The NYT has called Alabama for Roy Moore. Defeat for the establishment incumbent the same day the latest ACA repeal attempt failed because the Senate. The Republican Party seems to be in as much disarray as Brexit is. Who'd have thought governing after these populist revolts could be so complicated eh ?
Apologies for being off topic - and apologies if some think I am making points that I am not entitled to make. I am the quintessential lurker. I have followed this site for well over a decade - indeed Mark Senior's death struck a huge chord with me, given that he seemed to have been here as long as I have, and it was lovely to read those who also mentioned SBS. But I have posted maybe only five or six times. I read for enjoyment - and tips - but not to get on my hobby horse. I am worried that the Brexit vote and its aftermath has spoiled this site. Once upon a time, there was repartee, back-and-forward exchanges in which people tried to change one another's minds - mainly with a view to mutual profit on the betting markets. Today, one has to ignore and scroll by a significant number of commentators because his or her comment will be obvious or trite: Brexit is disastrous, May is the worst premier in history, or there are nothing but bright sunlit uplands in front of us. Both sides - and regular readers will know of whom I speak - have their worst culprits. Debate has turned to abuse: one just needs to look at the tedious exchange earlier today between Alastair & CasinoRoyale. I'm sorry for OGH but these people are making the site utterly tedious and unpleasant to read, regardless of what side of the Brexit divide one may find oneself. I also found that in the earlier years, whilst OGH's political views were obvious (albeit different from mine), they did not affect the objectiveness of the articles, whereas now TSE (whom I remember first joining the site and with whose views I often tend to agree) seems intent to turn the site into a George Osborne fan site. I rather agree with him about GO's political prowess, but post after post after post on the point, on the uselessness of the current PM, is tedious. It is also pretty stupid for a site based on betting and the identification of value to be dominated by individuals who seem obsessed by partisan one-upmanship... Anyhow, I said that this was off-topic and I apologise again for that. It was just the observation of somebody who has been reading this site for many years but has seen it decline rapidly - not in the quality of headers but in the tedium of the comments - in the last year or so. I quite expect to receive the advice that I can collect my refund on the way out... PS I particularly enjoyed the discussion the other day about an AC/DC powered kettle to address the problems of the US domestic voltage supply. If these discussions continue then, despite my moans above, I will keep returning to this unique site!
Apologies for being off topic - and apologies if some think I am making points that I am not entitled to make. I am the quintessential lurker. I have followed this site for well over a decade - indeed Mark Senior's death struck a huge chord with me, given that he seemed to have been here as long as I have, and it was lovely to read those who also mentioned SBS. But I have posted maybe only five or six times. I read for enjoyment - and tips - but not to get on my hobby horse. I am worried that the Brexit vote and its aftermath has spoiled this site. Once upon a time, there was repartee, back-and-forward exchanges in which people tried to change one another's minds - mainly with a view to mutual profit on the betting markets. Today, one has to ignore and scroll by a significant number of commentators because his or her comment will be obvious or trite: Brexit is disastrous, May is the worst premier in history, or there are nothing but bright sunlit uplands in front of us. Both sides - and regular readers will know of whom I speak - have their worst culprits. Debate has turned to abuse: one just needs to look at the tedious exchange earlier today between Alastair & CasinoRoyale. I'm sorry for OGH but these people are making the site utterly tedious and unpleasant to read, regardless of what side of the Brexit divide one may find oneself. I also found that in the earlier years, whilst OGH's political views were obvious (albeit different from mine), they did not affect the objectiveness of the articles, whereas now TSE (whom I remember first joining the site and with whose views I often tend to agree) seems intent to turn the site into a George Osborne fan site. I rather agree with him about GO's political prowess, but post after post after post on the point, on the uselessness of the current PM, is tedious. It is also pretty stupid for a site based on betting and the identification of value to be dominated by individuals who seem obsessed by partisan one-upmanship...
I quite expect to receive the advice that I can collect my refund on the way out... PS I particularly enjoyed the discussion the other day about an AC/DC powered kettle to address the problems of the US domestic voltage supply. If these discussions continue then, I will keep returning to this unique site!
I was going to say you're Jeremy Corbyn and I claim my £5. The story of the day-in fact of the decade-is Brexit. Expecting it not to be talked about AND in a partisan manner is naive. I personally enjoy the subject and my favourite posts are those written by obsessive Remainers because I am one,
Anyway I enjoyed your post and read it all the way through despite no paragraphs.What has always made the site readable is knowledgable opininated and sometimes witty posters putting one side of the argument in as many ways as possible. BALANCE as practiced by the BBC over Brexit is what got us into this mess in the first place!
Apologies for being off topic - and apologies if some think I am making points that I am not entitled to make. I am the quintessential lurker. I have followed this site for well over a decade - indeed Mark Senior's death struck a huge chord with me, given that he seemed to have been here as long as I have, and it was lovely to read those who also mentioned SBS. But I have posted maybe only fivetimes. I read for enjoyment - and tips - but not to get on my hobby horse. I am worried that the Brexit vote and its aftermath has spoiled this site. Once upon a time, there was repartee, back-and-forward exchanges in which people tried to change one another's minds - mainly with a view to mutual profit on the betting markets. Today, one has to ignore and scroll by a significant number of commentators because his comment will be obvious: Brexit is disastrous, May is the worst premier in history. Both sides - and regular readers will know of whom I speak - have their worst culprits. Debate has turned to abuse: one just needs to look at the tedious exchange earlier today between Alastair & CasinoRoyale. I'm sorry for OGH but these people are making the site utterly tedious and unpleasant to read, regardless of what side of the Brexit divide one may find oneself. I also found in the earlier years, whilst OGH's political views were obvious (albeit different from mine), they did not affect the objectiveness of the articles, whereas now TSE (whom I remember first joining the site and with whose views I often tend to agree) intent to turn the site into a George Osborne fan site. I rather agree with him about GO's political prowess, but post after post after post on the point, on the uselessness of the current PM, is tedious. It is also pretty stupid for a site based on betting and the identification of value to be dominated by individuals who seem obsessed by partisan one-upmanship... I said that this was off-topic and I apologise again for that. It was just the observation of somebody who has been reading this site for many years but has seen it decline rapidly - not in the quality of headers but in tedium of the comments - in the last year or so. I quite expect to receive the advice that I can collect my refund on the way out... PS I particularly enjoyed the discussion the other day about an AC/DC powered kettle to address the problems of the US domestic voltage supply. If these discussions continue then, despite my moans above, I will keep returning to this unique site!
As a fellow long-term lurker since 2010, I could not agree more. The site has become just too predictable and repetitive. What some people think obsessive repetition is achieving, rather than the quality of discussion formerly to be found on this site, I'm not sure. If everyone was rationed to only ten posts a day it might concentrate the minds! In many cases, more is quite definitely less.
Apologies for being off topic - and apologies if some think I am making points that I am not entitled to make. I am the quintessential lurker. I have followed this site for well over a decade - indeed Mark Senior's death struck a huge chord with me, given that he seemed to have been here as long as I have, and it was lovely to read those who also mentioned SBS. But I have posted maybe only five or six times. I read for enjoyment - and tips - but not to get on my hobby horse. I am worried that the Brexit vote and its aftermath has spoiled this site. Once upon a time, there was repartee, back-and-forward exchanges in which people tried to change one another's minds - mainly with a view to mutual profit on the betting markets. Today, one has to ignore and scroll by a significant number of commentators because his or her comment will be obvious or trite: Brexit is disastrous, May is the worst premier in history, or there are nothing but bright sunlit uplands in front of us. Both sides - and regular readers will know of whom I speak - have their worst culprits. Debate has turned to abuse: one just needs to look at the tedious exchange earlier today between Alastair & CasinoRoyale. I'm sorry for OGH but these people are making the site utterly tedious and unpleasant to read, regardless of what side of the Brexit divide one may find oneself. [SNIP] It is also pretty stupid for a site based on betting and the identification of value to be dominated by individuals who seem obsessed by partisan one-upmanship... Anyhow, I said that this was off-topic and I apologise again for that. It was just the observation of somebody who has been reading this site for many years but has seen it decline rapidly - not in the quality of headers but in the tedium of the comments - in the last year or so. I quite expect to receive the advice that I can collect my refund on the way out... PS I particularly enjoyed the discussion the other day about an AC/DC powered kettle to address the problems of the US domestic voltage supply. If these discussions continue then, despite my moans above, I will keep returning to this unique site!
1) Comment more please.
2) I draw a line at deliberate untruths being told about me and I will not let that drop. I expect that is very tedious for others but there is a very important line between strong assertion of opinion and aggressive promulgation of gross and known factual errors (in pursuit of a wider political agenda). I agree that seems to be a Brexit development.
3) The current shortage of active betting markets doesn't help.
Apologies for being off topic - and apologies if some think I am making points that I am not entitled to make. I am the quintessential lurker. I have followed this site for well over a decade - indeed Mark Senior's death struck a huge chord with me, given that he seemed to have been here as long as I have, and it was lovely to read those who also mentioned SBS. But I have posted maybe only five or six times. I read for enjoyment - and tips - but not to get on my hobby horse. I am worried that the Brexit vote and its aftermath has spoiled this site. Once upon a time, there was repartee, back-and-forward exchanges in which people tried to change one another's minds - mainly with a view to mutual profit on the betting markets. Today, one has to ignore and scroll by a significant number of commentators because his or her comment will be obvious or trite: Brexit is disastrous, May is the worst premier in history, or there are nothing but bright sunlit uplands in front of us. Both sides - and regular readers will know of whom I speak - have their worst culprits. Debate has turned to abuse: one just needs to look at the tedious exchange earlier today between Alastair & CasinoRoyale. I'm sorry for OGH but these people are making the site utterly tedious and unpleasant to read, regardless of what side of the Brexit divide one may find oneself. [SNIP] It is also pretty stupid for a site based on betting and the identification of value to be dominated by individuals who seem obsessed by partisan one-upmanship... Anyhow, I said that this was off-topic and I apologise again for that. It was just the observation of somebody who has been reading this site for many years but has seen it decline rapidly - not in the quality of headers but in the tedium of the comments - in the last year or so. I quite expect to receive the advice that I can collect my refund on the way out... PS I particularly enjoyed the discussion the other day about an AC/DC powered kettle to address the problems of the US domestic voltage supply. If these discussions continue then, despite my moans above, I will keep returning to this unique site!
