Topic: General political discussion Part II

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Melania still loves him tho

She loves him more because of it.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Melania still loves him tho

Well, she's already accustomed to orange-face, so not such a big deal for her.

[kavah]

A nice TED talk by George Monbiot about the power of storytelling and how we are crying out for a John Maynard Keynes or Franklin D. Roosevelt to illuminate the way to a fairer and less fragmented society. Thomas Piketty maybe? 

To get out of the mess we're in, we need a new story that explains the present and guides the future ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDKth-qS8Jk   (15 minutes)

[GreatEx]

This is the trouble with being the progressive politician: anyone can drag up some insensitive shit you did in your youth (I'm sure I'd be guilty too) and the "woke" (hate that word) will eat themselves up and the right wing will delight in the Hypocrisy of the Left (you should see my other forum, they're over it like starving hyenas), then vote for a guy who refused to lease apartments to black people, or called for the execution of black children before they'd even been tried, or boasted about sexual assault, because when you don't aspire to any level of decency ti begin with then you are accountable for nothing. And thus we end up with the current crop of world leaders.

Progressives need to grow a spine and say, yes, he did some offensive shit in the past, no, it doesn't affect who he is today as a political leader, he's apologised, it was a genuine apology and not an "if you choose to be offended by this thing that's totally out of context then I regret my role in your hysteria" bullshit apology, let's move on and sort this fucking place out.

[surfer. Fuck you generator.]

This is the trouble with being the progressive politician: anyone can drag up some insensitive shit you did in your youth (I'm sure I'd be guilty too) and the "woke" (hate that word) will eat themselves up and the right wing will delight in the Hypocrisy of the Left (you should see my other forum, they're over it like starving hyenas), then vote for a guy who refused to lease apartments to black people, or called for the execution of black children before they'd even been tried, or boasted about sexual assault, because when you don't aspire to any level of decency ti begin with then you are accountable for nothing. And thus we end up with the current crop of world leaders.

Progressives need to grow a spine and say, yes, he did some offensive shit in the past, no, it doesn't affect who he is today as a political leader, he's apologised, it was a genuine apology and not an "if you choose to be offended by this thing that's totally out of context then I regret my role in your hysteria" bullshit apology, let's move on and sort this fucking place out.

It's not even logical. In a well run environment, you get paid, above everything else, for the quality of the decisions you make relevant to the job, that's it. Sure we draw the line at discrimination, rape, murder, pedos etc, but the vast majority of incidents below that are managed, you need top brass who are precise and experienced enough to know what counts, how people develop. I look at the chatter in the UK, US these days, many seem to have lost sight of the thing that matters above all, and by a significant distance: the quality of your work. In leadership  /politics: that will be the quality of your decisions to improve a situation. Yet you hear about this guy did this 20 years ago, or that guy didn't say the right words as if these things get you anywhere.

Morons man. If it were a rival company doing this crap you would just cherry-pick the best talent when the people with power over them don't even recognise what their job is and ensure that rival company spends the next 20 years not even getting within a mile of you.

Also, I suppose if you do this charade long enough you end up with a pool of 'leaders' sculpted to an extent by the environment, ie ultimately spineless crowd-pleasers.

[killer-heels]

This is the trouble with being the progressive politician: anyone can drag up some insensitive shit you did in your youth (I'm sure I'd be guilty too) and the "woke" (hate that word) will eat themselves up and the right wing will delight in the Hypocrisy of the Left (you should see my other forum, they're over it like starving hyenas), then vote for a guy who refused to lease apartments to black people, or called for the execution of black children before they'd even been tried, or boasted about sexual assault, because when you don't aspire to any level of decency ti begin with then you are accountable for nothing. And thus we end up with the current crop of world leaders.

Progressives need to grow a spine and say, yes, he did some offensive shit in the past, no, it doesn't affect who he is today as a political leader, he's apologised, it was a genuine apology and not an "if you choose to be offended by this thing that's totally out of context then I regret my role in your hysteria" bullshit apology, let's move on and sort this fucking place out.

How do you know it was genuine?

[GreatEx]

How do you know it was genuine?

Because as I alluded to above, he didn't try to diminish his responsibility by suggesting he was tricked, or taken out of context, or that it's your fault for being offended. Those are all telltale signs of an insincere PR apology.

