A surprisingly simplistic thread. Do we think the public blame politicians for the much poorer health outcomes at weekends? Do we think the public will blame politician for trying to do something to remedy those poor outcomes?
Do we think the public will blame politicians for their top down re-organisation of the NHS that created the CCGs that have got us in this mess?
''Labour do seem to project the notion that, as long as they give Labour their votes, Muslims can pretty much do what they want - and Labour will let them get on with it. From cousin marriages to FGM to hate preaching to corrupt election practices to industrial-scale rape of the young, Labour has been woefully quiet. ''
Doctors - they don't know Teachers - they especially don't know Scientists - they don't know, and should keep quiet Judges - they officially don't know Clergy - they think they know but they don't TV news - always the first not to know Police - they should find out Man in the street - they like not to know Civil servants - knowing is no part of the remit Pollsters - they know they don't know NHS managers - they don't care that they don't know Trade Union types - they celebrate the fact that they don't know Business leaders - they're keen to keep quiet about not knowing Bankers - they know, but for a percentage they'll look the other way Journos - being the first to not know is the key Estate agents - shoot on sight Ministers - being seen to not know is the only peril Politicians - don't know, but will tell you they do
I spend time elsewhere discussing TV shows - one thread poster is very comprehensive in her argument = to the point where she answers most of the possible points she raises.
Posing a well argued singular POV succinctly offers the best thread header. It offers a debating starting point, that doesn't attempt to negate all others.
Blimey, antifrank, you've taken SeanT's chiding to heart.
Actually, I'd drafted this before the other one went up. Mike has shortened it further (and made it better). I do try to take heed of constructive criticism.
I do like short posts to the point or just posting a chart where the message is very clear.
MailOnline reporter bought an IDENTICAL Syrian passport that ISIS bomber used to sneak into Europe before Paris attacks
A MailOnline reporter was able to buy a Syrian passport, identity card and driving licence from a fraudster in a Turkish border town in September this year.
The passport book was genuine, stolen from Syria when blank. The forger added the reporter's picture and gave him the identity of a Syrian man from Aleppo who was killed last year.
The other papers – the identity card and the driving licence – supported the false identity and gave credibility to a claim for asylum in Europe.
The documents were bought for $2,000 and were ready in just four days.
A surprisingly simplistic thread. Do we think the public blame politicians for the much poorer health outcomes at weekends? Do we think the public will blame politician for trying to do something to remedy those poor outcomes?
Do we think the public will blame politicians for their top down re-organisation of the NHS that created the CCGs that have got us in this mess?
Incidentally, I have a theory that Corbyn will be overwhelmed by indecision on all important issues. Events, not his curious views, will overwhelm him, and, if they're not careful, Labour too.
Probably a thread header in it.
I have been thinking about exactly this point in the last few days. Jeremy Corbyn doesn't seem to be a quick thinker in an age that requires ever quicker reactions and he is anxious to be true to himself. So he looks to come out with forms of words that he can live with but which satisfy no one.
Mr. Nick, you may also wish to consider the triangle of Oxfordshire [I think] where the majority of F1 teams are based. Not only are the F1 teams there, there are thousands employed in supplying components. A strong tech party could perhaps get a fairer hearing there than elsewhere. [The teams are all close enough that an engineer moving from one to another can often avoid moving house or his/her kids to a new school].
I'd agree on party structure. Labour is wide open to entryism, as we've seen, and the Lib Dems' tuition fees woe was caused by a pledge Clegg never wanted and which was forced upon him by a vote of members.
However, the Conservatives do have an easier time of regicide, within the rules (hence Hague's quote, of it being an absolute monarchy moderated by regicide), so I think that's something you should also include, otherwise you run the risk of a Faragian personality cult.
MailOnline reporter bought an IDENTICAL Syrian passport that ISIS bomber used to sneak into Europe before Paris attacks
A MailOnline reporter was able to buy a Syrian passport, identity card and driving licence from a fraudster in a Turkish border town in September this year.
The passport book was genuine, stolen from Syria when blank. The forger added the reporter's picture and gave him the identity of a Syrian man from Aleppo who was killed last year.
The other papers – the identity card and the driving licence – supported the false identity and gave credibility to a claim for asylum in Europe.
The documents were bought for $2,000 and were ready in just four days.
The Drs will be damaged by strikes. The public would like better weekend outcomes and seven day NHS
The battle may be won by Drs, but the long term position they have will be diminished. Thus Hunt wins (it may be a pyrrhic victory).
I think what the public would want is to have as good a treatment and outcome on sat and sun as the rest of the week. It is possible today to run outpatients clinics on weekends, I've been to them, but if you are taken ill on Sunday you might hope for the same treatment as on a Monday.
@nick I've signed up for your forum. Your party looks an interesting one, though the road ahead will most likely be long and winding !
Thanks Pulpstar. The forum's been a bit quiet recently, so I'm trying to breath some new life into it. Feel free to start comment threads (and message the step_admin user if you need any help).
I spent 5 weekends trapped in my local DGH because there were no consultants available to tell me if the life threatening condition my GP thought I'd experienced, was true.
That's 20 days of my life spent inc A&E waiting despite Friday night urgent faxes saying I was about to drop dead, days of being bored stiff in bed then discharged on a Tuesday morning when the roster caught up with me.
Nothing happened over the weekend. Nothing bar being tested for my blood pressure. A total waste of time for everyone involved.
The issue I really don't understand here is that the main reason for the disparity of outcomes for patients treated at weekends is largely due to the absence of consultants. In simple terms, it's the time when the junior doctors are in control. They're already working weekends (as the 'I'm in work, Jeremy' campaign on Twitter sought to point out). If you want a better service at weekends you need to get the consultants in, not fiddle around with junior doctors' contracts.
Incidentally, I have a theory that Corbyn will be overwhelmed by indecision on all important issues. Events, not his curious views, will overwhelm him, and, if they're not careful, Labour too.
Probably a thread header in it.
