose that you can't completely rule out this prospect, a bit like the fact that you can't absolutely rule out Northern Ireland winning the World Cup at some point during our lifetimes, But I wouldn't stake any money on it. Would you?
I'd hope not to be writing from a Conservative perspective in the leader. In terms of both analysis and prediction, I think any writer does themselves a disservice if trying to be partisan, to spin or simply to fail to counter any innate bias. Events won't work according to a conservative, socialist, Marxist or liberal viewpoint and one loses credibility if trying to Pangloss a take. I'd rather keep my credibility and do the best to predict things as they'll be - and that means trying to be as impartial as possible.
On your comments, I think we come at this from different stances; perhaps inevitably given our different party experiences. As you rightly say, for Conservatives, power ranks extremely highly: you can do very little without it. Policies and tactics therefore have to be trimmed to that overriding objective and feeling good about yourself and your ideological purity is a luxury, as is having a leader who promotes exactly what you want, unless the electorate can be persuaded. Hence the tolerance of Cameron for 11 years, despite him being out of step with much of the party; hence the supreme example of bringing down Thatcher when it became necessary. Labour wouldn't have done that in a million years, though many within the party at least understand the reasoning; they just see it as 'not our way'. The Lib Dems too.
That's one aspect of the 'ingratitude'. Cameron was never truly taken to the party's heart, so didn't have much political capital to draw on when he took on his own party in the EURef and rapidly exhausted that with such a negative campaign.
So yes, had Cameron lost 250 MPs, he would indeed be in the stocks - though in reality, he'd never have had the chance to lead the party through to an election were the polling and the election results that bad.
But the post-Cameron contrast also has to be made with Labour. Far from it having been "a display of unpleasant, ill-tempered ruthlessness", the party came together quickly after Cameron's departure. Even the departure stands in contrast. Cameron fell on his sword; Corbyn behaved like the Black Knight. Thereafter, the Tories held a relatively civilised leadership contest. Ruthless it might have been but it was collective ruthlessness looking out, with not only Cameron but Boris and Leadsom willing to sacrifice their ambitions to future party unity.
Does that simply come down to 'my party right or wrong'? No, it's more nuanced than that. Policy is still hotly debated but the implicit agreement still stands (and it's one that Labour has broken), which is that in return for a fairly blank cheque in running things, the leadership will not become too ideological and too far out of step with the public.
Though there is another factor here, and that is her role. Her own personal experience (which she seemed rather reticent to mention in the past) shows that abuse is not just from men towards women, but is often much more complex.
She needs to speak not only for the estimated 4.5 million female victims, but also the estimated 2.2 million male victims.
Yet I find her comments she has given wrt her role (as reported in the press at least) to be much simpler than that. Women are victims. Men are the abusers.
At best, it makes her a hypocrite.
Much better if, on being given the role, she had been open about it and much more nuanced about what is a massively complex topic which has many causes.
In fact Blairisms greatest success was to hide its Frankfurt School extreme left nature under a cloak of neo-conservative economics.
I took the bottom line to be that, despite Corbyn's chances of electoral victory being low, the state of things should be giving the Government a lot to think, and worry, about.
He absolutely did not say that, and it is not something he would have said - it is obviously wrong, because in the cases of flipping a coin or throwing dice insanity is expecting the same result each time, and many if not most human actions have an element of chance in them. (For example, it would not be sane, if one failed a job interview, to conclude that all future job applications were bound to produce the same result). Nor that all challenges to Corbyn were doomed to fail.