politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The LAB leadership race: Burnham appears in commanding posi
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The LAB leadership race: Burnham appears in commanding position in the betting & MP declarations
Not long now before the formal process for electing Labour’s next leader kicks into place. To appear on the ballot a contender has to have nominations from 35 fellow MPs and, as the chart shows, just Shadow Health Secretary, Andy Burnham, has managed to get more than that number to declare for him.
Comments
-
First?0
-
Well there is a good start to the day. On topic I think it is the indented paragraph in bold that is the most important. Once the 35 has been achieved the votes of the MPs are of very little value and are unlikely to swing that many members.
But it does seem to me that Burnham and Cooper are the ones who will be most acceptable to the membership. Kendall seems to keen to tell them things that they do not want to hear. Whether they are true or not is probably irrelevant.0 -
Granted the race proper hasn't started yet, but not heard much about Kendall the past week. She will need to grab attention to ensure she has not already peaked.0
-
I think Kendall may do well with the Labour members and supporters, but her support with MP's is looking a bit thin. Mary Creagh looks out of it.DavidL said:Well there is a good start to the day. On topic I think it is the indented paragraph in bold that is the most important. Once the 35 has been achieved the votes of the MPs are of very little value and are unlikely to swing that many members.
But it does seem to me that Burnham and Cooper are the ones who will be most acceptable to the membership. Kendall seems to keen to tell them things that they do not want to hear. Whether they are true or not is probably irrelevant.
Burnham and Kendall will do best in the hustings. Cooper is a very dull speaker and never seems to make the connection to the audience. She would be Ed revisited.
If Kendall does not make it, I would hope to see her in a senior role outside of health and social care. It would be interesting to see her stretch herself.0 -
Can this be turned into a dodgy bar chart - can't win here stuff.
If Burnham is the answer, then Labour is well and truly....0 -
Burnham..oh yes please.0
-
With her husband electorally knee-capped, I'm amazed Yvette isn't the favourite now as he was always the biggest problem with her leadership prospects.0
-
I hope it's not Burnham.
But at least if it is, we can be sure he won't follow Ed's habit of calling for inquiries into everything. Especially the NHS.
With the caveat that he will if it involves Liverpool ...
He's scum.0 -
As Gerry Adams said of the IRA, he hasn't gone away you know.Scrapheap_as_was said:With her husband electorally knee-capped, I'm amazed Yvette isn't the favourite now as he was always the biggest problem with her leadership prospects.
0 -
I do agree that Kendall will do well in the hustings as she is personable (unlike Cooper) and articulate (unlike Burnham). But we have already seen the "Blair Witch project" response to what she is saying. The Unions, the left wing intelligentsia and what is left of the Milliband grouping will just not like it.foxinsoxuk said:
I think Kendall may do well with the Labour members and supporters, but her support with MP's is looking a bit thin. Mary Creagh looks out of it.DavidL said:Well there is a good start to the day. On topic I think it is the indented paragraph in bold that is the most important. Once the 35 has been achieved the votes of the MPs are of very little value and are unlikely to swing that many members.
But it does seem to me that Burnham and Cooper are the ones who will be most acceptable to the membership. Kendall seems to keen to tell them things that they do not want to hear. Whether they are true or not is probably irrelevant.
Burnham and Kendall will do best in the hustings. Cooper is a very dull speaker and never seems to make the connection to the audience. She would be Ed revisited.
If Kendall does not make it, I would hope to see her in a senior role outside of health and social care. It would be interesting to see her stretch herself.
Henry told us a while ago that Cooper was the most organised and I agree with Scrapheap that her biggest problem has always been her husband. If he follows through on his apparent intention to seek a job outwith politics I think that will give her a considerable boost. Burnham is just the Tory dream ticket. Labour really should think about that.0 -
The problems with the EU resemble many of the problems with FIFA.
It was mentioned this morning that it could take into 2016 for the FIFA Congress to be reconvened - is this to allow time for the shredding machines to work overtime and hard drives to be smashed?0 -
Anyway, this was the most important MP backing that Andy Burnham has received so far, and it was yesterday
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXXj6-VkZt00 -
I asked some local members who they were supporting last night. No clear picture, and some strong anti views against Liz and Yvette. I'm still an undecided voter.0
-
Didn't a cabinet minister outright say that they hoped burnham won? That struck me as a bit too blunt - some in labour might be worrying who the Tories think would be best for them, but blind so unsubtle might lead them to think the opposite, that the Tories don't want burnham to win so are trying to damn him with their pretend endorsement. Maybe I'm overthinking it.0
-
Both Burnham and Cooper will not provide any new answers to the problems that EdM had defined but failed to provide solutions - that is their major weakness.0
-
I'm posting this because I want see the steam rising from @LIAMT's ears:
‘They abolished the Human Rights Act” sounds like the first sentence of an Aldous Huxley novel. The Conservatives actually campaigned on a manifesto pledge to get rid of human rights and people voted for it. As electoral choices go, it’s not far off choosing to be ruled by a dry, whispering voice taunting you from an antique mirror.
What if David Cameron is an evil genius?
0 -
Out of interest, is there anyone you really wish had stood but did not?SandyRentool said:I asked some local members who they were supporting last night. No clear picture, and some strong anti views against Liz and Yvette. I'm still an undecided voter.
0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Good news about Blatter's departure. I do wonder if Qatar's now open to doubt.0 -
Yup, Jeremy Hunt, see the video I posted at 8:13 amkle4 said:Didn't a cabinet minister outright say that they hoped burnham won? That struck me as a bit too blunt - some in labour might be worrying who the Tories think would be best for them, but blind so unsubtle might lead them to think the opposite, that the Tories don't want burnham to win so are trying to damn him with their pretend endorsement. Maybe I'm overthinking it.
0 -
0
-
A good illustration of the problems Labour would have under Burnham:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x11yk0h_burnham-and-hunt-clash-over-hospital-staffing-levels_news
And another good reason for him not to be leader (and I don't mean the affectation with the scarf) http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/01/burnhams-bill-for-hollow-hunt-legal-threat/
Cameron is said to be a lucky general. Can he really be that lucky?0 -
I don't think that's fair. The EU has many, many problems: but I don't think that any of the EU bureaucrats have syphoned tens or hundreds of millions of Euros into their personal bank accounts. Nor do I think there is systematic institutional bribery of representatives from member states.Financier said:The problems with the EU resemble many of the problems with FIFA.
It was mentioned this morning that it could take into 2016 for the FIFA Congress to be reconvened - is this to allow time for the shredding machines to work overtime and hard drives to be smashed?
