One UK party has once elected a woman as leader. That's it. All have frequently had women in senior positions. Clearly we are still a long way from equality, but to single out any party as having a problem is odd.
The party with the biggest female problem is the Lib Dems.
No Lib Dem female MPs, no prospective leader candidates (UKIP has Suzanne Evans; Labour Yvette/Liz). No former leaders. No former deputy leaders. A record consisting almost exclusively of middle aged, middle class white men reaching the top
On the other hand, they did have an acting leader who was a woman - Sal Brinton, earlier this year.
Admittedly she was (A) only in de facto charge and (b) in the Lords at the time, but surely it counts for something?
The ydoethur's answer to Morris_Dancer's question is spot on. Labour's posturing on issues such as gender equality is predicated upon the notion that most of the electorate are unobservant and so won't have noticed the fact that Labour has not itself had a female leader.
I always assumed it's only people like us that notice the inconsistency between what Labour says and what the reality is. But now I think much of electorate was fairly unimpressed by Ed's attempt to describe the country as being in a bad way (cost of living crisis etc) as it so obviously didn't match their own experience.
I think what did for Ed Miliband was when he said he was a normal man who understood ordinary people's lives. The child of a university lecturer with a million pound house, who earns £64k excluding pension, and is married to a successful barrister did not strike most of us as an 'ordinary' person.
But he sealed it when two breaths later, he couldn't remember the price of bread. As Norman Tebbitt is supposed to have said, 'In politics, far better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.'
The price of bread varies alot depending on the loaf though. Did he have no idea it is around a pound though ?!
I feel very strongly that AWS were immensely demeaning. If I ever felt I'd got a job because sheep/goats had been divided - I'd never believe I'd won fair and square.
Instinctively I am against AWS. However, it does appear that many Labour MPs cannot multi-task or at least multi-think. From my experience, having a good lady/s in the boardroom can often give a different viewpoint that man-think often has not considered.
I'm beginning to wonder if Hattie was actually right about forcing Labour to have either a female leader or deputy.
Up until this point, I thought it was part of her Hatemen feminism that's been her main agenda for 30yrs.
Now, perhaps she had a point - compelling Labour to have ovaries as a default seems to be the only way it's going to happen. I suspect she knows the Party better than the rest of us on this one.
Backing someone because they have ovaries is ridiculous. Whoever's best (or least worst, in this case) should get the gig.
I'd say it matters for 2 reasons:
1) Labour pride themselves on being the party of equality. Being, in effect, fifty years behind the rivals they castigate for every crime under the sun including misogyny looks bad and hurts their image of themselves;
2) As there are a large number of women in the Labour party, and have been now for two decades, it looks a bit odd that apparently not one of them is fit to be placed in the top two in the leader and possibly deputy leader contest. Is it because they are not very capable or is there something holding them back (the infamous 'glass ceiling')? Even if other people are like you and don't care, Labour will and it will cause prolonged naval gazing while they try and work out the answer.
Of course, the most senior women in the Labour party have been Beckett (temporary leader and Foreign Secretary) Jacqui Smith (Home Secretary) Harriet Harman (twice temporary leader) and Yvette Cooper (Shadow Foreign Secretary and Shadow Home Secretary). None are exactly walking adverts for feminism.
The fact that this contest from Cooper's point of view has largely revolved around her genitalia, her children and her husband is possibly the most damning indictment imaginable of how little she has actually achieved, but it also suggests, since nobody has been asking those questions of Burnham - not even about his expenses and his wife's threat to divorce him over them - suggests Labour (and the country perhaps?) have some way to go on the subject of sexual equality.
But he sealed it when two breaths later, he couldn't remember the price of bread. As Norman Tebbitt is supposed to have said, 'In politics, far better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.'
I thought it was when he told the Newsnight audience that he didn't think Labour had spent too much.
Incidentally Tebbitt probably thought he was paraphrasing Abe Lincoln or Mark Twain
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
but they, in turn, were probably paraphrasing the bible
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
Incidentally, this morning I'm detecting a few straws in the wind that the relevance of some of Jeremy Corbyn's history is dawning on some of his supporters.
To get round DT subs, if you use FFox - go to Tools, Options, Privacy - delete individual cookies - type Telegraph into the field and press Delete All.
I'm beginning to wonder if Hattie was actually right about forcing Labour to have either a female leader or deputy.
Up until this point, I thought it was part of her Hatemen feminism that's been her main agenda for 30yrs.
Now, perhaps she had a point - compelling Labour to have ovaries as a default seems to be the only way it's going to happen. I suspect she knows the Party better than the rest of us on this one.
Possibly. However, since it was her decision to resign the deputy leadership before the outcome of the leadership election was known, if they end up with two men she will only have herself to blame. I suspect, with her usual mix of arrogance and ineptitude, she thought Cooper would walk the first one and therefore it didn't matter who the deputy leader was.
To get round DT subs, if you use FFox - go to Tools, Options, Privacy - delete individual cookies - type Telegraph into the field and press Delete All.
I'm beginning to wonder if Hattie was actually right about forcing Labour to have either a female leader or deputy.
Up until this point, I thought it was part of her Hatemen feminism that's been her main agenda for 30yrs.
Now, perhaps she had a point - compelling Labour to have ovaries as a default seems to be the only way it's going to happen. I suspect she knows the Party better than the rest of us on this one.
Possibly. However, since it was her decision to resign the deputy leadership before the outcome of the leadership election was known, if they end up with two men she will only have herself to blame. I suspect, with her usual mix of arrogance and ineptitude, she thought Cooper would walk the first one and therefore it didn't matter who the deputy leader was.
It can be quite difficult to assess many politicians unless you have met them informally as well as formally. That can be especially true of the ladies. I have been fortunate enough to have met Mrs T, Betty Boothroyd (who probably broke the mould for Speakers) and Mrs May. All were/are great thinkers in their own way and not afraid to stand up and be counted.
Of the gang of four, I have met only Liz Kendal - she too is a thinker - but perhaps needs that few more years of experience to fulfill her potential.
There is a popular and lazy misconception that mediocre people end up becoming MPs almost by mistake or sleight of hand.
In my experience they all are extremely bright, sharp, driven individuals.
Do they all have the spark of greatness, or genius, for that matter? Of course not, but they are uniformly a pretty above-average bunch.
Its got to be easier for labourites - I mean just look at Corbyn. Typically, activist - Teacher/lecturer/LG employee - shop steward - councillor - candidate - MP.
Otherwise it takes time and dedication to trawl the country putting yourself about and your name forward.
Yes it is perhaps easier for the unsayable (for the Cons) reason that to be an MP you either needs loadsamoney or none of it.
To base yourself in your constituency-to-be, to throw yourself into the various PPC activities takes time and therefore money. The opportunity cost is huge. And then when or if you succeed you are on something under £100,000.
So it would only (no idea, shall we call it 90% plus?) appeal if you are either looking at candidates who are on the average salary or thereabouts or who are independently wealthy.
All those they want to tempt in from the professions: doctors, lawyers, headteachers, etc , find it difficult.
The ydoethur's answer to Morris_Dancer's question is spot on. Labour's posturing on issues such as gender equality is predicated upon the notion that most of the electorate are unobservant and so won't have noticed the fact that Labour has not itself had a female leader.
I always assumed it's only people like us that notice the inconsistency between what Labour says and what the reality is. But now I think much of electorate was fairly unimpressed by Ed's attempt to describe the country as being in a bad way (cost of living crisis etc) as it so obviously didn't match their own experience.
I think what did for Ed Miliband was when he said he was a normal man who understood ordinary people's lives. The child of a university lecturer with a million pound house, who earns £64k excluding pension, and is married to a successful barrister did not strike most of us as an 'ordinary' person.
But he sealed it when two breaths later, he couldn't remember the price of bread. As Norman Tebbitt is supposed to have said, 'In politics, far better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.'
The price of bread varies alot depending on the loaf though. Did he have no idea it is around a pound though ?!
Nope - indeed, he thought his family's total shopping bill was around £70 per week. Mind you, the bread one is something Cameron didn't get close to either - but he didn't (doesn't) bang on about being a 'normal' person.
But he sealed it when two breaths later, he couldn't remember the price of bread. As Norman Tebbitt is supposed to have said, 'In politics, far better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.'
I thought it was when he told the Newsnight audience that he didn't think Labour had spent too much.
Incidentally Tebbitt probably thought he was paraphrasing Abe Lincoln or Mark Twain
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
but they, in turn, were probably paraphrasing the bible
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
I bow to your erudition Indigo, especially your knowledge of the Book of Proverbs, chapter 17 (verse 28).
I think by the time he got to his Newsnight trainwrecks, we had all decided: was he rubbish? hell yes, he was rubbish.
The ydoethur's answer to Morris_Dancer's question is spot on. Labour's posturing on issues such as gender equality is predicated upon the notion that most of the electorate are unobservant and so won't have noticed the fact that Labour has not itself had a female leader.
I always assumed it's only people like us that notice the inconsistency between what Labour says and what the reality is. But now I think much of electorate was fairly unimpressed by Ed's attempt to describe the country as being in a bad way (cost of living crisis etc) as it so obviously didn't match their own experience.
