Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[Pickman's model]

Outside of foreign policy, human rights, etc Corbyn has been quite cautious.

even by your low standards that's a poor effort.

 

[kabbes]

Out of interest, where do they use that "wording"?

When you sign up as a registered supporter.

I did it as a three quidder last time round. The wording you click you accept is a subset of that on their membership terms and conditions.

Terms and Conditions

Applications to become an Affiliated or Registered Supporter will be rejected if:

• The Labour Party has reason to believe that you do not support the Labour Party’s aims and values.
• You are not registered as an elector at the same address provided in your application. The Labour Party may require you to provide evidence in support of this.
• You were excluded from previous membership of the Labour Party or your membership ended while you were subject to suspension.

In the event of your application being rejected your application fee will not be refunded and you will have no right to appeal.

Note "do not support" not "have not always supported". There's nothing in there about having a spotless history of unquestioning loyalty. Who the fuck has such a thing in any case?

 

[two sheds]

Are you now or have you ever been tweeting in support of the Green Party?

 

[J Ed]

Are you now or have you ever been tweeting in support of the Green Party?

no

 

[Sprocket.]

I am entitled and have received confirmation of my right to vote, yet i somehow feel that I will not receive my ballot form because I have upset and rattled quite a few of the faithful over the years.
I will keep you posted on developments.

 

[kabbes]

They get to keep your £25 too. Great way to alienate for all time somebody that has just decided to support you

 

[two sheds]

no

So you want the world to implode in an implosion of environmental nastiness

 

[Sprocket.]

On a side note I received two letters from Smith today even though I did text back NO for any further contact, yet Jezzer as not reached out yet and it all seems to be a fiasco to say the least.

 

[two sheds]

On a side note I received two letters from Smith today even though I did text back NO for any further contact, yet Jezzer as not reached out yet and it all seems to be a fiasco to say the least.

Shows he's quietly confident as opposed to Smith who's panicking upon panic.

 

[Sprocket.]

Maybe it's because I only signed up as an affiliate the day after the election was announced!

 

[tangerinedream]

Some interesting if vague and wishy-washy stuff in today's Digital Manifesto (PDF)

Already attracting fire from people who don't appear to know anything about software

Who doesn't like it? It seems fairly straightforward stuff to me.

 

[Vintage Paw]

I liked the programming for everyone thing. It's a principle that should be rolled out universally. No private profits from public money.

 

[Diamond]

When you sign up as a registered supporter.

I did it as a three quidder last time round. The wording you click you accept is a subset of that on their membership terms and conditions.

Terms and Conditions


Note "do not support" not "have not always supported". There's nothing in there about having a spotless history of unquestioning loyalty. Who the fuck has such a thing in any case?

It's certainly not as crystal clear as you read it, to my mind at least.

"Reason to believe" alone is sufficient to undermine your reading.

 

[mauvais]

Who doesn't like it? It seems fairly straightforward stuff to me.

Corbyn promises to 'democratise the internet' - Politics live

The open source software bit has a bunch of people up in arms, saying it would be mandatory (which tbf he might have said out loud, but is not what the manifesto says) for all kinds of wrongheaded reasons like security concerns. Oh but you can't write OSS for GCHQ and the military etc. Well, yes you can, and we do.

The platform cooperative bit is vague but to the extent that it's anything coherent, it aligns with a vision that The Co-Op were expressing in a talk (on technoethics no less) that I attended last week.

I liked the programming for everyone thing. It's a principle that should be rolled out universally. No private profits from public money.

This is inescapably balls though.

 

[two sheds]

This is inescapably balls though.

In what way? i.e. no private gain from public money

 

[belboid]

'Reason to believe' simply translates to 'we can do what we want'

 

[two sheds]

'Reason to believe' simply translates to 'we can do what we want'

Yes I think that's the precise legal term.

 

[mauvais]

In what way? i.e. no private gain from public money

There's a vast amount wrong with government IT procurement, at every turn and in every conceivable way, but when you want to commission a massive, national scale enterprise-grade system, you need to contract an entity able to assume both ownership and the very large risks associated with it. With risk comes reward, and that reward is profit.

Now you can argue that it should be done in-house, not by the private sector - and the UK government is no stranger to in-house software development by the way - but the 'profit' is then merely somewhere else, most likely contractors, whom you require for flexibility, and even the permie SW engineers' remuneration. Otherwise you're arguing that it should be voluntary costs-basis work, or god forbid 'democratised' in the worst sense of open sourced - in which case good luck finding anyone competent that's even remotely interested in your nightmare.

There's potentially lots of profit in OSS too, in case that escapes anyone. It's not free as in beer.

 

[Diamond]

'Reason to believe' simply translates to 'we can do what we want'

It is an agreement around the membership of a political party with that party being broadly able to set down its membership requirements as it sees fit.

It would be mighty odd if the party could not do that or even chose to fetter its discretion in the manner that kabbes' reading implies.

 

[two sheds]

ok fair play - my point was largely what as I recall Chomsky remarks about the state (i.e. all of us) often putting in the money to perform basic research (e.g. BT when it was a public company) which is then made available free of charge to companies who develop their own intellectual property from it. Public money funding private gain.

 

[two sheds]

It is an agreement around the membership of a political party with that party being broadly able to set down its membership requirements as it sees fit.

true that, and may I say profound

It would be mighty odd if the party could not do that or even chose to fetter its discretion in the manner that kabbes' reading implies.

And how did kabbes imply it fettered its discretion?

 

[J Ed]

So you want the world to implode in an implosion of environmental nastiness

Yes I love it

 

[two sheds]

Yes I love it

thought so

 

[Diamond]

And how did kabbes imply it fettered its discretion?

By arguing that that wording limited the assessment for membership/affiliation etc strictly to how the applicant presents themselves in the "here and now"

 

[kabbes]

Oh fuck off Desmond

 

[Diamond]

Sooo....... no counter-argument kabbes?

 

[kabbes]

Was "fuck off" not clear enough for you? How's your "hounding off the board" going for you, by the way?

 

[two sheds]

By arguing that that wording limited the assessment for membership/affiliation etc strictly to how the applicant presents themselves in the "here and now"

But where precisely did the assessment for membership/affiliation etc suggest that the applicant *not* strictly limit themselves to how the applicant present themselves in the "here and now"?

p.s. what kabbes said.

 

[Diamond]

Anyways - back to JC - in the event that he bows out and McDonnell picks up the baton, would JC supporters here be happy to support him?

 

[Diamond]

But where precisely did the assessment for membership/affiliation etc suggest that the applicant *not* strictly limit themselves to how the applicant present themselves in the "here and now"?

p.s. what kabbes said.

You've lost me now