[classycarra]

Because as I alluded to above, he didn't try to diminish his responsibility by suggesting he was tricked, or taken out of context, or that it's your fault for being offended. Those are all telltale signs of an insincere PR apology.

I guess noone can ever know if any apology is genuine, so Killer can say that. But I agree, it was refreshing to see someone own up without an 'I'm sorry if people were offended' and actually said 'I did a racist thing' or words to that affect.

[killer-heels]

Because as I alluded to above, he didn't try to diminish his responsibility by suggesting he was tricked, or taken out of context, or that it's your fault for being offended. Those are all telltale signs of an insincere PR apology.

To be honest I agree with what you said previously. Ultimately its all about what that person does in their role rather than what they said or did in their past. If Trudeau was/is a racist but as PM he does things that directly makes peoples lives better then does it matter?

Its the same in other areas. Does it matter that our keeper Alisson supports a facist? Its not like I think about that when he is being brilliant.

However, its a warning to the whole hero worshipping of politicians. I am completely wary of every politician and certainly would never put someone on a massive pedestal for whatever reason. Macron, Trudeau, Obama etc. have all had this happen to them by liberally minded people and its just more reason to be level headed, wary and balanced of all of these people.

[ShakaHislop]

Islamophobia: Conservative Party members suspended over posts

A number of Conservative Party members have been suspended for posting or endorsing Islamophobic material online.

The BBC highlighted over 20 new cases to the party, who said all those found to be members who shared or supported anti-Muslim posts on Twitter and Facebook were suspended immediately.

However, the officials would not reveal the exact number of members suspended.

A Conservative spokesman said the party was now "establishing the terms" of an investigation into the wider issue.

There have been repeated calls for the party to hold an independent inquiry into allegations of Islamophobia among members, due to previous incidents that have been highlighted to the party and in the media.

The BBC was alerted to details of the new cases by an anonymous Twitter user, and independently verified each one before passing details to the Conservative Party.

The incidents ranged from individuals "liking" anti-Muslim pictures or statements on one or two occasions, to regular Islamophobic posts by people who said they were members of the Tory party.

Among the content that has been shared on social media, a Conservative councillor responded to a tweet in March, writing: "Islam and slavery are partners in crime."

When contacted, he said the BBC was misrepresenting his views and he did not judge people by their race or religion.

He said out of 10,000 to 15,000 of his posts, three had been taken out of context as part of an effort by the BBC to "besmirch the Conservative Party".

An independent parish councillor, who stated he had worked on Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson's 2012 Mayoral campaign, posted: "Islam is THE religion of hate (sic)" and "Muslims hate = free speech (sic)."

When contacted, he told the BBC he was an atheist who was equally critical of Christianity and all other religions, and he found it annoying Islam was held aloft and critics of it were branded racist.

Other incidents included individuals posting comments such as "Muslim scum" and "I don't want Muslims in this country".

Party sources said not all of the cases highlighted had involved members of the Conservative Party.

A spokesperson said: "All those found to be party members have been suspended immediately, pending investigation.

"The Conservative Party will never stand by when it comes to prejudice and discrimination of any kind.

"That's why we are already establishing the terms of an investigation to make sure that such instances are isolated and robust processes are in place to stamp them out as and when they occur."

Business minister Kwasi Kwarteng told BBC Radio 4's Today that he believed an independent inquiry into Islamophobia in the Conservative Party was under way, but he was not able to provide details of it.

He said the party was "trying to get to grips with this problem" and it had taken "decisive action" when shown the cases by the BBC.

Since 2018, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has been calling for the Conservatives to launch an independent inquiry into alleged Islamophobia, and in May, the council formally asked the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to hold one.

The MCB has listed a series of complaints against figures in the party, including Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson for comments he made about Muslim women before becoming prime minister.

During the Conservative leadership race, then-Home Secretary Sajid Javid challenged the other candidates to commit to an external investigation and the others appeared to agree to it.

Later, though, Mr Johnson claimed he understood they had committed to an inquiry "into all types of prejudice and discrimination including anti-Semitism", not Islamophobia specifically.

Sajjad Karim, a Conservative Party member and former MEP, said there should be no "rowing back" on the pledges made.

