Chris Leslie, to my mind anyway, was always one of the most obvious (probably along with Woodcock) potential deselections. There is a lot of competition pre GE17 but from the immediate aftermath he went straight back on the attack on Corbyn, the next day I think, even Woodcock held back for a short while.
I haven't looked into it much but I'd be surprised if Leslie is much more personally responsible than most winning played a big part along with Tony Blair and Labour in general. The much talked up personal vote factor has been shown to be a very small part of a candidates vote in most polls and studies I've seen on it. Although they are generally more recent maybe it was different in '97?
If he doesn't want a Labour government under the current leadership then that is fine, if he doesn't like Corbyn or sees Corbyn as a potentially negative influence then that is fine. It is also okay for the local Labour party to take a different view and actively want and promote a Labour government. If Chris Leslie wants to run on an anti Labour ticket then that is his right.
What he doesn't automatically have a right to is to run on an anti Labour ticket using the Labour name.
Odd really because Corbyn ran on an anti-Labour ticket throughout the Blair/Brown era using the Labour name as cover for the SWP. Still, principles, eh.
Anti new Labour...
Using New Labour name as cover for Labour.
FTFY.
Turns out the local Labour members liked a pro Labour stance in both Corbyn's constituency and Chris Leslie's.
Corbyn also didn't have an automatic right to stand on an anti New Labour ticket. Although he never went as far as the likes of Woodcock and Leslie or many of his other opponents.
Labour, New Labour, Old Labour - it’s all the same thing. All wings of the same party.
What’s not Labour is the SWP, Millitant and Communists we have now. They’re the ones who should go.
What is not Labour is preferring a Tory government, that is why they are the ones who are going.
Labour used to stand for something, not just against something. You guys are so obsessed with the Tories you’ve lost your way and turned on your own.
Chris Leslie is appearing in Conservative publicity almost daily. His values are so close to Tory values and what would be seen in most countries as pretty extreme right wing values like austerity.
Is that what Labour used to stand for. Tory Lite has had its time.
In contrast in 2017 Lalbour stood for something. No tuition fees renationalisation the rich paying fair taxes.
Miss Cyclefree, hypocrites if you take a reasoned view. But if you take a religious view, it makes sense. It's why wrapping morality into politics is poison.
If Jeremy = moral, then Corbyn's rebellions are principled stands in the face of authority.
If Jeremy = moral, then rebelling against Corbyn is to make an immoral act.
To make it non-hypocritical, all you need do is accept far left madness as the centre of the political universe, a universal prism through which all acts and speech are judged. Does it accord with Corbyn? If so, it is good. If not, it is bad.
I've been surprised how much the politically aware women I know are engaged with the story - I was in the pub the other night with one (a fellow councillor in our tiny little town) and she'd been glued to it. Mrs Capitano has also been following it on the radio with some horror. How much it's breaking through to the wider electorate I don't know, but I would not be at all surprised if there were a gender gap here.
Sexual assault is common enough that most women have experienced it, often more than once. It is part of the lived female experience. It is also why the default position for most women is to sympathise with and believe another woman who says she has undergone it.
Basically we have all been there...
My partner rarely posts on PB but I guess she won't mind me relating her own anecdotal observations from University days (in the US in her case.)...
Happily, the 'Me Too' movement seems to be shifting the norm in the right direction.
If Kavanagh had said; yes I did a few stupid and on reflection frightening, things to girls when I was a teenager, and as an adult I’m sorry and I apologise, that would, surely, have been the end of it.
Not a chance.
The problem is that with no opportunity for forgiveness you create no incentive to cooperate
(Ironically this is why dictators now fight to the death - and lots of other people’s deaths as well. The International Criminal Court blew up the old model of giving them $100m and sending them to Switzerland. It might have been grubby and unsatisfactory but it saved a lot of human misery)
That analogy is a pretty horrible one both in the particular case of Kavanaugh, and the general one. You might want to unpack it a bit and consider the implications.
In any event, Kavanaugh, if he is incapable of honesty about his past, then he is incapable of change - and he has no business being on the Supreme Court. A lifetime in denial doesn’t mean he can’t be forgiven if he fesses up (and he faces no legal hazard as attempted rape was a misdemeanour (!) back then in Maryland, with a one year statute of limitations): it just means he can’t be a justice. There are other careers, and it is unlikely that he’d lose his bar license.
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
Conditions which historically meant that the sufferer generally died are now treatable and survivable, meaning the genes get passed on.
That is not the reason for the rise in severe allergies though, as it has happened in not much more than a generation.
Isn’t it lack of childhood exposure to allergens?
Yes, there is that theory. Underexposure to allergens in early life leading to overrreaction later in the form of anaphylaxis.
It may also be the rise of central heating. Warm homes breed allergens.
Chris Leslie, to my mind anyway, was always one of the most obvious (probably along with Woodcock) potential deselections. There is a lot of competition pre GE17 but from the immediate aftermath he went straight back on the attack on Corbyn, the next day I think, even Woodcock held back for a short while.
Iown to be a very small part of a candidates vote in most polls and studies I've seen on it. Although they are generally more recent maybe it was different in '97?
If he doesn't want a Labour government tively want and promote a Labour government. If Chris Leslie wants to run on an anti Labour ticket then that is his right.
What he doesn't automatically have a right to is to run on an anti Labour ticket using the Labour name.
Odd really because Corbyn ran on an anti-Labour ticket throughout the Blair/Brown era using the Labour name as cover for the SWP. Still, principles, eh.
Anti new Labour...
Using New Labour name as cover for Labour.
FTFY.
Turns out the local Labour members liked a pro Labour stance in both Corbyn's constituency and Chris Leslie's.
Corbyn also didn't have an automatic right to stand on an anti New Labour ticket. Although he never went as far as the likes of Woodcock and Leslie or many of his other opponents.
Labour, New Labour, Old Labour - it’s all the same thing. All wings of the same party.
What’s not Labour is the SWP, Millitant and Communists we have now. They’re the ones who should go.
What is not Labour is preferring a Tory government, that is why they are the ones who are going.
Labour used to stand for something, not just against something. You guys are so obsessed with the Tories you’ve lost your way and turned on your own.
Chris Leslie is appearing in Conservative publicity almost daily. His values are so close to Tory values and what would be seen in most countries as pretty extreme right wing values like austerity.
Is that what Labour used to stand for. Tory Lite has had its time.
In contrast in 2017 Lalbour stood for something. No tuition fees renationalisation the rich paying fair taxes.
What's not to like?
I don’t like the nostalgic and divisive aspect to the current Labour.
Sticking your hand over your ears and claiming Labour people you disagree with are Tory Lite will get you nowhere.
Reheating dogma from 40 years ago is limiting, we know where these ideas end.
Labour is about people coming together and being ambitious for the future. This lot are divisive and backwards looking.
What he doesn't automatically have a right to is to run on an anti Labour ticket using the Labour name.
Odd really because Corbyn ran on an anti-Labour ticket throughout the Blair/Brown era using the Labour name as cover for the SWP. Still, principles, eh.
Anti new Labour...
Using New Labour name as cover for Labour.
FTFY.
Turns out the local Labour members liked a pro Labour stance in both Corbyn's constituency and Chris Leslie's.
Corbyn also didn't have an automatic right to stand on an anti New Labour ticket. Although he never went as far as the likes of Woodcock and Leslie or many of his other opponents.
Labour, New Labour, Old Labour - it’s all the same thing. All wings of the same party.
What’s not Labour is the SWP, Millitant and Communists we have now. They’re the ones who should go.
What is not Labour is preferring a Tory government, that is why they are the ones who are going.
Labour used to stand for something, not just against something. You guys are so obsessed with the Tories you’ve lost your way and turned on your own.
Chris Leslie is appearing in Conservative publicity almost daily. His values are so close to Tory values and what would be seen in most countries as pretty extreme right wing values like austerity.
Is that what Labour used to stand for. Tory Lite has had its time.
In contrast in 2017 Lalbour stood for something. No tuition fees renationalisation the rich paying fair taxes.
What's not to like?
It also stood for the rich having their inheritances protected. No wonder so many kids of rich parents and rich Left wingers supported it.
As I understand it once in government with the super majority they didn't need them so just mostly ignored them and left them to their own thing.
It would negate my point if the people (who may be) being deselected were being so for rebelling against the leadership on that issue or other Labour value issues, they aren't.
Clause 1.2 of the Party's Rule Book:
'Its purpose is to organise and maintain in Parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.'
Whether you agree with them or not, the fact is that is what Leslie believes he is trying to do and what he believes Corbyn is ultimately incapable of delivering in an effectual way. He is therefore I think in his own eyes fighting for the ultimate Labour principle.
As it happens, he is right Corbyn can't do it - he has proven many times that however good a campaigner he is, he is lazy and disorganised and couldn't lead a snail race - but wrong to believe his wing would necessarily do better. The problem is that after the Blair years of spin and sterility, Labour is intellectually exhausted and Corbyn's more or less phantom success is masking the fact that the MPs still have no idea what to do about that.
I do believe there is mileage for a party offering competence, and it is possible say, Yvette Cooper might offer that. But the abject record of Brown means it wouldn't be an easy sell for her.
I have to go. Hope you find that of interest and have a good morning.
I don't think you even believe that for a second. Chris Leslie doesn't want Corbyn to win, those who opposed Corbyn because they thought he couldn't win are those who are no longer his opponents, that isn't Chris Leslie's problem with Corbyn. Leslie's opposition to Corbyn and the Labour membership is ideological. The fact Corbyn could win is the bigger problem for some like Leslie and Woodcock.
Also you still didn't understand my point. Winning isn't a Labour value, if you told Labour voters they could win the election with a policy of privatising the NHS and kicking Black people out of Britain they would choose to lose the election.
They would reselect MPs who tried to win the election by privatising the NHS and kicking out Black people, because that wouldn't chime with their values. They want to win of course, but winning isn't a value and even if it was wouldn't be one that is prioritised over their other values.
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
Conditions which historically meant that the sufferer generally died are now treatable and survivable, meaning the genes get passed on.
That is not the reason for the rise in severe allergies though, as it has happened in not much more than a generation.
Isn’t it lack of childhood exposure to allergens?
Yes, there is that theory. Underexposure to allergens in early life leading to overrreaction later in the form of anaphylaxis.
