Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Keiran Pedley: LAB’s making a big mistake to assume that th

SystemSystem Posts: 12,651
edited August 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Keiran Pedley: LAB’s making a big mistake to assume that the only way now is up

A couple of weeks ago I wrote an article for the New Statesman in which I argued that Jeremy Corbyn was not the answer to Labour’s problems. Last week I was interviewed about it on the BBC and you can see the clip here.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    First!
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    Downwards!
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    This is academic now anyway, Labour members will come to their senses once the news sinks in that Emma Reynolds has threatened to resign if Corbyn wins.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,760
    What we can say from watching this race is that Labour members generally think the current Conservative government is pretty good, or at least not particularly bad.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    The Hillary email story continues to gain new legs. Another piece in the Washington Examiner (right wing publication) notes the following:

    "His [Blumanthal's] disclosure forced the State Department to admit Clinton had withheld all or part of at least 15 of the 60 emails, suggesting she screened the messages closely enough to determine which ones might raise uncomfortable questions for her campaign."

    The important thing here is 'suggesting she screened messages closely enough to determine which ones might raise uncomfortable questions for her campaign'

    If these interpretation becomes either established fact or perceived fact, then her problems have just moved into another higher plane - active cover up.

    For the full story, see http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/latest-round-of-clinton-emails-heavily-scrubbed/article/2569361
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edmundintokyo said:

    What we can say from watching this race is that Labour members generally think the current Conservative government is pretty good, or at least not particularly bad.

    Eh? One of the main things driving the Corbyn surge is precisely because they think the Tories are so bad - they want a Labour leader who'll do some proper opposition and try and stop Tory policies in their tracks, rather than a leader who abstains on cuts for low-paid workers.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    edited August 2015
    And another one, from politico.com:

    "A federal judge has ordered the State Department to ask Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to certify under penalty of perjury that she has turned over some {sic, probably meant to be all] of the work-related emails she kept on a private server during the four years she served as secretary of state. ...

    "At such a hearing on Friday, [Judge] Sullivan—a Bill Clinton appointee—told State to seek certifications from Hillary Clinton, Abedin and former Deputy Secretary of State Cheryl Mills that they've produced all records related to Abedin's employment, even if they kept those records outside official State Department systems."

    Looks like the judges are setting up the bases for perjury proceedings should Clinton be found to be lying at a later date (or just giving her an opportunity now to 'find' 'lost' emails?).
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Danny565 said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    What we can say from watching this race is that Labour members generally think the current Conservative government is pretty good, or at least not particularly bad.

    Eh? One of the main things driving the Corbyn surge is precisely because they think the Tories are so bad - they want a Labour leader who'll do some proper opposition and try and stop Tory policies in their tracks, rather than a leader who abstains on cuts for low-paid workers.
    Opposing when you don't have the votes is nice grandstanding, but if it doesn't help lead to election victories at some point, it is useless. If it diminishes the likelihood of ending the Tory majority, then it is worse than pointless. Opposition is only effective if it makes the electorate want to vote for you instead of those currently in government. Once the opposition has established that it's policies are more popular, then it can potentially affect the current government's actions. But if it makes a Labour government less likely, the Tories won't worry how loud the opposition is.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    A good piece and I agree, but it stops short of proposing who should lead labour and why. I said on here the other day that labour will split in two if Corbyn wins, I stand by that. Never underestimate the ego of politicians, the smart suits in new labour simply won't be able to tolerate a Corbyn led Labour Party.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    blackburn63 said:

    A good piece and I agree, but it stops short of proposing who should lead labour and why. I said on here the other day that labour will split in two if Corbyn wins, I stand by that. Never underestimate the ego of politicians, the smart suits in new labour simply won't be able to tolerate a Corbyn led Labour Party.

    And then there's the funders. How will they (other than the unions) react to a Corbyn-led party? What would reduced funding do for Labour's future comeback chances?
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    MTimT said:

    blackburn63 said:

    A good piece and I agree, but it stops short of proposing who should lead labour and why. I said on here the other day that labour will split in two if Corbyn wins, I stand by that. Never underestimate the ego of politicians, the smart suits in new labour simply won't be able to tolerate a Corbyn led Labour Party.

    And then there's the funders. How will they (other than the unions) react to a Corbyn-led party? What would reduced funding do for Labour's future comeback chances?
    Exactly, I can't see individual donors ( the type Corbyn loathes) funding his labour. A split is inevitable.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,717
    The BBC anchor just said the migrants were 'swarming' . I await the condemnation & calls for him to resign.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited August 2015
    Danny565 said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    What we can say from watching this race is that Labour members generally think the current Conservative government is pretty good, or at least not particularly bad.

    Eh? One of the main things driving the Corbyn surge is precisely because they think the Tories are so bad - they want a Labour leader who'll do some proper opposition and try and stop Tory policies in their tracks, rather than a leader who abstains on cuts for low-paid workers.
    If Labour thought the Tories were bad they would be very keen to elect someone that had a strong chance of replacing them with a Labour government. The fact that Labour are content to enjoy the purity of opposition, shout a lot, run a few rallies, but not actually get to pass any laws that help the people they support, indicates that either they are not that fussed about what the Tories are doing, or they have completely lost the plot, we are open to suggestions as to which is the case ;) (leaving aside that an unwhipped collegiate opposition has no chance what so ever of defeating an organised whipped party in parliament)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    blackburn63 said:

    A good piece and I agree, but it stops short of proposing who should lead labour and why. I said on here the other day that labour will split in two if Corbyn wins, I stand by that. Never underestimate the ego of politicians, the smart suits in new labour simply won't be able to tolerate a Corbyn led Labour Party.

    That may have been true a few weeks ago but now Pandora's Box has been opened. If the smart suits in New Labour win then why would Corbyn's supporters including the Unions just sit back down and shut up now? The far left now are closer to taking back control of the Labour Party than they ever have since Labour was taken over by Blairites and there could now be a one-more-push mentality to push Labour to the left.

    If anyone but Corbyn wins but loses in 2020 then its entirely possible a far-left Corbynite would win then leading to another Tory majority in 2025.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    JosiasJessop said:

    The BBC anchor just said the migrants were 'swarming' . I await the condemnation & calls for him to resign.

    Didn't you know, naughty words are only naughty when said by naughty people, right on people can use any word they want with no blame attached because they are not evil.... or some such bullsh*t
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,388

    I was speaking to a lfe-long Labour voter a couple of days ago.

    Not unexpectedly, he is a Jezza fan but he surprised me with his realism. "He'll never get elected PM but it doesn't matter," he said. "Two or three years to rejuvenate the party and get rid of all the dead wood, then bring in someone electable."

    It's a balm for those still bruised by the election defeat
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    CD13 said:


    I was speaking to a lfe-long Labour voter a couple of days ago.

    Not unexpectedly, he is a Jezza fan but he surprised me with his realism. "He'll never get elected PM but it doesn't matter," he said. "Two or three years to rejuvenate the party and get rid of all the dead wood, then bring in someone electable."

    It's a balm for those still bruised by the election defeat

    Again how will the Unions take to winning this vote only to have 'their' man rejected and replaced by "someone electable"? Why continue to back Labour if even when they win, they still can't be accepted?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,621
    Morning. Good article Keiran. Agree that Labour can't possibly win by appealing to the disaffected and Greens, they need to get some of those who voted Conservative this year and in 2010 on their side if they want to win back power. There is still a long way they could
    fall, UKIP and the LDs could yet make significant progress against a Corbyn-led Labour party.