He told the BBC: "I have experienced conversations taking place with Islamophobic content directly about me, being conducted by very senior members of the Conservative Party - in fact parliamentarians, one of whom is in fact a serving minister at this moment in time.

"Ultimately, this is about values and if we allow Islamophobia, or any other form of discrimination, to go unchecked, what we are doing actually is undermining our own values.

"That is going to lead to a very different sort of society developing in the coming decades, and that is not something I think most Brits aspire to."

Mr Karim has not revealed the name of the minister in question, but said he would give it to Conservative Party headquarters if they wanted to investigate the incident.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49763550

[ShakaHislop]

Hospitals relying on 'emergency' loans to cover costs

Hospitals in England are "lurching" from month to month on "emergency" government loans to cover costs, a think tank has said.

The Nuffield Trust said some NHS hospitals had to cut spending on patients to pay the interest.

Trusts owed £10bn to the government in 2018-19 for "interim revenue support" and paid £185m in interest last year.

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) said the money went back to the NHS.

The amount of money loaned by the government to NHS trusts in England doubled between 2016-17 to 2018-19, BBC analysis of official figures shows.

Interim revenue support was given to 122 NHS trusts, according to DHSC's annual reports. It allows hospitals and other healthcare providers to meet running costs while running at a deficit.

However the trusts have to pay them back with interest.

Sally Gainsbury, senior policy analyst for The Nuffield Trust, said hospitals were already unable to cover costs and were being forced to make further cuts in spending on patients to pay interest charges.

"Many hospitals can only survive by lurching from month to month with emergency bailouts from central government," she said.

"While it is true that interest paid to the department can in theory be recycled back out to the NHS, there is by no means a guarantee that it will go back to the individual NHS organisations that paid it.

"That leaves NHS trusts in the greatest financial difficulty unable to plan their future and make spending decisions that best suit their patients."

Siva Anandaciva, chief analyst for health charity The King's Fund said some hospitals and providers would be "unable to pay their staff and suppliers on time" without the extra cash brought in by government loans.

"In other words, they would be bankrupt," he said.

However, he added it was "inconceivable" that an NHS ambulance service, hospital or mental health provider would be allowed to go bust.

"DHSC may eventually have to bite the bullet and write off these debts or at least accept that they will not be paid back on time," he added.

Rachel Power, chief executive of The Patients Association charity, said: "The sustained period of underfunding in recent years has caused problems that will be harming patient care for years to come, as money is diverted around the system to balance books and recover deficits, not for the benefit of patients."

Borrowing by King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in London more than doubled from £244m to more than £510m between 2016 and 2019, the equivalent to nearly half of its income over the last year.

The trust, which has been in financial special measures since 2017, spent £136m more on patient care than it was given last year and in its annual accounts admitted to being "reliant" on government loans.

It has the largest debt to the government of any hospital trust in England.

A trust spokesman said it had been "in significant financial difficulty for a number of years" and the loans provided "working capital".

"Without these loans the trust would find it difficult to maintain its current services for any length of time," he added.

A spokeswoman for London's Barts Health NHS Trust also said it had "historical" debt, but added it had "consistently reduced its underlying deficit".

The trust, also in special measures, said it was "usual NHS practice" to take out loans with the government to cover losses and it was working closely with regulators to address its financial issues.

A spokesman for the DHSC said: "NHS trusts rightly have the responsibility to manage their finances but where trusts do struggle financially, we will provide short-term loans to ensure they continue to run vital services and provide outstanding care to patients, with the interest paid going back to the NHS."

"We are also backing the NHS with an extra £33.9 billion a year by 2023-24 in cash to support our long term plan, which aims to ensure no provider is in deficit by 2024."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49745970

If the government has the resources to be able to provide loans to trusts, why not just include that money in ordinary funding?

[Alan_X]

To be honest I agree with what you said previously. Ultimately its all about what that person does in their role rather than what they said or did in their past. If Trudeau was/is a racist but as PM he does things that directly makes peoples lives better then does it matter?

Its the same in other areas. Does it matter that our keeper Alisson supports a facist? Its not like I think about that when he is being brilliant.