I have been thinking about exactly this point in the last few days. Jeremy Corbyn doesn't seem to be a quick thinker in an age that requires ever quicker reactions and he is anxious to be true to himself. So he looks to come out with forms of words that he can live with but which satisfy no one.
Glad to hear I'm not alone with my musings.
As a Tory activist, although I found it frankly hilarious that Labour elected him in the first place, the way in which he motivated people on the left of the spectrum had begun to worry me slightly.
But so far he has proved to be not only going against majority public opinion on most issues, but just not up to the pretty straightforward job of responding to events and, where necessary, holding the government to account.
Would be interested if you think his strong activist/weak Parliamentary support base dynamic means:
a) the growth of a third party - perhaps even a splinter party from Labour itself b) the dominance of the Tories whilst he stays in post c) his overthrow
A surprisingly simplistic thread. Do we think the public blame politicians for the much poorer health outcomes at weekends? Do we think the public will blame politician for trying to do something to remedy those poor outcomes?
Do we think the public will blame politicians for their top down re-organisation of the NHS that created the CCGs that have got us in this mess?
Do we think the public, beyond the usual politically motivated, care in the slightest about arguments of 'top down reorganisations', or have any real awareness of them?
People notice the service they receive.
Current NHS satisfaction levels are close to at an all time high at a time when some are trying to tell everyone it's like down town Baghdad out there.
The government should simply abolish most statistics (and the vast army of bureaucrats and bean counters associated with them) and draw conclusions purely from public satisfaction levels with service levels.
Were you seen quickly? Were you happy with your treatment? Was your problem resolved?
And so on.
It is a service. It is there to serve the people, not provide political types with numbers to play games with.
Mr. Nick, agree on the need for technology, science and maths to be at the heart of education and the economy. There's also, as you indicate, a lot of room for a new party to make great headway in the current political climate.
Your problems will likely be more on the political rather than the policy side. UKIP have been serially incompetent at General Elections, going for a wide and shallow approach. I'd advise you to focus on a very small number of seats and try to win them rather than spread yourselves thin and wide, and get more votes but no seats.
I've been thinking the same thing. The Lib Dems approach of concentrating on the south west seemed to work for them. Perhaps university towns would be good candidates. Places with science/tech hubs too. I keep thinking of Cambridge.
You also need to decide on leadership structure, and your social approach. If you put together a liberal approach towards civil liberties and free speech with a focus on technology and science, that would be quite appealing.
Regarding civil liberties and free speech, I think this is what we've done. Our site says: We would rather live in a forward looking, free society of well educated, free thinkers than a surveillance state where hateful religious dogma goes unchallenged.
Regarding leadership structure (and the party's constitution generally), we have not done anything yet. I've noticed that the Greens, UKIP and now Labour have all had issues caused by their organisational structure. I'm tempted to borrow heavily from the Tories who historically seem to have evolved something that's very good at getting power. Do you have any ideas on this front?
Thanks for your post - very interesting, although I don't see the future situation being as bleak as that paper outlines.
A few points:
1) Although I'm rabidly against electronic voting for elections (see discussions passim), any party such as yours should perhaps consider a flatter leadership structure, with fast, reactive discussions, information dissemination and policy setting over t'Internet.
2) The issue you might have with tech and science cities such as Cambridge is that they can be left-wing and/or liberal. Knowing a few friends of mine who could be classed as scientists, there leftist views probably means more to them than their love of science and technology.
3) As an agnostic, I'm not sure the 'hateful religious dogma' but works. I'm all for a secular state, but I also know that many people practice religion in ways which cause no problems. I'd tone that line down.
A surprisingly simplistic thread. Do we think the public blame politicians for the much poorer health outcomes at weekends? Do we think the public will blame politician for trying to do something to remedy those poor outcomes?
Do we think the public will blame politicians for their top down re-organisation of the NHS that created the CCGs that have got us in this mess?
It is unclear to me how the replacement of PCTs with CCGs has caused the problem of a lack of medical staff at weekends. A problem which from personal experience goes back many years. Perhaps you could enlighten us.
As for the current dispute with the Junior Doctors over changing their terms and conditions, this looks remarkably like an old fashioned trade dispute straight out of the 1970s. Management wish, for whatever reason, to change work practices and the union kick up a fuss refuse but actually just wants lots more money for its members. Even the language being deployed is so redolent of that used by the trade unions at British Leyland, and other now defunct concerns.
The big question here isn't really what Jezza doesn't do, or Cameron wants to do, it is what will Obama do...not exactly known for decisive action when it comes to foreign policy. His red lines on Assad and all that.
We haven't had enough about Scottish independence recently. Here's a trenchant attack on the SNP's handling of the politics of the independence debate:
Jeremy Hunt believes that what he is doing is for the long term benefit of patients. He should say so frequently. The BMA is acting like an old style union.
Mr. Nick, you may also wish to consider the triangle of Oxfordshire [I think] where the majority of F1 teams are based. Not only are the F1 teams there, there are thousands employed in supplying components. A strong tech party could perhaps get a fairer hearing there than elsewhere. [The teams are all close enough that an engineer moving from one to another can often avoid moving house or his/her kids to a new school].
I'd agree on party structure. Labour is wide open to entryism, as we've seen, and the Lib Dems' tuition fees woe was caused by a pledge Clegg never wanted and which was forced upon him by a vote of members.
However, the Conservatives do have an easier time of regicide, within the rules (hence Hague's quote, of it being an absolute monarchy moderated by regicide), so I think that's something you should also include, otherwise you run the risk of a Faragian personality cult.
Yes, it seems tricky to get the balance right. If the party's MPs think the current leader is damaging their chances, it's in the party's interests to get rid of him. As long as this isn't done too easily this seems much better than a leader who's impossible to remove.
Mr. Nick, you may also wish to consider the triangle of Oxfordshire [I think] where the majority of F1 teams are based. Not only are the F1 teams there, there are thousands employed in supplying components. A strong tech party could perhaps get a fairer hearing there than elsewhere. [The teams are all close enough that an engineer moving from one to another can often avoid moving house or his/her kids to a new school].