It may also be the rise of central heating. Warm homes breed allergens.
And having houses too clean?
I do hope so. That’s what I’ve always told my kids.
I haven't looked into it much but I'd be surprised if Leslie is much more personally responsible than most winning played a big part along with Tony Blair and Labour in general. The much talked up personal vote factor has been shown to be a very small part of a candidates vote in most polls and studies I've seen on it. Although they are generally more recent maybe it was different in '97?
If he doesn't want a Labour government under the current leadership then that is fine, if he doesn't like Corbyn or sees Corbyn as a potentially negative influence then that is fine. It is also okay for the local Labour party to take a different view and actively want and promote a Labour government. If Chris Leslie wants to run on an anti Labour ticket then that is his right.
What he doesn't automatically have a right to is to run on an anti Labour ticket using the Labour name.
Odd really because Corbyn ran on an anti-Labour ticket throughout the Blair/Brown era using the Labour name as cover for the SWP. Still, principles, eh.
Anti new Labour...
Using New Labour name as cover for Labour.
FTFY.
Turns out the local Labour members liked a pro Labour stance in both Corbyn's constituency and Chris Leslie's.
Corbyn also didn't have an automatic right to stand on an anti New Labour ticket. Although he never went as far as the likes of Woodcock and Leslie or many of his other opponents.
Labour, New Labour, Old Labour - it’s all the same thing. All wings of the same party.
What’s not Labour is the SWP, Millitant and Communists we have now. They’re the ones who should go.
What is not Labour is preferring a Tory government, that is why they are the ones who are going.
Labour used to stand for something, not just against something. You guys are so obsessed with the Tories you’ve lost your way and turned on your own.
Chris Leslie is appearing in Conservative publicity almost daily. His values are so close to Tory values and what would be seen in most countries as pretty extreme right wing values like austerity.
Is that what Labour used to stand for. Tory Lite has had its time.
In contrast in 2017 Lalbour stood for something. No tuition fees renationalisation the rich paying fair taxes.
The holier than thou bullshit that infected the Labour Party somewhere down the line is also a problem. If you spend all your time polishing your halo, you fail to deal with dark side of your own movement. So we end up attracting communists (WTF!) and support for Palestine metastasises into anti semetism.
Painting the Tories as some kind of pantomime villain is self defeating.
Odd really because Corbyn ran on an anti-Labour ticket throughout the Blair/Brown era using the Labour name as cover for the SWP. Still, principles, eh.
Anti new Labour...
Using New Labour name as cover for Labour.
FTFY.
Although that isn't really the accusation at all. I'd argue Chris Leslie and John Woodcock are quite open about being more pro New Labour than pro Labour and Corbyn was quite open about being more pro Labour than Pro New Labour. Also if Corbyn's local labour members wanted him deselected for standing for Labour values rather than New Labour values they could have tried, some did start an attempt but backed off because it wasn't going to happen.
Turns out the local Labour members liked a pro Labour stance in both Corbyn's constituency and Chris Leslie's.
Corbyn also didn't have an automatic right to stand on an anti New Labour ticket. Although he never went as far as the likes of Woodcock and Leslie or many of his other opponents.
Labour, New Labour, Old Labour - it’s all the same thing. All wings of the same party.
What’s not Labour is the SWP, Millitant and Communists we have now. They’re the ones who should go.
What is not Labour is preferring a Tory government, that is why they are the ones who are going.
How many times did Corbyn vote with the Tories during Blair’s premiership?
The fact is that Corbyn, like anyone who gets a taste of power, thinks that what he did as a rebel was principled and fine, but what someone does when they oppose him is disgraceful, unprincipled and to be punished. He and his supporters are being hypocrites on this, like all politicians. Fair enough - but they need to come down from that moral high ground.
I hope he and the rest of the former awkward squad have come to appreciate the tactics of spin, obfuscation, selective and careful wording, and the frustration at those in the party who oppose them, used by Blair and co, now they are on the other side of it. Any difference with previous leaderships in manner at least, which I think were overblown anyway as Corbyn has been a professional politician for decades, are definitely reducing.
Chris Leslie, to my mind anyway, was always one of the most obvious (probably along with Woodcock) potential deselections. There is a lot of competition pre GE17 but from the immediate aftermath he went straight back on the attack on Corbyn, the next day I think, even Woodcock held back for a short while.
I haven't looked into it much but I'd be surprised if Leslie is much more personally responsible than most winning Labour candidates in '97. When you consider the Lib Dems had a pretty big surge as well the factors and the situation played a big part along with Tony Blair and Labour in general. The much talked up personal vote factor has been shown to be a very small part of a candidates vote in most polls and studies I've seen on it. Although they are generally more recent maybe it was different in '97?
If he doesn't want a Labour government under the current leadership then that is fine, if he doesn't like Corbyn or sees Corbyn as a potentially negative influence then that is fine. It is also okay for the local Labour party to take a different view and actively want and promote a Labour government. If Chris Leslie wants to run on an anti Labour ticket then that is his right.
What he doesn't automatically have a right to is to run on an anti Labour ticket using the Labour name.
Odd really because Corbyn ran on an anti-Labour ticket throughout the Blair/Brown era using the Labour name as cover for the SWP. Still, principles, eh.
Anti new Labour...
Using New Labour name as cover for Labour.
FTFY.
Although that isn't really the accusation at all. I'd argue Chris Leslie and John Woodcock are quite open about being more pro New Labour than pro Labour and Corbyn was quite open about being more pro Labour than Pro New Labour. Also if Corbyn's local labour members wanted him deselected for standing for Labour values rather than New Labour values they could have tried, some did start an attempt but backed off because it wasn't going to happen.
Turns out the local Labour members liked a pro Labour stance in both Corbyn's constituency and Chris Leslie's.
Corbyn also didn't have an automatic right to stand on an anti New Labour ticket. Although he never went as far as the likes of Woodcock and Leslie or many of his other opponents.
Labour, New Labour, Old Labour - it’s all the same thing. All wings of the same party.
What’s not Labour is the SWP, Millitant and Communists we have now. They’re the ones who should go.
Parties change. Sometimes fundamentally.
Edit - although occasionally the messaging gets mixed up there, in that he has simultaneously radically changed the partys direction in a good way, but then defended as not being that radical as the manifesto was quite modest.
Corbyn also didn't have an automatic right to stand on an anti New Labour ticket. Although he never went as far as the likes of Woodcock and Leslie or many of his other opponents.
Labour, New Labour, Old Labour - it’s all the same thing. All wings of the same party.
What’s not Labour is the SWP, Millitant and Communists we have now. They’re the ones who should go.
What is not Labour is preferring a Tory government, that is why they are the ones who are going.
How many times did Corbyn vote with the Tories during Blair’s premiership?
The fact is that Corbyn, like anyone who gets a taste of power, thinks that what he did as a rebel was principled and fine, but what someone does when they oppose him is disgraceful, unprincipled and to be punished. He and his supporters are being hypocrites on this, like all politicians. Fair enough - but they need to come down from that moral high ground.
Not sure how many times I need to repeat this but I'll try again.
Nobody is being deselected for the act of rebellion.
Do you think MPs would be deselected as Labour candidates if they opposed NHS privitisation and rebelled to do so?
Or do you think they would be more likely to be deselected for not rebelling.
People are deselecting candidates who don't stand for their values, just like some wanted to do with Corbyn but it turns out he did represent the values of his constituency.
People who don't understand this to make a charge of hypocrisy are being dumb (in just this one line of thought and are intelligent and wonderful people otherwise )
Edit: Also Corbyn actually voted with the Tories very few times, many of his rebellions such as the Iraq war were against the Conservative party as well as the Labour party. Although that again isn't the point. I would personally proudly march through the lobbies to vote with the Tories to stop the privatisation of the NHS and I imagine my Labour members would love me for it (if I was an MP)
My partner rarely posts on PB but I guess she won't mind me relating her own anecdotal observations from University days (in the US in her case.)...
Happily, the 'Me Too' movement seems to be shifting the norm in the right direction.
If Kavanagh had said; yes I did a few stupid and on reflection frightening, things to girls when I was a teenager, and as an adult I’m sorry and I apologise, that would, surely, have been the end of it.
Not a chance.
The problem is that with no opportunity for forgiveness you create no incentive to cooperate
(Ironically this is why dictators now fight to the death - and lots of other people’s deaths as well. The International Criminal Court blew up the old model of giving them $100m and sending them to Switzerland. It might have been grubby and unsatisfactory but it saved a lot of human misery)
That analogy is a pretty horrible one both in the particular case of Kavanaugh, and the general one. You might want to unpack it a bit and consider the implications.
In any event, Kavanaugh, if he is incapable of honesty about his past, then he is incapable of change - and he has no business being on the Supreme Court. A lifetime in denial doesn’t mean he can’t be forgiven if he fesses up (and he faces no legal hazard as attempted rape was a misdemeanour (!) back then in Maryland, with a one year statute of limitations): it just means he can’t be a justice. There are other careers, and it is unlikely that he’d lose his bar license.
It wasn’t an analogy. It was another example of why the current approach doesn’t encourage cooperation. People respond to incentives. The situation is one of all downside and no upside
As for Kavanaugh, what we have is word against word. Except that we have statement from all the supposed witnesses that the events did not occur as described. I’m sure the FBI’s first priority will be to validate those
In terms of forgiveness I was responding to OkC’s comment he would be confirmed if he apologised for youthful bad behaviour. He wouldn’t.
The issue I have with the Democrats’ approach is they have tried to run the clock down to use procedure to get Kavanaugh out. They had sufficient time to have a proper investigation but chose not to disclose it.
I have no doubt that something horrible happened to Dr Ford and it has badly impacted her life. There is no proof that Kavanaugh was responsible.
Chris Leslie, to my mind anyway, was always one of the most obvious (probably along with Woodcock) potential deselections. There is a lot of competition pre GE17 but from the immediate aftermath he went straight back on the attack on Corbyn, the next day I think, even Woodcock held back for a short while.
I haven't looked into it much but I'd be surprised if Leslie is much more personally responsible than most winning Labour candidates in '97. When you consider the Lib Dems had a pretty big surge as well the factors and the situation played a big part along with Tony Blair and Labour in general. The much talked up personal vote factor has been shown to be a very small part of a candidates vote in most polls and studies I've seen on it. Although they are generally more recent maybe it was different in '97?
