Trump orders fbi to re-open investigations into Kavanaugh complaint
Is that important news - not good on US politics
We are going overboard on Kavanaugh in my view, at the end of the day it is mainly a matter of US domestic policy, who the latest SC Justice is will have next to no impact in the UK yet tonight it led the BBC News.
Imagine the appointment of the latest Judge to the UK Supreme Court getting a mention on US news let alone leading it
SCOTUK doesn’t have the power to strike down legislation as unconstitutional though.
Which again is almost entirely US domestic legislation
Which Britons are interested in. Most Brits will visit the US at least once and there's a socio-cultural affinity, respect and interest in what happens across the pond.
It'd be a sad and insular day if British news decided to only report that which happened in Britain.
I can assure you outside political junkies and legal eagles the average Brit could not give a toss who the next US SC Justice is, indeed even in America over half of Americans cannot name a single SC Justice
Maybe not but they do care about intrigue, drama, sexual misconduct allegations etc
You can say the same about the average Brit could not name their own MP. Doesn't mean they don't vote or pay interest to the news.
This is interesting. Those who aren't interested in news won't be watching the news.
They watch the Bodyguard or Netflix for that.
You seem so annoyed that a major US story with implications for November mid terms should take away from your Brexit obsession. You need to calm down a little
No, I am annoyed that we never give the appointment of UK SC Justices anywhere near the same coverage in our news we apparently do to US SC Justices despite the fact the former has far more relevance to most of us than the latter
It is nothing to do with that. It is a story of alleged sexual abuse by someone seeking high office and the exposure of the hatred at the core of US politicsas it descends into the sewer
You run this risk of looking either as a hard right wing republican or hugely naive in thinking this story should not be on UK news channels
Anecdote alert but I'm not sure how much people in the UK *do* care. I was at the pub with a group of lawyers tonight and most of them seemed vaguely aware, but not particularly interested (and certainly not to the extent of informing or changing their own views) in the ongoing hearings. The general view appeared to be that it was all an outcome of the way that the politics are carried out in the USA. The fairly major caveat is that it was an entirely male group, so I don't know how this is all going down amongst women here.
Trump orders fbi to re-open investigations into Kavanaugh complaint
Is that important news - not good on US politics
We are going overboard on Kavanaugh in my view, at the end of the day it is mainly a matter of US domestic policy, who the latest SC Justice is will have next to no impact in the UK yet tonight it led the BBC News.
Imagine the appointment of the latest Judge to the UK Supreme Court getting a mention on US news let alone leading it
SCOTUK doesn’t have the power to strike down legislation as unconstitutional though.
Which again is almost entirely US domestic legislation
Which Britons are interested in. Most Brits will visit the US at least once and there's a socio-cultural affinity, respect and interest in what happens across the pond.
It'd be a sad and insular day if British news decided to only report that which happened in Britain.
I can assure you outside political junkies and legal eagles the average Brit could not give a toss who the next US SC Justice is, indeed even in America over half of Americans cannot name a single SC Justice
The point is when we don't even have the appointment of Justices to the UK SC leading our news we certainly should not be having the appointment of Justices to the US SC leading our news
Why not ? US SC Justices are, of course, vastly more powerful in their country than ours are here, but normally an appointment, though notable, wouldn’t lead the news. If you haven’t twigged why this one is a little different, you are surprisingly incurious about what goes on in the rest of the world.
You run this risk of looking either as a hard right wing republican or hugely naive in thinking this story should not be on UK news channels
Anecdote alert but I'm not sure how much people in the UK *do* care. I was at the pub with a group of lawyers tonight and most of them seemed vaguely aware, but not particularly interested (and certainly not to the extent of informing or changing their own views) in the ongoing hearings. The general view appeared to be that it was all an outcome of the way that the politics are carried out in the USA. The fairly major caveat is that it was an entirely male group, so I don't know how this is all going down amongst women here.
Well if that was with a group of lawyers imagine how much interest the rest of the country really had in it
Trump orders fbi to re-open investigations into Kavanaugh complaint
Is that important news - not good on US politics
We are going overboard on Kavanaugh in my view, at the end of the day it is mainly a matter of US domestic policy, who the latest SC Justice is will have next to no impact in the UK yet tonight it led the BBC News.
Imagine the appointment of the latest Judge to the UK Supreme Court getting a mention on US news let alone leading it
SCOTUK doesn’t have the power to strike down legislation as unconstitutional though.
Which again is almost entirely US domestic legislation
Which Britons are interested in. Most Brits will visit the US at least once and there's a socio-cultural affinity, respect and interest in what happens across the pond.
It'd be a sad and insular day if British news decided to only report that which happened in Britain.
I can assure you outside political junkies and legal eagles the average Brit could not give a toss who the next US SC Justice is, indeed even in America over half of Americans cannot name a single SC Justice
The point is when we don't even have the appointment of Justices to the UK SC leading our news we certainly should not be having the appointment of Justices to the US SC leading our news
You run this risk of looking either as a hard right wing republican or hugely naive in thinking this story should not be on UK news channels
I could not give a toss what you think I look like, the blatant fact of the matter is it is outrageous UK news should give top billing to issues surrounding the appointment of a US SC Justice while failing to do the same regarding the appointment of top UK Justices
Trump orders fbi to re-open investigations into Kavanaugh complaint
Is that important news - not good on US politics
We are going overboard on Kavanaugh in my view, at the end of the day it is mainly a matter of US domestic policy, who the latest SC Justice is will have next to no impact in the UK yet tonight it led the BBC News.
Imagine the appointment of the latest Judge to the UK Supreme Court getting a mention on US news let alone leading it
SCOTUK doesn’t have the power to strike down legislation as unconstitutional though.
Which again is almost entirely US domestic legislation
Which Britons are interested in. Most Brits will visit the US at least once and there's a socio-cultural affinity, respect and interest in what happens across the pond.
It'd be a sad and insular day if British news decided to only report that which happened in Britain.
I can assure you outside political junkies and legal eagles the average Brit could not give a toss who the next US SC Justice is, indeed even in America over half of Americans cannot name a single SC Justice
Maybe not but they do care about intrigue, drama, sexual misconduct allegations etc
You can say the same about the average Brit could not name their own MP. Doesn't mean they don't vote or pay interest to the news.
This is interesting. Those who aren't interested in news won't be watching the news.
They watch the Bodyguard or Netflix for that.
You seem so annoyed that a major US story with implications for November mid terms should take away from your Brexit obsession. You need to calm down a little
No, I am annoyed that we never give the appointment of UK SC Justices anywhere near the same coverage in our news we apparently do to US SC Justices despite the fact the former has far more relevance to most of us than the latter
It is nothing to do with that. It is a story of alleged sexual abuse by someone seeking high office and the exposure of the hatred at the core of US politicsas it descends into the sewer
It is everything to do with that.
Beyond that the story is just another partisan battle in the US
You run this risk of looking either as a hard right wing republican or hugely naive in thinking this story should not be on UK news channels
Anecdote alert but I'm not sure how much people in the UK *do* care. I was at the pub with a group of lawyers tonight and most of them seemed vaguely aware, but not particularly interested (and certainly not to the extent of informing or changing their own views) in the ongoing hearings. The general view appeared to be that it was all an outcome of the way that the politics are carried out in the USA. The fairly major caveat is that it was an entirely male group, so I don't know how this is all going down amongst women here.
I think your last sentence is key and many posters still do not see it from a womens point of view
You run this risk of looking either as a hard right wing republican or hugely naive in thinking this story should not be on UK news channels
Anecdote alert but I'm not sure how much people in the UK *do* care. I was at the pub with a group of lawyers tonight and most of them seemed vaguely aware, but not particularly interested (and certainly not to the extent of informing or changing their own views) in the ongoing hearings. The general view appeared to be that it was all an outcome of the way that the politics are carried out in the USA. The fairly major caveat is that it was an entirely male group, so I don't know how this is all going down amongst women here.
I've been surprised how much the politically aware women I know are engaged with the story - I was in the pub the other night with one (a fellow councillor in our tiny little town) and she'd been glued to it. Mrs Capitano has also been following it on the radio with some horror. How much it's breaking through to the wider electorate I don't know, but I would not be at all surprised if there were a gender gap here.
You run this risk of looking either as a hard right wing republican or hugely naive in thinking this story should not be on UK news channels
Anecdote alert but I'm not sure how much people in the UK *do* care. I was at the pub with a group of lawyers tonight and most of them seemed vaguely aware, but not particularly interested (and certainly not to the extent of informing or changing their own views) in the ongoing hearings. The general view appeared to be that it was all an outcome of the way that the politics are carried out in the USA. The fairly major caveat is that it was an entirely male group, so I don't know how this is all going down amongst women here.
I've been surprised how much the politically aware women I know are engaged with the story - I was in the pub the other night with one (a fellow councillor in our tiny little town) and she'd been glued to it. Mrs Capitano has also been following it on the radio with some horror. How much it's breaking through to the wider electorate I don't know, but I would not be at all surprised if there were a gender gap here.
You run this risk of looking either as a hard right wing republican or hugely naive in thinking this story should not be on UK news channels
Anecdote alert but I'm not sure how much people in the UK *do* care. I was at the pub with a group of lawyers tonight and most of them seemed vaguely aware, but not particularly interested (and certainly not to the extent of informing or changing their own views) in the ongoing hearings. The general view appeared to be that it was all an outcome of the way that the politics are carried out in the USA. The fairly major caveat is that it was an entirely male group, so I don't know how this is all going down amongst women here.
Well if that was with a group of lawyers imagine how much interest the rest of the country really had in it
Well indeed. I don't deny that this is getting a lot of interest in the USA. But here...I'm not so sure. I have to caveat that by saying that the majority of my close social circle are lawyers, but even going by Facebook there seems to be virtually no interest in this.
Trump orders fbi to re-open investigations into Kavanaugh complaint
Is that important news - not good on US politics
We arest Judge to the UK Supreme Court getting a mention on US news let alone leading it
SCOTUK doesn’t have the power to strike down legislation as unconstitutional though.
Which again is almost entirely US domestic legislation
Which Britonsular day if British news decided to only report that which happened in Britain.