    On Trident, am I the only one who thinks it would be great politics to renew the deterrent while rebasing it in England? Would help nullify some of the SNP hysterics on the subject yet also move a lot of highly skilled workers South of the border.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,621
    JosiasJessop said:

    The BBC anchor just said the migrants were 'swarming' . I await the condemnation & calls for him to resign.

    Yeahbut eesnot an EEEVIL TOORRRYYY, innit?
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    Danny565 said:

    This is academic now anyway, Labour members will come to their senses once the news sinks in that Emma Reynolds has threatened to resign if Corbyn wins.

    Emma Reynolds? Who's he?

  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Sandpit said:

    Morning. Good article Keiran. Agree that Labour can't possibly win by appealing to the disaffected and Greens, they need to get some of those who voted Conservative this year and in 2010 on their side if they want to win back power. There is still a long way they could
    fall, UKIP and the LDs could yet make significant progress against a Corbyn-led Labour party.

    On Trident, am I the only one who thinks it would be great politics to renew the deterrent while rebasing it in England? Would help nullify some of the SNP hysterics on the subject yet also move a lot of highly skilled workers South of the border.

    Mr sandpit, excellent point re trident, I believe a party that offers the SNP an amicable divorce and relocates trident here will pick up plenty of votes. I don't know enough about suitable bases here, even though my son was once based at Faslane, but that is a certain vote winner and common sense.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,621
    edited August 2015
    MTimT said:

    And another one, from politico.com:

    "A federal judge has ordered the State Department to ask Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to certify under penalty of perjury that she has turned over some {sic, probably meant to be all] of the work-related emails she kept on a private server during the four years she served as secretary of state. ...

    "At such a hearing on Friday, [Judge] Sullivan—a Bill Clinton appointee—told State to seek certifications from Hillary Clinton, Abedin and former Deputy Secretary of State Cheryl Mills that they've produced all records related to Abedin's employment, even if they kept those records outside official State Department systems."

    Looks like the judges are setting up the bases for perjury proceedings should Clinton be found to be lying at a later date (or just giving her an opportunity now to 'find' 'lost' emails?).

    As an IT guy the whole Hilary email thing stinks. Unless she was actually running the server on her own (rather than, say employ an IT guy do the job) then so much of it is complete bolleaux. Almost every single best practice in the book was routinely ignored, and even if she were doing it herself it's very hard to be that bad unless it was deliberate. All IMHO, of course.
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    edmundintokyo said:

    What we can say from watching this race is that Labour members generally think the current Conservative government is pretty good, or at least not particularly bad.

    well, you could say they see the current govt as Blairite?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,621
    Philip_Thompson said:

    CD13 said:


    I was speaking to a lfe-long Labour voter a couple of days ago.

    Not unexpectedly, he is a Jezza fan but he surprised me with his realism. "He'll never get elected PM but it doesn't matter," he said. "Two or three years to rejuvenate the party and get rid of all the dead wood, then bring in someone electable."

    It's a balm for those still bruised by the election defeat

    Again how will the Unions take to winning this vote only to have 'their' man rejected and replaced by "someone electable"? Why continue to back Labour if even when they win, they still can't be accepted?
    So they lose the individual and corporate donors when they elect Corbyn, then lose the Union donors when they kick him out. Will be a rather one-sided campaign by the blue team in 2020 if that happens!
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Sandpit said:

    MTimT said:

    And another one, from politico.com:

    "A federal judge has ordered the State Department to ask Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to certify under penalty of perjury that she has turned over some {sic, probably meant to be all] of the work-related emails she kept on a private server during the four years she served as secretary of state. ...

    "At such a hearing on Friday, [Judge] Sullivan—a Bill Clinton appointee—told State to seek certifications from Hillary Clinton, Abedin and former Deputy Secretary of State Cheryl Mills that they've produced all records related to Abedin's employment, even if they kept those records outside official State Department systems."

    Looks like the judges are setting up the bases for perjury proceedings should Clinton be found to be lying at a later date (or just giving her an opportunity now to 'find' 'lost' emails?).

    As an IT guy the whole Hilary email thing stinks. Unless she was actually running the server on her own (rather than, say employ an IT guy do the job) then so much of it is complete bolleaux. Almost every single best practice in the book was routinely ignored, and even if she were doing it herself it's very hard to be that bad unless it was deliberate. All IMHO, of course.
    Agreed. Over this side of the pond, pretty much all the IT people said Lois Lerner's missing emails at the IRS was all but impossible. Turns out they were right. Plenty turning up now. So in Hillary's case she is either lying and covering up, dissembling and destroying evidence, or an idiot. None are good traits in a President.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,621
    blackburn63 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Morning. Good article Keiran. Agree that Labour can't possibly win by appealing to the disaffected and Greens, they need to get some of those who voted Conservative this year and in 2010 on their side if they want to win back power. There is still a long way they could
    fall, UKIP and the LDs could yet make significant progress against a Corbyn-led Labour party.

    On Trident, am I the only one who thinks it would be great politics to renew the deterrent while rebasing it in England? Would help nullify some of the SNP hysterics on the subject yet also move a lot of highly skilled workers South of the border.

    Mr sandpit, excellent point re trident, I believe a party that offers the SNP an amicable divorce and relocates trident here will pick up plenty of votes. I don't know enough about suitable bases here, even though my son was once based at Faslane, but that is a certain vote winner and common sense.
    I thought there were a couple of identified possibilities, one in Cumbria (Near Sellafield?) and one in Dorset (Poole maybe). I just think we need to sometimes call the bluff of those who seek to break up the country, and this one seems a win/win for the UK and Scotland governments given their current positions, although perhaps not for Scottish GDP once the jobs move away.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,752
    Sandpit said:

    Morning. Good article Keiran. Agree that Labour can't possibly win by appealing to the disaffected and Greens, they need to get some of those who voted Conservative this year and in 2010 on their side if they want to win back power. There is still a long way they could fall, UKIP and the LDs could yet make significant progress against a Corbyn-led Labour party.

    The Tories could also make significant progress against a Corbyn-led Labour party. Especially if the Govt's economic management continues to be well regarded. There are still seats for the Tories to win in the Midlands, Lancashire, Yorkshire and perhaps even Wales.

    That should worry all other parties.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Sandpit said:

    blackburn63 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Morning. Good article Keiran. Agree that Labour can't possibly win by appealing to the disaffected and Greens, they need to get some of those who voted Conservative this year and in 2010 on their side if they want to win back power. There is still a long way they could
    fall, UKIP and the LDs could yet make significant progress against a Corbyn-led Labour party.

    On Trident, am I the only one who thinks it would be great politics to renew the deterrent while rebasing it in England? Would help nullify some of the SNP hysterics on the subject yet also move a lot of highly skilled workers South of the border.

    Mr sandpit, excellent point re trident, I believe a party that offers the SNP an amicable divorce and relocates trident here will pick up plenty of votes. I don't know enough about suitable bases here, even though my son was once based at Faslane, but that is a certain vote winner and common sense.
    I thought there were a couple of identified possibilities, one in Cumbria (Near Sellafield?) and one in Dorset (Poole maybe). I just think we need to sometimes call the bluff of those who seek to break up the country, and this one seems a win/win for the UK and Scotland governments given their current positions, although perhaps not for Scottish GDP once the jobs move away.
    Plymouth Devonport has been mentioned as the most obvious:

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/14/trident-missiles-relocate-plymouth-independent-scotland-rusi-report
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Sandpit said:

    blackburn63 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Morning. Good article Keiran. Agree that Labour can't possibly win by appealing to the disaffected and Greens, they need to get some of those who voted Conservative this year and in 2010 on their side if they want to win back power. There is still a long way they could
    fall, UKIP and the LDs could yet make significant progress against a Corbyn-led Labour party.