Blimey, SeanT won't like that! TfL and Khan look to have public opinion behind them.
I suspect Uber users feel more strongly about it, though it's interesting that even Uber users aren't that strongly opposed. I suspect that the Uber chair admitting that they got things wrong has dampened the opposition, and in due course they'll make various fixes and get their licence back.
On topic, do we know when the poll was taken? Presumably up to Monday? People here were assuring us only on the last thread that the conference wasn't going to help Labour at all.
I don't think that the messaging has been great up to now - too many pet left-wing issues like PFI, not enough on the economy and personal finance. But the reported theme of Corbyn's speech "Pull yourselves together, Tories, or make way" sounds exactly right. Even quite apolitical people are really tired of the way the rival figures in the Government are handling Brexit like a soap opera.
If paying hundreds of billions for projects which cost tens of millions to build is not an economic issue then I don't know what is.
Urrrm, hundreds of billions for projects which cost tens of millions? Which PFI projects do you mean?
Apologies for being off topic - and apologies if some think I am making points that I am not entitled to make. I am the quintessential lurker. I have followed this site for well over a decade - indeed Mark Senior's death struck a huge chord with me, given that he seemed to have been here as long as I have, and it was lovely to read those who also mentioned SBS. But I have posted maybe only five or six times. I read for enjoyment - and tips - but not to get on my hobby horse. I am worried that the Brexit vote and its aftermath has spoiled this site. Once upon a time, there was repartee, back-and-forward exchanges in which people tried to change one another's minds - mainly with a view to mutual profit on the betting markets. Today, one has to ignore and scroll by a significant number of commentators because his or her comment will be obvious or trite: Brexit is disastrous, May is the worst premier in history, or there are nothing but bright sunlit uplands in front of us. Both sides - and regular readers will know of whom I speak - have their worst culprits. Debate has turned to abuse: one just needs to look at the tedious exchange earlier today between Alastair & CasinoRoyale. I'm sorry for OGH but these people are making the site utterly tedious and unpleasant to read, regardless of what side of the Brexit divide one may find oneself. I also found that in the earlier years, whilst OGH's political views were obvious (albeit different from mine), they did not affect the objectiveness of the articles, whereas now TSE (whom I remember first joining the site and with whose views I often tend to agree) seems intent to turn the site into a George Osborne fan site. I rather agree with him about GO's political prowess, but post after post after post on the point, on the uselessness of the current PM, is tedious. It is also pretty stupid for a site based on betting and the identification of value to be dominated by individuals who seem obsessed by partisan one-upmanship... Anyhow, I said that this was off-topic and I apologise again for that. It was just the observation of somebody who has been reading this site for many years but has seen it decline rapidly - not in the quality of headers but in the tedium of the comments - in the last year or so. I quite expect to receive the advice that I can collect my refund on the way out... PS I particularly enjoyed the discussion the other day about an AC/DC powered kettle to address the problems of the US domestic voltage supply. If these discussions continue then, despite my moans above, I will keep returning to this unique site!
You are spot on.
Some fair points for sure, but there were plenty of scraps in the old days too, eg Tim vs Plato
I particularly enjoyed the discussion the other day about an AC/DC powered kettle to address the problems of the US domestic voltage supply. If these discussions continue then, despite my moans above, I will keep returning to this unique site!
I missed that! Where was it and what was the upshot of the conversation?
On the day of the Great Leader's most wonderful speech, his next selfless gift to a grateful proletariat, I do not think I have ever felt further from the Labour party. Watching creeps like Len McCluskey and Ken Loach waving away serous accusations of institutional anti-Semitism, dismissing them as attacks on Jeremy, has sickened me to the pit of my stomach. What I still don't see, though, is where the next Corbynite leader is coming from. The big successes at the conference seem to have been Emily Thornberry and Angela Rayner - neither one is on the far-left.
On the day of the Great Leader's most wonderful speech, his next selfless gift to a grateful proletariat, I do not think I have ever felt further from the Labour party. Watching creeps like Len McCluskey and Ken Loach waving away serous accusations of institutional anti-Semitism, dismissing them as attacks on Jeremy, has sickened me to the pit of my stomach. What I still don't see, though, is where the next Corbynite leader is coming from. The big successes at the conference seem to have been Emily Thornberry and Angela Rayner - neither one is on the far-left.
One is however somebody who still claims, in defiance of a Ministry of Defence statement to the contrary, that she was a Colonel in the British Army, and the other in my experience is preternaturally stupid.
If they're the best Labour can offer...
PS I think you owe an apology to creeps for comparing them to McCluskey and Loach.
I particularly enjoyed the discussion the other day about an AC/DC powered kettle to address the problems of the US domestic voltage supply. If these discussions continue then, despite my moans above, I will keep returning to this unique site!
I missed that! Where was it and what was the upshot of the conversation?
Wasn’t there something as well about whether kettles needed to be colour-cordinated with the kitchen?
I particularly enjoyed the discussion the other day about an AC/DC powered kettle to address the problems of the US domestic voltage supply. If these discussions continue then, despite my moans above, I will keep returning to this unique site!
I missed that! Where was it and what was the upshot of the conversation?
On a thread a few days ago, RCS bemoaned the fact that US kettles took longer to boil water than UK kettles. The reasons for this was discussed, plus an idea for battery-kettles, where the batteries could be used to provide extra oomph to the kettle when it is needed.
It had little to do with politics or betting, but was interesting.
On twitter- they have major financial concerns I think... Changing their core product seems a Hail Mary pass...
I agree, breviyy is one of the good things about twitter. The problem they have is not the length of posts, but rather that there is no obvious income source as advertising doesn't work well. Bot accounts are a problem too.
Facebook have lost me as an active user because of their intrusive ads though, so a balance needs striking.
I particularly enjoyed the discussion the other day about an AC/DC powered kettle to address the problems of the US domestic voltage supply. If these discussions continue then, despite my moans above, I will keep returning to this unique site!
I missed that! Where was it and what was the upshot of the conversation?
On a thread a few days ago, RCS bemoaned the fact that US kettles took longer to boil water than UK kettles. The reasons for this was discussed, plus an idea for battery-kettles, where the batteries could be used to provide extra oomph to the kettle when it is needed.
It had little to do with politics or betting, but was interesting.
Something not to do with current politics was interesting?
On the day of the Great Leader's most wonderful speech, his next selfless gift to a grateful proletariat, I do not think I have ever felt further from the Labour party. Watching creeps like Len McCluskey and Ken Loach waving away serous accusations of institutional anti-Semitism, dismissing them as attacks on Jeremy, has sickened me to the pit of my stomach. What I still don't see, though, is where the next Corbynite leader is coming from. The big successes at the conference seem to have been Emily Thornberry and Angela Rayner - neither one is on the far-left.
I think Margeret Thatcher had a similar problem with the wets. Extreme views rarely coincide with hands on political skills. She had a choice between ideological soul mates and people who could actually get things done. I think Corbyn has much the same problem.
On twitter- they have major financial concerns I think... Changing their core product seems a Hail Mary pass...
I agree, breviyy is one of the good things about twitter. The problem they have is not the length of posts, but rather that there is no obvious income source as advertising doesn't work well. Bot accounts are a problem too.
Facebook have lost me as an active user because of their intrusive ads though, so a balance needs striking.
Seems obvious, but have they thought of charging a small fee for commercial/government organisations to keep it free and ad free for charities and private citizens?
£50 a year would neither make nor mar the US treasury and would seem a bargain for platform access on the scale Twitter provides.
I think Margeret Thatcher had a similar problem with the wets. Extreme views rarely coincide with hands on political skills. She had a choice between ideological soul mates and people who could actually get things done. I think Corbyn has much the same problem.
I disagree. Thatcher was capable of working well with wets - look at Whitelaw, or her particular favourite Cecil Parkinson, who would surely have been her successor a good deal earlier than 1990 but for his ummm, adventures elsewhere. She also worked effectively with Howe for much of her reign although calling him a wet from 1979-83 might be stretching it. What these had in comment was that they were intelligent, well briefed and good at what they did, and could argue effectively but not dogmatically.
What I think she despised about the establishment wets - the likes of Pym and Gilmour and Heseltine - was their arrogance, dogmatism and complacency. Their sexism probably didn't help much either. Such people I think rubbed her up the wrong way, the more so as she could be rather arrogant and dogmatic herself (hence 'I want them to have the courage of MY convictions').
But if you will show me any way in which Corbyn has tried to meaningfully reach out and engage with the centre, I'd be obliged. Don't quote his first shadow cabinet to me because having appointed it he totally ignored it - and I mean totally ignored it, even refusing to read their policy proposals - and worked with a cabal of ideological soulmates some of whom are not even in Parliament and some of whom are barely fit to be involved in public service (Milne, for starters).
Partly I suspect it's because he knows he's not very bright and very disorganised, and therefore feels insecure around people who are intelligent and masterful (and I doubt, in fairness, if say Yvette Cooper bothered to hide her contempt for him, Pym to his Thatcher). But I think he also genuinely does believe socialism is the best and anyone who disagrees is wrong and can be ignored. Look at the way he said Venezuela was struggling because f the fall in oil prices, ignoring the fact that the economy was in real trouble long before oil dipped below $100 a barrel. He doesn't want to admit that socialism has not only failed, but made things worse, and because that cannot be right it must be wrong. And working with such a man must be damn near impossible.
I think Margeret Thatcher had a similar problem with the wets. Extreme views rarely coincide with hands on political skills. She had a choice between ideological soul mates and people who could actually get things done. I think Corbyn has much the same problem.
I disagree. Thatcher was capable of working well with wets - look at Whitelaw, or her particular favourite Cecil Parkinson, who would surely have been her successor a good deal earlier than 1990 but for his ummm, adventures elsewhere. She also worked effectively with Howe for much of her reign although calling him a wet from 1979-83 might be stretching it. What these had in comment was that they were intelligent, well briefed and good at what they did, and could argue effectively but not dogmatically.
What I think she despised about the establishment wets - the likes of Pym and Gilmour and Heseltine - was their arrogance, dogmatism and complacency. Their sexism probably didn't help much either. Such people I think rubbed her up the wrong way, the more so as she could be rather arrogant and dogmatic herself (hence 'I want them to have the courage of MY convictions').
