Digby wrote:Listening to both major parties on the latest cyber attacks then so far at least they've not put forward anyone to talk to the media who has even a remote clue what they're talking about other than they don't want to spend any money. Labour dropping the ball more however as they can't even get any traction on the idea the Tories gutted the capital spend budgets in the NHS to meet daily/ongoing spends.
Both parties are to some degree getting away with no coherent policy around the cyber attacks as those conducting the interviews haven't got a clue either, IT really isn't a job for John Humphrys
The NHS have had an 'interesting' take on cyber security for years. They have some real challenges, including finance, but the biggest problem historically has been the lack of governance surrounding their IT.
As an aside, I read a report earlier about the 'hackers who stole the information', which is just incorrect.
On Friday night, Microsoft issued emergency patches for unsupported versions of Windows that did not receive the March update – namely WinXP, Server 2003, and Windows 8 RT. Up until this point, these systems – and all other unpatched pre-Windows 10 computers – were being menaced by WannaCrypt, and variants of the software nasty would be going after these systems in the coming weeks, too.
The Redmond tech giant was praised for issuing the fixes for its legacy Windows builds. It stopped supporting Windows XP in April 2014, and Server 2003 in July 2015, for instance, so the updates were welcome.
However, our analysis of the metadata within these patches shows these files were built and digitally signed by Microsoft on February 11, 13 and 17, the same week it had prepared updates for its supported versions of Windows. In other words, Microsoft had fixes ready to go for its legacy systems in mid-February but only released them to the public last Friday after the world was engulfed in WannaCrypt.
Here's the dates in the patches:
Windows 8 RT (64-bit x86): Feb 13, 2017
Windows 8 RT (32-bit x86): Feb 13, 2017
Windows Server 2003 (64-bit x86): Feb 11, 2017
Windows Server 2003 (32-bit x86): Feb 11, 2017
Windows XP: Feb 11, 2017
Windows XP Embedded: Feb 17, 2017
Maybe I misunderstood the information I had then!
Not a huge surprise thought. MS wants the world to upgrade, and spend money in the progress. HMG paid millions for bespoke support to XP post 2014, which stopped 12 months or so ago, but the bigger departments cannot respond to change that quickly.
Digby wrote:Listening to both major parties on the latest cyber attacks then so far at least they've not put forward anyone to talk to the media who has even a remote clue what they're talking about other than they don't want to spend any money. Labour dropping the ball more however as they can't even get any traction on the idea the Tories gutted the capital spend budgets in the NHS to meet daily/ongoing spends.
Both parties are to some degree getting away with no coherent policy around the cyber attacks as those conducting the interviews haven't got a clue either, IT really isn't a job for John Humphrys
The NHS have had an 'interesting' take on cyber security for years. They have some real challenges, including finance, but the biggest problem historically has been the lack of governance surrounding their IT.
As an aside, I read a report earlier about the 'hackers who stole the information', which is just incorrect.
Again a lack of understanding around IT is likely to the fore. We're good at this in Britain, a proud history exists of promoting those with a Classics degree to run Chemical Engineering firms and so on
I see McCluskey has moved quickly to distance himself from the comments of McCluskey, McCluskey thinks Labour can't win and would even do well to only lose a few dozen seats, whereas McCluskey thinks Labour can win.
Digby wrote:I see McCluskey has moved quickly to distance himself from the comments of McCluskey, McCluskey thinks Labour can't win and would even do well to only lose a few dozen seats, whereas McCluskey thinks Labour can win.
The divisions between McCluskey and McCluskey cannot be helping Labour's cause. Maybe they could arrange a meeting between the two McCluskey factions to resolve the issue.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Where are the Tories front bench..?.
I have seen nothing of Hunt or Rudd since the election was announced. One comes from a dynasty of crooks and the other is going headlong into becoming the most unpopular UK politician since Oswald Moseley. If they're going to hold down the big posts we really should be allowed to question them.
The Tory front bench looks very odd, and any number of them should be under pressure to do and say some very daft things, but they're not. All the Tories need to do to win is do nothing, say nothing, and not lose track of where Boris is
The front bench will not be getting anywhere near the front page. Crosby wants this as May v Corbyn, and why not when the latter goes off script at his own manifesto launch and then backtracks later the same day.
On that point where is the Labour shadow cabinet. Other than the odd (in both senses of the word) interjection from McDonnell I haven't heard a peep out of any of them. Though, I'll admit that maybe because I've just learnt to ignore people who've gained they're job solely because they were last person standing.
The front bench will not be getting anywhere near the front page. Crosby wants this as May v Corbyn, and why not when the latter goes off script at his own manifesto launch and then backtracks later the same day.
On that point where is the Labour shadow cabinet. Other than the odd (in both senses of the word) interjection from McDonnell I haven't heard a peep out of any of them. Though, I'll admit that maybe because I've just learnt to ignore people who've gained they're job solely because they were last person standing.
I think Jezza has realised that It's best that Dianne Abbot says nothing in public. Certainly nothing involving sumz.
Digby wrote:I see McCluskey has moved quickly to distance himself from the comments of McCluskey, McCluskey thinks Labour can't win and would even do well to only lose a few dozen seats, whereas McCluskey thinks Labour can win.
The divisions between McCluskey and McCluskey cannot be helping Labour's cause. Maybe they could arrange a meeting between the two McCluskey factions to resolve the issue.
Based on what one sees of McCluskey he'd denounce such a suggestion
Digby wrote:Listening to both major parties on the latest cyber attacks then so far at least they've not put forward anyone to talk to the media who has even a remote clue what they're talking about other than they don't want to spend any money. Labour dropping the ball more however as they can't even get any traction on the idea the Tories gutted the capital spend budgets in the NHS to meet daily/ongoing spends.
