Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » An authoritarian Tory government will undo Cameron’s early

2456

Comments

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    PClipp said:

    I thought this was a very good piece, Henry, and am not in the least surprised that the PB Tories are dismissing it out of hand.

    Somebody asked what this has to do with betting. The answer is in your last line: "Some voters may soon start to notice."

    They already are. The comparison is not between the Tories and Labour under Corbyn - but between the present Tory Government and the last Coalition one. Most people seem to like that last one much better.

    That may turn out to be true, but I don't see how we can know that yet. My problem with the piece is not its premise - plenty of Tory leaning headers to be found, nothing wrong with the reverse - but it's timing. The gov has barely gotten started, and I some cases has tacked further left than right since the ge, I think it a bit ridiculous to suggest it has already in essence gone too far (highlighting it is a risk is certainly valid), particularly when some of the so called evidence of this seems included on poor justification, like reducing the number of MPs.

    So good to see a labour supporting view, it's something the Tories need to be wary of, but this early on it is too soon to declare they've done it already. And I'm one who wanted a LD con coslition and am wary of a Tory maj government tacking right, so I am on the watch for them doing so. The case is overdone here, for the moment.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:



    "The BBC has since been duffed up". The BBC's governance arrangements are archaic and needed updating (a process which should go further still). Its (in)ability to project a balanced output should be questioned and addressed. In any case, the cuts in its output could be minimised were it run more efficiently.

    "Trade Union Reform Bill". A Labour Party less dependent on the unions would be a good thing. Besides, unions should be representing members, not running the country. As for regulations, strikes and union activities have always been regulated and rightly so. The Miners Strike was fought and won on the principle that unions couldn't ignore that fact.


    "family size of the non-affluent is now government business". Welfare is certainly government business.

    "a heterosexual couple on a modest income will have their pennies pinched by the Treasury if they don’t obey a ‘two child’ policy". Benefits are taxpayers' pennies, not the recipients.

    "Some voters may soon start to notice". That's the idea.

    While I'd like the gov to do or not do things listed inthis piece, I have to agree with a lot of this.particularly re benefits changes, whic iirc are one of the few things done that is very popular - it is taxpayer money and the public is generally in favour of being tighter with it. It certainly isn't a sign of abandoning the centre. I do think motives are suspect on the BBC and trade unions, but they e not done much on the former yet and the latter is. It proof of a wholesale move to the right.

    But the Tory mood on here has understandably been triumphant the past few days, it's important to remember the challenges and accusations that need to be defended against, the luck won't always be with them.

    That said, one of the problems labour had was portraying Cameron as so e malevolent figure which didn't match what the public saw, which was he's a bit crap and that's it, like most pms. It is simply hyperbole to talk of not recognising him anymore as though he's managed a complete transformation in a few months, when he's not even done much. It is overplaying the spin again.
    What has happened to Cameron , he gets more like a red faced Mr Potatohead every time I see him , what is he eating, certainly not hard work that is causing it.
    I'm guessing he doesn't get out jogging as much as he use to.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    Scott_P said:

    @BBCLouise: Labour Leader Corbyn's Long Walk Of Silence http://t.co/cIO99C8weO

    Just wow

    Corbyn's Words of Wisdom "There are people bothering me."

    A five word summation of his life ahead.... And with a nice darkly threatening undercurrent, that his people should do something to stop people bothering him.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    Scott_P said:

    @BBCLouise: Labour Leader Corbyn's Long Walk Of Silence http://t.co/cIO99C8weO

    Just wow

    He's a natural
    I think that is great actually, good on him for ignoring pests on the street

    The let down is the fact he got in a car... I thought he refused to do an interview in one the other day on principle?
  • malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:



    "The BBC has since been duffed up". The BBC's governance arrangements are archaic and needed updating (a process which should go further still). Its (in)ability to project a balanced output should be questioned and addressed. In any case, the cuts in its output could be minimised were it run more efficiently.

    "Trade Union Reform Bill". A Labour Party less dependent on the unions would be a good thing. Besides, unions should be representing members, not running the country. As for regulations, strikes and union activities have always been regulated and rightly so. The Miners Strike was fought and won on the principle that unions couldn't ignore that fact.


    "family size of the non-affluent is now government business". Welfare is certainly government business.

    "a heterosexual couple on a modest income will have their pennies pinched by the Treasury if they don’t obey a ‘two child’ policy". Benefits are taxpayers' pennies, not the recipients.

    "Some voters may soon start to notice". That's the idea.

    While I'd like the gov to do or not do things listed inthis piece, I have to agree with a lot of this.particularly re benefits changes, whic iirc are one of the few things done that is very popular - it is taxpayer money and the public is generally in favour of being tighter with it. It certainly isn't a sign of abandoning the centre. I do think motives are suspect on the BBC and trade unions, but they e not done much on the former yet and the latter is. It proof of a wholesale move to the right.

    But the Tory mood on here has understandably been triumphant the past few days, it's important to remember the challenges and accusations that need to be defended against, the luck won't always be with them.

    That said, one of the problems labour had was portraying Cameron as so e malevolent figure which didn't match what the public saw, which was he's a bit crap and that's it, like most pms. It is simply hyperbole to talk of not recognising him anymore as though he's managed a complete transformation in a few months, when he's not even done much. It is overplaying the spin again.
    What has happened to Cameron , he gets more like a red faced Mr Potatohead every time I see him , what is he eating, certainly not hard work that is causing it.
    He is choking on his cornflakes every morning when he reads about the collapse in the oil price.
  • Morning all.


    Mr Manson, your party has just been hijacked by a communist throwback from the 70s with a list of nasty friends as long as your arm – and you present PB this diversionary nonsense? - Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

    It does wreak of...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NNOrp_83RU
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    alex. said:

    Hilary Benn pointedly failing to support appointment of MCDonell

    Elements of distress in his voice. He evidently realises and for some reason is shocked that his party has descended into Uni bar politics.

    I can hear the nausea in his voice. He must also be aware that every word he utters helps to destroy his credibility and political career.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    malcolmg said:

    tlg86 said:

    "The new leader of the Opposition is apparently ‘a threat to national security’. Language we don’t expect to hear from a Prime Minister of Britain."

    No, that's right, you wouldn't expect the PM to be saying that. But Cameron is absolutely right to say it.

    Nutjob
    You're right. Cameron should have just gone for the pithier "Nutjob".
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Isam,

    Andrew Neil did one difficult interview, but the BBC never mention it in their coverage of Abbott. Can you imagine if a white Tory had said "black people love to engage in aggressive attacks" and then got appointed to a shadow cabinet position? It would lead the news bulletins.
  • david_kendrick1david_kendrick1 Posts: 325
    edited September 2015
    I think Henry Manson's tennis betting tips are much more valuable than this header.

    When are we going to be offered some more?

  • malcolmg said:

    Scott_P said:

    @BBCLouise: Labour Leader Corbyn's Long Walk Of Silence http://t.co/cIO99C8weO

    Just wow

    Would expect a turnip like you to think that is great. Do you ever see Cameron walking home , no he needs a fleet of limousines and a squad of heavies to make sure the idiots asking the stupid questions don't get within a hundred yards of baw face having to answer one.
    Be fair, Dave was never done talking to ordinary Jocks during the referendum.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Klee

    "That you continue to say we are doing nothing re refugees undermines any point you may have. It simply isn't true".

    I don't have English TV here in France only radio and I harfdly hear a word about the refugee crisis. By contrast switch on any station here and it's wall to wall. I think this explains why Britain can announce it'll take 10,000 Syrians over five years and seemingly reasonable people like yourself don't see anything wrong.

  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited September 2015
    JEO said:

    Isam,

    Andrew Neil did one difficult interview, but the BBC never mention it in their coverage of Abbott. Can you imagine if a white Tory had said "black people love to engage in aggressive attacks" and then got appointed to a shadow cabinet position? It would lead the news bulletins.

    Yes i agree, but that is the country we live in now

    The labour candidate for the mayoralty of London wants to enshrine anti white discrimination in law, and still I often ask myself am I only mentioning it cause I'm a racist, despite knowing I would run a mile from a policy that discriminated against non whites.

    'Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population'
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    TOPPING said:

    alex. said:

    Hilary Benn pointedly failing to support appointment of MCDonell

    Elements of distress in his voice. He evidently realises and for some reason is shocked that his party has descended into Uni bar politics.

    I can hear the nausea in his voice. He must also be aware that every word he utters helps to destroy his credibility and political career.
    Hilary Benn had seemed to be a basically decent man, I'm surprised he's having anything to do with this farce.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    isam said:

    Scott_P said:

    @BBCLouise: Labour Leader Corbyn's Long Walk Of Silence http://t.co/cIO99C8weO

    Just wow

    He's a natural
    I think that is great actually, good on him for ignoring pests on the street

    The let down is the fact he got in a car... I thought he refused to do an interview in one the other day on principle?
    But Corbyn doesn't have the worry of some Islamist nutjob trying to behead him.... They all send him birthday cards.
  • the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.

    Read the proposals. See what David Davis has to say.

    The tube strikes would not be affected by the new laws.

    I've read them. Sorry, I don't find them repugnant in the slightest.

    David Davis has his own agenda.

    Fair enough.

    So presumably you believe these rules should apply to all public gatherings?.

  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    Roger said:

    I don't have English TV here in France only radio and I harfdly hear a word about the refugee crisis.

    Really? The BBC's main news station (Radio 5 Live) has just completed a whole week of special programming about the refugee crisis. The main commercial news focused station LBC has been banging on about it too. What are you listening to, Heart FM?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    glw said:

    TOPPING said:

    alex. said:

    Hilary Benn pointedly failing to support appointment of MCDonell

    Elements of distress in his voice. He evidently realises and for some reason is shocked that his party has descended into Uni bar politics.

    I can hear the nausea in his voice. He must also be aware that every word he utters helps to destroy his credibility and political career.
    Hilary Benn had seemed to be a basically decent man, I'm surprised he's having anything to do with this farce.
    "But...but... Burnham started it Sir..."
  • JEO said:

    I said last night the BBC would not mention Abbott's racism and what do you know:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34241395

    The organisation has stopped even pretending to be objective any more.

    True - its cheerleading for Corbyn is really something. I have never seen such bias.

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263

    the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.
    Because the same rule is not applied to politicians, who affect all our lives much more substantially than the occasional strike. Plenty of MPs who will vote on this legislation don't even have 40% of the vote, let alone 50%. If governments could only act if they had the support of 50% of the population, the libertarian dream of virtually no government at all would come true.
  • david_kendrick1david_kendrick1 Posts: 325
    edited September 2015
    The LDs are uncritical advocates of 'In' the EU.

    Is it common knowledge that so many senior Labour people are such enthusiastic supporters of the EU, as it stands?

    Corbyn will need (but maybe not want) an issue where he can be on the right side of public opinion. Being part of the 'Out' campaign could be it.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    kle4 said:

    PClipp said:

    Somebody asked what this has to do with betting. The answer is in your last line: "Some voters may soon start to notice."
    They already are. The comparison is not between the Tories and Labour under Corbyn - but between the present Tory Government and the last Coalition one. Most people seem to like that last one much better.

    (...) So good to see a labour supporting view, it's something the Tories need to be wary of, but this early on it is too soon to declare they've done it already. And I'm one who wanted a LD con coslition and am wary of a Tory maj government tacking right, so I am on the watch for them doing so. The case is overdone here, for the moment.
    Sorry, Mr Kle 4. It was not meant to be a Labour supporting view..... Hardly that....

    The evidence for my assertion comes from talking to people on the doorstep. The Liberal Democrats have not disappeared off the face of the earth, you know, though some of our PB Tories like to give the impression that we have.

    The fact is that a lot of people - not everybody, of course - greatly prefer the previous Coalition to the present Tory government. So Henry Mason is absolutely right to speak about the Lib Dems in positive terms in his closing paragraphs. And the Tories are indeed rushing to re-contaminate their own brand.
  • And in more sensible news than the Labour Shad Cab http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/11862475/Guantanamo-Bay-detainee-has-online-dating-profile-is-detained-but-ready-to-mingle.html

    A detainee at Guantanamo Bay has an online dating profile and is "detained but ready to mingle", according to his lawyer.

    Muhammad Rahim al-Afghani, an Afghan who has been held by the CIA since 2007 and is classified as a "high-value" detainee, appears to have an account on the dating site Match.com. In a letter to Carlos Warner, his lawyer, the man described by the US government as a "close associate" of Osama bin Laden also expresses concern over the hack of adultery website Ashley Madison.

    "This is terrible news about Ashley Madison, please remove my profile immediately!!!" al-Afghani wrote in a letter dated 21 July. "I'll stick with Match.com even though you say it is for old people. There is no way I can do Tinder in here."
    There used to be a US website called 'prisonbrides' or somesuch, where female prisoners would put dating profiles. (*) There were lots of tragicomic profiles; for instance a woman with marital status 'widowed' who was in jail for life. Reading the profile, it was easy to see her widowed and lifer statuses were linked.

    (*) A customer sent in a fault report, saying it wouldn't load properly on our browser. So we had to check. ;)
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:



    "The BBC has since been duffed up". The BBC's governance arrangements are archaic and needed updating (a process which should go further still). Its (in)ability to project a balanced output should be questioned and addressed. In any case, the cuts in its output could be minimised were it run more efficiently.

    "Trade Union Reform Bill". A Labour Party less dependent on the unions would be a good thing. Besides, unions should be representing members, not running the country. As for regulations, strikes and union activities have always been regulated and rightly so. The Miners Strike was fought and won on the principle that unions couldn't ignore that fact.


    "family size of the non-affluent is now government business". Welfare is certainly government business.

    "a heterosexual couple on a modest income will have their pennies pinched by the Treasury if they don’t obey a ‘two child’ policy". Benefits are taxpayers' pennies, not the recipients.

    "Some voters may soon start to notice". That's the idea.

    While I'd like the gov to do or not do things listed inthis piece, I have to agree with a lot of this.particularly re benefits changes, whic iirc are one of the few things done that is very popular - it is taxpayer money and the public is generally in favour of being tighter with it. It certainly isn't a sign of abandoning the centre. I do think motives are suspect on the BBC and trade unions, but they e not done much on the former yet and the latter is. It proof of a wholesale move to the right.

    But the Tory mood on here has understandably been triumphant the past few days, it's important to remember the challenges and accusations that need to be defended against, the luck won't always be with them.

    That said, one of the problems labour had was portraying Cameron as so e malevolent figure which didn't match what the public saw, which was he's a bit crap and that's it, like most pms. It is simply hyperbole to talk of not recognising him anymore as though he's managed a complete transformation in a few months, when he's not even done much. It is overplaying the spin again.
    What has happened to Cameron , he gets more like a red faced Mr Potatohead every time I see him , what is he eating, certainly not hard work that is causing it.
    I'm guessing he doesn't get out jogging as much as he use to.
    He looks like his blood pressure is through the roof and he is about to burst.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.
    Because the same rule is not applied to politicians, who affect all our lives much more substantially than the occasional strike. Plenty of MPs who will vote on this legislation don't even have 40% of the vote, let alone 50%. If governments could only act if they had the support of 50% of the population, the libertarian dream of virtually no government at all would come true.
    Hi Nick, are you happy with Corbyn so far?
  • Just seen Cameron on Sky..from the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon..he looked quite fit and healthy to me.. seemed to be on top of his job..
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:



    "The BBC has since been duffed up". The BBC's governance arrangements are archaic and needed updating (a process which should go further still). Its (in)ability to project a balanced output should be questioned and addressed. In any case, the cuts in its output could be minimised were it run more efficiently.

    "Trade Union Reform Bill". A Labour Party less dependent on the unions would be a good thing. Besides, unions should be representing members, not running the country. As for regulations, strikes and union activities have always been regulated and rightly so. The Miners Strike was fought and won on the principle that unions couldn't ignore that fact.


    "family size of the non-affluent is now government business". Welfare is certainly government business.

