Unelectable is used to refer to his prospects among the wider electorate, not the Labour selectorate. We won't know the definitive answer to whether he is indeed unelectable in that sense until 2020, all evidence before then is not complete proof - however, one can certainly make an assessment as to whether victory among the Labour selectorate is a better indicator of his wider electability or if other evidence, like annual locals, polls, etc, are a better indicator. Reasonable people will differ on that front.
Even 2020 won't be definitive... n=1 is not statistically significant!
The Labour party, at inception, did not win an immediate majority. Corbyn and his acolytes can simply say they are resetting the party and starting afresh.
Well if the Party doesnt unite behind Corbyn
I for one and I suspect I will be in the majority will blame a defeat on PLP in 2020.
The left have the control of the party till 2025 IMO
I don't see a problem with that stipulation, however I remain unconvinced that facetime in the same room adds much if you are using the right online tools. Certainly there are many large open source projects that are successful such as Linux where team members are separated not only in geography but time zone that implies it is not important as some seem to claim.
In my experience when working in a team most meetings seems to be more about catching up some manager on a regular basis than the team actually getting much useful out of it. A standup meeting every morning for example can easily be done via skype using voice and webcam with little lost. As can communication between team members.
I agree most meetings, once a team is established, can be conducted online via audio or video. However, for the initial build of a team (not just a group of people working on the same project, but a team that has a common set of values and sense of purpose), I think more real face-to-face time is needed early on, and thereafter some minimum time for keeping the culture and team spirit going, otherwise people and their values/assumptions start drifting apart.
It is true that some great projects have not required this. But I would hazard that they are projects, like Linux, where a community already existed and the project was deemed pretty much as a mission from God, so the shared values and vision were in place already, and were maintained by a strong sense of shared purpose. More mundane work does not elicit such unity of purpose unless a team works at it.
PS I'd hate to think how a fire crew or an army unit would function in the heat of action if they'd only ever met over the internet.
My long shot prediction is that after a couple more weeks Owen Smith will realise he has no chance of winning and withdraw.
He will use the excuse of too much abuse (from Corbynistas) and say he is withdrawing for the sake of the party - trying to leave the impression that he could have won if not for the intimidation of Corbyn supporters. Smith will not want to have to admit that the great majority of party members still support Corbyn because this undermines the PLP anti Corbyn position.
But they have to test his strength among the selectorate. Just so they know where they really stand.
Johnson is a fluent speaker of French and Italian, has a good grasp of German and Spanish,[80] and is a lover of Latin,[361] frequently using classical references in his newspaper columns and speeches.[340]
My long shot prediction is that after a couple more weeks Owen Smith will realise he has no chance of winning and withdraw.
He will use the excuse of too much abuse (from Corbynistas) and say he is withdrawing for the sake of the party - trying to leave the impression that he could have won if not for the intimidation of Corbyn supporters. Smith will not want to have to admit that the great majority of party members still support Corbyn because this undermines the PLP anti Corbyn position.
He was bloody useless in the softball bbc Q&A this morning.
Unelectable is used to refer to his prospects among the wider electorate, not the Labour selectorate. We won't know the definitive answer to whether he is indeed unelectable in that sense until 2020, all evidence before then is not complete proof - however, one can certainly make an assessment as to whether victory among the Labour selectorate is a better indicator of his wider electability or if other evidence, like annual locals, polls, etc, are a better indicator. Reasonable people will differ on that front.
Even 2020 won't be definitive... n=1 is not statistically significant!
The Labour party, at inception, did not win an immediate majority. Corbyn and his acolytes can simply say they are resetting the party and starting afresh.
Well if the Party doesnt unite behind Corbyn
I for one and I suspect I will be in the majority will blame a defeat on PLP in 2020.
The left have the control of the party till 2025 IMO
I didn't agree with a whole bunch of Smith's 20 points. However, assuming he's pinched them from McDonnell/Corbyn (as some have said), I think Labour should go big or go home.
Give the electorate real choice. You can't have a big public sector without a big tax base to support it. IIRC income tax was 25% when Maggie left office. Get those taxes up.
I remain totally amazed that anyone ever seriously thought this outcome wasn't bloody obvious from the start.
Months ago we talked about this, inspected the rules and most thought it was totally clear. IIRC our conversations first kicked off from almost the moment Jezza was elected Leader.
Still, some lawyers made a few quid from it.
RodCrosby was right again...
Didn't he predict a Trump win? God help us.......
Rod has a lot of *odd* views and opinions but when it comes to politics and political betting he is one of the people I take VERY seriously on here.
All of the PLP needs to get behind Smith 100% now. Confirm unequivocally that if they are asked to serve by him they will. Confirm that if Corbyn wins they will continue not to serve leaving Corbyn without the ability to draw up a shadow cabinet. Confirming that as the people who have had to work with him most and are best placed to assess him Corbyn is just not good enough and not up to the job. And they need to all be saying this every day.
Alternatively, all of the PLP should persuade Mr Smith to pull out now and confirm that if they are prepared to do the job that they were elected to do and oppose the Tories.
The job they were elected to do is to represent their constituents.
Details, details.
It's interesting how Corbyn must presumably believe he was opposing the Tories those 500 times he voted against Labour, if we are to accept opposing Tories is the primary purpose of a Labour MP.
The problem was never about backbench rebellions, it was the constant plotting inside the shadow cabinet to get rid of Corbyn from day 1.
Any leader has every right to remove those who he appoints to positions, and betray his trust.
I was only teasing. I think Corbyn would be an electoral problem for Labour, but I do accept the distinction between his constant rebellions, and the undermining of his leadership, in terms of the latter damaging the brand of Labour but the former not.
That being said, this is the problem when the MPs and leader do not trust each other. And it is all the PLP's fault. Some members want to wholesale replace the PLP now, they are at war with their own MPs for crying out loud, but the rules as laid out were deisgned so only people the PLP were willing the support could be leader at all, presumably to avoid just such a situation.
They ignored that out of some misplaced sense of fairness (sure, it would have been awkward to not have a far lefter on the ballot, but their job was to select those they wanted as leader, not provide a wide selection) and have only themselves to blame.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
Johnson is a fluent speaker of French and Italian, has a good grasp of German and Spanish,[80] and is a lover of Latin,[361] frequently using classical references in his newspaper columns and speeches.[340]
He didn't sound fluent, but certainly not embarrassingly bad.
All of the PLP needs to get behind Smith 100% now. Confirm unequivocally that if they are asked to serve by him they will. Confirm that if Corbyn wins they will continue not to serve leaving Corbyn without the ability to draw up a shadow cabinet. Confirming that as the people who have had to work with him most and are best placed to assess him Corbyn is just not good enough and not up to the job. And they need to all be saying this every day.
We will replace the PLP
Invasion of the party snatchers.
PLP trying to steal the Party back from the democratically elected Glorious Leader.
Party rescued by members.
If they will not serve Jezza under a new mandate. There is no option but to replace.
I agree that the majority of the PLP needs to be replaced. People like Hunt, Kinnock, and Benn definitely have no place even in their own constituencies (who seriously thinks that Tristram Hunt is representative of his constituents? ). And are serial backstabbers that any sane party would have kicked out a long time ago.