I'd agree on party structure. Labour is wide open to entryism, as we've seen, and the Lib Dems' tuition fees woe was caused by a pledge Clegg never wanted and which was forced upon him by a vote of members.
However, the Conservatives do have an easier time of regicide, within the rules (hence Hague's quote, of it being an absolute monarchy moderated by regicide), so I think that's something you should also include, otherwise you run the risk of a Faragian personality cult.
I hope you are not suggesting that the same people who run F1 should get involved on real politics!!?
My own view is this idea is a non starter and possibly even bogus. Take a look at the scientists who stretch the truth to justify their global warming grants and their plots against people who disagree with them. Why should I assume technocrats and scientists and educationalists know better or are intrinsically better suited to government. Plus the basic premise of large job losses due to technology seems somewhat self servingly fanciful.
Incidentally, I have a theory that Corbyn will be overwhelmed by indecision on all important issues. Events, not his curious views, will overwhelm him, and, if they're not careful, Labour too.
Probably a thread header in it.
I have been thinking about exactly this point in the last few days. Jeremy Corbyn doesn't seem to be a quick thinker in an age that requires ever quicker reactions and he is anxious to be true to himself. So he looks to come out with forms of words that he can live with but which satisfy no one.
Not so much that he isn't a quick thinker. He shows no evidence of the prior calculation needed of a Leader of the Opposition. In fact, the leader of a parish council. He may be staying true to himself, but to put out a statement that appears to treat equally all the dead of the Paris Friday 13th Massacres - victims and killers - is just not consistent with somebody who has thought out the political consequences of his actions.
Questioning the legality of vaporising Jihadi John probably puts him in 1% of the population. The 1% that includes the profoundly misguided, the pathetically naive, traitors and supporters of IS. That Rainbow Alliance ain't going to get him many Labour MPs elected.
I would love to know how Jezza thinks that the unity of The Syrian people will prevail. Given the depth of the religious, secular, & political differences in the country I'm damned if I understand how this bloody mess will be ended by talks. I have my doubts that Cameron has much idea about who could be let alone should be ruling in Damascus. But Corbyn needs to start leaving his comfort zone behind.
We haven't had enough about Scottish independence recently. Here's a trenchant attack on the SNP's handling of the politics of the independence debate:
MailOnline reporter bought an IDENTICAL Syrian passport that ISIS bomber used to sneak into Europe before Paris attacks
A MailOnline reporter was able to buy a Syrian passport, identity card and driving licence from a fraudster in a Turkish border town in September this year.
The passport book was genuine, stolen from Syria when blank. The forger added the reporter's picture and gave him the identity of a Syrian man from Aleppo who was killed last year.
The other papers – the identity card and the driving licence – supported the false identity and gave credibility to a claim for asylum in Europe.
The documents were bought for $2,000 and were ready in just four days.
That does not surprise me at all. And the finding of that Syrian passport was more than just a little bit convenient. ISIS apparently don't like the fact that sane people have been allowed to run away from their psychopathic insanity and find sanctuary elsewhere. I think we are being played here.
Actually his point was sound if poorly expressed. Once they have adult rights they ain't children. Oops - something the liberal left forgot to think of.
Teresa May is so professional and committed and deserves wide scale support as she does everything possible to keep us safe. It is at the present time one of the most, if not the most, important position in government today
(snip) I would love to know how Jezza thinks that the unity of The Syrian people will prevail. Given the depth of the religious, secular, & political differences in the country I'm damned if I understand how this bloody mess will be ended by talks. I have my doubts that Cameron has much idea about who could be let alone should be ruling in Damascus. But Corbyn needs to start leaving his comfort zone behind.
Considering the conflict started in a civil war, the will of the 'Syrian people' - even if many of the fighters are foreign forces for AlN and ISIS - is probably hard to reconcile.
Yesterday Hilary Benn was calling for peace talks. If that's Labour's position, it'll be interesting to know who they expect to take part in the talks, considering that two of the major combatannts - al Nusra and ISIS - are probably not people who are willing to talk. Or if they are, their demands might well be untenable.
For the others: the Syrian regime, the remnants of the FSA, the Kurds, and the other disparate groups - it might be possible to have talks. But that leaves a fast number of combatants and territory outside the talks.
Al Nusra and ISIS are terrorist organisations. They don't get to talk, they get to die, then the other combatants talk.
As to the will of the Syrian people, they have been polled, and Assad got a thumping majority.
You mean the elections in 2012, during the civil war? Or the presidential election in 2014, which many see as being illegitimate? Neither of which took place in large parts of the 'state' Ones where hundreds of thousands of the refugees outside the country were barred from voting?
Or ones pre-2012, when there was essentially a one-party state?
Of all the arguments you use wrt Assad, the 'democracy' one is perhaps the silliest.
I think Antifrank is being a little disingenuous with his statistics, veering well into 'damned lies' territory.
The question asked is about trust in general, and we all answer in context We trust doctors to tell us the truth when we speak to them, and for most of us, that is when we are seeking their advice on our medical condition. Not when we are asking them if they are working too long or getting paid too little.
I'd like to see a straight question asked: how much do you trust doctors when they speak about their pay vs how much do you trust Jeremy Hunt talking about doctors' pay. I would expect doctors to still win that head to head, but by nowhere near the 90/19 split above.
Ask the question 'does the NHS wage bill need to be brought under control?' and it will be even less favorable to doctors.
Teresa May is so professional and committed and deserves wide scale support as she does everything possible to keep us safe. It is at the present time one of the most, if not the most, important position in government today
MailOnline reporter bought an IDENTICAL Syrian passport that ISIS bomber used to sneak into Europe before Paris attacks
A MailOnline reporter was able to buy a Syrian passport, identity card and driving licence from a fraudster in a Turkish border town in September this year.
