|
Angepain posted:Maybe they're just pretending to be stupid. Not to hide any grand scheme or anything, just to hide that they don't give a gently caress. It's not technically a failure if you've not been aiming to succeed in the first place. Well I mean MP's are supposed to represent the majority of their constituents after all.
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 09:29 |
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I'm kind of surprised that one or two of the future tory leader candidates haven't thrown Hunt under the bus already. They can't all be so thick that they fail to see how unpopular he is?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Don't worry he's worked out the magic formula for connecting with British MuslimsDavid Cameron criticises BBC for use of 'Islamic State' posted:David Cameron has criticised the BBC again for using the term “Islamic State”, saying Muslim people would be holding their heads in despair. and you should be ashamed for not joining me in my decision that ive only just made, disgraceful
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
What they're missing is that Hunt is pretty clearly angling for the position himself and they're going to miss a big chance to ratfuck him if they don't do it soon - and he's better at it than any of the others except maybe Boris.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Isis' main strategy has been the strategic deployment of foreign-speaking foreigns on city streets and public transport to speak quickly and laugh occasionally, all in foreign, so the neurotic and insecure citizens of this fine country are constantly worrying that someone might be saying a mean thing about them so they will get all sad and under-confident so when the sleeper cells rise up they will be too busy thinking about whether they should get a haircut or something to fight back Cameron knows what's up
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/689208741628133376 Did I take a nap and wake up in France or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
twoot posted:
Of course they plan to impose the contract. But the BMA has until August to strike. And people are talking about a mass resignation if they try to impose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:55
|
|
They've already agreed to impose the contract if the BMA doesn't back down. Hunt will be jettisoned for not getting them to back down sooner.
|
jabby posted:Of course they plan to impose the contract. But the BMA has until August to strike. And people are talking about a mass resignation if they try to impose. Which is an awful idea, they should just go on indefinite strike.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/689208741628133376 They're going by an interview that Cameron did on the Radio where he specifically stated that he would NOT back the ban on the Veil. So it's not just Corbyn having the exact opposite of his statements pushed as the truth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
I expect they're banking on doctors caring enough about their patients that they'll cave rather than continue industrial action indefinitely. Of course, this means the doctors are holding patients hostage somehow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Why the pissing hell do people persist in the colossally naive idea that Corbyn would get a fair shout from the press if he just said something a little more like they want? Corbyn will *never* get a fair shout from our current press, so he may as well just say what he believes and let them try to pin fake smears on him. Some people will read his actual words and agree with him and that's great, and the people who just read the headlines with zero analysis will get the same basic story - Corbyn sucks - either way. If he'd said something demonstrably counter to his prior positions which are a clear matter of public record it would have been a story about flip-flopping, or a story about him lying, or a story about whatever the gently caress the hacks wanted to write about, just like it was when he stuck to his principles. Nobody is saying that Corbyn "would get a fair shout from the press if..." This strawman argument comes up all the time here - and in lefty circles more widely - and it's frustrating to see, because it seems to be willfully missing the point. It isn't about finding some magic phrase which will turn the press on side. It isn't about demanding that Corbyn copy the Tory manifesto or chase the mythical centre ground. It's about understanding the narrative(s) which already exist and working hard to avoid reinforcing the negative ones. This is not the same as lying or shifting rightwards. Dismissing all criticism of Corbyn's media approach "because it doesn't matter what he says" is foolish - not least because the current strategy is very obviously damaging him. You say "Some people will read his actual words and agree with him and that's great," as if that there is something self-evident there, that his actual words can be convincing enough. The problem is that Corbyn's "honesty" is all too often indistinguishable from vagueness. When people rate honesty as a political good (or even a moral one) it is, at least in part, because it suggests clarity, some direct expression of a person's innermost self: honesty means the listener knows immediately what the speaker "really" thinks. But Corbyn's words rarely do a great job of expressing complex ideas or presenting forceful arguments, let alone doing so in manner that is succint and immediately obvious. His current approach seems ill-suited to persuading people round to his point of view - yet this is something which any political leader must do. It's frustrating that all criticism is dismissed with a flippancy that suggests the current approach is perfect and unalterable, because he can still be consistent while still being more direct, he can be honest while articulating an argument, and he can be true to his principles while trying to persuade. I like Corbyn generally, and his was the best leadership campaign by an embarrassing margin. But he is not a particularly effective political communicator, and, most worryingly, he and his top team repeatedly do things and present themselves and their views in a fashion that seems clearly counter-productive to even the most casual viewer of politics and the media. They exacerbate the problems of a hostile media (and of 21st century public discourse conducted across the compressing trends of internet consumption and 24 hour news) by conforming to and reinforcing existing stereotypes, and failing to provide - or even suggest - a counter narrative.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