If he doesn't want a Labour government under the current leadership then that is fine, if he doesn't like Corbyn or sees Corbyn as a potentially negative influence then that is fine. It is also okay for the local Labour party to take a different view and actively want and promote a Labour government. If Chris Leslie wants to run on an anti Labour ticket then that is his right.
What he doesn't automatically have a right to is to run on an anti Labour ticket using the Labour name.
Odd really because Corbyn ran on an anti-Labour ticket throughout the Blair/Brown era using the Labour name as cover for the SWP. Still, principles, eh.
Anti new Labour...
Using New Labour name as cover for Labour.
FTFY.
Although that isn't really the accusation at all. I'd argue Chris Leslie and John Woodcock are quite open about being more pro New Labour than pro Labour and Corbyn was quite open about being more pro Labour than Pro New Labour. Also if Corbyn's local labour members wanted him deselected for standing for Labour values rather than New Labour values they could have tried, some did start an attempt but backed off because it wasn't going to happen.
Turns out the local Labour members liked a pro Labour stance in both Corbyn's constituency and Chris Leslie's.
Corbyn also didn't have an automatic right to stand on an anti New Labour ticket. Although he never went as far as the likes of Woodcock and Leslie or many of his other opponents.
Labour, New Labour, Old Labour - it’s all the same thing. All wings of the same party.
What’s not Labour is the SWP, Millitant and Communists we have now. They’re the ones who should go.
Parties change. Sometimes fundamentally.
Sure, the party of Trump was the party of Lincoln. M
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
Conditions which historically meant that the sufferer generally died are now treatable and survivable, meaning the genes get passed on.
That is not the reason for the rise in severe allergies though, as it has happened in not much more than a generation.
Isn’t it lack of childhood exposure to allergens?
Yes, there is that theory. Underexposure to allergens in early life leading to overrreaction later in the form of anaphylaxis.
It may also be the rise of central heating. Warm homes breed allergens.
So it’s either underexposure to allergens or overexposure to allergens
Corbyn also didn't have an automatic right to stand on an anti New Labour ticket. Although he never went as far as the likes of Woodcock and Leslie or many of his other opponents.
Labour, New Labour, Old Labour - it’s all the same thing. All wings of the same party.
What’s not Labour is the SWP, Millitant and Communists we have now. They’re the ones who should go.
What is not Labour is preferring a Tory government, that is why they are the ones who are going.
How many times did Corbyn vote with the Tories during Blair’s premiership?
The fact is that Corbyn, like anyone who gets a taste of power, thinks that what he did as a rebel was principled and fine, but what someone does when they oppose him is disgraceful, unprincipled and to be punished. He and his supporters are being hypocrites on this, like all politicians. Fair enough - but they need to come down from that moral high ground.
Not sure how many times I need to repeat this but I'll try again.
Nobody is being deselected for the act of rebellion.
Do you think MPs would be deselected as Labour candidates if they opposed NHS privitisation and rebelled to do so?
Or do you think they would be more likely to be deselected for not rebelling.
People are deselecting candidates who don't stand for their values, just like some wanted to do with Corbyn but it turns out he did represent the values of his constituency.
People who don't understand this to make a charge of hypocrisy are being dumb (in just this one line of thought and are intelligent and wonderful people otherwise )
Edit: Also Corbyn actually voted with the Tories very few times, many of his rebellions such as the Iraq war were against the Conservative party as well as the Labour party. Although that again isn't the point. I would personally proudly march through the lobbies to vote with the Tories to stop the privatisation of the NHS and I imagine my Labour members would love me for it (if I was an MP)
So a few hundred people, many of whom have spent a life opposing Labour, can join for £3 and end the career of a decent Labour MP. Great.
Corbyn also didn't have an automatic right to stand on an anti New Labour ticket. Although he never went as far as the likes of Woodcock and Leslie or many of his other opponents.
What’s not Labour is the SWP, Millitant and Communists we have now. They’re the ones who should go.
What is not Labour is preferring a Tory government, that is why they are the ones who are going.
How many times did Corbyn vote with the Tories during Blair’s premiership?
The fact is that Corbyn, like anyone who gets a taste of power, thinks that what he did as a rebel was principled and fine, but what someone does when they oppose him is disgraceful, unprincipled and to be punished. He and his supporters are being hypocrites on this, like all politicians. Fair enough - but they need to come down from that moral high ground.
Not sure how many times I need to repeat this but I'll try again.
Nobody is being deselected for the act of rebellion.
Do you think MPs would be deselected as Labour candidates if they opposed NHS privitisation and rebelled to do so?
Or do you think they would be more likely to be deselected for not rebelling.
People are deselecting candidates who don't stand for their values, just like some wanted to do with Corbyn but it turns out he did represent the values of his constituency.
People who don't understand this to make a charge of hypocrisy are being dumb (in just this one line of thought and are intelligent and wonderful people otherwise )
Edit: Also Corbyn actually voted with the Tories very few times, many of his rebellions such as the Iraq war were against the Conservative party as well as the Labour party. Although that again isn't the point. I would personally proudly march through the lobbies to vote with the Tories to stop the privatisation of the NHS and I imagine my Labour members would love me for it (if I was an MP)
Intelligent and wonderful people can repeat until they are blue in the face that MPs who are facing votes of no confidence are only doing so because they don’t represent the values of their constituency (despite having being voted for by the voters in that constitency) and that this has nothing to do with them rebelling against the current leadership. But outsiders see that these votes of no confidence only occur against those who don’t support the leadership and wonder if perhaps this is more than coincidence.
Anyway, it is a glorious autumn day so it is time for me to be outside.
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
Conditions which historically meant that the sufferer generally died are now treatable and survivable, meaning the genes get passed on.
That is not the reason for the rise in severe allergies though, as it has happened in not much more than a generation.
Isn’t it lack of childhood exposure to allergens?
Yes, there is that theory. Underexposure to allergens in early life leading to overrreaction later in the form of anaphylaxis.
It may also be the rise of central heating. Warm homes breed allergens.
So it’s either underexposure to allergens or overexposure to allergens
Work is seriously getting in the way of important things like time on PB of late. Catching up Robert's second piece on demographics is just absolutely superb and highlights the real challenges facing both our politicians and our societies over the next 20 years.
Personally, I would be delighted if the Tory conference at least paid attention to these concerns and how we are going to address them. To take obvious examples demographics are putting enormous upward pressure on public spending. We are seeing this already. The government is managing to reduce the deficit but discussions about tax cuts have almost disappeared. We will no longer be sharing the proceeds of growth, we will be spending them all on health care and the elderly.
If the elderly were poor that just might be fair enough but the current generation of pensioners, especially those in receipt of final salary index linked pensions will be amongst the wealthiest sections of our community with low outlays and high disposable income. Are we really going to tax low paid young people so that they can live in luxury?
These are difficult issues, not least politically. We need to start having more adult and realistic conversations about this.
Not sure how many times I need to repeat this but I'll try again.
Nobody is being deselected for the act of rebellion.
Do you think MPs would be deselected as Labour candidates if they opposed NHS privitisation and rebelled to do so?
Or do you think they would be more likely to be deselected for not rebelling.
People are deselecting candidates who don't stand for their values, just like some wanted to do with Corbyn but it turns out he did represent the values of his constituency.
People who don't understand this to make a charge of hypocrisy are being dumb (in just this one line of thought and are intelligent and wonderful people otherwise )
Edit: Also Corbyn actually voted with the Tories very few times, many of his rebellions such as the Iraq war were against the Conservative party as well as the Labour party. Although that again isn't the point. I would personally proudly march through the lobbies to vote with the Tories to stop the privatisation of the NHS and I imagine my Labour members would love me for it (if I was an MP)
So a few hundred people, many of whom have spent a life opposing Labour, can join for £3 and end the career of a decent Labour MP. Great.
They'll struggle to deselect decent Labour MP's, those who would prefer a Tory government will probably be deselected anyway because the electorate deserve the chance to vote for a Labour candidate who wants a Labour government.
I hope Chris Leslie stands as well so anyone who wants to vote for him can but it is no surprise that it is mostly Tories who don't want a pro Labour Labour candidate in the constituency. If the Tories want that that is fine, I would happy for him to be their candidate, but if Labour members want a pro Labour candidate it is perfectly democratic that they should get that choice on the ballot.
In his testimony Kavanaugh seemed to display just about every trait you wouldn’t want in a judge. It was extraordinary.
We've got used to the Hollywood outcome, where the (invariably white) privileged, sexually predatory, moneyed, dumb High School jock gets his comeuppance.
In reality, they go on to become President and Supreme Court judges.
Or Hollywood producers, or TV presenters etc etc.
It really is difficult to believe that there is no better candidate out there for SCOTUS. There seems to be nearly no scrutiny of his ability as a judge. It is perhaps not something that the drafters of the Constitution considered, that a sexually aggressive egomaniac would be elected POTUS and then desire to pack the SCOTUS to shore up his own power.
Actually I suspect they would have seen it as ordinary course of business...
Which is why Congress gets to vet the candidate. The problem is that in a country fairly evenly split, one party controls all the organs of state, and is trying to consolidate that hegemony. For Democracy to function, there does need to be some consideration and acceptance of minority views, as in time the pendulum will shift.
Of course. But the Democrats have not tried to vet Kavanaugh. They’ve tried to eliminate him from consideration. They had no intention of looking at this Inan objective manner.
Wut? They asked him loads of vetting question during the first round of questioning. Questions that revealed that he had been... Liberal with misleading statement and obsfucations over previous testimony he had given when he was confirmed for his current position.
Not sure how many times I need to repeat this but I'll try again.
Nobody is being deselected for the act of rebellion.
Do you think MPs would be deselected as Labour candidates if they opposed NHS privitisation and rebelled to do so?
Or do you think they would be more likely to be deselected for not rebelling.
People are deselecting candidates who don't stand for their values, just like some wanted to do with Corbyn but it turns out he did represent the values of his constituency.
People who don't understand this to make a charge of hypocrisy are being dumb (in just this one line of thought and are intelligent and wonderful people otherwise )
Edit: Also Corbyn actually voted with the Tories very few times, many of his rebellions such as the Iraq war were against the Conservative party as well as the Labour party. Although that again isn't the point. I would personally proudly march through the lobbies to vote with the Tories to stop the privatisation of the NHS and I imagine my Labour members would love me for it (if I was an MP)
So a few hundred people, many of whom have spent a life opposing Labour, can join for £3 and end the career of a decent Labour MP. Great.