The passport book was genuine, stolen from Syria when blank. The forger added the reporter's picture and gave him the identity of a Syrian man from Aleppo who was killed last year.
The other papers – the identity card and the driving licence – supported the false identity and gave credibility to a claim for asylum in Europe.
The documents were bought for $2,000 and were ready in just four days.
That does not surprise me at all. And the finding of that Syrian passport was more than just a little bit convenient. ISIS apparently don't like the fact that sane people have been allowed to run away from their psychopathic insanity and find sanctuary elsewhere. I think we are being played here.
Even at the risk of having to buy a tin foil hat, I have to ask, in what way do you think we are being played and by whom?
Hi everyone. I've been regularly lurking on this forum for years, but thought I'd create an account so I could tell you about something I've been working on for much of this year. I hope you don't mind if it's a bit off topic.
At the same time technology and automation is on the verge of making huge swathes (35% according to a recent study) of the population unemployed. Many people will clearly need to reskill and yet none of the political parties appear to have grasped that reskilling huge numbers of people is going to be a huge challenge.
With Labour veering to the left and the Lib Dems still reeling from the election, I think there is currently an opportunity for a new kind of political party which promotes a scientific and rational worldview. I call this the Science, Technology & Education Party (or "STEP"), and while we're not registered yet we aim to become so soon. We have a website here along with a forum and Twitter account.
So what do you guys think? It's obviously ambitious, but I think there are people out there that this will resonate with. We're looking for key people right now, and I'm hoping some of them might be reading this. If you're interested please come and join us on the forum.
I see France going all out against ISIS now. While good ole Jeremy is going about talking absolute rubbish. Its clear he would never use military force, and his political judgement and timing has been downright awful. The blokes beginning to make my blood boil. Labour need to get rid. And fast.
(snip) I would love to know how Jezza thinks that the unity of The Syrian people will prevail. Given the depth of the religious, secular, & political differences in the country I'm damned if I understand how this bloody mess will be ended by talks. I have my doubts that Cameron has much idea about who could be let alone should be ruling in Damascus. But Corbyn needs to start leaving his comfort zone behind.
Considering the conflict started in a civil war, the will of the 'Syrian people' - even if many of the fighters are foreign forces for AlN and ISIS - is probably hard to reconcile.
Yesterday Hilary Benn was calling for peace talks. If that's Labour's position, it'll be interesting to know who they expect to take part in the talks, considering that two of the major combatannts - al Nusra and ISIS - are probably not people who are willing to talk. Or if they are, their demands might well be untenable.
For the others: the Syrian regime, the remnants of the FSA, the Kurds, and the other disparate groups - it might be possible to have talks. But that leaves a fast number of combatants and territory outside the talks.
Al Nusra and ISIS are terrorist organisations. They don't get to talk, they get to die, then the other combatants talk.
As to the will of the Syrian people, they have been polled, and Assad got a thumping majority.
Yes: "Assad captures another seven-year term after winning almost 90% of the vote, with polling only held in government-held areas"
At last! As a long term lurker and very occasional commenter on this site, this is exactly the way I think things should go. Evidence based decisions free of tiresome and blinkered left-right-religious slanted preconceived positions. Almost assured my vote. Bring it on.
Hi everyone. I've been regularly lurking on this forum for years, but thought I'd create an account so I could tell you about something I've been working on for much of this year. I hope you don't mind if it's a bit off topic.
At the same time technology and automation is on the verge of making huge swathes (35% according to a recent study) of the population unemployed. Many people will clearly need to reskill and yet none of the political parties appear to have grasped that reskilling huge numbers of people is going to be a huge challenge.
With Labour veering to the left and the Lib Dems still reeling from the election, I think there is currently an opportunity for a new kind of political party which promotes a scientific and rational worldview. I call this the Science, Technology & Education Party (or "STEP"), and while we're not registered yet we aim to become so soon. We have a website here along with a forum and Twitter account.
So what do you guys think? It's obviously ambitious, but I think there are people out there that this will resonate with. We're looking for key people right now, and I'm hoping some of them might be reading this. If you're interested please come and join us on the forum.
Doctors - they don't know Teachers - they especially don't know Scientists - they don't know, and should keep quiet Judges - they officially don't know Clergy - they think they know but they don't TV news - always the first not to know Police - they should find out Man in the street - they like not to know Civil servants - knowing is no part of the remit Pollsters - they know they don't know NHS managers - they don't care that they don't know Trade Union types - they celebrate the fact that they don't know Business leaders - they're keen to keep quiet about not knowing Bankers - they know, but for a percentage they'll look the other way Journos - being the first to not know is the key Estate agents - shoot on sight Ministers - being seen to not know is the only peril Politicians - don't know, but will tell you they do
Corbyn also said he'd be unhappy about shoot to kill policy on British streets - priority has to be finding political solution for Syria 3:53 PM - 16 Nov 2015
MailOnline reporter bought an IDENTICAL Syrian passport that ISIS bomber used to sneak into Europe before Paris attacks
A MailOnline reporter was able to buy a Syrian passport, identity card and driving licence from a fraudster in a Turkish border town in September this year.
The passport book was genuine, stolen from Syria when blank. The forger added the reporter's picture and gave him the identity of a Syrian man from Aleppo who was killed last year.
The other papers – the identity card and the driving licence – supported the false identity and gave credibility to a claim for asylum in Europe.
The documents were bought for $2,000 and were ready in just four days.
That does not surprise me at all. And the finding of that Syrian passport was more than just a little bit convenient. ISIS apparently don't like the fact that sane people have been allowed to run away from their psychopathic insanity and find sanctuary elsewhere. I think we are being played here.
Even at the risk of having to buy a tin foil hat, I have to ask, in what way do you think we are being played and by whom?
I think that we were supposed to find that passport and make the lives of Syrian refugees far more difficult as a result. It will probably work too. Just because these people are savages it does not mean they are stupid. Indeed they have made excellent use of social media and the internet generally.