    "a heterosexual couple on a modest income will have their pennies pinched by the Treasury if they don’t obey a ‘two child’ policy". Benefits are taxpayers' pennies, not the recipients.

    "Some voters may soon start to notice". That's the idea.

    While I'd like the gov to do or not do things listed inthis piece, I have to agree with a lot of this.particularly re benefits changes, whic iirc are one of the few things done that is very popular - it is taxpayer money and the public is generally in favour of being tighter with it. It certainly isn't a sign of abandoning the centre. I do think motives are suspect on the BBC and trade unions, but they e not done much on the former yet and the latter is. It proof of a wholesale move to the right.

    But the Tory mood on here has understandably been triumphant the past few days, it's important to remember the challenges and accusations that need to be defended against, the luck won't always be with them.

    That said, one of the problems labour had was portraying Cameron as so e malevolent figure which didn't match what the public saw, which was he's a bit crap and that's it, like most pms. It is simply hyperbole to talk of not recognising him anymore as though he's managed a complete transformation in a few months, when he's not even done much. It is overplaying the spin again.
    What has happened to Cameron , he gets more like a red faced Mr Potatohead every time I see him , what is he eating, certainly not hard work that is causing it.
    He is choking on his cornflakes every morning when he reads about the collapse in the oil price.
    Could be , less plunder from us to waste in London , good thinking.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    Roger said:

    Klee

    "That you continue to say we are doing nothing re refugees undermines any point you may have. It simply isn't true".

    I don't have English TV here in France only radio and I harfdly hear a word about the refugee crisis. By contrast switch on any station here and it's wall to wall. I think this explains why Britain can announce it'll take 10,000 Syrians over five years and seemingly reasonable people like yourself don't see anything wrong.

    Rien a voir ici

    http://youtu.be/fYJB-wjrGsM
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    TOPPING said:

    alex. said:

    Hilary Benn pointedly failing to support appointment of MCDonell

    Elements of distress in his voice. He evidently realises and for some reason is shocked that his party has descended into Uni bar politics.

    I can hear the nausea in his voice. He must also be aware that every word he utters helps to destroy his credibility and political career.
    Would help if he grew a pair rather than sucking up to keep his snout in the trough
  • alex. said:

    Australia having another leadership contest. Seems like they have them every 3 months!

    What do you expect though, they just lost the Ashes so something had to change.
  • the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.
    Because the same rule is not applied to politicians, who affect all our lives much more substantially than the occasional strike. Plenty of MPs who will vote on this legislation don't even have 40% of the vote, let alone 50%. If governments could only act if they had the support of 50% of the population, the libertarian dream of virtually no government at all would come true.
    Why should it apply? They're different things.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    PClipp said:

    kle4 said:

    PClipp said:

    Somebody asked what this has to do with betting. The answer is in your last line: "Some voters may soon start to notice."
    They already are. The comparison is not between the Tories and Labour under Corbyn - but between the present Tory Government and the last Coalition one. Most people seem to like that last one much better.

    (...) So good to see a labour supporting view, it's something the Tories need to be wary of, but this early on it is too soon to declare they've done it already. And I'm one who wanted a LD con coslition and am wary of a Tory maj government tacking right, so I am on the watch for them doing so. The case is overdone here, for the moment.
    Sorry, Mr Kle 4. It was not meant to be a Labour supporting view..... Hardly that....

    The evidence for my assertion comes from talking to people on the doorstep. The Liberal Democrats have not disappeared off the face of the earth, you know, though some of our PB Tories like to give the impression that we have.

    The fact is that a lot of people - not everybody, of course - greatly prefer the previous Coalition to the present Tory government. So Henry Mason is absolutely right to speak about the Lib Dems in positive terms in his closing paragraphs. And the Tories are indeed rushing to re-contaminate their own brand.
    Recontaminate their own brand? You must be delighted then that the Western Morning News yesterday ran with the former LibDem MP for Torbay claiming 7p for a phone call in his final expenses....
  • kle4 said:

    PClipp said:

    I thought this was a very good piece, Henry, and am not in the least surprised that the PB Tories are dismissing it out of hand.

    Somebody asked what this has to do with betting. The answer is in your last line: "Some voters may soon start to notice."

    They already are. The comparison is not between the Tories and Labour under Corbyn - but between the present Tory Government and the last Coalition one. Most people seem to like that last one much better.

    That may turn out to be true, but I don't see how we can know that yet. My problem with the piece is not its premise - plenty of Tory leaning headers to be found, nothing wrong with the reverse - but it's timing. The gov has barely gotten started, and I some cases has tacked further left than right since the ge, I think it a bit ridiculous to suggest it has already in essence gone too far (highlighting it is a risk is certainly valid), particularly when some of the so called evidence of this seems included on poor justification, like reducing the number of MPs.

    So good to see a labour supporting view, it's something the Tories need to be wary of, but this early on it is too soon to declare they've done it already. And I'm one who wanted a LD con coslition and am wary of a Tory maj government tacking right, so I am on the watch for them doing so. The case is overdone here, for the moment.

    I disagree with most of what Henry has said - the country voted Tory, Labour has imploded and just has to suck it up - but there is no harm in having the odd non-Corbyn thread. The reality is that under him Labour is not going to get near government, but that does not mean the actual government cannot be criticised from time to time.

    Forcing unions to provide the personal details of pickets to the police and making them give advance warning of social media campaigns are authoritarian and discriminatory moves. That Labour has given up on being a serious opposition does not change that.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    glw said:

    TOPPING said:

    alex. said:

    Hilary Benn pointedly failing to support appointment of MCDonell

    Elements of distress in his voice. He evidently realises and for some reason is shocked that his party has descended into Uni bar politics.

    I can hear the nausea in his voice. He must also be aware that every word he utters helps to destroy his credibility and political career.
    Hilary Benn had seemed to be a basically decent man, I'm surprised he's having anything to do with this farce.
    Money and ego, greedy blood sucking parasites, promoted well above their level of incompetence. The man could not get a job sweeping the streets in the real world.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Ha! I caught a few mins of some Stephen Fry docu via Gogglebox, he was visiting a womens' prison in Cambodia and was horrified to meet a chatty lady sentenced to 70yrs.

    You could feel his liberal outrage about to pop, when the woman pointed out she'd murdered her husband - and the guard told him that she'd actually murdered 6 of her husbands/cooked them and sold the meat in the local market. It was hilarious.

    And in more sensible news than the Labour Shad Cab http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/11862475/Guantanamo-Bay-detainee-has-online-dating-profile-is-detained-but-ready-to-mingle.html

    A detainee at Guantanamo Bay has an online dating profile and is "detained but ready to mingle", according to his lawyer.

    Muhammad Rahim al-Afghani, an Afghan who has been held by the CIA since 2007 and is classified as a "high-value" detainee, appears to have an account on the dating site Match.com. In a letter to Carlos Warner, his lawyer, the man described by the US government as a "close associate" of Osama bin Laden also expresses concern over the hack of adultery website Ashley Madison.

    "This is terrible news about Ashley Madison, please remove my profile immediately!!!" al-Afghani wrote in a letter dated 21 July. "I'll stick with Match.com even though you say it is for old people. There is no way I can do Tinder in here."
    There used to be a US website called 'prisonbrides' or somesuch, where female prisoners would put dating profiles. (*) There were lots of tragicomic profiles; for instance a woman with marital status 'widowed' who was in jail for life. Reading the profile, it was easy to see her widowed and lifer statuses were linked.

    (*) A customer sent in a fault report, saying it wouldn't load properly on our browser. So we had to check. ;)

  • wow Suddenly NNXMPX2 has woken up now he doesn't care for the system that worked so well for his buddies Tone and Gordy ... who,d a thunk it
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    RobD said:
    A Shadow Minister For The Jewish Problem ....

    Sounds familiar.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.
    Because the same rule is not applied to politicians, who affect all our lives much more substantially than the occasional strike. Plenty of MPs who will vote on this legislation don't even have 40% of the vote, let alone 50%. If governments could only act if they had the support of 50% of the population, the libertarian dream of virtually no government at all would come true.
    Well said.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    edited September 2015

    Scott_P said:

    @BBCLouise: Labour Leader Corbyn's Long Walk Of Silence http://t.co/cIO99C8weO

    Just wow

    Corbyn's Words of Wisdom "There are people bothering me."