But I disagree with the phrase "Glorious Leader", no leader should be called glorious.
A Corbynite wouldn't be any more a suitable candidate for Stoke on Trent than Tristram Hunt is.
Corbynism is suitable everywhere, even if they don't think so!
I think we'd find local parties would be expected to toe the national line once the national internal rebellion is crushed.
Johnson is a fluent speaker of French and Italian, has a good grasp of German and Spanish,[80] and is a lover of Latin,[361] frequently using classical references in his newspaper columns and speeches.[340]
He didn't sound fluent, but certainly not embarrassingly bad.
Yes I don't think you can call him fluent. He tried to do an interview on French TV at the start of the Brexit campaign where he got lost for words and switched to English.
No-one can touch Ted Heath for the perfect Franglais accent.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
Out of interest, what online tools would you recommend. I am about to launch two major projects in Pakistan which will require a lot of teamwork and webinars. I have some software in mind (Smartsheet for project management and Gantt charts, Webinex for comms and meetings), but grateful for any suggestions you may have for what you find works well.
All of the PLP needs to get behind Smith 100% now. Confirm unequivocally that if they are asked to serve by him they will. Confirm that if Corbyn wins they will continue not to serve leaving Corbyn without the ability to draw up a shadow cabinet. Confirming that as the people who have had to work with him most and are best placed to assess him Corbyn is just not good enough and not up to the job. And they need to all be saying this every day.
Corbyn already has a shadow cabinet functional enough that no one can tell the difference.
In fact it's more functional that the previous one, since it doesn't contain members who are constantly plotting. It's better to keep them out of the tent pissing in, than inside pissing in.
He's barely got a functional (in the sense of posts filled) Shadow cabinet. He's certainly not got a functional shadow front bench
There's this assumption that you need to have a Shadow for every single post in the Cabinet.
I'm not sure that's actually right - a smaller team might actually be more impactful (not that I think Corbyn's team has sufficient talented people to make this model work)
He could have axed positions, he hasn't. He still has the positions, people are double jobbing.
They aren't "positions" as such.
It's just saying Geoffrey should lead on challenging the government on health and foreign affairs, George is on Defence, Zippy on economics, while Bungle gets to be leader.
True they have a responsibility to develop party policy in those areas as well, but that's not a full-time job.
Unelectable is used to refer to his prospects among the wider electorate, not the Labour selectorate. We won't know the definitive answer to whether he is indeed unelectable in that sense until 2020, all evidence before then is not complete proof - however, one can certainly make an assessment as to whether victory among the Labour selectorate is a better indicator of his wider electability or if other evidence, like annual locals, polls, etc, are a better indicator. Reasonable people will differ on that front.
Even 2020 won't be definitive... n=1 is not statistically significant!
The Labour party, at inception, did not win an immediate majority. Corbyn and his acolytes can simply say they are resetting the party and starting afresh.
Well if the Party doesnt unite behind Corbyn
I for one and I suspect I will be in the majority will blame a defeat on PLP in 2020.
The left have the control of the party till 2025 IMO
So you are expecting defeat in 2020 and 2025?
A party at war will obviously lose.
A party that goes into 2020 with the Tories requoting the PLP statements of the last few weeks is likely to be unsuccessful.
Lewis in 2025 to win if Tory Liters have gone by then.
Johnson is a fluent speaker of French and Italian, has a good grasp of German and Spanish,[80] and is a lover of Latin,[361] frequently using classical references in his newspaper columns and speeches.[340]
He didn't sound fluent, but certainly not embarrassingly bad.
Yes I don't think you can call him fluent. He tried to do an interview on French TV at the start of the Brexit campaign where he got lost for words and switched to English.
No-one can touch Ted Heath for the perfect Franglais accent.
To be fair, Boris gets lost for words in most interviews & switches to the language of Boris.....weeellll yeeeahh cripes haaaaazzzz.
The problem the PLP have is that what they really need is a candidate who is prepared to go hard on immigration. Because for all Corbyn's clear weaknesses, it is immigration where he is so clearly out of touch with 'traditional' Labour voters. Such a candidate doesn't even need to push a particularly tough anti-immigration policy. Simply talking about it is enough to get Corbyn to happily express his position on an open-door policy.
It wouldn't obviously win the argument with the membership, who bear little relationship with Labour voters. But it would be a start to demonstrate how out-of-touch Corbyn is.
Unelectable is used to refer to his prospects among the wider electorate, not the Labour selectorate. We won't know the definitive answer to whether he is indeed unelectable in that sense until 2020, all evidence before then is not complete proof - however, one can certainly make an assessment as to whether victory among the Labour selectorate is a better indicator of his wider electability or if other evidence, like annual locals, polls, etc, are a better indicator. Reasonable people will differ on that front.
Even 2020 won't be definitive... n=1 is not statistically significant!
The Labour party, at inception, did not win an immediate majority. Corbyn and his acolytes can simply say they are resetting the party and starting afresh.
Well if the Party doesnt unite behind Corbyn
I for one and I suspect I will be in the majority will blame a defeat on PLP in 2020.
The left have the control of the party till 2025 IMO
So you are expecting defeat in 2020 and 2025?
A party at war will obviously lose.
A party that goes into 2020 with the Tories requoting the PLP statements of the last few weeks is likely to be unsuccessful.
Lewis in 2025 to win if Tory Liters have gone by then.
After 15 years of one party in power (albeit in coalition for 5 of them) I would hope a piece of mouldy bread would win in 2025, as the 'time for a change' pressure would be enormous. I know it's been done, but still.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
For me, travel is the only major thing I'd spend money on these days. I have a functioning computer, a Kindle, a couple of nice cameras, some very nice kitchen knives and a beat up old vehicle with over 210k on the clock which still works. Physical possessions otherwise are more a liability than an asset.
My long shot prediction is that after a couple more weeks Owen Smith will realise he has no chance of winning and withdraw.
He will use the excuse of too much abuse (from Corbynistas) and say he is withdrawing for the sake of the party - trying to leave the impression that he could have won if not for the intimidation of Corbyn supporters. Smith will not want to have to admit that the great majority of party members still support Corbyn because this undermines the PLP anti Corbyn position.
He was bloody useless in the softball bbc Q&A this morning.
It was the usual Labour tax more, spend more, borrow more spiel. His wealth tax idea is ridiculous and won't generate the sort of revenues he is talking about and raising corporation tax at a time when companies are not investing as much is batshit crazy.
Johnson is a fluent speaker of French and Italian, has a good grasp of German and Spanish,[80] and is a lover of Latin,[361] frequently using classical references in his newspaper columns and speeches.[340]
He didn't sound fluent, but certainly not embarrassingly bad.
Yes I don't think you can call him fluent. He tried to do an interview on French TV at the start of the Brexit campaign where he got lost for words and switched to English.
No-one can touch Ted Heath for the perfect Franglais accent.
I think the French quite enjoy halting schoolboy French (that's what I found when I lived there briefly). It makes them feel respected and slightly superior at the same time.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
That's not necessarily in her interests though.
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
This sounds eerily like Owen Jones prediction on LEAVE.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qi_IipZVG8
Well I listened to Obama's speech, it isn't what it is advertised as a truly great speech.
