|
Post by thexterminatingdalek on Jan 4, 2024 15:16:39 GMT
One of my happiest political moments was having the opportunity of shouting "rubbish" at then coalition minister Ed Davey from the audience of Any Questions while he was spouting untruths about the royal mail privatisation at the moment Jonathan D was to jump in and wind up the programme. To my surprise it received such a prolonged round of applause that the show ended without Mr D's closing remarks. Another chap nearby came over to share his fury at the nonsense Mr Ed had spoken, when we were suddenly joined by the man himself who leapt from the stage to put us straight.
Armed with information we'd gleaned via intensive research such as listening to radio 4 and reading newspapers and Private Eye, we stood our ground against his belligerent blustering and when he'd gone agreed he was either a liar, fool or both.
At this time the Horizon scandal was being extensively covered in Private Eye and neither he nor Cable had any excuse for being less well informed than the likes of me and an Any Questions audience.
I had voted libdem previously, but swore that evening they would never have my vote again as long as Davey or any other involved in the coalition remained in parliament. Where I live, it is unlikely they will lose any sleep over that, but I draw considerable cheer from seeing his party neck and neck with Reform in the polls, since with such numbers there will be no safe seats and they may well end up with an equal number of representatives.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jan 4, 2024 15:20:12 GMT
As a general point to other posters. You have my commiserations if you live in a FPTP constituency where there is no progressive alternative to the Tories. The Lib Dems surrendered any claim to be progressive in 2010, and in fact were absolute shysters from 2010-15. We now suffer the consequences of their misguided ideology espoused in the Orange Book. Ed Davey was a co-author of the Orange Book. He is unreformed, shown to be incompetent as a Minister and has served in a regressive regime. That would be pretty much every constituency in the country, since the Labour Party has also now sacrificed any claim to being progressive, having promised to do nothing about the collapse of our public services, nothing about looting of the country by the rich, and nothing about restoring some measure of local democracy. Oh, and while I'm correcting typos, reneging on its promise to do something about climate, and failing to tackle the privileges of rich pensioners.
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Jan 4, 2024 15:48:38 GMT
but I just can't, and this may be a failure of mine, carry over my political disagreement with Osborne's economic policies into personal hatred of the man himself. I don't know him in any meaningful sense. Given your (lapsed) Catholicism is that a sort of secular "love the sinner but hate the sin"? I am torn on this because, on an intellectual level, I agree with you that it is the policies and not the person that needs to be considered. However, that said, I cannot hear the name of Margaret Thatcher with a genuinely visceral emotional response (a working class young adult in the 1980's in South Wales). That said, I suppose much also rests on the definition of "hate" which is, in some ways, very personal. I referred to a "visceral" reaction above but I would classify that as closer to revulsion than hate as I would define them. My personal reaction of revulsion to some Conservative politicians arises from the policies they espouse. Those that, in my opinion, espouse policies which dehumanise specific groups of people (e.g. Suella Braverman and the homeless) cause this reaction of revulsion. My belief is that only misanthropists could promote such policies and I am revolted by misanthropy. My personal definition of the emotion of "hate" as opposed to "revulsion" requires a personal connection, I don't believe I have hated very often in my life but when I have it is the rage of something like personal betrayal that is the cause.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,258
|
Post by steve on Jan 4, 2024 15:50:11 GMT
"I draw considerable cheer from seeing his party neck and neck with Reform in the polls, since with such numbers there will be no safe seats and they may well end up with an equal number of representatives."
You really need to think how first past the post works. Imagine that in every constituency now the lib dems get approximately the same vote as they got in 2019 , polling suggests that's about the position the lib dems won around 11.6% of the vote nationally in 2019 However the Tories vote share has plummeted from 43.6% to around 26% nationally , with a similar commensurate drop in their vote share in the 85 seats where the lib dems came second to them in 2019. There are only around four true three way races with Tory incumbent as things stand Labour is likely to win all of these along with 150+ where they are second to the Tories.