They'll struggle to deselect decent Labour MP's, those who would prefer a Tory government will probably be deselected anyway because the electorate deserve the chance to vote for a Labour candidate who wants a Labour government.
I hope Chris Leslie stands as well so anyone who wants to vote for him can but it is no surprise that it is mostly Tories who don't want a pro Labour Labour candidate in the constituency. If the Tories want that that is fine, I would happy for him to be their candidate, but if Labour members want a pro Labour candidate it is perfectly democratic that they should get that choice on the ballot.
Chris Leslie is the current subject of the daily hate. Again just closing your ears and painting other strands of Labour thought as Tory will get you nowhere in the end.
Sexual assault is common enough that most women have experienced it, often more than once. It is part of the lived female experience. It is also why the default position for most women is to sympathise with and believe another woman who says she has undergone it.
Basically we have all been there...
I can't find an obvious piece of research, but I'm sure I've read on here that female jurors are more likely to acquit in rape cases than male jurors.
EDIT: It would interesting to know if this is any different to other cases.
Just because we sympathise with other women does not mean we turn our brains off. If a man is innocent or a women making the charge is completely uncredible then acquittal would be the correct verdict
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
Conditions which historically meant that the sufferer generally died are now treatable and survivable, meaning the genes get passed on.
That is not the reason for the rise in severe allergies though, as it has happened in not much more than a generation.
Isn’t it lack of childhood exposure to allergens?
Yes, there is that theory. Underexposure to allergens in early life leading to overrreaction later in the form of anaphylaxis.
It may also be the rise of central heating. Warm homes breed allergens.
So it’s either underexposure to allergens or overexposure to allergens
Glad we cleared that up
🙄😃
Not entirely off this topic, can I please PM you? Have a question related to vaccines...
You run this risk of looking either as a hard right wing republican or hugely naive in thinking this story should not be on UK news channels
Anecdote alert but I'm not sure how much people in the UK *do* care. I was at the pub with a group of lawyers tonight and most of them seemed vaguely aware, but not particularly interested (and certainly not to the extent of informing or changing their own views) in the ongoing hearings. The general view appeared to be that it was all an outcome of the way that the politics are carried out in the USA. The fairly major caveat is that it was an entirely male group, so I don't know how this is all going down amongst women here.
I've been surprised how much the politically aware women I know are engaged with the story - I was in the pub the other night with one (a fellow councillor in our tiny little town) and she'd been glued to it. Mrs Capitano has also been following it on the radio with some horror. How much it's breaking through to the wider electorate I don't know, but I would not be at all surprised if there were a gender gap here.
Sexual assault is common enough that most women have experienced it, often more than once. It is part of the lived female experience. It is also why the default position for most women is to sympathise with and believe another woman who says she has undergone it.
Basically we have all been there...
My partner rarely posts on PB but I guess she won't mind me relating her own anecdotal observations from University days (in the US in her case.)
She recalls three separate incidents similar to the one Dr Ford recounted. In each case she was sharp and athletic enough to 'wriggle free' and make her escape. She was however over 18 when the first occurred, whereas Dr Ford was 15.
My own experiences from the other side, so to speak, are nothing to be proud of. Girls were generally regarded as 'fair game'. I do recall however that we were very conscious of age, and anybody under the age of consent was strictly off limits, if only because of the severe penalties for sex with minors. Whoever molested Dr Fox was behaving well outside the norm.
Happily, the 'Me Too' movement seems to be shifting the norm in the right direction.
Intelligent and wonderful people can repeat until they are blue in the face that MPs who are facing votes of no confidence are only doing so because they don’t represent the values of their constituency (despite having being voted for by the voters in that constitency) and that this has nothing to do with them rebelling against the current leadership. But outsiders see that these votes of no confidence only occur against those who don’t support the leadership and wonder if perhaps this is more than coincidence.
Anyway, it is a glorious autumn day so it is time for me to be outside.
So have a great day all.
I encourage them to stand as independents, I fully believe the constituents of those places should get the chance to vote for them again as they did with Simon Danczuk.
Studies show though that personal vote makes up a very small part of an MPs vote. So this common argument against Corbyn has always been a bit flawed. Also I expect people like Chris would go a similar way to Simon.
Yes because they are rebelling against Corbyn on issues the members consider their values. I realise it works for cheap attack lines against the left but it is doesn't actually make any sense.
Is there anyone who actually believes Labour MPs would be deselected on the basis that they rebelled if that rebellion was on the basis of privatising the NHS?
Only if you answer yes to that question can you continue to accuse Corbynistas / the left of being hypocritical because then it clearly would be a case of people who rebel should be deselected which makes it hypocritical to support Corbyn.
Corbyn supporters literally love the fact he rebelled on the Iraq war, if it is meant genuinely then no thought has gone into it as it makes no sense. Nobody is being deselected purely for rebellion.
Also I'm not sure if it was clear in my post considering your response but I was calling you an intelligent and wonderful person (to partially balance the fact I was calling the accusation in your post dumb and wanted to sound less rude)
Sexual assault is common enough that most women have experienced it, often more than once. It is part of the lived female experience. It is also why the default position for most women is to sympathise with and believe another woman who says she has undergone it.
Basically we have all been there...
I can't find an obvious piece of research, but I'm sure I've read on here that female jurors are more likely to acquit in rape cases than male jurors.
EDIT: It would interesting to know if this is any different to other cases.
Just because we sympathise with other women does not mean we turn our brains off. If a man is innocent or a women making the charge is completely uncredible then acquittal would be the correct verdict
Well in those circumstances you'd expect men to acquit as well. As we know however, these cases are often very difficult because it often comes down to one person's word against another's.
That said, I do agree that a disconnect is created by the fact that a far greater proportion of women experience unwelcome attention compared with the proportion of men that behave like that.
Sexual assault is common enough that most women have experienced it, often more than once. It is part of the lived female experience. It is also why the default position for most women is to sympathise with and believe another woman who says she has undergone it.
Basically we have all been there...
I can't find an obvious piece of research, but I'm sure I've read on here that female jurors are more likely to acquit in rape cases than male jurors.
EDIT: It would interesting to know if this is any different to other cases.
Just because we sympathise with other women does not mean we turn our brains off. If a man is innocent or a women making the charge is completely uncredible then acquittal would be the correct verdict
Yes, I'm sure that's right, and I know women who are actually more dismissive of "frivolous complaints" than most men would feel comfortable in saying.
But it's difficult in a "not proven" situation like Kavanaugh, isn't it? Clearly one person's unsupported testimony would be remotely enough to convict him. But is it enough to mean that he shouldn't be a SC judge? I genuinely am not sure, but on balance I think it's not enough. As a Senator I'd vote no because the role is semi-political and he doesn't seem to be sufficiently apolitical to act as a balanced moderate. But I'm uneasy about the way the allegations are being used as a decisive argument.
Intelligent and wonderful people can repeat until they are blue in the face that MPs who are facing votes of no confidence are only doing so because they don’t represent the values of their constituency (despite having being voted for by the voters in that constitency) and that this has nothing to do with them rebelling against the current leadership. But outsiders see that these votes of no confidence only occur against those who don’t support the leadership and wonder if perhaps this is more than coincidence.
Anyway, it is a glorious autumn day so it is time for me to be outside.
So have a great day all.
I encourage them to stand as independents, I fully believe the constituents of those places should get the chance to vote for them again as they did with Simon Danczuk.
Studies show though that personal vote makes up a very small part of an MPs vote. So this common argument against Corbyn has always been a bit flawed. Also I expect people like Chris would go a similar way to Simon.
Yes because they are rebelling against Corbyn on issues the members consider their values. I realise it works for cheap attack lines against the left but it is doesn't actually make any sense.
Is there anyone who actually believes Labour MPs would be deselected on the basis that they rebelled if that rebellion was on the basis of privatising the NHS?
Only if you answer yes to that question can you continue to accuse Corbynistas / the left of being hypocritical because then it clearly would be a case of people who rebel should be deselected which makes it hypocritical to support Corbyn.
Corbyn supporters literally love the fact he rebelled on the Iraq war, if it is meant genuinely then no thought has gone into it as it makes no sense. Nobody is being deselected purely for rebellion.
Also I'm not sure if it was clear in my post considering your response but I was calling you an intelligent and wonderful person (to partially balance the fact I was calling the accusation in your post dumb and wanted to sound less rude)
What you want to happen is for Labour MPs and members (that you and some others have decided are are Tories) to leave and to stand against Labour? We know what that looks like, it really doesn't work well for Labour.
They'll struggle to deselect decent Labour MP's, those who would prefer a Tory government will probably be deselected anyway because the electorate deserve the chance to vote for a Labour candidate who wants a Labour government.
I hope Chris Leslie stands as well so anyone who wants to vote for him can but it is no surprise that it is mostly Tories who don't want a pro Labour Labour candidate in the constituency. If the Tories want that that is fine, I would happy for him to be their candidate, but if Labour members want a pro Labour candidate it is perfectly democratic that they should get that choice on the ballot.
Chris Leslie is the current subject of the daily hate. Again just closing your ears and painting other strands of Labour thought as Tory will get you nowhere in the end.
John Woodcock actively came out and said after he left Labour that he would prefer May as PM to Corbyn. Chris Leslie is in a pretty similar place to John Woodcock, although hasn't left so isn't able to speak as freely.
I'm not saying he should be deselected because he is right wing / tory / red tory.
I am saying his local constituency should be able to select someone pro Labour if they want.
Intelligent and wonderful people can repeat until they are blue in the face that MPs who are facing votes of no confidence are only doing so because they don’t represent the values of their constituency (despite having being voted for by the voters in that constitency) and that this has nothing to do with them rebelling against the current leadership. But outsiders see that these votes of no confidence only occur against those who don’t support the leadership and wonder if perhaps this is more than coincidence.
Anyway, it is a glorious autumn day so it is time for me to be outside.
So have a great day all.
Also I'm not sure if it was clear in my post considering your response but I was calling you an intelligent and wonderful person (to partially balance the fact I was calling the accusation in your post dumb and wanted to sound less rude)
Yes, I did see and appreciate that. Thank you.
