Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

Then they're overly paranoid. The group of people throwing deselection at them is a small group - it's a minority even within Momentum itself - with no real power. Corbyn won't listen to them, and the soft left don't agree with them. Getting angry at Corbyn for the extremist faction of Momentum is stupid, because soft left voters read that as anger at them.

Now, it is true that if the HoC's seats are reduced to 600, then there will be deselections purely because seats are merging, and if there are two active Labour MPs whose constituencies are going to be merged, only one is coming through. Nevertheless, this affects a very small minority of Labour MPs - and also entirely unavoidable and has nothing to do with Corbyn and everything to do with Conservative gerrymandering. So again, getting angry at Corbyn is stupid.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Tory election poster right there.

You don't need to ask permission every time you penetrate the Labour party.

 

[phisheep]

The real disaster for the centrist part of the Labour party has been a long time brewing - it all goes way back to the Brown/Blair feud, where no-one other than Brown could possibly be seen as/be groomed for leadership. Plus rapid turnover in ministerial offices used up and chewed up many of the potential runners.

There's just a great gaping leaderless hole there.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The real disaster for the centrist part of the Labour party has been a long time brewing - it all goes way back to the Brown/Blair feud, where no-one other than Brown could possibly be seen as/be groomed for leadership. Plus rapid turnover in ministerial offices used up and chewed up many of the potential runners.

There's just a great gaping leaderless hole there.

Even longer than that, I think. It goes back to Blair essentially shutting down the membership's input into policy and putting almost all of the party structure under at least indirect control of the party leader. Kinnock had already cleaned the party; Blair went too far. With no input from the grassroots, it was only a matter of time before the party drifted away.

 

[Ding-Ding]

Then they're overly paranoid. The group of people throwing deselection at them is a small group - it's a minority even within Momentum itself - with no real power. Corbyn won't listen to them, and the soft left don't agree with them. Getting angry at Corbyn for the extremist faction of Momentum is stupid, because soft left voters read that as anger at them.

Now, it is true that if the HoC's seats are reduced to 600, then there will be deselections purely because seats are merging, and if there are two active Labour MPs whose constituencies are going to be merged, only one is coming through. Nevertheless, this affects a very small minority of Labour MPs - and also entirely unavoidable and has nothing to do with Corbyn and everything to do with Conservative gerrymandering. So again, getting angry at Corbyn is stupid.

Its not a small group with no real power as the person I witnessed is very, very close with Corbyn. I cannot imagine that they would undermine Corbyn by deliberately causing rifts amongst his front bench without him knowing.

This also isn't new. From my understanding this has been happening since Corbyn became leader against some really big names within the party. There is little doubt that Corbyn and his allies are settling some old scores whilst they drag the party back to the far left.

Pretending Corbyn is not involved, whilst his political allies and his aides are conducting open warfare just doesn't tally up to what I am seeing and hearing.

 

[phisheep]

Even longer than that, I think. It goes back to Blair essentially shutting down the membership's input into policy and putting almost all of the party structure under at least indirect control of the party leader. Kinnock had already cleaned the party; Blair went too far. With no input from the grassroots, it was only a matter of time before the party drifted away.

They are two different things I think.

The thing you mention was what disconnected the grassroots party from the leadership, but it didn't make the hole in the leadership succession, which came because there was a Gordon Brown-shaped blockage that prevented any other leadership development.

Its not a small group with no real power as the person I witnessed is very, very close with Corbyn. I cannot imagine that they would undermine Corbyn by deliberately causing rifts amongst his front bench without him knowing.

This also isn't new. From my understanding this has been happening since Corbyn became leader against some really big names within the party. There is little doubt that Corbyn and his allies are settling some old scores whilst they drag the party back to the far left.

Pretending Corbyn is not involved, whilst his political allies and his aides are conducting open warfare just doesn't tally up to what I am seeing and hearing.

Sounds about right to me. I was expecting some sort of battle royale for the heart of the Party, maybe not quite this soon though. What does surprise me (and maybe in hindsight it shouldn't) is the utter lack of coherent organisation on the non-Corbyn side.

 

[CyclopsRock]

They are two different things I think.

The thing you mention was what disconnected the grassroots party from the leadership, but it didn't make the hole in the leadership succession, which came because there was a Gordon Brown-shaped blockage that prevented any other leadership development.

