Cyclefree said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Cyclefree said:

The meme of betrayal is quite strong on the Left. I have written a thread on just this topic which OGH may or may not use.

For a fictional version see, for instance, A Very British Coup by Chris Mullin or the TV series G.B.H.

Worth noting in that context that Chris Mullin had by last Autumn come around to the following view on Corbyn:
"One way or another Jeremy needs to be replaced by someone capable of offering strong leadership in both the party and the country. Labour needs to get its act together and fast. Failure to do so risks not merely defeat, but annihilation."

I have very little sympathy for the PLP on this. Back in 2015 they had one job to do: to nominate those candidates whom they thought capable of being leader and PM. Out of sentimentality and/or stupidity they nominated someone whom they didn't think was so capable. A bit much of them now to complain that a useless candidate has turned out to be a useless leader.

They have reaped what they sowed.

(And they've been pretty bloody useless since then, as well.)

I have every sympathy with the 85% of the PLP who did not nominate that someone.

What would you like them to do now? Mount another premature challenge to Corbyn, and fail, further consolidating his position?

They're playing it right, by my book, giving him free rein to show what he's capable of such that if (and no doubt when) a year or more down the road he's failed there'll be a much better chance than now of removing him.

Sandpit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: just an idle musing. With the tyres so much bigger, that'd improve traction off the line, right? If starts are faster, then the penalty for screwing one up will be worse.

Random F1 fact: An F1 car (2016 model) accelerates from 60-120mph faster than it gets from 0-60.

Presumably because when the car starts the engine revs are zero - and max power is not reached until the engine gets to fairly high revs.

Cyclefree said:

We need to have clear immigration rules, effective and swift enforcement of them at the earliest stage, rather than leaving people in prolonged - and unkind - limbo and an understanding by all that the fact of having people living in different countries does not meant that (a) you should be automatically entitled to go and live in those countries; or (b) that all your family should live in the same country. It may sound harsh but if people choose to marry people from other countries and move then they have to accept the consequences of their decisions.

Consequences don't fall out of the air. If you are a British citizen then you ought to be able to marry someone from anywhere in the world and bring them to live with you in Britain, and to raise a family with them in Britain if you so wish. That is fundamental to having the right to a family life.

If the marriage is fake, and if only marriage would give the spouse the right to live here, then throw them out. I've got no problem with the authorities investigating to ensure that the marriage is real.

OldKingCole said:

Does not the number of cases where people, long resident in this country, have left UK temporarily to, for example, care for elderly parents, suggest that some reasonably minor amendment to the rules is required?

The caring for the elderly parents wasn't the issue, the staying the the country unlawfully for three years was. Making an application before returning to the UK for a new visa and then returning lawfully to the UK would have prevented the problem.

The delusion from Meeks and co about how our visa system has suddenly got tough because of BrExit is just that. Our visa system along with almost everyone else's in the world has been very tough for years.

To give an example, when you bring an non-EU spouse to the UK (ironically unless you are a non-UK citizen yourself) you need to demonstrate 18k earnings in the UK, or have 65k in savings also in the UK, this is non-negotiable. The bit less understood is that when after two and a half years you apply to for Indefinite Leave to Remain, the same test is made, and again when you apply for citizenship after five year, if you fail the earnings/saving check at either of those points, the spouse is deported. Introduced by cuddly Dave, the remainer.

FF43 said:

Cyclefree said:

That may well be the case. I don't know the facts.

[Snipped]

We need to have clear immigration rules, effective and swift enforcement of them at the earliest stage, rather than leaving people in prolonged - and unkind - limbo and an understanding by all that the fact of having people living in different countries does not meant that (a) you should be automatically entitled to go and live in those countries; or (b) that all your family should live in the same country. It may sound harsh but if people choose to marry people from other countries and move then they have to accept the consequences of their decisions. People seem to want to have both the advantages of a globalized world when it suits them as well as all the advantages of a parochial world where family members never stray far from home.

What we have at present is far from clear, effective and swift. It is dysfunctional, very arbitrary and to a large extent driven by unacknowledged quotas, which mean that a proportion of people can get away with playing the system while others who are less well connected will be excluded by default. So let's say we sort that out, would it deal with the principles you set out? In any case, does YOUR objection to sharing a country with someone you don't know trump MY right to sharing a life with the person I love? (I am personalising simply as an example)

I'm not sure I understand the last question.