Assuming the same swing everywhere and no other changes increasing it by tactical voting that produces around 25-35 wins by the lib dems from the Tories without the need to win extra votes. There isn't going to be any significant shift from lib dems to refuk and a shift from the Tories to this other far right party just exacerbate their problems and makes it easier for lib dems pick ups.
As you don't seem to have any grasp of this and think that refuk with a national share of around 10% would get the same representation when they currently are second to no one in any constituency then perhaps you might have been better to refrain from comments.
Of course if we did have fair voting pr on those numbers refuk could have 50+ mps the lib dems 70+ and the Labour party would be short of an overall majority.
While tactical voting could conceivably produce 50+ lib dems based on current polling it would still leave refuk on none.
I'm sorry you're still harbouring grudges , particularly as Davey is one of just three lib dems in parliament who were first elected before 2015 but there you go. I didn't vote for Davey as party leader as I would have preferred a cleaner break from the coalition baggage and a leader from the left of the party, but the majority who did vote in the leadership opted for him, he's doing a reasonable job and is an effective election campaigner.
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Jan 4, 2024 16:00:16 GMT
I wonder if Davey having to stand down to be replaced by Cooper or Moran would actually help the LDs as the coalition baggage would be lighter?
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 4, 2024 16:01:32 GMT
but I just can't, and this may be a failure of mine, carry over my political disagreement with Osborne's economic policies into personal hatred of the man himself. I don't know him in any meaningful sense. Given your (lapsed) Catholicism is that a sort of secular "love the sinner but hate the sin". I am torn on this because, on an intellectual level, I agree with you that it is the policies and not the person that needs to be considered. However, that said, I cannot hear the name of Margaret Thatcher with a genuinely visceral emotional response (a working class young adult in the 1980's in South Wales). That said, I suppose much also rests on the definition of "hate" which is, in some ways, very personal. I referred to a "visceral" reaction above but I would classify that as closer to revulsion than hate as I would classify them. My personal reaction of revulsion to some Conservative politicians arises from the policies they espouse. Those that, in my opinion, espouse policies which dehumanise specific groups of people (e.g. Suella Braverman and the homeless) cause this reaction of revulsion. My belief is that only misanthropists could promote such policies and I am revolted by misanthropy. My personal definition of the emotion of "hate" as opposed to "revulsion" requires a personal connection, I don't believe I have hated very often in my life but when I have it is the rage of something like personal betrayal that is the cause. Thanks for this, wb. You've made me think here and your distinction between revulsion and hatred is intellectually a far better way of explaining what I was waffling on about.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,258
|
Post by steve on Jan 4, 2024 16:05:16 GMT
jimjam As I voted for Layla Moran and as Daisy is a friend I will refrain from comments other than either would make excellent leaders.
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Jan 4, 2024 16:07:33 GMT
I will be using revulsion forthwith as like CB I hate to use the word hate (sorry couldn't resist).
Disdain often suffices but revulsion will do nicely for disdain double plus.
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Jan 4, 2024 16:11:52 GMT
Steve - I was posting a voting impact question (and quoting your 'coalition baggage' comment) not expressing a view of my own.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,258
|
Post by steve on Jan 4, 2024 16:18:13 GMT
jimjamIndeec No idea of the impact but it's probably too close to an election anyway and it's pretty theoretical.
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Jan 4, 2024 16:24:50 GMT
I think the corollary for Davey leading the LDs is Starmer ensuring that anyone anywhere near the top table during throughout the Corbyn years has been marginalised or expelled in some cases.
Baggage can be heavy and I expect a different LD leader would see a VI gain, although if that leader was less effective at leading than Davey it could be negative in the round.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,258
|
Post by steve on Jan 4, 2024 16:32:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 4, 2024 16:34:54 GMT
jimjam/Steve
Apropos nothing very much, and I'm in hunch territory with this, but I think Davey might prove to be quite an effective campaigner come election time.