But if you will show me any way in which Corbyn has tried to meaningfully reach out and engage with the centre, I'd be obliged. Don't quote his first shadow cabinet to me because having appointed it he totally ignored it - and I mean totally ignored it, even refusing to read their policy proposals - and worked with a cabal of ideological soulmates some of whom are not even in Parliament and some of whom are barely fit to be involved in public service (Milne, for starters).
Partly I suspect it's because he knows he's not very bright and very disorganised, and therefore feels insecure around people who are intelligent and masterful (and I doubt, in fairness, if say Yvette Cooper bothered to hide her contempt for him, Pym to his Thatcher). But I think he also genuinely does believe socialism is the best and anyone who disagrees is wrong and can be ignored. Look at the way he said Venezuela was struggling because f the fall in oil prices, ignoring the fact that the economy was in real trouble long before oil dipped below $100 a barrel. He doesn't want to admit that socialism has not only failed, but made things worse, and because that cannot be right it must be wrong. And working with such a man must be damn near impossible.
On the day of the Great Leader's most wonderful speech, his next selfless gift to a grateful proletariat, I do not think I have ever felt further from the Labour party. Watching creeps like Len McCluskey and Ken Loach waving away serous accusations of institutional anti-Semitism, dismissing them as attacks on Jeremy, has sickened me to the pit of my stomach. What I still don't see, though, is where the next Corbynite leader is coming from. The big successes at the conference seem to have been Emily Thornberry and Angela Rayner - neither one is on the far-left.
I think Margeret Thatcher had a similar problem with the wets. Extreme views rarely coincide with hands on political skills. She had a choice between ideological soul mates and people who could actually get things done. I think Corbyn has much the same problem.
Corbyn has no problems. He has achieved more then he could ever have hoped even three years ago. The problems are all for those who want a credible alternative to this awful government. There isn't one.
That's good to know, but I clearly misunderstood your point. Are you saying that Thatcher could work with the wets, but Corbyn cannot? Because that wasn't what your original post seemed to say.
On the day of the Great Leader's most wonderful speech, his next selfless gift to a grateful proletariat, I do not think I have ever felt further from the Labour party. Watching creeps like Len McCluskey and Ken Loach waving away serous accusations of institutional anti-Semitism, dismissing them as attacks on Jeremy, has sickened me to the pit of my stomach. What I still don't see, though, is where the next Corbynite leader is coming from. The big successes at the conference seem to have been Emily Thornberry and Angela Rayner - neither one is on the far-left.
I think Margeret Thatcher had a similar problem with the wets. Extreme views rarely coincide with hands on political skills. She had a choice between ideological soul mates and people who could actually get things done. I think Corbyn has much the same problem.
Corbyn has no problems. He has achieved more then he could ever have hoped even three years ago. The problems are all for those who want a credible alternative to this awful government. There isn't one.
Morning all,
It is indeed, a bleak choice we face. I am left hoping something will turn up...
On the day of the Great Leader's most wonderful speech, his next selfless gift to a grateful proletariat, I do not think I have ever felt further from the Labour party. Watching creeps like Len McCluskey and Ken Loach waving away serous accusations of institutional anti-Semitism, dismissing them as attacks on Jeremy, has sickened me to the pit of my stomach. What I still don't see, though, is where the next Corbynite leader is coming from. The big successes at the conference seem to have been Emily Thornberry and Angela Rayner - neither one is on the far-left.
One is however somebody who still claims, in defiance of a Ministry of Defence statement to the contrary, that she was a Colonel in the British Army, and the other in my experience is preternaturally stupid.
If they're the best Labour can offer...
PS I think you owe an apology to creeps for comparing them to McCluskey and Loach.
Being stupid and/or a fantasist has never been an obstacle to achieving high political office in the UK - as the current cabinet so clearly shows us. In terms of public perception, I'd argue that neither Thornberry nor Rayner would be a downgrade on Corbyn and could actually be a lot less voter repellent because neither comes with his baggage or hangers on. But that is largely immaterial - what is absolutely clear after this week is that the Jon Lansman database will decide who takes over.
On the day of the Great Leader's most wonderful speech, his next selfless gift to a grateful proletariat, I do not think I have ever felt further from the Labour party. Watching creeps like Len McCluskey and Ken Loach waving away serous accusations of institutional anti-Semitism, dismissing them as attacks on Jeremy, has sickened me to the pit of my stomach. What I still don't see, though, is where the next Corbynite leader is coming from. The big successes at the conference seem to have been Emily Thornberry and Angela Rayner - neither one is on the far-left.
I think Margeret Thatcher had a similar problem with the wets. Extreme views rarely coincide with hands on political skills. She had a choice between ideological soul mates and people who could actually get things done. I think Corbyn has much the same problem.
While clearly the hard left are in the ascendancy, theirs is also a diverse politics. The environmental activists have very different attitudes to authority than do orthodox marxists. Theirs is a fissile politics, which can be an achillies heel. The succession to Corbyn is very likely to be one of those fissile moments.
Indeed the most successful entryists of the party were the New Labour types, who did everything in their power to limit the influence of the grass roots on the leadership. If Blair had listened to the grass roots over Iraq rather than Bush, he wouldn't make the same mistakes.
I don't think that the next leader will be cut from the same cloth as Jeremy, who has cultivated his own brand of personal eccentricity in a very British way. The purpose though of the changes is to entrench the authority of grassroots over the leadership rather than vice versa.
Although I'm more distanced than you, you have my sympathy.
As a teenager, I was attracted to the smash-the system rhetoric of the far left when I went to university, but it became a gradual process of disillusionment. The people involved were seldom wanting to do-good, it was uniformly to do-down, the rhetoric was based on hate.
After a long stay in labour centralism, I finally drifted off to liberalism. The rhetoric was milder, and the hate was more active dislike, but the opportunism and hypocrisy still lingered. As Machiavelli said .... "Put not your trust in princes."
I'm now a confirmed NOTA. You may well regain your faith in a rejuvenated Labour Party one day.
That's good to know, but I clearly misunderstood your point. Are you saying that Thatcher could work with the wets, but Corbyn cannot? Because that wasn't what your original post seemed to say.
My point was that both Corbyn and Thatcher faced the problem that the people they agreed with most closely were the least suitable people to give jobs to, and the most able were not sympathetic to their aims. Your response was to characterise everyone you disagree with as flawed in some way. I am sure you are a fine person, and it is admirable to have beliefs and stick to them, but I wouldn't want you in my cabinet.
Apologies for being off topic - and apologies if some think I am making points that I am not entitled to make. I am the quintessential lurker. I have followed this site for well over a decade - indeed Mark Senior's death struck a huge chord with me, given that he seemed to have been here as long as I have, and it was lovely to read those who also mentioned SBS. But I have posted maybe only five or six times. I read for enjoyment - and tips - but not to get on my hobby horse. I am worried that the Brexit vote and its aftermath has spoiled this site. Once upon a time, there was repartee, back-and-forward exchanges in which people tried to change one another's minds - mainly with a view to mutual profit on the betting markets. Today, one has to ignore and scroll by a significant number of commentators because his or her comment will be obvious or trite: Brexit is disastrous, May is the worst premier in history, or there are nothing but bright sunlit uplands in front of us. Both sides - and regular readers will know of whom I speak - have their worst culprits. Debate has turned to abuse: one just needs to look at the tedious exchange earlier today between Alastair & CasinoRoyale. I'm sorry for OGH but these people are making the site utterly tedious and unpleasant to read, regardless of what side of the Brexit divide one may find oneself. [SNIP] It is also pretty stupid for a site based on betting and the identification of value to be dominated by individuals who seem obsessed by partisan one-upmanship... Anyhow, I said that this was!
1) Comment more please.
2) I draw a line at deliberate untruths being told about me and I will not let that drop. I expect that is very tedious for others but there is a very important line between strong assertion of opinion and aggressive promulgation of gross and known factual errors (in pursuit of a wider political agenda). I agree that seems to be a Brexit development.
3) The current shortage of active betting markets doesn't help.
Your problem is perfectly simple: you refuse to respectfully engage with your opponents on the Brexit debate. Rather than responding to someone as an individual you insist on labelling them as part of a group in the 3rd person, "I see the Leavers", or "typical Leaver", which is extremely rude and patronising, and pisses people off. And what's worse, you don't seem to care.
I too will not cease to let this go. You need to learn and to change your behaviour.
The local election results in May weren't an hallucination. They were very hard evidence to back up the polls showing Labour heading toward disaster. Yet in just two months Theresa May managed to shift public perceptions of Labour as much as it took Kinnock, Smith and Blair 12 odd years to do.
One thing I've learned the hard way in politics. You don't have to be good. You just have to be less objectionable than the other lot. A Conservative government implementing something as divisive, damaging and stupid as Brexit puts us in entirely new territory.
I think Margeret Thatcher had a similar problem with the wets. Extreme views rarely coincide with hands on political skills. She had a choice between ideological soul mates and people who could actually get things done. I think Corbyn has much the same problem.
I disagree. Thatcher was capable of working well with wets - look at Whitelaw, or her particular favourite Cecil Parkinson, who would surely have been her successor a good deal earlier than 1990 but for his ummm, adventures elsewhere. She also worked effectively with Howe for much of her reign although calling him a wet from 1979-83 might be stretching it. What these had in comment was that they were intelligent, well briefed and good at what they did, and could argue effectively but not dogmatically.
What I think she despised about the establishment wets - the likes of Pym and Gilmour and Heseltine - was their arrogance, dogmatism and complacency. Their sexism probably didn't help much either. Such people I think rubbed her up the wrong way, the more so as she could be rather arrogant and dogmatic herself (hence 'I want them to have the courage of MY convictions').
But if you will show me any way in which Corbyn has tried to meaningfully reach out and engage with the centre, I'd be obliged. Don't quote his first shadow cabinet to me because having appointed it he totally ignored it - and I mean totally ignored it, even refusing to read their policy proposals - and worked with a cabal of ideological soulmates some of whom are not even in Parliament and some of whom are barely fit to be involved in public service (Milne, for starters).