I think what did for Ed Miliband was when he said he was a normal man who understood ordinary people's lives. The child of a university lecturer with a million pound house, who earns £64k excluding pension, and is married to a successful barrister did not strike most of us as an 'ordinary' person.
But he sealed it when two breaths later, he couldn't remember the price of bread. As Norman Tebbitt is supposed to have said, 'In politics, far better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.'
The price of bread varies alot depending on the loaf though. Did he have no idea it is around a pound though ?!
I suspect the Miliband nanny normally pays £4 for an artisan sourdough loaf from some chi chi North London baker. No wonder he kept quiet.
The ydoethur's answer to Morris_Dancer's question is spot on. Labour's posturing on issues such as gender equality is predicated upon the notion that most of the electorate are unobservant and so won't have noticed the fact that Labour has not itself had a female leader.
I always assumed it's only people like us that notice the inconsistency between what Labour says and what the reality is. But now I think much of electorate was fairly unimpressed by Ed's attempt to describe the country as being in a bad way (cost of living crisis etc) as it so obviously didn't match their own experience.
I think what did for Ed Miliband was when he said he was a normal man who understood ordinary people's lives. The child of a university lecturer with a million pound house, who earns £64k excluding pension, and is married to a successful barrister did not strike most of us as an 'ordinary' person.
But he sealed it when two breaths later, he couldn't remember the price of bread. As Norman Tebbitt is supposed to have said, 'In politics, far better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.'
The price of bread varies alot depending on the loaf though. Did he have no idea it is around a pound though ?!
I suspect the Miliband nanny normally pays £4 for an artisan sourdough loaf from some chi chi North London baker. No wonder he kept quiet.
he never got a chance to display his knowledge of circus prices
To get round DT subs, if you use FFox - go to Tools, Options, Privacy - delete individual cookies - type Telegraph into the field and press Delete All.
I'm beginning to wonder if Hattie was actually right about forcing Labour to have either a female leader or deputy.
Up until this point, I thought it was part of her Hatemen feminism that's been her main agenda for 30yrs.
Now, perhaps she had a point - compelling Labour to have ovaries as a default seems to be the only way it's going to happen. I suspect she knows the Party better than the rest of us on this one.
Possibly. However, since it was her decision to resign the deputy leadership before the outcome of the leadership election was known, if they end up with two men she will only have herself to blame. I suspect, with her usual mix of arrogance and ineptitude, she thought Cooper would walk the first one and therefore it didn't matter who the deputy leader was.
Thank you Plato. In fact, I found it even easier in the end by following your advice - I don't use Firefox much, so I open it and away I go!
Until the day they implant cookies by IP address or computer rather than browser, I suppose.
Incidentally, this morning I'm detecting a few straws in the wind that the relevance of some of Jeremy Corbyn's history is dawning on some of his supporters.
Are you adjusting your positions?
I have laid off a little bit over the past 24 hours. Mainly because I hit my bank overdraft limit unexpectedly, and needed the money, but also to reduce my exposure a tad.
The ydoethur's answer to Morris_Dancer's question is spot on. Labour's posturing on issues such as gender equality is predicated upon the notion that most of the electorate are unobservant and so won't have noticed the fact that Labour has not itself had a female leader.
I always assumed it's only people like us that notice the inconsistency between what Labour says and what the reality is. But now I think much of electorate was fairly unimpressed by Ed's attempt to describe the country as being in a bad way (cost of living crisis etc) as it so obviously didn't match their own experience.
I think what did for Ed Miliband was when he said he was a normal man who understood ordinary people's lives. The child of a university lecturer with a million pound house, who earns £64k excluding pension, and is married to a successful barrister did not strike most of us as an 'ordinary' person.
But he sealed it when two breaths later, he couldn't remember the price of bread. As Norman Tebbitt is supposed to have said, 'In politics, far better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.'
The price of bread varies alot depending on the loaf though. Did he have no idea it is around a pound though ?!
I suspect the Miliband nanny normally pays £4 for an artisan sourdough loaf from some chi chi North London baker. No wonder he kept quiet.
The ydoethur's answer to Morris_Dancer's question is spot on. Labour's posturing on issues such as gender equality is predicated upon the notion that most of the electorate are unobservant and so won't have noticed the fact that Labour has not itself had a female leader.
I always assumed it's only people like us that notice the inconsistency between what Labour says and what the reality is. But now I think much of electorate was fairly unimpressed by Ed's attempt to describe the country as being in a bad way (cost of living crisis etc) as it so obviously didn't match their own experience.
I think what did for Ed Miliband was when he said he was a normal man who understood ordinary people's lives. The child of a university lecturer with a million pound house, who earns £64k excluding pension, and is married to a successful barrister did not strike most of us as an 'ordinary' person.
But he sealed it when two breaths later, he couldn't remember the price of bread. As Norman Tebbitt is supposed to have said, 'In politics, far better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.'
The price of bread varies alot depending on the loaf though. Did he have no idea it is around a pound though ?!
I suspect the Miliband nanny normally pays £4 for an artisan sourdough loaf from some chi chi North London baker. No wonder he kept quiet.
he never got a chance to display his knowledge of circus prices
To get round DT subs, if you use FFox - go to Tools, Options, Privacy - delete individual cookies - type Telegraph into the field and press Delete All.
I'm beginning to wonder if Hattie was actually right about forcing Labour to have either a female leader or deputy.
Up until this point, I thought it was part of her Hatemen feminism that's been her main agenda for 30yrs.
Now, perhaps she had a point - compelling Labour to have ovaries as a default seems to be the only way it's going to happen. I suspect she knows the Party better than the rest of us on this one.
Possibly. However, since it was her decision to resign the deputy leadership before the outcome of the leadership election was known, if they end up with two men she will only have herself to blame. I suspect, with her usual mix of arrogance and ineptitude, she thought Cooper would walk the first one and therefore it didn't matter who the deputy leader was.
Thank you Plato. In fact, I found it even easier in the end by following your advice - I don't use Firefox much, so I open it and away I go!
Until the day they implant cookies by IP address or computer rather than browser, I suppose.
Would you walk into your local newsagent and steal something from the shelves?
To get round DT subs, if you use FFox - go to Tools, Options, Privacy - delete individual cookies - type Telegraph into the field and press Delete All.
I'm beginning to wonder if Hattie was actually right about forcing Labour to have either a female leader or deputy.
Up until this point, I thought it was part of her Hatemen feminism that's been her main agenda for 30yrs.
Now, perhaps she had a point - compelling Labour to have ovaries as a default seems to be the only way it's going to happen. I suspect she knows the Party better than the rest of us on this one.
Possibly. However, since it was her decision to resign the deputy leadership before the outcome of the leadership election was known, if they end up with two men she will only have herself to blame. I suspect, with her usual mix of arrogance and ineptitude, she thought Cooper would walk the first one and therefore it didn't matter who the deputy leader was.
Thank you Plato. In fact, I found it even easier in the end by following your advice - I don't use Firefox much, so I open it and away I go!
Until the day they implant cookies by IP address or computer rather than browser, I suppose.
Would you walk into your local newsagent and steal something from the shelves?
Well - I walk round and read the headlines. Does that count?
Incidentally, this morning I'm detecting a few straws in the wind that the relevance of some of Jeremy Corbyn's history is dawning on some of his supporters.
Are you adjusting your positions?
I have laid off a little bit over the past 24 hours. Mainly because I hit my bank overdraft limit unexpectedly, and needed the money, but also to reduce my exposure a tad.
A few days ago, I thought it was all over and it probably is. But I don't think it's 1.1 any more, probably more like the 1.4 it's trading around. Note Nick Palmer's comments. He still doesn't think it's a done deal and he's advised people to be a bit cautious.
I decided yesterday when Peter Kellner was arsing around that I would be fearful while others are greedy. That's probably the wrong decision, but I'm going to the States during September (and I'm not in the country that much before then), so I won't be able to alter my betting positions at will. I can do without the stress of watching impotently from abroad while a large betting position collapses. I'll lose if Liz Kendall wins, but I can deal with that. And I still get a four figure sum if Jeremy Corbyn wins. isam would probably tell me I've been a mug and I may well have been. Oh well.
The ydoethur's answer to Morris_Dancer's question is spot on. Labour's posturing on issues such as gender equality is predicated upon the notion that most of the electorate are unobservant and so won't have noticed the fact that Labour has not itself had a female leader.
I always assumed it's only people like us that notice the inconsistency between what Labour says and what the reality is. But now I think much of electorate was fairly unimpressed by Ed's attempt to describe the country as being in a bad way (cost of living crisis etc) as it so obviously didn't match their own experience.
I think what did for Ed Miliband was when he said he was a normal man who understood ordinary people's lives. The child of a university lecturer with a million pound house, who earns £64k excluding pension, and is married to a successful barrister did not strike most of us as an 'ordinary' person.
But he sealed it when two breaths later, he couldn't remember the price of bread. As Norman Tebbitt is supposed to have said, 'In politics, far better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.'
The price of bread varies alot depending on the loaf though. Did he have no idea it is around a pound though ?!
