|
Oh no, it would be terrible if the Labour Right were easily cast as wreckers, scabs and traitors. What kind of a human being would do such a thing as that?
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
dispatch_async posted:If Corbyn is such a bumbling old fool then I'm not sure what it says about the Blairites that (by their own admission) he keeps outfoxing them. big scary monsters posted:Same sort of thing it says about them that they were overwhelmingly crushed in the leadership election by the most unelectable man in Britain. What it says about them is that they're using that worrying rhetoric against the democratically elected leader of their own party. quote:Unless the Labour Right actively campaigns for a leader and for an agenda that can win Labour a majority, they will be easily cast as wreckers, scabs and traitors. And the Left historically has never been kind to those.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/08/officer-claims-met-police-improperly-destroyed-files-on-green-party-peer?CMP=share_btn_tw This is pretty amazing quote:A police officer working for a secretive Scotland Yard intelligence unit that monitors thousands of political campaigners has alleged that police improperly destroyed files they had compiled on a Green party peer in a “highly irregular” cover-up. quote:The Met said there was no evidence that there “had been any inappropriate destruction of documents” or that records had been destroyed in order to prevent them being released under freedom of information rules. We didn't inappropriately destroy documents we shouldn't have had on people - on the contrary, if we shouldn't have them that means it's completely appropriate to destroy them!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
quote:The Met said there was no evidence that there “had been any inappropriate destruction of documents”
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Yeah but who needs evidence when you have tautologies?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
You know who's probably most annoyed by the media/politician's obsession with scrutiny being somehow related to Muslamic Turrism? Satan. It's been agrees since we had a good old Satanic panic about video games and that. Unless... it's all part of some kind of infernal cunning plan!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Satan doesn't make video games kill people anymore. It's the skunk cannabis now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:This is pretty amazing Calling it a "highly irregular" cover-up just makes me think it's a different type than their usual ones as opposed to cover-ups being rare.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:We didn't inappropriately destroy documents we shouldn't have had on people - on the contrary, if we shouldn't have them that means it's completely appropriate to destroy them! To be fair, the Data Protection Act does stipulate that information shouldn't be held any longer than necessary and should be destroyed when no longer needed. So the Met's comments that destroying the files was simply good record keeping isn't necessarily inaccurate. The real outrage should be that the Met keeps files on non-criminal fairly mainstream political figures, when of course it would never dream of spying on the likes of Boris Johnson. We already know this to be true, so the did-they-didn't-they of destroyed files is almost irrelevant. The problem is their existence, not their destruction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
I'm actually inclined to believe that the illegal data collection that the security services do probably does cover literally everyone (as the alternative is them taking to time to exempt Boris' number and IP address from the blanket techniques that they use) but they're the only ones that people get in trouble for accessing without all the official procedures being followed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
jabby posted:To be fair, the Data Protection Act does stipulate that information shouldn't be held any longer than necessary and should be destroyed when no longer needed. So the Met's comments that destroying the files was simply good record keeping isn't necessarily inaccurate. That's why it's a stroke of genius. By definition these files are unnecessary and shouldn't be held any longer (or to be more accurate, at all), so it's impossible to inappropriately destroy files they shouldn't have. It gives them carte blanche to spy on whoever they like, because the moment it's discovered they can just feed it into the shredder and say they're just being diligent about their data retention policies
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Kuenssberg has apparently instructed to keep her head down for a few days so this all gets forgotten about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:G4S staff choking, suffocating, punching, and stabbing with forks children under their care. The thing that gets me is that their contract down the road was revoked following similar events, but this one was extended. Privatised criminal justice systems make me a sad panda. From what I've gathered, Young Offenders institutions are loving horrible places, far worse than a normal prison at the best of times. There is no way getting G4S in to run things can improve things for the better. Pesmerga posted:That we know of yet. Weren't G4S involved in the Yarl's Wood allegations? Serco run Yarl's Wood, but G4S are apparently responsible for health care there, which has been outsourced again. Doubleplus efficiency. Prince John fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Jan 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