I'm not convinced too much coalition baggage attaches to him in the sense that it might have done to Clegg, Laws, Alexander, Swinsom et al, albeit the recent Post Office scandal revelations aren't helpful in that respect, but I think the anti-Tory tide will launch a thousand boats, of which Davey's party will be but one of the buoyant vessels.
|
|
|
Post by thexterminatingdalek on Jan 4, 2024 16:51:13 GMT
No, Steve, I know exactly how first past the post works. One of its principal effects, according to my old A level government and political studies teacher, and roughly borne out in the four decades since, is that to achieve worthwhile representation a party needs around thirty per cent support, hence the libdems dire showing since 2010.
They had the opportunity to offer supply and demand and didn't. They share direct responsibility for all the unnecessary misery, suffering and deaths caused by austerity. They threw away the best opportunity this country will see in our lifetimes of electoral reform, and their collaboration with the Tories led directly to Brexit.
And now Davey appears to have questions to answer concerning Horizon, chiefly whether he is still a liar or merely a credulous fool.
On their current polling, they stand no chance of improving their representation. If their version of tactical voting worked they would have taken Bedford. Having failed there, labour can now look at the west country seats Davey fantasises are within his grasp and ignore any talk of being unable to win here, there or anywhere.
And it serves Davey right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2024 16:54:08 GMT
I think the corollary for Davey leading the LDs is Starmer ensuring that anyone any where near the top table during throughout the Corbyn years has been marginalised or expelled in some cases. Baggage can be heavy and I expect a different LD leader would see a VI gain, although if that leader was less effective at leading than Davey it could be negative in the round. Might it be that Daveys baggage is himself ? It is for me.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,258
|
Post by steve on Jan 4, 2024 17:04:08 GMT
thexterminatingdalekPerhaps you should share your wit and wisdom with professional polsters, electoral calculus prediction based on just 10.8% vote share has the predicted lib dems win at around 30 Bradshaw advisory based on poll of polls and regression analysis have the lib dems on 58( optimistic imo)none show lib dems making no gains. Where do you find data to support your conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 4, 2024 17:04:42 GMT
Continuing the theme of the global savaging that health systems are getting, Hospital Emergency Departments across the City of Adelaide have all now declared 'white alerts', which are what happens when you exceed red alerts. It means they have no room at all. And in Ontario, Canada, hospital admissions for respiratory diseases across the state are now six standard deviations above the seasonal average. Not 'Evil Tories', austerity, doctors strikes, the NHS, seasonal infections, etc etc. It's happening everywhere.
The causes everywhere seem to be a pretty standard mix of surging covid cases mixed with temporary spikes in flu, but many centres are reporting significant numbers of co-infections and, like last year, a trend towards more serious outcomes from non-covid ILIs. It's difficult to draw any firm conclusions from these observations, as despite the commonality, they remain anecdotal, rather than evidence based, but if the analysis subsequently confirms these trends, then it would provide additional potential evidence of weakened immune systems, while taking us further away from the so called 'immunity debt' explanation.
Finally, a study published just before Christmas reported a seven fold increase in risk of developing symptomatic TB after covid infection, a pretty dramatic difference between the infected and non infected. This is precisely what we would expect for an illness that dents the immune system, and could be one of the most significant recent studies around the covid topic. Around 25% of the world population has latent TB, and so will be vulnerable to this disease should they experience something to reactivate it. There have been substantial increases in TB diagnoses globally in 2023, which was - guess what - initially put down to covid pandemic responses disrupting TB health screening. Joking aside, this was actually a reasonable assumption, as TB programs were significantly disrupted during the height of the pandemic. But the rate of TB appears to be accelerating more than the catch up in screening, and combining this with the findings above, it's starting to look like covid is unlocking a tidal wave of TB cases.