Corbyn also said he'd be unhappy about shoot to kill policy on British streets - priority has to be finding political solution for Syria 3:53 PM - 16 Nov 2015
36 36 Retweets 12
Wow!!!!! Alice in Labourland!!!
So Jeremy, would our police maybe be allowed to inflict a nasty Chinese Burn on an ISIS gunman with suicide belts, grenades and an AK47, working his way up Oxford Street? Or maybe give them a dead-leg? Would they be able to deploy the ultimate deterrent - the use of harsh words?
Edit: can we still say Chinese Burn? Maybe now an Oriental Abrasion?
Teresa May is so professional and committed and deserves wide scale support as she does everything possible to keep us safe. It is at the present time one of the most, if not the most, important position in government today
Teresa May is a porn star.
Theresa May is the Home Secretary.
In fairness a certain type of Tory is going to find the overlap between a female authoritarian/disciplinarian Home Secretary and a porn star quite large!
Teresa May is so professional and committed and deserves wide scale support as she does everything possible to keep us safe. It is at the present time one of the most, if not the most, important position in government today
You also need to decide on leadership structure, and your social approach. If you put together a liberal approach towards civil liberties and free speech with a focus on technology and science, that would be quite appealing.
Regarding civil liberties and free speech, I think this is what we've done. Our site says: We would rather live in a forward looking, free society of well educated, free thinkers than a surveillance state where hateful religious dogma goes unchallenged.
Regarding leadership structure (and the party's constitution generally), we have not done anything yet. I've noticed that the Greens, UKIP and now Labour have all had issues caused by their organisational structure. I'm tempted to borrow heavily from the Tories who historically seem to have evolved something that's very good at getting power. Do you have any ideas on this front?
Thanks for your post - very interesting, although I don't see the future situation being as bleak as that paper outlines.
1) Although I'm rabidly against electronic voting for elections (see discussions passim), any party such as yours should perhaps consider a flatter leadership structure, with fast, reactive discussions, information dissemination and policy setting over t'Internet.
Yes, the website and forum should clearly play an important role in the running of the party. I wonder if there's something I can adapt or whether we need to roll our own.
2) The issue you might have with tech and science cities such as Cambridge is that they can be left-wing and/or liberal. Knowing a few friends of mine who could be classed as scientists, there leftist views probably means more to them than their love of science and technology.
I have a tech background and know lots of people from the same background and a few scientists. Many of them are left wing, but there are also many who are socially liberal and economically centrist. This latter group would be a good match I think.
3) As an agnostic, I'm not sure the 'hateful religious dogma' but works. I'm all for a secular state, but I also know that many people practice religion in ways which cause no problems. I'd tone that line down.
Originally I thought the same, and was less critical of religion on the site. At the moment though, when I'm trying to attract core members, I think it's appropriate, especially with current events being as they are.
I see France going all out against ISIS now. While good ole Jeremy is going about talking absolute rubbish. Its clear he would never use military force, and his political judgement and timing has been downright awful. The blokes beginning to make my blood boil. Labour need to get rid. And fast.
I'm glad to see Hollande gets it. This could be incredibly damaging for Labour. They are already seen as being on the wrong side of public opinion in 3 key areas - austerity, immigration and welfare. They can hardly afford to add a 4th to the list - national security
Economically Holland's socialism was exposed as useless from the start of his term. But there has been little difference in French interventionist foreign policy from one government to the next.
MailOnline reporter bought an IDENTICAL Syrian passport that ISIS bomber used to sneak into Europe before Paris attacks
A MailOnline reporter was able to buy a Syrian passport, identity card and driving licence from a fraudster in a Turkish border town in September this year.
The passport book was genuine, stolen from Syria when blank. The forger added the reporter's picture and gave him the identity of a Syrian man from Aleppo who was killed last year.
The other papers – the identity card and the driving licence – supported the false identity and gave credibility to a claim for asylum in Europe.
The documents were bought for $2,000 and were ready in just four days.
That does not surprise me at all. And the finding of that Syrian passport was more than just a little bit convenient. ISIS apparently don't like the fact that sane people have been allowed to run away from their psychopathic insanity and find sanctuary elsewhere. I think we are being played here.
But we could be overthinking this - it might also be an opportunity for them to smuggle far more of their fighters into Europe and accelerate (their presumed goal of) the islamification of Europe.
MailOnline reporter bought an IDENTICAL Syrian passport that ISIS bomber used to sneak into Europe before Paris attacks
A MailOnline reporter was able to buy a Syrian passport, identity card and driving licence from a fraudster in a Turkish border town in September this year.
The passport book was genuine, stolen from Syria when blank. The forger added the reporter's picture and gave him the identity of a Syrian man from Aleppo who was killed last year.
The other papers – the identity card and the driving licence – supported the false identity and gave credibility to a claim for asylum in Europe.
The documents were bought for $2,000 and were ready in just four days.
That does not surprise me at all. And the finding of that Syrian passport was more than just a little bit convenient. ISIS apparently don't like the fact that sane people have been allowed to run away from their psychopathic insanity and find sanctuary elsewhere. I think we are being played here.
But we could be overthinking this - it might also be an opportunity for them to smuggle far more of their fighters into Europe and accelerate (their presumed goal of) the islamification of Europe.
Or both. It is clear that there is indeed an opportunity for them to smuggle terrorists in. But why do so when there are enough of the home grown variety? To have hundreds of thousands of Muslims ill-treated by the west, however, is opportunity for them to convince the simple minded that we don't care and they do.
It just seemed too convenient for their agenda to me. Doesn't mean it is not true of course.
Nick, interesting. But how would you differentiate yourselves from the other parties? I doubt any of them would suggest that they are not evidence-based (scientific and rational) in their policy-making.
Would you see such a party being defined by others as centre-right or centre-left?
As I see it, there are two problems for a would be 'scientific' party:
1. The problem with evidence-based approaches is that you have to continually change and adapt your approach as new evidence comes in. I think the public will have a hard time understanding what such a party stands for.