Partly I suspect it's because he knows he's not very bright and very disorganised, and therefore feels insecure around people who are intelligent and masterful (and I doubt, in fairness, if say Yvette Cooper bothered to hide her contempt for him, Pym to his Thatcher). But I think he also genuinely does believe socialism is the best and anyone who disagrees is wrong and can be ignored. Look at the way he said Venezuela was struggling because f the fall in oil prices, ignoring the fact that the economy was in real trouble long before oil dipped below $100 a barrel. He doesn't want to admit that socialism has not only failed, but made things worse, and because that cannot be right it must be wrong. And working with such a man must be damn near impossible.
There has been some useful chatter about Catalonia, I think. And the Singapore Grand Prix went very well. But I agree there's quite a lot of repetition.
Apologies for being off topic - and apologies if some think I am making points that I am not entitled to make. I am the quintessential lurker.
It is also pretty stupid for a site based on betting and the identification of value to be dominated by individuals who seem obsessed by partisan one-upmanship...
I quite expect to receive the advice that I can collect my refund on the way out... PS I particularly enjoyed the discussion the other day about an AC/DC powered kettle to address the problems of the US domestic voltage supply. If these discussions continue then, despite my moans above, I will keep returning to this unique site!
Essentially, there is no conclusion to the Brexit arguments because it has become tribalised. It is an enormous tragedy and threatens to ruin the country, nevermind the website. The debate on Brexit has become poisoned and toxic. I blame it on Cameron actively preventing leave to come up with a plan. He did everything in his power to manipulate the referendum and failed. I still think though that everyone should try and move past that.
I have followed the site on and off for some years and started posting last year. The way I see it, politics has changed enormously. We are faced with existential problems like the threat of far right governments in Europe, the dissolution of the EU, nuclear war ETC. Its totally different to the type of political issues that people would discuss and bet on a couple of years ago. I'm not sure that you can have a dispassionate discussion about Brexit or any of these things solely in betting terms.
I do think that the website and comments are still a good read but agree that it is better when the tribal and personal arguments are toned down.
That's good to know, but I clearly misunderstood your point. Are you saying that Thatcher could work with the wets, but Corbyn cannot? Because that wasn't what your original post seemed to say.
My point was that both Corbyn and Thatcher faced the problem that the people they agreed with most closely were the least suitable people to give jobs to, and the most able were not sympathetic to their aims. Your response was to characterise everyone you disagree with as flawed in some way. I am sure you are a fine person, and it is admirable to have beliefs and stick to them, but I wouldn't want you in my cabinet.
Now that's an example of how to make a personal comment about another poster that is critical and might make the recipient think but in no way abusive. I wish others would emulate.
Is this the point in history where a messaging service is partly responsible for the breakout of World War III?
Probably not, but Twitter is dying as a company - they don’t understand the needs of their own user base and are failing miserably to target advertising effectively, so they’re generating little revenue.
Long after Twitter is gone, it will be mentioned in politics studies for two reasons. 1. The 45th President of the USA. and 2. David Cameron’s modern interpretation of the phrase that it’s better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
On the day of the Great Leader's most wonderful speech, his next selfless gift to a grateful proletariat, I do not think I have ever felt further from the Labour party. Watching creeps like Len McCluskey and Ken Loach waving away serous accusations of institutional anti-Semitism, dismissing them as attacks on Jeremy, has sickened me to the pit of my stomach. What I still don't see, though, is where the next Corbynite leader is coming from. The big successes at the conference seem to have been Emily Thornberry and Angela Rayner - neither one is on the far-left.
One is however somebody who still claims, in defiance of a Ministry of Defence statement to the contrary, that she was a Colonel in the British Army, and the other in my experience is preternaturally stupid.
If they're the best Labour can offer...
PS I think you owe an apology to creeps for comparing them to McCluskey and Loach.
Having done a bit of googling, I think the Thornberry claims are a bit embarrassing but not that serious,it is rooted in being a lawyer at a military tribunal and claiming some honorary rank in consequence.
Keir Starmer or Thornberry would be fine as leader. Both are accomplished professionals.
A lot of the new generation of Corbynite MP's come across as not very bright. Far from the best the nation can offer.
Owen Jones and Paul Mason would make good Corbynite MP's, in my opinion. It is interesting that they prefer to stay outside of Parliament.
On the day of the Great Leader's most wonderful speech, his next selfless gift to a grateful proletariat, I do not think I have ever felt further from the Labour party. Watching creeps like Len McCluskey and Ken Loach waving away serous accusations of institutional anti-Semitism, dismissing them as attacks on Jeremy, has sickened me to the pit of my stomach. What I still don't see, though, is where the next Corbynite leader is coming from. The big successes at the conference seem to have been Emily Thornberry and Angela Rayner - neither one is on the far-left.
One is however somebody who still claims, in defiance of a Ministry of Defence statement to the contrary, that she was a Colonel in the British Army, and the other in my experience is preternaturally stupid.
If they're the best Labour can offer...
PS I think you owe an apology to creeps for comparing them to McCluskey and Loach.
Being stupid and/or a fantasist has never been an obstacle to achieving high political office in the UK - as the current cabinet so clearly shows us. In terms of public perception, I'd argue that neither Thornberry nor Rayner would be a downgrade on Corbyn and could actually be a lot less voter repellent because neither comes with his baggage or hangers on. But that is largely immaterial - what is absolutely clear after this week is that the Jon Lansman database will decide who takes over.
McCluskey came over reasonable on Peston on Sunday , saying he would accept the 50% requirement for strike ballots .If they could move away from postal voting to secure overseen work placed secret ballots.He has put this forward to the government for the change in legislation.
Just catching up on yesterday, did John McDonnell really suggest that he’d be preparing for a run on the pound if Labour got in, or was that a taken-out-of-context reply to a sneaky question from a journalist?
Having watched the Conference special, from the floor response I would reckon Angela Rayner, or Emily Thornbury as next leader Starmer was wooden and received flatly, Ashworth a little overexciteable, Watson just a bit creepy.
Not going to collect for a while though. My Labour leader book is a mess.
Just catching up on yesterday, did John McDonnell really suggest that he’d be preparing for a run on the pound if Labour got in, or was that a taken-out-of-context reply to a sneaky question from a journalist?
He really said it.
Hopefully OGH is revising his view that Brexit, rather than the revolutionary Bolsheviks on the Labour side of the House, represents the biggest risk to the wealth and security of the UK.
Blimey, SeanT won't like that! TfL and Khan look to have public opinion behind them.
I suspect Uber users feel more strongly about it, though it's interesting that even Uber users aren't that strongly opposed. I suspect that the Uber chair admitting that they got things wrong has dampened the opposition, and in due course they'll make various fixes and get their licence back.
On topic, do we know when the poll was taken? Presumably up to Monday? People here were assuring us only on the last thread that the conference wasn't going to help Labour at all.
I don't think that the messaging has been great up to now - too many pet left-wing issues like PFI, not enough on the economy and personal finance. But the reported theme of Corbyn's speech "Pull yourselves together, Tories, or make way" sounds exactly right. Even quite apolitical people are really tired of the way the rival figures in the Government are handling Brexit like a soap opera.
Yeah, from a news-management point of view, Conference has been a pretty big wasted opportunity. Whatever possessed John McD to volunteer that a run on the pound was possible if Labour got in, is beyond me.
Tory sleeper agent?
The papers getting upset, justifiably or noT, allows him to yell fake news, and talk about the establishment lining up against him. The base lives that, just see Trump.
I don't know if I fall into your tedious category or not, but I do take vacations from this site from time to time in order to recover my liking for it and purge the feelings you are exhibiting.
You don't fall into that category - and, apart from a few serial offenders, I probably did not choose the best form of words, for which I apologise. Your suggestion is a good one but one that I have failed to implement: I get the shakes if I can't read PB for more than a couple of days!
This summer has been tough not commenting on every political development. I begin to see how people get suckered in by that evil company Facebook.
Brexit has ruined much though. Hopefully it can be salvaged somewhat yet.
Having watched the Conference special, from the floor response I would reckon Angela Rayner, or Emily Thornbury as next leader Starmer was wooden and received flatly, Ashworth a little overexciteable, Watson just a bit creepy.
Not going to collect for a while though. My Labour leader book is a mess.
Just catching up on yesterday, did John McDonnell really suggest that he’d be preparing for a run on the pound if Labour got in, or was that a taken-out-of-context reply to a sneaky question from a journalist?
He really said it.
Hopefully OGH is revising his view that Brexit, rather than the revolutionary Bolsheviks on the Labour side of the House, represents the biggest risk to the wealth and security of the UK.
No, because Brexit will be blamed for providing the opportunity.
Did John Humphreys just give PB a mention on the Today programme? Mind you, given the sad decline of JH & TTP, perhaps a mixed blessing.
I heard that too - and assumed it was a quotation from either the Mail or the Mirror, which abutted it - but no, it appears to have been a direct quotation.....
The best-case scenario – if one of the five candidate cities most popular with staff were chosen – would still be worse than the status quo, with staff retention, depending on the city, between 65% and 81%, leading to possible delays to the approval of new medicines.
“Progress on a number of public health initiatives (eg support to initiatives on antimicrobial resistance and for the elderly, cooperation with health technology assessment bodies) will move at a slower pace,” the EMA said, adding that it would take two to three years for the agency to recover.
Just catching up on yesterday, did John McDonnell really suggest that he’d be preparing for a run on the pound if Labour got in, or was that a taken-out-of-context reply to a sneaky question from a journalist?
He really said it.
Hopefully OGH is revising his view that Brexit, rather than the revolutionary Bolsheviks on the Labour side of the House, represents the biggest risk to the wealth and security of the UK.
Okaayyyyy. I wonder when all these young Hipsters enthusiastically cheering for Corbyn will realise that what he and those around him want to implement is going to be an Uber-ban on steroids crack cocaine?
I particularly enjoyed the discussion the other day about an AC/DC powered kettle to address the problems of the US domestic voltage supply. If these discussions continue then, despite my moans above, I will keep returning to this unique site!
I missed that! Where was it and what was the upshot of the conversation?
On a thread a few days ago, RCS bemoaned the fact that US kettles took longer to boil water than UK kettles. The reasons for this was discussed, plus an idea for battery-kettles, where the batteries could be used to provide extra oomph to the kettle when it is needed.
It had little to do with politics or betting, but was interesting.
I'll bet. It's a pet peeve of mine to see American shows when characters use antiquated kettles.
