DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived post-Murdoch era

'If a fit for work decision is overturned at appeal, it does not necessarily mean that the original decision was inaccurate - often, claimants produce new evidence in their appeal which wasn't available when the original decision was made.'

Aye, right

87% of appeals in Islington were won, jesus.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24621391

dear Mr Major, i know the energy companies are very naughty people who need telling off, but just maybe the fact that many many people will have to choose between heating and eating this winter has more complex causes, most of which you agree with

I would imagine his main concern is protecting the public purse from increased winter fuel payments rather than uncharacteristic altruism.

interested in this piece on the arms industry's adverts at westminster tube station and what they mean: http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/adam-ramsay/arms-industry-is-advertising-its-vulnerability

Benefit cap 'not encouraging work or saving money'

Oooh what a surprise.

'We do not recognise this report as providing a sound or reliable picture of the reform' (Department for Work and Pensions)

DWP + IDS being renowned for their soundness and reliability of course

C#m's linked piece is kind of flawed. BAE System's problem is making sure Joe Public still thinks of them as a British company - probably less than 10% of their business is in the UK - but people still think of their name as being British Aerospace, which it hasn't been for 15 years. The initial pushback against the Queen Elizabeth class being co-awarded to Thales, for example, was palpable. Again, there is a perception (largely untrue) that Thales are a French company and how dare defence money be given to 'the frogs' - usually with a rejoinder about how the French pretty much exclude other nations from their own Government programmes. So by playing up Britishness they hope to get a favourable nod from, as Robin Day famously put it, here-today-gone-tomorrow politicians.

The alleged conversation on the golf course between Mike Turner and Geoff Hoon to thread, obviously.

is C#m c sharp major's younger brother?

If so, it's a key change...

probably less than 10% of their business is in the UK

What proportion of their manufacturing jobs are in the UK?

Probably less, at a guess. As noted in the comments after that article there are only about 200,000 defence-related jobs in the UK at the moment - a quick bit of googling suggests BAE Systems total have about 100,000 employees and around half of them belong to BAE Systems Inc (the biggest American subsidiary) alone. BAE SYstems Australia has 5000, BAE Systems Sweden 2000. So less than half total jobs in the UK and I'd guess around a third of those at most are in manufacturing.

this is fascinating, Aldo, thanks!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_IAI5THd-E

so is russell our leader now then?

"our"

russell brand is a spokesperson, not a leader. paxman loathsome

somone said on twitter that own jones and russell should team up to form a new left-wing cosncious young folk, both said they were up for it. i like both guys but they're both a bit, i dunno, childy. esp like what OJ says but RB can come out with some real hokey tosh (don't vote! i'm calling for a revolution!). only thing not voting will do is usher in a brave new 5 yrs more of brutalising the weak

that "meet the ancestors" body slam on paxman is incredible.

this. seems to be sucking up to him a little then drops the piano on his head

NI you seem very confident that Labour will reconfigure society

Until they cut out the anti-immigration xenophobia there’s no way Labour will be getting my vote next or any time.

Owen Jones is an attack dog really and critisicing him is a bit "fight the real enemy". What he's trying to do is influence the Labour Party but he doesn't seem to have a clue how to get to where he wants to get to from where he is.

Russell Brand is naive as hell but his understanding of the problem is pretty on point.

I mean the question for anyone on the left is always how they intend to get from where we are to the society you want to create, taking into account ferocious vested interests and the danger of destablising everything in the meantime. Until we have a politician with the vision to answer that then the current woeful Labour Party is all we're going to get.

Going the other way, Thatcher crashed the economy in the early 80s and may well have been voted out had it not been for North Sea Oil + Falklands so it's not like completely reconfiguring a society is easy even for rightists.

that "meet the ancestors" body slam on paxman is incredible.

― caek, Thursday, 24 October 2013 03:44 (8 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this. seems to be sucking up to him a little then drops the piano on his head

NI you seem very confident that Labour will reconfigure society

― HAVE YOU SEEN ME? Please don't hesitate (imago), Thursday, 24 October 2013 08:32 (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

"How can you be so flippant......?"