I think you're right to lay the blame, at least partly, at the constant ministerial churn during reshuffles. Obviously that's going to happen over 12 years of premiereship but if you compare it to the Tories where you have a group of potential-leaders who have all been in the Cabinet (and most in the same positions) for years and years and you have quite a few people who could step in in the event of a Cameron-resigns-and-his-successor-somehow-loses-in-2020 scenario.

 

[phisheep]

I think you're right to lay the blame, at least partly, at the constant ministerial churn during reshuffles. Obviously that's going to happen over 12 years of premiereship but if you compare it to the Tories where you have a group of potential-leaders who have all been in the Cabinet (and most in the same positions) for years and years and you have quite a few people who could step in in the event of a Cameron-resigns-and-his-successor-somehow-loses-in-2020 scenario.

More importantly, there are quite a few people who are credible Cameron successors in the first place.

 

[Walshicus]

And this is why the left won't ever win.

They are not Torys. They never have been Torys. To categorise the entire centre left as 'Torys' is both intellectually short changing them and our political scene as a whole.

We are *literally* repeating the 80s here, and I'd hoped we on the left had learnt those very harsh lessons last time around.

I work with Blairites labour people on a daily basis. To try and hand wave then away as Torys is nothing more than idiocy. Sorry but it's a cheap, dumb tactic that will guarantee we can't win an election for another decade, and ignored the immense changes that labour delivered on under Blair and Brown.

The enemy of perfect is not good.

They are functionality Tory. Do they support the rollback of privatisation in key industries? Do they support increased public spending and an end to 'austerity'? Do they support anything that actually separates them from mainstream Tory positions on key policy?

No.

The party membership was very clear on what direction it wanted to take. We do not need two fucking Tory parties in this country.

 

[phisheep]

They are functionality Tory. Do they support the rollback of privatisation in key industries? Do they support increased public spending and an end to 'austerity'? Do they support anything that actually separates them from mainstream Tory positions on key policy?

No.

The party membership was very clear on what direction it wanted to take. We do not need two fucking Tory parties in this country.

If you take a rather broader view of policy - so as to include healthcare, education, taxation, collective bargaining, social justice, social mobility, regulation of employers and so on and so on - you'll find perhaps much more common ground. It's a big danger for Labour to focus too narrowly on things that may not be of great relevance to the wider electorate.

 

[Maledict]

No they aren't.

NHS funding.
Sure start.
Equal rights.
Massive public sector investment.

Seriously, if you're entire view on the political spectrum is "If you don't exactly match MY beliefs, you are a Tory" then you are going to be in for a lifetime of constant disappointment and frustration, and will always wonder why you don't ever achieve any of your political goals.

We have been here before. All this pathetic "You're a tory stuff" is going to do is guarantee another decade of ACTUAL tory rule. And real Tory's, not the "torys" who gave us equal rights for gay people, built up the NHS back up, invested hugely in education and projects for young people to actually change lives.

The left always devours it's own - our campaign of purity of power ends up granting us absolutely fuck all, and the people who need a left wing government get screwed time and time again whilst we pontificate and crusade against the people who only agree with us on 80% of the issues rather than those who agree with us on 0% of the issues.

(I always find it depressing that often, its the people who least need a labour government who lead the charge for purity. It's no surprise the only part of the UK Labour is doing better in now is London...)

 

[Deleted member 231381]

First, I disagree with Ding Ding. Deselectionists are not in a position to do anything. If they did, Corbyn would lose all his support, and then nobody would get switched anyway.

They are two different things I think.

The thing you mention was what disconnected the grassroots party from the leadership, but it didn't make the hole in the leadership succession, which came because there was a Gordon Brown-shaped blockage that prevented any other leadership development

Second, I sort of agree and sort of disagree. If Blair/Brown had realised how far away the grassroots was diverging, I don't think they'd have been so keen to stamp out alternates, or in a different manner, Brown himself would have been more leftwing and thus the Brownites he personally "raised" would have been leftwing.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Again, speaking as an American who pays attention to UK politics, but isn't obviously on the ground, I think the problem here isn't policy - it comes down to a simple matter of trust.

The truth is, not everybody in the Democratic base loves everything Obama has done in the past seven years - but we know in our hearts he has the same goals as us in the long term for the nation.

The problem is, partly due to their actions, partly due to what folks like Blair have done in their post-political career, and partly due to what actual Labour members have done in power, the soft left (let alone the militant left who'd be voting for Nader in the US or whomever) simply doesn't trust the Blair wing that they have the same long term goals as they do, so yeah, if the difference is actual Tory policies or soft Tory policies that hurt the poor and working class, but are put in by Labour politicians, why not let the full monty come out?