namesake posted:Which is an awful idea, they should just go on indefinite strike. It's okay we'll just get junior doctors from other countries to fill the gaps well, so long as we pay them over 35k that is
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
namesake posted:Which is an awful idea, they should just go on indefinite strike. Well a mass 'resignation' would be essentially a mass refusal to sign the new contract in August. So the effect would be similar, but they couldn't claim it was a strike and it wouldn't be subject to strike legislation. It would just be a lot of people not accepting the new conditions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
XMNN posted:I expect they're banking on doctors caring enough about their patients that they'll cave rather than continue industrial action indefinitely. Of course, this means the doctors are holding patients hostage somehow. The solution I've seen suggested by people closer to in the know than me is that the BMA might step in and essentially act as an employer for the Junior Doctors on a reasonable contract, and subcontract them to the Government, which would be a ludicrous state of affairs, but potentially an actual victory. It'll take some guts and brains to pull off, but doctors are good at both, and in the end a lot better at them than politicians.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
XMNN posted:Don't worry he's worked out the magic formula for connecting with British Muslims It has all the childish petulance of 'so-called' anything combined with using the full name that the majority of Muslims do not like. I really hope that a splinter group in the vein of the Real IRA or Provisional IRA springs up that calls itself 'So Called Islamic State' just so they can't use it anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:The solution I've seen suggested by people closer to in the know than me is that the BMA might step in and essentially act as an employer for the Junior Doctors on a reasonable contract, and subcontract them to the Government, which would be a ludicrous state of affairs, but potentially an actual victory. If this situation ends up privatising 90% of the doctors in the UK I imagine Hunts turgid dick could be seen from orbit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Someone use So Called Islamic State as a brand name so its use on television counts as product placement and they can't say it anymore this is genuine legal advice i own a suit
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:The solution I've seen suggested by people closer to in the know than me is that the BMA might step in and essentially act as an employer for the Junior Doctors on a reasonable contract, and subcontract them to the Government, which would be a ludicrous state of affairs, but potentially an actual victory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:That means privatising the delivery of healthcare in the NHS, nationwide. For whom exactly is that a victory? This is literally what the tories want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I'm kind of surprised that one or two of the future tory leader candidates haven't thrown Hunt under the bus already. They can't all be so thick that they fail to see how unpopular he is? He passes the important tests of being a posh public schoolboy, who David Cameron's known for a long time and feels comfortable around. One of us. I'm not even being cynical, I genuinely think that's why he's still in office.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
If they throw out one tory for being a useless, cruel, openly evil shitlord they'd end up having to disband all together.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Niric posted:Nobody is saying that Corbyn "would get a fair shout from the press if..." This strawman argument comes up all the time here - and in lefty circles more widely - and it's frustrating to see, because it seems to be willfully missing the point. It isn't about finding some magic phrase which will turn the press on side. It isn't about demanding that Corbyn copy the Tory manifesto or chase the mythical centre ground. It's about understanding the narrative(s) which already exist and working hard to avoid reinforcing the negative ones. This is not the same as lying or shifting rightwards. Dismissing all criticism of Corbyn's media approach "because it doesn't matter what he says" is foolish - not least because the current strategy is very obviously damaging him. 1: He's repeatedly tried to suggest a wide variety of counter narratives (with some success during the leadership campaign), and what stories have arisen? Usually a leak of a reshuffle (i think we had 3 before the actual reshuffle, and that lasted 3 days the first of which was planned to be a policy announcement about the railways), or bombing Syria, or whatever else is more interesting than meaningful political change to the people who make opinions. McDonnell, for instance, has been pretty strong on being anti-austerity, but there's almost no penetration in the media, because they don't want to sell that story. There's a reason why his