Undefined discussion subject.

AlastairMeeks said:

oxfordsimon said:

AlastairMeeks said:

He's using the powers at his disposal. His enemies have shown that they won't hesitate to do the same. He wouldn't have to do it if his MPs were willing to defer more to his personal mandate.

He only has a mandate from a small selectorate. The MPs have a mandate from a real thing - the electorate.

They should have the balls to act accordingly

Labour do not contract out the selection of their leaders to Labour constituency voters. He got a landslide from the party members and supporters. More senior party members who dislike that outcome need to accept that and either seek to change members' minds or shut up. At the moment they're doing neither.

isam said:

The theme song for this page should be "The Political Gambler" by Kenny Rogers

"You've got to know when to Oldham, know when to fold 'em..."

dr_spyn said:

The peasants are revolting.

https://twitter.com/denoual85/status/671698159983308800

Luckyguy1983 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Given the obvious quality (or lack thereof) of your research (witness your IHH embarrassment last night), why should anyone take anything you say about medicine seriously?

Do you have any medical qualifications, or did you just get it from Alex Jones or a.n.other conspiracy website?

Was I embarrassed last night? Unlike you I don't trawl the threads of a morning on tenterhooks to see what you may have said the previous evening. By all means complete my utter degradation by repeating whatever incisive shard of wisdom from you I may have missed if that will please you.

As I've repeated (how many times are we up to now?) I expect intelligent readers to read my post, and decide whether they agree with the points made therein. If they think my post is utterly ridiculous they may choose to ignore. If they're not sure and want more information or supporting evidence, if I'm around I'll oblige. I wouldn't have thought this was a hard concept to assimilate, but we seem to be having great difficulty.

"As I've repeated (how many times are we up to now?) I expect intelligent readers to read my post, and decide whether they agree with the points made therein."

AlastairMeeks said:

isam said:

The theme song for this page should be "The Political Gambler" by Kenny Rogers

"You've got to know when to Oldham, know when to fold 'em..."

My working title for yesterday's look at the by-election was "takes us Oldham?"

I can't think why this didn't meet with editorial approval.

Dair said:

Again more pure unadulterated nonsense.

Put simply, correlation is not causation. Pre industrialised diets contain virtually no refined sugar. The actual foods eaten are entirely irrelevant, what matters is no sugar. That's the core here and dressed up in all the insane psuedo-science doesn't change the basic concept.

Now, clearly you went with the reduction in sugar and for people willing to do that, good luck to them. Personally I think sugar is a damn fine addition to diets and science has developed ways we can deal with relatively higher (but not completely stupidly high) levels of refined sugar through regular brushing and flouridation.

But your nonsense about rinsing and the "evil" of flouride isn't a factor. The lack of sugar is.

Wanderer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

oxfordsimon said:

AlastairMeeks said:

He's using the powers at his disposal. His enemies have shown that they won't hesitate to do the same. He wouldn't have to do it if his MPs were willing to defer more to his personal mandate.

He only has a mandate from a small selectorate. The MPs have a mandate from a real thing - the electorate.

They should have the balls to act accordingly

Labour do not contract out the selection of their leaders to Labour constituency voters. He got a landslide from the party members and supporters. More senior party members who dislike that outcome need to accept that and either seek to change members' minds or shut up. At the moment they're doing neither.

If one is going to reason in those terms then Corbyn should simply withdraw the whip from dissenters. If that's half the PLP, well, fiat justitia etc.

But surely the reality is that his leadership is weak because he's so inept. If he looked like the potential election-winner his fans think he is he'd have few problems.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Bugger - I've managed to enter with total % coming to 80% or so.... how can you edit it?

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Given the obvious quality (or lack thereof) of your research (witness your IHH embarrassment last night), why should anyone take anything you say about medicine seriously?

Do you have any medical qualifications, or did you just get it from Alex Jones or a.n.other conspiracy website?

Was I embarrassed last night? Unlike you I don't trawl the threads of a morning on tenterhooks to see what you may have said the previous evening. By all means complete my utter degradation by repeating whatever incisive shard of wisdom from you I may have missed if that will please you.

As I've repeated (how many times are we up to now?) I expect intelligent readers to read my post, and decide whether they agree with the points made therein. If they think my post is utterly ridiculous they may choose to ignore. If they're not sure and want more information or supporting evidence, if I'm around I'll oblige. I wouldn't have thought this was a hard concept to assimilate, but we seem to be having great difficulty.

I suggest you go back and read it. But basically IHH was not banned by the Netherlands: it was another organisation with the same initials. Since that was the core of your 'argument', it all falls down.

david_herdson said:

The question is, what loyalty does the current Labour leadership and current PLP owe to the 9m people who voted for a rather different Labour party to represent them from that which is now in place?