If you want, I can think of comparisons that do work (secretive, excessive powers in the hands of unelected officials, not exactly democratically answerable, etc.), but I think the FIFA scandal - by the time it is fully played out - is going to be the largest corruption scandal ever.0 -
Ah yes, posted while my post was in progress. Idk, it almost seems against the 'rules' to be so direct if he meant it.TheScreamingEagles said:
Yup, Jeremy Hunt, see the video I posted at 8:13 amkle4 said:Didn't a cabinet minister outright say that they hoped burnham won? That struck me as a bit too blunt - some in labour might be worrying who the Tories think would be best for them, but blind so unsubtle might lead them to think the opposite, that the Tories don't want burnham to win so are trying to damn him with their pretend endorsement. Maybe I'm overthinking it.
0 -
FIFA = UKIP surely?rcs1000 said:
I don't think that's fair. The EU has many, many problems: but I don't think that any of the EU bureaucrats have syphoned tens or hundreds of millions of Euros into their personal bank accounts. Nor do I think there is systematic institutional bribery of representatives from member states.Financier said:The problems with the EU resemble many of the problems with FIFA.
It was mentioned this morning that it could take into 2016 for the FIFA Congress to be reconvened - is this to allow time for the shredding machines to work overtime and hard drives to be smashed?
If you want, I can think of comparisons that do work (secretive, excessive powers in the hands of unelected officials, not exactly democratically answerable, etc.), but I think the FIFA scandal - by the time it is fully played out - is going to be the largest corruption scandal ever.
I mean, how many UKIP MEPs ended up doing porridge? Will it be fewer than the number of FIFA executives in the next few years?0 -
Off-topic:
It's been interesting to hear the experts talk about the Alton Towers incident yesterday. Apparently it should have been 'impossible' for it to happen, and the 'automated systems' and computers should have prevented it.
As an (ex-)engineer, those sort of phrases are the biggest warning signs you can have.0 -
Chuka, details man...
@ChukaUmunna: I will be leading the Queen's Speech debate on devolution and growth in the House of Commons straight after PMQs today from around 12.30.
Ummm
@ChukaUmunna: I'll be leading the Queen's Speech debate on devolution and growth in the House of Commons after tributes to Charles Kennedy from around 1pm0 -
Mr. 1000, on the other hand, FIFA isn't trying to give prisoners the vote*, doesn't take billions [tens of billions?] from us each year, and doesn't want ever more political power over the UK.
*Yes, yes, it's one weird European Court or other. For people who aren't anoraks, it falls under the umbrella of interference from Brussels.0 -
If Sajid Javid wants to be in the race to succeed Cameron he'd better get his skates on. After a very good election campaign Hunt is looking more and more like the next Tory leader to me.TheScreamingEagles said:Anyway, this was the most important MP backing that Andy Burnham has received so far, and it was yesterday
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXXj6-VkZt00 -
I would both are ultimately concerned only or principally with enhancing their own organisation and bureaucracy as an end in itself, but I think you have it right. FIFA seems designed for little else than being a money funnel, seriously what do they need all that money for? With over a billion in reserves their costs for development etc cannot be that high.rcs1000 said:
I don't think that's fair. The EU has many, many problems: but I don't think that any of the EU bureaucrats have syphoned tens or hundreds of millions of Euros into their personal bank accounts. Nor do I think there is systematic institutional bribery of representatives from member states.Financier said:The problems with the EU resemble many of the problems with FIFA.
It was mentioned this morning that it could take into 2016 for the FIFA Congress to be reconvened - is this to allow time for the shredding machines to work overtime and hard drives to be smashed?
If you want, I can think of comparisons that do work (secretive, excessive powers in the hands of unelected officials, not exactly democratically answerable, etc.), but I think the FIFA scandal - by the time it is fully played out - is going to be the largest corruption scandal ever.0 -
Mr. Jessop, you mean like making a ship unsinkable?0
-
It's like Operation Fortitude, confuse (and hype up) your enemy.kle4 said:
Ah yes, posted while my post was in progress. Idk, it almost seems against the 'rules' to be so direct if he meant it.TheScreamingEagles said:
Yup, Jeremy Hunt, see the video I posted at 8:13 amkle4 said:Didn't a cabinet minister outright say that they hoped burnham won? That struck me as a bit too blunt - some in labour might be worrying who the Tories think would be best for them, but blind so unsubtle might lead them to think the opposite, that the Tories don't want burnham to win so are trying to damn him with their pretend endorsement. Maybe I'm overthinking it.
The Tories do have form for this.
Throughout, stealth was key to the Conservatives’ success. Not only did they know the public polls were wrong, but Tory insiders now admit they deliberately encouraged Labour to build up the myth that Mr Miliband and his union allies had the superior street campaigning machine.
http://bit.ly/1Ac8eu60 -
Mr. L, Hunt's too soft.0
-
Click bait. I mean I know posts are down after the election but you can surely be more subtle than that?TheScreamingEagles said:
FIFA = UKIP surely?rcs1000 said:
I don't think that's fair. The EU has many, many problems: but I don't think that any of the EU bureaucrats have syphoned tens or hundreds of millions of Euros into their personal bank accounts. Nor do I think there is systematic institutional bribery of representatives from member states.Financier said:The problems with the EU resemble many of the problems with FIFA.
It was mentioned this morning that it could take into 2016 for the FIFA Congress to be reconvened - is this to allow time for the shredding machines to work overtime and hard drives to be smashed?
If you want, I can think of comparisons that do work (secretive, excessive powers in the hands of unelected officials, not exactly democratically answerable, etc.), but I think the FIFA scandal - by the time it is fully played out - is going to be the largest corruption scandal ever.
I mean, how many UKIP MEPs ended up doing porridge? Will it be fewer than the number of FIFA executives in the next few years?0 -
Ed's timebomb is the reformed way of electing the leader. It is not yet clear how many will sign up as Labour supporters for £3 in order to vote. We also have no idea of where these supporters will be on the spectrumDavidL said:
I do agree that Kendall will do well in the hustings as she is personable (unlike Cooper) and articulate (unlike Burnham). But we have already seen the "Blair Witch project" response to what she is saying. The Unions, the left wing intelligentsia and what is left of the Milliband grouping will just not like it.foxinsoxuk said:
I think Kendall may do well with the Labour members and supporters, but her support with MP's is looking a bit thin. Mary Creagh looks out of it.DavidL said:Well there is a good start to the day. On topic I think it is the indented paragraph in bold that is the most important. Once the 35 has been achieved the votes of the MPs are of very little value and are unlikely to swing that many members.