I can assure you outside political junkies and legal eagles the average Brit could not give a toss who the next US SC Justice is, indeed even in America over half of Americans cannot name a single SC Justice
Agreed. Cannot believe the obsessive coverage this is getting. UK journalists are locked in some weird America-centric mindset, like we are living in 1945 and America constitutes 50% of global GDP, or even 2001, when America was unchallenged and its GDP was about 30% of the total, and its military and soft power unequalled.
This is 2018. A very different world. America's GDP is roughly the same as China's, averaging nominal and PPP. But China's share of world output is rising and America's is falling. China is already MORE important in terms of imports, exports, pollution, energy, Eurasia, whatever. And this trend will only grow. America is already second best in many ways. And will fall further behind.
Yet we give less journalistic attention to the Chinese premier than we do to some fairly obscure judicial nomination in Washington. It's weird and silly, like a kind of media comfort eating. We hark back to the time when English-speaking powers ruled the world. They don't.
That is probably true.
Even the election of President Xi did not lead the BBC News in the same way as the appointment of a judicial nomination in Washington.
It is at times like this you start to have some sympathy with Carrie Grace, the US remains important but it is not our own country and China, India etc are growing in importance too not to mention Brexit or no Brexit continental Europe will still be our largest trading partner
You run this risk of looking either as a hard right wing republican or hugely naive in thinking this story should not be on UK news channels
Anecdote alert but I'm not sure how much people in the UK *do* care. I was at the pub with a group of lawyers tonight and most of them seemed vaguely aware, but not particularly interested (and certainly not to the extent of informing or changing their own views) in the ongoing hearings. The general view appeared to be that it was all an outcome of the way that the politics are carried out in the USA. The fairly major caveat is that it was an entirely male group, so I don't know how this is all going down amongst women here.
I've been surprised how much the politically aware women I know are engaged with the story - I was in the pub the other night with one (a fellow councillor in our tiny little town) and she'd been glued to it. Mrs Capitano has also been following it on the radio with some horror. How much it's breaking through to the wider electorate I don't know, but I would not be at all surprised if there were a gender gap here.
Sexual assault is common enough that most women have experienced it, often more than once. It is part of the lived female experience. It is also why the default position for most women is to sympathise with and believe another woman who says she has undergone it.
Trump orders fbi to re-open investigations into Kavanaugh complaint
Is that important news - not good on US politics
We are going overboard on Kavanaugh in my view, at the end of the day it is mainly a matter of US domestic policy, who the latest SC Justice is will have next to no impact in the UK yet tonight it led the BBC News.
Imagine the appointment of the latest Judge to the UK Supreme Court getting a mention on US news let alone leading it
SCOTUK doesn’t have the power to strike down legislation as unconstitutional though.
Which again is almost entirely US domestic legislation
Which Britons are interested in. Most Brits will visit the US at least once and there's a socio-cultural affinity, respect and interest in what happens across the pond.
It'd be a sad and insular day if British news decided to only report that which happened in Britain.
I can assure you outside political junkies and legal eagles the average Brit could not give a toss who the next US SC Justice is, indeed even in America over half of Americans cannot name a single SC Justice
The point is when we don't even have the appointment of Justices to the UK SC leading our news we certainly should not be having the appointment of Justices to the US SC leading our news
You run this risk of looking either as a hard right wing republican or hugely naive in thinking this story should not be on UK news channels
I could not give a toss what you think I look like, the blatant fact of the matter is it is outrageous UK news should give top billing to issues surrounding the appointment of a US SC Justice while failing to do the same regarding the appointment of top UK Justices
You run this risk of looking either as a hard right wing republican or hugely naive in thinking this story should not be on UK news channels
Anecdote alert but I'm not sure how much people in the UK *do* care. I was at the pub with a group of lawyers tonight and most of them seemed vaguely aware, but not particularly interested (and certainly not to the extent of informing or changing their own views) in the ongoing hearings. The general view appeared to be that it was all an outcome of the way that the politics are carried out in the USA. The fairly major caveat is that it was an entirely male group, so I don't know how this is all going down amongst women here.
Well if that was with a group of lawyers imagine how much interest the rest of the country really had in it
Well indeed. I don't deny that this is getting a lot of interest in the USA. But here...I'm not so sure. I have to caveat that by saying that the majority of my close social circle are lawyers, but even going by Facebook there seems to be virtually no interest in this.
As in reality there should not be, this is not a big issue for most Britons which will affect their lives
You run this risk of looking either as a hard right wing republican or hugely naive in thinking this story should not be on UK news channels
Anecdote alert but I'm not sure how much people in the UK *do* care. I was at the pub with a group of lawyers tonight and most of them seemed vaguely aware, but not particularly interested (and certainly not to the extent of informing or changing their own views) in the ongoing hearings. The general view appeared to be that it was all an outcome of the way that the politics are carried out in the USA. The fairly major caveat is that it was an entirely male group, so I don't know how this is all going down amongst women here.
I've been surprised how much the politically aware women I know are engaged with the story - I was in the pub the other night with one (a fellow councillor in our tiny little town) and she'd been glued to it. Mrs Capitano has also been following it on the radio with some horror. How much it's breaking through to the wider electorate I don't know, but I would not be at all surprised if there were a gender gap here.
I think that's a possibility. My girlfriend, another lawyer (I have to apologise for the profusion of lawyers amongst my anecdotes but I am one myself and we all seem to move in the same circles) does have a certain amount of interest in this. However, she doesn't seem to be particularly flustered by this. What this means for women in this country more generally I'm not sure.
While I agree with SeanT that China in particular should be getting a lot more coverage, the reality is that very little news affects most people in the short term. Even big stuff like budgets tend only to shift your income by a couple of per cent either way. That's perhaps why it's treated as a branch of the entertainment industry - if it doesn't really matter, why not have fun with Boris?
In the long term, the choices made do have a major impact, of course, but most people feel they can't really assess long-term impacts. Gradually, though, people may come to feel that things are going wrong and it's time to try something else - hence Brexit, hence Trump.
You run this risk of looking either as a hard right wing republican or hugely naive in thinking this story should not be on UK news channels
Anecdote alert but I'm not sure how much people in the UK *do* care. I was at the pub with a group of lawyers tonight and most of them seemed vaguely aware, but not particularly interested (and certainly not to the extent of informing or changing their own views) in the ongoing hearings. The general view appeared to be that it was all an outcome of the way that the politics are carried out in the USA. The fairly major caveat is that it was an entirely male group, so I don't know how this is all going down amongst women here.
I think your last sentence is key and many posters still do not see it from a womens point of view
I don't give a tiny little quantum of a fuck whether some nominee for the US Supreme Court allegedly raped a mule/boy/alien/God.
How does it affect me? It doesn't. Moreover, it SHOULDN'T. I can see how some identity politics geeks might get some nicotine high from it, but for the rest of us, it is almost irrelevant...
Whether millennials even comprehend what is a sweet, sweet nicotine high these days is another matter...
Trump orders fbi to re-open investigations into Kavanaugh complaint
Is that important news - not good on US politics
We are going overboard on Kavanaugh in my view, at the end of the day it is mainly a matter of US domestic policy, who the latest SC Justice is will have next to no impact in the UK yet tonight it led the BBC News.
Imagine the appointment of the latest Judge to the UK Supreme Court getting a mention on US news let alone leading it
Surely you must see that is an insult to the accuser and the suitabilty to the role of Kavanaugh
Indeed I am astounded at the lack of any compasion in your matter of fact statement.
I watched the hearing over the last two days as the US descended into the sewer
It is tearing the US apart and of course it is receiving huge coverage in the UK
Why? It is completely irrelevant in most respects to the average Briton, indeed the allergy death from a Pret a Manger sandwich today probably had more relevance and a better claim to lead the news
You need compassion which seems absent as you obsess with the politics
Are you annoyed it took away from Boris
Compassion? There are far more worthy things of compassion than political gameplaying over matters which happened decades ago in order to block the appointment of a SC Justice.
Real people are involved here in great distress.
I believe in common compassion and you sound like the hardest of those republicans sadly that have created so much fury
'Real distress' they apparently managed to cope with for 30 years until they got the chance to block a GOP leaning Justice being appointed to the SC
Cope with via years of therapy. Which was attended before he was appointed and she wrote her letter before he was selected.
While I agree with SeanT that China in particular should be getting a lot more coverage, the reality is that very little news affects most people in the short term. Even big stuff like budgets tend only to shift your income by a couple of per cent either way. That's perhaps why it's treated as a branch of the entertainment industry - if it doesn't really matter, why not have fun with Boris?
In the long term, the choices made do have a major impact, of course, but most people feel they can't really assess long-term impacts. Gradually, though, people may come to feel that things are going wrong and it's time to try something else - hence Brexit, hence Trump.
Facebook security breach tonight 'Up to 50m accounts hacked'
This is how Labour rewards the man who recorded one of their biggest ever victories in 1997 by defeating Tory grandee and chairman of the 1922 committee Sir Marcus Fox in Shipley on a massive swing.
This is how Labour rewards the man who recorded one of their biggest ever victories in 1997 by defeating Tory grandee and chairman of the 1922 committee Sir Marcus Fox in Shipley on a massive swing.
Yeh, but that only happened because he was a Blairite, running capitalist lap dog, who consigned the poor to oblivion etc etc.
Victory will not be built on such pointless victories.
This is how Labour rewards the man who recorded one of their biggest ever victories in 1997 by defeating Tory grandee and chairman of the 1922 committee Sir Marcus Fox in Shipley on a massive swing.
Labour from 1997 no longer exists - that is why this new beast is behaving without any sense of shame towards those who have actually delivered in the past.
This is how Labour rewards the man who recorded one of their biggest ever victories in 1997 by defeating Tory grandee and chairman of the 1922 committee Sir Marcus Fox in Shipley on a massive swing.
Labour from 1997 no longer exists - that is why this new beast is behaving without any sense of shame towards those who have actually delivered in the past.
Labour 1997, to these '£3' members, was a total anathema.
Probably because they belonged to opposing parties at the time...
Over the last couple of weeks my lifestyle (in terms of waking hours) has completely changed. I'm doing a job that has very anti-social hours and I therefore sleep during the morning, work during afternoon and evening, and my leisure time is the early hours of morning.
I'm very struck by how much this has taken me out of the loop so far as current affairs goes. I haven't seen even a second of coverage of any of the party conferences so far or watched any news broadcasts in the past two weeks or even read very much news online. I will need to make some effort or I'll be joining the masses of the great-uninformed if I'm not careful...
