peterms

42 minutes ago, Genie said:

Its really painful.

Can't remember where I saw the clip yesterday but Boris was being asked if he'd ever lied as a politician. It reminded me of being told off by my mum, she knows I've done it but asks me anyway. That's exactly how it was.

Boris, we know for a fact you've lied over and over again, this is just an exercise to see if you have a shred of credibility and will own up to any of them now.

He said no by the way.

At least he's consistent in his lying, give him credit for that.  Imagine the tortuous mental gymnastics we'd be performing to comprehend his answer if he said he did lie.

1 hour ago, LakotaDakota said:

The whole empty chairing stuff is just rediculous

If a programme notes that someone has not turned up and doesn't empty-chair them, that is tantamount to accepting the position and moving on.

The point of empty-chairing is to give a constant visual reminder that there was a legitimate expectation that someone would be there, and they have chosen not to be.

That's why they don't like being empty-chaired.  Which in turn is why it's worth doing it, for something like a leaders' debate.

59 minutes ago, avfcDJ said:

Got my postal vote today.

It tells me to put one part in envelope a, one in envelope b.

They sent me two envelopes a.

Two choices.  Fill them in and return them - electoral fraud, I expect.

Don't fill them in, disenfranchise yourself.

I don't think there's time to get a replacement sent out, is there?

New book on Labour and antisemitism, free download here.

Quote

We are approaching the 2019 general election in bizarre circumstances. From the climate crisis to homelessness, Brexit to the NHS, the stakes could scarcely be higher. Yet a story about the Labour Party that has no basis in fact and whose partisan motivations are transparent is playing a significant role in our national conversation and might even influence the result.

The ‘Labour antisemitism’ controversy is, in its profile and its protractedness, unprecedented in modern British politics. Its prominence may increase still further as polling day draws near, while other progressive campaigns abroad—notably supporters of Bernie Sanders in the United States—are beginning to be targeted with the same allegations.

This urgent Verso Report, edited by Jamie Stern-Weiner, brings together the most rigorous and penetrating analytical writings on the ‘Labour antisemitism’ affair. They provide between them a sober examination of the strange events that have warped British politics since 2015 and an informed basis for Labour as well as kindred movements to draw lessons for the future.

The eBook includes contributions from Norman G. Finkelstein, Jeremy Gilbert, Antony Lerman, David Rosenberg, Naomi Wayne, and Jewish Voice for Labour, as well as a selection of hitherto unpublished testimonies from Jewish members of the Labour Party.

11 minutes ago, cyrusr said:

Really not sure there is anything significant here to report TBH. 

Agree with your point about civil service rules, I think the point being made was that the media are reporting it, but 3 weeks after it happened, as though they were unaware.

44 minutes ago, blandy said:

while I sort of share the suspicion that the tories, at least in part, would like to do more privatisation of the NHS for bell-end reasons, I don't think that they are actually pro selling it off whoilesale, as Labour claims. So the line "our government is proposing to open up the NHS to the US" is not one that I've seen any evidence for.

It's not politically possible to sell it off wholesale, which is why they have adopted the approach of creeping privatisation, requiring elements to be tendered and awarding contracts to private firms, while keeping the main NHS underfunded, overstretched and demotivated, in order to reduce the public support it has and weaken opposition to further privatisation.

This for example shows the pace it's happening at.

Quote

NHS spending on care provided by private companies has jumped by £700m to £3.1bn with non-NHS firms winning almost 70 per cent of tendered contracts in England last year.

Private care providers were awarded 267 out of a total of 386 contracts made available in 2016-17, including the seven highest value opportunities, worth £2.4bn.

Leading Tories are on record as wanting to privatise it - for example, both Letwin and Hunt have written pamphlets arguing for that.  It's not yet possible for that to be formal tory policy.

When they are plainly working towards that incrementally, I hardly think that the claim that they want to open it up further to private firms needs any more substantiation.

5 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think I see the problem differently to you - for me the issue isn't about a commitment to either the rules on the Privy council it's that the rules of the Privy council are entirely wrong on trade - trade above all things should be a transparent process - the British public should have the ability to scrutinise trade deals, the Britih media should, British MP's should, I should - for me Corbyn's actions on this are correct because the rules are wrong. 

The actions of someone letting the public see information on negotiations carried out by Mr Corbyn in trade negotiations on Russian energy for example would be for me the correct way to do things - good for them.

I don't blame Corbyn here - stupid rules should be overcome by people of integrity. Where those rules apply to things that are hidden for the benefit of the British people then they should be hidden from sight - but stuff like this? Good on him - he's put the interests of the British people ahead of those who paid to write the rules.

 

Going back to TTIP, what was happening was that secret discussions were taking place, including about proposals to give corporations the power to win damages against governments for pursuing policies which led to them making lower profits.  Agreeing to such a proposal is a very fundamental betrayal of the interests of the country, in the service of multinational corporations.

It is only by knowing about such things before they happen that we stand any chance at all of preventing them.