I suspect the Miliband nanny normally pays £4 for an artisan sourdough loaf from some chi chi North London baker. No wonder he kept quiet.
Last time I was in London, I noted bread on sale for extortionate prices outside Kings Cross/St Pancras with an ethnic/organic/hand-crafted vibe.
I really am getting fed up of the increased database state. What's the point of getting rid of ID cards, if the government is turning round to do this:
Every detail of people's finances could be collated and stored in a digital "vault" under plans being developed by the Government, financial firms, Google and Microsoft.
In a move to make it easier to open bank accounts and Isas, people will be asked to share all of their accounts, tax records and personal details with a central service.
I really am getting fed up of the increased database state. What's the point of getting rid of ID cards, if the government is turning round to do this:
Every detail of people's finances could be collated and stored in a digital "vault" under plans being developed by the Government, financial firms, Google and Microsoft.
In a move to make it easier to open bank accounts and Isas, people will be asked to share all of their accounts, tax records and personal details with a central service.
This has long been, as I understand it, standard practice in Estonia - which is why they have ID cards. Anyone who holds one can use it for all those things we associate with them - entitlement, buying stuff, voting (although we don't need ID to vote here, of course) but - crucial caveat - you can also use them to check who has accessed your data and why. Therefore, if there's anything you don't like, you can challenge it on the instant.
In this country, of course, that would be most unlikely to happen.
Backing someone because they have ovaries is ridiculous. Whoever's best (or least worst, in this case) should get the gig.
Ovaries are not really the issue Mr Dancer. The issue is that a party that waves the equality flag and spouts the equality agenda at every opportunity appears to be ignoring a large portion of their membership because of innate characteristics that cannot be changed. Hypocrisy or what? And nobody likes hypocrites.
How would YOU like it if there was something you believed passionately about, something you could make a contribution to but when you applied they either belittled you or poked fun at you?
Suppose that the barrier was that you had the wrong eye colour or only people with size 9.5 feet could apply? Some ridiculous criteria that had absolutely nothing to do with your ability to contribute. Like being born with ovaries instead of testicles.....
Labour looks like they are about to elect Corbyn - not that I care, I hope they do - but the ladies in the party are standing round watching the membership charge towards a leader who has less credibility in political terms then an Enormo-Haddock. Do you imagine they are not annoyed?
Incidentally, this morning I'm detecting a few straws in the wind that the relevance of some of Jeremy Corbyn's history is dawning on some of his supporters.
Are you adjusting your positions?
I have laid off a little bit over the past 24 hours. Mainly because I hit my bank overdraft limit unexpectedly, and needed the money, but also to reduce my exposure a tad.
A few days ago, I thought it was all over and it probably is. But I don't think it's 1.1 any more, probably more like the 1.4 it's trading around. Note Nick Palmer's comments. He still doesn't think it's a done deal and he's advised people to be a bit cautious.
I decided yesterday when Peter Kellner was arsing around that I would be fearful while others are greedy. That's probably the wrong decision, but I'm going to the States during September (and I'm not in the country that much before then), so I won't be able to alter my betting positions at will. I can do without the stress of watching impotently from abroad while a large betting position collapses. I'll lose if Liz Kendall wins, but I can deal with that. And I still get a four figure sum if Jeremy Corbyn wins. isam would probably tell me I've been a mug and I may well have been. Oh well.
I have done likewise, and agree that 1.4 is not "free money". Given the "bad bank" theory I think Burnham probably represents the value to beat Corbyn. It's taking a while to turn the book around...
I really am getting fed up of the increased database state. What's the point of getting rid of ID cards, if the government is turning round to do this:
Every detail of people's finances could be collated and stored in a digital "vault" under plans being developed by the Government, financial firms, Google and Microsoft.
In a move to make it easier to open bank accounts and Isas, people will be asked to share all of their accounts, tax records and personal details with a central service.
Will that include open betfair positions and bookie long term bets :P ?
I really am getting fed up of the increased database state. What's the point of getting rid of ID cards, if the government is turning round to do this:
Every detail of people's finances could be collated and stored in a digital "vault" under plans being developed by the Government, financial firms, Google and Microsoft.
In a move to make it easier to open bank accounts and Isas, people will be asked to share all of their accounts, tax records and personal details with a central service.
This has long been, as I understand it, standard practice in Estonia - which is why they have ID cards. Anyone who holds one can use it for all those things we associate with them - entitlement, buying stuff, voting (although we don't need ID to vote here, of course) but - crucial caveat - you can also use them to check who has accessed your data and why. Therefore, if there's anything you don't like, you can challenge it on the instant.
In this country, of course, that would be most unlikely to happen.
And even if it did, I'm sure the security services would be able to look at anyone's records without showing up on the checks. And talented hackers would be able to cover their tracks.
Neil Findlay @Neil_FindlayMSP 40 mins40 minutes ago @MrTCHarris oh Thomas now, now don't throw your toys out the pram because your sense of entitlement is slipping away ......there, there.....
Tom Harris @MrTCHarris 23 mins23 minutes ago @Neil_FindlayMSP ah, I see - my "sense of entitlement"? Good to know that Trots' penchant for personal abuse is alive and well.
To get round DT subs, if you use FFox - go to Tools, Options, Privacy - delete individual cookies - type Telegraph into the field and press Delete All.
I'm beginning to wonder if Hattie was actually right about forcing Labour to have either a female leader or deputy.
Up until this point, I thought it was part of her Hatemen feminism that's been her main agenda for 30yrs.
Now, perhaps she had a point - compelling Labour to have ovaries as a default seems to be the only way it's going to happen. I suspect she knows the Party better than the rest of us on this one.
Possibly. However, since it was her decision to resign the deputy leadership before the outcome of the leadership election was known, if they end up with two men she will only have herself to blame. I suspect, with her usual mix of arrogance and ineptitude, she thought Cooper would walk the first one and therefore it didn't matter who the deputy leader was.
Thank you Plato. In fact, I found it even easier in the end by following your advice - I don't use Firefox much, so I open it and away I go!
Until the day they implant cookies by IP address or computer rather than browser, I suppose.
Would you walk into your local newsagent and steal something from the shelves?
Well - I walk round and read the headlines. Does that count?
You can read the headlines in the Telegraph without breaching the paywall. I do wonder why some people think that getting around digital security systems so as to obtain something for free is somehow alright. Honest citizens who would never dream of stealing anything physical will cheerfully and casually loot a web-site and even, as we have seen on here this morning, post instructions to help others do the same.
A person uses their knowledge, skill and talents to create something which they then try and sell. If it is a physical object then to steal it is wrong, but if it is electronic it's fair game. It is an attitude that I just do not understand.
I feel very strongly that AWS were immensely demeaning. If I ever felt I'd got a job because sheep/goats had been divided - I'd never believe I'd won fair and square.
Instinctively I am against AWS. However, it does appear that many Labour MPs cannot multi-task or at least multi-think. From my experience, having a good lady/s in the boardroom can often give a different viewpoint that man-think often has not considered.
I'm beginning to wonder if Hattie was actually right about forcing Labour to have either a female leader or deputy.
Up until this point, I thought it was part of her Hatemen feminism that's been her main agenda for 30yrs.
Now, perhaps she had a point - compelling Labour to have ovaries as a default seems to be the only way it's going to happen. I suspect she knows the Party better than the rest of us on this one.
Backing someone because they have ovaries is ridiculous. Whoever's best (or least worst, in this case) should get the gig.
I'd say it matters for 2 reasons:
1) Labour pride themselves on being the party of equality. Being, in effect, fifty years behind the rivals they castigate for every crime under the sun including misogyny looks bad and hurts their image of themselves;
2) As there are a large number of women in the Labour party, and have been now for two decades, it looks a bit odd that apparently not one of them is fit to be placed in the top two in the leader and possibly deputy leader contest. Is it because they are not very capable or is there something holding them back (the infamous 'glass ceiling')? Even if other people are like you and don't care, Labour will and it will cause prolonged naval gazing while they try and work out the answer.
Of course, the most senior women in the Labour party have been Beckett (temporary leader and Foreign Secretary) Jacqui Smith (Home Secretary) Harriet Harman (twice temporary leader) and Yvette Cooper (Shadow Foreign Secretary and Shadow Home Secretary). None are exactly walking adverts for feminism.
There seem to me to be larger problems when Shortlists are gerrymandered in that way - leaving aside that it was illegal until they excluded political parties from that part of the Equality Act (think that was what it was called).
AWS gave them a generation of docile backbenchers dependent on the leadership who toed the line on eg Iraq.
Neil Findlay @Neil_FindlayMSP 40 mins40 minutes ago @MrTCHarris oh Thomas now, now don't throw your toys out the pram because your sense of entitlement is slipping away ......there, there.....
Tom Harris @MrTCHarris 23 mins23 minutes ago @Neil_FindlayMSP ah, I see - my "sense of entitlement"? Good to know that Trots' penchant for personal abuse is alive and well.
I wonder if Labour realise, even ahead of the chaos and looming catastrophe, the damage such sniping and backbiting on their own is doing to them. How many voters does it put off? I don't know, but I'd guess a lot. It's the tactics of the playground, and it makes them look totally irresponsible.