Over the last couple of weeks my lifestyle (in terms of waking hours) has completely changed. I'm doing a job that has very anti-social hours and I therefore sleep during the morning, work during afternoon and evening, and my leisure time is the early hours of morning.
I'm very struck by how much this has taken me out of the loop so far as current affairs goes. I haven't seen even a second of coverage of any of the party conferences so far or watched any news broadcasts in the past two weeks or even read very much news online. I will need to make some effort or I'll be joining the masses of the great-uninformed if I'm not careful...
A lot of the best discussions here are actually during the night in the UK. Also, the site is really good during US elections, even though most people here aren't getting UK media. So I wouldn't worry too much about being out-of-the-loop - sometimes it helps you see the wood for the trees...
Chris Leslie, to my mind anyway, was always one of the most obvious (probably along with Woodcock) potential deselections. There is a lot of competition pre GE17 but from the immediate aftermath he went straight back on the attack on Corbyn, the next day I think, even Woodcock held back for a short while.
I haven't looked into it much but I'd be surprised if Leslie is much more personally responsible than most winning Labour candidates in '97. When you consider the Lib Dems had a pretty big surge as well the factors and the situation played a big part along with Tony Blair and Labour in general. The much talked up personal vote factor has been shown to be a very small part of a candidates vote in most polls and studies I've seen on it. Although they are generally more recent maybe it was different in '97?
If he doesn't want a Labour government under the current leadership then that is fine, if he doesn't like Corbyn or sees Corbyn as a potentially negative influence then that is fine. It is also okay for the local Labour party to take a different view and actively want and promote a Labour government. If Chris Leslie wants to run on an anti Labour ticket then that is his right.
What he doesn't automatically have a right to is to run on an anti Labour ticket using the Labour name.
Very good article. As you note towards the end, Brexit is an abandonment of Conservative principles without installing any new ones. Meanwhile Labour are putting together a package of measures that address real world problems.
You run this risk of looking either as a hard right wing republican or hugely naive in thinking this story should not be on UK news channels
Anecdote alert but I'm not sure how much people in the UK *do* care. I was at the pub with a group of lawyers tonight and most of them seemed vaguely aware, but not particularly interested (and certainly not to the extent of informing or changing their own views) in the ongoing hearings. The general view appeared to be that it was all an outcome of the way that the politics are carried out in the USA. The fairly major caveat is that it was an entirely male group, so I don't know how this is all going down amongst women here.
I've been surprised how much the politically aware women I know are engaged with the story - I was in the pub the other night with one (a fellow councillor in our tiny little town) and she'd been glued to it. Mrs Capitano has also been following it on the radio with some horror. How much it's breaking through to the wider electorate I don't know, but I would not be at all surprised if there were a gender gap here.
Sexual assault is common enough that most women have experienced it, often more than once. It is part of the lived female experience. It is also why the default position for most women is to sympathise with and believe another woman who says she has undergone it.
Basically we have all been there...
My partner rarely posts on PB but I guess she won't mind me relating her own anecdotal observations from University days (in the US in her case.)
She recalls three separate incidents similar to the one Dr Ford recounted. In each case she was sharp and athletic enough to 'wriggle free' and make her escape. She was however over 18 when the first occurred, whereas Dr Ford was 15.
My own experiences from the other side, so to speak, are nothing to be proud of. Girls were generally regarded as 'fair game'. I do recall however that we were very conscious of age, and anybody under the age of consent was strictly off limits, if only because of the severe penalties for sex with minors. Whoever molested Dr Fox was behaving well outside the norm.
Happily, the 'Me Too' movement seems to be shifting the norm in the right direction.
Chris Leslie, to my mind anyway, was always one of the most obvious (probably along with Woodcock) potential deselections. There is a lot of competition pre GE17 but from the immediate aftermath he went straight back on the attack on Corbyn, the next day I think, even Woodcock held back for a short while.
I haven't looked into it much but I'd be surprised if Leslie is much more personally responsible than most winning Labour candidates in '97. When you consider the Lib Dems had a pretty big surge as well the factors and the situation played a big part along with Tony Blair and Labour in general. The much talked up personal vote factor has been shown to be a very small part of a candidates vote in most polls and studies I've seen on it. Although they are generally more recent maybe it was different in '97?
If he doesn't want a Labour government under the current leadership then that is fine, if he doesn't like Corbyn or sees Corbyn as a potentially negative influence then that is fine. It is also okay for the local Labour party to take a different view and actively want and promote a Labour government. If Chris Leslie wants to run on an anti Labour ticket then that is his right.
What he doesn't automatically have a right to is to run on an anti Labour ticket using the Labour name.
He’s more loyal than Corbyn was to previous Labour leaders.
The Tories give no impression they have any solutions to the fundamental, deep-seated problems the UK faces. Corbyn will see them through the next election, but he will not be around forever. Labour at leadt understands that millions of people are living in a world of stagnating living standards, relentless cuts to public services and sky-high housing costs. Policies are being developed, messages honed. Once Corbyn and the other old men of the far left have left the stage that will bear fruit - unless the Tories start to think a lot more intelligently and creatively at the world.
Boris will undoubtedly be prancing around, looking for attention. Be interesting to see the extent to which other runners and riders will do the same.
As an aside, I've often said, and still think, that Boris is unfit for high office. But Robert Peston's 'interview' with him on the ITV News at Ten last night was nevertheless pathetic. Peston interrupted Boris even when he was answering questions, sometimes to such an extent it appeared as if he'd prefer to just give a rhetorical monologue. He then smirked at his own hilarity, as happened in his Raab 'interview', for which Boris rightly called him out.
Peston cannot, from those two examples, conduct interviews.
I eagerly await to see an interview between him and Corbyn, just to see if he manages a question harder than "Would you keep your allotment if you won?".
You run this risk of looking either as a hard right wing republican or hugely naive in thinking this story should not be on UK news channels
Anecdote alert but I'm not sure how much people in the UK *do* care. I was at the pub with a group of lawyers tonight and most of them seemed vaguely aware, but not particularly interested (and certainly not to the extent of informing or changing their own views) in the ongoing hearings. The general view appeared to be that it was all an outcome of the way that the politics are carried out in the USA. The fairly major caveat is that it was an entirely male group, so I don't know how this is all going down amongst women here.
I've been surprised how much the politically aware women I know are engaged with the story - I was in the pub the other night with one (a fellow councillor in our tiny little town) and she'd been glued to it. Mrs Capitano has also been following it on the radio with some horror. How much it's breaking through to the wider electorate I don't know, but I would not be at all surprised if there were a gender gap here.
Sexual assault is common enough that most women have experienced it, often more than once. It is part of the lived female experience. It is also why the default position for most women is to sympathise with and believe another woman who says she has undergone it.
Basically we have all been there...
My partner rarely posts on PB but I guess she won't mind me relating her own anecdotal observations from University days (in the US in her case.)
She recalls three separate incidents similar to the one Dr Ford recounted. In each case she was sharp and athletic enough to 'wriggle free' and make her escape. She was however over 18 when the first occurred, whereas Dr Ford was 15.
My own experiences from the other side, so to speak, are nothing to be proud of. Girls were generally regarded as 'fair game'. I do recall however that we were very conscious of age, and anybody under the age of consent was strictly off limits, if only because of the severe penalties for sex with minors. Whoever molested Dr Fox was behaving well outside the norm.
Happily, the 'Me Too' movement seems to be shifting the norm in the right direction.
If Kavanagh had said; yes I did a few stupid and on reflection frightening, things to girls when I was a teenager, and as an adult I’m sorry and I apologise, that would, surely, have been the end of it.
Chris Leslie, to my mind anyway, was always one of the most obvious (probably along with Woodcock) potential deselections. There is a lot of competition pre GE17 but from the immediate aftermath he went straight back on the attack on Corbyn, the next day I think, even Woodcock held back for a short while.
I haven't looked into it much but I'd be surprised if Leslie is much more personally responsible than most winning Labour candidates in '97. When you consider the Lib Dems had a pretty big surge as well the factors and the situation played a big part along with Tony Blair and Labour in general. The much talked up personal vote factor has been shown to be a very small part of a candidates vote in most polls and studies I've seen on it. Although they are generally more recent maybe it was different in '97?
If he doesn't want a Labour government under the current leadership then that is fine, if he doesn't like Corbyn or sees Corbyn as a potentially negative influence then that is fine. It is also okay for the local Labour party to take a different view and actively want and promote a Labour government. If Chris Leslie wants to run on an anti Labour ticket then that is his right.
What he doesn't automatically have a right to is to run on an anti Labour ticket using the Labour name.
Odd really because Corbyn ran on an anti-Labour ticket throughout the Blair/Brown era using the Labour name as cover for the SWP. Still, principles, eh.
Over the last couple of weeks my lifestyle (in terms of waking hours) has completely changed. I'm doing a job that has very anti-social hours and I therefore sleep during the morning, work during afternoon and evening, and my leisure time is the early hours of morning.
I'm very struck by how much this has taken me out of the loop so far as current affairs goes. I haven't seen even a second of coverage of any of the party conferences so far or watched any news broadcasts in the past two weeks or even read very much news online. I will need to make some effort or I'll be joining the masses of the great-uninformed if I'm not careful...
You’re already a Lib Dem so it wouldn’t be much of a change...
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
Which is more relevant to the average Brit, that or Kavanaugh? No contest.
Yet Kavanaugh still leads the BBC online news
Kavanaugh is surely the more interesting story for most people, though - all about power and sex and the dilemma of who to believe. Facebook - yeah, I'm a FB user, so I suppose I should be mildly concerned, but it's not clear if I'm affected or what effect it might have, so meh.
I've been surprised how much the politically aware women I know are engaged with the story - I was in the pub the other night with one (a fellow councillor in our tiny little town) and she'd been glued to it. Mrs Capitano has also been following it on the radio with some horror. How much it's breaking through to the wider electorate I don't know, but I would not be at all surprised if there were a gender gap here.
Sexual assault is common enough that most women have experienced it, often more than once. It is part of the lived female experience. It is also why the default position for most women is to sympathise with and believe another woman who says she has undergone it.
Basically we have all been there...
My partner rarely posts on PB but I guess she won't mind me relating her own anecdotal observations from University days (in the US in her case.)