And I returned the compliment. (I hope that was clear too.) I genuinely enjoy my debates with you.
And now the garden awaits. Time to start planting Xmas and spring bulbs, folks!
Oh and if anyone wants an evergreen, no drama, tough as old boots, incredibly scented in winter shrub to put near your front door to smell as you come home of a dreary January evening, plant Christmas box, sarcococca confusa. A wonderful plant!
Sexual assault is common enough that most women have experienced it, often more than once. It is part of the lived female experience. It is also why the default position for most women is to sympathise with and believe another woman who says she has undergone it.
Basically we have all been there...
I can't find an obvious piece of research, but I'm sure I've read on here that female jurors are more likely to acquit in rape cases than male jurors.
EDIT: It would interesting to know if this is any different to other cases.
Just because we sympathise with other women does not mean we turn our brains off. If a man is innocent or a women making the charge is completely uncredible then acquittal would be the correct verdict
Yes, I'm sure that's right, and I know women who are actually more dismissive of "frivolous complaints" than most men would feel comfortable in saying.
But it's difficult in a "not proven" situation like Kavanaugh, isn't it? Clearly one person's unsupported testimony would be remotely enough to convict him. But is it enough to mean that he shouldn't be a SC judge? I genuinely am not sure, but on balance I think it's not enough. As a Senator I'd vote no because the role is semi-political and he doesn't seem to be sufficiently apolitical to act as a balanced moderate. But I'm uneasy about the way the allegations are being used as a decisive argument.
I agree with you point Nick. I would vote "No" for him as well but I would let the allegations influence me in this case. Like legal proofs "Beyond reasonable doubt" or "Balance of probabilities" I would tend to towards the latter, especially if he had a history of being unsupportive to womens' legal rights.
Basically, I would not take the risk of a lifetime appointment in his case.
In itself it is not decisive, but it may paint in the corner of a larger picture.
It wasn’t an analogy. It was another example of why the current approach doesn’t encourage cooperation. People respond to incentives. The situation is one of all downside and no upside
As for Kavanaugh, what we have is word against word. Except that we have statement from all the supposed witnesses that the events did not occur as described. I’m sure the FBI’s first priority will be to validate those
In terms of forgiveness I was responding to OkC’s comment he would be confirmed if he apologised for youthful bad behaviour. He wouldn’t.
The issue I have with the Democrats’ approach is they have tried to run the clock down to use procedure to get Kavanaugh out. They had sufficient time to have a proper investigation but chose not to disclose it.
I have no doubt that something horrible happened to Dr Ford and it has badly impacted her life. There is no proof that Kavanaugh was responsible.
The ‘run the clock’ argument is faintly ridiculous, given the timetable was, and is entirely within the control of Senate Republicans, They apparently thought 10 months was insufficient for Merrick Garland, while 15 hours was plenty for the Democrats to review 40,000 documents relating to Kavanaugh. And that’s setting aside the fact that the timing of Ford’s disclosure wasn’t set by Feinstein.
On the narrow point, you are very likely correct that confession wouldn’t have given Kavanaugh a seat on the Court (apart from anything else, he’d be dead to Trump) - but if you’re arguing we should have a system of incentives where a last minute confession of sex abuse allows a seat on the Court, it’s a pretty strange argument.
My point (which the article I posted tends to support) is that there is a reward for admitting and coming to terms with past bad behaviour - which the large number of self professed Christians in the Republican seats really ought to appreciate.
I encourage them to stand as independents, I fully believe the constituents of those places should get the chance to vote for them again as they did with Simon Danczuk.
Studies show though that personal vote makes up a very small part of an MPs vote. So this common argument against Corbyn has always been a bit flawed. Also I expect people like Chris would go a similar way to Simon.
Yes because they are rebelling against Corbyn on issues the members consider their values. I realise it works for cheap attack lines against the left but it is doesn't actually make any sense.
Is there anyone who actually believes Labour MPs would be deselected on the basis that they rebelled if that rebellion was on the basis of privatising the NHS?
Only if you answer yes to that question can you continue to accuse Corbynistas / the left of being hypocritical because then it clearly would be a case of people who rebel should be deselected which makes it hypocritical to support Corbyn.
Corbyn supporters literally love the fact he rebelled on the Iraq war, if it is meant genuinely then no thought has gone into it as it makes no sense. Nobody is being deselected purely for rebellion.
Also I'm not sure if it was clear in my post considering your response but I was calling you an intelligent and wonderful person (to partially balance the fact I was calling the accusation in your post dumb and wanted to sound less rude)
What you want to happen is for Labour MPs and members (that you and some others have decided are are Tories) to leave and to stand against Labour? We know what that looks like, it really doesn't work well for Labour.
Chris Leslie strikes me as someone more of the calibre of Simon Danczuk rather than the members of the SDP, unless people have billed them as much bigger than they were.
Also I believe people should get to vote for what they really want, so if there really are thousands in Chris Leslie's constituency who are voting for him specifically they deserve the chance to vote for him again. I'll believe it when I see it though.
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
Conditions which historically meant that the sufferer generally died are now treatable and survivable, meaning the genes get passed on.
That is not the reason for the rise in severe allergies though, as it has happened in not much more than a generation.
Isn’t it lack of childhood exposure to allergens?
Yes, there is that theory. Underexposure to allergens in early life leading to overrreaction later in the form of anaphylaxis.
It may also be the rise of central heating. Warm homes breed allergens.
So it’s either underexposure to allergens or overexposure to allergens
Glad we cleared that up
🙄😃
Not entirely off this topic, can I please PM you? Have a question related to vaccines...
Sure. I don’t have any medical qualifications mind! Just spent 20 years around the industry
Sexual assault is common enough that most women have experienced it, often more than once. It is part of the lived female experience. It is also why the default position for most women is to sympathise with and believe another woman who says she has undergone it.
Basically we have all been there...
I can't find an obvious piece of research, but I'm sure I've read on here that female jurors are more likely to acquit in rape cases than male jurors.
EDIT: It would interesting to know if this is any different to other cases.
Just because we sympathise with other women does not mean we turn our brains off. If a man is innocent or a women making the charge is completely uncredible then acquittal would be the correct verdict
Yes, I'm sure that's right, and I know women who are actually more dismissive of "frivolous complaints" than most men would feel comfortable in saying.
But it's difficult in a "not proven" situation like Kavanaugh, isn't it? Clearly one person's unsupported testimony would be remotely enough to convict him. But is it enough to mean that he shouldn't be a SC judge? I genuinely am not sure, but on balance I think it's not enough. As a Senator I'd vote no because the role is semi-political and he doesn't seem to be sufficiently apolitical to act as a balanced moderate. But I'm uneasy about the way the allegations are being used as a decisive argument.
That’s pretty much my position
It feels like a witch hunt
That doesn’t mean that he isn’t a witch, but it does mean that decisions are being made in a suboptimal way
It wasn’t an analogy. It was another example of why the current approach doesn’t encourage cooperation. People respond to incentives. The situation is one of all downside and no upside
As for Kavanaugh, what we have is word against word. Except that we have statement from all the supposed witnesses that the events did not occur as described. I’m sure the FBI’s first priority will be to validate those
In terms of forgiveness I was responding to OkC’s comment he would be confirmed if he apologised for youthful bad behaviour. He wouldn’t.
The issue I have with the Democrats’ approach is they have tried to run the clock down to use procedure to get Kavanaugh out. They had sufficient time to have a proper investigation but chose not to disclose it.
I have no doubt that something horrible happened to Dr Ford and it has badly impacted her life. There is no proof that Kavanaugh was responsible.
The ‘run the clock’ argument is faintly ridiculous, given the timetable was, and is entirely within the control of Senate Republicans, They apparently thought 10 months was insufficient for Merrick Garland, while 15 hours was plenty for the Democrats to review 40,000 documents relating to Kavanaugh. And that’s setting aside the fact that the timing of Ford’s disclosure wasn’t set by Feinstein.
On the narrow point, you are very likely correct that confession wouldn’t have given Kavanaugh a seat on the Court (apart from anything else, he’d be dead to Trump) - but if you’re arguing we should have a system of incentives where a last minute confession of sex abuse allows a seat on the Court, it’s a pretty strange argument.
My point (which the article I posted tends to support) is that there is a reward for admitting and coming to terms with past bad behaviour - which the large number of self professed Christians in the Republican seats really ought to appreciate.
OKC’s construct was an admission of bad behaviour at college *not* one of sex abuse
The run the clock argument arises because they had the allegations in July. Since then the FBI concluded their report. Now the Democrats are arguing it should be reopened - and the nomination punted past the mid terms - because the FBI hadn’t reviewed these allegations
If they really wanted the FBI to investigate the allegations they would have passed them one while the investigation was open
It looks like they want to delay the nomination post the mid term because they believe they will have a majority
The Merrick case was a stretching of the rules but - in my view - was more like a filibuster than this case.
It wasn’t an analogy. It was another example of why the current approach doesn’t encourage cooperation. People respond to incentives. The situation is one of all downside and no upside
As for Kavanaugh, what we have is word against word. Except that we have statement from all the supposed witnesses that the events did not occur as described. I’m sure the FBI’s first priority will be to validate those
In terms of forgiveness I was responding to OkC’s comment he would be confirmed if he apologised for youthful bad behaviour. He wouldn’t.
The issue I have with the Democrats’ approach is they have tried to run the clock down to use procedure to get Kavanaugh out. They had sufficient time to have a proper investigation but chose not to disclose it.
I have no doubt that something horrible happened to Dr Ford and it has badly impacted her life. There is no proof that Kavanaugh was responsible.
There's no proof he was responsible, but personally i struggle to understand how somebody can objectively come to the conclusion that something happened to her, but it wasn't him. By her account there could only have been one direct witness to the incident, and it is hardly surprising that he disagrees since to do opposite would be to implicate himself (and furthermore he is on record that he was a serial drunk at the time, and quite possibly has no reliable memory anyway). All the others simply state that they "have no recollection" of the events, and would have had no knowledge of the incident itself by definition.
The account seems too detailed in particulars to suggest it is completely made up (and why put Judge in the room?) The case for mistaken identity doesn't look great given the other individuals stated as being there.