    On Trident, am I the only one who thinks it would be great politics to renew the deterrent while rebasing it in England? Would help nullify some of the SNP hysterics on the subject yet also move a lot of highly skilled workers South of the border.

    Mr sandpit, excellent point re trident, I believe a party that offers the SNP an amicable divorce and relocates trident here will pick up plenty of votes. I don't know enough about suitable bases here, even though my son was once based at Faslane, but that is a certain vote winner and common sense.
    I thought there were a couple of identified possibilities, one in Cumbria (Near Sellafield?) and one in Dorset (Poole maybe). I just think we need to sometimes call the bluff of those who seek to break up the country, and this one seems a win/win for the UK and Scotland governments given their current positions, although perhaps not for Scottish GDP once the jobs move away.
    Re the Scottish GDP: bothered.

    Perhaps they'll have to start paying for prescriptions and uni like the rest of us.



  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    Sandpit said:

    On Trident, am I the only one who thinks it would be great politics to renew the deterrent while rebasing it in England? Would help nullify some of the SNP hysterics on the subject yet also move a lot of highly skilled workers South of the border.

    I am sure that there has been a lot of thought regarding the location of Her Majesty's deterrant: Only fools would think otherwise. Outwith the Foyle the Clyde makes sense.

    The deterrant cannot be based in England as there are too many choke points: The Irish Sea is a lake with pretensions and the Channel is full of floaty stuff (c.f. HMS M2). The North Sea is also too paddling-pool to be effective.

    What you need is somwhere desolate, with deep channels and - finally - somewhere of minimal collatoral damage should things go wrong. So near Glasgae seems to fit all of these criteria...!

    :blush:

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,621
    edited August 2015
    MTimT said:

    Sandpit said:

    MTimT said:

    And another one, from politico.com:

    "A federal judge has ordered the State Department to ask Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to certify under penalty of perjury that she has turned over some {sic, probably meant to be all] of the work-related emails she kept on a private server during the four years she served as secretary of state. ...

    "At such a hearing on Friday, [Judge] Sullivan—a Bill Clinton appointee—told State to seek certifications from Hillary Clinton, Abedin and former Deputy Secretary of State Cheryl Mills that they've produced all records related to Abedin's employment, even if they kept those records outside official State Department systems."

    Looks like the judges are setting up the bases for perjury proceedings should Clinton be found to be lying at a later date (or just giving her an opportunity now to 'find' 'lost' emails?).

    As an IT guy the whole Hilary email thing stinks. Unless she was actually running the server on her own (rather than, say employ an IT guy do the job) then so much of it is complete bolleaux. Almost every single best practice in the book was routinely ignored, and even if she were doing it herself it's very hard to be that bad unless it was deliberate. All IMHO, of course.
    Agreed. Over this side of the pond, pretty much all the IT people said Lois Lerner's missing emails at the IRS was all but impossible. Turns out they were right. Plenty turning up now. So in Hillary's case she is either lying and covering up, dissembling and destroying evidence, or an idiot. None are good traits in a President.
    The conspiracy theorist in me suggests that they should just ask the NSA for their copy of all her emails!

    The IT security guy in me says surely the Clintons' house was being monitored extensively by the spooks anyway, including all communications in and out? It should be expected that there's a Secret Service bug on their phone and Internet lines by design, given the two people living there are a former President and the current SoS.

    Like Nixon, the scandal is almost always not in what actually happened (Lord Sewell and Max Mosely excepted!) but that the attempt to cover it up leads to the hole being dug deeper and deeper until there's no way out. Even Bill Clinton wasn't nearly impeached for the stain on the dress, but for lying to investigators.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Sandpit said:

    MTimT said:

    Sandpit said:

    MTimT said:

    And another one, from politico.com:

    "A federal judge has ordered the State Department to ask Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to certify under penalty of perjury that she has turned over some {sic, probably meant to be all] of the work-related emails she kept on a private server during the four years she served as secretary of state. ...

    "At such a hearing on Friday, [Judge] Sullivan—a Bill Clinton appointee—told State to seek certifications from Hillary Clinton, Abedin and former Deputy Secretary of State Cheryl Mills that they've produced all records related to Abedin's employment, even if they kept those records outside official State Department systems."

    Looks like the judges are setting up the bases for perjury proceedings should Clinton be found to be lying at a later date (or just giving her an opportunity now to 'find' 'lost' emails?).

    As an IT guy the whole Hilary email thing stinks. Unless she was actually running the server on her own (rather than, say employ an IT guy do the job) then so much of it is complete bolleaux. Almost every single best practice in the book was routinely ignored, and even if she were doing it herself it's very hard to be that bad unless it was deliberate. All IMHO, of course.
    Agreed. Over this side of the pond, pretty much all the IT people said Lois Lerner's missing emails at the IRS was all but impossible. Turns out they were right. Plenty turning up now. So in Hillary's case she is either lying and covering up, dissembling and destroying evidence, or an idiot. None are good traits in a President.
    The conspiracy theorist in me suggests that they should just ask the NSA for their copy of all her emails!

    The IT security guy in me says surely the Clintons' house was being monitored extensively by the spooks anyway, including all communications in and out? It should be expected that there's a Secret Service bug on their phone and Internet lines by design, given the two people living there are a former President and the current SoS.

    Like Nixon, the scandal is almost always not in what actually happened (Lord Sewell and Max Mosely excepted!) but that the attempt to cover it up leads to the hole being dug deeper and deeper until there's no way out. Even Bill Clinton wasn't nearly impeached for the stain on the dress, but for lying to investigators.
    Agreed. It's being found out in a cover up that is political suicide
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    FluffyThoughts said:

    Sandpit said:

    On Trident, am I the only one who thinks it would be great politics to renew the deterrent while rebasing it in England? Would help nullify some of the SNP hysterics on the subject yet also move a lot of highly skilled workers South of the border.

    I am sure that there has been a lot of thought regarding the location of Her Majesty's deterrant: Only fools would think otherwise. Outwith the Foyle the Clyde makes sense.

    The deterrant cannot be based in England as there are too many choke points: The Irish Sea is a lake with pretensions and the Channel is full of floaty stuff (c.f. HMS M2). The North Sea is also too paddling-pool to be effective.

    What you need is somwhere desolate, with deep channels and - finally - somewhere of minimal collatoral damage should things go wrong. So near Glasgae seems to fit all of these criteria...!

    :blush:

    How about Scapa Flow? Just need to negotiate the Orkneys' independence from Scotland and bob's your uncle.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    FluffyThoughts said:

    Sandpit said:

    On Trident, am I the only one who thinks it would be great politics to renew the deterrent while rebasing it in England? Would help nullify some of the SNP hysterics on the subject yet also move a lot of highly skilled workers South of the border.

    I am sure that there has been a lot of thought regarding the location of Her Majesty's deterrant: Only fools would think otherwise. Outwith the Foyle the Clyde makes sense.

    The deterrant cannot be based in England as there are too many choke points: The Irish Sea is a lake with pretensions and the Channel is full of floaty stuff (c.f. HMS M2). The North Sea is also too paddling-pool to be effective.

    What you need is somwhere desolate, with deep channels and - finally - somewhere of minimal collatoral damage should things go wrong. So near Glasgae seems to fit all of these criteria...!