    A five word summation of his life ahead.... And with a nice darkly threatening undercurrent, that his people should do something to stop people bothering him.
    "Mad" and "nutter" springs to mind...
  • kle4 said:

    PClipp said:

    I thought this was a very good piece, Henry, and am not in the least surprised that the PB Tories are dismissing it out of hand.

    Somebody asked what this has to do with betting. The answer is in your last line: "Some voters may soon start to notice."

    They already are. The comparison is not between the Tories and Labour under Corbyn - but between the present Tory Government and the last Coalition one. Most people seem to like that last one much better.

    That may turn out to be true, but I don't see how we can know that yet. My problem with the piece is not its premise - plenty of Tory leaning headers to be found, nothing wrong with the reverse - but it's timing. The gov has barely gotten started, and I some cases has tacked further left than right since the ge, I think it a bit ridiculous to suggest it has already in essence gone too far (highlighting it is a risk is certainly valid), particularly when some of the so called evidence of this seems included on poor justification, like reducing the number of MPs.

    So good to see a labour supporting view, it's something the Tories need to be wary of, but this early on it is too soon to declare they've done it already. And I'm one who wanted a LD con coslition and am wary of a Tory maj government tacking right, so I am on the watch for them doing so. The case is overdone here, for the moment.

    I disagree with most of what Henry has said - the country voted Tory, Labour has imploded and just has to suck it up - but there is no harm in having the odd non-Corbyn thread. The reality is that under him Labour is not going to get near government, but that does not mean the actual government cannot be criticised from time to time.

    Forcing unions to provide the personal details of pickets to the police and making them give advance warning of social media campaigns are authoritarian and discriminatory moves. That Labour has given up on being a serious opposition does not change that.
    No more authoritarian than making Bouncers register and give details to the authorities as Labour made them do back in 2005. Personally I think both ideas are wrong but Labour are no no position to moan about it given they are the ones who kick started the whole authoritarian agenda during their 13 years in office - and would have done far worse if they had not been beaten back by public opinion.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    edited September 2015

    the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.
    Because the same rule is not applied to politicians, who affect all our lives much more substantially than the occasional strike. Plenty of MPs who will vote on this legislation don't even have 40% of the vote, let alone 50%. If governments could only act if they had the support of 50% of the population, the libertarian dream of virtually no government at all would come true.
    Why should it apply? They're different things.
    LOL, cue right wing frothers being outraged that their puppets should have to meet same criteria as they force on others
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.
    Because the same rule is not applied to politicians, who affect all our lives much more substantially than the occasional strike. Plenty of MPs who will vote on this legislation don't even have 40% of the vote, let alone 50%. If governments could only act if they had the support of 50% of the population, the libertarian dream of virtually no government at all would come true.
    Why should it apply? They're different things.
    Exactly. In parliamentary elections there are many candidates standing, while strike ballots just have two answers.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    [Channeling "Tim"]

    We've got to have a thread header soon on Jezza's "wimmin problem" + Have we got a count on how many members of the Shadow Cabinet are supporters of homeopathy? ;)
  • What a thoroughly disappointing article. I had started it expecting to some some genuine and reasoned complaints but all we have is a series of party political whines. Perhaps the only complaint that is justified is the packing of the Lords. Compared to the authoritarian, statist garbage Labour were producing for 13 years with genuine attacks on freedom and a massive increase in state powers and surveillence Henry's complaints are completely insignificant.

    Even as a Cameron critic, this is perhaps the weakest article I have seen presented here in a very long time.

    I seem to remember that every article by Manson has been on the same lines as this one. Biased blinkered and self servingly Labour. Its nothing new. The response of turnip brain and co tells us how desperate the left are. Indeed reduced to crude personal invective. As Labour move hard left and vote in a supporters of terrorists and followers of communism for its two key positions we get his drivel from him which ignores the reasons why the govt is controlling and cutting its spending - ie Labour's own profligacy and incompetence. It gives us a pretty good insight into the warped mindset of the socialists.
    Sturgeon's response makes more sense - sign up Corbyn to really frighten off the English. And of course the last thing she wants is a Labour Party that might actually gain power in Westminster.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    Ha! I caught a few mins of some Stephen Fry docu via Gogglebox, he was visiting a womens' prison in Cambodia and was horrified to meet a chatty lady sentenced to 70yrs.

    You could feel his liberal outrage about to pop, when the woman pointed out she'd murdered her husband - and the guard told him that she'd actually murdered 6 of her husbands/cooked them and sold the meat in the local market. It was hilarious.

    And in more sensible news than the Labour Shad Cab http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/11862475/Guantanamo-Bay-detainee-has-online-dating-profile-is-detained-but-ready-to-mingle.html

    A detainee at Guantanamo Bay has an online dating profile and is "detained but ready to mingle", according to his lawyer.

    Muhammad Rahim al-Afghani, an Afghan who has been held by the CIA since 2007 and is classified as a "high-value" detainee, appears to have an account on the dating site Match.com. In a letter to Carlos Warner, his lawyer, the man described by the US government as a "close associate" of Osama bin Laden also expresses concern over the hack of adultery website Ashley Madison.

    "This is terrible news about Ashley Madison, please remove my profile immediately!!!" al-Afghani wrote in a letter dated 21 July. "I'll stick with Match.com even though you say it is for old people. There is no way I can do Tinder in here."
    There used to be a US website called 'prisonbrides' or somesuch, where female prisoners would put dating profiles. (*) There were lots of tragicomic profiles; for instance a woman with marital status 'widowed' who was in jail for life. Reading the profile, it was easy to see her widowed and lifer statuses were linked.

    (*) A customer sent in a fault report, saying it wouldn't load properly on our browser. So we had to check. ;)


    It was good, shut him up quick, his face was a picture.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    JEO said:

    I said last night the BBC would not mention Abbott's racism and what do you know:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34241395

    The organisation has stopped even pretending to be objective any more.

    True - its cheerleading for Corbyn is really something. I have never seen such bias.

    The bias here is pro-Abbott and comfort with anti-white racism rather than pro-Corbyn. Interesting this morning they are attacking him for not enough women rather than the racists and IRA supporters.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    Just seen Cameron on Sky..from the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon..he looked quite fit and healthy to me.. seemed to be on top of his job..

    I think we can all agree on who, given half a chance, Jezza would have surrounded himself with in the region.
  • malcolmg said:

    the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.
    Because the same rule is not applied to politicians, who affect all our lives much more substantially than the occasional strike. Plenty of MPs who will vote on this legislation don't even have 40% of the vote, let alone 50%. If governments could only act if they had the support of 50% of the population, the libertarian dream of virtually no government at all would come true.
    Why should it apply? They're different things.
    LOL, cue right wing frothers being outraged that their puppets should have to meet same criteria as they force on others
    Why should all votes and elections have the same rules, regardless of what people are voting for?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    What a thoroughly disappointing article. I had started it expecting to some some genuine and reasoned complaints but all we have is a series of party political whines. Perhaps the only complaint that is justified is the packing of the Lords. Compared to the authoritarian, statist garbage Labour were producing for 13 years with genuine attacks on freedom and a massive increase in state powers and surveillence Henry's complaints are completely insignificant.

    Even as a Cameron critic, this is perhaps the weakest article I have seen presented here in a very long time.

    I seem to remember that every article by Manson has been on the same lines as this one. Biased blinkered and self servingly Labour. Its nothing new. The response of turnip brain and co tells us how desperate the left are. Indeed reduced to crude personal invective. As Labour move hard left and vote in a supporters of terrorists and followers of communism for its two key positions we get his drivel from him which ignores the reasons why the govt is controlling and cutting its spending - ie Labour's own profligacy and incompetence. It gives us a pretty good insight into the warped mindset of the socialists.
    Sturgeon's response makes more sense - sign up Corbyn to really frighten off the English. And of course the last thing she wants is a Labour Party that might actually gain power in Westminster.
    The response of turnip brain and co tells us how desperate the left are. Indeed reduced to crude personal invective

    perhaps you don't see the irony in that statement ?
  • the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.