I oppose Grammars as they are a damaging and stupid waste of taxpayers money. As a taxpayer and voter they are my business. I don't oppose Public Schools because what folk spend their own money on is their business unless it fails Mill's ' Harm Test '. In addition as a left liberal public schools for UK citizens are a mild sort of double taxation. Folk that buy places at them pay extra into the overall education budget while reducing pressure on the state education budget. Of all the things rich people spend their cash on to buy better lives for their kids putting money into extra education spending is the one that bothers me least.
Why is it any business of yours to dictate to parents in grammar school areas that they cannot do so? The only ballots that have been held in grammars on their future eg in Ripon have backed grammars
Because State education in England is legislated for and funded by Westminster you dim wit.
Just catching up on yesterday, did John McDonnell really suggest that he’d be preparing for a run on the pound if Labour got in, or was that a taken-out-of-context reply to a sneaky question from a journalist?
He really said it.
Hopefully OGH is revising his view that Brexit, rather than the revolutionary Bolsheviks on the Labour side of the House, represents the biggest risk to the wealth and security of the UK.
No, because Brexit will be blamed for providing the opportunity.
OGH was a cheerleader for the tripling of student tuition fees.
His reasoning was that young people don't vote but university workers do and they would vote LibDem in gratitude for the extra funding.
An interesting line of thought but one which turned out to be totally wrong and directly led to the rise of Corbyn.
"No, because Brexit will be blamed for providing the opportunity."
Here is the wet dream for Momentum .. .Jezza is elected owing to the failings of May and he brings in hard-left economic measures. We do a Venezuela and go down the toilet. All the fault of Brexit, obviously. Blame put on one Cameron D (Conservative) for instigating it. Nothing to do with hard-left measures.
The NYT has called Alabama for Roy Moore. Defeat for the establishment incumbent the same day the latest ACA repeal attempt failed because the Senate. The Republican Party seems to be in as much disarray as Brexit is. Who'd have thought governing after these populist revolts could be so complicated eh ?
Another good result for Farage then who campaigned for Moore.
If Nige was a US citizen who could easily run for Senate or Governor in the South in the midterms next year and win the GOP primary and probably the main election too
Apologies for being off topic - and apologies if some think I am making points that I am not entitled to make. I am the quintessential lurker. I have followed this site for well over a decade - indeed Mark Senior's death struck a huge chord with me, given that he seemed to have been here as long as I have, and it was lovely to read those who also mentioned SBS. But I have posted maybe only five or six times. I read for enjoyment - and tips - but not to get on my hobby horse. I am worried that the Brexit vote and its aftermath has spoiled this site. Once upon a time, there was repartee, back-and-forward exchanges in which people tried to change one another's minds - mainly with a view to mutual profit on the betting markets. Today, one has to ignore and scroll by a significant number of commentators because his or her comment will be obvious or trite: Brexit is disastrous, May is the worst premier in history, or there are nothing but bright sunlit uplands in front of us. Both sides - and regular readers will know of whom I speak - have their worst culprits. Debate has turned to abuse: one just needs to look at the tedious exchange earlier today between Alastair & CasinoRoyale. I'm sorry for OGH but these people are making the site utterly tedious and unpleasant to read, regardless of what side of the Brexit divide one may find oneself. [SNIP] It is also pretty stupid for a site based on betting and the identification of value to be dominated by individuals who seem obsessed by partisan one-upmanship... Anyhow, I said that this was!
1) Comment more please.
2) I draw a line at deliberate untruths being told about me and I will not let that drop. I expect that is very tedious for others but there is a very important line between strong assertion of opinion and aggressive promulgation of gross and known factual errors (in pursuit of a wider political agenda). I agree that seems to be a Brexit development.
3) The current shortage of active betting markets doesn't help.
Your problem is perfectly simple: you refuse to respectfully engage with your opponents on the Brexit debate. Rather than responding to someone as an individual you insist on labelling them as part of a group in the 3rd person, "I see the Leavers", or "typical Leaver", which is extremely rude and patronising, and pisses people off. And what's worse, you don't seem to care.
I too will not cease to let this go. You need to learn and to change your behaviour.
PS. Welcome, Joseph, good post.
Your problem is simple. You're a proven and unrepentant liar.
I oppose Grammars as they are a damaging and stupid waste of taxpayers money. As a taxpayer and voter they are my business. I don't oppose Public Schools because what folk spend their own money on is their business unless it fails Mill's ' Harm Test '. In addition as a left liberal public schools for UK citizens are a mild sort of double taxation. Folk that buy places at them pay extra into the overall education budget while reducing pressure on the state education budget. Of all the things rich people spend their cash on to buy better lives for their kids putting money into extra education spending is the one that bothers me least.
Why is it any business of yours to dictate to parents in grammar school areas that they cannot do so? The only ballots that have been held in grammars on their future eg in Ripon have backed grammars
Because State education in England is legislated for and funded by Westminster you dim wit.
So what? That does not stop parental choice
Parents can only choose to use a tax funded state service if the state decides to offer that service in the first place. Which tax funded services the state offers is decided by all voters not just some parents.
The big successes at the conference seem to have been Emily Thornberry and Angela Rayner - neither one is on the far-left.
There must be another Angela Rayner in the Labour Party, as you can't possibly mean the person I heard talking on the radio this morning.
She was good on 5live, but I can see not to everyones taste.
The point is on reception at conference. They are the selectorate and she went down well there. Whatever else she is, she is not a posh boy from the establishment, or an Islingtonite hipster!
I rather like her, and she is growing on me. There is a very big difference in being uneducated vs unintelligent. I think she is the former rather than the latter, and she is getting educated all the time. One to watch.
The big successes at the conference seem to have been Emily Thornberry and Angela Rayner - neither one is on the far-left.
There must be another Angela Rayner in the Labour Party, as you can't possibly mean the person I heard talking on the radio this morning.
She was good on 5live, but I can see not to everyones taste.
The point is on reception at conference. They are the selectorate and she went down well there. Whatever else she is, she is not a posh boy from the establishment, or an Islingtonite hipster!
I rather like her, and she is growing on me. There is a very big difference in being uneducated vs unintelligent. I think she is the former rather than the latter, and she is getting educated all the time. One to watch.
She's had some bad interviews in the past - I think she is one who voted to give the government to be able to trigger article 50 then called it a coup or some such? - but not so many it necessarily defines her like, say, power or, the ur example, Abbott.
She was good on 5live, but I can see not to everyones taste.
I thought she was awful. Lots of platitudes, but it took her ages to answer a basic question about the cost of extending child care, and she didn't even try and answer how it would be paid for.
Maybe I'm getting old, but I'm sure it used to be a basic part of the job that a politician could answer the simple questions about their brief at the drop of a hat. In recent months Labour politicians appear to have abandoned that skill.
I oppose Grammars as they are a damaging and stupid waste of taxpayers money. As a taxpayer and voter they are my business. I don't oppose Public Schools because what folk spend their own money on is their business unless it fails Mill's ' Harm Test '. In addition as a left liberal public schools for UK citizens are a mild sort of double taxation. Folk that buy places at them pay extra into the overall education budget while reducing pressure on the state education budget. Of all the things rich people spend their cash on to buy better lives for their kids putting money into extra education spending is the one that bothers me least.
Why is it any business of yours to dictate to parents in grammar school areas that they cannot do so? The only ballots that have been held in grammars on their future eg in Ripon have backed grammars
Because State education in England is legislated for and funded by Westminster you dim wit.
So what? That does not stop parental choice
Parents can only choose to use a tax funded state service if the state decides to offer that service in the first place. Which tax funded services the state offers is decided by all voters not just some parents.
Yes and a plurality of all voters want more grammars and a majority to keep existing grammars in most polls on the issue so tough!
The big successes at the conference seem to have been Emily Thornberry and Angela Rayner - neither one is on the far-left.
There must be another Angela Rayner in the Labour Party, as you can't possibly mean the person I heard talking on the radio this morning.
She was good on 5live, but I can see not to everyones taste.
The point is on reception at conference. They are the selectorate and she went down well there. Whatever else she is, she is not a posh boy from the establishment, or an Islingtonite hipster!
I rather like her, and she is growing on me. There is a very big difference in being uneducated vs unintelligent. I think she is the former rather than the latter, and she is getting educated all the time. One to watch.
Thornberry now fav on BF (just) at 8.6.
I topped up a week or two ago. Seems to me she is in pole position should Jezza walk or been run over by the proverbial...
If not, then others come into play. Rayner may be. Nandy has been quiet of late, but I still think she may be in play.
As you say it is the selectorate who count and they don't care two hoots about suitability to be PM. Most of them think Jezza is already in No. 10 anyway.
Just catching up on yesterday, did John McDonnell really suggest that he’d be preparing for a run on the pound if Labour got in, or was that a taken-out-of-context reply to a sneaky question from a journalist?
He really said it.
Hopefully OGH is revising his view that Brexit, rather than the revolutionary Bolsheviks on the Labour side of the House, represents the biggest risk to the wealth and security of the UK.
No, because Brexit will be blamed for providing the opportunity.
OGH was a cheerleader for the tripling of student tuition fees.
His reasoning was that young people don't vote but university workers do and they would vote LibDem in gratitude for the extra funding.
An interesting line of thought but one which turned out to be totally wrong and directly led to the rise of Corbyn.
OGH was right that University workers should have been grateful for the extra funding. If you look at number of entry-level Lectureships in the UK Universities, that has increased markedly since the introduction of tuition fees.
In politics, you always hear more from the losers than the winners of any change.
The winners are not grateful, but the losers never forgive you.
(There is a lesson down the road for Jeremy here, as abolishing tuition fees will also produce losers. In fact, at the level of funding currently suggested by Labour, it will lead to substantial job losses in the Universities).
Just catching up on yesterday, did John McDonnell really suggest that he’d be preparing for a run on the pound if Labour got in, or was that a taken-out-of-context reply to a sneaky question from a journalist?
He really said it.
Hopefully OGH is revising his view that Brexit, rather than the revolutionary Bolsheviks on the Labour side of the House, represents the biggest risk to the wealth and security of the UK.
There is no dichotomous relationship between the two. Brexit legitimised post-reality politics and JC took advantage of the new mood.