It was truly the best speech of the convention so far, but with a bar not set very high after a series of very boring and generic speeches in all the days before.
He simply defended his record, said Hillary was qualified, and made a pitch to conservatives. Good oratory, but no substance.
Saying that everything is great, getting better, and under control, might not work when 3/4 of the public disagree.
I also can't see how saying that Trump is no conservative or republican will have the desired effect.
We have to remember that Obama has been a hate figure for those groups for 8 years, and saying that Trump is no conservative in front of a democratic audience kinda opens the door for them to Trump.
If Trump is still in the lead by next week, then Hillary's last chance are the debates and hopes that the russians or anyone else won't release any more damaging info about her.
My long shot prediction is that after a couple more weeks Owen Smith will realise he has no chance of winning and withdraw.
He will use the excuse of too much abuse (from Corbynistas) and say he is withdrawing for the sake of the party - trying to leave the impression that he could have won if not for the intimidation of Corbyn supporters. Smith will not want to have to admit that the great majority of party members still support Corbyn because this undermines the PLP anti Corbyn position.
He was bloody useless in the softball bbc Q&A this morning.
It was the usual Labour tax more, spend more, borrow more spiel. His wealth tax idea is ridiculous and won't generate the sort of revenues he is talking about and raising corporation tax at a time when companies are not investing as much is batshit crazy.
No no no you have it all wrong. Not spend more, INVEST more. Also more unlimited immigration.
The solution is to stop as many people needing to commute.
A sensible government policy to promote companies to allow staff to work from home would do all of the following
1) reduce congestion of the transport network . Road and rail 2) Allow staff to be more geographically widespread so allowing staff to live in cheaper areas 3) Bring much needed income into the cheaper areas as wages were spent locally 4) Give people an effective payrise while not costing the company anymore as they no longer have the cost of commuting 5) Provide an employment boost to poorer areas of the country as people are enabled to move out of the south east 6) It would also make infrastructure such as schools and hospitals potentially more effective as a better mix of people were in each area. This last is largely supposition on my part though as it seems fairly accepted that the poor and workless tend to have more health and educational issues so diluting areas with people moved from the south east may help 7) Lower the housing crisis in the south east
Wouldn't disagree with any of that, Mr. Pagan. It would take not very much money (all of it from the employers) and provide huge benefits. It will however, really impact on middle managers (what are they going to do without employees in the office to "manage") and people whose jobs depend on meetings.
Hmmm, the more I think about it the better the idea becomes. HMG enacts legislation requiring a company to provide a guaranteed seat per ticket. The City (and the civil service) and their equivalents in Leeds, Manchester, Edinburgh etc., are forced to reform their working practices. The worker bees get a better life and a whole level of pen pushers become redundant. Productivity will zoom, and it will shift employment out of London.
In my old company it seemed to be the middle managers who worked from home all the time while the ground troops weren't allowed to on the whole. It probably wouldnt take much to bring in. A guaranteed right to ask to be able to work from home, much like the flexible hours right they brought in. Perhaps a small tax incentive initially to give companies a carrot. In these days where we have the like of video conferencing within the easy reach of most there really is little reason not to except for managers fearing they can't properly oversee things and that is a failing on their part.
Quite so, Mr. Pagan. Suppose if HMG by requiring train companies to guarantee a seat for every ticket holder it would cost HMG bugger all but it would force the biggest revolution in working practices for 200 years. This one, though, would benefit the workers as well as the productive employers (might be a bit of a pisser for the property companies, no doubt they would cope).
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
For me, travel is the only major thing I'd spend money on these days. I have a functioning computer, a Kindle, a couple of nice cameras, some very nice kitchen knives and a beat up old vehicle with over 210k on the clock which still works. Physical possessions otherwise are more a liability than an asset.
Sort-of-snap. I have great saucepans & knives, decent camera & telescope. My car is an ancient Ford and as for clothes, let's put it this way, people occasionally offer me money if I sit down to rest my leg .
Johnson is a fluent speaker of French and Italian, has a good grasp of German and Spanish,[80] and is a lover of Latin,[361] frequently using classical references in his newspaper columns and speeches.[340]
He didn't sound fluent, but certainly not embarrassingly bad.
Yes I don't think you can call him fluent. He tried to do an interview on French TV at the start of the Brexit campaign where he got lost for words and switched to English.
No-one can touch Ted Heath for the perfect Franglais accent.
I think the French quite enjoy halting schoolboy French (that's what I found when I lived there briefly). It makes them feel respected and slightly superior at the same time.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
For me, travel is the only major thing I'd spend money on these days. I have a functioning computer, a Kindle, a couple of nice cameras, some very nice kitchen knives and a beat up old vehicle with over 210k on the clock which still works. Physical possessions otherwise are more a liability than an asset.
Sort-of-snap. I have great saucepans & knives, decent camera & telescope. My car is an ancient Ford and as for clothes, let's put it this way, people occasionally offer me money if I sit down to rest my leg .
LOL on the clothes. Mine often go straight from the dryer to the trash can when I realize how many new holes have appeared during the wash ...
PS sitting down to rest the knees sounds familiar too.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
That's not necessarily in her interests though.
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.
Para 50 of the judgement seems to be the crux and is common sense.
I have to say that a fair reading of Clause II.B.2 (i) and (ii) reveals a natural and ordinary meaning that seems to me to be entirely clear. My view of their combined effect can be summarised thus: (a) where there is a vacancy for Leader, anyone who wishes to be considered for the position would require nominations from 15% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and EPLP in order to be a candidate in the election; (b) where there is no vacancy (because the Leader is still in place), anyone who wishes to challenge the Leader’s right to continue as Leader would need nominations from 20% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and EPLP in order to mount such a challenge; (c) the Leader would not in that situation (where there is no vacancy) be someone who was a “challenger” for the leadership and, accordingly, would require no nominations in order to compete in the ballot to retain his/her position as Leader.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
That's not necessarily in her interests though.
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.
In some countries (France?) I believe the children inherit the debts of the parents.
Mr. Wheel, the PLP has only itself to blame. They put Corbyn on the ballot.
Ma Beckett called nominating Corbyn 'the biggest political mistake of my life' - and that was many months ago......
Harriet Harman is the real culprit for her stupidity as Acting Leader a year ago. She should never be forgiven.
What exactly did she do wrong? I was out the country at the time and didn't follow the election too closely.
There was a vote on benefit restrictions or something like that, and she whipped an abstention to show Labour was serious about economic credibility, and Corbyn was the only leadership candidate to vote against, and it gave some real fuel to his campaign.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
That's not necessarily in her interests though.
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.
In some countries (France?) I believe the children inherit the debts of the parents.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
That's not necessarily in her interests though.
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
Well, I haven't actually told her that, otherwise I might end up with ground glass in my cocoa. This is just between me and PB. So shh, mums the word.
Mr. Wheel, the PLP has only itself to blame. They put Corbyn on the ballot.
Ma Beckett called nominating Corbyn 'the biggest political mistake of my life' - and that was many months ago......
Harriet Harman is the real culprit for her stupidity as Acting Leader a year ago. She should never be forgiven.