Whoever becomes leader is going to need the skill level of a successful marriage guidance counsellor to heal the hate that's been going on.
Every detail of people's finances could be collated and stored in a digital "vault" under plans being developed by the Government, financial firms, Google and Microsoft.
Perhaps it is time to get the cash economy moving again? Cash is nice and discreet ;-)
I really am getting fed up of the increased database state. What's the point of getting rid of ID cards, if the government is turning round to do this:
Every detail of people's finances could be collated and stored in a digital "vault" under plans being developed by the Government, financial firms, Google and Microsoft.
In a move to make it easier to open bank accounts and Isas, people will be asked to share all of their accounts, tax records and personal details with a central service.
This has long been, as I understand it, standard practice in Estonia - which is why they have ID cards. Anyone who holds one can use it for all those things we associate with them - entitlement, buying stuff, voting (although we don't need ID to vote here, of course) but - crucial caveat - you can also use them to check who has accessed your data and why. Therefore, if there's anything you don't like, you can challenge it on the instant.
In this country, of course, that would be most unlikely to happen.
And even if it did, I'm sure the security services would be able to look at anyone's records without showing up on the checks. And talented hackers would be able to cover their tracks.
MI5 is the pretext, HMRC is almost certainly the reason.
@Disraeli (And New Labour was Labour - don't try and pretend that the Tories would have done the vast majority of things that they did between 1997 and 2010)
Depends which Tories you are referring to. New Labour was well to the right of the 1951 - 1964 Tory Government. Heath also said Blair was too right-wing for him. Hague also described Blair as a Tory.
You can read the headlines in the Telegraph without breaching the paywall. I do wonder why some people think that getting around digital security systems so as to obtain something for free is somehow alright. Honest citizens who would never dream of stealing anything physical will cheerfully and casually loot a web-site and even, as we have seen on here this morning, post instructions to help others do the same.
A person uses their knowledge, skill and talents to create something which they then try and sell. If it is a physical object then to steal it is wrong, but if it is electronic it's fair game. It is an attitude that I just do not understand.
In other circumstances I might agree with that Mr Llama. However, I ran out of articles this month because the same article opened itself three times on the website. That would of course have only counted once in the print edition.
I'll make a concession - I have only read three articles and one quiz on Firefox. I won't read any more. It has to be said, there's not usually a lot that's worth reading anyway.
(In addition to reading the headlines, I often do skim-read whole articles, to consider whether something is worth buying. Usually, I decide it isn't. The same principle could apply there as well.)
Neil Findlay @Neil_FindlayMSP 40 mins40 minutes ago @MrTCHarris oh Thomas now, now don't throw your toys out the pram because your sense of entitlement is slipping away ......there, there.....
Tom Harris @MrTCHarris 23 mins23 minutes ago @Neil_FindlayMSP ah, I see - my "sense of entitlement"? Good to know that Trots' penchant for personal abuse is alive and well.
I wonder if Labour realise, even ahead of the chaos and looming catastrophe, the damage such sniping and backbiting on their own is doing to them.
Labour are oblivious. It's all about them at the moment, the electorate as a whole are largely irrelevant.
@Disraeli (And New Labour was Labour - don't try and pretend that the Tories would have done the vast majority of things that they did between 1997 and 2010)
Depends which Tories you are referring to. New Labour was well to the right of the 1951 - 1964 Tory Government. Heath also said Blair was too right-wing for him. Hague also described Blair as a Tory.
Blair himself apparently said, 'I could sort out the Tories in five minutes.'
To be fair, he may have been thinking of the time it took him to write a letter of resignation in order to put Gordon Brown in place instead.
Neil Findlay @Neil_FindlayMSP 40 mins40 minutes ago @MrTCHarris oh Thomas now, now don't throw your toys out the pram because your sense of entitlement is slipping away ......there, there.....
Tom Harris @MrTCHarris 23 mins23 minutes ago @Neil_FindlayMSP ah, I see - my "sense of entitlement"? Good to know that Trots' penchant for personal abuse is alive and well.
I wonder if Labour realise, even ahead of the chaos and looming catastrophe, the damage such sniping and backbiting on their own is doing to them. How many voters does it put off? I don't know, but I'd guess a lot. It's the tactics of the playground, and it makes them look totally irresponsible.
Whoever becomes leader is going to need the skill level of a successful marriage guidance counsellor to heal the hate that's been going on.
@Disraeli 'Wrong. Apart from Thatcher's victories. The Tories also had working majorities in 1951, 1955, 1959 and 1970'
Without the Ulster Unionists there would have been no overall majority in 1951. Moreover Heath's majority in 1970 would have been just 15.
Or, to look at it another way, with the Ulster Unionists Major would have had a majority of 40 in 1992. It wouldn't have made much difference in the end, given the Maastricht chaos, but he would have had a substantial majority.
He also got more votes than Blair did, and a higher share of the vote than any Labour leader has managed since 1970 with the exception of 1997.
(PS - if a Labour speaker had been elected in 1951 - I know one wasn't - the Tories would still have had a bare majority even if their members from Ulster had all voted against them. Similarly, of course, remember Labour would not have had an overall majority in 1964, 1974 or 1950 without Scotland.)
Neil Findlay @Neil_FindlayMSP 40 mins40 minutes ago @MrTCHarris oh Thomas now, now don't throw your toys out the pram because your sense of entitlement is slipping away ......there, there.....
Tom Harris @MrTCHarris 23 mins23 minutes ago @Neil_FindlayMSP ah, I see - my "sense of entitlement"? Good to know that Trots' penchant for personal abuse is alive and well.
I wonder if Labour realise, even ahead of the chaos and looming catastrophe, the damage such sniping and backbiting on their own is doing to them. How many voters does it put off? I don't know, but I'd guess a lot. It's the tactics of the playground, and it makes them look totally irresponsible.
Whoever becomes leader is going to need the skill level of a successful marriage guidance counsellor to heal the hate that's been going on.
Incidentally, this morning I'm detecting a few straws in the wind that the relevance of some of Jeremy Corbyn's history is dawning on some of his supporters.
Project Fear mark 2 in indyref shifted about 5% to the NO campaign. If the similarly gullible 5% move after MSM scare stories after believing their versions Corbyn falls under 50% and it gets down to right wing preferences.
I am even more European with 49.2% and should go and live in the Netherlands apparently (which I wouldn't mind doing because I like the Cloggies and their way of life).
I hate cyclists - so I would probably end up living in Wyoming.
Wyoming looks great for cycling !
Yankee Doodle land is most definitely not good for cycling - you are expected to use the gutter or hard shoulder with few exceptions, and when they do bike things they are often - as here - badly designed and more dangerous than the roads. They have little concept of cycling as a third mode of travel in addition to motor vehicles and pedestrians.
The Glass Elevator descent is perhaps an exception !
On topic, seems Labour can't get round its roots - of being the party of the working MAN.
That, and today having a significant minority of support from people who think their women should never even leave the house unless under something slightly less revealing than a fire-blanket...
It really gnaws away at a number of my leftie chums that when it comes to equality, the Tories hold Top Trumps.
Incidentally, this morning I'm detecting a few straws in the wind that the relevance of some of Jeremy Corbyn's history is dawning on some of his supporters.
Project Fear mark 2 in indyref shifted about 5% to the NO campaign. If the similarly gullible 5% move after MSM scare stories after believing their versions Corbyn falls under 50% and it gets down to right wing preferences.
If Corybn falls just short, and you get a weak Burnham, then that might be worse for the labour party, at least in the short term.
On topic, seems Labour can't get round its roots - of being the party of the working MAN.
That, and today having a significant minority of support from people who think their women should never even leave the house unless under something slightly less revealing than a fire-blanket...
It really gnaws away at a number of my leftie chums that when it comes to equality, the Tories hold Top Trumps.
(Well, except Donald....)
I found this quite interesting on a slightly different point:
But how will the liberals at the top of the Labour party understand a working-class Conservative? It's like trying to explain the idea of an underworked teacher.
You can read the headlines in the Telegraph without breaching the paywall. I do wonder why some people think that getting around digital security systems so as to obtain something for free is somehow alright. Honest citizens who would never dream of stealing anything physical will cheerfully and casually loot a web-site and even, as we have seen on here this morning, post instructions to help others do the same.
A person uses their knowledge, skill and talents to create something which they then try and sell. If it is a physical object then to steal it is wrong, but if it is electronic it's fair game. It is an attitude that I just do not understand.
In other circumstances I might agree with that Mr Llama. However, I ran out of articles this month because the same article opened itself three times on the website. That would of course have only counted once in the print edition.
I'll make a concession - I have only read three articles and one quiz on Firefox. I won't read any more. It has to be said, there's not usually a lot that's worth reading anyway.
(In addition to reading the headlines, I often do skim-read whole articles, to consider whether something is worth buying. Usually, I decide it isn't. The same principle could apply there as well.)
I wasn't trying to have a pop at you, Doctor, merely trying to explore an attitude that seems to be both prevalent and antipathetical to a knowledge based economy.
Yes it is perhaps easier for the unsayable (for the Cons) reason that to be an MP you either needs loadsamoney or none of it.
