Saturday 3rd & Sunday 4th January 2015

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 4:02 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:This isn't legal surely?

Conservatives would cap redundancy payouts for NHS, BBC and civil service

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... mentpage=4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Conservatives would stop public sector workers in the NHS, BBC and civil service getting six-figure redundancy packages if they win the election, the party will say on Saturday.

In a new manifesto pledge, the Tories will commit to capping payouts at less than £95,000.

The party said it would legislate against big redundancy payments as one of the first acts of a Tory government, as payouts in recent years have included packages worth more than £450,000 in the civil service, £500,000 in the NHS and more than £1m in the BBC.

Treasury minister Priti Patel said it was not right that taxpayers on low salaries have to “fund huge payouts when well-paid people get made redundant”.

“We’re going to do something that’s long overdue and that will bring some fairness back to the system – we’re going to introduce a new public sector redundancy pay cap,” she said.
So, you've had 4 and a half years - why didn't you do something before?

I can't actually think it's legal to override previously signed employment contracts. Anyone know?

Aside from the dubious legality of the proposal - I can see the courts being busy - it's about as clear a signal as they could possibly make that there are going to a very large number of redundancies in these organisations should the feral rats get a majority, and this is the pre-emptive attempt to keep costs down. Given that this proposal will apply to anyone earning over £27000 a year, that's a very wide net indeed, which I think hints heavily as to the scale of job losses.

Spacedone · Post by **Spacedone** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 4:03 pm

ohsocynical wrote:I've not been online for a few days so have only just seen the 'Let's Stay on the Road To' Conservative election ads.

What dumbass at Tory head office chose that slogan?

Grant 'Advertising Genius' Shapps?

If nobody has mocked up a Road To Wigan Pier poster yet with that slogan then they're missing a trick.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 4:06 pm

Thanks Tizme, sums up my point beautifully.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 4:08 pm

Spacedone wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:This isn't legal surely?

Conservatives would cap redundancy payouts for NHS, BBC and civil service

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... mentpage=4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, you've had 4 and a half years - why didn't you do something before?

I can't actually think it's legal to override previously signed employment contracts. Anyone know?
I assume that stuff isn't written into contracts for a laugh, but because "top people" negotiate it.

As the example of Sharon Shoemith shows, you can cop a load of completely unfair crap and be forced out of your job. I'd certainly want some protection against that.
Employment law has been written in such a way that there are exemptions from it so that the Government can do pretty much whatever it wants to public sector contracts as long as they do it for everyone within the service (as I found to my cost not long after joining the NHS when Agenda For Change happened). The only thing people will be able to do is refuse the new contract, at which point they've 'voluntarily' given up their job and they receive sod all in redundancy pay.

I've highlighted that part because either you're wrong (and I dare say you aren't) or else the proposed threshold I was hearing about earlier is a lie to sugar the pill for some grades. I reckon that it's a lie, and that all employees stand to be absolutely shafted if they get in and enact this monstrosity.

That threshold thing is worth tweeting I think, but I'd want to be absolutely clear on the facts.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 4:18 pm

ohsocynical wrote:I've not been online for a few days so have only just seen the 'Let's Stay on the Road To' Conservative election ads.

What dumbass at Tory head office chose that slogan?

Have a guess Ohso.

Best of three, or possibly four? Well one of them was defending it on WATO yesterday anyway. New e book coming out soon ... 'How To Create Crap Slogans That Rebound On You Faster Than You Can Say Beer & Bingo'.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 4:28 pm

Another lie put to bed by Mike Sivier.

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/01/0 ... by-labour/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Spacedone · Post by **Spacedone** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 4:30 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:
Spacedone wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: I assume that stuff isn't written into contracts for a laugh, but because "top people" negotiate it.