But it does seem to me that Burnham and Cooper are the ones who will be most acceptable to the membership. Kendall seems to keen to tell them things that they do not want to hear. Whether they are true or not is probably irrelevant.
Burnham and Kendall will do best in the hustings. Cooper is a very dull speaker and never seems to make the connection to the audience. She would be Ed revisited.
If Kendall does not make it, I would hope to see her in a senior role outside of health and social care. It would be interesting to see her stretch herself.
Henry told us a while ago that Cooper was the most organised and I agree with Scrapheap that her biggest problem has always been her husband. If he follows through on his apparent intention to seek a job outwith politics I think that will give her a considerable boost. Burnham is just the Tory dream ticket. Labour really should think about that.0 -
You can still get 33/1 on Hunt being the next Tory leader and 66/1 on him being next PM.DavidL said:
If Sajid Javid wants to be in the race to succeed Cameron he'd better get his skates on. After a very good election campaign Hunt is looking more and more like the next Tory leader to me.TheScreamingEagles said:Anyway, this was the most important MP backing that Andy Burnham has received so far, and it was yesterday
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXXj6-VkZt00 -
ConHome: Sajid Javid leaps to second place and Osborne to third in our next Tory leader survey
Boris’s score falls by six points and May drops to fourth place.
http://bit.ly/1EUBBN30 -
You'll be delighted to know that I'm writing a thread on AV for the weekend.DavidL said:
Click bait. I mean I know posts are down after the election but you can surely be more subtle than that?TheScreamingEagles said:
FIFA = UKIP surely?rcs1000 said:
I don't think that's fair. The EU has many, many problems: but I don't think that any of the EU bureaucrats have syphoned tens or hundreds of millions of Euros into their personal bank accounts. Nor do I think there is systematic institutional bribery of representatives from member states.Financier said:The problems with the EU resemble many of the problems with FIFA.
It was mentioned this morning that it could take into 2016 for the FIFA Congress to be reconvened - is this to allow time for the shredding machines to work overtime and hard drives to be smashed?
If you want, I can think of comparisons that do work (secretive, excessive powers in the hands of unelected officials, not exactly democratically answerable, etc.), but I think the FIFA scandal - by the time it is fully played out - is going to be the largest corruption scandal ever.
I mean, how many UKIP MEPs ended up doing porridge? Will it be fewer than the number of FIFA executives in the next few years?
If that doesn't get traffic up, then I don't know what will.0 -
I am surprised that you argue about the extent of corruption - there should not be any corruption in any such organisation.rcs1000 said:
I don't think that's fair. The EU has many, many problems: but I don't think that any of the EU bureaucrats have syphoned tens or hundreds of millions of Euros into their personal bank accounts. Nor do I think there is systematic institutional bribery of representatives from member states.Financier said:The problems with the EU resemble many of the problems with FIFA.
It was mentioned this morning that it could take into 2016 for the FIFA Congress to be reconvened - is this to allow time for the shredding machines to work overtime and hard drives to be smashed?
If you want, I can think of comparisons that do work (secretive, excessive powers in the hands of unelected officials, not exactly democratically answerable, etc.), but I think the FIFA scandal - by the time it is fully played out - is going to be the largest corruption scandal ever.
However the EU accounts have not be signed off for many a year and part of that is due to corrupt claims by individual countries that are not disallowed by EU officials. So how do you know that bribery is not happening?0 -
When it comes to the Labour Leadership election , whoever wins, the words of Sir Richard Mottram seem appropriate
.0 -
You're obviously new here.DavidL said:
Click bait. I mean I know posts are down after the election but you can surely be more subtle than that?TheScreamingEagles said:
FIFA = UKIP surely?rcs1000 said:
I don't think that's fair. The EU has many, many problems: but I don't think that any of the EU bureaucrats have syphoned tens or hundreds of millions of Euros into their personal bank accounts. Nor do I think there is systematic institutional bribery of representatives from member states.Financier said:The problems with the EU resemble many of the problems with FIFA.
It was mentioned this morning that it could take into 2016 for the FIFA Congress to be reconvened - is this to allow time for the shredding machines to work overtime and hard drives to be smashed?
If you want, I can think of comparisons that do work (secretive, excessive powers in the hands of unelected officials, not exactly democratically answerable, etc.), but I think the FIFA scandal - by the time it is fully played out - is going to be the largest corruption scandal ever.
I mean, how many UKIP MEPs ended up doing porridge? Will it be fewer than the number of FIFA executives in the next few years?0 -
I'm in one of the largest and most left-wing CLPs in Britain - we think Jeremy Corbyn is great - but very few members that I've talked to have a firm view. Neither the left nor the unions (not synonymous - e.g. UNITE refused to send help because I oppose Trident) are yet obviously pushing for anyone in particular.DavidL said:
I do agree that Kendall will do well in the hustings as she is personable (unlike Cooper) and articulate (unlike Burnham). But we have already seen the "Blair Witch project" response to what she is saying. The Unions, the left wing intelligentsia and what is left of the Milliband grouping will just not like it.
Henry told us a while ago that Cooper was the most organised and I agree with Scrapheap that her biggest problem has always been her husband. If he follows through on his apparent intention to seek a job outwith politics I think that will give her a considerable boost. Burnham is just the Tory dream ticket. Labour really should think about that.
The issue with Kendall is not that she tears up existing policy, we're up for that: it's that we want to hear something really attractive that she stands for, rather than just the vague "whatever works" thing. Maybe it's coming.
Cooper is witty and clever in private and the candidate with the most obvious gravitas of the four, and is positioning herself well on the centre-left, but needs to open up in public. Longer-standing members who've met her rate her highly; the newer ones are more sceptical.
Burnham is the most-liked of the candidates personally by many members and I think the Tories underestimate him; he's interestingly open-minded and would surprise people with his revisionism (Tories expect it from Kendall but haven't spotted it with him). But I wonder about the gravitas aspect.
In short, it's the contest with the least dug-in views that I can remember in the party. The hustings are going to be widely-watched by members and crucial. Really any of the candidates, including Creagh, could get a decisive breakthrough if they do well. Punters who lay the favourites should do well for some time.0 -
PMQs today.
What will Harriet and Angus raise, and does Clegg get to ask a question, if so will be poignant0 -
I agree with Nick.
Andy Burnham's weakness is not his past or his unwillingness to move beyond Milibandism, it's his lack of heft. A leftwing William Hague as Opposition leader, if you like.
The Conservatives are underestimating both him and Yvette Cooper. Both would be capable.
Paradoxically, they are overestimating Liz Kendall, who is raw, barely tested and would struggle to keep Labour's left flank on board.