    :blush:

    What about Northern Ireland? Huge boost to the local economy, and far enough away from mainland Britain to minimise any collateral damage.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    Sandpit said:

    Morning. Good article Keiran. Agree that Labour can't possibly win by appealing to the disaffected and Greens, they need to get some of those who voted Conservative this year and in 2010 on their side if they want to win back power. There is still a long way they could
    fall, UKIP and the LDs could yet make significant progress against a Corbyn-led Labour party.

    On Trident, am I the only one who thinks it would be great politics to renew the deterrent while rebasing it in England? Would help nullify some of the SNP hysterics on the subject yet also move a lot of highly skilled workers South of the border.

    Wouldn't be surprised if somebody in the Treasury has cottoned on to the advantages of relocating a number of public sector workers out of Scotland (or at the very least not locating any more). One of the consequences of income tax devolution which i haven't seen mentioned openly anywhere is that with Scots keeping income tax receipts it becomes significantly more expensive for UK govt to locate civil servants in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK.

  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    edited August 2015
    Blue_rog said:

    What about Northern Ireland? Huge boost to the local economy, and far enough away from mainland Britain to minimise any collateral damage.

    Ahem!
    Outwith the Foyle the Clyde makes sense.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    alex. said:

    Sandpit said:

    Morning. Good article Keiran. Agree that Labour can't possibly win by appealing to the disaffected and Greens, they need to get some of those who voted Conservative this year and in 2010 on their side if they want to win back power. There is still a long way they could
    fall, UKIP and the LDs could yet make significant progress against a Corbyn-led Labour party.

    On Trident, am I the only one who thinks it would be great politics to renew the deterrent while rebasing it in England? Would help nullify some of the SNP hysterics on the subject yet also move a lot of highly skilled workers South of the border.

    Wouldn't be surprised if somebody in the Treasury has cottoned on to the advantages of relocating a number of public sector workers out of Scotland (or at the very least not locating any more). One of the consequences of income tax devolution which i haven't seen mentioned openly anywhere is that with Scots keeping income tax receipts it becomes significantly more expensive for UK govt to locate civil servants in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK.

    Let Scotland pay for its own public sector and locate general UK public service employees in the non-devolved UK. Might help rebalance the Scottish economy if its not all public sector.
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    Well, all four candidates are losers. Corbyn and the neo-Tory woman whose name I forget would splitthe Party; Cooper is only standing because her old man lost his seat and we haven't had a Scouse PM since Gladstone, who was also an Old Etonian.

    Labour is an idea whose time has gone. The Tories will have over 400 seats in each of the next two Parliaments - and the only thing keeping me from discussing that with Bill 'ill is that I don't want to tie my money up with him for donkey's years.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    FluffyThoughts said:

    Blue_rog said:

    What about Northern Ireland? Huge boost to the local economy, and far enough away from mainland Britain to minimise any collateral damage.

    Ahem!
    Outwith the Foyle the Clyde makes sense.
    Oops, Geography was never my strong point :grin:
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Hey Scotland, how's your progressive alliance locking out the Tories going? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33747390
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2015
    To win again Labour needs to form a new electoral coalition large enough to win 35­40% of the popular vote
    That's my kind of %. :smiley:

    I can understand the Oh Fcuk It mentality of electing Corbyn and throwing a party in the Party, but it's the most self-indulgent way to behave. Being hung for a sheep has to be the oddest form of political behaviour, if you want to win. Then again, only 5% of Corbynites think they could win under him, so perhaps its more of a feature than a bug.

    As Kieran notes, there's plenty of room for Labour's vote to fall further - especially so if the LDs under Farron sound more sensible [wouldn't be very hard]. Relying on Greenies/various lefties and DNV to make up for these outside Labour heartlands won't be easy/enough to fill the gap.

    All that said, if Labourites want to do this - it's going to be great viewing. PMQs will be fantastic firebrand stuff with oodles of self-righteous posturing.

    Re the unions - the Bill to change how political donations are divvied up also needs to be factored in. Labour are on the back foot here and I can't see Mr Corbyn being donation friendly from many other sources.

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,300
    Blue_rog said:

    FluffyThoughts said:

    Sandpit said:

    On Trident, am I the only one who thinks it would be great politics to renew the deterrent while rebasing it in England? Would help nullify some of the SNP hysterics on the subject yet also move a lot of highly skilled workers South of the border.

    I am sure that there has been a lot of thought regarding the location of Her Majesty's deterrant: Only fools would think otherwise. Outwith the Foyle the Clyde makes sense.

    The deterrant cannot be based in England as there are too many choke points: The Irish Sea is a lake with pretensions and the Channel is full of floaty stuff (c.f. HMS M2). The North Sea is also too paddling-pool to be effective.It would b

    What you need is somwhere desolate, with deep channels and - finally - somewhere of minimal collatoral damage should things go wrong. So near Glasgae seems to fit all of these criteria...!

    :blush:

    What about Northern Ireland? Huge boost to the local economy, and far enough away from mainland Britain to minimise any collateral damage.
    How about the Falkland Islands? Huge boost to the local economy, and far enough away from mainland Britain to minimise any collateral damage. It would also deter the Argentinians.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Plato said:

    To win again Labour needs to form a new electoral coalition large enough to win 35­40% of the popular vote
    That's my kind of %. :smiley: Its not a high enough percentage for Nicola Sturgeon though who'd want an inquiry on why it wasn't high enough :smiley:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwPd_D3y3Pk
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Hey Scotland, how's your progressive alliance locking out the Tories going? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33747390

    Beware SNP maths...
    I was writing a blog post on education when I noticed something rather odd about the Scottish government's budget for 2015-16. In the overview I found on the Scottish government's website it states that the budget has been cut "as a result of the UK government's austerity programme". Fair enough, that accords with what I've read elsewhere, and would seem plausible to anyone who's paid any attention to what's been going on in Scotland and the UK. But then I spotted the graph below elsewhere on the Scottish government's website

    In apparent contradiction to what I'd read, this graph shows a real terms spending rise in 2015-16. So who to believe, the Scottish government, or, err... the Scottish government?
    http://blog.mcnalu.net/scottish-government-cuts.html
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    edited August 2015
    Barnesian said:

    How about the Falkland Islands? Huge boost to the local economy, and far enough away from mainland Britain to minimise any collateral damage. It would also deter the Argentinians.

    Aldermaston may be difficult (even with St Helena's new airport). And - AIUI - we do not deply our deterrant south of the equator.

    Are you an equestrian? If so; please trot-on....
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Kieran may not be fully understanding the logic of some Labour supporters who are backing Corbyn despite not being obviously right on left wingers. The New Labour approach was fine in its time and did well. But it was never going to last forever. It just didn't work last time. Even with a leader with better presentation skills than Ed it would not have won a comfortable majority or even a slim one. Labour has to do something different. Whatever comes out of a Corbyn victory will be different. Sometimes only a bold step can win.

    And speaking personally, I have had enough of focus group politics for now
    .
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    edited August 2015
    The Labour Leadership contest shows that for all the talk of "democratising" parties, democratic voting systems aren't things which should be cobbled together on the back of beer mats. Different systems produce different outcomes, but it's made even worse when the electorate can't agree on the purpose of what they are voting for (the best potential PM? the most likely to be elected PM? an individual most liked by the UK electorate, or the Labour party electorate? are they voting for the individual or the individual's policy prescriptions? are they voting for the best leader of the opposition (who might not be the best potential PM)? etc etc)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,621
    edited August 2015
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Hey Scotland, how's your progressive alliance locking out the Tories going? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33747390

    Of course, the Scottish government - should they wish - are free to increase benefits from the taxes they have the power to raise.

    But they would rather blame the English, despite the fact that the man who got us into this mess was from that famous English town of Kirkaldy...
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,130
    CD13 said:


    I was speaking to a lfe-long Labour voter a couple of days ago.