However, its a warning to the whole hero worshipping of politicians. I am completely wary of every politician and certainly would never put someone on a massive pedestal for whatever reason. Macron, Trudeau, Obama etc. have all had this happen to them by liberally minded people and its just more reason to be level headed, wary and balanced of all of these people.

Agree wholeheartedly with that last bit. It mustn't drift into wholesale cynicism though.

[Jiminy Cricket]

This is the trouble with being the progressive politician: anyone can drag up some insensitive shit you did in your youth (I'm sure I'd be guilty too) and the "woke" (hate that word) will eat themselves up and the right wing will delight in the Hypocrisy of the Left (you should see my other forum, they're over it like starving hyenas), then vote for a guy who refused to lease apartments to black people, or called for the execution of black children before they'd even been tried, or boasted about sexual assault, because when you don't aspire to any level of decency ti begin with then you are accountable for nothing. And thus we end up with the current crop of world leaders.

Progressives need to grow a spine and say, yes, he did some offensive shit in the past, no, it doesn't affect who he is today as a political leader, he's apologised, it was a genuine apology and not an "if you choose to be offended by this thing that's totally out of context then I regret my role in your hysteria" bullshit apology, let's move on and sort this fucking place out.

Actually, I pretty-much agree with all of that. If we do not allow for people to grow and change, we may as well just lock them up for life when they commit relatively minor crimes. In the main, I think we should extend this principle to everyday life and what we expect from politicians. The people I have a problem with are those like Corbyn, where they have failed to grow since being sixth-form students. I would not hold against Corbyn his views and naivety from when he was an 18 years old; when he's 70 and still holds the same views and teenage self, that's a different matter. So, although Trudeau does not get a free pass, it would be bizarre to dismiss him based on one thing from many years ago (when relatively young) which I have no reason to believe he would do again (even if he where not PM). I am minded of Al Frankin. A very able Senator. Drummed out of his own party - why? I understand the heightened temperature around the peak of the Me Too movement, but people are imperfect and we should look at the larger, more rounded picture. Another example: Churchill. A problematic character in many respects, but obviously great in many ways too. And certainly, the right man for the job in WWII. I fail to understand why people cannot accept both the bad and the good. I'm waffling a bit.

[Jiminy Cricket]

To be honest I agree with what you said previously. Ultimately its all about what that person does in their role rather than what they said or did in their past. If Trudeau was/is a racist but as PM he does things that directly makes peoples lives better then does it matter?

Its the same in other areas. Does it matter that our keeper Alisson supports a facist? Its not like I think about that when he is being brilliant.

However, its a warning to the whole hero worshipping of politicians. I am completely wary of every politician and certainly would never put someone on a massive pedestal for whatever reason. Macron, Trudeau, Obama etc. have all had this happen to them by liberally minded people and its just more reason to be level headed, wary and balanced of all of these people.

I feel I must address this. The word 'racist' is thrown around far too easily by the vast majority of people on the left. To be a Racist, you must believe in systematised racial discrimination. Otherwise, it more properly should be characterised as prejudice, or stereotyping, etc. I am not  defending these things. It is just that I feel we should keep back the word 'racist' for the stuff which is deliberate and systematic. If we automatically jump in and call someone a racist for something stupid they said, it is not a good conversation starting point. Worse, it puts these more simple human failings into the same box as Apartheid and Holocausts.

Do you remember the stuff around Jade Goody in the so-called 'Celebrity' Big Brother, where she mocked the Indian actress? Goody was slammed in the press for being racist, when in actually, she was just immature and jealous of someone far more polished, accomplished, better looking, intelligent and successful than she every could hope to be. It was juvenille stuff. Embarrassing to watch. If Goody had not been so spectacularly over-elevated by the likes of Peers Morgan, she would not have have been there, would not have humiliated herself, or then be the butt of such invective from the very same media who so heavily promoted her in the first place.

Oh, by the way, just to be clear: I was never a fan of Goody, Big Brother, or any of that shit. It was just difficult to avoid at the time.

[classycarra]

To be fair, and not to discount your good points, Trudeau introduced that word:

“It was something I should not have done. I didn’t think it was racist at the time, but now I see, it was a racist thing to do.”

[Jiminy Cricket]

To be fair, and not to discount your good points, Trudeau introduced that word:

“It was something I should not have done. I didn’t think it was racist at the time, but now I see, it was a racist thing to do.”