But most importantly, no one should be odds on yet, so laying the favourite seems clear cut.0 -
I will file that with the pile of your predictions for the recent general election. Burnham is very much like Miliband, his personal ambition and ego will make him very open minded to anything that he thinks he will gain personally from. Not what Labour needs, especially when you add a bit of Brown's nastiness.NickPalmer said:
I'm in one of the largest and most left-wing CLPs in Britain - we think Jeremy Corbyn is great - but very few members that I've talked to have a firm view. Neither the left nor the unions (not synonymous - e.g. UNITE refused to send help because I oppose Trident) are yet obviously pushing for anyone in particular.DavidL said:
I do agree that Kendall will do well in the hustings as she is personable (unlike Cooper) and articulate (unlike Burnham). But we have already seen the "Blair Witch project" response to what she is saying. The Unions, the left wing intelligentsia and what is left of the Milliband grouping will just not like it.
Henry told us a while ago that Cooper was the most organised and I agree with Scrapheap that her biggest problem has always been her husband. If he follows through on his apparent intention to seek a job outwith politics I think that will give her a considerable boost. Burnham is just the Tory dream ticket. Labour really should think about that.
The issue with Kendall is not that she tears up existing policy, we're up for that: it's that we want to hear something really attractive that she stands for, rather than just the vague "whatever works" thing. Maybe it's coming.
Cooper is witty and clever in private and the candidate with the most obvious gravitas of the four, and is positioning herself well on the centre-left, but needs to open up in public. Longer-standing members who've met her rate her highly; the newer ones are more sceptical.
Burnham is the most-liked of the candidates personally by many members and I think the Tories underestimate him; he's interestingly open-minded and would surprise people with his revisionism (Tories expect it from Kendall but haven't spotted it with him). But I wonder about the gravitas aspect.
In short, it's the contest with the least dug-in views that I can remember in the party. The hustings are going to be widely-watched by members and crucial. Really any of the candidates, including Creagh, could get a decisive breakthrough if they do well. Punters who lay the favourites should do well for some time.
Labour would be sensible to steer well clear, those clashes highlighted with Hunty show how limited Burnham is, any of the 3 lady candidates would be a much better choice for Labour, Cooper is solid enough, Kendall certainly looks good, a decent starting point.
0 -
This is going to be fun
@LabourList: "Wanting to make a profit doesn’t make you evil" - Stella Creasy deputy leader hopeful speaks on Labour and business http://t.co/E182nEMFPX
Labour are now going to tear themselves apart trying to separate "good profit" from "bad profit"
@dixon_pete: @LabourList We just need to know the difference between 'profit' and 'profiteering'. The Tories don't.0 -
Yes, although I believe the Titanic 'unsinkable' claim is a myth.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Jessop, you mean like making a ship unsinkable?
A better example is the German Maglev crash that killed 23 people. If I recall correctly, they said the automated systems and the entire design itself would prevent a collision between two trains. ISTR there were claims that maglev crashes were impossible.
What all the experts and designers amazingly ignored was that the track would require cleaning and repairs, so a manually-operated maintenance train would be allowed on the tracks. A maintenance train that was invisible to the automated systems unless a switch was flicked, and they relied on human radio messages to state the line was clear.
You can guess what happened next.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lathen_train_collision
A massive problem with computerised systems is the interface between humans and the systems. Edge and corner cases are particularly troublesome. It would not surprise me if this is what happened yesterday.0 -
"We just need to know the difference between 'profit' and 'profiteering'. The Tories don't."
The wording of this suggests you don't either, mate.0 -
Breaking: Interpol issues red notices (alert) for four FIFA officials, including Jack Warner.
I really need to get some more popcorn.0 -
Most interesting.JosiasJessop said:
Yes, although I believe the Titanic 'unsinkable' claim is a myth.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Jessop, you mean like making a ship unsinkable?
A better example is the German Maglev crash that killed 23 people. If I recall correctly, they said the automated systems and the entire design itself would prevent a collision between two trains. ISTR there were claims that maglev crashes were impossible.
What all the experts and designers amazingly ignored was that the track would require cleaning and repairs, so a manually-operated maintenance train would be allowed on the tracks. A maintenance train that was invisible to the automated systems unless a switch was flicked, and they relied on human radio messages to state the line was clear.
You can guess what happened next.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lathen_train_collision
A massive problem with computerised systems is the interface between humans and the systems. Edge and corner cases are particularly troublesome. It would not surprise me if this is what happened yesterday.
I understand (I think) an edge case, but what is a corner case please??
0 -
Danish update for punters:
* The centre-right still lead in all but one recent poll, by 1-3%, and that's been the position for a very long time.
* 22% of voters say they're unsure, but when pressed 42-34% of these say they're leaning left rather than right. A lot of that is down to the leaders: they rate Thorning (centre-left) as "best PM" by 39% to a mere 10% for her opponent, and she wins 48-5 on "most credible" (he's had expenses issues and is accused of misquoting economic figures).
* Turnout in Denmark is always extremely high (88% last time) so the uncertain voters will probably vote.
Genuinely hard to call because the polls are so static, but the professional commentators seem to think Thorning will edge it.
0 -
That is a somewhat rose-tinted view of the EU. Plenty of corruption scandals in the EU. And a view amongst the bureaucracy and top wallahs that transparency is for the little people. Any whistleblower gets thrown out and mistreated. We simply are not in a position to know whether or not our money is being misspent or stolen.rcs1000 said:
I don't think that's fair. The EU has many, many problems: but I don't think that any of the EU bureaucrats have syphoned tens or hundreds of millions of Euros into their personal bank accounts. Nor do I think there is systematic institutional bribery of representatives from member states.Financier said:The problems with the EU resemble many of the problems with FIFA.
It was mentioned this morning that it could take into 2016 for the FIFA Congress to be reconvened - is this to allow time for the shredding machines to work overtime and hard drives to be smashed?
If you want, I can think of comparisons that do work (secretive, excessive powers in the hands of unelected officials, not exactly democratically answerable, etc.), but I think the FIFA scandal - by the time it is fully played out - is going to be the largest corruption scandal ever.
0 -
@benrileysmith: England will not bid for 2022 World Cup if reopened, Greg Dyke says. Will go outside Europe. There goes that then.0
-
This is not a story about football - or at least that is only the backdrop. It is a story about money and greed and hubris. Like all the best stories. There will be plenty of others caught up in it before it's over, I'll bet.JosiasJessop said:Breaking: Interpol issues red notices (alert) for four FIFA officials, including Jack Warner.
I really need to get some more popcorn.