|
|
|
Post by guymonde on Jan 4, 2024 17:07:27 GMT
The Hate thing. I always thought and said I hated Thatcher, a view I have never revised. Another I would have said I hated was Michael Portillo, but I quite like him now - he has served his sentence and is now an amiable railway fan. I also thought very strongly against David Davies (not as far as hate) but I now rather admire him for what I see as integrity. Cameron and Osborne were not worth anything so strong, more like stepping in dog mess and having trouble getting rid of it, or the odour. Johnson - remember I had a double dose in London before a refresher when he was 'Prime Minister'. Can't say I hate him but I'd like to see him transported. Australia would be too good and probably Rwanda not bad enough. Perhaps Gaza or Yemen and a complete banishment from media
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 4, 2024 17:15:18 GMT
You're working for the tories, it's so obvious. Punching low. Come on out of that closet and show your true colours - you're another one aren't you!? What, an ABT with a view to a maj Lab govt? absolutely yes.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 4, 2024 17:20:42 GMT
but I just can't, and this may be a failure of mine, carry over my political disagreement with Osborne's economic policies into personal hatred of the man himself. I don't know him in any meaningful sense. Given your (lapsed) Catholicism is that a sort of secular "love the sinner but hate the sin"? I am torn on this because, on an intellectual level, I agree with you that it is the policies and not the person that needs to be considered. However, that said, I cannot hear the name of Margaret Thatcher with a genuinely visceral emotional response (a working class young adult in the 1980's in South Wales). That said, I suppose much also rests on the definition of "hate" which is, in some ways, very personal. I referred to a "visceral" reaction above but I would classify that as closer to revulsion than hate as I would define them. My personal reaction of revulsion to some Conservative politicians arises from the policies they espouse. Those that, in my opinion, espouse policies which dehumanise specific groups of people (e.g. Suella Braverman and the homeless) cause this reaction of revulsion. My belief is that only misanthropists could promote such policies and I am revolted by misanthropy. My personal definition of the emotion of "hate" as opposed to "revulsion" requires a personal connection, I don't believe I have hated very often in my life but when I have it is the rage of something like personal betrayal that is the cause. Personal betrayal is a good point. I felt a clear sense of personal betrayal due to brexit. My natural rights I'd had and used all my life were stripped from me. It was an assault, an attack on my dignity by my own country, however slight some might see it as. If those rights that I'd assumed were permanent could be summarily taken from me what other ones could be too?
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,391
Member is Online
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 4, 2024 17:34:03 GMT
That would be pretty much every constituency in the country, since the Labour Party has also now sacrificed any claim to being progressive, having promised to do nothing about the collapse of our public services, nothing about looting of the country by the rich, and nothing about restoring some measure of local democracy. Oh, and while I'm correcting typos, reneging on its promise to do something about climate, and failing to tackle the privileges of rich pensioners. In your eagerness to do a spot of Labour bashing you have made a couple of claims that are easily disprovable. "restoring some measure of local democracy" - even oldnat, while rubbishing the devolution proposals, conceded that Labour's plans are revolutionary for English local government. Starmer referenced it as recently as his speech today saying: "Government in this country is too centralised and controlling, and because of that, too disconnected from the communities it needs to serve." labour.org.uk/updates/stories/a-new-britain-renewing-our-democracy-and-rebuilding-our-economy/"do something about the climate" - again Starmer committed today to zero carbon electricity by 2030. I will also mention the Trade Union agreed package of new workers rights - for example banning fire and rehire - to be introduced in the first 100 days of a new government. Incidentally for anyone interested in the text of his speech: labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-new-year-speech/
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 4, 2024 17:58:03 GMT
thexterminatingdalek Perhaps you should share your wit and wisdom with professional polsters, electoral calculus prediction based on just 10.8% vote share has the predicted lib dems win at around 30 Bradshaw advisory based on poll of polls and regression analysis have the lib dems on 58( optimistic imo)none show lib dems making no gains. Where do you find data to support your conclusions. You know that's fantasy land Steve based on misapplication of UNS. I'm seriously starting to think a London Cab will accommodate all your MPs after November.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 4, 2024 18:10:42 GMT
Are you out waving placards protesting their arrival, because oddly enough I've never seen that happen, or is it only people with browner skin that are the problem? Obviously, it is. My late father would very precisely have said there is no problem with Australian white returness. I dont believe it ever came up, but I fancy he would have said something rather different about aboriginals. Likewise, swapping white european immigrants for people from all round the globe will inevitably make the problem of integration a whole lot worse. And yet of course he would also have certainly voted to leave the EU. Oh the mantrap waiting amongst those upset leavers for con. You've got a good imagination, I'll say that.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 4, 2024 18:11:35 GMT