So for me the best that could be said in Kavanaugh's favour is possibly that something happened, but was much more minor that Ford states but has been blown up in her mind over many years to be a serious sexual assault. But since he hasn't used that line as a defence it can't be used to help him.
The question is whether he should be made a member of SCOTUS. Not whether he should go to jail for several years. In a non-partisan world i don't see how the conclusion could be anything other than no.
It wasn’t an analogy. It was another example of why the current approach doesn’t encourage cooperation. People respond to incentives. The situation is one of all downside and no upside
As for Kavanaugh, what we have is word against word. Except that we have statement from all the supposed witnesses that the events did not occur as described. I’m sure the FBI’s first priority will be to validate those
In terms of forgiveness I was responding to OkC’s comment he would be confirmed if he apologised for youthful bad behaviour. He wouldn’t.
The issue I have with the Democrats’ approach is they have tried to run the clock down to use procedure to get Kavanaugh out. They had sufficient time to have a proper investigation but chose not to disclose it.
I have no doubt that something horrible happened to Dr Ford and it has badly impacted her life. There is no proof that Kavanaugh was responsible.
The ‘run the clock’ argument is faintly ridiculous, given the timetable was, and is entirely within the control of Senate Republicans, They apparently thought 10 months was insufficient for Merrick Garland, while 15 hours was plenty for the Democrats to review 40,000 documents relating to Kavanaugh. And that’s setting aside the fact that the timing of Ford’s disclosure wasn’t set by Feinstein.
On the narrow point, you are very likely correct that confession wouldn’t have given Kavanaugh a seat on the Court (apart from anything else, he’d be dead to Trump) - but if you’re arguing we should have a system of incentives where a last minute confession of sex abuse allows a seat on the Court, it’s a pretty strange argument.
My point (which the article I posted tends to support) is that there is a reward for admitting and coming to terms with past bad behaviour - which the large number of self professed Christians in the Republican seats really ought to appreciate.
OKC’s construct was an admission of bad behaviour at college *not* one of sex abuse
The run the clock argument arises because they had the allegations in July. Since then the FBI concluded their report. Now the Democrats are arguing it should be reopened - and the nomination punted past the mid terms - because the FBI hadn’t reviewed these allegations
If they really wanted the FBI to investigate the allegations they would have passed them one while the investigation was open
It looks like they want to delay the nomination post the mid term because they believe they will have a majority
The Merrick case was a stretching of the rules but - in my view - was more like a filibuster than this case.
@rcs1000 - thanks for your demographics video. It’s a superb piece of work. You are also clearly growing in confidence as a YouTuber
On the US Supreme Court brouhaha, I want to join HYUFD and SeanT in saying how absurd the U.K. media attention is. It’s natural that the US receives disproportionate attention in the U.K. thanks to our shared language, but the appointment of a judge? Bonkers.
Perhaps we’re at the point where being an English-speaking nation is turning into a disadvantage. It means that anglophones are probably more ignorant of events, cultures etc overseas than our non-native English-speaking counterparts, for whom English competency has become a precondition for success in many professions.
At the risk of making myself unpopular, I also think our education system does children a disservice by being so tolerant of bad grammar, very strong accents and dialect in formal contexts. I am not saying we should go back to 1950, but I know from overseas colleagues that they can find it almost impossible to understand those with strong North East or West of Scotland accents. Gove’s reforms to English language teaching are a welcome start.
I encourage them to stand as independents, I fully believe the constituents of those places should get the chance to vote for them again as they did with Simon Danczuk.
Studies show though that personal vote makes up a very small part of an MPs vote. So this common argument against Corbyn has always been a bit flawed. Also I expect people like Chris would go a similar way to Simon.
Yes because they are rebelling against Corbyn on issues the members consider their values. I realise it works for cheap attack lines against the left but it is doesn't actually make any sense.
Is there anyone who actually believes Labour MPs would be deselected on the basis that they rebelled if that rebellion was on the basis of privatising the NHS?
Only if you answer yes to that question can you continue to accuse Corbynistas / the left of being hypocritical because then it clearly would be a case of people who rebel should be deselected which makes it hypocritical to support Corbyn.
Corbyn supporters literally love the fact he rebelled on the Iraq war, if it is meant genuinely then no thought has gone into it as it makes no sense. Nobody is being deselected purely for rebellion.
Also I'm not sure if it was clear in my post considering your response but I was calling you an intelligent and wonderful person (to partially balance the fact I was calling the accusation in your post dumb and wanted to sound less rude)
What you want to happen is for Labour MPs and members (that you and some others have decided are are Tories) to leave and to stand against Labour? We know what that looks like, it really doesn't work well for Labour.
Chris Leslie strikes me as someone more of the calibre of Simon Danczuk rather than the members of the SDP, unless people have billed them as much bigger than they were.
Also I believe people should get to vote for what they really want, so if there really are thousands in Chris Leslie's constituency who are voting for him specifically they deserve the chance to vote for him again. I'll believe it when I see it though.
I may need to be corrected on this, but from memory I had thought Chris Leslie to be a Brownite - rather than Blairite.
. As a Senator I'd vote no because the role is semi-political and he doesn't seem to be sufficiently apolitical to act as a balanced moderate. But I'm uneasy about the way the allegations are being used as a decisive argument.
I think this is a wider point worth making. The usual battle on the Supreme Court is about candidates' general approach to judicial decision making and the law. So you get Conservative leaning judges and Liberal leaning judges, but they are still guided primarily by their interpretation of the law. The impression given by Kavanaugh (perhaps unjustly, but magnified by the last few days) is that he leans in a party political direction. And lets not forget that only 18 years ago the ultimate party political matter (Bush vs Gore) had to be directly ruled upon by the Supreme Court.
There's no proof he was responsible, but personally i struggle to understand how somebody can objectively come to the conclusion that something happened to her, but it wasn't him. By her account there could only have been one direct witness to the incident, and it is hardly surprising that he disagrees since to do opposite would be to implicate himself (and furthermore he is on record that he was a serial drunk at the time, and quite possibly has no reliable memory anyway). All the others simply state that they "have no recollection" of the events, and would have had no knowledge of the incident itself by definition.
The account seems too detailed in particulars to suggest it is completely made up (and why put Judge in the room?) The case for mistaken identity doesn't look great given the other individuals stated as being there.
So for me the best that could be said in Kavanaugh's favour is possibly that something happened, but was much more minor that Ford states but has been blown up in her mind over many years to be a serious sexual assault. But since he hasn't used that line as a defence it can't be used to help him.
The question is whether he should be made a member of SCOTUS. Not whether he should go to jail for several years. In a non-partisan world i don't see how the conclusion could be anything other than no.
A number of my wife and my friends in California work for the state in counselling victims of sexual trauma. Of course you can’t make a diagnosis without a proper investigation but in their experience the “baby voice” is characteristic of people who have been abused in their youth. I also find it difficult to believe that someone would put themselves through this if there was nothing underlying it. I’m not saying it wasn’t him, just that there’s no proof that it was him (and, again, it’s not uncommon for victims to link to someone in the public eye, or an innocent from their past, as they seek to process their memories)
Her account was that there were 3 in the room - all of whom say they don’t remember. That’s not the same as a defendant saying “I don’t recall” which you would be rightly cynical about, but it means that there is zero corroborating evidence for her allegation. She doesn’t have a date either which makes it hard to confirm the allegation or to establish an alibi
He has emphatic that he does not have gaps in his memory - that is just your supposition.
My problem is that given the time lines this could have been properly reviewed in confidence. And then we could have a better grip on the facts. In choosing to play it the way they did I believe the democrats used a troubled woman for their own ends.
More importantly if you don’t confirm Kavanaugh before the mid terms then he will have been severely punished even if he is found innocent. From the perspective of natural justice (I studied ethics) that doesn’t work
What you want to happen is for Labour MPs and members (that you and some others have decided are are Tories) to leave and to stand against Labour? We know what that looks like, it really doesn't work well for Labour.
Chris Leslie strikes me as someone more of the calibre of Simon Danczuk rather than the members of the SDP, unless people have billed them as much bigger than they were.
Also I believe people should get to vote for what they really want, so if there really are thousands in Chris Leslie's constituency who are voting for him specifically they deserve the chance to vote for him again. I'll believe it when I see it though.
I may need to be corrected on this, but from memory I had thought Chris Leslie to be a Brownite - rather than Blairite.
You could be right.
Or it could be that he was a Brown man at the time (no sniggering) and has shifted since. My memory isn't perfect but I have generally heard him referred to that way more than any other Labour MP. He is probably someone I would pick out given a limited selection as a Blairite.
Although in fairness I could be conflating the use of New Labour (by others) with Blair exclusively when I guess Brown is a part of that to.
What you want to happen is for Labour MPs and members (that you and some others have decided are are Tories) to leave and to stand against Labour? We know what that looks like, it really doesn't work well for Labour.
Chris Leslie strikes me as someone more of the calibre of Simon Danczuk rather than the members of the SDP, unless people have billed them as much bigger than they were.
Also I believe people should get to vote for what they really want, so if there really are thousands in Chris Leslie's constituency who are voting for him specifically they deserve the chance to vote for him again. I'll believe it when I see it though.
I may need to be corrected on this, but from memory I had thought Chris Leslie to be a Brownite - rather than Blairite.
You could be right.
Or it could be that he was a Brown man at the time (no sniggering) and has shifted since. My memory isn't perfect but I have generally heard him referred to that way more than any other Labour MP. He is probably someone I would pick out given a limited selection as a Blairite.
Although in fairness I could be conflating the use of New Labour (by others) with Blair exclusively when I guess Brown is a part of that to.
Fair enough. I was thinking of when he was elected for Shipley in 1997 - a seat he held until 2005.
A number of my wife and my friends in California work for the state in counselling victims of sexual trauma. Of course you can’t make a diagnosis without a proper investigation but in their experience the “baby voice” is characteristic of people who have been abused in their youth. I also find it difficult to believe that someone would put themselves through this if there was nothing underlying it. I’m not saying it wasn’t him, just that there’s no proof that it was him (and, again, it’s not uncommon for victims to link to someone in the public eye, or an innocent from their past, as they seek to process their memories)
Her account was that there were 3 in the room - all of whom say they don’t remember. That’s not the same as a defendant saying “I don’t recall” which you would be rightly cynical about, but it means that there is zero corroborating evidence for her allegation. She doesn’t have a date either which makes it hard to confirm the allegation or to establish an alibi
He has emphatic that he does not have gaps in his memory - that is just your supposition.