Whatever rules (and I include the exercise of discretion in this) you have some people will fall outside them. What seems to happen in some cases is that those who fall outside the rules then try and use all sorts of other reasons to get round the fact that they fall on the wrong side of the line. And I object to that because one needs certainty and it is also unfair to others who are outside the line who don't manage (or don't try) to manipulate emotion to get what they want.

In general I think that people who marry (provided the marriage is not simply entered into for the purpose of circumventing immigration rules) should live in the same country but where they come from different countries which country that will be will depend on a whole range of factors, of which immigration rules are only one.

Whatever rights you have are as set out in the law. Everyone can fall in love and marry whom they choose. With very limited exceptions we don't place restrictions on the latter. But that is very different to saying that everyone thereby has an automatic and inalienable right to live in the country of their choice regardless of what the laws of that country provide.

Immigration/residency laws cannot solely be determined by the "wants" of those who want to live in a country which is not their country of birth.

O/T

A lot of truth in this IMO:

"Listening to the voices, he was also struck by how utterly convinced everyone was of the supreme correctness of their own position, and a reluctance to listen to one another. As well as exploring Brexit, the play will highlight this shrivelling of empathy. “With the death in belief of the great them – whether they are politicians, kings and queens or experts – what do we believe in? We believe in ourselves. Cameras now are only used to take photos of ourselves – not of anything around us. We know we are in an age of extreme selfishness,” he says."

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2017/feb/27/rufus-norris-we-are-living-in-an-age-of-extreme-selfishness

Mr. F, thanks, I've read and replied. Always useful to learn what people like, and what they didn't (mildly surprised Stephen's gone down well with readers, as he's obviously the biggest milksop of the protagonists. Maybe it's my natural talent for writing socially awkward characters).

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

O/T http://www.itv.com/news/2017-02-27/school-partially-shut-and-pupils-given-police-escort-as-travellers-on-academys-car-park-refuse-to-move/

The simple way to deal with this is you give them one hour to be gone or their caravans and other vehicles are seized and destroyed.
We really need to stop pissing around with people like this.

Trump's ICE men wouldn't mess around here.

AlsoIndigo said:

To give an example, when you bring an non-EU spouse to the UK (ironically unless you are a non-UK citizen yourself) you need to demonstrate 18k earnings in the UK, or have 65k in savings also in the UK, this is non-negotiable. The bit less understood is that when after two and a half years you apply to for Indefinite Leave to Remain, the same test is made, and again when you apply for citizenship after five year, if you fail the earnings/saving check at either of those points, the spouse is deported. Introduced by cuddly Dave, the remainer.

This is denying those on low incomes and with little money who wish to marry foreigners from certain countries the right to a family life and cannot be justified.

Isn't the "Surinder Singh" loophole - settling first elsewhere in the EU, such as in the Republic of Ireland, and then coming to Britain, circumventing the 18k rule - still available?

AlsoIndigo said:

JackW said:

The PM should get the Home Office (she has some knowledge there apparently) to extract the collective digits from the government arse and do the right thing and if she can't recognise the essential decency of the matter then it's a pretty rum do.

How many British families do you figure are suffering because they are not able to bring their husbands/wives/children to the UK because of the minimum earnings threshold ? Still, out of sight, out of mind eh ?

It's certainly not out of sight, out of mind for the families.

isam said:

Barrel of laughs, the extreme left

https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/836173819106705410

To be fair, it's their wedding, and they can do whatever they want. The startling thing is her feeling that she had to get married to further her career. Not what you expect from such a staunch feminist as Harman.

Hysteria much?

https://twitter.com/Daily_Express/status/836185723044790273

Cyan said:

AlsoIndigo said:

To give an example, when you bring an non-EU spouse to the UK (ironically unless you are a non-UK citizen yourself) you need to demonstrate 18k earnings in the UK, or have 65k in savings also in the UK, this is non-negotiable. The bit less understood is that when after two and a half years you apply to for Indefinite Leave to Remain, the same test is made, and again when you apply for citizenship after five year, if you fail the earnings/saving check at either of those points, the spouse is deported. Introduced by cuddly Dave, the remainer.

This is denying those on low incomes and with little money who wish to marry foreigners from certain countries the right to a family life and cannot be justified.

Isn't the "Surinder Singh" loophole - settling first elsewhere in the EU, such as in the Republic of Ireland, and then coming to Britain, circumventing the 18k rule - still available?