    Read the proposals. See what David Davis has to say.

    The tube strikes would not be affected by the new laws.

    I've read them. Sorry, I don't find them repugnant in the slightest.

    David Davis has his own agenda.

    Fair enough.

    So presumably you believe these rules should apply to all public gatherings?.

    There is already a requirement for the details of stewards to be provided to the police for any demonstration that blocks or uses the public highway (marches etc). There is a voluntary code that the Met ask static demonstrations to abide by which also requires details of stewards.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited September 2015
    Sky - Diane Abbott to be Shadow International Development Secretary ....

    Titter ....
  • Just seen Cameron on Sky..from the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon..he looked quite fit and healthy to me.. seemed to be on top of his job..

    Good. I hope he points out that we've spent more than twice as much on the refugee camps as the next biggest EU contributor (Germany - and probably more than the rest of the EU put together)......where's Angela? On the (closed) Austrian border? "When I said, come one come all......"
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    RobD said:
    Yes, it's the Sun, which is as you say a joke. The job is IIRC for shadow minister of diversity and minority faiths.
  • kle4 said:

    PClipp said:

    I thought this was a very good piece, Henry, and am not in the least surprised that the PB Tories are dismissing it out of hand.

    Somebody asked what this has to do with betting. The answer is in your last line: "Some voters may soon start to notice."

    They already are. The comparison is not between the Tories and Labour under Corbyn - but between the present Tory Government and the last Coalition one. Most people seem to like that last one much better.

    That may turn out to be true, but I don't see how we can know that yet. My problem with the piece is not its premise - plenty of Tory leaning headers to be found, nothing wrong with the reverse - but it's timing. The gov has barely gotten started, and I some cases has tacked further left than right since the ge, I think it a bit ridiculous to suggest it has already in essence gone too far (highlighting it is a risk is certainly valid), particularly when some of the so called evidence of this seems included on poor justification, like reducing the number of MPs.

    So good to see a labour supporting view, it's something the Tories need to be wary of, but this early on it is too soon to declare they've done it already. And I'm one who wanted a LD con coslition and am wary of a Tory maj government tacking right, so I am on the watch for them doing so. The case is overdone here, for the moment.

    I disagree with most of what Henry has said - the country voted Tory, Labour has imploded and just has to suck it up - but there is no harm in having the odd non-Corbyn thread. The reality is that under him Labour is not going to get near government, but that does not mean the actual government cannot be criticised from time to time.

    Forcing unions to provide the personal details of pickets to the police and making them give advance warning of social media campaigns are authoritarian and discriminatory moves. That Labour has given up on being a serious opposition does not change that.
    No more authoritarian than making Bouncers register and give details to the authorities as Labour made them do back in 2005.
    You mean people who control access to business premises with the implied threat of violence? What in heaven's name has that got to do with pickets?

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited September 2015

    RobD said:
    Yes, it's the Sun, which is as you say a joke. The job is IIRC for shadow minister of diversity and minority faiths.
    Disgusting.

    Why do "minority faiths" need a minister? What is it that Hindus need from a government minister? What will the policies be? Why are Christians excluded? How is this not divisive?

    Nick probably like every other PB Tory on here I am trying to maintain the respect for you which you have rightly built up over the years and thoroughly deserve.

    You are making it increasingly difficult to do.
  • the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.

    Read the proposals. See what David Davis has to say.

    The tube strikes would not be affected by the new laws.

    I've read them. Sorry, I don't find them repugnant in the slightest.

    David Davis has his own agenda.

    Fair enough.

    So presumably you believe these rules should apply to all public gatherings?.

    There is already a requirement for the details of stewards to be provided to the police for any demonstration that blocks or uses the public highway (marches etc). There is a voluntary code that the Met ask static demonstrations to abide by which also requires details of stewards.

    But not currently any requirement to provide the names and addresses of all those taking part in such gatherings or to inform the police of plans to use social media for campaigning. Why should the new rules only apply to trade unions?

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    RobD said:
    Yes, it's the Sun, which is as you say a joke. The job is IIRC for shadow minister of diversity and minority faiths.
    Me thinks Nick you're going to have to develop an awfully thick skin (sustainable of course) during the Jezzalonic Age.

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    TOPPING said:

    Just seen Cameron on Sky..from the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon..he looked quite fit and healthy to me.. seemed to be on top of his job..

    I think we can all agree on who, given half a chance, Jezza would have surrounded himself with in the region.
    People's Front of Judea, The Judean Popular People's Front, The Popular Front of Judea (Officials), The Provisional Popular Front of Judean Peoples...
  • Considering the events in Venezuela - Corbyn and Abbots' favourite shytehole - Mr Manson should really consider what authoritianism truly is: Fourteen years in prison for the opposition; invading Columbian airspace, and; threatening the Commonwealth nation of Guyana are more worrying than anything Cammers' is proposing.

    :tumbleweed-and-co:
  • JEO said:

    JEO said:

    I said last night the BBC would not mention Abbott's racism and what do you know:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34241395

    The organisation has stopped even pretending to be objective any more.

    True - its cheerleading for Corbyn is really something. I have never seen such bias.

    The bias here is pro-Abbott and comfort with anti-white racism rather than pro-Corbyn. Interesting this morning they are attacking him for not enough women rather than the racists and IRA supporters.

    In other words, the anti-Corbyn line they are taking is not the anti-Corbyn line you would take.

  • JEO said:

    the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.
    Because the same rule is not applied to politicians, who affect all our lives much more substantially than the occasional strike. Plenty of MPs who will vote on this legislation don't even have 40% of the vote, let alone 50%. If governments could only act if they had the support of 50% of the population, the libertarian dream of virtually no government at all would come true.
    Why should it apply? They're different things.
    Exactly. In parliamentary elections there are many candidates standing, while strike ballots just have two answers.
    I think you need to steel yourself and get used to all this misrepresentation from hypocrites like Manson and Palmer. We should remember how far we have come - Scargill called a national miners strike without a ballot. Indeed ballot boxes for strikes are still a novelty for trade unions where violence and flying pickets and intimidation were once the normal tellers.
    The main culprits of these wildcat strikes (which is a polite word for trade union terrorism) are of course the public services where there is no employer to be bankrupted by their actions - only the public to be taken hostage.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    edited September 2015
    Who is looking forward to the last Labour Party Conference?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    JackW said:

    RobD said:
    Yes, it's the Sun, which is as you say a joke. The job is IIRC for shadow minister of diversity and minority faiths.
    Me thinks Nick you're going to have to develop an awfully thick skin (sustainable of course) during the Jezzalonic Age.

    Going to need the hide of an Ankylosausus!

    So not a Minister for Jews, a Minister for Corbyn's "friends" it seems.
  • Bob__SykesBob__Sykes Posts: 1,176
    Roger said:

    OT Just heard David Milliband on Radio 5 talking about the refugee crisis.

    He is excellent. Really excellent

    What have Labour done?

    Exactly my thought when I saw him on Breakfast News.

    Once Labour MPs pass a vote of no confidence in Corbyn, possibly this week, I expect the clamour to force DMili back will become defeaning, I imagine various Lab MPs will be offering him their safe seat to end the nightmare that has befallen them.

    That Sky News video is staggering. Does this joker really think he can become PM?

    He's not going to last a month, possibly not even this week, I'm increasingly thinking that.
  • RobD said:
    Yes, it's the Sun, which is as you say a joke. The job is IIRC for shadow minister of diversity and minority faiths.
    What a joke, Corbyn talks about doing politics differently then appoints a non person to a non job.

    This man is even more ridiculous than I thought, even more out of touch than the careerists he has ousted.



  • kle4 said:

    PClipp said:

    I thought this was a very good piece, Henry, and am not in the least surprised that the PB Tories are dismissing it out of hand.

    Somebody asked what this has to do with betting. The answer is in your last line: "Some voters may soon start to notice."