Yeah. But when caught 'red handed' on video or in pictures, it is not the best time to have a grown up conversation regarding semantics of racism and prejudice.

[killer-heels]

I feel I must address this. The word 'racist' is thrown around far too easily by the vast majority of people on the left. To be a Racist, you must believe in systematised racial discrimination. Otherwise, it more properly should be characterised as prejudice, or stereotyping, etc. I am not  defending these things. It is just that I feel we should keep back the word 'racist' for the stuff which is deliberate and systematic. If we automatically jump in and call someone a racist for something stupid they said, it is not a good conversation starting point. Worse, it puts these more simple human failings into the same box as Apartheid and Holocausts.

Do you remember the stuff around Jade Goody in the so-called 'Celebrity' Big Brother, where she mocked the Indian actress? Goody was slammed in the press for being racist, when in actually, she was just immature and jealous of someone far more polished, accomplished, better looking, intelligent and successful than she every could hope to be. It was juvenille stuff. Embarrassing to watch. If Goody had not been so spectacularly over-elevated by the likes of Peers Morgan, she would not have have been there, would not have humiliated herself, or then be the butt of such invective from the very same media who so heavily promoted her in the first place.

Oh, by the way, just to be clear: I was never a fan of Goody, Big Brother, or any of that shit. It was just difficult to avoid at the time.

In that distance didnt Jade Goody express a level of superiority against someone of a different race?

[Jiminy Cricket]

In that distance didnt Jade Goody express a level of superiority against someone of a different race?

Do you think it was part of a systematised belief system from Goody, or was it a juvenile expression of jealousy, probably founded in feelings of inferiority?

[ShakaHislop]

It doesn't explicitly propose that, but you can read between the lines.

https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1174763898521694208

https://twitter.com/JohnBatteson/status/1174796702634643459

Harman 'will not back down' from Commons Speaker race

Labour MP Harriet Harman says she will "not back down" in the race to replace John Bercow as Commons Speaker, despite objections from her local party.

Members in Camberwell and Peckham, London, voted to urge her to pull out, and hinted they could run a candidate against her at the next election.

But the ex-Labour deputy leader said her devotion to her constituency would be "unshakeable" if she became Speaker.

Once an MP is elected Speaker they are expected to be impartial and can no longer take part in debates or put questions to ministers, although they can still do constituency work and hold surgery appointments.

Camberwell and Peckham Labour Party secretary Dave Lewis said: "As a party we lose a political voice in the House of Commons [if Ms Harman becomes Speaker] and as an electorate the people of Camberwell and Peckham lose a voice in the House of Commons."

The vote urging Ms Harman to reconsider her candidacy was initially tied at 21 to 21 but a recount saw the motion passed by 26 to 22.

Responding to the vote, Ms Harman - who has been MP for Camberwell and Peckham since 1982 - said: "A confident and respected House of Commons representing every constituency in this country and holding the government to account is vital to our parliamentary democracy.

"The Speaker is at the heart of this - that's why I going for it."

She added the "overwhelming majority" of local members understood "the importance of a strong and fair Speaker and support me in this bid".

Members also hinted they could run a candidate against Ms Harman in the next election, although Mr Lewis said he didn't think that would be "a good idea".

So far eight MPs have announced their candidacy for the job: Sir Henry Bellingham, Chris Bryant, Ms Harman, Meg Hillier, Lindsay Hoyle, Eleanor Laing, Sir Edward Leigh and Shailesh Vara.

A new Speaker is elected through a secret ballot of all MPs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49769007

[TepidT2O]

The worst ratings of any opposition leader ever...

And by a huge margin



I do appreciate that people have different views on Corbyn to me. I (mostly) understand and respect why.

But the numbers are an enormous issue.  You can’t do anything if you can’t get elected.  And these numbers have a huge impact on why labour aren’t miles ahead in the polls.

Yes, we can complain about the media etc etc, but you have to manipulate the media to your message rather than the other way round.

What’s the point of Jeremy Corbyn if he’s so hated by the general public that he can’t get elected?

[killer-heels]

Do you think it was part of a systematised belief system from Goody, or was it a juvenile expression of jealousy, probably founded in feelings of inferiority?