To base yourself in your constituency-to-be, to throw yourself into the various PPC activities takes time and therefore money. The opportunity cost is huge. And then when or if you succeed you are on something under £100,000.
So it would only (no idea, shall we call it 90% plus?) appeal if you are either looking at candidates who are on the average salary or thereabouts or who are independently wealthy.
All those they want to tempt in from the professions: doctors, lawyers, headteachers, etc , find it difficult.
Well, it appeals to people with a streak of idealism too - money isn't everything. But yes, reasonably successful professionals are aware that they're giving up something substantial by choosing politics, so you have to be keen. And that carries its own dangers - people who are very keen may not be very representative of normal thinking!
I wasn't trying to have a pop at you, Doctor, merely trying to explore an attitude that seems to be both prevalent and antipathetical to a knowledge based economy.
That's OK, Mr Llama. I think the problem is, that they make the content - or a proportion of it - available for free. They then say that after a certain amount is used, more needs to be paid for. In one sense, as you note, that's logical. Journalists need to eat, like the rest of us. However, by delineating it based on access hits, rather than on the content itself, they are encouraging the idea that it should all be free.
The Times has a more logical approach, tbh - pay for everything. The Sun has another view - effectively, premium and non-premium content. My idea, if I ran a paper, would be to leave ordinary news free (as people can get that from other sources, e.g. Reuters and the BBC, so they won't pay extra for it) and charge for premium content, e.g. opinion pieces, major features, investigative work - just allowing the odd article or so a month out so people can test it for themselves and see whether they should buy it.
I don't think any newspaper has got their business model right for the digital age yet - but it took 160 years to get it right for the print age, so we mustn't expect miracles after 10!
Incidentally, this morning I'm detecting a few straws in the wind that the relevance of some of Jeremy Corbyn's history is dawning on some of his supporters.
Project Fear mark 2 in indyref shifted about 5% to the NO campaign. If the similarly gullible 5% move after MSM scare stories after believing their versions Corbyn falls under 50% and it gets down to right wing preferences.
Or more likely Liz Kendall/Yvette Cooper supporters not expressing full preferences.
Yes it is perhaps easier for the unsayable (for the Cons) reason that to be an MP you either needs loadsamoney or none of it.
To base yourself in your constituency-to-be, to throw yourself into the various PPC activities takes time and therefore money. The opportunity cost is huge. And then when or if you succeed you are on something under £100,000.
So it would only (no idea, shall we call it 90% plus?) appeal if you are either looking at candidates who are on the average salary or thereabouts or who are independently wealthy.
All those they want to tempt in from the professions: doctors, lawyers, headteachers, etc , find it difficult.
Well, it appeals to people with a streak of idealism too - money isn't everything. But yes, reasonably successful professionals are aware that they're giving up something substantial by choosing politics, so you have to be keen. And that carries its own dangers - people who are very keen may not be very representative of normal thinking!
Indeed yes. Why would say a teacher give up a job - bearing in mind, it would be at least 8 months without pay - to do something very expensive and difficult, like fight a marginal seat, with no guarantee of a job at the end of it? You'd have to be absolutely loaded to take that chance - in which case the odds are you wouldn't be a teacher full time in a state school anyway.
EDIT - didn't Andrea Jenkyn have to sell her house to stay afloat in order to cause the Great Upset?
Yes it is perhaps easier for the unsayable (for the Cons) reason that to be an MP you either needs loadsamoney or none of it.
To base yourself in your constituency-to-be, to throw yourself into the various PPC activities takes time and therefore money. The opportunity cost is huge. And then when or if you succeed you are on something under £100,000.
So it would only (no idea, shall we call it 90% plus?) appeal if you are either looking at candidates who are on the average salary or thereabouts or who are independently wealthy.
All those they want to tempt in from the professions: doctors, lawyers, headteachers, etc , find it difficult.
Well, it appeals to people with a streak of idealism too - money isn't everything. But yes, reasonably successful professionals are aware that they're giving up something substantial by choosing politics, so you have to be keen. And that carries its own dangers - people who are very keen may not be very representative of normal thinking!
Indeed yes. Why would say a teacher give up a job - bearing in mind, it would be at least 8 months without pay - to do something very expensive and difficult, like fight a marginal seat, with no guarantee of a job at the end of it? You'd have to be absolutely loaded to take that chance - in which case the odds are you wouldn't be a teacher full time in a state school anyway.
Even for a pay rise you're taking time out of your regular proffession and possibly giving up a stable job...
[I]f we never choose women ... women candidates ... will always look to some as a bit of a risk. We've got over that for MPs, arguably thanks to AWS - only very eccentric voters would say, "I'm not voting for X as I think MPs should be men."
Although the Tories seem to have got over it with AWS, prefering selection based on merit.
Do you think it might be related to general cultural change rather than tokenism and quotas?
One UK party has once elected a woman as leader. That's it. All have frequently had women in senior positions. Clearly we are still a long way from equality, but to single out any party as having a problem is odd.
Labour haven't had a female leader while the Tories have had a female PM. For a party that claims to be progressive and in favour of equality, this is a poor record. Also looking at the abuse that has been hurled at Liz and Yvette it seems plain that Labour have a problem with respecting women.
It was a Labour MP that claimed she was being used as window dressing by the last Labour government, I don't hear Tory women saying the same.
Haven't had a chance to read the thread, but the header is incorrect that Abbott received loaned nominations due to her left wingedness. That might also be the case, but my recollection is another contender pulled out and explicitly said he wanted his nominations to go to her because it was important to have a female voice on the ballot, not a left wing one.
This kind of Labour infighting that you allude to above is just depressing and destructive.
It all boils down to the poor selection of candidates. Corbyn is definitely unelectable as too is Kendell for different reasons. Kendall is just too light weight, Corbyn's politics are unpalatable.
That reduces us to Burnham and Cooper- who have just not risen to the challenge, and have no real affection or power base in the party.
And so we have this really ugly leadership race with a set of broadly unelectable candidates squabbling to who'll lead a party for a fractious three years before the putsch arrives and Labour pick someone with electoral appeal for 2020.
Yes it is perhaps easier for the unsayable (for the Cons) reason that to be an MP you either needs loadsamoney or none of it.
To base yourself in your constituency-to-be, to throw yourself into the various PPC activities takes time and therefore money. The opportunity cost is huge. And then when or if you succeed you are on something under £100,000.
So it would only (no idea, shall we call it 90% plus?) appeal if you are either looking at candidates who are on the average salary or thereabouts or who are independently wealthy.
All those they want to tempt in from the professions: doctors, lawyers, headteachers, etc , find it difficult.
Well, it appeals to people with a streak of idealism too - money isn't everything. But yes, reasonably successful professionals are aware that they're giving up something substantial by choosing politics, so you have to be keen. And that carries its own dangers - people who are very keen may not be very representative of normal thinking!
Indeed yes. Why would say a teacher give up a job - bearing in mind, it would be at least 8 months without pay - to do something very expensive and difficult, like fight a marginal seat, with no guarantee of a job at the end of it? You'd have to be absolutely loaded to take that chance - in which case the odds are you wouldn't be a teacher full time in a state school anyway.
Even for a pay rise you're taking time out of your regular proffession and possibly giving up a stable job...
And of course, if you lost your seat, which is a reasonable possibility unless you are sitting for a safe seat (as an outsider challenger - not going to happen) you might find it difficult to return to your previous job. MPs with awkward quotes floating around on social media are not the sort of candidates Heads look for!
With medicine - how would career breaks work? Would a bit of retraining be required? Or are they permitted to return quickly? I'm guessing those who have taken career breaks for family reasons would be the nearest parallel.
Put it another way - I wouldn't do it, unless I was guaranteed a salary for the 12 months before and six months after the election by the party, which I doubt if they could afford.
Incidentally, this morning I'm detecting a few straws in the wind that the relevance of some of Jeremy Corbyn's history is dawning on some of his supporters.
But a majority of Labour supporters will have already voted.
If I were a current Labour voter and twitter user, I would call you "an evil bitch" (just to stay in character, you understand) and still complain about sexist comments by others.
Although I voted JC to win, I stuck Liz in second as Labour needs to have some sense knocked into it - having hard-Lefties running the show doesn't make for effective Official Opposition.
Yvette's endless playing of the Ovaries Agenda has really depressed me. I never liked or rated her, but I expected more - a lot more. Andy has been shockingly bad. I can't think of suitable words to describe his pitiful crawling and weathervanery.
This kind of Labour infighting that you allude to above is just depressing and destructive.
It all boils down to the poor selection of candidates. Corbyn is definitely unelectable as too is Kendell for different reasons. Kendall is just too light weight, Corbyn's politics are unpalatable.
That reduces us to Burnham and Cooper- who have just not risen to the challenge, and have no real affection or power base in the party.
And so we have this really ugly leadership race with a set of broadly unelectable candidates squabbling to who'll lead a party for a fractious three years before the putsch arrives and Labour pick someone with electoral appeal for 2020.
You can read the headlines in the Telegraph without breaching the paywall. I do wonder why some people think that getting around digital security systems so as to obtain something for free is somehow alright. Honest citizens who would never dream of stealing anything physical will cheerfully and casually loot a web-site and even, as we have seen on here this morning, post instructions to help others do the same.