    They already are. The comparison is not between the Tories and Labour under Corbyn - but between the present Tory Government and the last Coalition one. Most people seem to like that last one much better.

    That may turn out to be true, but I don't see how we can know that yet. My problem with the piece is not its premise - plenty of Tory leaning headers to be found, nothing wrong with the reverse - but it's timing. The gov has barely gotten started, and I some cases has tacked further left than right since the ge, I think it a bit ridiculous to suggest it has already in essence gone too far (highlighting it is a risk is certainly valid), particularly when some of the so called evidence of this seems included on poor justification, like reducing the number of MPs.

    So good to see a labour supporting view, it's something the Tories need to be wary of, but this early on it is too soon to declare they've done it already. And I'm one who wanted a LD con coslition and am wary of a Tory maj government tacking right, so I am on the watch for them doing so. The case is overdone here, for the moment.

    I disagree with most of what Henry has said - the country voted Tory, Labour has imploded and just has to suck it up - but there is no harm in having the odd non-Corbyn thread. The reality is that under him Labour is not going to get near government, but that does not mean the actual government cannot be criticised from time to time.

    Forcing unions to provide the personal details of pickets to the police and making them give advance warning of social media campaigns are authoritarian and discriminatory moves. That Labour has given up on being a serious opposition does not change that.
    No more authoritarian than making Bouncers register and give details to the authorities as Labour made them do back in 2005. Personally I think both ideas are wrong but Labour are no no position to moan about it given they are the ones who kick started the whole authoritarian agenda during their 13 years in office - and would have done far worse if they had not been beaten back by public opinion.

    Labour did it too is not a justification.

  • Morning all,

    Steve Richards has an interesting take this morning. Trying to be positive he argues that JC victory now forces moderates and Blairites to actually do some serious rethinking as to what they are for & come up with contrasting policy ideas.
  • the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.

    Read the proposals. See what David Davis has to say.

    The tube strikes would not be affected by the new laws.

    I've read them. Sorry, I don't find them repugnant in the slightest.

    David Davis has his own agenda.

    Fair enough.

    So presumably you believe these rules should apply to all public gatherings?.

    There is already a requirement for the details of stewards to be provided to the police for any demonstration that blocks or uses the public highway (marches etc). There is a voluntary code that the Met ask static demonstrations to abide by which also requires details of stewards.

    But not currently any requirement to provide the names and addresses of all those taking part in such gatherings or to inform the police of plans to use social media for campaigning. Why should the new rules only apply to trade unions?

    As I said I don't think these rules should apply to anyone. But given that pickets are effectively bouncers trying to control who does and does not enter a place of work I see no reason why they should be treated any differently to a night club bouncer.
  • Roger said:

    OT Just heard David Milliband on Radio 5 talking about the refugee crisis.

    He is excellent. Really excellent

    What have Labour done?

    Exactly my thought when I saw him on Breakfast News.

    Once Labour MPs pass a vote of no confidence in Corbyn, possibly this week, I expect the clamour to force DMili back will become defeaning, I imagine various Lab MPs will be offering him their safe seat to end the nightmare that has befallen them.

    That Sky News video is staggering. Does this joker really think he can become PM?

    He's not going to last a month, possibly not even this week, I'm increasingly thinking that.
    I'm puzzled by the fuss over Milliband, he lost to this useless little brother and flounced of to NY in a sulk to earn his fortune. He won't unite Labour, the unions would savage him, quite rightly.
  • LucyJonesLucyJones Posts: 651
    edited September 2015
    Re Lucy Powell as Education Secretary: would that be the same Lucy Powell who has never met or spoken to Jeremy Corbyn? He is actually appointing people he has never met? Wow.

    Lucy Powell: "I have never, ever met or spoken to him. At PLP, in Chamber, in voting lobbies, tea rooms, library, anywhere ..."

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/08/lucy-powell-left-out-in-the-cold-again-i-have-never-met-jeremy-corbyn/
  • kle4 said:

    PClipp said:

    I thought this was a very good piece, Henry, and am not in the least surprised that the PB Tories are dismissing it out of hand.

    Somebody asked what this has to do with betting. The answer is in your last line: "Some voters may soon start to notice."

    They already are. The comparison is not between the Tories and Labour under Corbyn - but between the present Tory Government and the last Coalition one. Most people seem to like that last one much better.

    That may turn out to be true, but I don't see how we can know that yet. My problem with the piece is not its premise - plenty of Tory leaning headers to be found, nothing wrong with the reverse - but it's timing. The gov has barely gotten started, and I some cases has tacked further left than right since the ge, I think it a bit ridiculous to suggest it has already in essence gone too far (highlighting it is a risk is certainly valid), particularly when some of the so called evidence of this seems included on poor justification, like reducing the number of MPs.

    So good to see a labour supporting view, it's something the Tories need to be wary of, but this early on it is too soon to declare they've done it already. And I'm one who wanted a LD con coslition and am wary of a Tory maj government tacking right, so I am on the watch for them doing so. The case is overdone here, for the moment.

    I disagree with most of what Henry has said - the country voted Tory, Labour has imploded and just has to suck it up - but there is no harm in having the odd non-Corbyn thread. The reality is that under him Labour is not going to get near government, but that does not mean the actual government cannot be criticised from time to time.

    Forcing unions to provide the personal details of pickets to the police and making them give advance warning of social media campaigns are authoritarian and discriminatory moves. That Labour has given up on being a serious opposition does not change that.
    No more authoritarian than making Bouncers register and give details to the authorities as Labour made them do back in 2005. Personally I think both ideas are wrong but Labour are no no position to moan about it given they are the ones who kick started the whole authoritarian agenda during their 13 years in office - and would have done far worse if they had not been beaten back by public opinion.

    Labour did it too is not a justification.

    Nope, and to repeat I am not particularly in favour of any of these positions. But Labour bleating about a variety of their own laws being used against their vested interests is rather nauseating.
  • TOPPING said:

    RobD said:
    Yes, it's the Sun, which is as you say a joke. The job is IIRC for shadow minister of diversity and minority faiths.
    Disgusting.

    Why do "minority faiths" need a minister? What is it that Hindus need from a government minister? What will the policies be? Why are Christians excluded? How is this not divisive?

    Nick probably like every other PB Tory on here I am trying to maintain the respect for you which you have rightly built up over the years and thoroughly deserve.

    You are making it increasingly difficult to do.
    Remember Ed's wizard wheeze of having a Shadow Minister for Preventing Violence Against Women and Girls, ignoring the fact that many victims of abuse are male?

    It's straight out of that playbook. ISTR Nick was unfussed about that madness as well.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Roger said:

    Klee

    "That you continue to say we are doing nothing re refugees undermines any point you may have. It simply isn't true".

    I don't have English TV here in France only radio and I harfdly hear a word about the refugee crisis. By contrast switch on any station here and it's wall to wall. I think this explains why Britain can announce it'll take 10,000 Syrians over five years and seemingly reasonable people like yourself don't see anything wrong.

    Roger, before you post try and find out the facts. you obviously have the internet. Cameron promised 20000 refugees not 10000 whist the the vertically challenged Hollande promised 24000. France is a huge country by comparison 2.5 times the size to the UK, so Dave is doing better than the Frogs are.
  • The left always seems to call the right authoritarian, when they're not calling them fascist. This may go down well with their core vote, but I suspect most floating voters just discount it as the usual tired old rhetoric, another case of politicians crying wolf.

    To be fair, they probably see Conservative appeals to national security the same way - the kind of thing they always say, whether or not it's actually true.
  • kle4 said:

    PClipp said:

    I thought this was a very good piece, Henry, and am not in the least surprised that the PB Tories are dismissing it out of hand.

    Somebody asked what this has to do with betting. The answer is in your last line: "Some voters may soon start to notice."

    They already are. The comparison is not between the Tories and Labour under Corbyn - but between the present Tory Government and the last Coalition one. Most people seem to like that last one much better.

