Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Andrew Marr likes the proposals (he seems to have had the Sensible vaccination lately...)

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... rds-reform

On Scotland, Labour’s plan seems to go as far as possible to acknowledge difference inside a single United Kingdom. The Scottish Parliament gets more powers, including to negotiate with overseas bodies in certain circumstances. It is up to the SNP to demonstrate why the advantages of staying inside the Union and the British single market are outweighed by the economics of independence.

Overall, the package will be hated in Westminster, not least because it bans most second jobs for politicians. I don’t deny that this, and greater devolution across England, won’t cause unexpected difficulties and entangle a new Labour government in complex Westminster arguments and haggling. And yes, it will take time. The final legislative package will be different to what was announced today – there will be second thoughts, tweaks, last-minute adjustments, and rightly so. That is the point of any parliament.

davidjay wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 1:42 pm Parliamentary procedure has worked fine for centuries, or rather had worked fine, because it worked on the principle that all sides obeyed the unwritten rules, that politicians were honourable and that they didn't need to be told what they couldn't do, because they wouldn't dream of doing it. Then you got this mob, who have ignored every convention in their lust for power and wealth. That's why our Parliamentary needs reforming.

It’s the political equivalent of ‘Caution: Hot’ on hot drinks. Because one floppy-haired egomaniac twat, his bullshitting, intellectually hollow yet desperate for plaudits gnome of a lackey and a bunch of suck-up bigots and no-marks decided to deliberately throw scalding tea in all of our faces as there was no law that said not to. Or in some cases, there was a law but no one to enforce it.

"Enforced" by the offspring of a wet blanket and the sort of teacher that lambasts Perkins minor for missing his tie, while Stabber McHardman and his mates giggle behind his back and flush many ties down the loo. Because it takes two people to have an argument, you know.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:09 pm Andrew Marr likes the proposals (he seems to have had the Sensible vaccination lately...)

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... rds-reform

On Scotland, Labour’s plan seems to go as far as possible to acknowledge difference inside a single United Kingdom. The Scottish Parliament gets more powers, including to negotiate with overseas bodies in certain circumstances. It is up to the SNP to demonstrate why the advantages of staying inside the Union and the British single market are outweighed by the economics of independence.

Overall, the package will be hated in Westminster, not least because it bans most second jobs for politicians. I don’t deny that this, and greater devolution across England, won’t cause unexpected difficulties and entangle a new Labour government in complex Westminster arguments and haggling. And yes, it will take time. The final legislative package will be different to what was announced today – there will be second thoughts, tweaks, last-minute adjustments, and rightly so. That is the point of any parliament.

Leaving the BBC seems to have done Marr a lot of good.

I think he might be overdoing the difficulties- George Osborne just said "Fuck it, we're having metromayors" and they happened. Though perhaps not- doubtless a huge issue will be made of Labour "imposing". Brown was asked today if increasing borrowing powers to Holyrood needed a referendum, FFS.

I was surprised by his reaction on Saturday when the leaks that seem to be wrong (note these Labour sources seem to just create issues at the moment) that he was sad so yeah seems satisfied.

Tories seem upset especially those in marginal seats can’t think why? The death knell for the Lords was Zac Goldsmith in my view, the rewarding of complete failure.

Then again they’ve gone lower since.

For me it was the way every PM said that yes, it needed reform, any day now, then created hundreds of peers at the stroke of a pen to pass some bullshit bill.

I still remember reading the honours lists to see who had been ennobled, and being enough of a history nerd to care.

Also, peerages seem to mean so much to the likes of Vine and Young, so fuck them.

I want it abolished 1 day after Dacre finally gets his gong

He's not the worst, I mean, hate him vehemently or despise him utterly, and acknowledging that he's a cunting cunt with a completely perverted weltenschauung, but he is actually the sort of person (given that his soul is immersed in shit) that the system was intended to throw up so that they can bring their professional expertise (stop laughing in Berlin and Liverpool) to the House. Unlike donors, cronies, wives of KGB agents, KGB agents, more donors etc. etc...