Sort of. The trick is getting your spouse into Ireland in the first place on the one hand, and having to live there until your residency permit comes through which is typically 4-6 months. It isnt sufficient to just sit in a bedsit for the duration either, you will need to get a job there. So its possible, but expensive, difficult and time consuming, and not always available depending on the visa relationship between your spouses country and RoI or wherever.

Theuniondivvie said:

Hysteria much?

https://twitter.com/Daily_Express/status/836185723044790273

No doubt the Express was all in favour of the pound PLUNGING after the Brexit vote.

Sturgeon just doing her bit for Britain's exporters.

JackW said:

AlsoIndigo said:

JackW said:

The PM should get the Home Office (she has some knowledge there apparently) to extract the collective digits from the government arse and do the right thing and if she can't recognise the essential decency of the matter then it's a pretty rum do.

How many British families do you figure are suffering because they are not able to bring their husbands/wives/children to the UK because of the minimum earnings threshold ? Still, out of sight, out of mind eh ?

It's certainly not out of sight, out of mind for the families.

Tell me about it I am personally familiar with several such cases. I believe others on this forum from personal experience.

Bojabob said:

Pulpstar said:

Bojabob said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Chortle. £40,000 worth of damage.

South London vandals have defaced Crystal Palace's team bus after believing it belonged to their Premier League relegation rivals, Middlesbrough.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/02/27/crystal-palace-fans-accidentally-vandalise-team-bus/

Does it really cost 40 grand to respray a bloody coach in south London?? I'd wager there's a bloke in Middlesbrough who'd do it a lot cheaper.

That was my thought too !

You can pick up an entire second hand coach for half that : http://hillscoachsales.com/coach-sales/wp_car_dealer/01-volvo-b10m-plaxton-premiere-55-sts/

LOL. I note @MorrisDancer above has put his name forward for this particular gig. I should imagine if CPFC advertised it on MyBuilder.com they'd get several skilled Polish blokes offering their services for much less. Maybe their fans insist on a born-in Larnderner to do the job at top whack prices?

You could probably get a custom vinyl wrap for under 10 grand.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

O/T http://www.itv.com/news/2017-02-27/school-partially-shut-and-pupils-given-police-escort-as-travellers-on-academys-car-park-refuse-to-move/

The simple way to deal with this is you give them one hour to be gone or their caravans and other vehicles are seized and destroyed.
We really need to stop pissing around with people like this.

To update this story:

http://www.itv.com/news/central/2017-02-27/travellers-removed-from-school-car-park/

It seems the travellers were moved on having failed to comply with a 24-hour removal notice issued on Saturday. I imagine they thought the Police wouldn't do anything on a Sunday so they had a few extra hours. This happens with travellers - the legislation has made them much easier to remove and normally such trespass only lasts a few hours.

Dan Jarvis is the man.Certainly not Long Bailey.

isam said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

isam said:

Barrel of laughs, the extreme left

https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/836173819106705410

To be fair, it's their wedding, and they can do whatever they want. The startling thing is her feeling that she had to get married to further her career. Not what you expect from such a staunch feminist as Harman.

Of course they can. Just commenting that they're not much fun

Yes she should have had the courage of her conviction. Seeing as it's now ok to be an unmarried mother, why not get divorced?!

She was marrying Jack Dromey. Not a lot to celebrate there.

Theuniondivvie said:

Hysteria much?

ttps://twitter.com/Daily_Express/status/836185723044790273

Half a cent off against the dollar. Hardly plunging.

Is this an old thing that I missed, or a fresh pile of poop?

https://twitter.com/RogerQuimbly/status/835926666048339968

stodge said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

O/T http://www.itv.com/news/2017-02-27/school-partially-shut-and-pupils-given-police-escort-as-travellers-on-academys-car-park-refuse-to-move/

The simple way to deal with this is you give them one hour to be gone or their caravans and other vehicles are seized and destroyed.
We really need to stop pissing around with people like this.

To update this story:

http://www.itv.com/news/central/2017-02-27/travellers-removed-from-school-car-park/

It seems the travellers were moved on having failed to comply with a 24-hour removal notice issued on Saturday. I imagine they thought the Police wouldn't do anything on a Sunday so they had a few extra hours. This happens with travellers - the legislation has made them much easier to remove and normally such trespass only lasts a few hours.

I'm glad that they have moved on.
However, we shouldn't have to faff around with 24 hour removal notices and other legal niceties.
Sling the feckers out, no mucking around.