    Not unexpectedly, he is a Jezza fan but he surprised me with his realism. "He'll never get elected PM but it doesn't matter," he said. "Two or three years to rejuvenate the party and get rid of all the dead wood, then bring in someone electable."

    It's a balm for those still bruised by the election defeat

    The first thing the Tories should do if Corbyn wins (and even if he doesn't) is repeal the fixed term parliament act. If Labour think they can have a few years of making themselves feel better before bringing someone more credible in they could have a nasty surprise.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,621
    Completely O/T, but it looks as if one of this century's biggest mysteries could be one small step closer to being solved in the Southern Indian Ocean.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/mh370/11778611/MH370-Has-a-plane-door-washed-up-on-Reunion-Island.html
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Recidivist said:

    Kieran may not be fully understanding the logic of some Labour supporters who are backing Corbyn despite not being obviously right on left wingers. The New Labour approach was fine in its time and did well. But it was never going to last forever. It just didn't work last time. .

    The last time the New Labour approach was tried Labour won a majority of 66.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Wondering if Labour could have stopped the SNP surge in the last parliament. And whether it can recover now.

    As in England it needs to work out what it's for, what the voters need from it and then marry the two.

  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,474
    @Miss Plato

    >I can understand the Oh Fcuk It mentality of electing Corbyn and throwing a party in the Party, but it's the most self-indulgent way to behave. Being hung for a sheep has to be the oddest form of political behaviour, if you want to win. Then again, only 5% of Corbynites think they could win under him, so perhaps its more of a feature than a bug.

    Is there a source for that 5% number? Sounds low.

    For me it's political - a chance to get socialism out of our mainstream for a few decades, which would be an excellent thing. Worth the risk, because I don't believe that JC would fare well.

    >Re the unions - the Bill to change how political donations are divvied up also needs to be factored in. Labour are on the back foot here and I can't see Mr Corbyn being donation friendly from many other sources.

    I think Mr Cameron is plucking this goose the wrong way. The 40% feels too Flashman. Is there a danger he'll save the Unions from themselves? Bite the bullet and make certain essential services non-strike, including the London Tube.

    I'd say for the politics he needs a rights based approach that Lab can't oppose. TUs claim to represent their members. So let them - multi-party affiliation / donations to any legal political party based on members wishes.

    And the NUS needs to be a voluntary society for those who join it, not running services, perhaps not govt funded, and not handing a platform to whoever happen to be the current bunch of fruitcakes.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Fair or not, the knives are coming out with a little more gusto against Corbyn http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1588611.ece

    To paraphrase - he's not the parsimonious chap he claims to be.... since 2000 he's been on tax-payer funded business class/5* junkets to 18+ destinations, including San Francisco, New York, Canada, Chile - and since 2010 he's been to Mexico, Guatemala, Iran, Palestine and Honduras...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,717
    Sandpit said:

    Completely O/T, but it looks as if one of this century's biggest mysteries could be one small step closer to being solved in the Southern Indian Ocean.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/mh370/11778611/MH370-Has-a-plane-door-washed-up-on-Reunion-Island.html

    The guys and gals who did the satellite analysis really need congratulating. A great example of deep data analysis.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    Harold Wilson produced some memorable phrases. " A week is a long time in politics " being the most famous.
    He also said " Labour is a moral crusade or it is nothing ".
    Corbyn is a par excellence moral crusader, his three opponents offer nothing.
    The choice is clear.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,898
    blackburn63 said:

    Sandpit said:

    blackburn63 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Morning. Good article Keiran. Agree that Labour can't possibly win by appealing to the disaffected and Greens, they need to get some of those who voted Conservative this year and in 2010 on their side if they want to win back power. There is still a long way they could
    fall, UKIP and the LDs could yet make significant progress against a Corbyn-led Labour party.

    On Trident, am I the only one who thinks it would be great politics to renew the deterrent while rebasing it in England? Would help nullify some of the SNP hysterics on the subject yet also move a lot of highly skilled workers South of the border.

    Mr sandpit, excellent point re trident, I believe a party that offers the SNP an amicable divorce and relocates trident here will pick up plenty of votes. I don't know enough about suitable bases here, even though my son was once based at Faslane, but that is a certain vote winner and common sense.
    I thought there were a couple of identified possibilities, one in Cumbria (Near Sellafield?) and one in Dorset (Poole maybe). I just think we need to sometimes call the bluff of those who seek to break up the country, and this one seems a win/win for the UK and Scotland governments given their current positions, although perhaps not for Scottish GDP once the jobs move away.
    Re the Scottish GDP: bothered.

    Perhaps they'll have to start paying for prescriptions and uni like the rest of us.



    English reactionaries frotting themselves senseless about something that'll never happen? Bothered? Nah.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    The 5% came from a YouGov poll - can't put my finger on it right now, perhaps someone with better GoogleFu can help me here.
    MattW said:

    @Miss Plato

    >I can understand the Oh Fcuk It mentality of electing Corbyn and throwing a party in the Party, but it's the most self-indulgent way to behave. Being hung for a sheep has to be the oddest form of political behaviour, if you want to win. Then again, only 5% of Corbynites think they could win under him, so perhaps its more of a feature than a bug.

    Is there a source for that 5% number? Sounds low.

    For me it's political - a chance to get socialism out of our mainstream for a few decades, which would be an excellent thing. Worth the risk, because I don't believe that JC would fare well.

    >Re the unions - the Bill to change how political donations are divvied up also needs to be factored in. Labour are on the back foot here and I can't see Mr Corbyn being donation friendly from many other sources.

    I think Mr Cameron is plucking this goose the wrong way. The 40% feels too Flashman. Is there a danger he'll save the Unions from themselves? Bite the bullet and make certain essential services non-strike, including the London Tube.

    I'd say for the politics he needs a rights based approach that Lab can't oppose. TUs claim to represent their members. So let them - multi-party affiliation / donations to any legal political party based on members wishes.

    And the NUS needs to be a voluntary society for those who join it, not running services, perhaps not govt funded, and not handing a platform to whoever happen to be the current bunch of fruitcakes.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,866
    Good morning, everyone.

    It's a bit Dr. Pepper.

    What's the worst that could happen?
  • JPJ2JPJ2 Posts: 380
    Sandpit

    "But they would rather blame the English, despite the fact that the man who got us into this mess was from that famous English town of Kirkaldy."

    I see some people are still not grasping the fact that the SNP espouse civic not ethnic nationalism :-)

    Brown was a dyed in the wool unionist. The fact he was a Scot is for me a matter of regret not rejoicing.

    Anyway, he claimed to be North British though I have never heard anyone claim to be South British.

    Still, given the World Cup draw there is the possibility (sadly, but I hope not) that something akin to his declared favourite football moment of Gazza scoring against Scotland in Euro 96 will occur.

    Hopefully in the Scotland England World Cup qualifiers those Scots who don't support England will not be castigated as per usual :-)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if Labour could have stopped the SNP surge in the last parliament. And whether it can recover now.

    As in England it needs to work out what it's for, what the voters need from it and then marry the two.

    I think Scotland is lost to Labour now, what's done is done. The Scottish Labour Party now need to face up to reality and provide Scottish voters a reason to vote for Labour and against the SNP - simply being "not the Tories" is no reason anymore since the SNP aren't Tories but are the incumbents.

    Simple inertia will make it very hard to dislodge the SNP now. They should prove as difficult to remove as Lib Dems used to be prior to entering the UK government.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    Theuniondivvie said:

    English reactionaries frotting themselves senseless about something that'll never happen? Bothered? Nah.