The fine detail of negotiations may properly be kept confidential.  Things like whether our government is proposing to open up the NHS to the US, cannot and must not be confidential, and we should reject any claim to the contrary.

8 minutes ago, snowychap said:

The point that he is making, I think, is that their analysis should be taken alongside the analysis of others and in the context that they don't do 'macro' and that others do, &c.

An important point he is making, perhaps implicitly rather than spelling it out, is that their analysis should be taken alongside that of others but routinely isn't; and that the conclusions the media report are therefore lacking in an important dimension, but media audiences won't necessariy appreciate this.

3 hours ago, Awol said:

we’re all cleared in court

Hmm.  Typo or not typo?  Intriguing. 

7 hours ago, blandy said:

Jeremy Corbyn is a privy councillor, will have signed the official secrets act. If he passes protected documents to the media he is consciously breaking the law of the land, breaking his word and is using protected material for political/ personal advancement. 

Staggeringly awful from Corbyn.

4 hours ago, blandy said:

 it appears that this leaked document has been a available for a while now. Over a month.

So you're saying that he has broken the law by circulating to the media something which is in the public domain?  Surely not.

But that's a side issue.  The point is of course that we should know what the regime is planning by way of handing over our assets and our rights, and not be cowed by bluster about official secrets.

Not the beeb, but a senior msm hack.

Who are we to question what we may and may not see, of the chunterings of our superiors?  Says the "Chairman" of the lobby.

What a supine, craven cowardly press we have, genuflecting to the powerful, mocking the powerless, grubbing up justifications for every oppressive measure you can imagine, and drafting some more in reserve.

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

I'm not the best person to ask

Yes, I recall him saying something similar.

Just now, bickster said:

Makes sense, my daughter was registered to vote in Bristol and here but is now registered to vote in London

I assumed it meant already registered in the place they were trying to register, rather than the legitimate dual registration you mention.

Either way, it should suppress the new registration excitement factor by 30-35%.

12 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

I am not sure how much it factors in the 1 million new voter registrations over last few days over two thirds of which were by people aged 34 or under an age group likely to favour Labour.

I think they didn't do too well on this last time and have presumably tried to make adjustments to the model to account for this.

The adjustments are I assume based on theory?

I read 3m+ applications to register, about a third of whom were in fact already registered.  A big number.

Haven't yet seen a poll where they explicitly state they have modelled for how many old tories have died  Since they have a high likelihood of voting (before dying, I mean), this is a pretty crucial factor.

Just put a tenner on Labour getting most seats.

Also bought a lottery ticket.

Surely one or the other must pay out?

1 hour ago, Awol said:

I’m on a third stint at Uni and drowning in leftie gibberish about intersectionality, not right-wing economic theory. Btw, my preferred pronouns are He/Hee

Quite a few lefties regard the continual focus on personal identity and remembering preferred pronouns as a diversion from the bigger issues.

But I must admit the thought of you trapped in a room with a group of youngsters trying to discuss these things with you, makes me smile.

11 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Is there a link between more immigrants = worse NHS?

The opposite.  The NHS has long depended on workers from overseas, dating back to when Enoch Powell's Ministry of Health was recruiting hospital staff from India, Pakistan and the Caribbean.  Some info here, which predates the recent self-inflicted staff shortages caused by making EU national feel unwanted.

Quote

• The Coalition Government's plans to restrict immigration to the UK through capping non-EU immigrants and to introduce more stringent controls for highly skilled migrants are contradictory given the long history of recruitment of overseas health workers.
• Since the 1930s, successive governments have recruited doctors, nurses and other health workers from overseas to work in UK health services with the first mass recruitment waves of nurses from the African Caribbean in the 1950s and doctors from the Indian subcontinent in the 1960s.
• The need for health workers was significantly increased by the creation of the National Health Service (NHS) in 1948 and the expansion of specialists and technologies.
• Immigration controls were tightened during the 1960s and 1970s but the increasing demand for overseas health workers continued.
• Discrimination around training and career opportunities of first generation overseas health workers has had negative consequences for recruitment from the second generation.
• The lack of any system of accurate data to monitor the migration, immigration, recruitment and retention of health workers has exacerbated the difficulties of manpower planning.
• Shortfalls in certain fields of nursing and medicine continue and are predicted to intensify because of an international shortage of health workers.
• Putting history to the forefront would help policymakers realize the significance of the NHS's continuous dependence on overseas health workers and the need therefore both to improve equity and opportunity for such health workers and to integrate this fact of health manpower planning into national immigration policy.

A tactical voting site has updated its previous recommendations, having corrected for the withdrawal of Brexit candidates from lots of seats.

For Kensington, they say

Quote

Recommendation changed in Kensington

Our previous recommendation was for the Liberal Democrats. We have temporarily removed our recommendation because the current polls are too close to call. We will issue a final recommendation before election day, either the Liberal Democrats or Labour, based on new data.

For lots of others, the previous recommendation to vote Libdem has become a recommendation to vote Labour.