2. Any one set of evidence can be read has supporting many different theses or political dogmas (e.g. the UK's economic performance under austerity has both been claimed to have worked - we are doing better than Europe - and to have damaged the economy - we should have done better without it). How can you determine the 'truly scientific' policy prescription when you'll never have perfect data that everyone agrees should be interpreted the same way?
MailOnline reporter bought an IDENTICAL Syrian passport that ISIS bomber used to sneak into Europe before Paris attacks
A MailOnline reporter was able to buy a Syrian passport, identity card and driving licence from a fraudster in a Turkish border town in September this year.
The passport book was genuine, stolen from Syria when blank. The forger added the reporter's picture and gave him the identity of a Syrian man from Aleppo who was killed last year.
The other papers – the identity card and the driving licence – supported the false identity and gave credibility to a claim for asylum in Europe.
The documents were bought for $2,000 and were ready in just four days.
That does not surprise me at all. And the finding of that Syrian passport was more than just a little bit convenient. ISIS apparently don't like the fact that sane people have been allowed to run away from their psychopathic insanity and find sanctuary elsewhere. I think we are being played here.
But we could be overthinking this - it might also be an opportunity for them to smuggle far more of their fighters into Europe and accelerate (their presumed goal of) the islamification of Europe.
Or both. It is clear that there is indeed an opportunity for them to smuggle terrorists in. But why do so when there are enough of the home grown variety? To have hundreds of thousands of Muslims ill-treated by the west, however, is opportunity for them to convince the simple minded that we don't care and they do.
It just seemed too convenient for their agenda to me. Doesn't mean it is not true of course.
Sneaking terrorists into Europe will be their goal. I doubt they're too bothered about discrediting or discouraging refugees, since the arrival of the latter is only adding to any potential chaos.
@MichaelLCrick: I'm told Tim Farron twice told Chris Rennard to resign from Lib Dem Fed Exec; 2nd time with a deadline of 9pm last Friday. Rennard refused
(snip) I would love to know how Jezza thinks that the unity of The Syrian people will prevail. Given the depth of the religious, secular, & political differences in the country I'm damned if I understand how this bloody mess will be ended by talks. I have my doubts that Cameron has much idea about who could be let alone should be ruling in Damascus. But Corbyn needs to start leaving his comfort zone behind.
Considering the conflict started in a civil war, the will of the 'Syrian people' - even if many of the fighters are foreign forces for AlN and ISIS - is probably hard to reconcile.
Yesterday Hilary Benn was calling for peace talks. If that's Labour's position, it'll be interesting to know who they expect to take part in the talks, considering that two of the major combatannts - al Nusra and ISIS - are probably not people who are willing to talk. Or if they are, their demands might well be untenable.
For the others: the Syrian regime, the remnants of the FSA, the Kurds, and the other disparate groups - it might be possible to have talks. But that leaves a fast number of combatants and territory outside the talks.
Al Nusra and ISIS are terrorist organisations. They don't get to talk, they get to die, then the other combatants talk.
As to the will of the Syrian people, they have been polled, and Assad got a thumping majority.
You mean the elections in 2012, during the civil war? Or the presidential election in 2014, which many see as being illegitimate? Neither of which took place in large parts of the 'state' Ones where hundreds of thousands of the refugees outside the country were barred from voting?
Or ones pre-2012, when there was essentially a one-party state?
Of all the arguments you use wrt Assad, the 'democracy' one is perhaps the silliest.
55% as Presedential candidate is pretty resounding I'd say, leaving as it does 45% to be divided amongst everyone else.
It it's so silly, why be so insistent against Assad standing? Not only has he (according to the US) 'gassed his own people', he's also only the leader of a minority Alawite sect, ruling the dissatisfied majority by fear. So why not see him utterly electorally humiliated? Unless he actually commands a majority amongst Sunnis too. Unless Syrian's support their President, and want to keep Syria, rather than become a Muslim Balkans?
Teresa May is so professional and committed and deserves wide scale support as she does everything possible to keep us safe. It is at the present time one of the most, if not the most, important position in government today
Teresa May is a porn star.
Theresa May is the Home Secretary.
In fairness a certain type of Tory is going to find the overlap between a female authoritarian/disciplinarian Home Secretary and a porn star quite large!
I'm shocked by that.
I thought all Tories were virtuous innocents like me.
Mr. Flightpath, one might argue the political shenanigans in F1 display rather more competence than those in Westminster
You could indeed argue that. But I would not count on winning. :-) I suggest that the overwhelming say that a few of the strong have at the expense of the many minnows in F1 is not a good advert for their kind of politics. F1 needs its own Monopolies Commission.
My own view is this idea is a non starter and possibly even bogus. Take a look at the scientists who stretch the truth to justify their global warming grants and their plots against people who disagree with them. Why should I assume technocrats and scientists and educationalists know better or are intrinsically better suited to government.
We are not a technocratic party - I don't think that it's desirable to have experts planning everything (didn't the Soviet Union try that?). We are economically liberal and a fan of markets. Here's a quote from the site:
We think our right to private property is based on the work we put into it; we should be able to do what we like with what we own as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else; and our property can be disposed of, given away or sold as we choose. Thus, society should be based on voluntary transactions entered into independently of government. However there is a role for the state to regulate the economy to protect against monopolies and collusion, and ensure as much competition as possible.
The ability to mobilise knowledge in a decentralised fashion is a virtue of market economies. The best thing the state can do is facilitate this by ensuring that companies provide consumers with sufficient information to compare the market. In the modern information age we should resist calls to attempt to plan the economy from the top-down using big data gathered through surveillance. It is far better to allow individuals to use their own knowledge and the wealth of information available on the internet and other sources to make informed choices in a bottom-up manner.
Plus the basic premise of large job losses due to technology seems somewhat self servingly fanciful.
Okay, here's Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google, saying the same thing. A lot of people who work in technology think this is coming. Self-driving cars are obviously going to cause problems for those who drive a vehicle for a living, and artificial intelligence is getting amazingly good these days. What will it be like in 10 years time?
