RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Great study by LSE about how the corporate press has systematically delegitimised Corbyn

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research ... -FINAL.pdf

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 40681.html

If it helps I know a decent number who thought he was a loon as a back bencher, so no media sway there.

So anyone who isn't a neoliberal and a warmonger is a loon in your little view of the world?

"Seeking to outline his policies to lead Labour, Smith said were he prime minister, he would order a nuclear strike if it were needed"

How can anyone be so casual about such an action??

Zhivago wrote:"Seeking to outline his policies to lead Labour, Smith said were he prime minister, he would order a nuclear strike if it were needed"

How can anyone be so casual about such an action??

How can anyone infer he is being so casual about it just from that?

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:"Seeking to outline his policies to lead Labour, Smith said were he prime minister, he would order a nuclear strike if it were needed"

How can anyone be so casual about such an action??

How can anyone infer he is being so casual about it just from that?

Quite. Surely the question is "In what circumstances would you say it is needed?"

Zhivago wrote:"Seeking to outline his policies to lead Labour, Smith said were he prime minister, he would order a nuclear strike if it were needed"

How can anyone be so casual about such an action??

I'd like to see a little more context to this.

Angela Eagle has pulled out "in the interestd of the Party"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36838808

UGagain wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Great study by LSE about how the corporate press has systematically delegitimised Corbyn

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research ... -FINAL.pdf

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 40681.html

If it helps I know a decent number who thought he was a loon as a back bencher, so no media sway there.

So anyone who isn't a neoliberal and a warmonger is a loon in your little view of the world?

I agree,.....but it deffo' narrows the field for career politicos.
Not that I have a problem with that.......I'm happy to excise the monetarists with a particularly dull scalpel.
But we'll need a moment when the change actually matters. The knuts have to go,.....it's how we do it that now matters.

The Entirely Fake Owen Smith
14 Jul, 2016 in Uncategorized by craig
Even the mainstream media feel compelled to drop hints that Owen Smith is not what he is being promoted as. The Guardian’s words yesterday were unintentionally revealing;

the former shadow work and pensions secretary plans to pitch himself as the soft-left option
Note “to pitch himself”. For PR professional Smith, political stance is nothing to do with personal belief, it is to do with brand positioning. On Channel 4 News last night, an incredulous Michael Crick pointed out that the “soft left” Smith had previously given interviews supporting PFI and privatisation in the health service. He also strongly supported Blair’s city academies.

As chief lobbyist for Pfizer, Smith actively pushed for privatisation of NHS services. This is not something Pfizer did very openly, and you have to search the evidence carefully. Footnotes often tell you what is really happening, as in this press release in which Owen Smith says of a Pfizer funded “focus group” study:

We believe that choice is a good thing and that patients and healthcare professionals should be at the heart of developing the agenda.
You have to look at the footnotes to see what kind of choice Owen Smith is actually talking about. Note to Editors 3 includes

“The focus groups also explored areas of choice that do not yet exist in the UK – most specifically the use of direct payments and the ability to choose to go directly to a specialist without first having to see the GP.”
Well, at least it is clear – direct payments from the public to doctors replacing current NHS services. Smith was promoting straight privatisation. As Head of Policy and Government Relations for Pfizer, Owen Smith was also directly involved in Pfizer’s funding of Blairite right wing entryist group Progress. Pfizer gave Progress £53,000. Progress has actively pursued the agenda of PFI and privatisation of NHS services.

Owen Smith went to Pfizer from a Labour Party job, while Labour were in government, and there is no doubt that his hiring was an example of the corrupt relationship between New Labour and big business which is why the Blairites are so hated by the public. It is also beyond any argument that if Pfizer had any doubts about Owen Smith’s willingness to promote the Big Pharma and NHS Privatisation agenda, they would never have hired him.

Owen Smith is a strong supporter of Trident and assiduously courts the arms industry. He is a regular at defence industry events.

Perhaps most crucially of all, Owen Smith joined his fellow Red Tories in abstaining on the Tory welfare benefit cuts.

I do not doubt Owen Smith’s expertise in brand positioning. I expect that there are indeed a large number of Labour Party members who might vote for a left wing alternative to Corbyn. But I also suspect that Smith has adopted the PR man’s typical contempt for the public, who are not as stupid as he seems to think. There is no evidence whatsoever that Smith is a left winger. There is every evidence that he is another New Labour unprincipled and immoral careerist, adopting a left wing pose that he thinks will win him votes.