On the day of the Great Leader's most wonderful speech, his next selfless gift to a grateful proletariat, I do not think I have ever felt further from the Labour party. Watching creeps like Len McCluskey and Ken Loach waving away serous accusations of institutional anti-Semitism, dismissing them as attacks on Jeremy, has sickened me to the pit of my stomach. What I still don't see, though, is where the next Corbynite leader is coming from. The big successes at the conference seem to have been Emily Thornberry and Angela Rayner - neither one is on the far-left.
One is however somebody who still claims, in defiance of a Ministry of Defence statement to the contrary, that she was a Colonel in the British Army, and the other in my experience is preternaturally stupid.
If they're the best Labour can offer...
PS I think you owe an apology to creeps for comparing them to McCluskey and Loach.
Having done a bit of googling, I think the Thornberry claims are a bit embarrassing but not that serious,it is rooted in being a lawyer at a military tribunal and claiming some honorary rank in consequence.
Keir Starmer or Thornberry would be fine as leader. Both are accomplished professionals.
A lot of the new generation of Corbynite MP's come across as not very bright. Far from the best the nation can offer.
Owen Jones and Paul Mason would make good Corbynite MP's, in my opinion. It is interesting that they prefer to stay outside of Parliament.
My wife was told when Frimley Park Hospital became a part military hospital that she was an honary Major, when she asked why she was told it made it clear to the military staff where she was in the pecking order.
Just catching up on yesterday, did John McDonnell really suggest that he’d be preparing for a run on the pound if Labour got in, or was that a taken-out-of-context reply to a sneaky question from a journalist?
He really said it.
Hopefully OGH is revising his view that Brexit, rather than the revolutionary Bolsheviks on the Labour side of the House, represents the biggest risk to the wealth and security of the UK.
No, because Brexit will be blamed for providing the opportunity.
OGH was a cheerleader for the tripling of student tuition fees.
His reasoning was that young people don't vote but university workers do and they would vote LibDem in gratitude for the extra funding.
An interesting line of thought but one which turned out to be totally wrong and directly led to the rise of Corbyn.
OGH was right that University workers should have been grateful for the extra funding. If you look at number of entry-level Lectureships in the UK Universities, that has increased markedly since the introduction of tuition fees.
In politics, you always hear more from the losers than the winners of any change.
The winners are not grateful, but the losers never forgive you.
(There is a lesson down the road for Jeremy here, as abolishing tuition fees will also produce losers. In fact, at the level of funding currently suggested by Labour, it will lead to substantial job losses in the Universities).
Yes to the last point. It really hasn't dawn on Corbyn's legion of academic friends and cultists that the universities would be fighting for every last penny of funding against other priorities from the Government such as NHS, social care etc etc.
They will lose out in that race. Big time.
The boom days are drawing to a close in HE if they elect Jezza.
She was good on 5live, but I can see not to everyones taste.
I thought she was awful. Lots of platitudes, but it took her ages to answer a basic question about the cost of extending child care, and she didn't even try and answer how it would be paid for.
Maybe I'm getting old, but I'm sure it used to be a basic part of the job that a politician could answer the simple questions about their brief at the drop of a hat. In recent months Labour politicians appear to have abandoned that skill.
Nobody from McD's office has told her yet how the child care thing is to be paid for.
Just catching up on yesterday, did John McDonnell really suggest that he’d be preparing for a run on the pound if Labour got in, or was that a taken-out-of-context reply to a sneaky question from a journalist?
He really said it.
Hopefully OGH is revising his view that Brexit, rather than the revolutionary Bolsheviks on the Labour side of the House, represents the biggest risk to the wealth and security of the UK.
There is no dichotomous relationship between the two. Brexit legitimised post-reality politics and JC took advantage of the new mood.
Just catching up on yesterday, did John McDonnell really suggest that he’d be preparing for a run on the pound if Labour got in, or was that a taken-out-of-context reply to a sneaky question from a journalist?
He really said it.
Hopefully OGH is revising his view that Brexit, rather than the revolutionary Bolsheviks on the Labour side of the House, represents the biggest risk to the wealth and security of the UK.
There is no dichotomous relationship between the two. Brexit legitimised post-reality politics and JC took advantage of the new mood.
JC was leader of the opposition before Brexit.
I meant at the GE where he cannily worked out that, pace Brexit, you can promise any old fanny you like these days and the great unsoaped will lap it up as if it were skunk flavoured Angel Delight.
Just catching up on yesterday, did John McDonnell really suggest that he’d be preparing for a run on the pound if Labour got in, or was that a taken-out-of-context reply to a sneaky question from a journalist?
He really said it.
Hopefully OGH is revising his view that Brexit, rather than the revolutionary Bolsheviks on the Labour side of the House, represents the biggest risk to the wealth and security of the UK.
No, because Brexit will be blamed for providing the opportunity.
OGH was a cheerleader for the tripling of student tuition fees.
His reasoning was that young people don't vote but university workers do and they would vote LibDem in gratitude for the extra funding.
An interesting line of thought but one which turned out to be totally wrong and directly led to the rise of Corbyn.
OGH was right that University workers should have been grateful for the extra funding. If you look at number of entry-level Lectureships in the UK Universities, that has increased markedly since the introduction of tuition fees.
In politics, you always hear more from the losers than the winners of any change.
The winners are not grateful, but the losers never forgive you.
(There is a lesson down the road for Jeremy here, as abolishing tuition fees will also produce losers. In fact, at the level of funding currently suggested by Labour, it will lead to substantial job losses in the Universities).
Yes to the last point. It really hasn't dawn on Corbyn's legion of academic friends and cultists that the universities would be fighting for every last penny of funding against other priorities from the Government such as NHS, social care etc etc.
They will lose out in that race. Big time.
The boom days are drawing to a close in HE if they elect Jezza.
I agree. It is astonishing that academia hasn't realised.
Even if they believe & trust Jeremy implicitly, you would have thought they might worry about what a later Tory Government after Jeremy might do, if financial control is completely returned to the State.
Just catching up on yesterday, did John McDonnell really suggest that he’d be preparing for a run on the pound if Labour got in, or was that a taken-out-of-context reply to a sneaky question from a journalist?
He really said it.
Hopefully OGH is revising his view that Brexit, rather than the revolutionary Bolsheviks on the Labour side of the House, represents the biggest risk to the wealth and security of the UK.
There is no dichotomous relationship between the two. Brexit legitimised post-reality politics and JC took advantage of the new mood.
JC was leader of the opposition before Brexit.
I meant at the GE where he cannily worked out that, pace Brexit, you can promise any old fanny you like these days and the great unsoaped will lap it up as if it were skunk flavoured Angel Delight.
Just catching up on yesterday, did John McDonnell really suggest that he’d be preparing for a run on the pound if Labour got in, or was that a taken-out-of-context reply to a sneaky question from a journalist?
He really said it.
Hopefully OGH is revising his view that Brexit, rather than the revolutionary Bolsheviks on the Labour side of the House, represents the biggest risk to the wealth and security of the UK.
There is no dichotomous relationship between the two. Brexit legitimised post-reality politics and JC took advantage of the new mood.
JC was leader of the opposition before Brexit.
I meant at the GE where he cannily worked out that, pace Brexit, you can promise any old fanny you like these days and the great unsoaped will lap it up as if it were skunk flavoured Angel Delight.
People want more than managerialism. They want idealism.
She was good on 5live, but I can see not to everyones taste.
I thought she was awful. Lots of platitudes, but it took her ages to answer a basic question about the cost of extending child care, and she didn't even try and answer how it would be paid for.
Maybe I'm getting old, but I'm sure it used to be a basic part of the job that a politician could answer the simple questions about their brief at the drop of a hat. In recent months Labour politicians appear to have abandoned that skill.
Nobody from McD's office has told her yet how the child care thing is to be paid for.
To be fair she did repeat "fully costed manifesto" several times.
In any normal job if you were tell your boss it was "fully costed" but couldn't answer how much or where the money was coming from you wouldn't last very long.
The big successes at the conference seem to have been Emily Thornberry and Angela Rayner - neither one is on the far-left.
There must be another Angela Rayner in the Labour Party, as you can't possibly mean the person I heard talking on the radio this morning.
She was good on 5live, but I can see not to everyones taste.
The point is on reception at conference. They are the selectorate and she went down well there. Whatever else she is, she is not a posh boy from the establishment, or an Islingtonite hipster!
I rather like her, and she is growing on me. There is a very big difference in being uneducated vs unintelligent. I think she is the former rather than the latter, and she is getting educated all the time. One to watch.
That might be true, but isn't a formal education something of an advantage in a Education Secretary ? Or am I being unduly elitist ?
She was good on 5live, but I can see not to everyones taste.
I thought she was awful. Lots of platitudes, but it took her ages to answer a basic question about the cost of extending child care, and she didn't even try and answer how it would be paid for.
Maybe I'm getting old, but I'm sure it used to be a basic part of the job that a politician could answer the simple questions about their brief at the drop of a hat. In recent months Labour politicians appear to have abandoned that skill.
Nobody from McD's office has told her yet how the child care thing is to be paid for.
To be fair she did repeat "fully costed manifesto" several times.
In any normal job if you were tell your boss it was "fully costed" but couldn't answer how much or where the money was coming from you wouldn't last very long.
Everything is fully costed if you beleive there is a magic tax money tree.
I oppose Grammars as they are a damaging and stupid waste of taxpayers money. As a taxpayer and voters they are my business. I don't oppose Public Schools because what folk spend their own money on is their business unless it fails Mill's ' Harm Test '. In addition as a left liberal public schools for UK citizens are a mild sort of double taxation. Folk that buy places at them pay extra into the overall education budget while reducing pressure on the state education budget.
Well there's something in that. They should have the their sham charitable status removed though.
The biggest issue is that they perpetuate privilege down through the generations. Aligned to that they mean that we don't necessarily have the brightest and the best in the most influential jobs (just the most expensively educated and best connected)
Rubbish, that charitable status provides bursaries to many who would otherwise be unable to afford the fees
Uhuh? So... allow private schools to maintain chairtable status to reduce their taxes so that they can subsidise a few middle class parents whose elbows are pointy enough to get a reduced fee... or make them pay taxes like any other business, taxes that can help educate the 8m or so children of our country?