The site is bogged down in a semantics debate about hate, loathing etc. If you have just lost a child, partner or sibling in Gaza or the Ukraine War, or they have suffered serious injury, you have reason to feel emotionally distraught & to focus hatred on the persons you consider responsible. On here, with maybe one or two exceptions, to generate extreme emotions is merely self-indulgence: & yeh, we are all self-indulgent. Most people on here hate Brexit: but it's an emotion experienced by the politically engaged (aka nerds) & generated by powerlessness & frustration with people who think differently from us. Most people have got other things to worry about. Rivalries don't always lead to dislike. Footie fans love their clubs (god knows why) but they don't generally hate the fans of other clubs (violence aside, & same-city rivalries can be pretty intense. I live in Manchester!). They recognise & respect their loyalty to a rival club because of where they were born, their dads followed that team, etc. So the interminable footie chat on here seems to have a bonding not an alienating effect. Political tribalism has grown in virulence because politics has become more divisive & because each side feels the others are attacking their cultural identity. As crossbat11 & others have said we need to understand our opponents. Maybe. But there is precious little evidence oh here that the ROCs, LOCs (various branches) & Nat tribes make any any attempt to understand, or learn from, the others.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,258
|
Post by steve on Jan 4, 2024 18:24:30 GMT
"I'm seriously starting to think a London Cab will accommodate all your MPs after November."
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 4, 2024 18:26:10 GMT
I would like to see if there are grounds for a criminal case against the Post Office managers for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. In criminal cases, if the police or CPS withhold information from the defence, that can be sufficient grounds on its own to overturn a conviction. What I find difficult to understand, as someone who has worked with computers all my life, is why nobody (neither subpostmasters nor PO managers) thought to run a parallel manual accounting system at a branch reporting problems in order to prove if Horizon was accurate or not. Post Office managers who didn't understand how important testing of software is, particularly of edge cases that you don't expect to occur, but are possible. My one time as a project manager of a software package developed by contractors convinced me that the best person to do the testing was the person who wrote the specification, which is what I did (it was easier for me because the application of the software model was within my area of technical competence). Someone who has got into their position because of their ability to manage people will rarely have the technical competence to be able to see the often slight deviations that indicate a deeply-buried problem. It's not as if the contractors are trying to do a bad job, but as everyone knows you are the worst person to proof-read your own writing and the same applies to software.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 4, 2024 18:48:32 GMT
That would be pretty much every constituency in the country, since the Labour Party has also now sacrificed any claim to being progressive, having promised to do nothing about the collapse of our public services, nothing about looting of the country by the rich, and nothing about restoring some measure of local democracy. Oh, and while I'm correcting typos, reneging on its promise to do something about climate, and failing to tackle the privileges of rich pensioners. In your eagerness to do a spot of Labour bashing you have made a couple of claims that are easily disprovable. "restoring some measure of local democracy" - even oldnat, while rubbishing the devolution proposals, conceded that Labour's plans are revolutionary for English local government. Starmer referenced it as recently as his speech today saying: "Government in this country is too centralised and controlling, and because of that, too disconnected from the communities it needs to serve." labour.org.uk/updates/stories/a-new-britain-renewing-our-democracy-and-rebuilding-our-economy/"do something about the climate" - again Starmer committed today to zero carbon electricity by 2030. I will also mention the Trade Union agreed package of new workers rights - for example banning fire and rehire - to be introduced in the first 100 days of a new government. Incidentally for anyone interested in the text of his speech: labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-new-year-speech/It reminded me of the other thing that Starmer and Corbyn have in common: they are both Gooners.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 4, 2024 18:54:14 GMT
I am not closely engaged with Horizon, but a close colleague of mine was sacked and very soon re-emerged at Fujitsu (or ICL as we tended to call it)working on Horizon and including I think attending a HoC select committee enquiry. Having been in the industry I had little doubt that the system would have had bugs but what I always found deeply improbable was that dozens or hundreds of postmasters were on the take. One or two, yes, but dozens? If you're dedicated to fraud would you become a postmaster where you'd expect there to be rules and consequences rather than just have a straight shop where you can be selective what you put through the till and the opportunity to flog cigarettes and booze to children and perhaps stuff you got to avoid tax on a booze cruise, very popular at the time as was said in those days. So that senior management in the PO, the government, the judiciary didn't smell a rat I find astonishing When I was a contractor in the 1990s I was on a big contract at Brittania Building Society. When it was over the ICL/Fujitsu rep offered all the independent contractors jobs because they were on a big recruitment drive. I don't know for sure that it was about Horizon but if it was I regret not taking the job because I might have been able to fix it.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 4, 2024 18:55:11 GMT
The messaging for Sir Ed is coming through.