Cyclefree said:

Cyan said:

Cyclefree said:

We need to have clear immigration rules, effective and swift enforcement of them at the earliest stage, rather than leaving people in prolonged - and unkind - limbo and an understanding by all that the fact of having people living in different countries does not meant that (a) you should be automatically entitled to go and live in those countries; or (b) that all your family should live in the same country. It may sound harsh but if people choose to marry people from other countries and move then they have to accept the consequences of their decisions.

Consequences don't fall out of the air. If you are a British citizen then you ought to be able to marry someone from anywhere in the world and bring them to live with you in Britain, and to raise a family with them in Britain if you so wish. That is fundamental to having the right to a family life.

If the marriage is fake, and if only marriage would give the spouse the right to live here, then throw them out. I've got no problem with the authorities investigating to ensure that the marriage is real.

It is possible to have a family life outside Britain. If you are a Vietnamese citizen (say) then you ought to be able to marry someone from anywhere in the world and bring them to live with you in Vietnam and to raise a family with them in Vietnam if you so wish. That is fundamental to having the right to a family life.

The right to have a family life is not dependant on living in one particular country only.

From the limited amount I can see on the story the presentation is entirely dishonest in any case. She was in the country unlawfully for three years, this is the only fact that really matters. Just about every country in the world will summarily deport you, and refuse future visa applications on such basis. It is perfectly fine to go abroad and look after aged parents, accepting that it will cancel your indefinite leave to remain which was issued on the basis that you stay in the UK. The correct steps to take at this point is to apply for a new visa, the case would be clear and compelling and unlikely to be rejected.

Bojabob said:

Ed Balls should go for Gorton and immediately put his name forward as a candidate for Labour caretaker leader in the Commons. He'd win the nomination there.

The PLP should then organise properly* and threaten the Corbynite leadership with splitting in the Commons with Balls as leader unless JC stands down.

In return, the PLP guarantee Rebecca Long-Bailey the nominations.

Corbynites have to agree or face becoming isolated in the Commons with a rightwinger (Balls) as Loto. Result: JC quits. RLB is on the ballot.

Balls then stands down to run as Lisa Nandy's running mate (for the Shadow Chancellor position).

Nandy beats Long-Bailey easily.

Nandy, from the left of the party, is installed as leader with Balls as Shadchan from the right.

Game on.



*This is the problem. Needs a serious figure in Commons (Harman? Benn?) to herd the cats.

For betting purposes I would rather Harriet was the caretaker.

Cyan said:

Sean_F said:

The right to a family life is not an absolute. A society also is entitled to stipulate who it does and does not wish to immigrate.

Your second sentence appears to contain an absolute. Rights are granted or recognised by the state. The right to a family life should be respected universally, and in fact it is recognised as universal in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, section 16:

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

You can have a family life in lots of countries in the world. That right does not imply the abandonment of all immigration rules or require states not to have any requirements for whom they will let into the country.

Cyan said:

Sean_F said:

The right to a family life is not an absolute. A society also is entitled to stipulate who it does and does not wish to immigrate.

Your second sentence appears to contain an absolute. Rights are granted or recognised by the state. The right to a family life should be respected universally, and in fact it is recognised as universal in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, section 16:

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

But, within human rights laws, it's not considered an absolute. A foreign spouse who has committed a crime might be deported, for example.

FF43 said:

Cyclefree said:

FF43 said:

Cyclefree said:

The same applies in TV too. There was a programme about the 447 flight from Brazil to Paris which crashed into the Atlantic which failed to ask the obvious question about why the pilots did not fly around a storm they had been warned about. The answer - as told to me by some pilots - is rather more worrying than the errors which the pilots made once the plane was in the storm.

AFAIK the weather wasn't unusual for that flight at that time of the year and it wasn't identified as a contributory factor in the Air Accident Report. The pitot tunes that measured airspeed weren't working, but the main factors were pilots ignoring instrument readings and making the rookie error of attempting to ascend out of a stall (you should accelerate on the level). Basically the pilots hadn't been trained properly. There were also seniority issues in the three man cockpit, which seems to be a not unusual issue. In this case the captain sitting on the left hand side saw the airplane take off and handed over to the junior second officer. Because he was sitting in the left seat he claimed seniority over the first officer who stayed in the right seat, even though the latter had more experience. The captain came back into the cockpit to ask, what the hell is going on, but it was too late.