She recalls three separate incidents similar to the one Dr Ford recounted. In each case she was sharp and athletic enough to 'wriggle free' and make her escape. She was however over 18 when the first occurred, whereas Dr Ford was 15.
My own experiences from the other side, so to speak, are nothing to be proud of. Girls were generally regarded as 'fair game'. I do recall however that we were very conscious of age, and anybody under the age of consent was strictly off limits, if only because of the severe penalties for sex with minors. Whoever molested Dr Fox was behaving well outside the norm.
Happily, the 'Me Too' movement seems to be shifting the norm in the right direction.
If Kavanagh had said; yes I did a few stupid and on reflection frightening, things to girls when I was a teenager, and as an adult I’m sorry and I apologise, that would, surely, have been the end of it.
Not a chance.
The problem is that with no opportunity for forgiveness you create no incentive to cooperate
(Ironically this is why dictators now fight to the death - and lots of other people’s deaths as well. The International Criminal Court blew up the old model of giving them $100m and sending them to Switzerland. It might have been grubby and unsatisfactory but it saved a lot of human misery)
I've been surprised how much the politically aware women I know are engaged with the story - I was in the pub the other night with one (a fellow councillor in our tiny little town) and she'd been glued to it. Mrs Capitano has also been following it on the radio with some horror. How much it's breaking through to the wider electorate I don't know, but I would not be at all surprised if there were a gender gap here.
Sexual assault is common enough that most women have experienced it, often more than once. It is part of the lived female experience. It is also why the default position for most women is to sympathise with and believe another woman who says she has undergone it.
Basically we have all been there...
My partner rarely posts on PB but I guess she won't mind me relating her own anecdotal observations from University days (in the US in her case.)
She recalls three separate incidents similar to the one Dr Ford recounted. In each case she was sharp and athletic enough to 'wriggle free' and make her escape. She was however over 18 when the first occurred, whereas Dr Ford was 15.
My own experiences from the other side, so to speak, are nothing to be proud of. Girls were generally regarded as 'fair game'. I do recall however that we were very conscious of age, and anybody under the age of consent was strictly off limits, if only because of the severe penalties for sex with minors. Whoever molested Dr Fox was behaving well outside the norm.
Happily, the 'Me Too' movement seems to be shifting the norm in the right direction.
If Kavanagh had said; yes I did a few stupid and on reflection frightening, things to girls when I was a teenager, and as an adult I’m sorry and I apologise, that would, surely, have been the end of it.
Not a chance.
The problem is that with no opportunity for forgiveness you create no incentive to cooperate
(Ironically this is why dictators now fight to the death - and lots of other people’s deaths as well. The International Criminal Court blew up the old model of giving them $100m and sending them to Switzerland. It might have been grubby and unsatisfactory but it saved a lot of human misery)
The dictator line reminds me a bit of the Black Prince. His ruthless reputation meant towns usually surrendered pronto, but if they didn't they fought to the utmost because they knew their town would become an abattoir if they lost.
It's actually very interesting to consider the alien balance of mercy and brutality that governed medieval behaviour (can recommend Sean McGlynn's By Sword and Fire for more on this. I wanted to get a historical grounding on the matter for fiction-writing purposes, to avoid cartoonish villainy or inexplicable mercy, and it was very useful).
If Kavanagh had said; yes I did a few stupid and on reflection frightening, things to girls when I was a teenager, and as an adult I’m sorry and I apologise, that would, surely, have been the end of it.
It would have been the "end of it". But of the nomination and not the story.
Such an admission would have lent credence to the more lurid stories and the whole circus would have escalated further and the GOP attempting to railroad Kavanaugh through would have played very badly with white suburban women - a key Trump demographic for the mid-terms - it's all politics.
Very good article. As you note towards the end, Brexit is an abandonment of Conservative principles without installing any new ones. Meanwhile Labour are putting together a package of measures that address real world problems.
Ah, now I wouldn't (and didn't ) put it quite like that! Brexit can easily be reconciled with plenty of Conservative principles. But it is a shock to the system and presiding over it is intrinsically risky, since gratitude and contempt are rarely felt in equal measure.
If Kavanagh had said; yes I did a few stupid and on reflection frightening, things to girls when I was a teenager, and as an adult I’m sorry and I apologise, that would, surely, have been the end of it.
It would have been the "end of it". But of the nomination and not the story.
Such an admission would have lent credence to the more lurid stories and the whole circus would have escalated further and the GOP attempting to railroad Kavanaugh through would have played very badly with white suburban women - a key Trump demographic for the mid-terms - it's all politics.
Have to think the GOP attempting to railroad Kavanaugh through has already played very badly with white suburban women. Could now lose Trump the Republican majority in the Senate.
Very good article. As you note towards the end, Brexit is an abandonment of Conservative principles without installing any new ones. Meanwhile Labour are putting together a package of measures that address real world problems.
Ah, now I wouldn't (and didn't ) put it quite like that! Brexit can easily be reconciled with plenty of Conservative principles. But it is a shock to the system and presiding over it is intrinsically risky, since gratitude and contempt are rarely felt in equal measure.
Unfortunately not the principal principle of safeguarding the economy above all else.
Lol @ "gratitude". For the ultras no Brexit will ever be enough.
Very good article. As you note towards the end, Brexit is an abandonment of Conservative principles without installing any new ones. Meanwhile Labour are putting together a package of measures that address real world problems.
Ah, now I wouldn't (and didn't ) put it quite like that! Brexit can easily be reconciled with plenty of Conservative principles. But it is a shock to the system and presiding over it is intrinsically risky, since gratitude and contempt are rarely felt in equal measure.
I had run “The radical nature of Brexit is a challenge to our traditional USP of, well, Conservatism” through google translate from politics-speak into English. I appreciate that as one active in politics you might prefer to leave it in the original language.
A remark about crocodiles and feeding springs to mind.
That said I find it very difficult to get worked up about the travails of a man who owes his career to his unquestioning loyalty to the Dear Leader and his ability to press a green button on a photocopier.
Chris Leslie, to my mind anyway, was always one of the most obvious (probably along with Woodcock) potential deselections. There is a lot of competition pre GE17 but from the immediate aftermath he went straight back on the attack on Corbyn, the next day I think, even Woodcock held back for a short while.
I haven't looked into it much but I'd be surprised if Leslie is much more personally responsible than most winning Labour candidates in '97. When you consider the Lib Dems had a pretty big surge as well the factors and the situation played a big part along with Tony Blair and Labour in general. The much talked up personal vote factor has been shown to be a very small part of a candidates vote in most polls and studies I've seen on it. Although they are generally more recent maybe it was different in '97?
If he doesn't want a Labour government under the current leadership then that is fine, if he doesn't like Corbyn or sees Corbyn as a potentially negative influence then that is fine. It is also okay for the local Labour party to take a different view and actively want and promote a Labour government. If Chris Leslie wants to run on an anti Labour ticket then that is his right.
What he doesn't automatically have a right to is to run on an anti Labour ticket using the Labour name.
He’s more loyal than Corbyn was to previous Labour leaders.
No he isn't but quite frankly it wouldn't matter if he was. Labour members in Corbyn's constituency liked his stances which opposed the leadership at times such as pro civil liberties, anti Iraq war etc. which is why when there was talk of deselecting him they backed off as they wouldn't have been able to get the numbers. Labour members in Chris Leslie's constituency do not like Chris Leslie's stance, the idea they should be doomed to have him as a Labour candidate for all time (until he retires) because he was parachuted in 2 decades ago because... well I'm not even sure what the good reason is supposed to be.... because Corbyn rebelled so no Labour MP should be deselected no matter how much the members might want it? the idea is nuts.
If the people in Chris Leslie's constituency want him to continue as an MP then they can do just that. Firstly the Labour members are free to vote how they want, just as Claudia Webbe was (apparently anyway) the favoured Corbyn candidate for Lewisham East but another candidate won these members will vote how they want. If Labour members want him to continue he will not be deselected.
Then, if there was a chance he could win I'm sure he'd stand Labour could not bar him from standing again, Labour will put up a candidate who wants a Labour government but he can stand and run on whatever platform he wants and if the voters of his constituency want to they can vote for him instead.
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
It does seem to be becoming geninely more common as a condition, nut allergy in particular like this poor girl on the flight. Fox jr has one, since developing mouth and airway swelling in response to peanuts in a takeaway curry. He previously had had a skin reaction to peanut butter. It was quite scary, even for healthcare professionals trained in managing such things.
There are obvious issues of food labelling out of this case, but a lot of places and products merely slap "may contain traces of nuts" on almost everything, and indiscriminately. It seems such labelling is aimed more at lawyers than customers.
There also seemed to be problems with the EpiPens (used twice during the attempted resus of this teenager) as to whether the dose was actually delivered by the device. On top of Mylars price gouging with the device, I have to say that I am not happy with the company:
Epinephrine (adrenaline) is out of patent, and personally I would prefer pre-loaded syringes like we use on arrest trolleys to Epipens. Syringes are not difficult to use and have virtually no failure rate. A cheaper, better rival should be distributed.
You run this risk of looking either as a hard right wing republican or hugely naive in thinking this story should not be on UK news channels
Anecdote alert but I'm not sure how much people in the UK *do* care. I was at the pub with a group of lawyers tonight and most of them seemed vaguely aware, but not particularly interested (and certainly not to the extent of informing or changing their own views) in the ongoing hearings. The general view appeared to be that it was all an outcome of the way that the politics are carried out in the USA. The fairly major caveat is that it was an entirely male group, so I don't know how this is all going down amongst women here.
I've been surprised how much the politically aware women I know are engaged with the story - I was in the pub the other night with one (a fellow councillor in our tiny little town) and she'd been glued to it. Mrs Capitano has also been following it on the radio with some horror. How much it's breaking through to the wider electorate I don't know, but I would not be at all surprised if there were a gender gap here.
Sexual assault is common enough that most women have experienced it, often more than once. It is part of the lived female experience. It is also why the default position for most women is to sympathise with and believe another woman who says she has undergone it.
Basically we have all been there...
I can't find an obvious piece of research, but I'm sure I've read on here that female jurors are more likely to acquit in rape cases than male jurors.
EDIT: It would interesting to know if this is any different to other cases.
If Kavanagh had said; yes I did a few stupid and on reflection frightening, things to girls when I was a teenager, and as an adult I’m sorry and I apologise, that would, surely, have been the end of it.