It'd be like a Democratic in 2016 running on continuing the privatization of Social Security after Dubya started it while stating you want to "protect Social Security", continuing Bill Clinton's welfare reforms but even being harsher to appeal to Fox News voters, increasing deportations, but then pointing to the fact you increased the minimum wage by fifty cents and passed gay marriage as reasons to vote for them.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That, plus the soft left didn't believe that any of Cooper, Burnham or Kendall could have won an election anyway, so they more or less went "fuck it". If Jarvis had ran, he'd have won, because the soft left wouldn't give up on the electability he represented - I'm absolutely confident of that. Mind you, he's busy destroying his future chances right now, so that might be a career dead before it started.

 

[Uzzy]

It didn't help that Cooper, Burnham or Kendall barely had one policy idea between them. That was the worst run leadership campaign I've seen in ages, utterly miserable performance from all of them.

I mean, say what you want about the tenets of Corbynism, dude, at least it's an ethos.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It didn't help that Cooper, Burnham or Kendall barely had one policy idea between them. That was the worst run leadership campaign I've seen in ages, utterly miserable performance from all of them.

I mean, say what you want about the tenets of Corbynism, dude, at least it's an ethos.

 

[Fernando Fernandez]

That, plus the soft left didn't believe that any of Cooper, Burnham or Kendall could have won an election anyway, so they more or less went "fuck it". If Jarvis had ran, he'd have won, because the soft left wouldn't give up on the electability he represented - I'm absolutely confident of that. Mind you, he's busy destroying his future chances right now, so that might be a career dead before it started.

I thought even Chukka had a good chance before his 48 hour U turn.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I thought even Chukka had a good chance before his 48 hour U turn.

We never really found out what spooked him, though...

 

[JesseEwiak]

That, plus the soft left didn't believe that any of Cooper, Burnham or Kendall could have won an election anyway, so they more or less went "fuck it". If Jarvis had ran, he'd have won, because the soft left wouldn't give up on the electability he represented - I'm absolutely confident of that. Mind you, he's busy destroying his future chances right now, so that might be a career dead before it started.

Again, dumb American, but if one of them had Sister Souljah'd Blair and Brown a little bit - that could've helped a lot. You don't have to repudiate everything Blair and Brown has done, but when Hillary Clinton is doing a better job of turning her back on her husbands policies that are unpopular with the base than British politicians with no familial connection, that's kind of odd.

 

[Maledict]

We never really found out what spooked him, though...

His sexual history.

It's an open, acknowledged fact in his local party group. It's why he trotted out his girlfriend after making his announcement, only to be told by a journalist what was going to happen to him if he carried on down that road.

Gay is one thing, but a bisexual metro-elite was always going to be a hard sell when it came out, and he didn't want the publicity or scrutiny.

Chukka's issue is that rather than own the issue, he's run from it for a long time and now feels stuck running from it.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Again, dumb American, but if one of them had Sister Souljah'd Blair and Brown a little bit - that could've helped a lot. You don't have to repudiate everything Blair and Brown has done, but when Hillary Clinton is doing a better job of turning her back on her husbands policies that are unpopular with the base than British politicians with no familial connection, that's kind of odd.

Clinton is a bigger gap - Bill's now 16 years ago. Brown is only 5 and a bit years ago, Blair 8. Also, Clinton's not doing that well. Her association with Glass-Steagall and NAFTA is definitely hurting her in the primaries, hence why she's struggling to fend off a 74-year old Jewish socialist child of immigrants from a rural state who's ambivalent on guns in a Democratic primary.

So actually, it's a pretty good analogy.

 

[Fernando Fernandez]

His sexual history.

It's an open, acknowledged fact in his local party group. It's why he trotted out his girlfriend after making his announcement, only to be told by a journalist what was going to happen to him if he carried on down that road.

Gay is one thing, but a bisexual metro-elite was always going to be a hard sell when it came out, and he didn't want the publicity or scrutiny.

Chukka's issue is that rather than own the issue, he's run from it for a long time and now feels stuck running from it.

I'd think 2016 would be the perfect time to own the issue. Could well be the thing that makes him even a more credible candidate.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

His sexual history.

It's an open, acknowledged fact in his local party group. It's why he trotted out his girlfriend after making his announcement, only to be told by a journalist what was going to happen to him if he carried on down that road.

Gay is one thing, but a bisexual metro-elite was always going to be a hard sell when it came out, and he didn't want the publicity or scrutiny.