No idea, but then are we justifying it? We can only go on what was said and based on that it can be qualified as a racist act.

I do accept though that what Trudeau did probably doesnt qualify as racist.

[ShakaHislop]

The worst ratings of any opposition leader ever...

And by a huge margin



I do appreciate that people have different views on Corbyn to me. I (mostly) understand and respect why.

But the numbers are an enormous issue.  You can’t do anything if you can’t get elected.  And these numbers have a huge impact on why labour aren’t miles ahead in the polls.

Yes, we can complain about the media etc etc, but you have to manipulate the media to your message rather than the other way round.

What’s the point of Jeremy Corbyn if he’s so hated by the general public that he can’t get elected?

NEW @IpsosMORI / @standardnews

Jeremy Corbyn's leader satisfaction rating falls to worst ever achieved by a leader of the opposition in our series - dating back to 1977.

Satisfied 16%
Dissatisfied 76%
Net -60

https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1175007654533566464

[TepidT2O]

And this is just fucking mental

Corbynistas in Harriet Harman’s CLP have voted to stand a Labour candidate against her if she is speaker by the next election

[ShakaHislop]

Old turf war that one. Was still running a long while back. Wisdom of hard left wanting to do it with an election ahead seems dubious but besides the point. Lansman's having some cracking ideas at the moment.

https://twitter.com/jonlansman/status/1173931485629493248

"Welcome to Salma Yaqoob who is a great addition to the male candidates to become West Midlands mayoral Labour candidate - and has my full personal support."

Respect co-founder Yaqoob ran as the anti-Labour pro-Corbyn independent candidate against Naz Shah, in a really nasty campaign, in 2017 which followed Galloway's efforts in 2015. Not the first time this has happened, aware of similar situation with a hard left independent now a councillor close to me. Rules waived and all that.

Labour source confirms they’ve waived membership rules to allow #Respect founder  @SalmaYaqoob to stand - despite standing against their candidates in 3 GEs. Not everyone is happy about that but Labour “is committed to further increasing participation of women and BAME members”

https://twitter.com/JaneRockHouse/status/1174724944929931264

[ShakaHislop]

"Stay and fight" is a rip-roaring success.

[The Gulleysucker]

I wonder what Salma Yaqoob's opinion is on the LGBT school protests, still ongoing.

[ShakaHislop]

And this is just fucking mental

Jess Phillips
 
Let us make no bones about the suggestion that I am not able to be completely critical when I think that things are wrong, both in my party and in the governing party. It is just a shame that quite a lot of the people sitting in front of me know that what has happened over the last two days is wrong, but are too cowardly to say in the House, in public, what they are all saying in the Tea Room. They know what has happened here. It is as if we were kicking out my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). That is what it feels like. I say to those people: the way your party has behaved is an abomination. You have all crowed and given sympathy to me about the problems that we have in the Labour party, but you have just sat by silently while your colleagues have been marched out.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-09-04/debates/C463A8E1-74BA-445A-ACEA-3AA4DF6C98FA/EarlyParliamentaryGeneralElection#contribution-79E24A04-D05C-4849-B4FD-4E97D805D92F

[Zeb]

https://twitter.com/JaneRockHouse/status/1174724944929931264

Wait til they all find out about how the trigger ballot and PPC selection process looks like it's being stitched up. "We had to waive the rules for George. We've airdropped in too many hatless former StWC people so it's only fair."

[ShakaHislop]

Also, I thought Corbyn was meant to energise people who had either drifted away from politics or had never had any interest in it the first place. In which case, why are votes on relatively important issues such as Harman running for Speaker decided by only a little over 50 people (and that's in a CLP in London, which I presume to be a city with above-average political activity)? Hardly the sign of thriving grassroots democracy when you could fit the entire electorate onto a double decker bus.

[classycarra]

https://twitter.com/JaneRockHouse/status/1174724944929931264

I wonder what Salma Yaqoob's opinion is on the LGBT school protests, still ongoing.

Looks like she already has a lot of original ideas
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/mayor-hopeful-salma-yaqoob-copycat-16948423

It's a nice slap in the face to Labour activists who are actually deserving of such opportunities that she's been made candidate. To excuse the factional rule bending to allow a Stop The War Coalition buddy back using diversity and inclusion mealy mouthed bollocks is equally odious.