What exactly did she do wrong? I was out the country at the time and didn't follow the election too closely.
There was a vote on benefit restrictions or something like that, and she whipped an abstention to show Labour was serious about economic credibility, and Corbyn was the only leadership candidate to vote against, and it gave some real fuel to his campaign.
Alongside that, she (along with Miliband) oversaw the rules changes allowing the £3 system to be set up.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
That's not necessarily in her interests though.
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.
In some countries (France?) I believe the children inherit the debts of the parents.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
That's not necessarily in her interests though.
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.
In some countries (France?) I believe the children inherit the debts of the parents.
So could be worse.
Same applies in Germany, I believe.
Don't the Japanese take out multi-generational mortgages in order to purchase property?
Unelectable is used to refer to his prospects among the wider electorate, not the Labour selectorate. We won't know the definitive answer to whether he is indeed unelectable in that sense until 2020, all evidence before then is not complete proof - however, one can certainly make an assessment as to whether victory among the Labour selectorate is a better indicator of his wider electability or if other evidence, like annual locals, polls, etc, are a better indicator. Reasonable people will differ on that front.
Even 2020 won't be definitive... n=1 is not statistically significant!
The Labour party, at inception, did not win an immediate majority. Corbyn and his acolytes can simply say they are resetting the party and starting afresh.
Well if the Party doesnt unite behind Corbyn
I for one and I suspect I will be in the majority will blame a defeat on PLP in 2020.
The left have the control of the party till 2025 IMO
So you are expecting defeat in 2020 and 2025?
I'm still sticking with my prediction that I made last year, that the 2020 GE will have the exact same result as the 2015 GE.
As I said back then, Corbyn is a very ideological choice that hardens both Labour's support and opposition to Labour. Corbyn is a low risk low return bet, Labour won't lose many votes but won't gain many either.
If you want to be sure that Labour gains time to regroup and renew itself in people and ideas, Corbyn is your safe choice.
By 2025 who knows, but it depends if society feels prosperous enough, as long as people feel depressed they will always long for ideological or populist solutions, the "we need a hero" type.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
That's not necessarily in her interests though.
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.
In some countries (France?) I believe the children inherit the debts of the parents.
So could be worse.
Same applies in Germany, I believe.
Don't the Japanese take out multi-generational mortgages in order to purchase property?
Don’t know about Japan, but they do in Germany. A 99 year mortgage is not uncommon.
Mr. M, I don't get that. I'm sure you're right that some people can't handle it, but I'd probably just sling 95% of it in savings or some sort of investment.
Seems odd to me to receive the good fortune of lots of cash, and then to fritter it away. But there we are.
Para 50 of the judgement seems to be the crux and is common sense.
I have to say that a fair reading of Clause II.B.2 (i) and (ii) reveals a natural and ordinary meaning that seems to me to be entirely clear. My view of their combined effect can be summarised thus: (a) where there is a vacancy for Leader, anyone who wishes to be considered for the position would require nominations from 15% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and EPLP in order to be a candidate in the election; (b) where there is no vacancy (because the Leader is still in place), anyone who wishes to challenge the Leader’s right to continue as Leader would need nominations from 20% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and EPLP in order to mount such a challenge; (c) the Leader would not in that situation (where there is no vacancy) be someone who was a “challenger” for the leadership and, accordingly, would require no nominations in order to compete in the ballot to retain his/her position as Leader.
The many hours I wasted arguing with HYUFD about that. I hope the legal ruling will finally have convinced him.
Reason 156 there will be no split - the current fighting, unlike Corbyn's serial rebelling, is damaging to the Labour brand as a whole. However much most of the MPs may think Corbyn a disaster, forming a new party and making a success of it (a very unlikely scenario) would just make permanent the fighting on the left and prevent victory for the left. A bare handful, if that, will want to try that again when it worked so poorly the last time in the long run. The brand of Labour is so strong it can survive a Corbyn disaster, should it occur. Not survive well, but it would survive to fight on. So they will stay. Either keeping quiet or bowing out.
This is Corbyn country now. Only electoral oblivion has a chance of changing that, and we won't find out for awhile.
SDP mark 1 was a small breakaway (28?) and achieved a lead in opinion polls over all other parties at one point. The Falklands war didn't help, an unpopular Thatcher became unbeatable. Who knows what would happen to SDP Mark 2, but is there an alternative?
Para 50 of the judgement seems to be the crux and is common sense.
I have to say that a fair reading of Clause II.B.2 (i) and (ii) reveals a natural and ordinary meaning that seems to me to be entirely clear. My view of their combined effect can be summarised thus: (a) where there is a vacancy for Leader, anyone who wishes to be considered for the position would require nominations from 15% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and EPLP in order to be a candidate in the election; (b) where there is no vacancy (because the Leader is still in place), anyone who wishes to challenge the Leader’s right to continue as Leader would need nominations from 20% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and EPLP in order to mount such a challenge; (c) the Leader would not in that situation (where there is no vacancy) be someone who was a “challenger” for the leadership and, accordingly, would require no nominations in order to compete in the ballot to retain his/her position as Leader.
The many hours I wasted arguing with HYUFD about that. I hope the legal ruling will finally have convinced him.
Well, if you don't come here in order to waste time, you really are wasting your time. If that makes sense. Posts made on PB since creation: eleventy billion. Minds changed: 0.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
That's not necessarily in her interests though.
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.
In some countries (France?) I believe the children inherit the debts of the parents.
What's the situation here?!
If the value of the estate is less than the estate's debts, the estates is effectively bankrupt.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
Parents need to know their date of death at least seven years in advance so that they can gift the bulk of their wealth to their children at that point - to avoid inheritance tax.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
Parents need to know their date of death at least seven years in advance so that they can gift the bulk of their wealth to their children at that point - to avoid inheritance tax.
Reason 156 there will be no split - the current fighting, unlike Corbyn's serial rebelling, is damaging to the Labour brand as a whole. However much most of the MPs may think Corbyn a disaster, forming a new party and making a success of it (a very unlikely scenario) would just make permanent the fighting on the left and prevent victory for the left. A bare handful, if that, will want to try that again when it worked so poorly the last time in the long run. The brand of Labour is so strong it can survive a Corbyn disaster, should it occur. Not survive well, but it would survive to fight on. So they will stay. Either keeping quiet or bowing out.
This is Corbyn country now. Only electoral oblivion has a chance of changing that, and we won't find out for awhile.
Who knows what would happen to SDP Mark 2, but is there an alternative?
Yes. They give up for now. If they think the membership is doing something stupid and have been unable to convince them of that, trying to convince them again won't work, and the members need to face the consequences of their stupidity (or conversely the MPs will discover just how wrong they have been).
What's best for Labour (and therefore the country, since like all parties they will believe the two are one and the same)? Constant infighting isn't it, a formal split isn't it. Full steam ahead the only option, and the best they can do is huddle near the lifeboats in preparation for the iceberg.
Mr. Wheel, the PLP has only itself to blame. They put Corbyn on the ballot.
Ma Beckett called nominating Corbyn 'the biggest political mistake of my life' - and that was many months ago......
Harriet Harman is the real culprit for her stupidity as Acting Leader a year ago. She should never be forgiven.