So the reshuffle is over, and there's a bunch of new faces in the Cabinet. Let's find out a little bit about them, shall we? Kate Hollern, Shadow Defence: We basically know nothing about her - she's a university contracts manager who was elected in 2015 and voted against Syria. Presumably, Corbyn and company saw promise in her and gave her to Thornberry to train up, though at 60 years old, they're picking her up a little late for a long-term investment. Jenny Chapman, Shadow Education: A Blairite former Shadow Prisons Minister in favour of Trident and bombing people. Hopefully has a better understanding of the difference between disagreement with the party leader and actively sabotaging them than the folks who just left. In terms of her new post, though, her opinions are pleasingly Correct - she has a big mad-on for academies and tuition fees in particular (and for the record, she was very into rehabilitation as Shadow Prisons, so don't expect a hang 'em and flog 'em authoritarian). Jo Stevens, Shadow Prisons: Another newbie to parliamentary politics, but one who fortunately has the relevant experience for her ministerial field - she's spent over twenty years as a lawyer. Doesn't seem to be a fan of tightening our asylum system either, and has consistently lobbied in favour of charities doing offender rehabilitation (and against the privatisation of the probation service) so hopefully shouldn't be an authoritarian. Looking forward to her laying into Serco and G4S good. One interesting detail - she seems to be a lefty Eurosceptic, which might generate some news when the referendum rolls around. Andy McDonald, Shadow Transport: A veteran lawyer and local politician who got into Parliament via the 2012 Middlesborough by-election. Worked as an assistant to Thornberry and Umunna under Miliband, and his politics suggest an enthusiastic Corbynite (yes, even given the Umunna thing) who'll be an asset well beyond his ministerial portfolio. Voted against the privatisation of the East Coast Main Line, so expect glorious full train communism in our lifetimes. Angela Rayner, Shadow Work and Pensions: Another parliamentary novice from the 2015 crop, apparently brought in as an addition to Labour's stable of young, promising MPs being groomed for greater things. A highly committed Unison representative who'll hopefully give IDS a good bollocking, although she's unfortunately most famous for using her position as a not-very-veiled threat to a shop after being unable to obtain some Star Wars high heels. Like Stevens, a bit cautious about the EU. Fabian Hamilton, Shadow Foreign Affairs: This guy could be trouble. He's another local-government veteran who's mostly ideologically aligned with Corbyn, but he's highly outspoken about stuff he doesn't like, which could be a problem for Jezza given that Hamilton's an enthusiastic Zionist in Foreign Affairs (Corbyn and most of his Cabinet are more sympathetic to Palestine) and described all-woman shortlists as just as bad as anti-Semitism after falling foul of one. Also, he was caught up in the expenses scandal, although he claims it was an honest mistake. Could generate some bad headlines if the rest of the Shadow Cabinet don't keep him on a tight leash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Kuenssberg has apparently instructed to keep her head down for a few days so this all gets forgotten about. Link?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Chocolate Teapot posted:Link? Its all just twitter nonsense, but she hasnt been on tv or reported on anything today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Kuenssberg has apparently instructed to keep her head down for a few days so this all gets forgotten about. Probably for the best, since it was the gloating blog post that caused all the fuss last night / today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Fabian Hamilton, Shadow Foreign Affairs: This guy could be trouble. He's another local-government veteran who's mostly ideologically aligned with Corbyn, but he's highly outspoken about stuff he doesn't like, which could be a problem for Jezza given that Hamilton's an enthusiastic Zionist in Foreign Affairs (Corbyn and most of his Cabinet are more sympathetic to Palestine) and described all-woman shortlists as just as bad as anti-Semitism after falling foul of one. Also, he was caught up in the expenses scandal, although he claims it was an honest mistake. Could generate some bad headlines if the rest of the Shadow Cabinet don't keep him on a tight leash. Sounds like a loving idiot op
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Andy McDonald, Shadow Transport: A veteran lawyer and local politician who got into Parliament via the 2012 Middlesborough by-election. Worked as an assistant to Thornberry and Umunna under Miliband, and his politics suggest an enthusiastic Corbynite (yes, even given the Umunna thing) who'll be an asset well beyond his ministerial portfolio. Voted against the privatisation of the East Coast Main Line, so expect glorious full train communism in our lifetimes. Ha holy poo poo it's our lad. Never thought I'd see someone from here in the shadow cabinet. I think by all accounts he's a pretty good MP, Middlesbrough constituency I think is literally just the town, not the outlying bits, they're east cleveland, so he's probably not having to appeal to tory farmers much to get his post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Puntification posted:Sounds like a loving idiot op He's got a great voting record for Corbyn though! No to Iraq. No to Syria. No to Trident. No to an investigation into the Iraq War. No to a ... wait he did what?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Cerv posted:Probably for the best, since it was the gloating blog post that caused all the fuss last night / today. If all this achieves is getting her gurning mug off screen for a few days i'll count it as a victory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
Puntification posted:Sounds like a loving idiot op Yep. From my cursory reading on him, I get the impression of someone who's a good, solid leftie right up until it personally inconveniences him. Of the six, I think McDonald and Stevens look very good, Chapman and Rayner could be good if they behave, and it's probably best not to expect much from Hamilton and Hollern, although the latter might be a pleasant surprise (even if it's a total mystery why she got the post - she must have delivered a hell of an interview).
