Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Well, it seems to be in more or less the same category as Katherine Birbalsingh’s absurd accusation of racism against Jess Phillips. Labour is, rightly, playing that with a straight bat, saying Birbalsingh’s complaint will be duly investigated. Lawson’s case seems to be being played with the same straight bat - I understand he has not (yet) been expelled, but is under investigation with a period in which formally to respond to the allegation directed against him. I don’t really see how the fact that the alleged matter relates to two years ago is relevant.

Yeah, he hasn't been expelled, and I doubt he would have been if he's responded seriously to it. Something like "I was just praising cooperation between parties in the abstract" and it's case closed. But he didn't. He got the hump, and he's winning the media battle as was very predictable. Somebody in there is paid to see traps like this. The relevance of two years ago is that it's not a burning political issue that needs a formal response. The Birbalsingh accusations, as well as being more serious, are something happening now in real time. and Bridget Phillipson is right to say it should be investigated.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 5:57 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 1:20 pm

Youngian wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 10:40 am Party is putting stick about to avoid headlines like ‘Labour in cahoots with tree huggers who’ll take your car away and give it to illegal immigrants.’

That doesn't really explain Neal Lawson, who's a not particularly well-known bloke who bangs on about PR.

Neal is very well known in Labour Party circles and is a decent bloke. But he is well aware of what the party’s rules say about expressing support for candidates standing against official Labour candidates.

There are a lot of things that are perfectly acceptable, just not out loud.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 7:46 pm Somebody in there is paid to see traps like this.

I don’t really see it as a “trap”. Neal Lawson has been precariously treading this line for quite a few years now, so I do not really view him as having a legitimate grievance. A simple submission to the party that in advocating a vote against Labour he was merely exploring his advocacy of co-operation, together with an undertaking never to repeat the offence would have put this to bed. But Neal has instead chosen to call in the lawyers.
He’s been given opportunities to recant, but has declined them.

All right, not a trap, in that nobody laid it, but a PR disaster waiting to happen.

In other news, here's AC Grayling. I assume he wants Labour to stand down in Westminster seats. They frequently don't contest seats in local government where somebody else might beat the Tories, and did exactly that in mine. Doing it in Westminster seats would be a bad idea, i think, because anyone prioritising beating the Tories can look up the vote from last time in about 2 seconds. It's not like the European Elections in 1994 where I had to guess who was better placed, and wrongly chose the Lib Dems, when they started way behind Labour. What do you get from standing down candidates?

There seems to be quite a lot of misunderstanding and/or memory failures about the notion of “progressive alliances”, from Anthony Grayling and others.

There was a sort of loose alliance in 1997, which was really just an informal agreement between Tony Blair and Paddy Ashdown not to campaign too rigorously in seats where either the LibDems or Labour were better placed to unseat a Tory . The arrangement benefitted both parties considerably, but they both stood candidates in every seat.

Yeah, and that's exactly what's happening at the moment. And it's absolutely fine.

If a third placed Labour or LD candidate stands down instead of standing as a paper candidate, they can’t deliver all their voters to the main challenger and in danger of adding to the Tory vote.
There was also Alistair Campbell’s astroturfing organisation in 1997, the Tactical Voting Society which helped corral voters.

The more I think about it, the more it seems that a formal, public alliance would be an absolute gift to both the Tories and the sort of moron who still thinks it's clever to say "Keith" and "twenty points ahead ".

John McDonnell has accused Starmer of 'factionalism'.

That's pretty fucking rich...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... gn=KARANGA

And what I said to Keir, is we've always been a broad church. This doesn't help the party, and we're always successful when we're a broad church.
"Previous leaders and prime ministers of the Labour Party have always had in their cabinet a broad church approach - left, right and centre. They've tolerated different views within the party.

Then his trousers caught fire.

They've tolerated different views within the party.

Somebody explain to these cretins that sitting on your hands and keeping your mouth shut while your supporters tell people with differing views to "fuck off and join the Tories" is actually tacitly backing your supporters, not tolerating different views.

Twat.

I think John has a point- what's the point of fucking about with Jamie Driscoll and Neal Lawson, to give two recent examples? But I can understand why Sir Keir is careful with MPs. Doesn't take all that many Corbyns to fuck a Labour Government up. Had Kinnock won in 1992, he'd have had very similar problems to Major, with Corbyn and co fucking him up over the Maastricht Treaty.

Everyone's seems to be going bannanas about this.

As with asylum, the DWP gives the impression of not exactly having an excess of human decision making at the heart of it, so not sure I'd have gone there.

This isn't filling me with confidence either.

I suppose we would be a fair bit further on with the technology than 2009, but yeah.

To be fair it’s about future proofing this stuff, I’ve been done some analysis of my own regarding AI and the service I deliver.

I’d be surprised if anyone assesses this stuff fully, most are put through a machine, those HC1 forms are typical.

A.I. looks to be this year's "The Millenium Bug" in an ongoing series about "Computers, scary and hard to understand".


Journalists capable of joining the dots may notice the Fujitsu / Post Office Vs Sub-postmasters scandal is still making headlines due to unresolved compensation.
It wasn't A.I. as such, but was an example of removing human judgement from a process.

"When I hear the phrase 'AI' I reach for my revolver."

Boiler wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 9:54 am "When I hear the phrase 'AI' I reach for my revolver."

AI robots would be fantastic for directors and cinematographers, no uppity technicians to deal with and far cheaper to realise their vision.