A person uses their knowledge, skill and talents to create something which they then try and sell. If it is a physical object then to steal it is wrong, but if it is electronic it's fair game. It is an attitude that I just do not understand.
In other circumstances I might agree with that Mr Llama. However, I ran out of articles this month because the same article opened itself three times on the website. That would of course have only counted once in the print edition.
I'll make a concession - I have only read three articles and one quiz on Firefox. I won't read any more. It has to be said, there's not usually a lot that's worth reading anyway.
(In addition to reading the headlines, I often do skim-read whole articles, to consider whether something is worth buying. Usually, I decide it isn't. The same principle could apply there as well.)
I wasn't trying to have a pop at you, Doctor, merely trying to explore an attitude that seems to be both prevalent and antipathetical to a knowledge based economy.
It cuts both ways. The Telegraph almost certainly knows about the loopholes, it almost certainly knows which computers are getting around it, but its costs too much do bother doing anything about it compared to the additional subscriptions gained, so they don't. If a person were actively using fraudulent credentials to gain access to their systems, that would be a wholly different kettle of fish, and indeed an offence under the Computer Misuse Act, that same act in essence says that if you are daft enough to give people access to your data, you cant really blame them for using it.
Email through - 'I can now vote for the next Leader and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party'. Even as a £3 ABC with perhaps more to fear than hope for, got that little frisson of "game on*".
*(unless Mr Sheerman and his fellows don't like the look of my clean skin ass)
This kind of Labour infighting that you allude to above is just depressing and destructive.
It all boils down to the poor selection of candidates. Corbyn is definitely unelectable as too is Kendell for different reasons. Kendall is just too light weight, Corbyn's politics are unpalatable.
That reduces us to Burnham and Cooper- who have just not risen to the challenge, and have no real affection or power base in the party.
And so we have this really ugly leadership race with a set of broadly unelectable candidates squabbling to who'll lead a party for a fractious three years before the putsch arrives and Labour pick someone with electoral appeal for 2020.
Interesting and astute comment, thank you. One question though - do you have any idea who the Labour party could find to have 'electoral appeal' in 2020 in that scenario? None of the candidates I have seen mooted look like a strong contenders.
If I were a current Labour voter and twitter user, I would call you "an evil bitch" (just to stay in character, you understand) and still complain about sexist comments by others.
Labour have had women leaders, both Beckett and Harman.
They were appointed to fill temporary vacancies until the next conference. They were in reality, although officially the position does not exist in the Labour party, acting leaders. Neither lasted more than five months.
Thatcher was elected to serve as permanent leader, entitled to stand without nomination in the annual ballot, and did so for almost 16 years. There is a pretty big difference there.
Incidentally, this morning I'm detecting a few straws in the wind that the relevance of some of Jeremy Corbyn's history is dawning on some of his supporters.
Project Fear mark 2 in indyref shifted about 5% to the NO campaign. If the similarly gullible 5% move after MSM scare stories after believing their versions Corbyn falls under 50% and it gets down to right wing preferences.
Corbyn needs to drop below 45% on first preferences for Burnham/Cooper to have a realistic chance of overhauling him.
I'd probably back Corbyn to hang on with anything above 40% if Cooper finishes ahead of Burnham because a big chunk of Burnham second preferences will be going to Corbyn.
Supposing Corbyn wins by a whisker, let's say a single vote and he then gets traction with the electorate following an economic down turn and after the tories have chosen Osborne (the electoral appeal of an ant), how would you feel then? You just never know. You could have been the person to have inflicted Corbyn on the country by acting like a little miss clever clogs smarty pants.
The Labour movement was tied to the trade unions which is predominantly a male activity. Have any of the unions ever had a woman leader?
They all seem to be exlusively white, male, working class and usually Northern tub-thumpers.
Labour has tried to diversify itself, but anyone not from the above group tends to be viewed as outsiders by core lefty labour as you can see with the reaction to Liz Kendall.
You can read the headlines in the Telegraph without breaching the paywall. I do wonder why some people think that getting around digital security systems so as to obtain something for free is somehow alright. Honest citizens who would never dream of stealing anything physical will cheerfully and casually loot a web-site and even, as we have seen on here this morning, post instructions to help others do the same.
A person uses their knowledge, skill and talents to create something which they then try and sell. If it is a physical object then to steal it is wrong, but if it is electronic it's fair game. It is an attitude that I just do not understand.
In other circumstances I might agree with that Mr Llama. However, I ran out of articles this month because the same article opened itself three times on the website. That would of course have only counted once in the print edition.
I'll make a concession - I have only read three articles and one quiz on Firefox. I won't read any more. It has to be said, there's not usually a lot that's worth reading anyway.
(In addition to reading the headlines, I often do skim-read whole articles, to consider whether something is worth buying. Usually, I decide it isn't. The same principle could apply there as well.)
I wasn't trying to have a pop at you, Doctor, merely trying to explore an attitude that seems to be both prevalent and antipathetical to a knowledge based economy.
It cuts both ways. The Telegraph almost certainly knows about the loopholes, it almost certainly knows which computers are getting around it, but its costs too much do bother doing anything about it compared to the additional subscriptions gained, so they don't. If a person were actively using fraudulent credentials to gain access to their systems, that would be a wholly different kettle of fish, and indeed an offence under the Computer Misuse Act, that same act in essence says that if you are daft enough to give people access to your data, you cant really blame them for using it.
The DT chose a non-optimal technology in trying to implement a paywall on the client side. IIRC the Speccie (same stable?) does the same, as opposed to the Times and FT who do it server side. I guess to them they gain the occasional viewers who may become subscribers, and the ad revenue from those who don't play ball covers the costs of their hosting and cheaper paywall solution.
They will also have much more social media visibility which attracts writers and columnists. They're also following the Mail to some extent with a load of more downmarket online-only stuff which must be purely for clicks.
If I were a current Labour voter and twitter user, I would call you "an evil bitch" (just to stay in character, you understand) and still complain about sexist comments by others.
Slightly tempted to put my money where my mouth is and lay Corbyn. The only thing stopping me was the other candidates. The Andrex puppy, the mogadon pixie and the Tory bitch.
Supposing Corbyn wins by a whisker, let's say a single vote and he then gets traction with the electorate following an economic down turn and after the tories have chosen Osborne (the electoral appeal of an ant), how would you feel then? You just never know. You could have been the person to have inflicted Corbyn on the country by acting like a little miss clever clogs smarty pants.
Not really true, the two events are not linked. At the GE the public will be choosing between the parties they are presented with, one of which may be led by Corbyn, if that is the case it is the public that voted to have Corbyn as PM, not any individual person.
You can read the headlines in the Telegraph without breaching the paywall. I do wonder why some people think that getting around digital security systems so as to obtain something for free is somehow alright. Honest citizens who would never dream of stealing anything physical will cheerfully and casually loot a web-site and even, as we have seen on here this morning, post instructions to help others do the same.
A person uses their knowledge, skill and talents to create something which they then try and sell. If it is a physical object then to steal it is wrong, but if it is electronic it's fair game. It is an attitude that I just do not understand.
In other circumstances I might agree with that Mr Llama. However, I ran out of articles this month because the same article opened itself three times on the website. That would of course have only counted once in the print edition.
I'll make a concession - I have only read three articles and one quiz on Firefox. I won't read any more. It has to be said, there's not usually a lot that's worth reading anyway.
(In addition to reading the headlines, I often do skim-read whole articles, to consider whether something is worth buying. Usually, I decide it isn't. The same principle could apply there as well.)
I wasn't trying to have a pop at you, Doctor, merely trying to explore an attitude that seems to be both prevalent and antipathetical to a knowledge based economy.
It cuts both ways. The Telegraph almost certainly knows about the loopholes, it almost certainly knows which computers are getting around it, but its costs too much do bother doing anything about it compared to the additional subscriptions gained, so they don't. If a person were actively using fraudulent credentials to gain access to their systems, that would be a wholly different kettle of fish, and indeed an offence under the Computer Misuse Act, that same act in essence says that if you are daft enough to give people access to your data, you cant really blame them for using it.
That is what I call the shop-lifter argument. Shops know that by having their goods out where people can select them that some are going to get stolen. Therefore it's their fault and stealing from shops is actually OK.
If I were a current Labour voter and twitter user, I would call you "an evil bitch" (just to stay in character, you understand) and still complain about sexist comments by others.
The Labour movement was tied to the trade unions which is predominantly a male activity. Have any of the unions ever had a woman leader?
They all seem to be exlusively white, male, working class and usually Northern tub-thumpers.
Labour has tried to diversify itself, but anyone not from the above group tends to be viewed as outsiders by core lefty labour as you can see with the reaction to Liz Kendall.
80% of the public believe that the UK has no more space to accept more migrants 56% believe this strongly 76% believe the government is too soft on refugees and migrants entering the UK 62% do not have confidence in David Cameron to resolve the Calais crisis
This is a major problem for both the Conservatives and Labour. As I've said before, if we don't get limits on immigration in the EU renegotiation, I think No will win.