It would have been the "end of it". But of the nomination and not the story.
Such an admission would have lent credence to the more lurid stories and the whole circus would have escalated further and the GOP attempting to railroad Kavanaugh through would have played very badly with white suburban women - a key Trump demographic for the mid-terms - it's all politics.
Have to think the GOP attempting to railroad Kavanaugh through has already played very badly with white suburban women. Could now lose Trump the Republican majority in the Senate.
Likely so. But there's the old adage of not making a bad situation substantially worse.
Very good article. As you note towards the end, Brexit is an abandonment of Conservative principles without installing any new ones. Meanwhile Labour are putting together a package of measures that address real world problems.
Ah, now I wouldn't (and didn't ) put it quite like that! Brexit can easily be reconciled with plenty of Conservative principles. But it is a shock to the system and presiding over it is intrinsically risky, since gratitude and contempt are rarely felt in equal measure.
Unfortunately not the principal principle of safeguarding the economy above all else.
Lol @ "gratitude". For the ultras no Brexit will ever be enough.
Conservatives arent just about the economy. They have a much more holistic worldview
Chris Leslie, to my mind anyway, was always one of the most obvious (probably along with Woodcock) potential deselections. There is a lot of competition pre GE17 but from the immediate aftermath he went straight back on the attack on Corbyn, the next day I think, even Woodcock held back for a short while.
I haven't looked into it much but I'd be surprised if Leslie is much more personally responsible than most winning Labour candidates in '97. When you consider the Lib Dems had a pretty big surge as well the factors and the situation played a big part along with Tony Blair and Labour in general. The much talked up personal vote factor has been shown to be a very small part of a candidates vote in most polls and studies I've seen on it. Although they are generally more recent maybe it was different in '97?
If he doesn't want a Labour government under the current leadership then that is fine, if he doesn't like Corbyn or sees Corbyn as a potentially negative influence then that is fine. It is also okay for the local Labour party to take a different view and actively want and promote a Labour government. If Chris Leslie wants to run on an anti Labour ticket then that is his right.
What he doesn't automatically have a right to is to run on an anti Labour ticket using the Labour name.
Odd really because Corbyn ran on an anti-Labour ticket throughout the Blair/Brown era using the Labour name as cover for the SWP. Still, principles, eh.
Anti new Labour...
Using New Labour name as cover for Labour.
FTFY.
Although that isn't really the accusation at all. I'd argue Chris Leslie and John Woodcock are quite open about being more pro New Labour than pro Labour and Corbyn was quite open about being more pro Labour than Pro New Labour. Also if Corbyn's local labour members wanted him deselected for standing for Labour values rather than New Labour values they could have tried, some did start an attempt but backed off because it wasn't going to happen.
Turns out the local Labour members liked a pro Labour stance in both Corbyn's constituency and Chris Leslie's.
Corbyn also didn't have an automatic right to stand on an anti New Labour ticket. Although he never went as far as the likes of Woodcock and Leslie or many of his other opponents.
In his testimony Kavanaugh seemed to display just about every trait you wouldn’t want in a judge. It was extraordinary.
We've got used to the Hollywood outcome, where the (invariably white) privileged, sexually predatory, moneyed, dumb High School jock gets his comeuppance.
In reality, they go on to become President and Supreme Court judges.
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
It does seem to be becoming geninely more common as a condition, nut allergy in particular like this poor girl on the flight. Fox jr has one, since developing mouth and airway swelling in response to peanuts in a takeaway curry. He previously had had a skin reaction to peanut butter. It was quite scary, even for healthcare professionals trained in managing such things.
There are obvious issues of food labelling out of this case, but a lot of places and products merely slap "may contain traces of nuts" on almost everything, and indiscriminately. It seems such labelling is aimed more at lawyers than customers.
There also seemed to be problems with the EpiPens (used twice during the attempted resus of this teenager) as to whether the dose was actually delivered by the device. On top of Mylars price gouging with the device, I have to say that I am not happy with the company:
Epinephrine (adrenaline) is out of patent, and personally I would prefer pre-loaded syringes like we use on arrest trolleys to Epipens. Syringes are not difficult to use and have virtually no failure rate. A cheaper, better rival should be distributed.
Certainly when I was professionally concerned with these things Epi-pens were regarded as very expensive and less than wholly satisfactory because of their short shelf life and their price. However, there didn’t appear to be any alternative. While I agree about syringes being better, it appears that either the general public don’t like them..... fear them....... or health professionals think that to be the case.
You run this risk of looking either as a hard right wing republican or hugely naive in thinking this story should not be on UK news channels
Anecdote alert but I'm not sure how much people in the UK *do* care. I was at
I've been
Sexual assault is common enough that most women have experienced it, often more than once. It is part of the lived female experience. It is also why the default position for most women is to sympathise with and believe another woman who says she has undergone it.
Basically we have all been there...
My partner rarely posts on PB but I guess she won't mind me relating her own anecdotal observations from University days (in the US in her case.)
She recalls three separate incidents similar to the one Dr Ford recounted. In each case she was sharp and athletic enough to 'wriggle free' and make her escape. She was however over 18 when the first occurred, whereas Dr Ford was 15.
My own experiences from the other side, so to speak, are nothing to be proud of. Girls were generally regarded as 'fair game'. I do recall however that we were very conscious of age, and anybody under the age of consent was strictly off limits, if only because of the severe penalties for sex with minors. Whoever molested Dr Fox was behaving well outside the norm.
Happily, the 'Me Too' movement seems to be shifting the norm in the right direction.
As a fellow of similar age to these protagonists, most of my female contemporaries come up with similar stories, varying from unwanted persistent advances, to frank rape. None were reported, and they were variously affected, from shrugging it off to permanently affecting their lives.
My male peers and myself struggle to remember similar incidents, though perhaps some of our horseplay and banter doesn't look very pleasant in the cold light of day. I suspect that only a small minority of males behaved in a sexually aggressive manner, but that nearly all females encountered them at some point. Frankly, the reason that people like Saville, or Rolf Harris, or any number of others got away with what they did was the tolerance of less extreme behaviour, and they just took it a step further.
My Mother in Law has early dementia, so often repeats stories from the past. One of her more frequent ones is of fighting off an attacker after she was followed home from school in the 1940's. There is not much new under the sun.
Although that isn't really the accusation at all. I'd argue Chris Leslie and John Woodcock are quite open about being more pro New Labour than pro Labour and Corbyn was quite open about being more pro Labour than Pro New Labour. Also if Corbyn's local labour members wanted him deselected for standing for Labour values rather than New Labour values they could have tried, some did start an attempt but backed off because it wasn't going to happen.
Turns out the local Labour members liked a pro Labour stance in both Corbyn's constituency and Chris Leslie's.
Corbyn also didn't have an automatic right to stand on an anti New Labour ticket. Although he never went as far as the likes of Woodcock and Leslie or many of his other opponents.
Wasn't he one of the group who told Tony Blair in May 1997 that he wouldn't vote for him in the Commons as he considered that most of his policies were Tory in nature?
And I'm pretty sure he was one of the rebels on the welfare bill in June of the same year.
Ironic, given that he now supports cuts to welfare to pay for free university education.
Chris Leslie, to my mind anyway, was always one of the most obvious (probably along with Woodcock) potential deselections. There is a lot of competition pre GE17 but from the immediate aftermath he went straight back on the attack on Corbyn, the next day I think, even Woodcock held back for a short while.
I haven't looked into it much but I'd be surprised if Leslie is much more personally responsible than most winning Labour candidates in '97. When you consider the Lib Dems had a pretty big surge as well the factors and the situation played a big part along with Tony Blair and Labour in general. The much talked up personal vote factor has been shown to be a very small part of a candidates vote in most polls and studies I've seen on it. Although they are generally more recent maybe it was different in '97?
If he doesn't want a Labour government under the current leadership then that is fine, if he doesn't like Corbyn or sees Corbyn as a potentially negative influence then that is fine. It is also okay for the local Labour party to take a different view and actively want and promote a Labour government. If Chris Leslie wants to run on an anti Labour ticket then that is his right.
What he doesn't automatically have a right to is to run on an anti Labour ticket using the Labour name.
Odd really because Corbyn ran on an anti-Labour ticket throughout the Blair/Brown era using the Labour name as cover for the SWP. Still, principles, eh.
Anti new Labour...
Using New Labour name as cover for Labour.
FTFY.
Although that isn't really the accusation at all. I'd argue Chris Leslie and John Woodcock are quite open about being more pro New Labour than pro Labour and Corbyn was quite open about being more pro Labour than Pro New Labour. Also if Corbyn's local labour members wanted him deselected for standing for Labour values rather than New Labour values they could have tried, some did start an attempt but backed off because it wasn't going to happen.
Turns out the local Labour members liked a pro Labour stance in both Corbyn's constituency and Chris Leslie's.
Corbyn also didn't have an automatic right to stand on an anti New Labour ticket. Although he never went as far as the likes of Woodcock and Leslie or many of his other opponents.
Labour, New Labour, Old Labour - it’s all the same thing. All wings of the same party.
What’s not Labour is the SWP, Millitant and Communists we have now. They’re the ones who should go.
In his testimony Kavanaugh seemed to display just about every trait you wouldn’t want in a judge. It was extraordinary.
We've got used to the Hollywood outcome, where the (invariably white) privileged, sexually predatory, moneyed, dumb High School jock gets his comeuppance.
In reality, they go on to become President and Supreme Court judges.
Or Hollywood producers, or TV presenters etc etc.
It really is difficult to believe that there is no better candidate out there for SCOTUS. There seems to be nearly no scrutiny of his ability as a judge. It is perhaps not something that the drafters of the Constitution considered, that a sexually aggressive egomaniac would be elected POTUS and then desire to pack the SCOTUS to shore up his own power.
In his testimony Kavanaugh seemed to display just about every trait you wouldn’t want in a judge. It was extraordinary.
We've got used to the Hollywood outcome, where the (invariably white) privileged, sexually predatory, moneyed, dumb High School jock gets his comeuppance.
In reality, they go on to become President and Supreme Court judges.
Or Hollywood producers, or TV presenters etc etc.
It really is difficult to believe that there is no better candidate out there for SCOTUS. There seems to be nearly no scrutiny of his ability as a judge. It is perhaps not something that the drafters of the Constitution considered, that a sexually aggressive egomaniac would be elected POTUS and then desire to pack the SCOTUS to shore up his own power.