All true. Once they were in the storm and airspeed detectors switched off - the autopilot went off - they should have carried on as before. They didn't and thought they needed to climb (they didn't), got into a stall, didn't realise and by the time they did it was too late to get out of the stall. But the issue - at least as relayed to me by these experienced pilots - was that Air France for cost-saving reasons (this route was not profitable) had sufficient fuel for the flight to Paris but not enough to permit the plane to fly round the storm. Had they done so the issue of the instrument readings being wrong/confusing would likely not have happened.

I didn't know that about insufficient fuel to divert and very worrying, as you say. I don't agree with your last sentence however. Flying through storms is a normal thing. On the whole you assume mainstream European airlines are managed for safety, but in Air France case, that's doubtful.

Life would have been easier for the pilots if they'd had a serviceable weather radar too, if the pitot heat was switched on and if the captain didn't leave the two less experienced pilots at the controls as they went through the worst of the weather. Oh, and if one of the pilots had remembered that you recover from a stall by pushing forward, not pulling back. It was a complete clusterf... from start to finish.

PlatoSaid said:

Pulpstar said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

O/T http://www.itv.com/news/2017-02-27/school-partially-shut-and-pupils-given-police-escort-as-travellers-on-academys-car-park-refuse-to-move/

The simple way to deal with this is you give them one hour to be gone or their caravans and other vehicles are seized and destroyed.
We really need to stop pissing around with people like this.

Trump's ICE men wouldn't mess around here.

The LEOs, Feds and other law enforcers have taken a very strong set of actions on paedos and sex traffickers - 474 arrested so far. He's not fannying about. Dozens of sex slaves rescued - but hardly a mention compared to hysteria about a tweet.

When you say "he's not fannying about," you presumably mean President Obama who set up January as national nick-a-nonce month each year?

Bojabob said:

Pulpstar said:

Bojabob said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Chortle. £40,000 worth of damage.

South London vandals have defaced Crystal Palace's team bus after believing it belonged to their Premier League relegation rivals, Middlesbrough.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/02/27/crystal-palace-fans-accidentally-vandalise-team-bus/

Does it really cost 40 grand to respray a bloody coach in south London?? I'd wager there's a bloke in Middlesbrough who'd do it a lot cheaper.

That was my thought too !

You can pick up an entire second hand coach for half that : http://hillscoachsales.com/coach-sales/wp_car_dealer/01-volvo-b10m-plaxton-premiere-55-sts/

LOL. I note @MorrisDancer above has put his name forward for this particular gig. I should imagine if CPFC advertised it on MyBuilder.com they'd get several skilled Polish blokes offering their services for much less. Maybe their fans insist on a born-in Larnderner to do the job at top whack prices?

I'd imagine there's not that many places in the UK that have the facilities to paint a coach. It needs a bloody big clean room and probably takes a couple of weeks unless it's a simple design.

stodge said:

Cyclefree said:

Until you've seen what I've written not sure how you can criticize it.

Of course betrayal is a universal theme. But in any case I didn't say that it is only the Left which indulges in betrayal themes. I was writing about the Left - or one particular bit of it - and was interested in what this particular issue might tell us.

And that McDonnell article which I didn't know about until about an hour ago is a very good example of what I had in mind.

Threads - and even posts - would be immensely tiresome if we had to append at the end the caveat that of course this particular example of human behavior occurs universally. Maybe we could take that as read. Whataboutery is rarely illuminating.

I hope I don't sound snippy: your posts and threads are some of the more interesting ones on here.

Don't worry about sounding "snippy" - I shouldn't have had a pop until, as you say, I'd seen the whole thing.

The truth is many, if not the majority of posters on this site are anti-Left. As someone who would be seen by most on here as of the Left, I'd like to challenge the constant anti-Left rhetoric occasionally.

I'm not blind to Labour's faults (as my piece yesterday will have shown) but nor am I prepared to give the Conservatives a free pass. Indeed, one might argue the Conservatives are a deal more ruthless with their leaders than Labour and therein may lie the problem.

The other aspect is the continual framing of negative political behaviour as being the sole preserve of "the Left" when "the Right" are as capable of virtue signalling, identity politics and all the other ludicrous euphemisms thrown out nowadays.

I agree with this. I always had you down as a Lib Dem as - to the extent I have any affiliation at all (I tend to the Patrick Cockburn view of politicians) - am I.

Bojabob said:

GIN1138 said:

isam said:

Barrel of laughs, the extreme left

https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/836173819106705410

Well it's up to them what kind of wedding they have... But seriously who'd want to be a guest at a weeding where there's not even a cake?