Bear in mind that she was a spokesperson for a homophobic conspiracy theory peddling fascist (Dr Mohammed Naseem ), who majority funded her Respect party (who then ran multiple ugly campaigns against Labour - a crime almost as heinous as Alastair Campbell once voting Lib Dem in a European election). This is a man who compared being gay to being a “compulsive gambler, murder, peadophile, etc" (source)

Here's her homophobic press officer inviting a gay bash against Peter Tatchell and his "queer army", recommending they "pack their bent bags and head back to Australia"
https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/331831.html?c=on

If adding more homophobia bigotry and fascism to the labour party is the kind of diversity that Seumus is meaning to add to the party, then I suppose the excuse he is citing for allowing her back (and jumping her ahead of other potential women/BAME candidates) would be fair enough. He should put it on the record though.

[classycarra]

Turns out Omar Salem didn't see the LK tweets the other day the same way as a lot of people

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/father-who-confronted-boris-in-hospital-defends-bbc-political-editor-over-tweet-criticism/

Important conversation to have for sure, and there's more than enough valid criticism of BBC Politics' brexit coverage, but I think there was a bit of a rush to pile on her based on preconceived ideas

[Zeb]

The worst ratings of any opposition leader ever...

And by a huge margin



I do appreciate that people have different views on Corbyn to me. I (mostly) understand and respect why.

But the numbers are an enormous issue.  You can’t do anything if you can’t get elected.  And these numbers have a huge impact on why labour aren’t miles ahead in the polls.

Yes, we can complain about the media etc etc, but you have to manipulate the media to your message rather than the other way round.

What’s the point of Jeremy Corbyn if he’s so hated by the general public that he can’t get elected?

This is by Ipsos Mori's Glenn Gottfried back in March before two parties' votes went very wonky. Times (paywall)

Spoiler

Parliament’s repeated rejections of the withdrawal agreement have led to speculation once again of an early general election. There’s reason to be sceptical, however, in the ability of both the Conservative and Labour parties to win a working majority in parliament – the most recent Ipsos Mori Political Monitor has both parties at 38 per cent.

But in any case there’s probably too much attention paid to voting figures especially at this stage of a political cycle. Instead we should look at the whole suite of polling indicators, including views on the parties, policies, the economy and of course the leaders.

Our latest figures saw Jeremy Corbyn’s ratings continue to slide, but in response many rightly say that a campaign can change everything. After all, who could have predicted the leap in Jeremy Corbyn’s personal ratings in the 2017 election campaign while Theresa May’s plummeted. But would this be repeated next time? Ipsos Mori’s historic leadership satisfaction ratings, going back as the 1979 election, can tell us a bit more about how leaders do during an election campaign, especially second time round.

We’ve looked at changes in our monthly satisfaction ratings over the four months before an election.

[haven't included accompanying charts from article]

In 2017 Jeremy Corbyn recorded the biggest positive swing over a campaign period of any leader when it comes to net leadership satisfaction scores of 13.5 points, but this is only slightly more than James Callaghan’s 12.5 positive swing from January to April 1979. Several leaders have also managed smaller but still notable short-term swings — this includes Margaret Thatcher in 1987, Michael Foot in 1983, Neil Kinnock in 1992, Michael Howard in 2005, and both David Cameron and Ed Miliband in 2015.

It’s also worth noting that while opposition leaders tend to improve more over the few months before an election than prime ministers, the picture is slightly different if you look at the whole year running up to an election.

Over that longer period, we see if anything slightly more improvements among prime ministers, than we do among opposition leaders suggesting that while opposition leaders may benefit from the short term increased focus on them during a campaign, prime ministers can also see their ratings improve when voters stop blaming them in peacetime and start to consider their merits in an election scenario when the choice between two leaders becomes more stark.

What does our data show for leaders who have fought more than one campaign? Since 1979 five leaders have led more than one election campaign: Thatcher, Kinnock, Major, Blair and Cameron.