TCPoliticalBetting said:

flightpath01 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

oxfordsimon said:

AlastairMeeks said:

He's using the powers at his disposal. His enemies have shown that they won't hesitate to do the same. He wouldn't have to do it if his MPs were willing to defer more to his personal mandate.

He only has a mandate from a small selectorate. The MPs have a mandate from a real thing - the electorate.

They should have the balls to act accordingly

Labour do not contract out the selection of their leaders to Labour constituency voters. He got a landslide from the party members and supporters. More senior party members who dislike that outcome need to accept that and either seek to change members' minds or shut up. At the moment they're doing neither.

Missing the point. Where you draw your leader from the parliamentary party then if he is so far out of agreement with them, then it is quite untenable. Corbyn Momentum Stopthewar know this and are intent on replacing the MPs to be in their own image.
Labour is being transmogrified and those that do not like it will be wasting their breath trying to influence the members. They need to get out now. They need to blatantly start a parliamentary party that owes no loyalty to Corbyn and then all resign Corbyn's Labour.
Do something or do nothing, the labour party they joined is finished.

Spot on. But just as they could not act against Brown or EdMiliband, they lack the cojones to act decisively in numbers. A few may attempt a coup, but just look at the political appeasers in the shadow cabinet.

Pulpstar said:

How could the parliamentary Labour party have been so far divorced from reality that they didn't realise that their membership base was waaaaaaaaaaaay to the left of what they thought it would be ?!

It sounded extremely patronising to me the way alot of them talked about "bringing Jeremy into the debate", without expecting anyone to vote for him !

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT:

JosiasJessop said:

"I did some research"

I would be careful given your track record of 'research'.

In all seriousness, be very careful about believing what you read on websites (and to a lesser extent the media) about medical issues. Too much of it is quackery, clickbait or money-fodder. Some of it can be actively injurious to your health.

Actually, the opposite is true of the diet protocol I 'follow' (I'm not slavish). I follow a 'Weston A Price' diet. Price was a dentist who noted declining dental (and general) health in the US population in the early 20th century. He embarked on a mission to go around the world learning about the healthiest and longest lived societies - largely those untouched by industrialisation etc. From Eskimos, to African tribes, to Swiss villages. Such a thing can't be done these days - these peoples are gone.

He found each society, though some were nearly vegeterian, some almost entirely carniverous etc., had in common certain 'sacred foods' that kept them healthy, free from disease and long lived.

Look at today's society - we're being kept alive a bit longer by medical advances and greatly reduced deprivation, but healthier? Allergies and intolerances are out of control, cancer, heart and other diseases likewise. Who says our diet is healthier? 20 years ago fat was the enemy. It's now sugar. These are trends, not nutritional truths. The past is really the only place we can look to find out what's healthy - what worked generation to generation when there were no doctors. The unfashionable concept of wisdom. The 'risk' lies in following today's food fads.

nigel4england said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mark can you edit my entry. I forgot to add that UKIP was going to win. My %s are right

Me too please

Luckyguy1983 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Given the obvious quality (or lack thereof) of your research (witness your IHH embarrassment last night), why should anyone take anything you say about medicine seriously?

Do you have any medical qualifications, or did you just get it from Alex Jones or a.n.other conspiracy website?

Was I embarrassed last night? Unlike you I don't trawl the threads of a morning on tenterhooks to see what you may have said the previous evening. By all means complete my utter degradation by repeating whatever incisive shard of wisdom from you I may have missed if that will please you.

As I've repeated (how many times are we up to now?) I expect intelligent readers to read my post, and decide whether they agree with the points made therein. If they think my post is utterly ridiculous they may choose to ignore. If they're not sure and want more information or supporting evidence, if I'm around I'll oblige. I wouldn't have thought this was a hard concept to assimilate, but we seem to be having great difficulty.

I suggest you go back and read it. But basically IHH was not banned by the Netherlands: it was another organisation with the same initials. Since that was the core of your 'argument', it all falls down.

What different organisation was that?

Pulpstar said:

How could the parliamentary Labour party have been so far divorced from reality that they didn't realise that their membership base was waaaaaaaaaaaay to the left of what they thought it would be ?!

It sounded extremely patronising to me the way alot of them talked about "bringing Jeremy into the debate", without expecting anyone to vote for him !

Beverley_C said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've made my prediction.

I forgot to put in my winner. But from my prediction it is clear who I expect to win.