What exactly did she do wrong? I was out the country at the time and didn't follow the election too closely.
There was a vote on benefit restrictions or something like that, and she whipped an abstention to show Labour was serious about economic credibility, and Corbyn was the only leadership candidate to vote against, and it gave some real fuel to his campaign.
Alongside that, she (along with Miliband) oversaw the rules changes allowing the £3 system to be set up.
Thanks a lot for the reply. Am I right in thinking that the £3 system was more Miliband's project, not that it actually mattered in the end.
I agree most meetings, once a team is established, can be conducted online via audio or video. However, for the initial build of a team (not just a group of people working on the same project, but a team that has a common set of values and sense of purpose), I think more real face-to-face time is needed early on, and thereafter some minimum time for keeping the culture and team spirit going, otherwise people and their values/assumptions start drifting apart.
It is true that some great projects have not required this. But I would hazard that they are projects, like Linux, where a community already existed and the project was deemed pretty much as a mission from God, so the shared values and vision were in place already, and were maintained by a strong sense of shared purpose. More mundane work does not elicit such unity of purpose unless a team works at it.
PS I'd hate to think how a fire crew or an army unit would function in the heat of action if they'd only ever met over the internet.
An army unit or fire crew are different however in that they require to practise together to perform physical tasks. There is definitely some need for a kick off session for software teams but after that I would suggest that the need for a face to face meeting of the team might not be more than once every couple of months.
For a lot of jobs however such as form processing which I would guess is the bulk of office jobs I would say there is probably not much team building needed. Individual companies will have different needs for onsite time
As to online collaborative tools, didn't really use any as so far working from home for most companies is something they avoided. Mostly I suspect because of the middle manager issue so not familiar with the use of many. You could try this as a starting point though
Another benefit of encouraging more home working is that you would also ameliorate the child care problems of many families to a large extent.
The major issue I think is to wean companies off of hours worked and to a more tasks completed sort of model. I can quite see in twenty years that you wont be employed to work 40 hours a week but be employed to complete so many task units a week
Para 50 of the judgement seems to be the crux and is common sense.
I have to say that a fair reading of Clause II.B.2 (i) and (ii) reveals a natural and ordinary meaning that seems to me to be entirely clear. My view of their combined effect can be summarised thus: (a) where there is a vacancy for Leader, anyone who wishes to be considered for the position would require nominations from 15% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and EPLP in order to be a candidate in the election; (b) where there is no vacancy (because the Leader is still in place), anyone who wishes to challenge the Leader’s right to continue as Leader would need nominations from 20% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and EPLP in order to mount such a challenge; (c) the Leader would not in that situation (where there is no vacancy) be someone who was a “challenger” for the leadership and, accordingly, would require no nominations in order to compete in the ballot to retain his/her position as Leader.
The many hours I wasted arguing with HYUFD about that. I hope the legal ruling will finally have convinced him.
Well, if you don't come here in order to waste time, you really are wasting your time. If that makes sense. Posts made on PB since creation: eleventy billion. Minds changed: 0.
I changed my view of gay marriage! I wasn't convinced at all - and within a week or so was converted/why didn't I see that before.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
For me, travel is the only major thing I'd spend money on these days. I have a functioning computer, a Kindle, a couple of nice cameras, some very nice kitchen knives and a beat up old vehicle with over 210k on the clock which still works. Physical possessions otherwise are more a liability than an asset.
Sort-of-snap. I have great saucepans & knives, decent camera & telescope. My car is an ancient Ford and as for clothes, let's put it this way, people occasionally offer me money if I sit down to rest my leg .
Gosh, I am in with you guys. My car is ten years old and I have no intention of buying another one (a 10 year old Honda with 65k on the clock - it will see me out) and whatever material desires I could have I have long ago fulfilled. Travel though is a pain in the arse. There are still a couple of places I would like to go back to, but only if I can get there by train - I cannot be doing with all the crud one has to put up with air travel and ocean liners don't really exist anymore (not that I would pay £100+ per day for the privilege of spewing my ring).
Herself and I live comfortably. Thomas the cat lives very well. My son has been told that he can expect to inherit the value of our property(ies) but bugger all else. That will do, and not bad for a fellow off a Wandsworth council estate.
Para 50 of the judgement seems to be the crux and is common sense.
I have to say that a fair reading of Clause II.B.2 (i) and (ii) reveals a natural and ordinary meaning that seems to me to be entirely clear. My view of their combined effect can be summarised thus: (a) where there is a vacancy for Leader, anyone who wishes to be considered for the position would require nominations from 15% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and EPLP in order to be a candidate in the election; (b) where there is no vacancy (because the Leader is still in place), anyone who wishes to challenge the Leader’s right to continue as Leader would need nominations from 20% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and EPLP in order to mount such a challenge; (c) the Leader would not in that situation (where there is no vacancy) be someone who was a “challenger” for the leadership and, accordingly, would require no nominations in order to compete in the ballot to retain his/her position as Leader.
The many hours I wasted arguing with HYUFD about that. I hope the legal ruling will finally have convinced him.
Well, if you don't come here in order to waste time, you really are wasting your time. If that makes sense. Posts made on PB since creation: eleventy billion. Minds changed: 0.
Mr. Wheel, the PLP has only itself to blame. They put Corbyn on the ballot.
Ma Beckett called nominating Corbyn 'the biggest political mistake of my life' - and that was many months ago......
Harriet Harman is the real culprit for her stupidity as Acting Leader a year ago. She should never be forgiven.
What exactly did she do wrong? I was out the country at the time and didn't follow the election too closely.
There was a vote on benefit restrictions or something like that, and she whipped an abstention to show Labour was serious about economic credibility, and Corbyn was the only leadership candidate to vote against, and it gave some real fuel to his campaign.
Alongside that, she (along with Miliband) oversaw the rules changes allowing the £3 system to be set up.
Thanks a lot for the reply. Am I right in thinking that the £3 system was more Miliband's project, not that it actually mattered in the end.
Sounds about right - all came about in the aftermath of trouble with the selection up in Falkirk I believe.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
Parents need to know their date of death at least seven years in advance so that they can gift the bulk of their wealth to their children at that point - to avoid inheritance tax.
Yeah, at the moment the gift limit is £3k per year. Inheritance tax is one of those tricky areas when it comes to the debate about euthanasia.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
That's not necessarily in her interests though.
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.
In some countries (France?) I believe the children inherit the debts of the parents.
What's the situation here?!
If the value of the estate is less than the estate's debts, the estates is effectively bankrupt.
Ah. Well in my case the debts will definitely be worth more than any assets.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
That's not necessarily in her interests though.
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
Well, I haven't actually told her that, otherwise I might end up with ground glass in my cocoa. This is just between me and PB. So shh, mums the word.
I do appreciate the advice though .
No problem - my Dad helped me buy my house, but when it came to developing his plans (he's still alive) he's given my brother the business, and me the foundation... I get a lot of fun out of the foundation, although I must admit there are moments when I am jealous of the stress-free, well-paid, 9-5 job that my brother gets to enjoy (although it also limits his freedom of action quite significantly, so there are costs associated with the position)
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
Parents need to know their date of death at least seven years in advance so that they can gift the bulk of their wealth to their children at that point - to avoid inheritance tax.