Only Neil Kinnock had a better second election campaign in absolute terms than he did his first (although Margaret Thatcher’s rating in 1983 matched her score in 1979). This shows that although it’s not unusual for party leaders to achieve a positive swing during an election campaign — and in fact, several have seen a bigger rate of improvement in later campaigns than their first — it’s still more uncommon for a party leader to do better overall the second time around.

On the other hand, maybe this is an issue that particularly faces prime ministers as the main exception to the rule — Neil Kinnock in 1987 — is also since 1979 the only example so far of a leader of the opposition who has run in two campaigns.

So what does looking through this historical lens tell us? Firstly, that there is little reason why we shouldn’t expect Jeremy Corbyn’s ratings to improve from their current low base again. It’s not particularly unusual for party leaders to see their ratings rise as we get closer to an election, and he’s already shown in 2017 that he can be more successful than most in achieving this.

However, the big question is whether he can do it again to the same extent as he did in 2017. Margaret Thatcher had a big positive swing in her favour in 1986-87, and Neil Kinnock did better in ’92 than in ’87, but even then of course he did not manage to overtake John Major.

Which raises another final point: opposition leaders aren’t the only ones who see boosts in their leadership ratings during an election (especially if we take a longer-term view). However given the current political impasse over Brexit there’s a lot that can happen between now and the next election that can affect the ratings of both the Labour and Conservative leaders.

[close]

Ultimately point is that, yes, Corbyn's ratings can very well improve before and during the next election campaign. Question is more about whether it will be enough (going up from -35 wasn't, how much more is needed to go up from -60?) and where they are relative to voters' other choices (May's collapsed as Corbyn's rose - will Johnson's? How about Swinson's?).

[Trada]

Jeremy comes out to speak at todays climate strike demo in London.

I bet you loads of these kids will be trying to het their parents to vote Labour.


<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/ZAiwSsYVYnU&amp;feature=youtu.be" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/ZAiwSsYVYnU&amp;feature=youtu.be</a>

[Alan_X]

The worst ratings of any opposition leader ever...

And by a huge margin



I do appreciate that people have different views on Corbyn to me. I (mostly) understand and respect why.

But the numbers are an enormous issue.  You can’t do anything if you can’t get elected.  And these numbers have a huge impact on why labour aren’t miles ahead in the polls.

Yes, we can complain about the media etc etc, but you have to manipulate the media to your message rather than the other way round.

What’s the point of Jeremy Corbyn if he’s so hated by the general public that he can’t get elected?

What’s most interesting is that he’s not the lowest in terms of satisfaction (Michael Foot was lower with 13%) it’s the 76% dissatisfaction that’s most striking. That’s 92% who have an opinion with only 8% don’t knows. It’s not going to be enough to sway the don’t knows. He’s got to change the minds of people who actively think he’s shit at his job.

[Trump's tiny tiny hands]

He’s got to change the minds of people who actively think he’s shit at his job.

And those opinions have been formed, then solidified, over a few years now.

[TepidT2O]

Lansman has narrowly failed in a bid to abolish the post of deputy leader....


Won the vote of NEC 17/10 but needed a 2/3rds majority.

Fucking insanity.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Lansman has narrowly failed in a bid to abolish the post of deputy leader....


Won the vote of NEC 17/10 but needed a 2/3rds majority.

Fucking insanity.

And the cheerleaders for this shite are the same sycophants who scream about legally democratically elected,not sure why they include legally but then I struggle to understand half the shite they spew.

[classycarra]

Lansman has narrowly failed in a bid to abolish the post of deputy leader....


Won the vote of NEC 17/10 but needed a 2/3rds majority.

Fucking insanity.

Factional weirdos being factional weirdos.

They must really love this break from Parliament. Allows the sad c*nts the chance to focus on the juicy shit they’ve loved doing together since the early 80s. Genuinely what they live for

[ShakaHislop]

I understand that Tom Watson was unable to attend due to childcare issues. NEC decided to debate the motion in his absence, with Jon Lansman attacking his Remain stance and recent speech in contrast to Labour policy.

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1175128018324512768

[Trada]

Seem to be saying they will try again tomorrow I was looking at all the motions that was up for Conference they are saying about 20 may be voted on this conference and a few were about getting rid of Watson maybe they can choose on of them. 

The head of choosing the motions did tell me last week that any Watson ones would be looked at fairly when I asked her.