Where do these predictions show up? (Even I had a go)

AlastairMeeks said:

Wanderer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

oxfordsimon said:

AlastairMeeks said:

He's using the powers at his disposal. His enemies have shown that they won't hesitate to do the same. He wouldn't have to do it if his MPs were willing to defer more to his personal mandate.

He only has a mandate from a small selectorate. The MPs have a mandate from a real thing - the electorate.

They should have the balls to act accordingly

Labour do not contract out the selection of their leaders to Labour constituency voters. He got a landslide from the party members and supporters. More senior party members who dislike that outcome need to accept that and either seek to change members' minds or shut up. At the moment they're doing neither.

If one is going to reason in those terms then Corbyn should simply withdraw the whip from dissenters. If that's half the PLP, well, fiat justitia etc.

But surely the reality is that his leadership is weak because he's so inept. If he looked like the potential election-winner his fans think he is he'd have few problems.

His fans would argue that Labour MPs' dissent have sabotaged his chances. While I don't agree with that, their dissent certainly hasn't helped.

He and his supporters are under no obligation to make their own life more difficult. They can treat the MPs as delinquents and have them replaced in due by deselection in accordance with party rules.

It all depends whether you see the Labour party as belonging to the MPs or the membership. It's not obvious to me that the MPs have the right to launch a coup when the membership apparently remains firmly behind the leader. They should get out, shut up or argue their corner. Right now they're doing none of those things effectively.

Dair said:

Again more pure unadulterated nonsense.

Put simply, correlation is not causation. Pre industrialised diets contain virtually no refined sugar. The actual foods eaten are entirely irrelevant, what matters is no sugar. That's the core here and dressed up in all the insane psuedo-science doesn't change the basic concept.

Now, clearly you went with the reduction in sugar and for people willing to do that, good luck to them. Personally I think sugar is a damn fine addition to diets and science has developed ways we can deal with relatively higher (but not completely stupidly high) levels of refined sugar through regular brushing and flouridation.

But your nonsense about rinsing and the "evil" of flouride isn't a factor. The lack of sugar is.

nigel4england said:

Dair said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT:

JosiasJessop said:

"I did some research"

I would be careful given your track record of 'research'.

In all seriousness, be very careful about believing what you read on websites (and to a lesser extent the media) about medical issues. Too much of it is quackery, clickbait or money-fodder. Some of it can be actively injurious to your health.

Actually, the opposite is true of the diet protocol I 'follow' (I'm not slavish). I follow a 'Weston A Price' diet. Price was a dentist who noted declining dental (and general) health in the US population in the early 20th century. He embarked on a mission to go around the world learning about the healthiest and longest lived societies - largely those untouched by industrialisation etc. From Eskimos, to African tribes, to Swiss villages. Such a thing can't be done these days - these peoples are gone.

He found each society, though some were nearly vegeterian, some almost entirely carniverous etc., had in common certain 'sacred foods' that kept them healthy, free from disease and long lived.

Look at today's society - we're being kept alive a bit longer by medical advances and greatly reduced deprivation, but healthier? Allergies and intolerances are out of control, cancer, heart and other diseases likewise. Who says our diet is healthier? 20 years ago fat was the enemy. It's now sugar. These are trends, not nutritional truths. The past is really the only place we can look to find out what's healthy - what worked generation to generation when there were no doctors. The unfashionable concept of wisdom. The 'risk' lies in following today's food fads.

Again more pure unadulterated nonsense.

Put simply, correlation is not causation. Pre industrialised diets contain virtually no refined sugar. The actual foods eaten are entirely irrelevant, what matters is no sugar. That's the core here and dressed up in all the insane psuedo-science doesn't change the basic concept.

Now, clearly you went with the reduction in sugar and for people willing to do that, good luck to them. Personally I think sugar is a damn fine addition to diets and science has developed ways we can deal with relatively higher (but not completely stupidly high) levels of refined sugar through regular brushing and flouridation.

But your nonsense about rinsing and the "evil" of flouride isn't a factor. The lack of sugar is.

Fook me, Dair is a genius

Cyclefree said:

BTW we have another Labour MP - sometimes cited as a possible future leader, Clive Lewis, who came out after the PLP meeting threatening those who voted for bombing with being held responsible for any subsequent terrorist attacks. Another MP who simply cannot or won't bring himself to attach blame to those who carry out terrorist atrocities; another MP lacking in a moral compass. Listen to him on this morning's Today programme.

Richard_Nabavi said:

The truth is, there is no answer to the conundrum facing moderate Labour MPs. It's not lack of brains, or lack of resolve, or lack of cojones, or lack of desire, which is preventing them saving the party from destruction at the hands of the entryists and extremists, it is lack of means.