Sorry, beating the snot out of some poorly trained band of camel herders and nomads doesn't really count as a war and it was wars not police actions that I was talking about.
Corbyn also said he'd be unhappy about shoot to kill policy on British streets - priority has to be finding political solution for Syria 3:53 PM - 16 Nov 2015
36 36 Retweets 12
Wow!!!!! Alice in Labourland!!!
So Jeremy, would our police maybe be allowed to inflict a nasty Chinese Burn on an ISIS gunman with suicide belts, grenades and an AK47, working his way up Oxford Street? Or maybe give them a dead-leg? Would they be able to deploy the ultimate deterrent - the use of harsh words?
Edit: can we still say Chinese Burn? Maybe now an Oriental Abrasion?
Jeremy Corbyn would probably object to Oriental Abrasion.
An involuntary circumferentially-inconsistent dermal rotation?
'Sneaking terrorists into Europe will be their goal. I doubt they're too bothered about discrediting or discouraging refugees, since the arrival of the latter is only adding to any potential chaos.'
If only 1% of the 'refugees' are ISIS then that's another 10,000 terrorists in Europe. As the daily TV pictures show around 70% of the 'refugees' are young men.
I see France going all out against ISIS now. While good ole Jeremy is going about talking absolute rubbish. Its clear he would never use military force, and his political judgement and timing has been downright awful. The blokes beginning to make my blood boil. Labour need to get rid. And fast.
Hollande wants a mandate to "destroy ISIS" from the UN Security Council.
Given that the USA and Russia are already bombing them, that leaves China and the UK as permanent sitting members.
My own view is this idea is a non starter and possibly even bogus. Take a look at the scientists who stretch the truth to justify their global warming grants and their plots against people who disagree with them. Why should I assume technocrats and scientists and educationalists know better or are intrinsically better suited to government.
We are not a technocratic party - I don't think that it's desirable to have experts planning everything (didn't the Soviet Union try that?). We are economically liberal and a fan of markets. Here's a quote from the site:
We think our right to private property is based on the work we put into it; we should be able to do what we like with what we own as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else; and our property can be disposed of, given away or sold as we choose. Thus, society should be based on voluntary transactions entered into independently of government. However there is a role for the state to regulate the economy to protect against monopolies and collusion, and ensure as much competition as possible.
The ability to mobilise knowledge in a decentralised fashion is a virtue of market economies. The best thing the state can do is facilitate this by ensuring that companies provide consumers with sufficient information to compare the market. In the modern information age we should resist calls to attempt to plan the economy from the top-down using big data gathered through surveillance. It is far better to allow individuals to use their own knowledge and the wealth of information available on the internet and other sources to make informed choices in a bottom-up manner.
Plus the basic premise of large job losses due to technology seems somewhat self servingly fanciful.
Okay, here's Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google, saying the same thing. A lot of people who work in technology think this is coming. Self-driving cars are obviously going to cause problems for those who drive a vehicle for a living, and artificial intelligence is getting amazingly good these days. What will it be like in 10 years time?
There will be fewer ridiculously expensive GP's in work.
@thomasknox: Let me get this right. If ISIS attacked us the way they attacked France, prime minister Jeremy Corbyn would NOT retaliate. Is that correct?
Comments
Shouldn't there be another question in the poll?
What I read on the Internet
Edit - bankers? Who'd have thunk it.
Posing a well argued singular POV succinctly offers the best thread header. It offers a debating starting point, that doesn't attempt to negate all others.
Is why we're always right and have nothing more to learn.
A MailOnline reporter was able to buy a Syrian passport, identity card and driving licence from a fraudster in a Turkish border town in September this year.
The passport book was genuine, stolen from Syria when blank. The forger added the reporter's picture and gave him the identity of a Syrian man from Aleppo who was killed last year.
The other papers – the identity card and the driving licence – supported the false identity and gave credibility to a claim for asylum in Europe.
The documents were bought for $2,000 and were ready in just four days.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3320356/Fake-Syrian-passport-used-MailOnline-shocking-frailty-migrant-registration-used-suspected-Paris-terrorist-travel-Europe.html
I'd agree on party structure. Labour is wide open to entryism, as we've seen, and the Lib Dems' tuition fees woe was caused by a pledge Clegg never wanted and which was forced upon him by a vote of members.
However, the Conservatives do have an easier time of regicide, within the rules (hence Hague's quote, of it being an absolute monarchy moderated by regicide), so I think that's something you should also include, otherwise you run the risk of a Faragian personality cult.
Winning punters know what they don't know and avoid betting on it.
Where does Jez stand on this "hypothetical question" ?
He said France was committed to "not just containing, but destroying" the so-called Islamic State (IS) group.
He said he would meet the presidents of the US and Russia in the coming days.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34836439
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2901459/jesuisCharlie-world-s-cartoonists-react-Paris-massacre-poignant-drawings.html
Incidentally whatever happened to Marf?
That's 20 days of my life spent inc A&E waiting despite Friday night urgent faxes saying I was about to drop dead, days of being bored stiff in bed then discharged on a Tuesday morning when the roster caught up with me.
Nothing happened over the weekend. Nothing bar being tested for my blood pressure. A total waste of time for everyone involved.
As a Tory activist, although I found it frankly hilarious that Labour elected him in the first place, the way in which he motivated people on the left of the spectrum had begun to worry me slightly.
But so far he has proved to be not only going against majority public opinion on most issues, but just not up to the pretty straightforward job of responding to events and, where necessary, holding the government to account.
Would be interested if you think his strong activist/weak Parliamentary support base dynamic means:
a) the growth of a third party - perhaps even a splinter party from Labour itself
b) the dominance of the Tories whilst he stays in post
c) his overthrow
are more likely....
I'm thinking the order goes something like
b, a, c
at the moment....
People notice the service they receive.
Current NHS satisfaction levels are close to at an all time high at a time when some are trying to tell everyone it's like down town Baghdad out there.