Catching up on the morning, the Allison Pearson Telegraph article is brutal stuff on Corbyn. "If such a hypocrite – usually sporting a donkey jacket and cursed with zero humour and dubious personal hygiene in my experience –" In line with Hodge's reference to soap allergies.
I have received my e-mail today inviting me to vote in the leadership election. I had decided to support Cooper but have just checked the Division List for the March 2003 vote on the Iraq War. She did not rebel – and that is making me hesitate. Watson/Eagle & Bradshaw also supported the Government
By the way, I've been thinking about the right slogan for the Out campaign, given the difficulty of negative framing in a referendum. What about these?
Just like the First Past the Post electoral system, Labour's Alternative Vote system has ended up, through tactical voting, as a fight between the candidate most liked and the candidate least disliked.
In other circumstances I might agree with that Mr Llama. However, I ran out of articles this month because the same article opened itself three times on the website. That would of course have only counted once in the print edition.
I'll make a concession - I have only read three articles and one quiz on Firefox. I won't read any more. It has to be said, there's not usually a lot that's worth reading anyway.
(In addition to reading the headlines, I often do skim-read whole articles, to consider whether something is worth buying. Usually, I decide it isn't. The same principle could apply there as well.)
I wasn't trying to have a pop at you, Doctor, merely trying to explore an attitude that seems to be both prevalent and antipathetical to a knowledge based economy.
It cuts both ways. The Telegraph almost certainly knows about the loopholes, it almost certainly knows which computers are getting around it, but its costs too much do bother doing anything about it compared to the additional subscriptions gained, so they don't. If a person were actively using fraudulent credentials to gain access to their systems, that would be a wholly different kettle of fish, and indeed an offence under the Computer Misuse Act, that same act in essence says that if you are daft enough to give people access to your data, you cant really blame them for using it.
That is what I call the shop-lifter argument. Shops know that by having their goods out where people can select them that some are going to get stolen. Therefore it's their fault and stealing from shops is actually OK.
Nope. As Sandpit mentioned, the DT security is done in your browser, not their server, they pass you a page and a mask that covers most of it, and ask you nicely to use one in front of the other. It more like the shop giving you a piano to take home to try for size in your lounge and asking you not to play it. They could have pretty much the same effect with a login, and then logged in users are passed full pages, and non-logged in users only get the short page, that would be secure, people working around it would be committing an offence, and you wouldn't be relying on the goodwill of people that you have already handed you content to that they don't look at it.
By the way, I've been thinking about the right slogan for the Out campaign, given the difficulty of negative framing in a referendum. What about these?
You can read the headlines in the Telegraph without breaching the paywall. I do wonder why some people think that getting around digital security systems so as to obtain something for free is somehow alright. Honest citizens who would never dream of stealing anything physical will cheerfully and casually loot a web-site and even, as we have seen on here this morning, post instructions to help others do the same.
A person uses their knowledge, skill and talents to create something which they then try and sell. If it is a physical object then to steal it is wrong, but if it is electronic it's fair game. It is an attitude that I just do not understand.
In other circumstances I might agree with that Mr Llama. However, I ran out of articles this month because the same article opened itself three times on the website. That would of course have only counted once in the print edition.
I'll make a concession - I have only read three articles and one quiz on Firefox. I won't read any more. It has to be said, there's not usually a lot that's worth reading anyway.
(In addition to reading the headlines, I often do skim-read whole articles, to consider whether something is worth buying. Usually, I decide it isn't. The same principle could apply there as well.)
I wasn't trying to have a pop at you, Doctor, merely trying to explore an attitude that seems to be both prevalent and antipathetical to a knowledge based economy.
It cuts both ways. The Telegraph almost certainly knows about the loopholes, it almost certainly knows which computers are getting around it, but its costs too much do bother doing anything about it compared to the additional subscriptions gained, so they don't. If a person were actively using fraudulent credentials to gain access to their systems, that would be a wholly different kettle of fish, and indeed an offence under the Computer Misuse Act, that same act in essence says that if you are daft enough to give people access to your data, you cant really blame them for using it.
That is what I call the shop-lifter argument. Shops know that by having their goods out where people can select them that some are going to get stolen. Therefore it's their fault and stealing from shops is actually OK.
Nonsense. The Telegraph's soft paywall involves them storing data on my computer. Not unreasonably, I can refuse that. They know this, I know this, they still provide me the data anyway. If they want a hard paywall they can build one like their competitors. They don't.
I can't understand anyone fancying Caroline Flint. She's got such a hard face, and that gap between her teeth. When combined with her paleness/dark hair - she looks like she wants to bite my neck.
Ms Eagle's total lack of looks and a voice that could clean a blocked sink seems preferable to be eaten by a poor man's vampire.
If I were a current Labour voter and twitter user, I would call you "an evil bitch" (just to stay in character, you understand) and still complain about sexist comments by others.
By the way, I've been thinking about the right slogan for the Out campaign, given the difficulty of negative framing in a referendum. What about these?
You can read the headlines in the Telegraph without breaching the paywall. I do wonder why some people think that getting around digital security systems so as to obtain something for free is somehow alright. Honest citizens who would never dream of stealing anything physical will cheerfully and casually loot a web-site and even, as we have seen on here this morning, post instructions to help others do the same.
A person uses their knowledge, skill and talents to create something which they then try and sell. If it is a physical object then to steal it is wrong, but if it is electronic it's fair game. It is an attitude that I just do not understand.
In other circumstances I might agree with that Mr Llama. However, I ran out of articles this month because the same article opened itself three times on the website. That would of course have only counted once in the print edition.
I'll make a concession - I have only read three articles and one quiz on Firefox. I won't read any more. It has to be said, there's not usually a lot that's worth reading anyway.
(In addition to reading the headlines, I often do skim-read whole articles, to consider whether something is worth buying. Usually, I decide it isn't. The same principle could apply there as well.)
I wasn't trying to have a pop at you, Doctor, merely trying to explore an attitude that seems to be both prevalent and antipathetical to a knowledge based economy.
It cuts both ways. The Telegraph almost certainly knows about the loopholes, it almost certainly knows which computers are getting around it, but its costs too much do bother doing anything about it compared to the additional subscriptions gained, so they don't. If a person were actively using fraudulent credentials to gain access to their systems, that would be a wholly different kettle of fish, and indeed an offence under the Computer Misuse Act, that same act in essence says that if you are daft enough to give people access to your data, you cant really blame them for using it.
That is what I call the shop-lifter argument. Shops know that by having their goods out where people can select them that some are going to get stolen. Therefore it's their fault and stealing from shops is actually OK.
Nonsense. The Telegraph's soft paywall involves them storing data on my computer. Not unreasonably, I can refuse that. They know this, I know this, they still provide me the data anyway. If they want a hard paywall they can build one like their competitors. They don't.
Nonsense. The Telegraph's soft paywall involves them storing data on my computer. Not unreasonably, I can refuse that. They know this, I know this, they still provide me the data anyway. If they want a hard paywall they can build one like their competitors. They don't.
Not only that, if you chose to use a browser that doesn't store cookies, as several minor ones don't by default, or you work for a company whose corporate firewall drops cookies from unlisted sites (I know several that do), you will get unlimited access without having actually done anything at all.
Comments
Incidentally Tebbitt probably thought he was paraphrasing Abe Lincoln or Mark Twain but they, in turn, were probably paraphrasing the bible
Eh voila!
To base yourself in your constituency-to-be, to throw yourself into the various PPC activities takes time and therefore money. The opportunity cost is huge. And then when or if you succeed you are on something under £100,000.
So it would only (no idea, shall we call it 90% plus?) appeal if you are either looking at candidates who are on the average salary or thereabouts or who are independently wealthy.
All those they want to tempt in from the professions: doctors, lawyers, headteachers, etc , find it difficult.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ed-miliband-has-no-idea-how-much-he-spends-on-his-own-weekly-shop-9402068.html
I think by the time he got to his Newsnight trainwrecks, we had all decided: was he rubbish? hell yes, he was rubbish.
Until the day they implant cookies by IP address or computer rather than browser, I suppose.
I have laid off a little bit over the past 24 hours. Mainly because I hit my bank overdraft limit unexpectedly, and needed the money, but also to reduce my exposure a tad.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2634855/Are-sure-survive-80-week-Ed-Labour-leader-spends-2-25-single-loaf--2-coffee-gets-hair-cut-woman-does-Lady-Gaga.html
"do you have a vote?"
No. And if he wins there's zero chance I'd vote Labour again.
I decided yesterday when Peter Kellner was arsing around that I would be fearful while others are greedy. That's probably the wrong decision, but I'm going to the States during September (and I'm not in the country that much before then), so I won't be able to alter my betting positions at will. I can do without the stress of watching impotently from abroad while a large betting position collapses. I'll lose if Liz Kendall wins, but I can deal with that. And I still get a four figure sum if Jeremy Corbyn wins. isam would probably tell me I've been a mug and I may well have been. Oh well.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/shopping-and-consumer-news/11804682/How-your-entire-financial-life-will-stored-in-a-new-digital-vault.html
Every detail of people's finances could be collated and stored in a digital "vault" under plans being developed by the Government, financial firms, Google and Microsoft.