Well, watch what you ask for: Ouch!

I don't really expect Russell Brand to have a solution to the fundamental political problems of our era but something something revolution isn't it. Still it's nice that he's out there even if he does sometimes sound like someone in the chillout room of Brixton Megadog in 1993.

*chortles*

That said, this is a good takedown:

http://lustigletter.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/russell-brand-not-only-daft-but.html?spref=tw

no it's the pompous windbaggery of a cunt

& is in fact far more dangerous than anything Brand's said as it apologises for prolonging the voter-voted dichotomy

i'm by no means a brand cheerleader (can't bring myself to watch the 10min interview or read the zillion-word unedited screed tbh) but that lustig blog is pure distilled establishment reactionary that makes me want to shout NO, YOU HAVE FOBBED US OFF WITH THIS BULLSHIT ENOUGH, YOUR TIME IS DONE

^

it's also snobbish & dismissive

ya. comparing our current electoral situation to one in which black south africans could vote for the anc is ermmm a little bit disingenuous at least. i'm really not sure what him or paxman are looking for from brand. why isn't a call to organise a valid starting point?

The question is: organise what? When pressed by Paxman on what exactly he would do, RB fell back on our old friend Communism, which has repeatedly proven so successful over the last century.

In other words, he has a great grasp of the problem but I'm not convinced that he has a feasible solution.

I don't really expect Russell Brand to have a solution to the fundamental political problems of our era

^ this

http://www.channel4.com/news/russell-brand-jeremy-paxman-anti-capitalist-revolution-bbc

^^^ This is better.

this is quite a serious discussion about a new statesman piece that talks about nothing in particular

"To genuinely make a difference, we must become different; make the tiny, longitudinal shift. Meditate, direct our love indiscriminately and our condemnation exclusively at those with power. Revolt in whatever way we want, with the spontaneity of the London rioters, with the certainty and willingness to die of religious fundamentalists or with the twinkling mischief of the trickster. We should include everyone, judging no one, without harming anyone."

So how does RB propose people make like rioters or 9/11 bombers "without harming anyone"?

xps i don't disagree marcello, but neither paxman or lustig seem particularly interested in the problem that he's grasped and that he's providing a v rare mainstream voice for. lots of people are thinking hard about the question of what kinds of organisation would be suitable and adequate for this kind of far left project - e.g. http://novaramedia.com/2013/07/turn-out-dont-burn-out-four-suggested-projects/ - and if brand can be someone who helps people see that this kind of thing is happening, then, gr8.

It's all a bit Let's Levitate the Pentagon

NI you seem very confident that Labour will reconfigure society

― HAVE YOU SEEN ME? Please don't hesitate (imago), Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:32 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you read too much into it, i'm at least confident labour won't continue hammering the poor & weak in favour of their rich mates in londontown, or at least to the same degree. this really need to spelled out?

Yvette Cooper said this week that a Labour government wouldn't repeal the coalition's Immigration Act. So she and they can go fuck themselves. I think this isn't being spelt out enough.

what should i do to get the immigration act repealed?

my options currently appears to be:
- vote for someone
- don't vote
- shag russell brand

or moan about russell brand's audacity to write a shit article on new statesman

It's a bamboozlement, for sure.

i'm at least confident labour won't continue hammering the poor & weak in favour of their rich mates in londontown

I thought they were promising to be tougher on Welfare?

with the certainty and willingness to die of religious fundamentalists

This is a thoroughly bizarre line.

we should also judge no one which should really include politicians

The whole paragraph is a shocker really. After saying several things that are true but were widely discussed during Occupy and similar post-2008 movements, he kind of craps out at the end. I'm surprised he's had such a glowing reception for this.

i'm at least confident labour won't continue hammering the poor & weak in favour of their rich mates in londontown, or at least to the same degree.

THEY'VE GOT MY VOTE

"A New Britain In Which Government Doesn't Continue to Hammer the Poor and Weak to the Same Degree"