The major issue I think is to wean companies off of hours worked and to a more tasks completed sort of model. I can quite see in twenty years that you wont be employed to work 40 hours a week but be employed to complete so many task units a week
Whilst I agree with that in general - you have to careful to define 'successfully completed' - otherwise you end up with the Yodel delivery issue of just throwing parcels in the vague vicinity of the house as "delivered". More generally - you need to reward diligent and careful task completion, rather than either slapdash task completion, or an eternity spent not completing anything (if you are paid by time, not task)
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
For me, travel is the only major thing I'd spend money on these days. I have a functioning computer, a Kindle, a couple of nice cameras, some very nice kitchen knives and a beat up old vehicle with over 210k on the clock which still works. Physical possessions otherwise are more a liability than an asset.
Sort-of-snap. I have great saucepans & knives, decent camera & telescope. My car is an ancient Ford and as for clothes, let's put it this way, people occasionally offer me money if I sit down to rest my leg .
Gosh, I am in with you guys. My car is ten years old and I have no intention of buying another one (a 10 year old Honda with 65k on the clock - it will see me out) and whatever material desires I could have I have long ago fulfilled. Travel though is a pain in the arse. There are still a couple of places I would like to go back to, but only if I can get there by train - I cannot be doing with all the crud one has to put up with air travel and ocean liners don't really exist anymore (not that I would pay £100+ per day for the privilege of spewing my ring).
Herself and I live comfortably. Thomas the cat lives very well. My son has been told that he can expect to inherit the value of our property(ies) but bugger all else. That will do, and not bad for a fellow off a Wandsworth council estate.
Can I join the club as well? My car is 13 years old now, albeit only 45K miles on the clock, and I don't have many material desires - possessions just get in the way. And travel is definitely a pain in the arse!
Para 50 of the judgement seems to be the crux and is common sense.
I have to say that a fair reading of Clause II.B.2 (i) and (ii) reveals a natural and ordinary meaning that seems to me to be entirely clear. My view of their combined effect can be summarised thus: (a) where there is a vacancy for Leader, anyone who wishes to be considered for the position would require nominations from 15% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and EPLP in order to be a candidate in the election; (b) where there is no vacancy (because the Leader is still in place), anyone who wishes to challenge the Leader’s right to continue as Leader would need nominations from 20% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and EPLP in order to mount such a challenge; (c) the Leader would not in that situation (where there is no vacancy) be someone who was a “challenger” for the leadership and, accordingly, would require no nominations in order to compete in the ballot to retain his/her position as Leader.
The many hours I wasted arguing with HYUFD about that. I hope the legal ruling will finally have convinced him.
Well, if you don't come here in order to waste time, you really are wasting your time. If that makes sense. Posts made on PB since creation: eleventy billion. Minds changed: 0.
I changed my view of gay marriage! I wasn't convinced at all - and within a week or so was converted/why didn't I see that before.
*Raises shield of post-truthiness*.
Don't come round here bothering me with your fancy big city facts .
I agree about being comfortable. We spend little and need less. In our thirties, there was a stage when we had three dependant children, a mortgage and 1.5 salaries. Twenty years later, we had no dependant children, no mortgage and two salaries.
Now we have two pensions and no wish to spend money.
But looking back to the 1950s, the highlight was moving into a council house with an indoor toilet.
As my mother used to say ... "You kids, the more you get, the more you want."
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
That's not necessarily in her interests though.
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.
In some countries (France?) I believe the children inherit the debts of the parents.
What's the situation here?!
I don't think that children normally inherit the debts of their parents in the UK and certaimly not unsecured credit card debt.
Any secured debts would of course be entitled for repayment out of the value of the security eg a mortgage.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
That's not necessarily in her interests though.
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.
In some countries (France?) I believe the children inherit the debts of the parents.
What's the situation here?!
I don't think that children normally inherit the debts of their parents in the UK and certaimly not unsecured credit card debt.
Any secured debts would of course be entitled for repayment out of the value of the security eg a mortgage.
Mr. Wheel, the PLP has only itself to blame. They put Corbyn on the ballot.
Ma Beckett called nominating Corbyn 'the biggest political mistake of my life' - and that was many months ago......
Harriet Harman is the real culprit for her stupidity as Acting Leader a year ago. She should never be forgiven.
What exactly did she do wrong? I was out the country at the time and didn't follow the election too closely.
There was a vote on benefit restrictions or something like that, and she whipped an abstention to show Labour was serious about economic credibility, and Corbyn was the only leadership candidate to vote against, and it gave some real fuel to his campaign.
Alongside that, she (along with Miliband) oversaw the rules changes allowing the £3 system to be set up.
Thanks a lot for the reply. Am I right in thinking that the £3 system was more Miliband's project, not that it actually mattered in the end.
Afternoon Ra Ra Rasputin, I hope you haven't been hacking into Hillary's e-mails
The major issue I think is to wean companies off of hours worked and to a more tasks completed sort of model. I can quite see in twenty years that you wont be employed to work 40 hours a week but be employed to complete so many task units a week
Whilst I agree with that in general - you have to careful to define 'successfully completed' - otherwise you end up with the Yodel delivery issue of just throwing parcels in the vague vicinity of the house as "delivered". More generally - you need to reward diligent and careful task completion, rather than either slapdash task completion, or an eternity spent not completing anything (if you are paid by time, not task)
Much the same way as you judge if someone has done the task currently. An employee consistently failing to do the tasks properly is no different a problem whether they are working at the office or at home
Back to politics: beyond signing his nomination, has any Labour big beast positively endorsed Owen Smith as what the party and the country really, really need? If not is that likely to change now the court case is out of the way?
Mr. M, Labour be better off with Terrence Stamp as undisputed leader. And Zod had the full support of his underlings.
Utterly OT: FFXV has Lena Headey and Sean Bean amongst the voice cast. Pretty impressive. Although I still suspect I'll never get it. The promo-stuff makes it look like a bloody boy band on tour and given the choice between that, a Witcher 3 GOTY, Rise of the Tomb Raider, XCOM 2 and (perhaps) Mass Effect Andromeda/Dishonoured 2 [and limited funds] I think Final Fantasy's run its course for me.
Lena Headey was also in the first Dishonoured, apparently.
56. That provision appears to give the final de cision on the meaning of the rules to the NEC. If that is so, Mr Millar contends that it purports to oust the jurisdiction of the court and is, accordingly, void consistent with the case of Lee v Showman’s Guild of Great Britain [1952]
I agree about being comfortable. We spend little and need less. In our thirties, there was a stage when we had three dependant children, a mortgage and 1.5 salaries. Twenty years later, we had no dependant children, no mortgage and two salaries.
Now we have two pensions and no wish to spend money.
But looking back to the 1950s, the highlight was moving into a council house with an indoor toilet.
As my mother used to say ... "You kids, the more you get, the more you want."
There is a good argument for having very low income tax and a significant wealth tax.
This means you keep earnings when you are young but have no wealth and pay lots of tax once you have accumulated wealth and have relatively low retirement income.
Hands up all those in favour of introducing a wealth tax, lowering income tax but no increase in tax overall.