Go now lad, and go quickly.
|
|
|
Post by lens on Jan 4, 2024 18:58:05 GMT
No Danny, it's not about "something which happened in the 1990's" - not the real scandal at the heart of this, which is (surprise, surprise) the cover up rather than the preceding events. The basic idea of computerisation can hardly be argued against, it was happening all over in the 1990's. That the Horizon system was flawed is - from an IT viewpoint - unfortunate. But again, these things happen. The REAL scandal was how case after case after case came up, and the Post Office failed to acknowledge the problem could be anything other than a high percentage of their sub-postmasters had suddenly started committing large scale fraud. (!!) But throughout most of the mid 2000's, (as the drama/documentary makes clear) even most of the people concerned thought they were isolated cases. But by 2010 - and largely thanks to Alan Bates - the word had started to get out. My point was that anyone with an interest in this would have seen there had to be something wrong with the system well before 2010. Even a dozen cases of postmasters accused of fraud should have rung alarm bells, never mind 1000. The scandal is NOT the coverup. The scandal is that the system in place to monitor fraud did not realise what was happening was impossible way back at more like 2002. The scandal is how this ever happened, not how there was an attempt to cover it up. If anything, this implicates labour ministers in a scandal. Danny - but surely the obvious conclusion from your sentence highlighted is that within the Post Office alarm bells **WERE** being rung!!?? And it seems being ignored? Whilst innocent sub-Postmasters were being sent to jail and financially ruined. Was that not the cover-up, the first bit of it, anyway? The real question is how far it went in the mid-2000's. How far up within the management chain at the Post Office. I can't believe people in the Post Office couldn't hear the alarm bells ringing - but it's more questionable whether it got as far as government *at that time*, before Alan Bates brought people together. But by Ed Davey's time (as the letter makes clear) there's no excuse. The story was increasingly in public, and likewise the scale of it. When I hear about a story like this it just makes me think how on earth anyone thought it could end well? A bit like a gambler getting into debt and just hoping one more bet will see them right. But the more they doubled down, the more it was delayed - but the worse the scandal when the truth did eventually come out! "Disastrous to the government??" Hardly. Cost money, maybe, a bit of embarassment , again maybe, but they would have been spared the worst simply by throwing the Post Office under a bus. Or at least the management at the time. ("Look what the PO have been doing! Shocking! But fortunately we in government made sure the truth came out and have taken strong action.") Cover ups rarely end well. You're hardly doing Ed Davey's reputation much good anyway with that comment. It seems to be a case of a "fool or a rogue"....... and you seem to be painting him as a rogue? His own defence seems to be "I was misled by Post Office management" - which paints him rather as a fool. But do you class him as a rogue? It may well be that his Labour predecessor is due criticism as well - it all depends on what who knew when. But Davey's problem is the letter coming out showing how he even refused to meet the sub-Postmasters at a very critical time. No, not as bad as the management within the Post Office, but I'd still say it shows appalling judgement on his behalf at the very least.
|
|