    That may turn out to be true, but I don't see how we can know that yet. My problem with the piece is not its premise - plenty of Tory leaning headers to be found, nothing wrong with the reverse - but it's timing. The gov has barely gotten started, and I some cases has tacked further left than right since the ge, I think it a bit ridiculous to suggest it has already in essence gone too far (highlighting it is a risk is certainly valid), particularly when some of the so called evidence of this seems included on poor justification, like reducing the number of MPs.

    So good to see a labour supporting view, it's something the Tories need to be wary of, but this early on it is too soon to declare they've done it already. And I'm one who wanted a LD con coslition and am wary of a Tory maj government tacking right, so I am on the watch for them doing so. The case is overdone here, for the moment.

    I disagree with most of what Henry has said - the country voted Tory, Labour has imploded and just has to suck it up - but there is no harm in having the odd non-Corbyn thread. The reality is that under him Labour is not going to get near government, but that does not mean the actual government cannot be criticised from time to time.

    Forcing unions to provide the personal details of pickets to the police and making them give advance warning of social media campaigns are authoritarian and discriminatory moves. That Labour has given up on being a serious opposition does not change that.
    No more authoritarian than making Bouncers register and give details to the authorities as Labour made them do back in 2005.
    You mean people who control access to business premises with the implied threat of violence? What in heaven's name has that got to do with pickets?

    :-) I think we understand each other.
  • @RichardTynall - Nope, and to repeat I am not particularly in favour of any of these positions. But Labour bleating about a variety of their own laws being used against their vested interests is rather nauseating.

    This is new law.

  • TOPPING said:

    RobD said:
    Yes, it's the Sun, which is as you say a joke. The job is IIRC for shadow minister of diversity and minority faiths.
    Disgusting.

    Why do "minority faiths" need a minister? What is it that Hindus need from a government minister? What will the policies be? Why are Christians excluded? How is this not divisive?

    Nick probably like every other PB Tory on here I am trying to maintain the respect for you which you have rightly built up over the years and thoroughly deserve.

    You are making it increasingly difficult to do.
    Remember Ed's wizard wheeze of having a Shadow Minister for Preventing Violence Against Women and Girls, ignoring the fact that many victims of abuse are male?

    It's straight out of that playbook. ISTR Nick was unfussed about that madness as well.
    Er, who are they shadowing?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    LucyJones said:

    Re Lucy Powell as Education Secretary: would that be the same Lucy Powell who has never met or spoken to Jeremy Corbyn? He is actually appointing people he has never met? Wow.

    Lucy Powell: "I have never, ever met or spoken to him. At PLP, in Chamber, in voting lobbies, tea rooms, library, anywhere ..."

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/08/lucy-powell-left-out-in-the-cold-again-i-have-never-met-jeremy-corbyn/

    That is the best thing to happen so far. More of Lucy on our TV screens is to be warmly welcomed. Non-stop entertainment
  • the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.

    Read the proposals. See what David Davis has to say.

    The tube strikes would not be affected by the new laws.

    I've read them. Sorry, I don't find them repugnant in the slightest.

    David Davis has his own agenda.

    Fair enough.

    So presumably you believe these rules should apply to all public gatherings?.

    There is already a requirement for the details of stewards to be provided to the police for any demonstration that blocks or uses the public highway (marches etc). There is a voluntary code that the Met ask static demonstrations to abide by which also requires details of stewards.

    But not currently any requirement to provide the names and addresses of all those taking part in such gatherings or to inform the police of plans to use social media for campaigning. Why should the new rules only apply to trade unions?

    As I said I don't think these rules should apply to anyone. But given that pickets are effectively bouncers trying to control who does and does not enter a place of work I see no reason why they should be treated any differently to a night club bouncer.

    Pickets are explicitly not allowed to prevent people from entering a place of work and any attempt to do so is already illegal. That does not apply to bouncers.

  • @RichardTynall - Nope, and to repeat I am not particularly in favour of any of these positions. But Labour bleating about a variety of their own laws being used against their vested interests is rather nauseating.

    This is new law.

    It is simply taking a variation of an old Labour law on Bouncers and applying it in a new context. In fact I fail to see much difference between the two situations.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263

    wow Suddenly NNXMPX2 has woken up now he doesn't care for the system that worked so well for his buddies Tone and Gordy ... who,d a thunk it

    I've always supported PR, since I think that FPTP delivering governments on 35-40% of the vote is a recipe for permanent trouble. But my point was that it's hypocritical for a government elected on less than 40% of the vote, allowing them to send us to war or do pretty much anything else it likes, to play the "unrepresentative" card against people who want to take industrial action for a couple of days on the same basis.
    Jonathan said:



    Hi Nick, are you happy with Corbyn so far?

    Early days, but mostly, yes. There are two decisions I'd have taken differently, but then I'm not LOTO.

    I commented on it on my blog, which still reaches 10% of the voters in my former constituency - the arguments are ones I've put here too:

    http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/

    Response has been heavy and interesting. Labour and Green supporters generally over the moon ("I was on the point of giving up on British politics but now I'm filled with hope"), but two defections (both on the defence issue) and a few "well, I see what you mean, I'm not keen but maybe". Tory supporters downright hostile and a couple of unsubscriptions - "I've enjoyed reading your columns in the past but I can't believe what I'm reading here". Unaligned people cautiously interested - "he does sound different but talk is one thing, let's see what he's like in practice".

  • Roger said:

    OT Just heard David Milliband on Radio 5 talking about the refugee crisis.

    He is excellent. Really excellent

    What have Labour done?

    Exactly my thought when I saw him on Breakfast News.

    Once Labour MPs pass a vote of no confidence in Corbyn, possibly this week, I expect the clamour to force DMili back will become defeaning, I imagine various Lab MPs will be offering him their safe seat to end the nightmare that has befallen them.

    That Sky News video is staggering. Does this joker really think he can become PM?

    He's not going to last a month, possibly not even this week, I'm increasingly thinking that.
    After the 2010 GE, I said that David Miliband would never be Labour Leader, yet alone PM. This was before he resigned his seat, and it was obvious he was yesterday's man. If Ed lost in 2015, the earliest he could become LOTO was 2015, meaning it would be 2020 before he might face an election. History, familial connection, age and up-and-coming Labour MPs hungry for power would beat him.

    Now Labour has lost the plot, who knows? The first problem would be him getting a seat: would Corbyn even want him back? Would he be able to find a seat?
  • wow Suddenly NNXMPX2 has woken up now he doesn't care for the system that worked so well for his buddies Tone and Gordy ... who,d a thunk it

    I've always supported PR, since I think that FPTP delivering governments on 35-40% of the vote is a recipe for permanent trouble. But my point was that it's hypocritical for a government elected on less than 40% of the vote, allowing them to send us to war or do pretty much anything else it likes, to play the "unrepresentative" card against people who want to take industrial action for a couple of days on the same basis.

    (snip)
    But that's a fallacious argument, unless you're saying that all votes should be held under the same system and with the same rules?
  • @RichardTynall - Nope, and to repeat I am not particularly in favour of any of these positions. But Labour bleating about a variety of their own laws being used against their vested interests is rather nauseating.

    This is new law.

    It is simply taking a variation of an old Labour law on Bouncers and applying it in a new context. In fact I fail to see much difference between the two situations.

    Pickets have no legal right to bar entry to a premises. If they seek to do so they are breaking the law.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    edited September 2015

    @RichardTynall - Nope, and to repeat I am not particularly in favour of any of these positions. But Labour bleating about a variety of their own laws being used against their vested interests is rather nauseating.

    This is new law.

    It is simply taking a variation of an old Labour law on Bouncers and applying it in a new context. In fact I fail to see much difference between the two situations.

    Pickets have no legal right to bar entry to a premises or to remove anyone from it. If they seek to do so they are breaking the law.

  • The left always seems to call the right authoritarian, when they're not calling them fascist. This may go down well with their core vote, but I suspect most floating voters just discount it as the usual tired old rhetoric, another case of politicians crying wolf.

    To be fair, they probably see Conservative appeals to national security the same way - the kind of thing they always say, whether or not it's actually true.

    That is because Tories think that the electorate consists of Tories and traitors only whilst Labour activists think that Tories want to kill them. Honourable exceptions on both sides, but very much in a minority.

  • the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.