Chukka's issue is that rather than own the issue, he's run from it for a long time and now feels stuck running from it.

I knew of the rumours of this, but are they really that credible? People used to say Ed was secretly gay back when he first entered Blair's cabinet.

 

[RedShift]

Guys I just walked right past Ed Miliband in the street.

He was on the phone, and he sounded pissed off.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Guys I just walked right past Ed Miliband in the street.

He was on the phone, and he sounded pissed off.

Wouldn't you be if you were Ed Miliband? You probably lost because your party wouldn't pull together because critical 'moderates' thought they were more important and right, you went on to lose, and the 'moderates' got fucked hardcore. His "I told you so"-meter is off the charts.

 

[Maledict]

I knew of the rumours of this, but are they really that credible? People used to say Ed was secretly gay back when he first entered Blair's cabinet.

Extremely credible. Extremely extremely credible.

 

[CyclopsRock]

It'd be like a Democratic in 2016 running on continuing the privatization of Social Security after Dubya started it while stating you want to "protect Social Security", continuing Bill Clinton's welfare reforms but even being harsher to appeal to Fox News voters, increasing deportations, but then pointing to the fact you increased the minimum wage by fifty cents and passed gay marriage as reasons to vote for them.

I dunno if that's a totally fair characterisation though (Hi btw, I do like your additions to our thread!) because whilst Blair and Brown (mostly Blair tbh) did things that a lot of the grass roots didn't like, he also doubled funding for the NHS and schools, paved a lot of the groundwork for legalising gay marriage etc and I don't think it can be claimed that Major, Hague or Howard would have done any of those things had Labour lost and the Tories got into power during the Blair years. As such, yeah, whilst they may have conducted policies which hurt the working classes (and let's just leave that on the table for the sake of ease), they still were better than the alternative in that respect which is why, in your own words, you don't "let the full monty come out". But this assumes one cares more about the actual outcomes than "the struggle" and having a clean conscience, knowing that - though you failed to get elected - you did it with policies worth failing for (a baffling idea, natch).

And speaking of which, the electoral appeal can't be dismissed. Blair came to power after Labour's 4th successive defeat at an election - 79, 83, 89 and 94. There was clearly an appetite from the electorate for the medicine that Dr Major and Dr Thatcher were prescribing, and it wasn't until Blair came along and basically said "You know all that mental left wing shit we've been bleeting on about since fucking World War 2? Yeah, forget that shit. We're gonna be pro-business, pro-gays, pro-Oasis, pro-back-scratching-chicanary, just like this lot you keep electing*, only we're gonna fund the NHS and schools too." And lo-and-behold, the motherfucker won with a landslide. Now yeah, it's likely anyone would have won then, especially someone with the media savvy and youthful exuberence of Anthony Blair, but it was him. It's hard to see the Tories winning 4 straight elections and reasonably coming to the conclusion that "what people really want is a left wing party".

* Yeah, the Tories love gay people too, they prefer them locked in their sex-stables rather than, like, getting married and having equal rights.

 

[Moosichu]

I dunno if that's a totally fair characterisation though (Hi btw, I do like your additions to our thread!) because whilst Blair and Brown (mostly Blair tbh) did things that a lot of the grass roots didn't like, he also doubled funding for the NHS and schools, paved a lot of the groundwork for legalising gay marriage etc and I don't think it can be claimed that Major, Hague or Howard would have done any of those things had Labour lost and the Tories got into power during the Blair years. As such, yeah, whilst they may have conducted policies which hurt the working classes (and let's just leave that on the table for the sake of ease), they still were better than the alternative in that respect which is why, in your own words, you don't "let the full monty come out". But this assumes one cares more about the actual outcomes than "the struggle" and having a clean conscience, knowing that - though you failed to get elected - you did it with policies worth failing for (a baffling idea, natch).

And speaking of which, the electoral appeal can't be dismissed. Blair came to power after Labour's 4th successive defeat at an election - 79, 83, 89 and 94. There was clearly an appetite from the electorate for the medicine that Dr Major and Dr Thatcher were prescribing, and it wasn't until Blair came along and basically said "You know all that mental left wing shit we've been bleeting on about since fucking World War 2? Yeah, forget that shit. We're gonna be pro-business, pro-gays, pro-Oasis, pro-back-scratching-chicanary, just like this lot you keep electing*, only we're gonna fund the NHS and schools too." And lo-and-behold, the motherfucker won with a landslide. Now yeah, it's likely anyone would have won then, especially someone with the media savvy and youthful exuberence of Anthony Blair, but it was him. It's hard to see the Tories winning 4 straight elections and reasonably coming to the conclusion that "what people really want is a left wing party".