Really? Surely the record of Thomas Jefferson on his own makes that an unlikely hypothesis?
In his testimony Kavanaugh seemed to display just about every trait you wouldn’t want in a judge. It was extraordinary.
We've got used to the Hollywood outcome, where the (invariably white) privileged, sexually predatory, moneyed, dumb High School jock gets his comeuppance.
In reality, they go on to become President and Supreme Court judges.
Or Hollywood producers, or TV presenters etc etc.
It really is difficult to believe that there is no better candidate out there for SCOTUS. There seems to be nearly no scrutiny of his ability as a judge. It is perhaps not something that the drafters of the Constitution considered, that a sexually aggressive egomaniac would be elected POTUS and then desire to pack the SCOTUS to shore up his own power.
Really? Surely the record of Thomas Jefferson on his own makes that an unlikely hypothesis?
Did Jefferson try to pack the court to prevent his own impeachment?
In his testimony Kavanaugh seemed to display just about every trait you wouldn’t want in a judge. It was extraordinary.
We've got used to the Hollywood outcome, where the (invariably white) privileged, sexually predatory, moneyed, dumb High School jock gets his comeuppance.
In reality, they go on to become President and Supreme Court judges.
Or Hollywood producers, or TV presenters etc etc.
It really is difficult to believe that there is no better candidate out there for SCOTUS. There seems to be nearly no scrutiny of his ability as a judge. It is perhaps not something that the drafters of the Constitution considered, that a sexually aggressive egomaniac would be elected POTUS and then desire to pack the SCOTUS to shore up his own power.
Actually I suspect they would have seen it as ordinary course of business...
In his testimony Kavanaugh seemed to display just about every trait you wouldn’t want in a judge. It was extraordinary.
We've got used to the Hollywood outcome, where the (invariably white) privileged, sexually predatory, moneyed, dumb High School jock gets his comeuppance.
In reality, they go on to become President and Supreme Court judges.
Or Hollywood producers, or TV presenters etc etc.
It really is difficult to believe that there is no better candidate out there for SCOTUS. There seems to be nearly no scrutiny of his ability as a judge. It is perhaps not something that the drafters of the Constitution considered, that a sexually aggressive egomaniac would be elected POTUS and then desire to pack the SCOTUS to shore up his own power.
Really? Surely the record of Thomas Jefferson on his own makes that an unlikely hypothesis?
Did Jefferson try to pack the court to prevent his own impeachment?
No, he tried to pack it with useless yes-men who would nod through his laws:
Wasn't he one of the group who told Tony Blair in May 1997 that he wouldn't vote for him in the Commons as he considered that most of his policies were Tory in nature?
And I'm pretty sure he was one of the rebels on the welfare bill in June of the same year.
Ironic, given that he now supports cuts to welfare to pay for free university education.
I hadn't heard that he was?
I think I have read that he voted in favour of queen's speeches for Labour governments. Also I have heard Stephen Bush say that during his most rebellious period he opposed the Labour government on 2 out of every 10 votes. So if he did say it he lied (or at least didn't follow through)
TBH him rebelling against a welfare bill isn't a good example because Labour members may well have cheered that on.
If Corbyn was proposing and trying to carry out something like the Iraq war then Labour members would be cheering on those opposing it.
It isn't people opposing the leader that Labour members don't like. Otherwise Corbyn would be a terrible choice in the first place as leader. It is people opposing their values, which ultimately are what make up Labour values. So if you rebel 10,000 times, that might be great if they are all pro Labour value rebellions.
I don't know if this rebelling against the leader is a serious thought or just a dig but it really isn't true. If Corbyn proposed privatising the NHS tomorrow then the vast majority of Labour members would be delighted with their MP opposing it and it wouldn't lead any of them closer to deselection. Not only would they want them to rebel and vote against it (if it was legislation Corbyn was passing) but they would actually be more likely to be deselected for being loyal to the leader in that case. Labour members care about their MPs standing for Labour values. If Chris Leslie was left wing and opposing a leader who thought like Chris Leslie his rebellions may be quite popular.
Chris Leslie, to my mind anyway, was always one of the most obvious (probably along with Woodcock) potential deselections. There is a lot of competition pre GE17 but from the immediate aftermath he went straight back on the attack on Corbyn, the next day I think, even Woodcock held back for a short while.
I haven't looked into it much but I'd be surprised if Leslie is much more personally responsible than most winning Labour candidates in '97. When you consider the Lib Dems had a pretty big surge as well the factors and the situation played a big part along with Tony Blair and Labour in general. The much talked up personal vote factor has been shown to be a very small part of a candidates vote in most polls and studies I've seen on it. Although they are generally more recent maybe it was different in '97?
If he doesn't want a Labour government under the current leadership then that is fine, if he doesn't like Corbyn or sees Corbyn as a potentially negative influence then that is fine. It is also okay for the local Labour party to take a different view and actively want and promote a Labour government. If Chris Leslie wants to run on an anti Labour ticket then that is his right.
What he doesn't automatically have a right to is to run on an anti Labour ticket using the Labour name.
Odd really because Corbyn ran on an anti-Labour ticket throughout the Blair/Brown era using the Labour name as cover for the SWP. Still, principles, eh.
Anti new Labour...
Using New Labour name as cover for Labour.
FTFY.
Although that isn't really the accusation at all. I'd argue Chris Leslie and John Woodcock are quite open about being more pro New Labour than pro Labour and Corbyn was quite open about being more pro Labour than Pro New Labour. Also if Corbyn's local labour members wanted him deselected for standing for Labour values rather than New Labour values they could have tried, some did start an attempt but backed off because it wasn't going to happen.
Turns out the local Labour members liked a pro Labour stance in both Corbyn's constituency and Chris Leslie's.
Corbyn also didn't have an automatic right to stand on an anti New Labour ticket. Although he never went as far as the likes of Woodcock and Leslie or many of his other opponents.
Labour, New Labour, Old Labour - it’s all the same thing. All wings of the same party.
What’s not Labour is the SWP, Millitant and Communists we have now. They’re the ones who should go.
What is not Labour is preferring a Tory government, that is why they are the ones who are going.
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
Conditions which historically meant that the sufferer generally died are now treatable and survivable, meaning the genes get passed on.
I think I have read that he voted in favour of queen's speeches for Labour governments. Also I have heard Stephen Bush say that during his most rebellious period he opposed the Labour government on 2 out of every 10 votes. So if he did say it he lied (or at least didn't follow through)
TBH him rebelling against a welfare bill isn't a good example because Labour members may well have cheered that on.
He must have supported them on Queen's Speeches or he would have had the whip withdrawn. He didn't have it withdrawn, therefore he must have voted for them. My suspicion even at the time was Skinner and Benn (who were the main figures in that claim) were grandstanding. After all, with a majority of 179 there was nothing they could do if Blair laughed at them (as Iraq, where they were unquestionably right, proved so graphically). But it was certainly said.
As for welfare, can I again point out that Corbyn now supports the Tory line on cutting it, and yet that does not seem to have dented his popularity? Doesn't that negate your point somewhat?
In his testimony Kavanaugh seemed to display just about every trait you wouldn’t want in a judge. It was extraordinary.
We've got used to the Hollywood outcome, where the (invariably white) privileged, sexually predatory, moneyed, dumb High School jock gets his comeuppance.
In reality, they go on to become President and Supreme Court judges.
Or Hollywood producers, or TV presenters etc etc.
It really is difficult to believe that there is no better candidate out there for SCOTUS. There seems to be nearly no scrutiny of his ability as a judge. It is perhaps not something that the drafters of the Constitution considered, that a sexually aggressive egomaniac would be elected POTUS and then desire to pack the SCOTUS to shore up his own power.
Actually I suspect they would have seen it as ordinary course of business...
Which is why Congress gets to vet the candidate. The problem is that in a country fairly evenly split, one party controls all the organs of state, and is trying to consolidate that hegemony. For Democracy to function, there does need to be some consideration and acceptance of minority views, as in time the pendulum will shift.
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
Conditions which historically meant that the sufferer generally died are now treatable and survivable, meaning the genes get passed on.
That is not the reason for the rise in severe allergies though, as it has happened in not much more than a generation.
I think I have read that he voted in favour of queen's speeches for Labour governments. Also I have heard Stephen Bush say that during his most rebellious period he opposed the Labour government on 2 out of every 10 votes. So if he did say it he lied (or at least didn't follow through)
TBH him rebelling against a welfare bill isn't a good example because Labour members may well have cheered that on.
He must have supported them on Queen's Speeches or he would have had the whip withdrawn. He didn't have it withdrawn, therefore he must have voted for them. My suspicion even at the time was Skinner and Benn (who were the main figures in that claim) were grandstanding. After all, with a majority of 179 there was nothing they could do if Blair laughed at them (as Iraq, where they were unquestionably right, proved so graphically). But it was certainly said.
As for welfare, can I again point out that Corbyn now supports the Tory line on cutting it, and yet that does not seem to have dented his popularity? Doesn't that negate your point somewhat?
As I understand it once in government with the super majority they didn't need them so just mostly ignored them and left them to their own thing.
It would negate my point if the people (who may be) being deselected were being so for rebelling against the leadership on that issue or other Labour value issues, they aren't.
Chris Leslie, to my mind anyway, was always one of the most obvious (probably along with Woodcock) potential deselections. There is a lot of competition pre GE17 but from the immediate aftermath he went straight back on the attack on Corbyn, the next day I think, even Woodcock held back for a short while.
I haven't looked into it much but I'd be surprised if Leslie is much more personally responsible than most winning played a big part along with Tony Blair and Labour in general. The much talked up personal vote factor has been shown to be a very small part of a candidates vote in most polls and studies I've seen on it. Although they are generally more recent maybe it was different in '97?
If he doesn't want a Labour government under the current leadership then that is fine, if he doesn't like Corbyn or sees Corbyn as a potentially negative influence then that is fine. It is also okay for the local Labour party to take a different view and actively want and promote a Labour government. If Chris Leslie wants to run on an anti Labour ticket then that is his right.
What he doesn't automatically have a right to is to run on an anti Labour ticket using the Labour name.
Odd really because Corbyn ran on an anti-Labour ticket throughout the Blair/Brown era using the Labour name as cover for the SWP. Still, principles, eh.