As the example of Sharon Shoemith shows, you can cop a load of completely unfair crap and be forced out of your job. I'd certainly want some protection against that.
Employment law has been written in such a way that there are exemptions from it so that the Government can do pretty much whatever it wants to public sector contracts as long as they do it for everyone within the service (as I found to my cost not long after joining the NHS when Agenda For Change happened). The only thing people will be able to do is refuse the new contract, at which point they've 'voluntarily' given up their job and they receive sod all in redundancy pay.
I've highlighted that part because either you're wrong (and I dare say you aren't) or else the proposed threshold I was hearing about earlier is a lie to sugar the pill for some grades. I reckon that it's a lie, and that all employees stand to be absolutely shafted if they get in and enact this monstrosity.

That threshold thing is worth tweeting I think, but I'd want to be absolutely clear on the facts.

It's likely I'm wrong tbh. I think the exemption only applies to collective changes that have been negotiated and agreed with the unions. When I tried fighting against a £4000 wage reduction within weeks of joining the NHS I think the change had just been agreed and I was one of those whose jobs were downgraded to a lower pay grade.

But then again this Government do whatever the hell they like so I wouldn't put it past them changing the law so they can do whatever they want.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 4:32 pm

Willow904 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:

Being from an older generation, I quite like our history and of course the monarchy plays a huge part in it. I'd hate to see it thrown away. However, I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that the Royals should be self funding. They can stay, but must pay for their lifestyle. I don't feel that would be unreasonable given their wealth.
It might mean they'd have to close some of their palaces, but they aren't dependent on them to keep up their life style.
What made me change my thoughts was a couple of years ago when I read the Queen or her advisers, had applied for help under fuel poverty criteria. That really was taking the piss.
There's something to be said for a ceremonial Monarch, like a ceremonial Lord Mayor, for the history, tourism etc. Currently, however, the Queen is an integral part of our political system and a question mark hangs over how representative, democratic and modern that makes our constitutional monarchy. Along with other monoliths like the Lords, the Remembrancer and honours lists, these trappings of power promote the idea of an "elite".....and just lately I've pretty much had enough of "elites". Barely a year after gaining power Osborne tells us it's time to stop bashing the bankers, despite doing nothing to prevent a repeat of the 2007/8 credit crunch. Part of why he can get away with such a brazen attempt to protect his wealthy fraudulent friends is because our whole political system is geared up to look after them. I honestly don't believe anything will change until we change the system. Even just a debate about whether we need a monarchy and precisely what that monarch's role should be would be useful. If the House of Lords is to be abolished, the role of the monarchy really does need to be scruntinised, especially the feudal role of the Royals as landowners. You can't move without tripping over Duchy land round where I live. Is that really how a modern democratic country should be?

I've never wanted their money and would hate to be one of them, so I'd err on the side of simply leveling the playing fields. They leave me alone and I'll happily keep my distance and let them keep their exclusivity as long as they stop sucking on the public tit.

Judging by the amount of 'stuff', she/they own, they could make a trip to 'Uncles', every so often and keep going for years. Or there's always Wonga

If she/they were self funding I can't see why things couldn't stay as they are. Obviously they'll never stop trying to influence decisions that affect their wealth, but uppers rising to the top and looking after their own will never stop unless we slaughter every single person with blue blood.

I'd also like to see EU subsidies for wealthy landowners phased out. It wouldn't change their lifestyle to any great extent no matter how they protest it would.
If it did dip a little it might do them the world of good. As we well know food in your stomach, a roof over your head and being able to look after your family adequately is all we need and in this day and age it is a right. That their idea of adequate doesn't match ours shouldn't mean a good healthy shit when there are hungry children scavenging for food.

They took a hit to their lifestyles after WW1 and the big changes after WW2. They pissed and moaned but they survived.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 4:33 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Another lie put to bed by Mike Sivier.

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/01/0 ... by-labour/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good piece. Will look forward to someone using it the next time Lib Dem Voice has one of its periodic bleats about Labour being hypocrites re bedroom tax .... sheesh the hypocrisy in that stance.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 4:41 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote: Aside from the dubious legality of the proposal - I can see the courts being busy - it's about as clear a signal as they could possibly make that there are going to a very large number of redundancies in these organisations should the feral rats get a majority, and this is the pre-emptive attempt to keep costs down. Given that this proposal will apply to anyone earning over £27000 a year, that's a very wide net indeed, which I think hints heavily as to the scale of job losses.