Just as well they "banned" guests. Nobody would've gone anyway...

A better question is who wants to eat wedding cake, when on the sauce at a wedding? Sweet things like cake go very badly with beer and wine. A better idea would be luxury salty snacks – perhaps Harman brought out the pistachios?

Salty nibbles do go best with booze... But you can always take the wedding cake home with you....

Anyway, doubt Mr and Mrs Harman have ever had an alcoholic beverage in their lives....

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

stodge said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

O/T http://www.itv.com/news/2017-02-27/school-partially-shut-and-pupils-given-police-escort-as-travellers-on-academys-car-park-refuse-to-move/

The simple way to deal with this is you give them one hour to be gone or their caravans and other vehicles are seized and destroyed.
We really need to stop pissing around with people like this.

To update this story:

http://www.itv.com/news/central/2017-02-27/travellers-removed-from-school-car-park/

It seems the travellers were moved on having failed to comply with a 24-hour removal notice issued on Saturday. I imagine they thought the Police wouldn't do anything on a Sunday so they had a few extra hours. This happens with travellers - the legislation has made them much easier to remove and normally such trespass only lasts a few hours.

I'm glad that they have moved on.
However, we shouldn't have to faff around with 24 hour removal notices and other legal niceties.
Sling the feckers out, no mucking around.

The law doesn't work that way and nor does it empower the authorities to seize and destroy people's possessions (yet). The whole Traveller issue arouses very strong passions on all sides.

stodge said:

braeside02 said:

Dan Jarvis is the man.Certainly not Long Bailey.

Hard to argue with that. The problem is how much and how badly he wants it and the price he is prepared to pay. He will be a much harder target for the Conservatives than Corbyn and will undoubtedly attract some who have fled Labour under Corbyn back to the Party.

He's no Blair yet but he might be as electorally successful and certainly I could envisage him looking a real contender running against May in 2025.

Has he ever said anything of note? Or done anything of interest or worth while in politics e.g. a la Stella Creasy?

Surely the bar should be something a little higher than being an ex-soldier and therefore presumably not keen on terrorists?

Choosing people on the basis of what they look like, whether they fit some category or other is part of the problem rather than the solution. While I dislike everything Corbyn stands for I can understand why he got votes from Labour members: at least - by comparison with his rivals - he had some ideas, the wrong ones mind but still. The rest were just full of clichés and wind.

isam said:

Barrel of laughs, the extreme left

https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/836173819106705410

Nice fireplace, furniture and ornaments. Hattie's parents must have been disappointed when she brought that bearded weirdo home.

Sandpit said:

Life would have been easier for the pilots if they'd had a serviceable weather radar too, if the pitot heat was switched on and if the captain didn't leave the two less experienced pilots at the controls as they went through the worst of the weather. Oh, and if one of the pilots had remembered that you recover from a stall by pushing forward, not pulling back. It was a complete clusterf... from start to finish.

I think the whole "push the controls forward to recover from a stall" principle is taught early in the first lesson of a PPL...

Cyclefree said:

Has he ever said anything of note? Or done anything of interest or worth while in politics e.g. a la Stella Creasy?

Surely the bar should be something a little higher than being an ex-soldier and therefore presumably not keen on terrorists?

Choosing people on the basis of what they look like, whether they fit some category or other is part of the problem rather than the solution. While I dislike everything Corbyn stands for I can understand why he got votes from Labour members: at least - by comparison with his rivals - he had some ideas, the wrong ones mind but still. The rest were just full of clichés and wind.

If you wanted someone with the experience of a Blair or a Wilson you'd have to go with Ed Balls or David Milliband but neither or them are runners at present.

After all, Cameron had only been an MP for 4 years when he became Conservative leader so in that respect Jarvis is a veteran.

I don't think it matters very much - what had John Major actually "done" from 1979 to 1990 - Chief Secretary to the Treasury isn't the highest-profile job and he wasn't Foreign Secretary or Chancellor for any length of time.

IF he puts his hat in the ring, Jarvis will have plenty of time to explain his policy views on a range of issues. The question is whether, as Kinnock did, he will have enough credentials within the party to win the leadership and then be able to move the Party to a more attractive centrist position - my guess is he will need a counterpoint as Deputy much as Kinnock had Hattersley and Blair had Prescott, Jarvis will need a Deputy who will unite the party so in a sense you are buying a ticket not an individual.