All of the PLP needs to get behind Smith 100% now. Confirm unequivocally that if they are asked to serve by him they will. Confirm that if Corbyn wins they will continue not to serve leaving Corbyn without the ability to draw up a shadow cabinet. Confirming that as the people who have had to work with him most and are best placed to assess him Corbyn is just not good enough and not up to the job. And they need to all be saying this every day.
Corbyn already has a shadow cabinet functional enough that no one can tell the difference.
In fact it's more functional that the previous one, since it doesn't contain members who are constantly plotting. It's better to keep them out of the tent pissing in, than inside pissing in.
He's barely got a functional (in the sense of posts filled) Shadow cabinet. He's certainly not got a functional shadow front bench
There's this assumption that you need to have a Shadow for every single post in the Cabinet.
I'm not sure that's actually right - a smaller team might actually be more impactful (not that I think Corbyn's team has sufficient talented people to make this model work)
He could have axed positions, he hasn't. He still has the positions, people are double jobbing.
They aren't "positions" as such.
It's just saying Geoffrey should lead on challenging the government on health and foreign affairs, George is on Defence, Zippy on economics, while Bungle gets to be leader.
True they have a responsibility to develop party policy in those areas as well, but that's not a full-time job.
Make Zippy Shadow Secretary of State for the Economy, then, not Shadow Chancellor and Shadow Secretary to the Treasury etc etc. You've got to be more positive about it.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
For me, travel is the only major thing I'd spend money on these days. I have a functioning computer, a Kindle, a couple of nice cameras, some very nice kitchen knives and a beat up old vehicle with over 210k on the clock which still works. Physical possessions otherwise are more a liability than an asset.
Sort-of-snap. I have great saucepans & knives, decent camera & telescope. My car is an ancient Ford and as for clothes, let's put it this way, people occasionally offer me money if I sit down to rest my leg .
Gosh, I am in with you guys. My car is ten years old and I have no intention of buying another one (a 10 year old Honda with 65k on the clock - it will see me out) and whatever material desires I could have I have long ago fulfilled. Travel though is a pain in the arse. There are still a couple of places I would like to go back to, but only if I can get there by train - I cannot be doing with all the crud one has to put up with air travel and ocean liners don't really exist anymore (not that I would pay £100+ per day for the privilege of spewing my ring).
Herself and I live comfortably. Thomas the cat lives very well. My son has been told that he can expect to inherit the value of our property(ies) but bugger all else. That will do, and not bad for a fellow off a Wandsworth council estate.
Can I join the club as well? My car is 13 years old now, albeit only 45K miles on the clock, and I don't have many material desires - possessions just get in the way. And travel is definitely a pain in the arse!
LOL. And then we complain that TV no longer makes shows we watch because we are not in the right (advertising) demographic!
56. That provision appears to give the final de cision on the meaning of the rules to the NEC. If that is so, Mr Millar contends that it purports to oust the jurisdiction of the court and is, accordingly, void consistent with the case of Lee v Showman’s Guild of Great Britain [1952]
The ruling concludes that the ouster clause isn't effective; because the court could always rule the decision of the NEC unreasonable and an incorrect interpretation of an unambiguous statement is necessarily unreasonable.
I don't think that children normally inherit the debts of their parents in the UK and certaimly not unsecured credit card debt.
Any secured debts would of course be entitled for repayment out of the value of the security eg a mortgage.
That's interesting to know - so in theory I should aim to die with maxed out credit cards ?
Only if they exceed the value of the assets in your estate - otherwise they are settled against the estate before disbursements to your heirs and successors
I agree about being comfortable. We spend little and need less. In our thirties, there was a stage when we had three dependant children, a mortgage and 1.5 salaries. Twenty years later, we had no dependant children, no mortgage and two salaries.
Now we have two pensions and no wish to spend money.
But looking back to the 1950s, the highlight was moving into a council house with an indoor toilet.
As my mother used to say ... "You kids, the more you get, the more you want."
There is a good argument for having very low income tax and a significant wealth tax.
This means you keep earnings when you are young but have no wealth and pay lots of tax once you have accumulated wealth and have relatively low retirement income.
Hands up all those in favour of introducing a wealth tax, lowering income tax but no increase in tax overall.
Wealth tax is easy to avoid and incredibly intrusive.
I'd be a fan of annual tax on property value, though.
I agree about being comfortable. We spend little and need less. In our thirties, there was a stage when we had three dependant children, a mortgage and 1.5 salaries. Twenty years later, we had no dependant children, no mortgage and two salaries.
Now we have two pensions and no wish to spend money.
But looking back to the 1950s, the highlight was moving into a council house with an indoor toilet.
As my mother used to say ... "You kids, the more you get, the more you want."
There is a good argument for having very low income tax and a significant wealth tax.
This means you keep earnings when you are young but have no wealth and pay lots of tax once you have accumulated wealth and have relatively low retirement income.
Hands up all those in favour of introducing a wealth tax, lowering income tax but no increase in tax overall.
Broadly in favour of wealthy pensioners paying more, would need more details of a wealth tax - in terms of income I live in genteel poverty, so liquidity would be an issue.
An army unit or fire crew are different however in that they require to practise together to perform physical tasks. There is definitely some need for a kick off session for software teams but after that I would suggest that the need for a face to face meeting of the team might not be more than once every couple of months.
For a lot of jobs however such as form processing which I would guess is the bulk of office jobs I would say there is probably not much team building needed. Individual companies will have different needs for onsite time
As to online collaborative tools, didn't really use any as so far working from home for most companies is something they avoided. Mostly I suspect because of the middle manager issue so not familiar with the use of many. You could try this as a starting point though
Another benefit of encouraging more home working is that you would also ameliorate the child care problems of many families to a large extent.
The major issue I think is to wean companies off of hours worked and to a more tasks completed sort of model. I can quite see in twenty years that you wont be employed to work 40 hours a week but be employed to complete so many task units a week
Thanks.
The major problem I see with that is how do you achieve productivity gains. Sure, some working at home paid on a task completion scale will innovate to become more productive. But how then do you spread those innovations rapidly across the company? Particularly if the person is not fully aware of how he/she has achieved those productivity gains and has to be observed in action by others to elicit such data?
Don't get me wrong, in general I agree with you. I am just trying to think through what will be lost in that model and hence what should be the correct balance/areas of application.
Comments
http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article157356285/Mehrheit-der-Deutschen-haelt-Merkels-Asylpolitik-fuer-gescheitert.html
It is true that some great projects have not required this. But I would hazard that they are projects, like Linux, where a community already existed and the project was deemed pretty much as a mission from God, so the shared values and vision were in place already, and were maintained by a strong sense of shared purpose. More mundane work does not elicit such unity of purpose unless a team works at it.
PS I'd hate to think how a fire crew or an army unit would function in the heat of action if they'd only ever met over the internet.
Give the electorate real choice. You can't have a big public sector without a big tax base to support it. IIRC income tax was 25% when Maggie left office. Get those taxes up.
He know's his politics...
That being said, this is the problem when the MPs and leader do not trust each other. And it is all the PLP's fault. Some members want to wholesale replace the PLP now, they are at war with their own MPs for crying out loud, but the rules as laid out were deisgned so only people the PLP were willing the support could be leader at all, presumably to avoid just such a situation.