I'm firmly of the opinion that if the Tories got a majority the civil service as we know won't exist in 5 years time. There will be a shell simply handing out contracts to the private sector and buying in advice from their tame thinktanks - the PX infestation of the DfE is only the start of it.

At the end the private sector takeover of the state will be complete. And pretty much irreversible once the know-how which is there now gets made redundant and the 10 year contracts get written.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 4:44 pm

Dr. Brian May ‏@DrBrianMay 14h14 hours ago
OK - If you guys get me 10,000 subscribers " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; … by next week I promise to play some guitar on BrianTalks - OK? Deal ? Bri

[youtube]1xKCN1cTFQE[/youtube]

Brian May has started his own YouTube channel ... Brian Talks. This particular intro I find a little bit spooky .... but he says he's going to try to pull a lot of things together under the banner of 'common decency'. So I'm guessing he is wanting to talk about matters of social justice, being the best human beings we can be, and animal welfare ...

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 4:45 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Another lie put to bed by Mike Sivier.

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/01/0 ... by-labour/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Good piece. Will look forward to someone using it the next time Lib Dem Voice has one of its periodic bleats about Labour being hypocrites re bedroom tax .... sheesh the hypocrisy in that stance.

That one has always wound me up anyway, trying to conflate the LHA and the Bedroom Tax; the LHA is not the best piece of legislation, but it was at least an attempt to level the playing field between social and private housing, whereas the BT is a piece of nasty ideological bullying, pure and simple.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 4:50 pm

Laura Marcus retweeted
stephen jones ‏@bassmadman 18 hrs18 hours ago
Tory poster claims '760,000 more businesses'. @factcheck highlights how 707,200 of these have no employees. http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/fac ... um=twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Worth remembering, especially when those shits at the DWP Tweet some rubbish about how many are back in work or running their own 'succesful' business's.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 5:08 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote: Aside from the dubious legality of the proposal - I can see the courts being busy - it's about as clear a signal as they could possibly make that there are going to a very large number of redundancies in these organisations should the feral rats get a majority, and this is the pre-emptive attempt to keep costs down. Given that this proposal will apply to anyone earning over £27000 a year, that's a very wide net indeed, which I think hints heavily as to the scale of job losses.
I'm firmly of the opinion that if the Tories got a majority the civil service as we know won't exist in 5 years time. There will be a shell simply handing out contracts to the private sector and buying in advice from their tame thinktanks - the PX infestation of the DfE is only the start of it.

At the end the private sector takeover of the state will be complete. And pretty much irreversible once the know-how which is there now gets made redundant and the 10 year contracts get written.

Well said.

Any pay-offs from private businesses will of course be commercially secret.

Labour really needs to follow through on making contractors liable to FOIA.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 5:36 pm

Is it TE who's our resident rail expert? I'm sure there was a post in recent days from someone here who knows the industry quite well. Whoever it is, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the below:

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-ed ... KgoLXs0-g1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 5:42 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Iain Duncan Smith to accelerate benefit reforms to stop Labour reversing them
Benefits reform will be one of the key battlegrounds at May’s general election and the suggestion that Mr Duncan Smith wants to bed in fully his benefit reforms will infuriate Labour
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... -them.html

Article repeats the, um, 'false belief' that the business case for UC has been 'signed off.' No surprise that GIDS wants to push things as fast and far as he can in hope that his Grand Project will stand. But any games he plays in Regulations can still be altered by the next government.

TBH, many ~ if not all ~ of the changes UC introduces could have been put onto the existing benefits in the first place. After all, a range of benefits were paid together before as a single payment. Conditionality has been altered before, sanctions adjusted, housing benefit management procedures adapted, allowances/exemptions introduced, removed, increased, reduced.