* Yeah, the Tories love gay people too, they prefer them locked in their sex-stables rather than, like, getting married and having equal rights.

Increased short term funding of the NHS, but fucked it up hugely in the long term with wasteful spending on PFI projects which the Conservatives are all too happy to continue. Blair cared about power and popularity, which only aligned with what was best for the country some of the time.

PFIs are an the whole a huge failure, but because both of the main parties like them, there is no one to challenge that. Well,.until Corbyn.

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

And speaking of which, the electoral appeal can't be dismissed. Blair came to power after Labour's 4th successive defeat at an election - 79, 83, 89 and 94. There was clearly an appetite from the electorate for the medicine that Dr Major and Dr Thatcher were prescribing, and it wasn't until Blair came along and basically said "You know all that mental left wing shit we've been bleeting on about since fucking World War 2? Yeah, forget that shit. We're gonna be pro-business, pro-gays, pro-Oasis, pro-back-scratching-chicanary, just like this lot you keep electing*, only we're gonna fund the NHS and schools too." And lo-and-behold, the motherfucker won with a landslide. Now yeah, it's likely anyone would have won then, especially someone with the media savvy and youthful exuberence of Anthony Blair, but it was him. It's hard to see the Tories winning 4 straight elections and reasonably coming to the conclusion that "what people really want is a left wing party".

...I don't think Neil Kinnock, the guy who fought half those elections, is really the best example of...uh..."mental left wing shit".

 

[Nicktendo86]

They are functionality Tory. Do they support the rollback of privatisation in key industries? Do they support increased public spending and an end to 'austerity'? Do they support anything that actually separates them from mainstream Tory positions on key policy?

No.

The party membership was very clear on what direction it wanted to take. We do not need two fucking Tory parties in this country.

Conversely, look at it this way. Who elects the MPs? The people in their constituency. So who do the MPs answer to? The membership who voted for Corbyn on a vote that was wide open to abuse as you only needed to pay £3, or to their constituents who go out and voted for them every general election?

What if their constituents who voted for them go to their surgery and say they are not interested in re-nationalising industries, think austerity is necessary etc etc. Are they not voted to represent those views in Parliament?

 

[Uzzy]

Thoughts on the junior doctors strike, anyone? How long will Cameron back Hunt? All the way?

 

[Moosichu]

Thoughts on the junior doctors strike, anyone? How long will Cameron back Hunt? All the way?

Of course he will back Hunt all the way, he put him there to do exactly what he is doing. Tear apart the NHS, and then privatise the entire thing.

EDIT: If Cameron cared about a single life in this country, Hunt would have been pulled away long ago when he started banging on about how hospitals were shut on weekends. There have a handful of documented deaths as a result of this information already.

 

[Maledict]

Seeing Dan Hodges write terrible articles against the Doctor's strike is really depressing. I mean, we've known he's become an incredibly embittered right winger, whose automatic position is to oppose anything labour does now and forever. But he honestly advocates the following as the best labour response to strikes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCem9EZb-YA

This is one issue where labour can make a difference - what Hunt is doing is terrible and needs to broadcast loudly from the rooftops. That's labours job!

 

[Jezbollah]

Ahhh that clip is a classic.

SNP going off about EVEL on BBC Parliament right now..

 

[Moosichu]

There is not 'both sides' in this case. It's 100% on Hunt.

 

[Mindwipe]

Thoughts on the junior doctors strike, anyone? How long will Cameron back Hunt? All the way?

Hunt got promoted after literally setting fire to £60m of taxpayers money at the DCMS on his half baked local TV idea. If he didn't get sacked after that he never will.

 

[Walshicus]

Conversely, look at it this way. Who elects the MPs? The people in their constituency. So who do the MPs answer to? The membership who voted for Corbyn on a vote that was wide open to abuse as you only needed to pay £3, or to their constituents who go out and voted for them every general election?

What if their constituents who voted for them go to their surgery and say they are not interested in re-nationalising industries, think austerity is necessary etc etc. Are they not voted to represent those views in Parliament?

Yeah, because we should dismiss the overwhelming popularity of Corbyn with the membership as it was the election was abused by unquantified, unspecified volumes.

You can't seriously think that Labour party voters are pro Austerity?