0 -
A corner case is when two (or more) conditions are outside a system's design limits.Carnyx said:
Most interesting.JosiasJessop said:
Yes, although I believe the Titanic 'unsinkable' claim is a myth.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Jessop, you mean like making a ship unsinkable?
A better example is the German Maglev crash that killed 23 people. If I recall correctly, they said the automated systems and the entire design itself would prevent a collision between two trains. ISTR there were claims that maglev crashes were impossible.
What all the experts and designers amazingly ignored was that the track would require cleaning and repairs, so a manually-operated maintenance train would be allowed on the tracks. A maintenance train that was invisible to the automated systems unless a switch was flicked, and they relied on human radio messages to state the line was clear.
You can guess what happened next.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lathen_train_collision
A massive problem with computerised systems is the interface between humans and the systems. Edge and corner cases are particularly troublesome. It would not surprise me if this is what happened yesterday.
I understand (I think) an edge case, but what is a corner case please??
Arguably, worse than edge cases simply because the combinatorial explosion makes testing hard and/or impractical.0 -
Although the MPs role is reduced, I would be surprised if someone with comparatively little support from the ranks of MPs could effectively run the Parliamentary Labour Party. So, candidates who struggle to end up with the bare 35 or so nominations are effectively disadvantaged.
Did not Nick Palmer once say that he thought one of Miliband’s achievements was a united party ? (Apologies if I have misremember this).
I think Kendall would stand a very good chance of breaking the Labour Party in two. This prospect would be a serious concern if she only just reached 35 MPs, less so if she managed 50.
But, I suspect Henry G may well be right and Yvette will come through the middle.
0 -
No system is foolproof for the simple reason that fools are endlessly inventive!JosiasJessop said:
Yes, although I believe the Titanic 'unsinkable' claim is a myth.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Jessop, you mean like making a ship unsinkable?
A better example is the German Maglev crash that killed 23 people. If I recall correctly, they said the automated systems and the entire design itself would prevent a collision between two trains. ISTR there were claims that maglev crashes were impossible.
What all the experts and designers amazingly ignored was that the track would require cleaning and repairs, so a manually-operated maintenance train would be allowed on the tracks. A maintenance train that was invisible to the automated systems unless a switch was flicked, and they relied on human radio messages to state the line was clear.
You can guess what happened next.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lathen_train_collision
A massive problem with computerised systems is the interface between humans and the systems. Edge and corner cases are particularly troublesome. It would not surprise me if this is what happened yesterday.0 -
Believe it or not, it's as simple as where two (or more) edge cases meet.Carnyx said:Most interesting.
I understand (I think) an edge case, but what is a corner case please??
For instance, in chip design they (should!) look at corner cases of temperature and voltage. A chip might work well at the maximum rated temperature, or the maximum rated voltage, but if you have both at once it fails.
This means customers understandably get annoyed. Your tests shows it works according to specification at the highest voltage, but it fails for them in their tests. It turns out that they're driving another characteristic at a maximum.
Can you tell I've spent a little too much of my life sitting around environment and anechoic chambers ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_case0 -
I think Ms Creasy will find that many of her members do actually believe that; this is one of Labour's great challenges. Isn't it self-evident that having a strong economy is a prerequisite for any kind of welfare state?Scott_P said:This is going to be fun
@LabourList: "Wanting to make a profit doesn’t make you evil" - Stella Creasy deputy leader hopeful speaks on Labour and business http://t.co/E182nEMFPX
Labour are now going to tear themselves apart trying to separate "good profit" from "bad profit"
@dixon_pete: @LabourList We just need to know the difference between 'profit' and 'profiteering'. The Tories don't.0 -
It is. The size of passenger ships had increased so dramatically (doubled every decade over the preceding two) many of the newest ships were described as 'practically' unsinkable - (including Cunard's Lusitania) - by journalists - but never by shipping lines, or ship builders. The worst they did was point out how difficult</i< it would be to sink them.....JosiasJessop said:
Yes, although I believe the Titanic 'unsinkable' claim is a myth.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Jessop, you mean like making a ship unsinkable?
But often the myths are more interesting than the reality (and say much more about us and what we like to believe.....)
Talking about 'myths' the Danes are doing a wonderful demolition job on 'manifest destiny' in 1864.......gripping stuff - even if it is slightly odd recognising some of the actors from Borgen.....
0 -
Yep. As a boss told me when I was young and green: "The moment you make something foolproof, they come along with a better design of fool!"foxinsoxuk said:
No system is foolproof for the simple reason that fools are endlessly inventive!JosiasJessop said:
Yes, although I believe the Titanic 'unsinkable' claim is a myth.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Jessop, you mean like making a ship unsinkable?
A better example is the German Maglev crash that killed 23 people. If I recall correctly, they said the automated systems and the entire design itself would prevent a collision between two trains. ISTR there were claims that maglev crashes were impossible.
What all the experts and designers amazingly ignored was that the track would require cleaning and repairs, so a manually-operated maintenance train would be allowed on the tracks. A maintenance train that was invisible to the automated systems unless a switch was flicked, and they relied on human radio messages to state the line was clear.
You can guess what happened next.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lathen_train_collision
A massive problem with computerised systems is the interface between humans and the systems. Edge and corner cases are particularly troublesome. It would not surprise me if this is what happened yesterday.
But you can design against foolishness to a certain extent. But that does not make the system 'safe'.0 -
I've got a little philosophy about this. People will kill someone for a few hundred quid. When people deal with figures of millions, greed is such that many will be tempted to enrich themselves. Preferably legally, but some will do it illegally.Cyclefree said:
This is not a story about football - or at least that is only the backdrop. It is a story about money and greed and hubris. Like all the best stories. There will be plenty of others caught up in it before it's over, I'll bet.JosiasJessop said:Breaking: Interpol issues red notices (alert) for four FIFA officials, including Jack Warner.
I really need to get some more popcorn.
Therefore when you have anything that deals with large sums of money - whether it is sport, banking, politics, business - you need internal systems and rules, and external openness, audits and clarity, to try to deter people from committing fraud. I'd also add equality to that list, as cliques seem to be a significant problem.
Sadly, many of the very largest organisations, and especially international ones, take exactly the opposite view that their dealings need to be kept secret.0 -
Mr Dodd, I fear, like me, you may not have the best interests of the Labour Party at heart......richardDodd said:Burnham..oh yes please.