    Bet? And timescale...?

    Choose your template Th'UD....
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Corbyn is a par excellence moral crusader

    Life under Corbyn...

    @dizzy_thinks: http://t.co/DqB98NULF1 << neat little tale about "Corbyn's World"
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    JPJ2 said:

    I see some people are still not grasping the fact that the SNP espouse civic not ethnic nationalism :-)

    And the Zoomers won't admit that is complete Bollocks. Another part of the fantasy mythology they have constructed.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,621
    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    Completely O/T, but it looks as if one of this century's biggest mysteries could be one small step closer to being solved in the Southern Indian Ocean.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/mh370/11778611/MH370-Has-a-plane-door-washed-up-on-Reunion-Island.html

    The guys and gals who did the satellite analysis really need congratulating. A great example of deep data analysis.
    Yes. Actually Hell Yes! A lot of very complex maths and physics analysis that hadn't been done before, all within a window of less than a week - with a seemingly accurate result. I hope that some organisation (maybe the Royal Aeronautical Society if not the Nobel Prize committee) sees fit to recognise their efforts formally. The Brits involved should really be nominated for MBEs for advancing the science.
    http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2014/03/how-did-inmarsat-really-find-flight.html and http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-25/malaysia-jet-traced-with-physics-in-pizza-fueled-inmarsat-huddle are good articles for the technically minded, with links to other tech sources.
  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    In my opinion, Labour actually need Corbyn as a leader at this point in time. Sure, he probably will never be PM, but then, realistically, none of the other three will be, either. What Labour need is to tear itself apart, to rebuild itself into something that reflects what it purports to represent. If you think Cooper, Kendal and Burnham are what you need, then you may as well vote Tory. Corbyn as leader will split the party,undoubtedly, and cause Labour a lot of pain, and a fair few years more in opposition, but at the end of it, it might be a party rejuvenated, and worth voting for.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,315
    Danny565 said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    What we can say from watching this race is that Labour members generally think the current Conservative government is pretty good, or at least not particularly bad.

    Eh? One of the main things driving the Corbyn surge is precisely because they think the Tories are so bad - they want a Labour leader who'll do some proper opposition and try and stop Tory policies in their tracks, rather than a leader who abstains on cuts for low-paid workers.
    Or that as bad as the Tories are, they are not so bad that a less than optimal Labour Party is worth electing.

    I think this is a good piece. Labour pessimists are no more certain to be right than the Tory optimists, and it's wrong to just write off 2020, but it is possible to do worse.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited August 2015
    ''Simple inertia will make it very hard to dislodge the SNP now. They should prove as difficult to remove as Lib Dems used to be prior to entering the UK government.''


    Without Scotland, labour are left with England. It is not an enticing prospect.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2015
    We noted on FPT that a handful of no-marks refuse to serve under a Corbyn leadership.

    The list of likely Shad Cab members is a future market worth thinking about? Michael Meacher must surely be in with a serious chance of a big role given he's Wedgie Benn's representative on Earth?
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    edited August 2015
    Scott_P said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Corbyn is a par excellence moral crusader

    Life under Corbyn...

    @dizzy_thinks: http://t.co/DqB98NULF1 << neat little tale about "Corbyn's World"</p>
    Well, I was there as well as JD. Our memories differ somewhat, but no doubt hers is more reliable than mine ;)


  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    Theuniondivvie said:

    blackburn63 said:

    Sandpit said:

    blackburn63 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Morning. Good article Keiran. Agree that Labour can't possibly win by appealing to the disaffected and Greens, they need to get some of those who voted Conservative this year and in 2010 on their side if they want to win back power. There is still a long way they could
    fall, UKIP and the LDs could yet make significant progress against a Corbyn-led Labour party.

    On Trident, am I the only one who thinks it would be great politics to renew the deterrent while rebasing it in England? Would help nullify some of the SNP hysterics on the subject yet also move a lot of highly skilled workers South of the border.

    Mr sandpit, excellent point re trident, I believe a party that offers the SNP an amicable divorce and relocates trident here will pick up plenty of votes. I don't know enough about suitable bases here, even though my son was once based at Faslane, but that is a certain vote winner and common sense.
    I thought there were a couple of identified possibilities, one in Cumbria (Near Sellafield?) and one in Dorset (Poole maybe). I just think we need to sometimes call the bluff of those who seek to break up the country, and this one seems a win/win for the UK and Scotland governments given their current positions, although perhaps not for Scottish GDP once the jobs move away.
    Re the Scottish GDP: bothered.

    Perhaps they'll have to start paying for prescriptions and uni like the rest of us.



    English reactionaries frotting themselves senseless about something that'll never happen? Bothered? Nah.
    Salmond may have inspired the Edstone with his " the rocks will melt..... " hostage to fortune.
    My name is Salmondias, king of kings.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,898
    FluffyThoughts said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    English reactionaries frotting themselves senseless about something that'll never happen? Bothered? Nah.

    Bet? And timescale...?

    Choose your template Th'UD....
    If you want a bet get off your arse & set the terms. I will then consider if I'll deign to engage.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Corbyn's Pub had me LOL - the whole thing is worth reading. It's very Wolfie Smith.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukebailey/labour-theory-of-ale?utm_term=.cizZV6yNL#.xaVdzlNnGO
    If Jeremy Corbyn ran your local pub, the tips would be shared out equally. The kitchen would get their share as well, because it’s important that wealth is distributed to everyone.

    If Jeremy Corbyn ran your local pub, there would be a dog.

    If Jeremy Corbyn ran your local pub, the jukebox would be free, paid for by the pub itself.

    If Jeremy Corbyn ran your local pub, the regulars would have been saying for years that if only more people knew about the pub, and really understood what a good pub it was, it would become the most popular pub in the whole country.

    If Jeremy Corbyn ran your local pub, some of the regulars would secretly hope that it never became popular, preferring it as it was.
    Scott_P said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Corbyn is a par excellence moral crusader

    Life under Corbyn...

    @dizzy_thinks: http://t.co/DqB98NULF1 << neat little tale about "Corbyn's World"</p>
  • JPJ2JPJ2 Posts: 380
    Scott_P

    "And the Zoomers won't admit that is complete Bollocks. Another part of the fantasy mythology they have constructed. "

    Ah, yes: SNP BAD!!!

    Clearly you take the opposite view to those who objected to the French SNP MSP, Christian Allard, commenting on the migrant problem at Calais and engaging with French authorities on the issue.

    SNP civic nationalism a myth?-where's your evidence chum??
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,717
    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    Completely O/T, but it looks as if one of this century's biggest mysteries could be one small step closer to being solved in the Southern Indian Ocean.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/mh370/11778611/MH370-Has-a-plane-door-washed-up-on-Reunion-Island.html

    The guys and gals who did the satellite analysis really need congratulating. A great example of deep data analysis.
    Yes. Actually Hell Yes! A lot of very complex maths and physics analysis that hadn't been done before, all within a window of less than a week - with a seemingly accurate result. I hope that some organisation (maybe the Royal Aeronautical Society if not the Nobel Prize committee) sees fit to recognise their efforts formally. The Brits involved should really be nominated for MBEs for advancing the science.
    http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2014/03/how-did-inmarsat-really-find-flight.html and http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-25/malaysia-jet-traced-with-physics-in-pizza-fueled-inmarsat-huddle are good articles for the technically minded, with links to other tech sources.
    And, aiui, they weren't even asked to do it - they just decided to see what they could do with the little data they had - not that they were believed to have any data. Which was also why they were ignored at first, if I remember correctly.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,982
    After a week abroad and a diet of BBC world and Sky International, it's good to see politics still exist. A 24/7 news diet of Cecil the lion suggested the country had lost the plot.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,621
    Plato said:

    Corbyn's Pub had me LOL - the whole thing is worth reading. It's very Wolfie Smith.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukebailey/labour-theory-of-ale?utm_term=.cizZV6yNL#.xaVdzlNnGO

    Scott_P said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Corbyn is a par excellence moral crusader

    Life under Corbyn...