Cyclefree said:

Bojabob said:

Cyclefree said:

stodge said:

braeside02 said:

Dan Jarvis is the man.Certainly not Long Bailey.

Hard to argue with that. The problem is how much and how badly he wants it and the price he is prepared to pay. He will be a much harder target for the Conservatives than Corbyn and will undoubtedly attract some who have fled Labour under Corbyn back to the Party.

He's no Blair yet but he might be as electorally successful and certainly I could envisage him looking a real contender running against May in 2025.

Has he ever said anything of note? Or done anything of interest or worth while in politics e.g. a la Stella Creasy?

Surely the bar should be something a little higher than being an ex-soldier and therefore presumably not keen on terrorists?

Choosing people on the basis of what they look like, whether they fit some category or other is part of the problem rather than the solution. While I dislike everything Corbyn stands for I can understand why he got votes from Labour members: at least - by comparison with his rivals - he had some ideas, the wrong ones mind but still. The rest were just full of clichés and wind.

Didn't Creasy run an anti loan sharks campaign? Not sure it's fair to imply she is just a pretty face...?

Edit: Maybe that's what you are saying, your post was ambiguous

That is what I'm saying: Creasy has used her time in Parliament to do something to help the more vulnerable. She's under huge pressure in her constituency, alas. But she seems to me to be a good example of a backbencher trying to do some good rather than just focusing on her own career. With the caveat, that I don't know much else about her, it seems to me we could do with more like her in public life.

Debating Gay marriage on QT she smirked "if you don't like it, just don't marry a man!!"

Then called for page 3 to be banned

If you don't like it...

Stark_Dawning said:

Bojabob said:

Jason said:

Bojabob said:

Ed Balls should go for Gorton and immediately put his name forward as a candidate for Labour caretaker leader in the Commons. He'd win the nomination there.

The PLP should then organise properly* and threaten the Corbynite leadership with splitting in the Commons with Balls as leader unless JC stands down.

In return, the PLP guarantee Rebecca Long-Bailey the nominations.

Corbynites have to agree or face becoming isolated in the Commons with a rightwinger (Balls) as Loto. Result: JC quits. RLB is on the ballot.

Balls then stands down to run as Lisa Nandy's running mate (for the Shadow Chancellor position).

Nandy beats Long-Bailey easily.

Nandy, from the left of the party, is installed as leader with Balls as Shadchan from the right.

Game on.



*This is the problem. Needs a serious figure in Commons (Harman? Benn?) to herd the cats.

God the Tories must be quaking in their boots.

No, probably not. But baby steps. The enemy within is Labour's acute problem. The Conservatives are its opponents, not its enemy.

The Tories Right could reap what they've sown here - in heaping praise on Trump and all his works, they might have primed us to have our own star of a cheesy TV show as leader.

There's always Liz Kendall. What gravitas she clearly has.

stodge said:

Cyclefree said:

Has he ever said anything of note? Or done anything of interest or worth while in politics e.g. a la Stella Creasy?

Surely the bar should be something a little higher than being an ex-soldier and therefore presumably not keen on terrorists?

Choosing people on the basis of what they look like, whether they fit some category or other is part of the problem rather than the solution. While I dislike everything Corbyn stands for I can understand why he got votes from Labour members: at least - by comparison with his rivals - he had some ideas, the wrong ones mind but still. The rest were just full of clichés and wind.

If you wanted someone with the experience of a Blair or a Wilson you'd have to go with Ed Balls or David Milliband but neither or them are runners at present.

After all, Cameron had only been an MP for 4 years when he became Conservative leader so in that respect Jarvis is a veteran.

I don't think it matters very much - what had John Major actually "done" from 1979 to 1990 - Chief Secretary to the Treasury isn't the highest-profile job and he wasn't Foreign Secretary or Chancellor for any length of time.

IF he puts his hat in the ring, Jarvis will have plenty of time to explain his policy views on a range of issues. The question is whether, as Kinnock did, he will have enough credentials within the party to win the leadership and then be able to move the Party to a more attractive centrist position - my guess is he will need a counterpoint as Deputy much as Kinnock had Hattersley and Blair had Prescott, Jarvis will need a Deputy who will unite the party so in a sense you are buying a ticket not an individual.

What's scary for Labour is the quality of the talent coming into the PLP. Compare Jarvis elected in a by-election in 2011 with the Stoke and Copeland candidates, there's no comparison.