My problem is that given the time lines this could have been properly reviewed in confidence. And then we could have a better grip on the facts. In choosing to play it the way they did I believe the democrats used a troubled woman for their own ends.
More importantly if you don’t confirm Kavanaugh before the mid terms then he will have been severely punished even if he is found innocent. From the perspective of natural justice (I studied ethics) that doesn’t work
The memory gaps was referring to Judge, not Kavanaugh. Ford said there were 2 in the room in addition to herself, no? The others were just in the house/at the party.
F1: backed Bottas at 5.5 (5.75 with boost) each way to 'win' qualifying. Pays out if he's top 2. Unlikely he'll get pole but he was over a third of a second ahead of Vettel in third practice.
There's no proof he was responsible, but personally i struggle to understand how somebody can objectively come to the conclusion that something happened to her, but it wasn't him. By her account there could only have been one direct witness to the incident...
The question is whether he should be made a member of SCOTUS. Not whether he should go to jail for several years. In a non-partisan world i don't see how the conclusion could be anything other than no.
A number of my wife and my friends in California work for the state in counselling victims of sexual trauma. Of course you can’t make a diagnosis without a proper investigation but in their experience the “baby voice” is characteristic of people who have been abused in their youth. I also find it difficult to believe that someone would put themselves through this if there was nothing underlying it. I’m not saying it wasn’t him, just that there’s no proof that it was him (and, again, it’s not uncommon for victims to link to someone in the public eye, or an innocent from their past, as they seek to process their memories)
Her account was that there were 3 in the room - all of whom say they don’t remember. That’s not the same as a defendant saying “I don’t recall” which you would be rightly cynical about, but it means that there is zero corroborating evidence for her allegation. She doesn’t have a date either which makes it hard to confirm the allegation or to establish an alibi
He has emphatic that he does not have gaps in his memory - that is just your supposition.
My problem is that given the time lines this could have been properly reviewed in confidence. And then we could have a better grip on the facts. In choosing to play it the way they did I believe the democrats used a troubled woman for their own ends.
More importantly if you don’t confirm Kavanaugh before the mid terms then he will have been severely punished even if he is found innocent. From the perspective of natural justice (I studied ethics) that doesn’t work
How ‘punished’ ? In the same way as Merrick Garland - who has managed to refrain from screaming conspiracy and got on with his life ? As I pointed out on the next thread, you wouldn’t appoint a teacher on that basis without further investigation. The bar for an SC Justice should be higher, not lower.
There's no proof he was responsible, but personally i struggle to understand how somebody can objectively come to the conclusion that something happened to her, but it wasn't him. By her account there could only have been one direct witness to the incident...
The question is whether he should be made a member of SCOTUS. Not whether he should go to jail for several years. In a non-partisan world i don't see how the conclusion could be anything other than no.
A number of my wife and my friends in California work for the state in counselling victims of sexual trauma. Of course you can’t make a diagnosis without a proper investigation but in their experience the “baby voice” is characteristic of people who have been abused in their youth. I also find it difficult to believe that someone would put themselves through this if there was nothing underlying it. I’m not saying it wasn’t him, just that there’s no proof that it was him (and, again, it’s not uncommon for victims to link to someone in the public eye, or an innocent from their past, as they seek to process their memories)
Her account was that there were 3 in the room - all of whom say they don’t remember. That’s not the same as a defendant saying “I don’t recall” which you would be rightly cynical about, but it means that there is zero corroborating evidence for her allegation. She doesn’t have a date either which makes it hard to confirm the allegation or to establish an alibi
He has emphatic that he does not have gaps in his memory - that is just your supposition.
My problem is that given the time lines this could have been properly reviewed in confidence. And then we could have a better grip on the facts. In choosing to play it the way they did I believe the democrats used a troubled woman for their own ends.
More importantly if you don’t confirm Kavanaugh before the mid terms then he will have been severely punished even if he is found innocent. From the perspective of natural justice (I studied ethics) that doesn’t work
How ‘punished’ ? In the same way as Merrick Garland - who has managed to refrain from screaming conspiracy and got on with his life ? As I pointed out on the next thread, you wouldn’t appoint a teacher on that basis without further investigation. The bar for an SC Justice should be higher, not lower.
Merrick Garland wasn’t punished. He was poorly treated by politicians playing political games.
If you accuse someone of criminal actions and then - on that basis, but without proof - refuse to appoint him to the highest position in his career that is punishment.
If you use those allegations to delay the confirmation - when the political reality is he won’t be confirmed if you do - then you are punishing someone
A number of my wife and my friends in California work for the state in counselling victims of sexual trauma. Of course you can’t make a diagnosis without a proper investigation but in their experience the “baby voice” is characteristic of people who have been abused in their youth. I also find it difficult to believe that someone would put themselves through this if there was nothing underlying it. I’m not saying it wasn’t him, just that there’s no proof that it was him (and, again, it’s not uncommon for victims to link to someone in the public eye, or an innocent from their past, as they seek to process their memories)
Her account was that there were 3 in the room - all of whom say they don’t remember. That’s not the same as a defendant saying “I don’t recall” which you would be rightly cynical about, but it means that there is zero corroborating evidence for her allegation. She doesn’t have a date either which makes it hard to confirm the allegation or to establish an alibi
He has emphatic that he does not have gaps in his memory - that is just your supposition.
My problem is that given the time lines this could have been properly reviewed in confidence. And then we could have a better grip on the facts. In choosing to play it the way they did I believe the democrats used a troubled woman for their own ends.
More importantly if you don’t confirm Kavanaugh before the mid terms then he will have been severely punished even if he is found innocent. From the perspective of natural justice (I studied ethics) that doesn’t work
How ‘punished’ ? In the same way as Merrick Garland - who has managed to refrain from screaming conspiracy and got on with his life ? As I pointed out on the next thread, you wouldn’t appoint a teacher on that basis without further investigation. The bar for an SC Justice should be higher, not lower.
Merrick Garland wasn’t punished. He was poorly treated by politicians playing political games.
If you accuse someone of criminal actions and then - on that basis, but without proof - refuse to appoint him to the highest position in his career that is punishment.
If you use those allegations to delay the confirmation - when the political reality is he won’t be confirmed if you do - then you are punishing someone
I have no idea of whether Kavenagh is guilty or not. I don't really see how anyone could after this length of time. What concerns me is that we are seeing yet another ratchet in the partisan aggression that faces those seeking to serve in the US. There comes a point when the only people are willing to stand for such offices are those eminently not suited for them. What sane person would want to put themselves through this circus?
How ‘punished’ ? In the same way as Merrick Garland - who has managed to refrain from screaming conspiracy and got on with his life ? As I pointed out on the next thread, you wouldn’t appoint a teacher on that basis without further investigation. The bar for an SC Justice should be higher, not lower.
Merrick Garland wasn’t punished. He was poorly treated by politicians playing political games.
If you accuse someone of criminal actions and then - on that basis, but without proof - refuse to appoint him to the highest position in his career that is punishment.
If you use those allegations to delay the confirmation - when the political reality is he won’t be confirmed if you do - then you are punishing someone
Firstly, the refusal to confirm would be by the Senate, not his accuser - you seem to be eliding that distinction. Blaming the Democrats for how we got here is you opinion; mine differs. To use either as a factual basis for an ‘ethical’ opinion on the matter is horefeathers.
Secondly, as I said, you simply would not appoint even a teacher in this situation without a full investigation - why a Supreme Court Justice ? Where the ‘political reality’ is that once appointed, he is most likely there for life.
There is a prima facile case. Until it is settled one way or another, innocent until proven guilty is not a basis on which to grant a judicial post.
And if you don’t like the timetable, don’t nominate a political partisan in so limited a window. There are plenty of other candidates, whose ideology is equally objectionable to the Democrats, who would have been confirmed by now. As Gorsuch already has been.
Comments
Is that what Labour used to stand for. Tory Lite has had its time.
In contrast in 2017 Lalbour stood for something. No tuition fees renationalisation the rich paying fair taxes.
What's not to like?
If Jeremy = moral, then Corbyn's rebellions are principled stands in the face of authority.
If Jeremy = moral, then rebelling against Corbyn is to make an immoral act.
To make it non-hypocritical, all you need do is accept far left madness as the centre of the political universe, a universal prism through which all acts and speech are judged. Does it accord with Corbyn? If so, it is good. If not, it is bad.
In any event, Kavanaugh, if he is incapable of honesty about his past, then he is incapable of change - and he has no business being on the Supreme Court.
A lifetime in denial doesn’t mean he can’t be forgiven if he fesses up (and he faces no legal hazard as attempted rape was a misdemeanour (!) back then in Maryland, with a one year statute of limitations): it just means he can’t be a justice.
There are other careers, and it is unlikely that he’d lose his bar license.
As for forgiveness, this account is instructive.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/copaken-kavanaugh/571042/
Don Valley is not going Tory anytime soon though.
It may also be the rise of central heating. Warm homes breed allergens.
Sticking your hand over your ears and claiming Labour people you disagree with are Tory Lite will get you nowhere.
Reheating dogma from 40 years ago is limiting, we know where these ideas end.
Labour is about people coming together and being ambitious for the future. This lot are divisive and backwards looking.
Also you still didn't understand my point. Winning isn't a Labour value, if you told Labour voters they could win the election with a policy of privatising the NHS and kicking Black people out of Britain they would choose to lose the election.
They would reselect MPs who tried to win the election by privatising the NHS and kicking out Black people, because that wouldn't chime with their values. They want to win of course, but winning isn't a value and even if it was wouldn't be one that is prioritised over their other values.
Have a good morning.
I do hope so. That’s what I’ve always told my kids.
0.66 x 39 = 23
So she has got better views from 9 /61. Not bad but not transformational as well especially as wont be decisive for a lot
Not what Labour should be standing for
Painting the Tories as some kind of pantomime villain is self defeating.
Edit - although occasionally the messaging gets mixed up there, in that he has simultaneously radically changed the partys direction in a good way, but then defended as not being that radical as the manifesto was quite modest.
Nobody is being deselected for the act of rebellion.