Both parties are to some degree getting away with no coherent policy around the cyber attacks as those conducting the interviews haven't got a clue either, IT really isn't a job for John Humphrys
The NHS have had an 'interesting' take on cyber security for years. They have some real challenges, including finance, but the biggest problem historically has been the lack of governance surrounding their IT.
As an aside, I read a report earlier about the 'hackers who stole the information', which is just incorrect.
Again a lack of understanding around IT is likely to the fore. We're good at this in Britain, a proud history exists of promoting those with a Classics degree to run Chemical Engineering firms and so on
The number of times Ive explained issues like patching and phishing to senior personnel, both in public and private sectors, and known that I have been wasting my time. Its not a case of not explaining the issues in a simple enough manner, showing cyber security risks alongside other business risks is not difficult to achieve. I think there remains this perception that the whole cyber security issue is a bit of a red herring with no real impact.
The front bench will not be getting anywhere near the front page. Crosby wants this as May v Corbyn, and why not when the latter goes off script at his own manifesto launch and then backtracks later the same day.
On that point where is the Labour shadow cabinet. Other than the odd (in both senses of the word) interjection from McDonnell I haven't heard a peep out of any of them. Though, I'll admit that maybe because I've just learnt to ignore people who've gained they're job solely because they were last person standing.
After the pure comedy of the Abbot interview, I think they are being kept tightly under wraps so we can all marvel at Corbyn's brilliance without distraction.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Emily Thornberry had been out and about. Champion of the workers such a short time after decrying white van man.
The same Thornbury who couldn't contribute effectively to the local election media event because her iPhone had died? I must have glossed over her contribution to the electoral debate whilst watching the grass grow. By no means the worst performing member of the shadow cabinet, but only because Abbot takes a lot of beating.
I would strongly recommend watching Jamie Oliver's interview on C4 news, re: new school dinners policy.
His knife work is very impressive. I'd like to see more interviews with experts in their respective fields. I'm sure there used to be a lot more 'expert opinion' on telly. Open University on bbc2. etc.
Last edited by kk67 on Sat May 20, 2017 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Zhivago wrote:Labour up to 35%... 9 points gap only now.
It's not even a tiny whoop
Still seems daft to me given had they done with a Chuka Umunna there'd be a decent chance they'd have had a 9% lead at this stage, but for the sake of being pure to their origins they've instead opted for glorious defeat. I do get the idea one should strive for one's ideals but glorious defeat was already available to anyone who wanted to join the Socialist Party, and to voluntarily make the Labour Party less popular than a possible (indeed very likely) 3rd term austerity government is barking sodding mad.
The polls are narrowing. Labour are now routinely above 30% while, the Tory lead is slipping.
And yet.....there are dire warnings of Labour losing anything from 50 to 90 seats, some of them that could be described as safe.
Labour cannot poll 32-35% and still lose that number of seats so what on earth is happening?
I'm not completely sure, but I suspect regional and local factors will come into play. Some areas will see big swings, while others wont. Some good local MP's will hang on while the odd safe looking seat will change hands.
What is pretty much a certainty is that the Tories will win and will increase their majority. Its just a matter of by how many.
Best case scenario at this point is May's lead increases to less than 30 seats and she'd not be able to wholly ignore the pro-European element of the PCP
fivepointer wrote:The polls are narrowing. Labour are now routinely above 30% while, the Tory lead is slipping.
And yet.....there are dire warnings of Labour losing anything from 50 to 90 seats, some of them that could be described as safe.
Labour cannot poll 32-35% and still lose that number of seats so what on earth is happening?
I'm not completely sure, but I suspect regional and local factors will come into play. Some areas will see big swings, while others wont. Some good local MP's will hang on while the odd safe looking seat will change hands.
What is pretty much a certainty is that the Tories will win and will increase their majority. Its just a matter of by how many.
It can be true. Our electoral system is all about vote distribution. It may well be that in Liverpool and Manchester and London the Labour vote is increasing, but they already have enough votes to win those seats. People who previously said they'd never vote for Corbyn are no doubt looking at the potential for a massive Conservative majority and taking fright. I'd expect in previous polling some solid Labour supporters were saying that they would vote for someone else in the hope they might get a chance of leader.
Also I think Labour have run a pretty effective campaign right out of the Lynton Crosbie/GOP playbook: identify a "them" that you are against, then say that only you can nullify "them" and promise literally anything that you can for those who are not "them" in the full knowledge that you won't do half of it.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Digby wrote:Best case scenario at this point is May's lead increases to less than 30 seats and she'd not be able to wholly ignore the pro-European element of the PCP
Actually the best case scenario is that she gets a stonking majority so she can ignore the right wing of her party and go with her instincts which are (hopefully) nowhere near as mental. It seems to me that she's currently following what logic there is to the Brexit decision because the braying mentalists can call her a traitor and get rid if she doesn't. On the orbs hand if she wins the sort of majority that they haven't seen in 3 decades and will have some actual room for negotiation.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Digby wrote:Best case scenario at this point is May's lead increases to less than 30 seats and she'd not be able to wholly ignore the pro-European element of the PCP
Actually the best case scenario is that she gets a stonking majority so she can ignore the right wing of her party and go with her instincts which are (hopefully) nowhere near as mental. It seems to me that she's currently following what logic there is to the Brexit decision because the braying mentalists can call her a traitor and get rid if she doesn't. On the orbs hand if she wins the sort of majority that they haven't seen in 3 decades and will have some actual room for negotiation.
It's a nice thought. Though so far the only time I've been pro May was during the Conservative leadership campaign, other than that I can't say I really take to her, and I wouldn't much trust her in advance.