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
British National Party removed from official register of UK political parties for failing to submit form Please, a moment of remembrance for our fallen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2016/01/letting-rip-against-all-this-reshuffle-garbage.html Why am I reading this and almost agreeing with it?!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
ultrabindu posted:British National Party removed from official register of UK political parties for failing to submit form Did they send out another blonde haired blue eyed White Christmas card with a stock photo on it this year, or have the stock image sites blocked them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:
She shouldn't have trouble finding things to lay into, seven G4S staff have just been suspended for abuse at a YOI.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
haakman posted:http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2016/01/letting-rip-against-all-this-reshuffle-garbage.html Because apart from all the time he's batshit crazy wrong, Hitchens occasionally makes a half decent point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
haakman posted:http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2016/01/letting-rip-against-all-this-reshuffle-garbage.html It helps if you know The Mail is far more interested in tearing down Cameron than it is Corbyn. They love a politician who's deeply right wing and it wraps round to them liking a politician who's deeply left wing. When Labour and Conservatives are sitting in the middle agreeing with each other they're not getting what they want. Or to put it another way, the UKMT of this universe think Blair and Thatcher were way too closely aligned and should gently caress off. We're simply now viewing the nega-verse UKMT, where Cameron is far too closely aligned with Blair and should gently caress off. Anyway here's this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWG9UyLlX80 quote:Who would they rather trust - 53,000 Junior doctors or a multimillionaire Tory politician who's just gunning for the top job after Cameron? 
Fans fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jan 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Fans posted:Or to put it another way, the UKMT of this universe think Blair and Thatcher were way too closely aligned and should gently caress off. We're simply now viewing the nega-verse UKMT, where Cameron is far too closely aligned with Blair and should gently caress off. I think that's true of this universe's UKMT as well. It's gently caress offs all the way down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
An early contender for next month's thread title.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
haakman posted:http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2016/01/letting-rip-against-all-this-reshuffle-garbage.html He does have good points. It's just that he likes to back them up with "and David Cameron is a socialist".
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:If all this achieves is getting her gurning mug off screen for a few days i'll count it as a victory. On balance I think it would have been better not to keep the disorganised reshuffle in the news for an extra day, and give this Doughty chap a higher profile than he deserves. But mostly the controversy seems to have been ignored or kept quite a low profile, as most people outside the clique just don't care, so it's probably not done much harm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
"I don't know why Jeremy gave me this job" - our new shadow defence secretary. Jesus loving Christ, what is wrong with these people. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...y-a6802721.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Cerv posted:"I don't know why Jeremy gave me this job" - our new shadow defence secretary. In context it doesn't sound nearly so bad. To me it sounds like she was avoiding agreeing to the suggestion that Jeremy only appointed her because she opposed Trident. quote:Asked whether she had been appointed Shadow Defence Secretary to smooth the way for Mr Corbyn to change party policy on Trident, which is currently in favour of renewal, she said: "I don't know why Jeremy gave me this job but I know that I'm really honoured to be doing it and hugely looking forward to meeting up with people and listening to what people have to say."
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Ergh, that's still not a great answer. "I have no idea why I'm doing this but I'm really keen." We'll see how she does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Ergh, that's still not a great answer. "I have no idea why I'm doing this but I'm really keen." Former Shadow Attorney General who's worked on military courts. That's fairly useful for the role, at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Cerv posted:"I don't know why Jeremy gave me this job" - our new shadow defence secretary. They need media training. All of them. And someone like Mandelson to whip them into shape and stop them saying stupid things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Not a Twat posted:In context it doesn't sound nearly so bad. To me it sounds like she was avoiding agreeing to the suggestion that Jeremy only appointed her because she opposed Trident. In which case she should have countered with a positive reason for her to have the job that was more plausible than the (negative) that's she's only their to agree with Corbyn one one issue. Not giving an alternative just implies that the suggested reason really is correct, but she doesn't want to admit it. Or hasn't a clue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Yeah I'm worried the cabinet's going to suffer for their collective inexperience. We have time to get them into shape but I hope they do what they can to expedite it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
Cerv posted:"I don't know why Jeremy gave me this job" - our new shadow defence secretary. Do you mean 'these people' the press or 'these people' Labour MPs? Because all she did was reply "I don't know" in response to the question "Were you picked so Jeremy can get rid of Trident?", followed by explaining her background and relevant experience. It's a bit of a dumb answer because obviously her first sentence can be jumped on by the press as some kind of admission of incompetence rather than an admission she doesn't know the mind of our glorious JC, but there you go. As has been pointed out, these aren't the well-oiled and tortuously coached ministers of the government or the Blair era. They are trying to answer questions, which is surprisingly difficult. For contrast, just remember the phrase 'unelected Labour and Liberal Lords' that is now burned into our brains from Osbourne repeating it instead of trying to answer questions. Which approach would you prefer? jabby fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Jan 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 17:16
|
|