The government should simply abolish most statistics (and the vast army of bureaucrats and bean counters associated with them) and draw conclusions purely from public satisfaction levels with service levels.
Were you seen quickly?
Were you happy with your treatment?
Was your problem resolved?
And so on.
It is a service. It is there to serve the people, not provide political types with numbers to play games with.
A few points:
1) Although I'm rabidly against electronic voting for elections (see discussions passim), any party such as yours should perhaps consider a flatter leadership structure, with fast, reactive discussions, information dissemination and policy setting over t'Internet.
2) The issue you might have with tech and science cities such as Cambridge is that they can be left-wing and/or liberal. Knowing a few friends of mine who could be classed as scientists, there leftist views probably means more to them than their love of science and technology.
3) As an agnostic, I'm not sure the 'hateful religious dogma' but works. I'm all for a secular state, but I also know that many people practice religion in ways which cause no problems. I'd tone that line down.
As for the current dispute with the Junior Doctors over changing their terms and conditions, this looks remarkably like an old fashioned trade dispute straight out of the 1970s. Management wish, for whatever reason, to change work practices and the union kick up a fuss refuse but actually just wants lots more money for its members. Even the language being deployed is so redolent of that used by the trade unions at British Leyland, and other now defunct concerns.
It rather begs the question as to who you trust.
http://rattle.scot/snp-independence-is-dead-start-again-or-shut-up
What makes it interesting is the identity of its author, who was Alex Salmond's former head of policy.
MP David Nuttall Says Giving 16- And 17-Year-Olds Voting Rights Will Make Them Sex Abuse Targets
http://bit.ly/1MxldqT
My own view is this idea is a non starter and possibly even bogus. Take a look at the scientists who stretch the truth to justify their global warming grants and their plots against people who disagree with them. Why should I assume technocrats and scientists and educationalists know better or are intrinsically better suited to government.
Plus the basic premise of large job losses due to technology seems somewhat self servingly fanciful.
Questioning the legality of vaporising Jihadi John probably puts him in 1% of the population. The 1% that includes the profoundly misguided, the pathetically naive, traitors and supporters of IS. That Rainbow Alliance ain't going to get him many Labour MPs elected.
http://cdni.wired.co.uk/1920x1920/a_c/Byrne3_1.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYXenjpefNU
Or ones pre-2012, when there was essentially a one-party state?
Of all the arguments you use wrt Assad, the 'democracy' one is perhaps the silliest.
The question asked is about trust in general, and we all answer in context We trust doctors to tell us the truth when we speak to them, and for most of us, that is when we are seeking their advice on our medical condition. Not when we are asking them if they are working too long or getting paid too little.
I'd like to see a straight question asked: how much do you trust doctors when they speak about their pay vs how much do you trust Jeremy Hunt talking about doctors' pay. I would expect doctors to still win that head to head, but by nowhere near the 90/19 split above.
Ask the question 'does the NHS wage bill need to be brought under control?' and it will be even less favorable to doctors.
Theresa May is the Home Secretary.
But as expected, Jezza is.
Corbyn also said he'd be unhappy about shoot to kill policy on British streets - priority has to be finding political solution for Syria
3:53 PM - 16 Nov 2015
36 36 Retweets
12
Wow!!!!! Alice in Labourland!!!
Edit: can we still say Chinese Burn? Maybe now an Oriental Abrasion?
The Reagan ad from the 80s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_in_the_woods shows how being seen as weak on national security can be very damaging indeed
Weird.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_involving_France_in_modern_history
It just seemed too convenient for their agenda to me. Doesn't mean it is not true of course.
Would you see such a party being defined by others as centre-right or centre-left?
As I see it, there are two problems for a would be 'scientific' party:
1. The problem with evidence-based approaches is that you have to continually change and adapt your approach as new evidence comes in. I think the public will have a hard time understanding what such a party stands for.
2. Any one set of evidence can be read has supporting many different theses or political dogmas (e.g. the UK's economic performance under austerity has both been claimed to have worked - we are doing better than Europe - and to have damaged the economy - we should have done better without it). How can you determine the 'truly scientific' policy prescription when you'll never have perfect data that everyone agrees should be interpreted the same way?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11997908/We-cant-stop-terrorist-attacks.-The-only-sane-response-is-to-accept-that-they-will-happen.html
I commend it to you.
Part of what makes me proud to be English is that my ancestors have held their heads high amongst such 'enemies' as the French and the Scots.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda
55% as Presedential candidate is pretty resounding I'd say, leaving as it does 45% to be divided amongst everyone else.
It it's so silly, why be so insistent against Assad standing? Not only has he (according to the US) 'gassed his own people', he's also only the leader of a minority Alawite sect, ruling the dissatisfied majority by fear. So why not see him utterly electorally humiliated? Unless he actually commands a majority amongst Sunnis too. Unless Syrian's support their President, and want to keep Syria, rather than become a Muslim Balkans?
That's my dose of jingoism for the day!
I thought all Tories were virtuous innocents like me.
I suggest that the overwhelming say that a few of the strong have at the expense of the many minnows in F1 is not a good advert for their kind of politics. F1 needs its own Monopolies Commission.
An involuntary circumferentially-inconsistent dermal rotation?
https://twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/666282435852812288
'Sneaking terrorists into Europe will be their goal. I doubt they're too bothered about discrediting or discouraging refugees, since the arrival of the latter is only adding to any potential chaos.'
If only 1% of the 'refugees' are ISIS then that's another 10,000 terrorists in Europe.
As the daily TV pictures show around 70% of the 'refugees' are young men.
Given that the USA and Russia are already bombing them, that leaves China and the UK as permanent sitting members.
There is a price to the freedoms we enjoy, and it is x number of deaths and injuries per year.
There will be fewer ridiculously expensive GP's in work.
@DPJHodges: Even for Corbyn, this is utterly unbelievable. Watch. https://t.co/C44u8G5eX9