On the day of the Great Leader's most wonderful speech, his next selfless gift to a grateful proletariat, I do not think I have ever felt further from the Labour party. Watching creeps like Len McCluskey and Ken Loach waving away serous accusations of institutional anti-Semitism, dismissing them as attacks on Jeremy, has sickened me to the pit of my stomach. What I still don't see, though, is where the next Corbynite leader is coming from. The big successes at the conference seem to have been Emily Thornberry and Angela Rayner - neither one is on the far-left.
One is however somebody who still claims, in defiance of a Ministry of Defence statement to the contrary, that she was a Colonel in the British Army, and the other in my experience is preternaturally stupid.
If they're the best Labour can offer...
PS I think you owe an apology to creeps for comparing them to McCluskey and Loach.
Having done a bit of googling, I think the Thornberry claims are a bit embarrassing but not that serious,it is rooted in being a lawyer at a military tribunal and claiming some honorary rank in consequence.
Keir Starmer or Thornberry would be fine as leader. Both are accomplished professionals.
A lot of the new generation of Corbynite MP's come across as not very bright. Far from the best the nation can offer.
Owen Jones and Paul Mason would make good Corbynite MP's, in my opinion. It is interesting that they prefer to stay outside of Parliament.
My wife was told when Frimley Park Hospital became a part military hospital that she was an honary Major, when she asked why she was told it made it clear to the military staff where she was in the pecking order.
Was that when they closed down Aldershot Mil in the mid ‘90s?
Yes, any civvies working for or alongside the military get an honorary ‘rank’, because rank means a lot to the military and it’s important they know how to treat each other accordingly. I guess your wife was a consultant or a senior manager, so they gave her a senior manager’s rank to make the point that she was to be treated as a ‘Brass Hat’.
I oppose Grammars as they are a damaging and stupid waste of taxpayers money. As a taxpayer and voters they are my business. I don't oppose Public Schools because what folk spend their own money on is their business unless it fails Mill's ' Harm Test '. In addition as a left liberal public schools for UK citizens are a mild sort of double taxation. Folk that buy places at them pay extra into the overall education budget while reducing pressure on the state education budget.
Well there's something in that. They should have the their sham charitable status removed though.
The biggest issue is that they perpetuate privilege down through the generations. Aligned to that they mean that we don't necessarily have the brightest and the best in the most influential jobs (just the most expensively educated and best connected)
Rubbish, that charitable status provides bursaries to many who would otherwise be unable to afford the fees
Uhuh? So... allow private schools to maintain chairtable status to reduce their taxes so that they can subsidise a few middle class parents whose elbows are pointy enough to get a reduced fee... or make them pay taxes like any other business, taxes that can help educate the 8m or so children of our country?
Those that are run to make a profit for investors are indeed taxed. Those that are not, aren't.
She was good on 5live, but I can see not to everyones taste.
I thought she was awful. Lots of platitudes, but it took her ages to answer a basic question about the cost of extending child care, and she didn't even try and answer how it would be paid for.
Maybe I'm getting old, but I'm sure it used to be a basic part of the job that a politician could answer the simple questions about their brief at the drop of a hat. In recent months Labour politicians appear to have abandoned that skill.
Nobody from McD's office has told her yet how the child care thing is to be paid for.
To be fair she did repeat "fully costed manifesto" several times.
In any normal job if you were tell your boss it was "fully costed" but couldn't answer how much or where the money was coming from you wouldn't last very long.
Everything is fully costed if you beleive there is a magic tax money tree.
"...no government has to borrow. Quantitative easing proved that. In the UK the government (via the Bank of England) has done £435bn of QE, with the result that the government owns nearly a quarter of its own debt now, effectively cancelling it and all the interest payments due on it in the process. What this means is that another £58bn of QE could be used to cover capital costs of PFI without any difficulty."
Everything is fully costed if you beleive there is a magic tax money tree.
It's not even the believability of the figures that I have an issue with.
It took Rayner quite a while to come up with a cost figure, £2.7 billion IIRC, which made me suspect she was looking it up or someone had passed it to her. And she gave no explanation at all of where the money would come from, other than some "it will pay for itself" guff.
Surely it is a basic part of the job of a minister (or their shadow) that they ought to be able to explain how much a policy within their remit will cost, and how it will be paid for?
It's like Abbot and the police numbers; her job, her responsibility, and she could not even come up with figures in the ballpark never mind correct.
Even if they believe & trust Jeremy implicitly, you would have thought they might worry about what a later Tory Government after Jeremy might do, if financial control is completely returned to the State.
Presumably they think Jeremy will govern forever.
My experience of HE is that it comes in two halves (if we are talking about the bulk of HE - outside the Russell Group; the pressures are slightly different in RG institutions).
On the one hand there are the "Academics" who do a lot of teaching, a bit of research (as much as their schedule allows) and a fair chunk of the practical administration: form-filling, data provision etc.
On the other, there are the "Administrators". The latter command disproportionately higher salaries at the top end, and have little connection with the practical delivery of services (even if they were once "academics" themselves). Their management practices are, judging by the published evidence, FoI requests etc., mediocre at best, and do not, in my view, deliver value for money.
As with most top-heavy bureaucracies, a few people (whether they are wearing the "academic" or "administrator" hat) end up picking up the workload for everyone, while hierarchy policing, unwieldy centralized control structures, and a battery of poorly taught "teaching qualifications" are imposed in the name of "normalization" and "quality".
There is a lot of fat to be cut in HE (before we even get into what is being delivered, and whether it is appropriate for the majority of the intake post-expansion), and it could be done without affecting service delivery.
But it won't, because the turkeys in senior admin won't be voting for Christmas.
We are more likely to see entire departments and faculties shut down, while the administrators shelter in centralized services that will be last against the wall when the door is finally closed and there are no more students.
She was good on 5live, but I can see not to everyones taste.
I thought she was awful. Lots of platitudes, but it took her ages to answer a basic question about the cost of extending child care, and she didn't even try and answer how it would be paid for.
Maybe I'm getting old, but I'm sure it used to be a basic part of the job that a politician could answer the simple questions about their brief at the drop of a hat. In recent months Labour politicians appear to have abandoned that skill.
Nobody from McD's office has told her yet how the child care thing is to be paid for.
To be fair she did repeat "fully costed manifesto" several times.
In any normal job if you were tell your boss it was "fully costed" but couldn't answer how much or where the money was coming from you wouldn't last very long.
Everything is fully costed if you beleive there is a magic tax money tree.
"...no government has to borrow. Quantitative easing proved that. In the UK the government (via the Bank of England) has done £435bn of QE, with the result that the government owns nearly a quarter of its own debt now, effectively cancelling it and all the interest payments due on it in the process. What this means is that another £58bn of QE could be used to cover capital costs of PFI without any difficulty."
And Richard Murphy is frequently full of crap, he's a bloke operating from his back bedroom in Norfolk. QE was internal accounting. Once it escapes that and effects the real world with real business invovled it has real-world effects.
I oppose Grammars as they are a damaging and stupid waste of taxpayers money. As a taxpayer and voters they are my business. I don't oppose Public Schools because what folk spend their own money on is their business unless it fails Mill's ' Harm Test '. In addition as a left liberal public schools for UK citizens are a mild sort of double taxation. Folk that buy places at them pay extra into the overall education budget while reducing pressure on the state education budget.
Well there's something in that. They should have the their sham charitable status removed though.
The biggest issue is that they perpetuate privilege down through the generations. Aligned to that they mean that we don't necessarily have the brightest and the best in the most influential jobs (just the most expensively educated and best connected)
Rubbish, that charitable status provides bursaries to many who would otherwise be unable to afford the fees
Uhuh? So... allow private schools to maintain chairtable status to reduce their taxes so that they can subsidise a few middle class parents whose elbows are pointy enough to get a reduced fee... or make them pay taxes like any other business, taxes that can help educate the 8m or so children of our country?
That's not the case at my old school, one of the Woodard foundation schools. They use funds from hull-payers to subsidise children from the local area, and it led to a fairly eclectic mix of children. No pointy elbows involved.
When I was there, the headmaster even had a scheme to take in children who had been excluded from other local state schools. In some cases it worked, and the children excelled. In others... not.
Rumour that the non-fee payers were used as a food source during the expedition to Inaccessible Island are believed to be wrong.
She was good on 5live, but I can see not to everyones taste.
I thought she was awful. Lots of platitudes, but it took her ages to answer a basic question about the cost of extending child care, and she didn't even try and answer how it would be paid for.
Maybe I'm getting old, but I'm sure it used to be a basic part of the job that a politician could answer the simple questions about their brief at the drop of a hat. In recent months Labour politicians appear to have abandoned that skill.
Nobody from McD's office has told her yet how the child care thing is to be paid for.
To be fair she did repeat "fully costed manifesto" several times.
In any normal job if you were tell your boss it was "fully costed" but couldn't answer how much or where the money was coming from you wouldn't last very long.
Everything is fully costed if you beleive there is a magic tax money tree.
"...no government has to borrow. Quantitative easing proved that. In the UK the government (via the Bank of England) has done £435bn of QE, with the result that the government owns nearly a quarter of its own debt now, effectively cancelling it and all the interest payments due on it in the process. What this means is that another £58bn of QE could be used to cover capital costs of PFI without any difficulty."
Given the actions of the BoE over the last decade, and in particular the last five years, it is difficult to argue against this.
This article, which is 17 years old and mentions Donald Trump in the paragraph following the Reagan Presidency, is terrific on Post Reality. Both Brexit and Corbyn have to be understood in similar light.
(I'm reminded of that hospital in Yes Minister that is the recipient of the Florence Nightingale award because it is so well run - despite not having any patients)
Comments
Anyway I enjoyed your post and read it all the way through despite no paragraphs.What has always made the site readable is knowledgable opininated and sometimes witty posters putting one side of the argument in as many ways as possible. BALANCE as practiced by the BBC over Brexit is what got us into this mess in the first place!
2) I draw a line at deliberate untruths being told about me and I will not let that drop. I expect that is very tedious for others but there is a very important line between strong assertion of opinion and aggressive promulgation of gross and known factual errors (in pursuit of a wider political agenda). I agree that seems to be a Brexit development.
3) The current shortage of active betting markets doesn't help.
Changing their core product seems a Hail Mary pass...
If they're the best Labour can offer...
PS I think you owe an apology to creeps for comparing them to McCluskey and Loach.