Interesting compare & contrast over the responses to Kennedy's death - the current SNP leader delivered a touching and eloquent response - and despite protestations of Nats that 'Unionists are just out to get the SNP', has suffered no criticism for it. Unlike her predecessor. Who must be defended at all costs.0 -
Kendall won't appeal to those lost to SNP or Green and probably not to those lost to UKIP, nor will she attract those who don't vote, Burnham is the best at attracting the White working class men and at challenging the narative that they are all the same.0
-
The labour leadership contest is bad news for all except the govt, Burnham isn't up to holding Cameron to account. He seems a decent bloke but lacks the gravitas to be considered PM material.0
-
Once said about Cameron...blackburn63 said:The labour leadership contest is bad news for all except the govt, Burnham isn't up to holding Cameron to account. He seems a decent bloke but lacks the gravitas to be considered PM material.
0 -
They need to make them angry, and they have the right man for the job. Phil Woolasgrahambc1 said:Kendall won't appeal to those lost to SNP or Green and probably not to those lost to UKIP, nor will she attract those who don't vote, Burnham is the best at attracting the White working class men and at challenging the narative that they are all the same.
0 -
Apparently there is a mathematical possibility that none of the deputy leader contenders will make it onto the ballot...0
-
grahambc1 said:
Kendall won't appeal to those lost to SNP or Green and probably not to those lost to UKIP, nor will she attract those who don't vote, Burnham is the best at attracting the White working class men and at challenging the narative that they are all the same.
Electing Burnham is a core vote strategy, not a winning one. - Kendall, just might be.0 -
Subdividing the electorate then trying to win with a rainbow type coalition within the Labour party is not a recipe for success.grahambc1 said:Kendall won't appeal to those lost to SNP or Green and probably not to those lost to UKIP, nor will she attract those who don't vote, Burnham is the best at attracting the White working class men and at challenging the narative that they are all the same.
Labour will win when it realises that the interests of women, BME Britons, the WWC, Scotland, Wales and Middle England are actually fairly closely aligned. There is far more that unites us than divides us. It is putting together a coherent and believable set of policies that needs to be the priority for the new leader, not refighting the 2005-2010 parliament. It is why Kendall is the best candidate, with Andy Burnham second. Incidentally these two seem to get on well together, and I can see that Burnham may make a good shadow CoE. He was good as Chief Sec to the Treasury.0 -
Kendall is electoral suicide akin to Clegg, the Labour party would cease to be relevant. If you end up with Tory policy with nuances then people will just vote for the real thing or a genuine alternative as the Lib Dems have found0
-
Is that you Yvette..?grahambc1 said:Kendall is electoral suicide akin to Clegg, the Labour party would cease to be relevant. If you end up with Tory policy with nuances then people will just vote for the real thing or a genuine alternative as the Lib Dems have found
0 -
Quite so.foxinsoxuk said:
Subdividing the electorate then trying to win with a rainbow type coalition within the Labour party is not a recipe for success.grahambc1 said:Kendall won't appeal to those lost to SNP or Green and probably not to those lost to UKIP, nor will she attract those who don't vote, Burnham is the best at attracting the White working class men and at challenging the narative that they are all the same.
Labour will win when it realises that the interests of women, BME Britons, the WWC, Scotland, Wales and Middle England are actually fairly closely aligned. There is far more that unites us than divides us. It is putting together a coherent and believable set of policies that needs to be the priority for the new leader, not refighting the 2005-2010 parliament. It is why Kendall is the best candidate, with Andy Burnham second. Incidentally these two seem to get on well together, and I can see that Burnham may make a good shadow CoE. He was good as Chief Sec to the Treasury.
Labour are however, not far from government, despite being unpopular. A gain of 35 Conservative seats would be enough to form a left wing coalition.0 -
Absolutely.Cyclefree said:
That is a somewhat rose-tinted view of the EU. Plenty of corruption scandals in the EU. And a view amongst the bureaucracy and top wallahs that transparency is for the little people. Any whistleblower gets thrown out and mistreated. We simply are not in a position to know whether or not our money is being misspent or stolen.rcs1000 said:
I don't think that's fair. The EU has many, many problems: but I don't think that any of the EU bureaucrats have syphoned tens or hundreds of millions of Euros into their personal bank accounts. Nor do I think there is systematic institutional bribery of representatives from member states.Financier said:The problems with the EU resemble many of the problems with FIFA.
It was mentioned this morning that it could take into 2016 for the FIFA Congress to be reconvened - is this to allow time for the shredding machines to work overtime and hard drives to be smashed?
If you want, I can think of comparisons that do work (secretive, excessive powers in the hands of unelected officials, not exactly democratically answerable, etc.), but I think the FIFA scandal - by the time it is fully played out - is going to be the largest corruption scandal ever.0 -
Do you not think that elections are won in the centre ground?grahambc1 said:Kendall is electoral suicide akin to Clegg, the Labour party would cease to be relevant. If you end up with Tory policy with nuances then people will just vote for the real thing or a genuine alternative as the Lib Dems have found
Cameron won having been forced to/allowed to run a centrist government. I'd suggest that the LibDems lost out and the Tories benefitted because people thought that a Labour/SNP government was likely and they didn't want that.0 -
Just as well he's not an Oxbridge career politician, eh?grahambc1 said:Burnham is the best at attracting the White working class men and at challenging the narative that they are all the same.
0 -
The one thing to say about choosing Burnham is that he'd make the choice of EdM in 2010 look inspired. He is a bit like Michael Foot but without the intellect, humour or the communication skills. A loser.grahambc1 said:Kendall is electoral suicide akin to Clegg, the Labour party would cease to be relevant. If you end up with Tory policy with nuances then people will just vote for the real thing or a genuine alternative as the Lib Dems have found
0 -
OGH Behave... he would be brilliant...honest..0
-
I never heard that - indeed he was touted as a potential PM very early on.foxinsoxuk said:
Once said about Cameron...blackburn63 said:The labour leadership contest is bad news for all except the govt, Burnham isn't up to holding Cameron to account. He seems a decent bloke but lacks the gravitas to be considered PM material.
0 -
I think Cameron was always perceived as 'normal'. He was only disliked by raving loony right wingers. The well bred Eton business did not do him any harm, it gave him the perception of PM material if anything. Shouting that politicians are out of touch only shows how out of touch the shouters are. I doubt that Kendall could take the party with her, which won't matter because she will not be elected. My question is what will happen to her after the election? Will she disappear without trace? Of course there is no Brown Mafia anymore, is it eratong under a different guise?foxinsoxuk said:
Once said about Cameron...blackburn63 said:The labour leadership contest is bad news for all except the govt, Burnham isn't up to holding Cameron to account. He seems a decent bloke but lacks the gravitas to be considered PM material.