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Life would have been easier for the pilots if they'd had a serviceable weather radar too, if the pitot heat was switched on and if the captain didn't leave the two less experienced pilots at the controls as they went through the worst of the weather. Oh, and if one of the pilots had remembered that you recover from a stall by pushing forward, not pulling back. It was a complete clusterf... from start to finish.

I think the whole "push the controls forward to recover from a stall" principle is taught early in the first lesson of a PPL...

Yep, it sure is. Because it's counter-intuitive and will kill you if you don't understand it!

The issue on this flight is that they didn't really understand what the plane was doing, they were so far behind the curve that the plane was flying them. The 10,000' a minute (100 knots down) loss of altitude should have given them a bloody big clue though.

Scarily, a number of accidents in the last decade or so have had similar causes, whereby a pilot did something that wouldn't be expected of them. There's a well studied phenomenon - a lot of the studies started with AF447 - known as automation dependency, whereby today's pilots, especially on long haul flights, are spending all their time twiddling knobs rather than flying the plane, things go wrong so rarely that what should be basic stick and rudder skills aren't there when they're needed. This is exacerbated by airlines asking pilots to use the AP as often as possible as it's more efficient/saves money.

Interestingly the same thing is being observed with driverless cars, whereby a car that drives itself 99% of the time is much more likely to crash if it gets out of its comfort zone and says 'you have control' when it realises it's out of ideas. The driver is zoned out and can't react quickly enough. Car accidents also happen much faster than plane accidents, the AF447 crew had five minutes to avoid the ocean.

Cyclefree said:

Sandpit said:

FF43 said:

Cyclefree said:

FF43 said:

Cyclefree said:

All true. Once they were in the storm and airspeed detectors switched off - the autopilot went off - they should have carried on as before. They didn't and thought they needed to climb (they didn't), got into a stall, didn't realise and by the time they did it was too late to get out of the stall. But the issue - at least as relayed to me by these experienced pilots - was that Air France for cost-saving reasons (this route was not profitable) had sufficient fuel for the flight to Paris but not enough to permit the plane to fly round the storm. Had they done so the issue of the instrument readings being wrong/confusing would likely not have happened.

I didn't know that about insufficient fuel to divert and very worrying, as you say. I don't agree with your last sentence however. Flying through storms is a normal thing. On the whole you assume mainstream European airlines are managed for safety, but in Air France case, that's doubtful.

Life would have been easier for the pilots if they'd had a serviceable weather radar too, if the pitot heat was switched on and if the captain didn't leave the two less experienced pilots at the controls as they went through the worst of the weather. Oh, and if one of the pilots had remembered that you recover from a stall by pushing forward, not pulling back. It was a complete clusterf... from start to finish.

I may have misremembered but I thought part of the problem was that the less experienced pilot did not realize he was putting the plane into a stall and by the team he - or the senior pilot did - they were already plunging into the sea and it was too late. Agonisingly, until quite late, they could have recovered the situation if the right action was taken but they were utterly confused about what was going on. The perils of flying without instruments when you have been used to relying on them, I guess.

Last autumn I had a few days holiday with a pilot friend of mine who has his own plane and we flew from Italy to Corsica and onto France and home. Watching what he did and how and everything that goes into a flight gave me a huge respect for pilots.

Correct. The plane was way ahead of the two first officers. By the time the captain got from his bed back to the cockpit and worked out what was going on, it was too late. 4'23" from 38,000' down to the sea. The instruments were pretty much all working, they just didn't understand what they were showing.

Yes, pilots are great people glad you had a great holiday!

peter_from_putney said:

Off Topic

What a totally futile exercise it has been this year attempting to turn a profit by betting on the Oscars.
Despite my having correctly picked the winner in 17 of the 24 categories, I still succeeded in showing a loss of 1.75 units or 7% (25 units invested with 23.25 units returned) on account of the miniscule odds available on the favourites which were as short as 1/20, most of which were clearly therefore foregone conclusions.
The only way to make any money is to find a gem of an outsider, as Roger succeeded in doing last year, or by identifying 3 or 4 winners at odds rather better than evens. An impossible task on this occasion.

Oh well, there's always next year!

FNT PfP.

OT Oscars. Every year I go to the bookmakers and put £10 on each of my tips. Usually somewhere between 16 and 20. This is the first year since I started doing them that I've made a loss albeit on a £180 stake just £12.

I was saved by Hacksaw Ridge for best editing at 5/1 which was nice as it was produced by my ex PA! A much more pleasing result than any winnings!