They ignored that out of some misplaced sense of fairness (sure, it would have been awkward to not have a far lefter on the ballot, but their job was to select those they wanted as leader, not provide a wide selection) and have only themselves to blame.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
I think we'd find local parties would be expected to toe the national line once the national internal rebellion is crushed.
No-one can touch Ted Heath for the perfect Franglais accent.
Out of interest, what online tools would you recommend. I am about to launch two major projects in Pakistan which will require a lot of teamwork and webinars. I have some software in mind (Smartsheet for project management and Gantt charts, Webinex for comms and meetings), but grateful for any suggestions you may have for what you find works well.
It's just saying Geoffrey should lead on challenging the government on health and foreign affairs, George is on Defence, Zippy on economics, while Bungle gets to be leader.
True they have a responsibility to develop party policy in those areas as well, but that's not a full-time job.
A party that goes into 2020 with the Tories requoting the PLP statements of the last few weeks is likely to be unsuccessful.
Lewis in 2025 to win if Tory Liters have gone by then.
It wouldn't obviously win the argument with the membership, who bear little relationship with Labour voters. But it would be a start to demonstrate how out-of-touch Corbyn is.
https://amp.businessinsider.com/russia-internet-trolls-and-donald-trump-2016-7
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
It was truly the best speech of the convention so far, but with a bar not set very high after a series of very boring and generic speeches in all the days before.
He simply defended his record, said Hillary was qualified, and made a pitch to conservatives.
Good oratory, but no substance.
Saying that everything is great, getting better, and under control, might not work when 3/4 of the public disagree.
I also can't see how saying that Trump is no conservative or republican will have the desired effect.
We have to remember that Obama has been a hate figure for those groups for 8 years, and saying that Trump is no conservative in front of a democratic audience kinda opens the door for them to Trump.
If Trump is still in the lead by next week, then Hillary's last chance are the debates and hopes that the russians or anyone else won't release any more damaging info about her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXoU1tA6BAk
PS sitting down to rest the knees sounds familiar too.
I have to say that a fair reading of Clause II.B.2 (i) and (ii) reveals a natural and ordinary meaning that seems to me to be entirely clear. My view of their combined effect can be summarised thus:
(a)
where there is a vacancy for Leader, anyone who wishes to be considered for the position would require nominations from 15% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and EPLP in order to be a candidate in the election;
(b)
where there is no vacancy (because the Leader is still in place), anyone who wishes to challenge the Leader’s right to continue as Leader would need nominations from 20% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and EPLP in order to mount such a challenge;
(c)
the Leader would not in that situation (where there is no vacancy) be someone who was a “challenger” for the leadership and, accordingly, would require no nominations in order to compete in the ballot to retain his/her position as Leader.
So could be worse.
I do appreciate the advice though
As I said back then, Corbyn is a very ideological choice that hardens both Labour's support and opposition to Labour.
Corbyn is a low risk low return bet, Labour won't lose many votes but won't gain many either.
If you want to be sure that Labour gains time to regroup and renew itself in people and ideas, Corbyn is your safe choice.
By 2025 who knows, but it depends if society feels prosperous enough, as long as people feel depressed they will always long for ideological or populist solutions, the "we need a hero" type.
Seems odd to me to receive the good fortune of lots of cash, and then to fritter it away. But there we are.
I hope the legal ruling will finally have convinced him.
Who knows what would happen to SDP Mark 2, but is there an alternative?
What's best for Labour (and therefore the country, since like all parties they will believe the two are one and the same)? Constant infighting isn't it, a formal split isn't it. Full steam ahead the only option, and the best they can do is huddle near the lifeboats in preparation for the iceberg.
For a lot of jobs however such as form processing which I would guess is the bulk of office jobs I would say there is probably not much team building needed. Individual companies will have different needs for onsite time
As to online collaborative tools, didn't really use any as so far working from home for most companies is something they avoided. Mostly I suspect because of the middle manager issue so not familiar with the use of many. You could try this as a starting point though
http://blog.sqwiggle.com/10-online-team-collaboration-tools-remote-teams/
Another benefit of encouraging more home working is that you would also ameliorate the child care problems of many families to a large extent.
The major issue I think is to wean companies off of hours worked and to a more tasks completed sort of model. I can quite see in twenty years that you wont be employed to work 40 hours a week but be employed to complete so many task units a week
Herself and I live comfortably. Thomas the cat lives very well. My son has been told that he can expect to inherit the value of our property(ies) but bugger all else. That will do, and not bad for a fellow off a Wandsworth council estate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Labour_Party_Falkirk_candidate_selection#Consequences
@viewcode
Tim Duffy
It's obvious email isn't secure. The only truly private communication is stuff you say towards the end of a very long podcast.
Don't come round here bothering me with your fancy big city facts
I agree about being comfortable. We spend little and need less. In our thirties, there was a stage when we had three dependant children, a mortgage and 1.5 salaries. Twenty years later, we had no dependant children, no mortgage and two salaries.
Now we have two pensions and no wish to spend money.
But looking back to the 1950s, the highlight was moving into a council house with an indoor toilet.
As my mother used to say ... "You kids, the more you get, the more you want."
Any secured debts would of course be entitled for repayment out of the value of the security eg a mortgage.
Much obliged.
A good afternoon to all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvDMlk3kSYg
So about 3/4 of the way through would be more effective - as I am always dozing by that stage. (well 5 minutes in if it is a really dull In Our Time)
Utterly OT: FFXV has Lena Headey and Sean Bean amongst the voice cast. Pretty impressive. Although I still suspect I'll never get it. The promo-stuff makes it look like a bloody boy band on tour and given the choice between that, a Witcher 3 GOTY, Rise of the Tomb Raider, XCOM 2 and (perhaps) Mass Effect Andromeda/Dishonoured 2 [and limited funds] I think Final Fantasy's run its course for me.
Lena Headey was also in the first Dishonoured, apparently.
That provision appears to give the final de
cision on the meaning of the rules to the
NEC. If that is so, Mr Millar contends that it purports to oust the jurisdiction of the
court and is, accordingly, void consistent with the case of
Lee v Showman’s Guild of
Great Britain
[1952]
This means you keep earnings when you are young but have no wealth and pay lots of tax once you have accumulated wealth and have relatively low retirement income.
Hands up all those in favour of introducing a wealth tax, lowering income tax but no increase in tax overall.
http://www.newstatesman.com/2016/07/jeremy-corbyn-and-paranoid-style
I'd be a fan of annual tax on property value, though.
Will you have spent the money on health care or not?
If someone's retired, they'll have low income but perhaps their own property. Would you force them to sell up to pay a wealth tax?
I'm not convinced that can be done fairly.
The major problem I see with that is how do you achieve productivity gains. Sure, some working at home paid on a task completion scale will innovate to become more productive. But how then do you spread those innovations rapidly across the company? Particularly if the person is not fully aware of how he/she has achieved those productivity gains and has to be observed in action by others to elicit such data?
Don't get me wrong, in general I agree with you. I am just trying to think through what will be lost in that model and hence what should be the correct balance/areas of application.