In a move to make it easier to open bank accounts and Isas, people will be asked to share all of their accounts, tax records and personal details with a central service.
"Terrifying thing is an Osborne Government which moves a little to the left because that is where Labour dies"
In this country, of course, that would be most unlikely to happen.
How would YOU like it if there was something you believed passionately about, something you could make a contribution to but when you applied they either belittled you or poked fun at you?
Suppose that the barrier was that you had the wrong eye colour or only people with size 9.5 feet could apply? Some ridiculous criteria that had absolutely nothing to do with your ability to contribute. Like being born with ovaries instead of testicles.....
Labour looks like they are about to elect Corbyn - not that I care, I hope they do - but the ladies in the party are standing round watching the membership charge towards a leader who has less credibility in political terms then an Enormo-Haddock. Do you imagine they are not annoyed?
JC +17, AB +12, YC +43
PS TP is Finnish.
Tom Harris @MrTCHarris 2 hrs2 hours ago
I could just barf... RT @Neil_FindlayMSP: @MrTCHarris I'd recommend the Daily Record today!
Neil Findlay @Neil_FindlayMSP 40 mins40 minutes ago
@MrTCHarris oh Thomas now, now don't throw your toys out the pram because your sense of entitlement is slipping away ......there, there.....
Tom Harris @MrTCHarris 23 mins23 minutes ago
@Neil_FindlayMSP ah, I see - my "sense of entitlement"? Good to know that Trots' penchant for personal abuse is alive and well.
A person uses their knowledge, skill and talents to create something which they then try and sell. If it is a physical object then to steal it is wrong, but if it is electronic it's fair game. It is an attitude that I just do not understand.
Whoever becomes leader is going to need the skill level of a successful marriage guidance counsellor to heal the hate that's been going on.
Brown envelopes anyone?
(And New Labour was Labour - don't try and pretend that the Tories would have done the vast majority of things that they did between 1997 and 2010)
Depends which Tories you are referring to. New Labour was well to the right of the 1951 - 1964 Tory Government. Heath also said Blair was too right-wing for him. Hague also described Blair as a Tory.
I'll make a concession - I have only read three articles and one quiz on Firefox. I won't read any more. It has to be said, there's not usually a lot that's worth reading anyway.
(In addition to reading the headlines, I often do skim-read whole articles, to consider whether something is worth buying. Usually, I decide it isn't. The same principle could apply there as well.)
To be fair, he may have been thinking of the time it took him to write a letter of resignation in order to put Gordon Brown in place instead.
'Wrong. Apart from Thatcher's victories. The Tories also had working majorities in 1951, 1955, 1959 and 1970'
Without the Ulster Unionists there would have been no overall majority in 1951. Moreover Heath's majority in 1970 would have been just 15.
He also got more votes than Blair did, and a higher share of the vote than any Labour leader has managed since 1970 with the exception of 1997.
(PS - if a Labour speaker had been elected in 1951 - I know one wasn't - the Tories would still have had a bare majority even if their members from Ulster had all voted against them. Similarly, of course, remember Labour would not have had an overall majority in 1964, 1974 or 1950 without Scotland.)
He was always going to rue the day....
The Glass Elevator descent is perhaps an exception !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnD8MBwUEHo
That, and today having a significant minority of support from people who think their women should never even leave the house unless under something slightly less revealing than a fire-blanket...
It really gnaws away at a number of my leftie chums that when it comes to equality, the Tories hold Top Trumps.
(Well, except Donald....)
http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/local/why-i-voted-for-jeremy-corbyn-conservative-alderman-speaks-out-1-6910888
But how will the liberals at the top of the Labour party understand a working-class Conservative? It's like trying to explain the idea of an underworked teacher.
Leader JC > LK > YC > AB
Deputy AE > TW > CF > BB > SC
Consequence of working near St Paul's: being asked for directions from people who are so hopelessly lost you don't know where to start.
Daniel Finkelstein @Dannythefink
I thought that was a consequence of working for the New Statesman.
The Times has a more logical approach, tbh - pay for everything. The Sun has another view - effectively, premium and non-premium content. My idea, if I ran a paper, would be to leave ordinary news free (as people can get that from other sources, e.g. Reuters and the BBC, so they won't pay extra for it) and charge for premium content, e.g. opinion pieces, major features, investigative work - just allowing the odd article or so a month out so people can test it for themselves and see whether they should buy it.
I don't think any newspaper has got their business model right for the digital age yet - but it took 160 years to get it right for the print age, so we mustn't expect miracles after 10!
EDIT - didn't Andrea Jenkyn have to sell her house to stay afloat in order to cause the Great Upset?
Do you think it might be related to general cultural change rather than tokenism and quotas?
It was a Labour MP that claimed she was being used as window dressing by the last Labour government, I don't hear Tory women saying the same.
It all boils down to the poor selection of candidates.
Corbyn is definitely unelectable as too is Kendell for different reasons. Kendall is just too light weight, Corbyn's politics are unpalatable.
That reduces us to Burnham and Cooper- who have just not risen to the challenge, and have no real affection or power base in the party.
And so we have this really ugly leadership race with a set of broadly unelectable candidates squabbling to who'll lead a party for a fractious three years before the putsch arrives and Labour pick someone with electoral appeal for 2020.
With medicine - how would career breaks work? Would a bit of retraining be required? Or are they permitted to return quickly? I'm guessing those who have taken career breaks for family reasons would be the nearest parallel.
Put it another way - I wouldn't do it, unless I was guaranteed a salary for the 12 months before and six months after the election by the party, which I doubt if they could afford.
"Okay, I've voted.
Leader JC > LK > YC > AB
Deputy AE > TW > CF > BB > SC "
If I were a current Labour voter and twitter user, I would call you "an evil bitch" (just to stay in character, you understand) and still complain about sexist comments by others.
https://twitter.com/sebcoe/status/633864188180471808
Although I voted JC to win, I stuck Liz in second as Labour needs to have some sense knocked into it - having hard-Lefties running the show doesn't make for effective Official Opposition.
Yvette's endless playing of the Ovaries Agenda has really depressed me. I never liked or rated her, but I expected more - a lot more. Andy has been shockingly bad. I can't think of suitable words to describe his pitiful crawling and weathervanery.
*(unless Mr Sheerman and his fellows don't like the look of my clean skin ass)
Labour have had women leaders, both Beckett and Harman.
Thatcher was elected to serve as permanent leader, entitled to stand without nomination in the annual ballot, and did so for almost 16 years. There is a pretty big difference there.
I may cash out to an all green position with a +£185 profit on Corbyn and covered on all the rest. For similar reasons.
I'd probably back Corbyn to hang on with anything above 40% if Cooper finishes ahead of Burnham because a big chunk of Burnham second preferences will be going to Corbyn.
Supposing Corbyn wins by a whisker, let's say a single vote and he then gets traction with the electorate following an economic down turn and after the tories have chosen Osborne (the electoral appeal of an ant), how would you feel then? You just never know. You could have been the person to have inflicted Corbyn on the country by acting like a little miss clever clogs smarty pants.
They all seem to be exlusively white, male, working class and usually Northern tub-thumpers.
Labour has tried to diversify itself, but anyone not from the above group tends to be viewed as outsiders by core lefty labour as you can see with the reaction to Liz Kendall.
They will also have much more social media visibility which attracts writers and columnists. They're also following the Mail to some extent with a load of more downmarket online-only stuff which must be purely for clicks.
Which character role are you adopting?
Slightly tempted to put my money where my mouth is and lay Corbyn. The only thing stopping me was the other candidates. The Andrex puppy, the mogadon pixie and the Tory bitch.
Mind you, Jezza makes Diane Abbott look sensible.
Francis O'Grady is in charge of the TUC and as smart as a whip http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/aug/05/women-changing-union-movement-tuc
56% believe this strongly
76% believe the government is too soft on refugees and migrants entering the UK
62% do not have confidence in David Cameron to resolve the Calais crisis
http://ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/survey-results/nearly-80-uk-adults-reject-further-migration?
This is a major problem for both the Conservatives and Labour. As I've said before, if we don't get limits on immigration in the EU renegotiation, I think No will win.
"If such a hypocrite – usually sporting a donkey jacket and cursed with zero humour and dubious personal hygiene in my experience –"
In line with Hodge's reference to soap allergies.
"I felt that Angela Eagle is just the sort of looker we need representing wimmin in the Party."
I hope you're not objectifying her?
- More EU? Just say No.
- Say No to Brussels.
Autres temps, autres moeurs.
How about
- Say Yes to NO
Ms Eagle's total lack of looks and a voice that could clean a blocked sink seems preferable to be eaten by a poor man's vampire.
"More immigration? Leave it Out."
Incidentally, that government database sounds horrendous.
Edited extra bit: Miss Plato, nothing wrong with gappy teeth, you gnasher-fascist
Also, I thought you said 'Mr. Eagles' at first. Which would've been a bit harsh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4QnalIHlVc
Agree/Disagree
Con: 91/9
Lab: 68/32
UKIP: 97/3
LD: 66/34
SNP: 71/29
Green: 51/49