0 -
*ahem*NickPalmer said:
Genuinely hard to call because the polls are so static, but the professional commentators seem to think Thorning will edge it.
err.... Nick... really?0 -
Toynbee is in full flow, attacking the Blairites, the bankers, and who knows what else. Something in that morning’s Daily Mail has caught her eye. “Hands up here if anyone has read the Daily Mail today?”
Attending journalists shuffle uneasily in their seats, as do one or two members of the parliamentary Labour party. Just one hand goes up.
“Who’s that?” one of the attending activists hisses to their neighbour.
“I think it’s Liz Kendall.”
“Who’s Liz Kendall?”
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/i-didnt-see-any-point-pretending-profile-labour-leadership-candidate-liz-kendall0 -
I think people kill people because they are sociopathic and or desperate. If you embezzle millions how do you spend it without arousing suspicion? Taking bribes always seems like giving yourself up as a hostage to fortune to me.JosiasJessop said:
I've got a little philosophy about this. People will kill someone for a few hundred quid. When people deal with figures of millions, greed is such that many will be tempted to enrich themselves. Preferably legally, but some will do it illegally.Cyclefree said:
This is not a story about football - or at least that is only the backdrop. It is a story about money and greed and hubris. Like all the best stories. There will be plenty of others caught up in it before it's over, I'll bet.JosiasJessop said:Breaking: Interpol issues red notices (alert) for four FIFA officials, including Jack Warner.
I really need to get some more popcorn.
Therefore when you have anything that deals with large sums of money - whether it is sport, banking, politics, business - you need internal systems and rules, and external openness, audits and clarity, to try to deter people from committing fraud. I'd also add equality to that list, as cliques seem to be a significant problem.
Sadly, many of the very largest organisations, and especially international ones, take exactly the opposite view that their dealings need to be kept secret.0 -
I never heard it said that Cameron wasn't PM material, like Boris he genuinely believed that was his destiny. I'd much rather spend time with Burnham and I dislike Cameron as a politician but Burnham lacks the certain something required to lead labour to victory. 4 or 5 years is a long time, but the fact he is far from a certainty in a pretty poor field says it all.0
-
Culture, transparency and zero tolerance are what matter.JosiasJessop said:
I've got a little philosophy about this. People will kill someone for a few hundred quid. When people deal with figures of millions, greed is such that many will be tempted to enrich themselves. Preferably legally, but some will do it illegally.Cyclefree said:
This is not a story about football - or at least that is only the backdrop. It is a story about money and greed and hubris. Like all the best stories. There will be plenty of others caught up in it before it's over, I'll bet.JosiasJessop said:Breaking: Interpol issues red notices (alert) for four FIFA officials, including Jack Warner.
I really need to get some more popcorn.
Therefore when you have anything that deals with large sums of money - whether it is sport, banking, politics, business - you need internal systems and rules, and external openness, audits and clarity, to try to deter people from committing fraud. I'd also add equality to that list, as cliques seem to be a significant problem.
Sadly, many of the very largest organisations, and especially international ones, take exactly the opposite view that their dealings need to be kept secret.
Rules are helpful, but if they become an end in themselves then they can become counterproductive as people play to the rules rather than the spirit of the legislation.0 -
Yes - spot on. New Labour was all about triangulation. That was an advance on class-based politics, but it was never a sustainable approach. Ed was New Labour, but without the insight. Labour needs to move on.foxinsoxuk said:
Subdividing the electorate then trying to win with a rainbow type coalition within the Labour party is not a recipe for success.grahambc1 said:Kendall won't appeal to those lost to SNP or Green and probably not to those lost to UKIP, nor will she attract those who don't vote, Burnham is the best at attracting the White working class men and at challenging the narative that they are all the same.
Labour will win when it realises that the interests of women, BME Britons, the WWC, Scotland, Wales and Middle England are actually fairly closely aligned. There is far more that unites us than divides us. It is putting together a coherent and believable set of policies that needs to be the priority for the new leader, not refighting the 2005-2010 parliament. It is why Kendall is the best candidate, with Andy Burnham second. Incidentally these two seem to get on well together, and I can see that Burnham may make a good shadow CoE. He was good as Chief Sec to the Treasury.
0 -
I like Kendall.MikeSmithson said:
The one thing to say about choosing Burnham is that he'd make the choice of EdM in 2010 look inspired. He is a bit like Michael Foot but without the intellect, humour or the communication skills. A loser.grahambc1 said:Kendall is electoral suicide akin to Clegg, the Labour party would cease to be relevant. If you end up with Tory policy with nuances then people will just vote for the real thing or a genuine alternative as the Lib Dems have found
"poll" is a four letter word. Just saying.Charles said:
*ahem*NickPalmer said:
Genuinely hard to call because the polls are so static, but the professional commentators seem to think Thorning will edge it.
err.... Nick... really?0 -
In the old days, you bribed other people to stop them getting suspicious. ;-)Flightpathl said:
I think people kill people because they are sociopathic and or desperate. If you embezzle millions how do you spend it without arousing suspicion? Taking bribes always seems like giving yourself up as a hostage to fortune to me.JosiasJessop said:
I've got a little philosophy about this. People will kill someone for a few hundred quid. When people deal with figures of millions, greed is such that many will be tempted to enrich themselves. Preferably legally, but some will do it illegally.Cyclefree said:
This is not a story about football - or at least that is only the backdrop. It is a story about money and greed and hubris. Like all the best stories. There will be plenty of others caught up in it before it's over, I'll bet.JosiasJessop said:Breaking: Interpol issues red notices (alert) for four FIFA officials, including Jack Warner.
I really need to get some more popcorn.
Therefore when you have anything that deals with large sums of money - whether it is sport, banking, politics, business - you need internal systems and rules, and external openness, audits and clarity, to try to deter people from committing fraud. I'd also add equality to that list, as cliques seem to be a significant problem.
Sadly, many of the very largest organisations, and especially international ones, take exactly the opposite view that their dealings need to be kept secret.
ISTR a Russian spy in an American agency who got caught because of his spending patterns. Although I might have that confused with a Tom Clancy book ...
Edit: ah, it was Ames:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldrich_Ames0 -
It just struck me as being rather reminiscent of some of Nick's musings earlier this year (no movement, minds made up, tick tock, etc)Toms said:
I like Kendall.MikeSmithson said:
The one thing to say about choosing Burnham is that he'd make the choice of EdM in 2010 look inspired. He is a bit like Michael Foot but without the intellect, humour or the communication skills. A loser.grahambc1 said:Kendall is electoral suicide akin to Clegg, the Labour party would cease to be relevant. If you end up with Tory policy with nuances then people will just vote for the real thing or a genuine alternative as the Lib Dems have found
"poll" is a four letter word. Just saying.Charles said:
*ahem*NickPalmer said:
Genuinely hard to call because the polls are so static, but the professional commentators seem to think Thorning will edge it.
err.... Nick... really?0 -
Sorry for late response - just had my porridge!kle4 said:
Out of interest, is there anyone you really wish had stood but did not?SandyRentool said:I asked some local members who they were supporting last night. No clear picture, and some strong anti views against Liz and Yvette. I'm still an undecided voter.