People will notice, Owen. They really are not that stupid.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... wen-smith/

The progressive left view on Corbyn providing no leadership - http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016 ... economics/

In many countries politicians cannot go straight into business after their time in government, they have to wait for a certain period - in EU for example this is 18 months. It's crazy that there is no such requirement here any longer - it was got rid of by Thatcher. It should be reintroduced.

Zhivago wrote:In many countries politicians cannot go straight into business after their time in government, they have to wait for a certain period - in EU for example this is 18 months. It's crazy that there is no such requirement here any longer - it was got rid of by Thatcher. It should be reintroduced.

I was pretty sure that you were wrong and a quick google shows my suspicion to be correct. I think in fact there were no such rules in Thatchers time.
ETA. In Thatcher's time I'm pretty sure that such things were governed by the ministerial code, but that policing and breaches of the code were a matter for the PM which effectively meant that ex-ministers could do what they liked.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/new-busines ... c-servants

Digby wrote:The progressive left view on Corbyn providing no leadership - http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016 ... economics/

Criticisism from the left is not an endorsement of Blairite policies or a desire to be led by some cardboard cut out spad in the pay of Sainsbury.

Or a war mongering Israel-firster like Milliband, D.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:In many countries politicians cannot go straight into business after their time in government, they have to wait for a certain period - in EU for example this is 18 months. It's crazy that there is no such requirement here any longer - it was got rid of by Thatcher. It should be reintroduced.

I was pretty sure that you were wrong and a quick google shows my suspicion to be correct. I think in fact there were no such rules in Thatchers time.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/new-busines ... c-servants

Surely you of all people must understand the difference between advice and a requirement? No?

ACOBA is an advisory body, it has no statutory powers to enforce compliance.

"The Rules are prepared by the Cabinet Office and approved by the Prime Minister:they have no statutory basis and include no sanctions for non-compliance"
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 04/404.pdf

If you had any self-respect, you'd admit that it is in fact you who are wrong, not I.

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:In many countries politicians cannot go straight into business after their time in government, they have to wait for a certain period - in EU for example this is 18 months. It's crazy that there is no such requirement here any longer - it was got rid of by Thatcher. It should be reintroduced.

I was pretty sure that you were wrong and a quick google shows my suspicion to be correct. I think in fact there were no such rules in Thatchers time.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/new-busines ... c-servants

Surely you of all people must understand the difference between advice and a requirement? No?

ACOBA is an advisory body, it has no statutory powers to enforce compliance.

"The Rules are prepared by the Cabinet Office and approved by the Prime Minister:they have no statutory basis and include no sanctions for non-compliance"
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 04/404.pdf

If you had any self-respect, you'd admit that it is in fact you who are wrong, not I.

I'll be delighted to admit that I'm wrong when:

1. You show what the rules were that thatcher abolished.
2. You show that the EU has an actual ban on people taking up employment with sanctions, rather than a simple requirement that they do not.
3. You explain why you went for the 2012 version of the guidance rather than the 2016 version.

Tidy £4.6m made in a couple of days for the Labour party.

So, who was more determined to spend £25 and vote; Corbyn supporters or Corbyn haters?

jared_7 wrote:Tidy £4.6m made in a couple of days for the Labour party.

So, who was more determined to spend £25 and vote; Corbyn supporters or Corbyn haters?

I'd assume supporters. Though if Corbyn wins they may as well rebrand themselves The Other Monster Raving Loony Party

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:Tidy £4.6m made in a couple of days for the Labour party.

So, who was more determined to spend £25 and vote; Corbyn supporters or Corbyn haters?

I'd assume supporters. Though if Corbyn wins they may as well rebrand themselves The Other Monster Raving Loony Party

As opposed to neoliberals who think we've never had it so good and people have more disposable income than ever before etc etc etc despite none of it being true?

UGagain wrote:

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:Tidy £4.6m made in a couple of days for the Labour party.

So, who was more determined to spend £25 and vote; Corbyn supporters or Corbyn haters?