I think that the only thing they can do is what Hilary Benn and Lord Falconer are doing: try to hang on whilst resisting the worst lunacies. I expect, however, that that effort, though in some ways admirable, is doomed to failure anyway. Still, it's the best that can be done.

Meanwhile, others such as Chukka, Dan Jarvis, and Keir Starmer need to lie low and try to remain as untainted as possible, whilst waiting for an opportunity to start rebuilding from the ashes. It looks like being a long wait, however,

rcs1000 said:

nigel4england said:

Dair said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT:

JosiasJessop said:

"I did some research"

I would be careful given your track record of 'research'.

In all seriousness, be very careful about believing what you read on websites (and to a lesser extent the media) about medical issues. Too much of it is quackery, clickbait or money-fodder. Some of it can be actively injurious to your health.

Actually, the opposite is true of the diet protocol I 'follow' (I'm not slavish). I follow a 'Weston A Price' diet. Price was a dentist who noted declining dental (and general) health in the US population in the early 20th century. He embarked on a mission to go around the world learning about the healthiest and longest lived societies - largely those untouched by industrialisation etc. From Eskimos, to African tribes, to Swiss villages. Such a thing can't be done these days - these peoples are gone.

He found each society, though some were nearly vegeterian, some almost entirely carniverous etc., had in common certain 'sacred foods' that kept them healthy, free from disease and long lived.

Look at today's society - we're being kept alive a bit longer by medical advances and greatly reduced deprivation, but healthier? Allergies and intolerances are out of control, cancer, heart and other diseases likewise. Who says our diet is healthier? 20 years ago fat was the enemy. It's now sugar. These are trends, not nutritional truths. The past is really the only place we can look to find out what's healthy - what worked generation to generation when there were no doctors. The unfashionable concept of wisdom. The 'risk' lies in following today's food fads.

Again more pure unadulterated nonsense.

Put simply, correlation is not causation. Pre industrialised diets contain virtually no refined sugar. The actual foods eaten are entirely irrelevant, what matters is no sugar. That's the core here and dressed up in all the insane psuedo-science doesn't change the basic concept.

Now, clearly you went with the reduction in sugar and for people willing to do that, good luck to them. Personally I think sugar is a damn fine addition to diets and science has developed ways we can deal with relatively higher (but not completely stupidly high) levels of refined sugar through regular brushing and flouridation.

But your nonsense about rinsing and the "evil" of flouride isn't a factor. The lack of sugar is.

Fook me, Dair is a genius

He's right.

About this, at least.

rcs1000 said:

Just got on a brand new Eurostar train.

They've been very nicely upgraded.

I hope they have WiFi

blackburn63 said:

The average prediction so far has labour winning by 1%

AlastairMeeks said:

@PickardJE · 2m2 minutes ago
Sounds like Labour MPs buckling under pressure: leader's office briefing 100 Syria rebels - others suggest it may be down to 30 or 40 now.

SandyRentool said:

Off topic - yesterday I learnt what the second "C" in CCHQ actually stands for. I always thought it was "Central".

Casino_Royale said:

Tissue_Price said:

The EU have produced an Advent Calendar for us. What a refreshing and innovative approach to PR.

Day 1: Safer presents thanks to European Commission Rapid alert system

*steps away from PB for an hour*

http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/press/frontpage/2015/125_en.htm

I think that might be the worst advent calendar ever.

Morris_Dancer said:

Felicitous post-meridian work period, fellow citizen-comrades of Jezikistan.

Behold the unassailable power of the Chairman, as the vile lies spread by capitalist media barons about the Politburo are proven false! The entire Politburo stands staunchly behind the Chairman's firm position of total uncertainty.

Never has the Party been more united. As our loyal friends in Stop The War march to congratulate the Inner Party members and the leading thespian Comrade Rylance gives the Chairman his support, watch as the Conservative pigdogs tremble in fear, and rightly so.

Danny565 said:

taffys said:

''More likely after 2025, and maybe not even then.''

I don't see the moderates ever winning again. The great mass movement of working people that used to be labour no longer exists.

This depends what you mean by "moderates". There's never going to be a swivel-eyed ultra-Blairite winning the leadership again, true.

But the Soft Left is still near-unbeatable in Labour leadership elections IF they offer a good candidate; most members want to win elections while still having just about enough principles to make it worthwhile. The problem was there was perceived to be no Soft Left candidate in this year's leadership election (Burnham could've been it but destroyed it by following Liz Kendall down the Blairite rabbit-hole in the first couple of weeks of the contest, and even though he tried to swerve back later people had stopped trusting him).

rcs1000 said:

I'm thinking about getting @RichardTyndall an EU advent calendar.

I'm generous like that.