I would like to see a proper left wing candidate standing, just to give us a wider choice. I don't think I really know enough about people like Jarvis to say whether or not they would be any better than those who are standing.0 -
Aldrich AmesJosiasJessop said:
In the old days, you bribed other people to stop them getting suspicious. ;-)Flightpathl said:
I think people kill people because they are sociopathic and or desperate. If you embezzle millions how do you spend it without arousing suspicion? Taking bribes always seems like giving yourself up as a hostage to fortune to me.JosiasJessop said:
I've got a little philosophy about this. People will kill someone for a few hundred quid. When people deal with figures of millions, greed is such that many will be tempted to enrich themselves. Preferably legally, but some will do it illegally.Cyclefree said:
This is not a story about football - or at least that is only the backdrop. It is a story about money and greed and hubris. Like all the best stories. There will be plenty of others caught up in it before it's over, I'll bet.JosiasJessop said:Breaking: Interpol issues red notices (alert) for four FIFA officials, including Jack Warner.
I really need to get some more popcorn.
Therefore when you have anything that deals with large sums of money - whether it is sport, banking, politics, business - you need internal systems and rules, and external openness, audits and clarity, to try to deter people from committing fraud. I'd also add equality to that list, as cliques seem to be a significant problem.
Sadly, many of the very largest organisations, and especially international ones, take exactly the opposite view that their dealings need to be kept secret.
ISTR a Russian spy in an American agency who got caught because of his spending patterns. Although I might have that confused with a Tom Clancy book ...
The CIA finally focused on Ames after it realized that despite a salary of only $60,000, Ames had been able to afford:
A $540,000 house in Arlington, Virginia, paid for in cash;[30]
A $50,000 Jaguar automobile;[31]
Home remodeling and redecoration costs of $99,000;[30]
Monthly phone bills exceeding $6,000, mostly calls by Ames's wife to her family in Bogotá, Colombia;
Tailored suits that replaced Ames's former "bargain basement" clothes, conspicuously finer than those of his CIA colleagues; and
Premium credit cards whose minimum monthly payment exceeded his monthly salary.[32]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldrich_Ames
0 -
The libdems lost out because they attacked the Tories all the while they were in government with them, instead of pointing out (by their terms) that the coalition together was a good government and the future lay in more of the same.They were not prepared to dilute libdemism as part of the price for diluting conservatism.logical_song said:
Do you not think that elections are won in the centre ground?grahambc1 said:Kendall is electoral suicide akin to Clegg, the Labour party would cease to be relevant. If you end up with Tory policy with nuances then people will just vote for the real thing or a genuine alternative as the Lib Dems have found
Cameron won having been forced to/allowed to run a centrist government. I'd suggest that the LibDems lost out and the Tories benefitted because people thought that a Labour/SNP government was likely and they didn't want that.
0 -
Based on my record of judging labour leaders it seems to me that Burnham is by far the most awful, so he's probably the best.
Kinnock is the first one i remember, he seemed genuine enough, likeable but a bit gaffe-prone. Impressive against Militant which was in theory good for the centre ground vote. Smith annoyed me, seemed too sanctimonious. Blair was just always 100% repulsive to me. So they declined over time in my estimation
yet electorally the reverse was true (or polls-wise at least in Smith's case). So I am Rogerdamus on Labour leaders!0 -
@jamesmatthewsky: Andy #Coulson acquitted of perjury at his Scottish trial @SkyNews
This post brought to you by NewsSense™0 -
If Kendall gets er... blattered then that's it then for you being tempted to vote Labour I guess. Would the Tory party led by the son of a Rochdale bus driver tempt you?foxinsoxuk said:
Subdividing the electorate then trying to win with a rainbow type coalition within the Labour party is not a recipe for success.grahambc1 said:Kendall won't appeal to those lost to SNP or Green and probably not to those lost to UKIP, nor will she attract those who don't vote, Burnham is the best at attracting the White working class men and at challenging the narative that they are all the same.
Labour will win when it realises that the interests of women, BME Britons, the WWC, Scotland, Wales and Middle England are actually fairly closely aligned. There is far more that unites us than divides us. It is putting together a coherent and believable set of policies that needs to be the priority for the new leader, not refighting the 2005-2010 parliament. It is why Kendall is the best candidate, with Andy Burnham second. Incidentally these two seem to get on well together, and I can see that Burnham may make a good shadow CoE. He was good as Chief Sec to the Treasury.
0 -
tim?Scott_P said:@jamesmatthewsky: Andy #Coulson acquitted of perjury at his Scottish trial @SkyNews
This post brought to you by NewsSense™
Where are you tim?
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/03/andy-coulson-cleared-of-perjury-in-scottish-court0 -
I am not involved in the banking or finance industries, and have little direct knowledge of them, but is your last sentence really true?Charles said:
Culture, transparency and zero tolerance are what matter.JosiasJessop said:
I've got a little philosophy about this. People will kill someone for a few hundred quid. When people deal with figures of millions, greed is such that many will be tempted to enrich themselves. Preferably legally, but some will do it illegally.Cyclefree said:
This is not a story about football - or at least that is only the backdrop. It is a story about money and greed and hubris. Like all the best stories. There will be plenty of others caught up in it before it's over, I'll bet.JosiasJessop said:Breaking: Interpol issues red notices (alert) for four FIFA officials, including Jack Warner.
I really need to get some more popcorn.
Therefore when you have anything that deals with large sums of money - whether it is sport, banking, politics, business - you need internal systems and rules, and external openness, audits and clarity, to try to deter people from committing fraud. I'd also add equality to that list, as cliques seem to be a significant problem.
Sadly, many of the very largest organisations, and especially international ones, take exactly the opposite view that their dealings need to be kept secret.
Rules are helpful, but if they become an end in themselves then they can become counterproductive as people play to the rules rather than the spirit of the legislation.
0 -
Oi!JonCisBack said:So I am Rogerdamus on Labour leaders!
Get in line!
Some of us thought Brown would be an improvement on Blair......0 -
Mr. Jessop, that line of Mr. Charles reminds me of badly drafted laws (cf anti-terrorism legislation being used by Brown against Iceland, or the rozzers using RIPA against the press all the time).0