Anti new Labour...
Using New Labour name as cover for Labour.
FTFY.
Although that isn't really the accusation at all. I'd argue Chris Leslie and John Woodcock are quite open about being more pro New Labour than pro Labour and Corbyn was quite open about being more pro Labour than Pro New Labour. Also if Corbyn's local labour members wanted him deselected for standing for Labour values rather than New Labour values they could have tried, some did start an attempt but backed off because it wasn't going to happen.
Turns out the local Labour members liked a pro Labour stance in both Corbyn's constituency and Chris Leslie's.
Corbyn also didn't have an automatic right to stand on an anti New Labour ticket. Although he never went as far as the likes of Woodcock and Leslie or many of his other opponents.
Labour, New Labour, Old Labour - it’s all the same thing. All wings of the same party.
What’s not Labour is the SWP, Millitant and Communists we have now. They’re the ones who should go.
What is not Labour is preferring a Tory government, that is why they are the ones who are going.
Labour used to stand for something, not just against something. You guys are so obsessed with the Tories you’ve lost your way and turned on your own.
Chris Leslie, to my mind anyway, was always one of the most obvious (probably along with Woodcock) potential deselections. There is a lot of competition pre GE17 but from the immediate aftermath he went straight back on the attack on Corbyn, the next day I think, even Woodcock held back for a short while.
I haven't looked into it much but I'd be surprised if Leslie is much more personally responsible than most winning played a big part along with Tony Blair and Labour in general. The much talked ups been shown to be a very small part of a candidates vote in most polls and studies I've seen on it. Although they are generally more recent maybe it was different in '97?
If he doesn't want a Labour government under the current leadership then that is fine, if he doesn't like Corbyn or sees Corbyn as a potentially negative influence then that is fine. It is also okay for the local Labour party to take a different view and actively want and promote a Labour government. If Chris Leslie wants to run on an anti Labour ticket then that is his right.
What he doesn't automatically have a right to is to run on an anti Labour ticket using the Labour name.
Odd really because Corbyn ran on an anti-Labour ticket throughout the Blair/Brown era using the Labour name as cover for the SWP. Still, principles, eh.
Anti new Labour...
Using New Labour name as cover for Labour.
FTFY.
Although that isn't really the accusation at all. I'd argue Chris Leslie and John Woodcock are quite open about being more pro New Labour than pro Labour and Corbyn was quite open about being more pro Labour than Pro New Labour. Also if Corbyn's local labour members wanted him deselected for standing for Labour values rather than New Labour values they could have tried, some did start an attempt but backed off because it wasn't going to happen.
Turns out the local Labour members liked a pro Labour stance in both Corbyn's constituency and Chris Leslie's.
Corbyn also didn't have an automatic right to stand on an anti New Labour ticket. Although he never went as far as the likes of Woodcock and Leslie or many of his other opponents.
Labour, New Labour, Old Labour - it’s all the same thing. All wings of the same party.
What’s not Labour is the SWP, Millitant and Communists we have now. They’re the ones who should go.
What is not Labour is preferring a Tory government, that is why they are the ones who are going.
Labour used to stand for something, not just against something. You guys are so obsessed with the Tories you’ve lost your way and turned on your own.
If we didn’t need a decent opposition it would be funny.
I think I have read that he voted in favour of queen's speeches for Labour governments. Also I have heard Stephen Bush say that during his most rebellious period he opposed the Labour government on 2 out of every 10 votes. So if he did say it he lied (or at least didn't follow through)
TBH him rebelling against a welfare bill isn't a good example because Labour members may well have cheered that on.
He must have supported them on Queen's Speeches or he would have had the whip withdrawn. He didn't have it withdrawn, therefore he must have voted for them. My suspicion even at the time was Skinner and Benn (who were the main figures in that claim) were grandstanding. After all, with a majority of 179 there was nothing they could do if Blair laughed at them (as Iraq, where they were unquestionably right, proved so graphically). But it was certainly said.
As for welfare, can I again point out that Corbyn now supports the Tory line on cutting it, and yet that does not seem to have dented his popularity? Doesn't that negate your point somewhat?
As I understand it once in government with the super majority they didn't need them so just mostly ignored them and left them to their own thing.
It would negate my point if the people (who may be) being deselected were being so for rebelling against the leadership on that issue or other Labour value issues, they aren't.
Clause 1.2 of the Party's Rule Book:
'Its purpose is to organise and maintain in Parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.'
Whether you agree with them or not, the fact is that is what Leslie believes he is trying to do and what he believes Corbyn is ultimately incapable of delivering in an effectual way. He is therefore I think in his own eyes fighting for the ultimate Labour principle.
As it happens, he is right Corbyn can't do it - he has proven many times that however good a campaigner he is, he is lazy and disorganised and couldn't lead a snail race - but wrong to believe his wing would necessarily do better. The problem is that after the Blair years of spin and sterility, Labour is intellectually exhausted and Corbyn's more or less phantom success is masking the fact that the MPs still have no idea what to do about that.
I do believe there is mileage for a party offering competence, and it is possible say, Yvette Cooper might offer that. But the abject record of Brown means it wouldn't be an easy sell for her.
I have to go. Hope you find that of interest and have a good morning.
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
Conditions which historically meant that the sufferer generally died are now treatable and survivable, meaning the genes get passed on.
That is not the reason for the rise in severe allergies though, as it has happened in not much more than a generation.
My amateur hypothesis is mainly, rise in cleaning products and cleaner environments meaning you build up less resistance/immunity when you are young. Also lower infant mortality and better medical care meaning less naturally healthy/resistant people survive and then also pass their genes on. Both combined could lead to an exponential increase like we have seen. Although I may have read some random articles on it that is more random guess work than based on anything solid.
In his testimony Kavanaugh seemed to display just about every trait you wouldn’t want in a judge. It was extraordinary.
We've got used to the Hollywood outcome, where the (invariably white) privileged, sexually predatory, moneyed, dumb High School jock gets his comeuppance.
In reality, they go on to become President and Supreme Court judges.
Or Hollywood producers, or TV presenters etc etc.
It really is difficult to believe that there is no better candidate out there for SCOTUS. There seems to be nearly no scrutiny of his ability as a judge. It is perhaps not something that the drafters of the Constitution considered, that a sexually aggressive egomaniac would be elected POTUS and then desire to pack the SCOTUS to shore up his own power.
Actually I suspect they would have seen it as ordinary course of business...
Which is why Congress gets to vet the candidate. The problem is that in a country fairly evenly split, one party controls all the organs of state, and is trying to consolidate that hegemony. For Democracy to function, there does need to be some consideration and acceptance of minority views, as in time the pendulum will shift.
Of course. But the Democrats have not tried to vet Kavanaugh. They’ve tried to eliminate him from consideration. They had no intention of looking at this Inan objective manner.
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
Twenty years ago I was concerned with advising teachers and school nurses on the use of Epi-pens. They were rare; maybe one child in a school, but often none. Now they appear to be much more common. What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
Conditions which historically meant that the sufferer generally died are now treatable and survivable, meaning the genes get passed on.
That is not the reason for the rise in severe allergies though, as it has happened in not much more than a generation.
In his testimony Kavanaugh seemed to display just about every trait you wouldn’t want in a judge. It was extraordinary.
We've got used to the Hollywood outcome, where the (invariably white) privileged, sexually predatory, moneyed, dumb High School jock gets his comeuppance.
In reality, they go on to become President and Supreme Court judges.
Or Hollywood producers, or TV presenters etc etc.
It really is difficult to believe that there is no better candidate out there for SCOTUS. There seems to be nearly no scrutiny of his ability as a judge. It is perhaps not something that the drafters of the Constitution considered, that a sexually aggressive egomaniac would be elected POTUS and then desire to pack the SCOTUS to shore up his own power.
Actually I suspect they would have seen it as ordinary course of business...
Which is why Congress gets to vet the candidate. The problem is that in a country fairly evenly split, one party controls all the organs of state, and is trying to consolidate that hegemony. For Democracy to function, there does need to be some consideration and acceptance of minority views, as in time the pendulum will shift.
Of course. But the Democrats have not tried to vet Kavanaugh. They’ve tried to eliminate him from consideration. They had no intention of looking at this Inan objective manner.
Though neither have the Reublicans looked at him in an objective manner.
Odd really because Corbyn ran on an anti-Labour ticket throughout the Blair/Brown era using the Labour name as cover for the SWP. Still, principles, eh.
Anti new Labour...
Using New Labour name as cover for Labour.
FTFY.
Although that isn't really the accusation at all. I'd argue Chris Leslie and John Woodcock are quite open about being more pro New Labour than pro Labour and Corbyn was quite open about being more pro Labour than Pro New Labour. Also if Corbyn's local labour members wanted him deselected for standing for Labour values rather than New Labour values they could have tried, some did start an attempt but backed off because it wasn't going to happen.
Turns out the local Labour members liked a pro Labour stance in both Corbyn's constituency and Chris Leslie's.
Corbyn also didn't have an automatic right to stand on an anti New Labour ticket. Although he never went as far as the likes of Woodcock and Leslie or many of his other opponents.
Labour, New Labour, Old Labour - it’s all the same thing. All wings of the same party.
What’s not Labour is the SWP, Millitant and Communists we have now. They’re the ones who should go.
What is not Labour is preferring a Tory government, that is why they are the ones who are going.
How many times did Corbyn vote with the Tories during Blair’s premiership?
The fact is that Corbyn, like anyone who gets a taste of power, thinks that what he did as a rebel was principled and fine, but what someone does when they oppose him is disgraceful, unprincipled and to be punished. He and his supporters are being hypocrites on this, like all politicians. Fair enough - but they need to come down from that moral high ground.
Comments
But it is late and time to swtch off the light
I wish you and all posters a pleasant nights rest
Good night folks
Beyond that the story is just another partisan battle in the US
Even the election of President Xi did not lead the BBC News in the same way as the appointment of a judicial nomination in Washington.
It is at times like this you start to have some sympathy with Carrie Grace, the US remains important but it is not our own country and China, India etc are growing in importance too not to mention Brexit or no Brexit continental Europe will still be our largest trading partner
Basically we have all been there...
Put up or shut up and go and edit the Telegraph.