    @dizzy_thinks: http://t.co/DqB98NULF1 << neat little tale about "Corbyn's World"</p>
    No comment about Corbyn running a pub could be allowed to pass without this one in reply.
    http://www.themarketingblog.co.uk/2013/04/explanation-of-tax-10-men-go-into-a-bar…/
    Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100…
    If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

    ...

    But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2015
    Following on from earlier discussion "Our reporter responded to an advert for a fundraiser offering a wage of up to £35,000...."
    Door-to-door fundraisers selling lottery tickets for the Royal British Legion are lying to the public by saying they are unpaid volunteers, ignoring ‘no cold callers’ signs, and misleading donors about what the money is being used for, it can be revealed.

    A Mail on Sunday investigation today exposes how commission-led salesmen break industry rules to extract cash. Secret filming of employees at Magnum Direct Ltd, a sales company contracted by the charity, reveals how:

    A team manager boasted that he lied to the public by saying he is an unpaid volunteer when he is a paid fundraiser pocketing hundreds of pounds a week;
    Employees are instructed to knock on doors even when they have ‘no cold callers’ signs;
    Donors are told their money is going directly towards a new rehabilitation centre for injured troops, when it actually goes into the charity’s general funds;

    Last night, the Royal British Legion (RBL) suspended operations with the company.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3182610/Royal-British-legion-suspends-firm-investigation-reveals-cynical-cold-call-lies-fundraisers-poppy-lottery-appeal.html#ixzz3hdyyL4XS
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,717
    Off-topic: the NHS up here in remotest Scotland is superb. I injured myself on Friday in a fall, and once I got back to civilisation (aka the nearest village) I realised it was bad. The hotel called for a doctor, who arrived within half an hour, despite having been in a village twenty miles away. He also came on Saturday morning to check up on me.

    Not bad considering it takes days just to get an appointment in Cambridge.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Theuniondivvie said:

    blackburn63 said:

    Sandpit said:

    blackburn63 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Morning. Good article Keiran. Agree that Labour can't possibly win by appealing to the disaffected and Greens, they need to get some of those who voted Conservative this year and in 2010 on their side if they want to win back power. There is still a long way they could
    fall, UKIP and the LDs could yet make significant progress against a Corbyn-led Labour party.

    On Trident, am I the only one who thinks it would be great politics to renew the deterrent while rebasing it in England? Would help nullify some of the SNP hysterics on the subject yet also move a lot of highly skilled workers South of the border.

    Mr sandpit, excellent point re trident, I believe a party that offers the SNP an amicable divorce and relocates trident here will pick up plenty of votes. I don't know enough about suitable bases here, even though my son was once based at Faslane, but that is a certain vote winner and common sense.
    I thought there were a couple of identified possibilities, one in Cumbria (Near Sellafield?) and one in Dorset (Poole maybe). I just think we need to sometimes call the bluff of those who seek to break up the country, and this one seems a win/win for the UK and Scotland governments given their current positions, although perhaps not for Scottish GDP once the jobs move away.
    Re the Scottish GDP: bothered.

    Perhaps they'll have to start paying for prescriptions and uni like the rest of us.



    English reactionaries frotting themselves senseless about something that'll never happen? Bothered? Nah.
    Which is why I spoke of an amicable divorce, it's called being reasonable. The acrimonious sort that Sturgeon favours, and you it would appear, would be far worse for the Scots. That's fine, lots up there want independence, I would hasten that for the benefit of the UK.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    Theuniondivvie said:

    FluffyThoughts said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    English reactionaries frotting themselves senseless about something that'll never happen? Bothered? Nah.

    Bet? And timescale...?

    Choose your template Th'UD....
    If you want a bet get off your arse & set the terms. I will then consider if I'll deign to engage.
    Precise:English reactionaries frotting themselves senseless about something that'll never happen?
    You have set the terms. Man-up and grow a pair.
    If you want a bet get off your arse & set the terms.
    Duration: Until EoY (CY) 2018.
    Stake: A friendly £50.
    My winnings: FATJUGS
    Yours: ????

    Please agree through usual channels.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30RX1yi2V9c
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,621
    Plato said:

    Following on from earlier discussion "Our reporter responded to an advert for a fundraiser offering a wage of up to £35,000...."

    The govt should take advantage of its majority with a serious look at charities - the sector has changed beyond all recognition in the last 18 years since I was a student on a "RAG Trip" shaking a tin outside M&S on a Saturday.

    Some public polling on this would also be useful, my hunch is that there would be support for a clampdown on targeting the vulnerable, of high pay and costs, and of charities lobbying the government with public money.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Oh poor you! I wondered why you were posting yesterday.

    What happened? Hope you're well on the mend.
    JosiasJessop said:

    Off-topic: the NHS up here in remotest Scotland is superb. I injured myself on Friday in a fall, and once I got back to civilisation (aka the nearest village) I realised it was bad. The hotel called for a doctor, who arrived within half an hour, despite having been in a village twenty miles away. He also came on Saturday morning to check up on me.

    Not bad considering it takes days just to get an appointment in Cambridge.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,866
    Mr. Jessop, sorry to hear of your injury, but glad you got help promptly.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited August 2015
    TwistedFireStopper said:

    In my opinion, Labour actually need Corbyn as a leader at this point in time. Sure, he probably will never be PM, but then, realistically, none of the other three will be, either. What Labour need is to tear itself apart, to rebuild itself into something that reflects what it purports to represent. If you think Cooper, Kendal and Burnham are what you need, then you may as well vote Tory. Corbyn as leader will split the party,undoubtedly, and cause Labour a lot of pain, and a fair few years more in opposition, but at the end of it, it might be a party rejuvenated, and worth voting for.

    Good to have you back. Corbyn will not be a controlling figure, not least in part because his own rebellions over the years, but also because there simply are not the numbers for him to have a Corbynite shadow cabinet. I think there will not be an external split in the party, but there will be a variety of internal caucuses. Hopefully this would regenerate the party and give fresh impetus, but it could all fall apart into navel gazing and chaos.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,848
    Sandpit said:

    blackburn63 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Morning. Good article Keiran. Agree that Labour can't possibly win by appealing to the disaffected and Greens, they need to get some of those who voted Conservative this year and in 2010 on their side if they want to win back power. There is still a long way they could
    fall, UKIP and the LDs could yet make significant progress against a Corbyn-led Labour party.

    On Trident, am I the only one who thinks it would be great politics to renew the deterrent while rebasing it in England? Would help nullify some of the SNP hysterics on the subject yet also move a lot of highly skilled workers South of the border.

    Mr sandpit, excellent point re trident, I believe a party that offers the SNP an amicable divorce and relocates trident here will pick up plenty of votes. I don't know enough about suitable bases here, even though my son was once based at Faslane, but that is a certain vote winner and common sense.
    I thought there were a couple of identified possibilities, one in Cumbria (Near Sellafield?) and one in Dorset (Poole maybe). I just think we need to sometimes call the bluff of those who seek to break up the country, and this one seems a win/win for the UK and Scotland governments given their current positions, although perhaps not for Scottish GDP once the jobs move away.
    Scotland hating Loonies are out early this morning. As if they would want it on their own doorstep you goldplated TURNIP.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    malcolmg said:

    Scotland hating Loonies are out early this morning. As if they would want it on their own doorstep you goldplated TURNIP.