See, I despise those types as well - the Hannans, Mones and Lebedevs. But for them it could have been any reward/payoff. Dacre is different to me because he so openly, desperately wants it. That, and his Partridge-like “I didn’t want it anyway” letter after the Ofcom debacle says to me that he knows deep down that he’s an absolute black hole and craves the validation for a lifetime of bile spewing.

For him, not getting it means so much more. Which is why denying him it would be so much more impactful and richly deserved, because it would mean he is made undeniably aware he is what he openly despises - an ordinary person.

'Ordinary' would be aspirational in his case...

The Shadow Chancellor, Tony Benn, is making some rather dirigiste sounding pronunciations on business.

Actually, that's harsh on Benn. He wouldn't have suggested pension funds should be investing more in start ups, as Reeves has done. Start ups are risky. That's why people who spot a Microsoft or whatever get rich. And they'll probably have invested in other things where they've lost a lot of money.

Reeves can stick her savings into start ups if it's such a great idea. Or back the favourite in the 3.30 at Lingfield.

Reeves has a free pass on this Red Wall protectionist populism as the Tories are political pygmies and crackpots. Imagine getting it passed Heseltine.

Pension funds would be attracted to start up investments if the government underwrit losses even though smaller returns from winners would be the price. Or just buy guilts the government is issuing to spread bet on startups.

Well she is a former banker.

This did improve my view of her somewhat.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 27778.html

Hamish Falconer, the son of former Lord Chancellor Charlie Falconer, has been selected as the Labour candidate to fight Lincoln at the next election.

For somebody who is still only 36yo, he certainly has an impressive CV:

That does sound impressive. Was the Corbynite ex-MP not up for it?

Is this 40% real? Given that in the last Westminster poll I saw, Labour had 25% and the SNP 51% and the Greens 3%, that would put the Yes on something like 60%, likely more. That doesn't sound like a particularly hard Yes vote if it's voting for a Unionist Party.

Plus it's a pretty shit argument in its own right. A poll I saw showed 33% of the SNP voters voted for Brexit (I presume these were older post-industrial area ex-Labour voters, similar to the Labour Brexit voters in England and Wales). But how many SNP MPs and MSPs "reflected this vote", eh?

According to the Telegraph...



Absolute lies and nonsense, of course, but hey, a lie can run round the world before the truth gets its boots on.

This will be gospel to the shitbrains by tomorrow.


(As always, check paragraph 19, where the RCN says that it would call off strikes for exactly the proposal Streeting is making).


As an aside, it is generally the BMA that fucks up any reforms. For example the proposal that consultants only have one secretary each was howled down - the other one was vital for running their personal life...

Streeting has effectively said all the other unions bar the BMA are the issue, as you said gospel to the shitbrains.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 7:58 pm Is this 40% real? Given that in the last Westminster poll I saw, Labour had 25% and the SNP 51% and the Greens 3%, that would put the Yes on something like 60%, likely more. That doesn't sound like a particularly hard Yes vote if it's voting for a Unionist Party.

Plus it's a pretty shit argument in its own right. A poll I saw showed 33% of the SNP voters voted for Brexit (I presume these were older post-industrial area ex-Labour voters, similar to the Labour Brexit voters in England and Wales). But how many SNP MPs and MSPs "reflected this vote", eh?

Labour No voters in 2014 were more transactional and pragmatic than emotional Unionists. Understandable Labour voters don’t want to be driving buses around in indyref2 promising £350m for the NHS if they stay in the UK.

Streeting seems to have gone unnecessarily far here, I think.

"We'll get you extra staff, you then need to reform" is absolutely fine, and it's what the Blair Government did and sometimes said. But in Opposition, Blair didn't really attack the BMA, even if I'm sure he thought it was justified sometimes. You just muddy the political water doing that at this stage and probably lose votes. As well-off professionals, GPs will have Ed Davey making overtures, no doubt.

His complaint that they voted to reduce core surgery hours is a funny point, as if he thinks that's all they work or something.