It had little to do with politics or betting, but was interesting.
Facebook have lost me as an active user because of their intrusive ads though, so a balance needs striking.
We can't have that you know.
£50 a year would neither make nor mar the US treasury and would seem a bargain for platform access on the scale Twitter provides.
What I think she despised about the establishment wets - the likes of Pym and Gilmour and Heseltine - was their arrogance, dogmatism and complacency. Their sexism probably didn't help much either. Such people I think rubbed her up the wrong way, the more so as she could be rather arrogant and dogmatic herself (hence 'I want them to have the courage of MY convictions').
But if you will show me any way in which Corbyn has tried to meaningfully reach out and engage with the centre, I'd be obliged. Don't quote his first shadow cabinet to me because having appointed it he totally ignored it - and I mean totally ignored it, even refusing to read their policy proposals - and worked with a cabal of ideological soulmates some of whom are not even in Parliament and some of whom are barely fit to be involved in public service (Milne, for starters).
Partly I suspect it's because he knows he's not very bright and very disorganised, and therefore feels insecure around people who are intelligent and masterful (and I doubt, in fairness, if say Yvette Cooper bothered to hide her contempt for him, Pym to his Thatcher). But I think he also genuinely does believe socialism is the best and anyone who disagrees is wrong and can be ignored. Look at the way he said Venezuela was struggling because f the fall in oil prices, ignoring the fact that the economy was in real trouble long before oil dipped below $100 a barrel. He doesn't want to admit that socialism has not only failed, but made things worse, and because that cannot be right it must be wrong. And working with such a man must be damn near impossible.
It is indeed, a bleak choice we face. I am left hoping something will turn up...
Indeed the most successful entryists of the party were the New Labour types, who did everything in their power to limit the influence of the grass roots on the leadership. If Blair had listened to the grass roots over Iraq rather than Bush, he wouldn't make the same mistakes.
I don't think that the next leader will be cut from the same cloth as Jeremy, who has cultivated his own brand of personal eccentricity in a very British way. The purpose though of the changes is to entrench the authority of grassroots over the leadership rather than vice versa.
Indeed, Mr. Observer. It's alarming how many seem to support Corbyn's madness.
Although I'm more distanced than you, you have my sympathy.
As a teenager, I was attracted to the smash-the system rhetoric of the far left when I went to university, but it became a gradual process of disillusionment. The people involved were seldom wanting to do-good, it was uniformly to do-down, the rhetoric was based on hate.
After a long stay in labour centralism, I finally drifted off to liberalism. The rhetoric was milder, and the hate was more active dislike, but the opportunism and hypocrisy still lingered. As Machiavelli said .... "Put not your trust in princes."
I'm now a confirmed NOTA. You may well regain your faith in a rejuvenated Labour Party one day.
I too will not cease to let this go. You need to learn and to change your behaviour.
PS. Welcome, Joseph, good post.
One thing I've learned the hard way in politics. You don't have to be good. You just have to be less objectionable than the other lot. A Conservative government implementing something as divisive, damaging and stupid as Brexit puts us in entirely new territory.
There has been some useful chatter about Catalonia, I think. And the Singapore Grand Prix went very well. But I agree there's quite a lot of repetition.
I have followed the site on and off for some years and started posting last year. The way I see it, politics has changed enormously. We are faced with existential problems like the threat of far right governments in Europe, the dissolution of the EU, nuclear war ETC. Its totally different to the type of political issues that people would discuss and bet on a couple of years ago. I'm not sure that you can have a dispassionate discussion about Brexit or any of these things solely in betting terms.
I do think that the website and comments are still a good read but agree that it is better when the tribal and personal arguments are toned down.
https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/product/2017/Giving-you-more-characters-to-express-yourself.html
Probably not, but Twitter is dying as a company - they don’t understand the needs of their own user base and are failing miserably to target advertising effectively, so they’re generating little revenue.
Long after Twitter is gone, it will be mentioned in politics studies for two reasons. 1. The 45th President of the USA. and 2. David Cameron’s modern interpretation of the phrase that it’s better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Keir Starmer or Thornberry would be fine as leader. Both are accomplished professionals.
A lot of the new generation of Corbynite MP's come across as not very bright. Far from the best the nation can offer.
Owen Jones and Paul Mason would make good Corbynite MP's, in my opinion. It is interesting that they prefer to stay outside of Parliament.
exits stage right.
Hopefully OGH is revising his view that Brexit, rather than the revolutionary Bolsheviks on the Labour side of the House, represents the biggest risk to the wealth and security of the UK.
Brexit has ruined much though. Hopefully it can be salvaged somewhat yet.
“Progress on a number of public health initiatives (eg support to initiatives on antimicrobial resistance and for the elderly, cooperation with health technology assessment bodies) will move at a slower pace,” the EMA said, adding that it would take two to three years for the agency to recover.
steroidscrack cocaine?His reasoning was that young people don't vote but university workers do and they would vote LibDem in gratitude for the extra funding.
An interesting line of thought but one which turned out to be totally wrong and directly led to the rise of Corbyn.
"No, because Brexit will be blamed for providing the opportunity."
Here is the wet dream for Momentum .. .Jezza is elected owing to the failings of May and he brings in hard-left economic measures. We do a Venezuela and go down the toilet. All the fault of Brexit, obviously. Blame put on one Cameron D (Conservative) for instigating it. Nothing to do with hard-left measures.
Cure? More extreme hard-left measures
If Nige was a US citizen who could easily run for Senate or Governor in the South in the midterms next year and win the GOP primary and probably the main election too
The point is on reception at conference. They are the selectorate and she went down well there. Whatever else she is, she is not a posh boy from the establishment, or an Islingtonite hipster!
I rather like her, and she is growing on me. There is a very big difference in being uneducated vs unintelligent. I think she is the former rather than the latter, and she is getting educated all the time. One to watch.
Maybe I'm getting old, but I'm sure it used to be a basic part of the job that a politician could answer the simple questions about their brief at the drop of a hat. In recent months Labour politicians appear to have abandoned that skill.
I topped up a week or two ago. Seems to me she is in pole position should Jezza walk or been run over by the proverbial...
If not, then others come into play. Rayner may be. Nandy has been quiet of late, but I still think she may be in play.
As you say it is the selectorate who count and they don't care two hoots about suitability to be PM. Most of them think Jezza is already in No. 10 anyway.
In politics, you always hear more from the losers than the winners of any change.
The winners are not grateful, but the losers never forgive you.
(There is a lesson down the road for Jeremy here, as abolishing tuition fees will also produce losers. In fact, at the level of funding currently suggested by Labour, it will lead to substantial job losses in the Universities).
They will lose out in that race. Big time.
The boom days are drawing to a close in HE if they elect Jezza.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/corbyn-boost-national-constitutional-committee-ncc-leftwinger-emina-ibrahim-nec-formby-unite-momentum_uk_59ca6dc7e4b01cc57ff5ba41?xdc
https://mobile.twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/912946925216964608
Even if they believe & trust Jeremy implicitly, you would have thought they might worry about what a later Tory Government after Jeremy might do, if financial control is completely returned to the State.
Presumably they think Jeremy will govern forever.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/912947377333563392
Is this something SeanT has been posting about?
In any normal job if you were tell your boss it was "fully costed" but couldn't answer how much or where the money was coming from you wouldn't last very long.
Or am I being unduly elitist ?
1. Judge Roy Moore is remarkably right wing. If elected (and this is Alabama ) I think he'll be the most right wing Senator.
2. Most Americans agree with Trump on the NFL. Not for the first time, Trump understood blue collar voters better than his critics.
Yes, any civvies working for or alongside the military get an honorary ‘rank’, because rank means a lot to the military and it’s important they know how to treat each other accordingly. I guess your wife was a consultant or a senior manager, so they gave her a senior manager’s rank to make the point that she was to be treated as a ‘Brass Hat’.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/26/the-pfi-contracts-that-keep-costing-the-taxpayer
"...no government has to borrow. Quantitative easing proved that. In the UK the government (via the Bank of England) has done £435bn of QE, with the result that the government owns nearly a quarter of its own debt now, effectively cancelling it and all the interest payments due on it in the process. What this means is that another £58bn of QE could be used to cover capital costs of PFI without any difficulty."
It took Rayner quite a while to come up with a cost figure, £2.7 billion IIRC, which made me suspect she was looking it up or someone had passed it to her. And she gave no explanation at all of where the money would come from, other than some "it will pay for itself" guff.
Surely it is a basic part of the job of a minister (or their shadow) that they ought to be able to explain how much a policy within their remit will cost, and how it will be paid for?
It's like Abbot and the police numbers; her job, her responsibility, and she could not even come up with figures in the ballpark never mind correct.
Haha "Sold us out"... the 40% who voted Labour this time "sold out" any hope Labour moderates had of launching a coup.
On the one hand there are the "Academics" who do a lot of teaching, a bit of research (as much as their schedule allows) and a fair chunk of the practical administration: form-filling, data provision etc.
On the other, there are the "Administrators". The latter command disproportionately higher salaries at the top end, and have little connection with the practical delivery of services (even if they were once "academics" themselves). Their management practices are, judging by the published evidence, FoI requests etc., mediocre at best, and do not, in my view, deliver value for money.
As with most top-heavy bureaucracies, a few people (whether they are wearing the "academic" or "administrator" hat) end up picking up the workload for everyone, while hierarchy policing, unwieldy centralized control structures, and a battery of poorly taught "teaching qualifications" are imposed in the name of "normalization" and "quality".
There is a lot of fat to be cut in HE (before we even get into what is being delivered, and whether it is appropriate for the majority of the intake post-expansion), and it could be done without affecting service delivery.
But it won't, because the turkeys in senior admin won't be voting for Christmas.
We are more likely to see entire departments and faculties shut down, while the administrators shelter in centralized services that will be last against the wall when the door is finally closed and there are no more students.
When I was there, the headmaster even had a scheme to take in children who had been excluded from other local state schools. In some cases it worked, and the children excelled. In others... not.
Rumour that the non-fee payers were used as a food source during the expedition to Inaccessible Island are believed to be wrong.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/01/lost-in-post-reality/377412/
This article, which is 17 years old and mentions Donald Trump in the paragraph following the Reagan Presidency, is terrific on Post Reality. Both Brexit and Corbyn have to be understood in similar light.