    WOC

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hglVqACd1C8
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,848
    Scott_P said:

    JPJ2 said:

    I see some people are still not grasping the fact that the SNP espouse civic not ethnic nationalism :-)

    And the Zoomers won't admit that is complete Bollocks. Another part of the fantasy mythology they have constructed.
    I see the saliva is still dripping from your hysterical chops. If you hate Scotland so much why not do what Mone did and get lost.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I've gone from being someone who 25yrs ago gave every month to the WWF, RSPCA, Greenpeace, Dogs Trust, RNLI, British Red Cross and a host others - plus one offs - I now only do Dogs Trust occasionally, Cats Prot with tins of food and RNLI.

    The rest of them have blotted their copy books by becoming political zealots, demanding, building very shiny HQs etc.

    The whole sector is a massive industry with little in common with what I'd call a charity. I was on the trustees of a local small charitable org, and that did great work with small donations and local business philanthropy. No one was paid to do this and we camped out in the back offices of a donor if we needed a desk/phone.
    Sandpit said:

    Plato said:

    Following on from earlier discussion "Our reporter responded to an advert for a fundraiser offering a wage of up to £35,000...."

    The govt should take advantage of its majority with a serious look at charities - the sector has changed beyond all recognition in the last 18 years since I was a student on a "RAG Trip" shaking a tin outside M&S on a Saturday.

    Some public polling on this would also be useful, my hunch is that there would be support for a clampdown on targeting the vulnerable, of high pay and costs, and of charities lobbying the government with public money.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    malcolmg said:

    Scotland hating Loonies are out early this morning

    Anyone who doesn't blindly support the SNP "hates Scotland"

    There's your "civic Nationalism", right there. It's Bollocks
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,717
    Plato said:

    Oh poor you! I wondered why you were posting yesterday.

    What happened? Hope you're well on the mend.

    JosiasJessop said:

    Off-topic: the NHS up here in remotest Scotland is superb. I injured myself on Friday in a fall, and once I got back to civilisation (aka the nearest village) I realised it was bad. The hotel called for a doctor, who arrived within half an hour, despite having been in a village twenty miles away. He also came on Saturday morning to check up on me.

    Not bad considering it takes days just to get an appointment in Cambridge.

    Thanks. Suspected fracture of the heel of the radius - won't know for sure till I get it x-rayed, but the hospital is 3 hours away. As to how it happened - damned bloody stupidity. I went down a slipway to take a photo & discovered a reason they're called 'slip'ways. ;) had to walk ten miles just to get back to the ferry!

    All very embarrassing. I can't drive, so My dad & sis are driving up today to take me to hospital & home.

    Still, it's my only semi-serious injury in about 17, ,000 miles of walking, so I've not done too badly, & I spent yesterday exploring this beautiful area.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,898
    edited August 2015
    FluffyThoughts said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    FluffyThoughts said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    English reactionaries frotting themselves senseless about something that'll never happen? Bothered? Nah.

    Bet? And timescale...?

    Choose your template Th'UD....
    If you want a bet get off your arse & set the terms. I will then consider if I'll deign to engage.
    Precise:English reactionaries frotting themselves senseless about something that'll never happen?
    You have set the terms. Man-up and grow a pair.
    If you want a bet get off your arse & set the terms.
    Duration: Until EoY (CY) 2018.
    Stake: A friendly £50.
    My winnings: FATJUGS
    Yours: ????

    Please agree through usual channels.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30RX1yi2V9c

    You have descended into Fluffygook, but if you're saying a decision to relocate Trident or its successor will have been made by the end of 2018, sure, I'll bet £50 against that.
    If you're going to get involved in these longer term bets, I expect you to start taking better care of your liver.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,848
    FluffyThoughts said:

    Sandpit said:

    On Trident, am I the only one who thinks it would be great politics to renew the deterrent while rebasing it in England? Would help nullify some of the SNP hysterics on the subject yet also move a lot of highly skilled workers South of the border.

    I am sure that there has been a lot of thought regarding the location of Her Majesty's deterrant: Only fools would think otherwise. Outwith the Foyle the Clyde makes sense.

    The deterrant cannot be based in England as there are too many choke points: The Irish Sea is a lake with pretensions and the Channel is full of floaty stuff (c.f. HMS M2). The North Sea is also too paddling-pool to be effective.

    What you need is somwhere desolate, with deep channels and - finally - somewhere of minimal collatoral damage should things go wrong. So near Glasgae seems to fit all of these criteria...!

    :blush:

    At least one of the frothing Little Englanders on here is will to speak the truth,
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Thank Heaven's it wasn't *your heel* with a ten mile walk ahead!

    Finger's crossed your little one isn't too much of a handful during the mend.
    JosiasJessop said:

    Plato said:

    Oh poor you! I wondered why you were posting yesterday.

    What happened? Hope you're well on the mend.

    JosiasJessop said:

    Off-topic: the NHS up here in remotest Scotland is superb. I injured myself on Friday in a fall, and once I got back to civilisation (aka the nearest village) I realised it was bad. The hotel called for a doctor, who arrived within half an hour, despite having been in a village twenty miles away. He also came on Saturday morning to check up on me.

    Not bad considering it takes days just to get an appointment in Cambridge.

    Thanks. Suspected fracture of the heel of the radius - won't know for sure till I get it x-rayed, but the hospital is 3 hours away. As to how it happened - damned bloody stupidity. I went down a slipway to take a photo & discovered a reason they're called 'slip'ways. ;) had to walk ten miles just to get back to the ferry!

    All very embarrassing. I can't drive, so My dad & sis are driving up today to take me to hospital & home.

    Still, it's my only semi-serious injury in about 17, ,000 miles of walking, so I've not done too badly, & I spent yesterday exploring this beautiful area.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    Theuniondivvie said:

    You have descended into Fluffygook, but if you're saying a decision to relocate Trident or its successor will have been made by the end of 2018, sure, I'll bet £50 against that.
    If you're going to get involved in these longer term bets, I expect you to start taking better care of your liver.

    Your statement related to tuition-fees and NHS. You're are free to walk-away....
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Morning all.

    I had little interest in politics during the 70/80s – it will be fun to see it played out again. :lol:
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,866
    Mr. G, 'Little Englander'? Not sure that augments your argument.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    https://twitter.com/PlatoSays/status/627763509670080512
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,800
    Nice balanced paper review on the BBC this morning I see
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    FluffyThoughts said:

    Sandpit said:

    On Trident, am I the only one who thinks it would be great politics to renew the deterrent while rebasing it in England? Would help nullify some of the SNP hysterics on the subject yet also move a lot of highly skilled workers South of the border.

    I am sure that there has been a lot of thought regarding the location of Her Majesty's deterrant: Only fools would think otherwise. Outwith the Foyle the Clyde makes sense.

    The deterrant cannot be based in England as there are too many choke points: The Irish Sea is a lake with pretensions and the Channel is full of floaty stuff (c.f. HMS M2). The North Sea is also too paddling-pool to be effective.

    What you need is somwhere desolate, with deep channels and - finally - somewhere of minimal collatoral damage should things go wrong. So near Glasgae seems to fit all of these criteria...!

    :blush:

    Living within 40 miles of the base I find your sentiments above rather unpleasant. Hopefully there will never be an incident which causes you to reflect upon what you have just said.
Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025