The more likely scenario is that those MPs are anomalies of the selection process.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

FWIW, in order to become a Labour candidate for a constituency, you have to get a nomination from either a member of your district party's executive or the national Labour Party candidate selection committee, which is appointed by the leader of the Labour Party. The Labour Party often puts pressure on local district party executives using funding for them to avoid nominating anyone and allow the Labour Party leadership control over nominations. So Labour members actually have very little say in their MP candidates except in cases where there is a contest between two local people and the leadership doesn't really care what happens.

 

[phisheep]

Thoughts on the junior doctors strike, anyone?

Well, the BMA has been a thorn in the flesh of policies for public healthcare provision since somewhere around the 1920s - regardless of the government in power, so it is not great surprise.

Yeah, because we should dismiss the overwhelming popularity of Corbyn with the membership as it was the election was abused by unquantified, unspecified volumes.

You can't seriously think that Labour party voters are pro Austerity?

The more likely scenario is that those MPs are anomalies of the selection process.

It isn't about whether Labour voters are pro austerity - because for at least the last two elections there have not been enough Labour voters.

It is about whether a strident anti-austerity policy is likely to deter voters who might otherwise vote Labour - and that is a whole lot different from the membership, or the current voters.

 

[Maledict]

FWIW, in order to become a Labour candidate for a constituency, you have to get a nomination from either a member of your district party's executive or the national Labour Party candidate selection committee, which is appointed by the leader of the Labour Party. The Labour Party often puts pressure on local district party executives using funding for them to avoid nominating anyone and allow the Labour Party leadership control over nominations. So Labour members actually have very little say in their MP candidates except in cases where there is a contest between two local people and the leadership doesn't really care what happens.

Hahaha no.

If what you outline was the case, Kate Hoey MP wouldn't be in parliament - they've been trying to get rid of her for YEARS. Whilst the central party has control over some seats and selections, everyone I'm been familar with has been decided by the local party.

The selection process for MPs, particularly in London, is extremely competitive with the local labour groups.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Hahaha no.

If what you outline was the case, Kate Hoey MP wouldn't be in parliament - they've been trying to get rid of her for YEARS. Whilst the central party has control over some seats and selections, everyone I'm been familar with has been decided by the local party.

The selection process for MPs, particularly in London, is extremely competitive with the local labour groups.

It depends on your seat - some have more maverick local parties than others. London is the most maverick because constituencies are denser and engaging in local politics is easier - London's relative maverickness is why Ken Livingstone did well in the first place, for example. What I described above is how non-local candidates get parachuted into safe seats despite the presence of a good local candidate, though. The Labour Party simply puts pressure on local executives not to endorse. For what it's worth, Hoey was elected in '89, so before the central Labour Party really managed to re-establish much control. Same with Corbyn. This is why there are very few younger "Hoeys"/"Corbyns". Certainly, near where I am, local candidates have famously been locked out before.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Thoughts?

http://www.theguardian.com/business...at-2016-financial-crisis-warns-city-pessimist

 

[Moosichu]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...r-the-first-junior-doctors-strike-in-40-years

This article is so far of the mark of what the dispute is about its unbelievable.

But it has had some success in persuading people that the new terms and conditions for junior doctors in England are unfair and potentially unsafe and that it is fighting to safeguard the health service.

These are doctors, they know what they are talking about. These aren't 'potentially unsafe' working hours they are unsafe.

Compromise on both sides is needed if a settlement is to be finally agreed.

Like seriously, some of the language in this article is gobsmacking.

 

[CyclopsRock]

What's shocking about that last bit? It's probably true, no?

 

[War Peaceman]

Of all things that article seems a weird thing to focus upon.

 

[Fernando Fernandez]

PMQs time! As someone that wants to get on the property ladder, where are these 10K deposit properties at?

 

[Mindwipe]

PMQs time! As someone that wants to get on the property ladder, where are these 10K deposit properties at?

Flood hit parts of the Lake District I expect.

 

[Uzzy]

PMQs time! As someone that wants to get on the property ladder, where are these 10K deposit properties at?

I think Shelter found that the only affordable place in England to buy property, if you're single and on the 'living wage', was Hull.

So you're all welcome to come to our place. We have cultural highlights like Ronnie Pickering.

 

[FlammableD]

ISo you're all welcome to come to our place. We have cultural highlights like Ronnie Pickering.

who?

 

[Kuros]

So there's a private members bill being put down today about whether we should ditch GSTQ as the English (not British) anthem.

Thoughts?

IMO anything is better than it.