Do you think MPs would be deselected as Labour candidates if they opposed NHS privitisation and rebelled to do so?
Or do you think they would be more likely to be deselected for not rebelling.
People are deselecting candidates who don't stand for their values, just like some wanted to do with Corbyn but it turns out he did represent the values of his constituency.
People who don't understand this to make a charge of hypocrisy are being dumb (in just this one line of thought and are intelligent and wonderful people otherwise
Edit: Also Corbyn actually voted with the Tories very few times, many of his rebellions such as the Iraq war were against the Conservative party as well as the Labour party. Although that again isn't the point. I would personally proudly march through the lobbies to vote with the Tories to stop the privatisation of the NHS and I imagine my Labour members would love me for it (if I was an MP)
As for Kavanaugh, what we have is word against word. Except that we have statement from all the supposed witnesses that the events did not occur as described. I’m sure the FBI’s first priority will be to validate those
In terms of forgiveness I was responding to OkC’s comment he would be confirmed if he apologised for youthful bad behaviour. He wouldn’t.
The issue I have with the Democrats’ approach is they have tried to run the clock down to use procedure to get Kavanaugh out. They had sufficient time to have a proper investigation but chose not to disclose it.
I have no doubt that something horrible happened to Dr Ford and it has badly impacted her life. There is no proof that Kavanaugh was responsible.
Glad we cleared that up
🙄😃
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNsOgwl1omE
I bet Cdr Gray was ready for his tot of pusser's after that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_L-hy1oFHQ
Anyway, it is a glorious autumn day so it is time for me to be outside.
So have a great day all.
Personally, I would be delighted if the Tory conference at least paid attention to these concerns and how we are going to address them. To take obvious examples demographics are putting enormous upward pressure on public spending. We are seeing this already. The government is managing to reduce the deficit but discussions about tax cuts have almost disappeared. We will no longer be sharing the proceeds of growth, we will be spending them all on health care and the elderly.
If the elderly were poor that just might be fair enough but the current generation of pensioners, especially those in receipt of final salary index linked pensions will be amongst the wealthiest sections of our community with low outlays and high disposable income. Are we really going to tax low paid young people so that they can live in luxury?
These are difficult issues, not least politically. We need to start having more adult and realistic conversations about this.
I hope Chris Leslie stands as well so anyone who wants to vote for him can but it is no surprise that it is mostly Tories who don't want a pro Labour Labour candidate in the constituency. If the Tories want that that is fine, I would happy for him to be their candidate, but if Labour members want a pro Labour candidate it is perfectly democratic that they should get that choice on the ballot.
I am not a Corbynite, but I do think
(i) It is perfectly reasonable to subject MPs to scrutiny and to de-select MPs who do not have the confidence of their constituency parties.
(ii) Jeremy Corbyn is not anti-semitic.
I am much more critical of Corbyn being anti-arithmetic than anything else.
Anyone who believes a National Care Service costs 3 billion pounds needs help with addition and subtraction.
#MeToo
Studies show though that personal vote makes up a very small part of an MPs vote. So this common argument against Corbyn has always been a bit flawed. Also I expect people like Chris would go a similar way to Simon.
Yes because they are rebelling against Corbyn on issues the members consider their values. I realise it works for cheap attack lines against the left but it is doesn't actually make any sense.
Is there anyone who actually believes Labour MPs would be deselected on the basis that they rebelled if that rebellion was on the basis of privatising the NHS?
Only if you answer yes to that question can you continue to accuse Corbynistas / the left of being hypocritical because then it clearly would be a case of people who rebel should be deselected which makes it hypocritical to support Corbyn.
Corbyn supporters literally love the fact he rebelled on the Iraq war, if it is meant genuinely then no thought has gone into it as it makes no sense. Nobody is being deselected purely for rebellion.
Also I'm not sure if it was clear in my post considering your response but I was calling you an intelligent and wonderful person (to partially balance the fact I was calling the accusation in your post dumb and wanted to sound less rude)
That said, I do agree that a disconnect is created by the fact that a far greater proportion of women experience unwelcome attention compared with the proportion of men that behave like that.
But it's difficult in a "not proven" situation like Kavanaugh, isn't it? Clearly one person's unsupported testimony would be remotely enough to convict him. But is it enough to mean that he shouldn't be a SC judge? I genuinely am not sure, but on balance I think it's not enough. As a Senator I'd vote no because the role is semi-political and he doesn't seem to be sufficiently apolitical to act as a balanced moderate. But I'm uneasy about the way the allegations are being used as a decisive argument.
I'm not saying he should be deselected because he is right wing / tory / red tory.
I am saying his local constituency should be able to select someone pro Labour if they want.
And I returned the compliment. (I hope that was clear too.) I genuinely enjoy my debates with you.
And now the garden awaits. Time to start planting Xmas and spring bulbs, folks!
Oh and if anyone wants an evergreen, no drama, tough as old boots, incredibly scented in winter shrub to put near your front door to smell as you come home of a dreary January evening, plant Christmas box, sarcococca confusa. A wonderful plant!
Basically, I would not take the risk of a lifetime appointment in his case.
In itself it is not decisive, but it may paint in the corner of a larger picture.
They apparently thought 10 months was insufficient for Merrick Garland, while 15 hours was plenty for the Democrats to review 40,000 documents relating to Kavanaugh. And that’s setting aside the fact that the timing of Ford’s disclosure wasn’t set by Feinstein.
On the narrow point, you are very likely correct that confession wouldn’t have given Kavanaugh a seat on the Court (apart from anything else, he’d be dead to Trump) - but if you’re arguing we should have a system of incentives where a last minute confession of sex abuse allows a seat on the Court, it’s a pretty strange argument.
My point (which the article I posted tends to support) is that there is a reward for admitting and coming to terms with past bad behaviour - which the large number of self professed Christians in the Republican seats really ought to appreciate.
Also I believe people should get to vote for what they really want, so if there really are thousands in Chris Leslie's constituency who are voting for him specifically they deserve the chance to vote for him again. I'll believe it when I see it though.
It feels like a witch hunt
That doesn’t mean that he isn’t a witch, but it does mean that decisions are being made in a suboptimal way
The run the clock argument arises because they had the allegations in July. Since then the FBI concluded their report. Now the Democrats are arguing it should be reopened - and the nomination punted past the mid terms - because the FBI hadn’t reviewed these allegations
If they really wanted the FBI to investigate the allegations they would have passed them one while the investigation was open
It looks like they want to delay the nomination post the mid term because they believe they will have a majority
The Merrick case was a stretching of the rules but - in my view - was more like a filibuster than this case.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-tory-conference-speech-2017-simon-brodkin-prank-jokes-brexit-conservative-a8559041.html
The account seems too detailed in particulars to suggest it is completely made up (and why put Judge in the room?) The case for mistaken identity doesn't look great given the other individuals stated as being there.
So for me the best that could be said in Kavanaugh's favour is possibly that something happened, but was much more minor that Ford states but has been blown up in her mind over many years to be a serious sexual assault. But since he hasn't used that line as a defence it can't be used to help him.
The question is whether he should be made a member of SCOTUS. Not whether he should go to jail for several years. In a non-partisan world i don't see how the conclusion could be anything other than no.
On the US Supreme Court brouhaha, I want to join HYUFD and SeanT in saying how absurd the U.K. media attention is. It’s natural that the US receives disproportionate attention in the U.K. thanks to our shared language, but the appointment of a judge? Bonkers.
Perhaps we’re at the point where being an English-speaking nation is turning into a disadvantage. It means that anglophones are probably more ignorant of events, cultures etc overseas than our non-native English-speaking counterparts, for whom English competency has become a precondition for success in many professions.
At the risk of making myself unpopular, I also think our education system does children a disservice by being so tolerant of bad grammar, very strong accents and dialect in formal contexts. I am not saying we should go back to 1950, but I know from overseas colleagues that they can find it almost impossible to understand those with strong North East or West of Scotland accents. Gove’s reforms to English language teaching are a welcome start.
Her account was that there were 3 in the room - all of whom say they don’t remember. That’s not the same as a defendant saying “I don’t recall” which you would be rightly cynical about, but it means that there is zero corroborating evidence for her allegation. She doesn’t have a date either which makes it hard to confirm the allegation or to establish an alibi
He has emphatic that he does not have gaps in his memory - that is just your supposition.
My problem is that given the time lines this could have been properly reviewed in confidence. And then we could have a better grip on the facts. In choosing to play it the way they did I believe the democrats used a troubled woman for their own ends.
More importantly if you don’t confirm Kavanaugh before the mid terms then he will have been severely punished even if he is found innocent. From the perspective of natural justice (I studied ethics) that doesn’t work
Or it could be that he was a Brown man at the time (no sniggering) and has shifted since. My memory isn't perfect but I have generally heard him referred to that way more than any other Labour MP. He is probably someone I would pick out given a limited selection as a Blairite.
Although in fairness I could be conflating the use of New Labour (by others) with Blair exclusively when I guess Brown is a part of that to.
Betting PostF1: backed Bottas at 5.5 (5.75 with boost) each way to 'win' qualifying. Pays out if he's top 2. Unlikely he'll get pole but he was over a third of a second ahead of Vettel in third practice.
In the same way as Merrick Garland - who has managed to refrain from screaming conspiracy and got on with his life ?
As I pointed out on the next thread, you wouldn’t appoint a teacher on that basis without further investigation. The bar for an SC Justice should be higher, not lower.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/09/russia-pre-qualifying-2018.html
If you accuse someone of criminal actions and then - on that basis, but without proof - refuse to appoint him to the highest position in his career that is punishment.
If you use those allegations to delay the confirmation - when the political reality is he won’t be confirmed if you do - then you are punishing someone
Blaming the Democrats for how we got here is you opinion; mine differs. To use either as a factual basis for an ‘ethical’ opinion on the matter is horefeathers.
Secondly, as I said, you simply would not appoint even a teacher in this situation without a full investigation - why a Supreme Court Justice ? Where the ‘political reality’ is that once appointed, he is most likely there for life.
There is a prima facile case. Until it is settled one way or another, innocent until proven guilty is not a basis on which to grant a judicial post.
And if you don’t like the timetable, don’t nominate a political partisan in so limited a window. There are plenty of other candidates, whose ideology is equally objectionable to the Democrats, who would have been confirmed by now. As Gorsuch already has been.