In the long term, the choices made do have a major impact, of course, but most people feel they can't really assess long-term impacts. Gradually, though, people may come to feel that things are going wrong and it's time to try something else - hence Brexit, hence Trump.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45686890
Which is more relevant to the average Brit, that or Kavanaugh? No contest.
Yet Kavanaugh still leads the BBC online news
Goodnight
https://twitter.com/skwawkbox/status/1045815269229285376
Victory will not be built on such pointless victories.
Oh wait...
Probably because they belonged to opposing parties at the time...
(that's the ones who were actually born).
I'm very struck by how much this has taken me out of the loop so far as current affairs goes. I haven't seen even a second of coverage of any of the party conferences so far or watched any news broadcasts in the past two weeks or even read very much news online. I will need to make some effort or I'll be joining the masses of the great-uninformed if I'm not careful...
The former Labour foreign secretary and ex-Tory prime minister say Britons voted on a "fantasy" Brexit proposal in 2016."
https://news.sky.com/story/david-miliband-and-sir-john-major-join-forces-to-call-for-second-brexit-referndum-11511790
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45667480
EpiPen shortages in the UK mean that users are being told one ones can be used past their expiry date.
I haven't looked into it much but I'd be surprised if Leslie is much more personally responsible than most winning Labour candidates in '97. When you consider the Lib Dems had a pretty big surge as well the factors and the situation played a big part along with Tony Blair and Labour in general. The much talked up personal vote factor has been shown to be a very small part of a candidates vote in most polls and studies I've seen on it. Although they are generally more recent maybe it was different in '97?
If he doesn't want a Labour government under the current leadership then that is fine, if he doesn't like Corbyn or sees Corbyn as a potentially negative influence then that is fine. It is also okay for the local Labour party to take a different view and actively want and promote a Labour government. If Chris Leslie wants to run on an anti Labour ticket then that is his right.
What he doesn't automatically have a right to is to run on an anti Labour ticket using the Labour name.
She recalls three separate incidents similar to the one Dr Ford recounted. In each case she was sharp and athletic enough to 'wriggle free' and make her escape. She was however over 18 when the first occurred, whereas Dr Ford was 15.
My own experiences from the other side, so to speak, are nothing to be proud of. Girls were generally regarded as 'fair game'. I do recall however that we were very conscious of age, and anybody under the age of consent was strictly off limits, if only because of the severe penalties for sex with minors. Whoever molested Dr Fox was behaving well outside the norm.
Happily, the 'Me Too' movement seems to be shifting the norm in the right direction.
Boris will undoubtedly be prancing around, looking for attention. Be interesting to see the extent to which other runners and riders will do the same.
As an aside, I've often said, and still think, that Boris is unfit for high office. But Robert Peston's 'interview' with him on the ITV News at Ten last night was nevertheless pathetic. Peston interrupted Boris even when he was answering questions, sometimes to such an extent it appeared as if he'd prefer to just give a rhetorical monologue. He then smirked at his own hilarity, as happened in his Raab 'interview', for which Boris rightly called him out.
Peston cannot, from those two examples, conduct interviews.
I eagerly await to see an interview between him and Corbyn, just to see if he manages a question harder than "Would you keep your allotment if you won?".
😝
What is happening to us as a species? Is this phenomenon world-wide, or just in Britain, Western Europe, or wider?
The problem is that with no opportunity for forgiveness you create no incentive to cooperate
(Ironically this is why dictators now fight to the death - and lots of other people’s deaths as well. The International Criminal Court blew up the old model of giving them $100m and sending them to Switzerland. It might have been grubby and unsatisfactory but it saved a lot of human misery)
It's actually very interesting to consider the alien balance of mercy and brutality that governed medieval behaviour (can recommend Sean McGlynn's By Sword and Fire for more on this. I wanted to get a historical grounding on the matter for fiction-writing purposes, to avoid cartoonish villainy or inexplicable mercy, and it was very useful).
Such an admission would have lent credence to the more lurid stories and the whole circus would have escalated further and the GOP attempting to railroad Kavanaugh through would have played very badly with white suburban women - a key Trump demographic for the mid-terms - it's all politics.
https://twitter.com/MrTCHarris/status/1045796560423006209
Lol @ "gratitude". For the ultras no Brexit will ever be enough.
That said I find it very difficult to get worked up about the travails of a man who owes his career to his unquestioning loyalty to the Dear Leader and his ability to press a green button on a photocopier.
If the people in Chris Leslie's constituency want him to continue as an MP then they can do just that. Firstly the Labour members are free to vote how they want, just as Claudia Webbe was (apparently anyway) the favoured Corbyn candidate for Lewisham East but another candidate won these members will vote how they want. If Labour members want him to continue he will not be deselected.
Then, if there was a chance he could win I'm sure he'd stand Labour could not bar him from standing again, Labour will put up a candidate who wants a Labour government but he can stand and run on whatever platform he wants and if the voters of his constituency want to they can vote for him instead.
There are obvious issues of food labelling out of this case, but a lot of places and products merely slap "may contain traces of nuts" on almost everything, and indiscriminately. It seems such labelling is aimed more at lawyers than customers.
There also seemed to be problems with the EpiPens (used twice during the attempted resus of this teenager) as to whether the dose was actually delivered by the device. On top of Mylars price gouging with the device, I have to say that I am not happy with the company:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/fda-slams-epipen-maker-for-doing-nothing-while-hundreds-failed-people-died/
Epinephrine (adrenaline) is out of patent, and personally I would prefer pre-loaded syringes like we use on arrest trolleys to Epipens. Syringes are not difficult to use and have virtually no failure rate. A cheaper, better rival should be distributed.
EDIT: It would interesting to know if this is any different to other cases.
Using New Labour name as cover for Labour.
FTFY.
Although that isn't really the accusation at all. I'd argue Chris Leslie and John Woodcock are quite open about being more pro New Labour than pro Labour and Corbyn was quite open about being more pro Labour than Pro New Labour. Also if Corbyn's local labour members wanted him deselected for standing for Labour values rather than New Labour values they could have tried, some did start an attempt but backed off because it wasn't going to happen.
Turns out the local Labour members liked a pro Labour stance in both Corbyn's constituency and Chris Leslie's.
Corbyn also didn't have an automatic right to stand on an anti New Labour ticket. Although he never went as far as the likes of Woodcock and Leslie or many of his other opponents.
In reality, they go on to become President and Supreme Court judges.
My male peers and myself struggle to remember similar incidents, though perhaps some of our horseplay and banter doesn't look very pleasant in the cold light of day. I suspect that only a small minority of males behaved in a sexually aggressive manner, but that nearly all females encountered them at some point. Frankly, the reason that people like Saville, or Rolf Harris, or any number of others got away with what they did was the tolerance of less extreme behaviour, and they just took it a step further.
My Mother in Law has early dementia, so often repeats stories from the past. One of her more frequent ones is of fighting off an attacker after she was followed home from school in the 1940's. There is not much new under the sun.
And I'm pretty sure he was one of the rebels on the welfare bill in June of the same year.
Ironic, given that he now supports cuts to welfare to pay for free university education.
What’s not Labour is the SWP, Millitant and Communists we have now. They’re the ones who should go.
It really is difficult to believe that there is no better candidate out there for SCOTUS. There seems to be nearly no scrutiny of his ability as a judge. It is perhaps not something that the drafters of the Constitution considered, that a sexually aggressive egomaniac would be elected POTUS and then desire to pack the SCOTUS to shore up his own power.
http://www.clayjenkinson.com/thomas-jefferson-and-the-supreme-court/
But I was thinking more of the 'sexually aggressive egomaniac' part of your comment.
I think I have read that he voted in favour of queen's speeches for Labour governments. Also I have heard Stephen Bush say that during his most rebellious period he opposed the Labour government on 2 out of every 10 votes. So if he did say it he lied (or at least didn't follow through)
TBH him rebelling against a welfare bill isn't a good example because Labour members may well have cheered that on.
If Corbyn was proposing and trying to carry out something like the Iraq war then Labour members would be cheering on those opposing it.
It isn't people opposing the leader that Labour members don't like. Otherwise Corbyn would be a terrible choice in the first place as leader. It is people opposing their values, which ultimately are what make up Labour values. So if you rebel 10,000 times, that might be great if they are all pro Labour value rebellions.
I don't know if this rebelling against the leader is a serious thought or just a dig but it really isn't true. If Corbyn proposed privatising the NHS tomorrow then the vast majority of Labour members would be delighted with their MP opposing it and it wouldn't lead any of them closer to deselection. Not only would they want them to rebel and vote against it (if it was legislation Corbyn was passing) but they would actually be more likely to be deselected for being loyal to the leader in that case. Labour members care about their MPs standing for Labour values. If Chris Leslie was left wing and opposing a leader who thought like Chris Leslie his rebellions may be quite popular.
As for welfare, can I again point out that Corbyn now supports the Tory line on cutting it, and yet that does not seem to have dented his popularity? Doesn't that negate your point somewhat?
It would negate my point if the people (who may be) being deselected were being so for rebelling against the leadership on that issue or other Labour value issues, they aren't.
There are Twitter rumours he's only been brought back because every time he's fired Verstappen wins a race.
'Its purpose is to organise and maintain in Parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.'
Whether you agree with them or not, the fact is that is what Leslie believes he is trying to do and what he believes Corbyn is ultimately incapable of delivering in an effectual way. He is therefore I think in his own eyes fighting for the ultimate Labour principle.
As it happens, he is right Corbyn can't do it - he has proven many times that however good a campaigner he is, he is lazy and disorganised and couldn't lead a snail race - but wrong to believe his wing would necessarily do better. The problem is that after the Blair years of spin and sterility, Labour is intellectually exhausted and Corbyn's more or less phantom success is masking the fact that the MPs still have no idea what to do about that.
I do believe there is mileage for a party offering competence, and it is possible say, Yvette Cooper might offer that. But the abject record of Brown means it wouldn't be an easy sell for her.
I have to go. Hope you find that of interest and have a good morning.
https://twitter.com/msmithsonpb/status/1045930755434655745?s=21
In other news:
https://twitter.com/Andrew_ComRes/status/1045791526926848000?s=20
The fact is that Corbyn, like anyone who gets a taste of power, thinks that what he did as a rebel was principled and fine, but what someone does when they oppose him is disgraceful, unprincipled and to be punished. He and his supporters are being hypocrites on this, like all politicians. Fair enough - but they need to come down from that moral high ground.