    Read the proposals. See what David Davis has to say.

    The tube strikes would not be affected by the new laws.

    I've read them. Sorry, I don't find them repugnant in the slightest.

    David Davis has his own agenda.

    Fair enough.

    So presumably you believe these rules should apply to all public gatherings?.

    There is already a requirement for the details of stewards to be provided to the police for any demonstration that blocks or uses the public highway (marches etc). There is a voluntary code that the Met ask static demonstrations to abide by which also requires details of stewards.

    But not currently any requirement to provide the names and addresses of all those taking part in such gatherings or to inform the police of plans to use social media for campaigning. Why should the new rules only apply to trade unions?

    As I said I don't think these rules should apply to anyone. But given that pickets are effectively bouncers trying to control who does and does not enter a place of work I see no reason why they should be treated any differently to a night club bouncer.

    Pickets are explicitly not allowed to prevent people from entering a place of work and any attempt to do so is already illegal. That does not apply to bouncers.

    Ahem:
    A senior manager at the Ineos chemical company claims that a mob of protesters were sent to his home, leaving him fearing for his safety.
    The tricks were organised by the “Leverage team”, it is alleged, in an echo of the union militancy of the 1970s and 1980s.
    The Ineos director told the Daily Mail that he had feared for his wife and two young children when 30 protesters arrived at his home during the school holidays, telling his neighbours he was “evil”.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10416408/Unite-union-accused-of-using-bully-tactics-in-Grangemouth-dispute.html
  • the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.

    Read the proposals. See what David Davis has to say.

    The tube strikes would not be affected by the new laws.

    I've read them. Sorry, I don't find them repugnant in the slightest.

    David Davis has his own agenda.

    Fair enough.

    So presumably you believe these rules should apply to all public gatherings?.

    Sorry, you've lost me.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Seems like Henry is a bit rattled by his party's monumental all weekend long clusterf+ck... and its only just begun.

    Some of you may recall my posts in run up to election about the state of mind of Lib Dem Councillors and activists in Colchester.

    I can report that of last night they are in a very buoyant mood seeing a way back.

    One of them said (and I quote) "Labour are destroying themselves"

    Will the Lib Dems seize this once in a life time opportunity? We can only hope so.

    Personally Henry I am more concerned that Labour look like giving up on being a serious party of opposition and a properly functioning democracy needs that.

    Oh Henry - what's your position on the unions wanting to bring down the Government outside of the ballot box?


  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    Roger said:

    OT Just heard David Milliband on Radio 5 talking about the refugee crisis.

    He is excellent. Really excellent

    What have Labour done?

    Exactly my thought when I saw him on Breakfast News.

    Once Labour MPs pass a vote of no confidence in Corbyn, possibly this week, I expect the clamour to force DMili back will become defeaning, I imagine various Lab MPs will be offering him their safe seat to end the nightmare that has befallen them.

    That Sky News video is staggering. Does this joker really think he can become PM?

    He's not going to last a month, possibly not even this week, I'm increasingly thinking that.
    After the 2010 GE, I said that David Miliband would never be Labour Leader, yet alone PM. This was before he resigned his seat, and it was obvious he was yesterday's man. If Ed lost in 2015, the earliest he could become LOTO was 2015, meaning it would be 2020 before he might face an election. History, familial connection, age and up-and-coming Labour MPs hungry for power would beat him.

    Now Labour has lost the plot, who knows? The first problem would be him getting a seat: would Corbyn even want him back? Would he be able to find a seat?
    Surely the only route back is if corbyn got the chop and a winnable by election came about? Corbyn isn't going to allow him to be a candidate
  • Lucy Powell, who’s only claim to fame was the catalogue of PR disasters during Ed’s failed campaign, has now been elevated to the opposition front bench as Shadow Education Secretary. - Frightening, what paucity of talent must there be if reaching that far down the barrel is required?
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 2,995
    On topic - this is a pretty good reading of these laws/proposals, a mix of party-base red meat, illiberal (and undemocratic) opacity and daft stop-gaps which don't deal with underlying issues (esp. re. tax credits), and will have far-ranging unintended consequences.

    However, they can do more or less what they want TBH, given that the opposition is now a bunch of scruffy Socialist Worker chuggers that nobody who could conceivably be called a swing voter will ever take seriously.
  • the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.

    Read the proposals. See what David Davis has to say.

    The tube strikes would not be affected by the new laws.

    I've read them. Sorry, I don't find them repugnant in the slightest.

    David Davis has his own agenda.

    Fair enough.

    So presumably you believe these rules should apply to all public gatherings?.

    There is already a requirement for the details of stewards to be provided to the police for any demonstration that blocks or uses the public highway (marches etc). There is a voluntary code that the Met ask static demonstrations to abide by which also requires details of stewards.

    But not currently any requirement to provide the names and addresses of all those taking part in such gatherings or to inform the police of plans to use social media for campaigning. Why should the new rules only apply to trade unions?

    As I said I don't think these rules should apply to anyone. But given that pickets are effectively bouncers trying to control who does and does not enter a place of work I see no reason why they should be treated any differently to a night club bouncer.

    Pickets are explicitly not allowed to prevent people from entering a place of work and any attempt to do so is already illegal. That does not apply to bouncers.

    Ahem:
    A senior manager at the Ineos chemical company claims that a mob of protesters were sent to his home, leaving him fearing for his safety.
    The tricks were organised by the “Leverage team”, it is alleged, in an echo of the union militancy of the 1970s and 1980s.
    The Ineos director told the Daily Mail that he had feared for his wife and two young children when 30 protesters arrived at his home during the school holidays, telling his neighbours he was “evil”.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10416408/Unite-union-accused-of-using-bully-tactics-in-Grangemouth-dispute.html



    Yes, they broke the law. And they were not pickets.

  • Well the Tory attack videos have been launched (look away now Henry)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hgJokgNJHo&app=desktop
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    edited September 2015
    I think some Labour supporters think that Jezza will shake up the party, invigorate it and bring in more members. Then step down in 2018 or so to let in a leader who will sweep them to victory in 2020.

    If not, well sod the electorate, there are always demos to change their mind.
  • @RichardTynall - Nope, and to repeat I am not particularly in favour of any of these positions. But Labour bleating about a variety of their own laws being used against their vested interests is rather nauseating.

    This is new law.

    It is simply taking a variation of an old Labour law on Bouncers and applying it in a new context. In fact I fail to see much difference between the two situations.

    Pickets have no legal right to bar entry to a premises or to remove anyone from it. If they seek to do so they are breaking the law.

    And since when has that stopped them? All the more if they don't have to give their details so can then claim it was nothing to do with them.
  • the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.
    Because the same rule is not applied to politicians, who affect all our lives much more substantially than the occasional strike. Plenty of MPs who will vote on this legislation don't even have 40% of the vote, let alone 50%. If governments could only act if they had the support of 50% of the population, the libertarian dream of virtually no government at all would come true.
    No doubt that's the line that Labour will play - but plenty (most) organisations have thresholds for quoracy or validity of votes that will greatly affect either the organisation or those that use it.

    Why should it be different for those that supply essential public services?

    Incidentally, Labour would be perfectly free to repeal this law on the same electoral basis that the Tories will pass it in future.

    But you will have to win an election first. You've currently got a bit of a problem there.
  • Corbyn is a threat to national security (take his altitude to drones),Why should parents get child benefit for 3 or more children ?Workaholic tory ministers are right to avoid live interviews as the tv/radio is controlled mostly by the progressive left who try to trap them
  • @RichardTynall - Nope, and to repeat I am not particularly in favour of any of these positions. But Labour bleating about a variety of their own laws being used against their vested interests is rather nauseating.

    This is new law.

    It is simply taking a variation of an old Labour law on Bouncers and applying it in a new context. In fact I fail to see much difference between the two situations.

    Pickets have no legal right to bar entry to a premises or to remove anyone from it. If they seek to do so they are breaking the law.

    And since when has that stopped them? All the more if they don't have to give their details so can then claim it was nothing to do with them.

    Why not instruct the police to enforce existing law if it is not being enforced?

Sign In or Register to comment.