Earl Aelfheah

Electric skateboards?

Lot's of people left DMC as it at one point at least just became a referral service for the drop in centre in Peckham. Maybe so many have moved that they're able to provide a better service to those who remain? Seems unlikely that the number of patients will have dropped too significantly though I'd have thought.

Not great.

Totally agree with that analysis Blah.

Unless you love your work to the point that it's not really work at all, then why wouldn't you prefer to choose what you do with your time?

Yes. In a heartbeat.

If a half decent candidate had stood against Corbyn they'd have won IMO.

...even if you're not sure you're going to vote Labour under Corbyn - if you generally support Labour and want to influence it's direction - join.

The Labour party is in a bad place, but it can come back. For now, I agree with almost everything in this article about what should be happening next: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-six-things-to-avoid-electoral-armageddon-a7328736.html - sorry for posting it again, but it's worth reading honest :-) Also, join the Labour party. If you?re generally to the left of the Conservatives, join the party so that you can add to the number of pragmatic voices. Those who want to influence the future direction of Labour need to be on the inside.

I don't agree that Labour is particularly dogmatic. This is a criticism which is constantly leveled at 'the left', but actually there are many more ideologues on the right, who would happily privatise everything, regardless of outcomes or evidence. The Conservatives have often ignored evidence when it comes to public policy, in areas such as drugs policy, criminal justice, housing, education and many others - look at their policy on grammars for example. Labour have always called for a mixed economy and the last Labour government did a lot (not always successfully) to bring the private sector in to delivering public services. As Jeremy (ED Jerermy, not Corbyn) said earlier in the thread, it should always be about what produces the best outcomes and the best value for money. The level of debate has become so, so poor recently and a lot of it is the influence of the media which really has cheapened the political discourse in this country. The reason we have glib soundbites ('brexit means brexit') and spin doctors, is because politicians are placed in a total straight jacket by reporters. Journalists have an essential role to play in a health democracy, holding politicians to account, but it certainly feels to me that there is something quite dysfunctional going on at the moment, in politics and in the media.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm just looking for a centre left opposition with > a sound fiscal policy and broad appeal that might > have a hope in hell of actually putting the brakes > on another 15 years or Conservative government. Yeah, I think this is what a lot of us would like to see. Join the Labour party would be my advice (if you haven't already). It's a membership organisation and so it's no good sitting on the sidelines complaining about it's direction. At the moment, Corbyn represents the views of the majority of the parties members. Like it or not, that's how it should be, which is why I think the PLP really has no choice but to get behind him for now and try to help steer the ship as best they can. Those who want to see Labour move to a different position, should do something about it by joining the party and adding their voice to the debate. If Labour do get wiped out at the next election, there will be another opportunity to influence things.

.

I am not a Corynista by the way, but I think it's clear that the media have done an absolute hatchet job on him, which is not conducive to a healthy political discourse. The media in this country is often pretty corrosive to our democracy. Cameron's failure to implement the recommendations of the Leveson enquiry was one of the many times he demonstrated his lack of courage.

The trident idea was a bit silly IMO, although to be fair, it was only floated as a *possible* alternative to the binary choice of renew as is, or scrap completely. The party rejected the idea following a defence review. It should be possibly to discuss the options openly.

No one suggested 'enforceable means of preventing' after work drinks. That's the point. He was just describing some of the well established social and structural realities which make it difficult to address issues like the gender pay gap. It was an insignificant part of a wide ranging discussion on the issues women face in achieving parity with men. It's pretty easy to take something out of context, change what was said and then paint it as ridiculous.

Yeah, I'm with you on that.

Maybe just don't drive in the bus lane irrespective of whether there's a camera or not.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The after work drinks thing is classic Corby > though. > > > 'Wouldn't it be good if..?' Yeah, it probably > would. > > Any practical, workable suggestions and solutions > as to how this might be achieved? 'Not really'. He made lot's of practical suggestions about how to tackle inequalities in the workplace. That was what his speech was about. None of it was reported though, just the made up bit where he said Labour would ban beer and make everyone wear hair shirts to work.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If a family choose to follow traditional gender > roles, that's their business. Not appropriate for > JC (and lobbyists) to get involved. That's not necessarily an unreasonable view. The point is that he didn't say what he was reported as saying ... and it wasn't any different to the position of a number of 'business leaders'. So regardless of whether or not you agree, it's hardly novel or radical, or indeed Stalinist as suggested by some of the more rabid leader writers.

^this

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > for a role of the state in the provision of key > public services > > For me, it comes down to whether it benefits the > public. In the case of rail, we're not feeling any > benefits of competition, and I'm not ideologically > averse to nationalisation (of course, provided > they do a better job and provide better value) > > But then with things like energy.. deregulation > and privatisation have worked OK. I do not > understand why the government would want to take a > controlling interest in energy suppliers, etc. > What's in it for us?? It's a level of meddling > that I fundamentally disagree with. > > And then he starts saying frankly bat-shit-crazy > stuff like after work social events should be > forbidden... and I start to imagine some sort of > dystopian nightmare... I completely agree with that. We should take a pragmatic approach to the role of the state and I do think it should be limited. I'm in favour of the state doing a few key things and doing them well. I don't think Corbyn ever actually called for after work drinks to be banned http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/09/02/no-jeremy-corbyn-doeesn-t-want-to-ban-after-work-drinks he actually repeated a point that's also been made by Carolyn Fairbairn, the head of the CBI (those dangerous Trots) as well as others - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/23/business-dinners-exclude-women-cbi-chief-carolyn-fairbairn_n_8627582.html

I just find it so depressing that the majority of people have completely bought into the idea of zero regulation aka standards, very few protections for workers, low taxes and poor public services.

this idea that if workers have rights, that the economy suffers and business can't survive is ridiculously short sighted. You need a large middle class in order to have a successful economy, because they are not only your workers, but also your customers. Currently the state subsidises the wages employers don't pay. This comes from taxes levied on business and higher earners, so that the wages still get paid, only in the least rational, most inefficient manner.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think there are plenty of companies that could > easily pull out of the UK without diminishing > their market share... Sure, but actually the issue with many of these companies has been side stepping tax on profits made on sales in the UK. Anyway, we're kind of getting off the point. This idea that a mixed economy, for a role of the state in the provision of key public services and a fairer distribution of the countries wealth amounts to some sort of radical lefist extremism - well, I find it very dispiriting to be honest. They're views which would have been shared by many of the more moderate Conservative MPs in the eighties. We've swung so far to the right in recent decades and are aligning with the neo-con ideologues in the US, rather than with our more progressive, northern European neighbours. Brexit will no doubt accelerate this process.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The 'our government will...' bit is crap. JC and > JMcD are proper old school Marxist socialists - > they don't believe in entrepreneurs, or really in > the private sector at all. If you think that has > changed you're deluded. You think they're communists, who want to deliver a command economy? I seriously doubt it. I am not afraid of 'reds under the bed'. I suspect that they believe in regulating certain markets and an argument for state control of certain key industries such as health care, education and transport. The idea of a mixed economy, was not considered quite so extreme or heretical until pretty recently. Unfortunately we've swung to the right as a country and are moving closer to the dogmatic US model, rather than the more open minded and thoughtful Northern European one.