cabinet has come across poorly - and I don't disagree that that's been the case to some extent - and it's been by and large because every loving story has been followed up not by strong statements from his cabinet in support of his positions and explaining the things which need explaining in more detail than the half sentence quote can do, but by fuckheads like Dugher anonymously briefing against him about how poo poo he is. I mean, take Shoot To Kill. The actually sensible viewpoint that shoot to kill is dumb as gently caress takes explaining, because it's not instantly clear what shoot to kill actually means and how it differs from current policy, but that makes for a dull story where people explain things sensibly, rather than a fatalistic giant headline about PACIFIST WANTS ISIS TO MURDER YOUR CHILDREN. The sensible point of view wasn't really put across by anyone clearly, and to some extent that's because they're not good at briefing, to some extent because there were more interesting stories to chase - but to some extent it's because the people REPORTING the story aren't remotely interested in the nuances of meaning behind it, and were only interested in the splashy headline that grabs clicks. 2: Honestly - for me only - if what it takes to win is being a traditionally effective political communicator, that sounds to me (in my personal opinion) like what is being suggested is going back to buzzword spouting focus grouped bullshit, where every statement and sentence has to be analysed and carefully vetted to avoid sounding... however. I'd prefer someone who actually says what he thinks, even if what he thinks is 'I'm not sure yet, I'll have to think about that'. I'd prefer a politics where real, long-term thought took place about how to solve problems, rather than about how to appear to solve problems whilst actually doing as little as possible to do so - where it was OK to take a day to think before giving an answer, or hell, even to say 'I don't know what the answer is yet, but I want to spend some time and effort finding out'. I lay a lot of blame for its absence at the feet of the 24 hour news cycle and the need for the story to be out and finished with before the next story, because it results in a news media where nothing is actually given the time and attention it needs to come up with a reasoned, rational position. It happens ALL the loving time with Tory policies; no-one examines the 7 DAY NHS poo poo in any detail, because it sounds good and it's a buzzphrase that can be easily quoted, when not only is it inaccurate, it's actually loving killing people to quote it. I don't know how to make change happen though  LemonDrizzle posted:That means privatising the delivery of healthcare in the NHS, nationwide. For whom exactly is that a victory? I'd assumed the BMA would become some form of public body in that instance, but realistically, they wouldn't, would they? I'm having a lovely day I should probably stop arguing on the internet, it doesn't help. thespaceinvader fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Flip-flopping as he is, he's right on this one. Out of all the names they could have picked 'so-called Islamic State' is about the worst. The way I read it, it sounded like he supported BBC saying so called and was getting shirty because they didn't this one time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I'd assumed the BMA would become some form of public body in that instance, but realistically, they wouldn't, would they? Considering the BMA is a union of doctors, wouldn't it be more like a co-op?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:That means privatising the delivery of healthcare in the NHS, nationwide. For whom exactly is that a victory? It's something doctors have talked about doing for a while. A bit like lawyers having chambers, doctors would 'belong' to the BMA who are a monopoly employer. Of course any action of this type would require the BMA to be an effective political body. This isn't ideal, but it's preferable to Jeremy Hunt making GBS threads up the delivery of healthcare by working juniors to death/until they gently caress off abroad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:The way I read it, it sounded like he supported BBC saying so called and was getting shirty because they didn't this one time. I can see in a way why they might have thought it sounded impartial, but it's really just long winded, petulant, and annoying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
jabby posted:Considering the BMA is a union of doctors, wouldn't it be more like a co-op? Well yeah. I guess it would be akin, actually, to how GP surgeries operate, only on a national scale. GP surgeries aren't privatised, they're still public, they're just run independently. I think? winegums posted:Of course any action of this type would require the BMA to be an effective political body. This would be the trick; doctors' unions have ALWAYS been resolutely apolitical and it would take a colossal fuckup to make that change. We are, however, in the midst of a colossal loving up of the NHS, so