I'd assume supporters. Though if Corbyn wins they may as well rebrand themselves The Other Monster Raving Loony Party

As opposed to neoliberals who think we've never had it so good and people have more disposable income than ever before etc etc etc despite none of it being true?

I think the loony part is because the guy dared to question whether unleashing nuclear weapons and killing tens of thousands of civilians in the process is a good idea. Absolutely bonkers!

jared_7 wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Digby wrote:
I'd assume supporters. Though if Corbyn wins they may as well rebrand themselves The Other Monster Raving Loony Party

As opposed to neoliberals who think we've never had it so good and people have more disposable income than ever before etc etc etc despite none of it being true?

I think the loony part is because the guy dared to question whether unleashing nuclear weapons and killing tens of thousands of civilians in the process is a good idea. Absolutely bonkers!

Indeed. We live in a world where the UN Charter is considered a communist document.

We never have had it so good. Point to a period in history where you think those at the bottom of society were doing worse than they are right now? Is that good enough, I'd suggest no and you'd likely agree, but it's been a damn sight worse in the past

Digby wrote:We never have had it so good. Point to a period in history where you think those at the bottom of society were doing worse than they are right now? Is that good enough, I'd suggest no and you'd likely agree, but it's been a damn sight worse in the past

The post war era of Keynesianism was better even with the absurd Bretton Woods agreement.

I'm not agreeing with you at all.

UGagain wrote:

Digby wrote:
I'd assume supporters. Though if Corbyn wins they may as well rebrand themselves The Other Monster Raving Loony Party

As opposed to neoliberals who think we've never had it so good and people have more disposable income than ever before etc etc etc despite none of it being true?

More lies, it demonstrably is true unless one's personal politics are so profoundly dishonest that they verge on bigotry, in which case one would probably try to manipulate the figures to suit one's self.

jared_7 wrote:
I think the loony part is because the guy dared to question whether unleashing nuclear weapons and killing tens of thousands of civilians in the process is a good idea. Absolutely bonkers!

Nothing quite as satisfying, in a world driven by hysteria, as putting words in someone's mouth and then getting OUTRAGED by something they haven't actually said.

UGagain wrote: Indeed. We live in a world where the UN Charter is considered a communist document.

Jared was referring to Digby's post. Have either if them referred to the UN charter as a communist document? Have either if them even intimated at it? Or are you manufacturing more OUTRAGE to justify your supercilious histrionics ... again.
Or maybe just going off on a meaningless tangent by way of proving to us all how very very clever you are?
Either way, you can rest assured, we've got your number big guy, you've been pegged.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Yes well I'm sure that Eugene and Sandy agree with all that, whatever it means, and will be constructing a brief that they're not prepared to defend, to ban me. Again.

If it was really about abuse, Donny and Cashead would be banned and Sandy would have banned himself.

The fact is that the neoliberal imperialist arguments have no validity. And you guys are yesterday's useful idiots.

UGagain wrote:Yes well I'm sure that Eugene and Sandy agree with all that, whatever it means, and will be constructing a brief that they're not prepared to defend, to ban me. Again.

If it was really about abuse, Donny and Cashead would be banned and Sandy would have banned himself.

The fact is that the neoliberal imperialist arguments have no validity. And you guys are yesterday's useful idiots.

Hahahahahhahahahahahahajahaha

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

UGagain wrote:

Digby wrote:We never have had it so good. Point to a period in history where you think those at the bottom of society were doing worse than they are right now? Is that good enough, I'd suggest no and you'd likely agree, but it's been a damn sight worse in the past

The post war era of Keynesianism was better even with the absurd Bretton Woods agreement.

I'm not agreeing with you at all.

The education system was miles off what it is now in general terms, and was far more elitist, which isn't to say I wouldn't like a fair amount of change to what we have now. The NHS was delivering much worse return, which isn't to say I wouldn't like a fair amount of change to what we have now. Disposable income was far lower and typically any decisions around how it was spent resided with a patriarchy. You couldn't be prosecuted for raping your wife, you'd likely face no investigation even for raping anyone. It was illegal to be gay. Lives have been transformed by the widespread availability of central heating, washing machines and the like,typically female lives as males don't tend to play close to an equal role in domestic chores. I get you not agreeing with me, that's fine plenty don't, I'm not sure why you're so ready to disagree with reality though.