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Well yeah. Yeah GP practices individual contract themselves to the NHS. Out of interest where did you hear that the BMA were considering this idea?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Just finished watching Charlie Brooker's 2015 wipe; the Barry Shitpeas and Philomena Chunk characters are some Uncanny Valley poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:1: He's repeatedly tried to suggest a wide variety of counter narratives (with some success during the leadership campaign), and what stories have arisen? Usually a leak of a reshuffle (i think we had 3 before the actual reshuffle, and that lasted 3 days the first of which was planned to be a policy announcement about the railways), or bombing Syria, or whatever else is more interesting than meaningful political change to the people who make opinions. McDonnell, for instance, has been pretty strong on being anti-austerity, but there's almost no penetration in the media, because they don't want to sell that story. There's a reason why his cabinet has come across poorly - and I don't disagree that that's been the case to some extent - and it's been by and large because every loving story has been followed up not by strong statements from his cabinet in support of his positions and explaining the things which need explaining in more detail than the half sentence quote can do, but by fuckheads like Dugher anonymously briefing against him about how poo poo he is. But the point is that the way Corbyn et at are doing things is not working and is doing them active harm. Continuing in the same vein - as your defence seems to suggest is preferable - seems totally counter productive. The options are not limited to "keep doing the same thing or be the Tories," and the knee-jerk response that doing anything other than what Corbyn is doing now is "buzzword spouting focus grouped bullshit" doesn't help. There seems to be this assumption that Corbyn and his team are taking a brave and noble stand, sacrificing short term popularity to practice a nuanced and deliberately intelligent politics that will, slowly but surely, raise the level of debate. Yet this really doesn't ring true for me. Again, I like Corbyn, and I don't think a coup is a good idea. Yes, the media are hostile. Yes, the PLP has been mind-bogglingly awful. But I haven't seen much evidence of long-term thinking about how to solve problems, or even of many particularly coherent or articulate attempts to explain issues sensibly. There's been some anti-austerity noise and clear shift back some classic left wing tropes (both for good and for ill), but you're talking as if there has been a wealth of complex arguments effaced by the press and people's short attention spans, that Corbyn is winning some kind of moral victory, at least, among those who follow politics closely. Again, I don't see much evidence of this. Niric fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
A month or so ago someone made a really well informed post about Trident, but for the life of it I can't find it. Anyone know where it is or who wrote it? I'm pretty sure it was in UKMT and I've tried searching it but can't track it down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:That means privatising the delivery of healthcare in the NHS, nationwide. For whom exactly is that a victory? No it wouldn't, the BMA is their union. It'd be a workers' co-op, and there wouldn't be an alternative provider. Lovely. GPs' surgeries are private businesses which subcontract. It is not efficient but allows GPs to make much more than consultants, which is lovely for them. Filboid Studge fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
The BMA is not 'their' union, in the straightforward sense that JDs are a minority in the membership, and their interests are not straightforwardly the same as the wider group. If GPs and consultants have to compete with JDs for the same NHS provision grant, the JDs are hosed - seniority is the watchword of labour groups, and the BMA is no exception.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:So if IDS can find me a job where I don't have to talk to anyone at all, don't have anyone ever review what I do, and can take an indefinite amount of time off with zero warning, without upper limits, then yeah I guess that could work. Somehow I'm not entirely convinced, however, that this new project is going to have the nuance he claims. Obviously the answer is self employment!
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Guys guys I don't think the Telegraph likes Jeremy Corbyn very much!quote:Mr Corbyn's lack of gumption would imperil the Falklands quote:Jeremy Corbyn's Trident policy: spend £137 billion to save one job – his own quote:Jeremy Corbyn is no pacifist – he wants to see Britain defeated quote:Jeremy Corbyn won't name his cat and instead simply calls it 'the cat' quote:Corbyn's plans to curb company dividends 'completely potty', business leaders say quote:Jeremy Corbyn attacked by sacked shadow cabinet minister Michael Dugher over Trident 'disaster' quote:David Cameron is revolutionising PMQs – and Jeremy Corbyn has no answers quote:Exclusive: Jeremy Corbyn accused of plotting to 'stitch up' upcoming by-election quote:There are six rules for a good reshuffle. Jeremy Corbyn broke every one of them quote:Jeremy Corbyn's hard Left plotters branded 'croissant-eating London-centric mansion owners' by Labour grandee Lord Watts quote:The BMA has Corbyn fever and is more interested in politics than patients All that's just from the last WEEK 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
The Telegraph needs to take a chill pill. I have a spare blue pill for them when they need it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
They lost their Shadow Cabinet Source and I think it broke them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
The list could have been 2 or 3 times longer: I just picked out my favorites.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 09:29 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:You're right, he did criticize "not even saying 'so-called'". But I'd rather they switched to Daesh or ISIL or anything other than the stupid poo poo that they have currently decided on. Cameron's been using that poo poo since forever though (and he probably 'encouraged' the BBC to adopt it) so gently caress him if he's switched to Daesh and decided to score points lecturing other people about sensitivity to the Muslim community El Scotch posted:Just finished watching Charlie Brooker's 2015 wipe; the Barry Shitpeas and Philomena Chunk characters are some Uncanny Valley poo poo. Cunk is amazing
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 08:38
|
|