But doing it that way would not have associated his name with an Act of Parliament, would it?

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 5:43 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:Is it TE who's our resident rail expert? I'm sure there was a post in recent days from someone here who knows the industry quite well. Whoever it is, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the below:

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-ed ... KgoLXs0-g1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tubby I think.

However I Agree with this.

My feeling is to allow the franchises to lapse and get taken over by the state.”

As opposed to Caroline Lucas grandstanding.

This is effectively Labour policy as no private company will bid against a public sector bid.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 5:44 pm

Apologies if someone has already posted this. I've only just found it via

Jon Snow @jonsnowC4 · 5h 5 hours ago
Adam Curtis onto something serious here: A must watch:
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

[youtube]wcy8uLjRHPM[/youtube]

Published on Dec 31, 2014
From the BBC iPlayer service, a snippet from the documentary film maker Adam Curtis shown during Charlie Brooker's 2014 Wipe program.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 5:47 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote: Aside from the dubious legality of the proposal - I can see the courts being busy - it's about as clear a signal as they could possibly make that there are going to a very large number of redundancies in these organisations should the feral rats get a majority, and this is the pre-emptive attempt to keep costs down. Given that this proposal will apply to anyone earning over £27000 a year, that's a very wide net indeed, which I think hints heavily as to the scale of job losses.
I'm firmly of the opinion that if the Tories got a majority the civil service as we know won't exist in 5 years time. There will be a shell simply handing out contracts to the private sector and buying in advice from their tame thinktanks - the PX infestation of the DfE is only the start of it.

At the end the private sector takeover of the state will be complete. And pretty much irreversible once the know-how which is there now gets made redundant and the 10 year contracts get written.
Well said.

Any pay-offs from private businesses will of course be commercially secret.

Labour really needs to follow through on making contractors liable to FOIA.

I think the whole thing is just PR bullshit from the Tories. Utterly marginal and irrelevant which shows how bare their popular policy cupboard is.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 5:48 pm

I didn't like that Curtis thing really.

As I see it, Osborne's a pretty straightforward rightwing thinktanker in government sort, and Putin's a hard man with lots of tanks. I don't think we have to worry too much about shapeshifting.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 5:52 pm

Have a look at UKIP's candidate for Alyn & Deeside, kind of sums up what a confused bunch they are.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... cs-8363586" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 5:56 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:Is it TE who's our resident rail expert? I'm sure there was a post in recent days from someone here who knows the industry quite well. Whoever it is, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the below:

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-ed ... KgoLXs0-g1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Tubby I think.

However I Agree with this.

My feeling is to allow the franchises to lapse and get taken over by the state.”
As opposed to Caroline Lucas grandstanding.

This is effectively Labour policy as no private company will bid against a public sector bid.

I don't know much more than anyone else. I was just saying re Lucas. that the railways aren't how she wants them isn't that much to do with privatisation.

I think Wolmar is esteemed more as a historian of the railways than as an expert on how they're run now. He certainly wrote something fairly lame on HS2 for the LRB.

The nub of it, in policy wonk terms, are whether the money going to shareholders is more or less than the benefits of the competition for franchises. Lucas quoted a figure in passing, but it's the most important point. You can certainly make a case that there's loads of duplication in private train companies- Finance Director, Chief Executive etc.

I'm OK with the LAB policy but I accept that letting all franchises lapse and be run a la East Coast wouldn't be a disaster. Perhaps it should have been embraced. Everyone needs policies that get people out to vote. I do though get a bit annoyed that people like me and Tim Fenton who are basically OK with the current system are corporate cocksucking cowards.

rearofthestore · Post by **rearofthestore** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 6:00 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:Is it TE who's our resident rail expert? I'm sure there was a post in recent days from someone here who knows the industry quite well. Whoever it is, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the below:

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-ed ... KgoLXs0-g1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Tubby I think.

However I Agree with this.

My feeling is to allow the franchises to lapse and get taken over by the state.”
As opposed to Caroline Lucas grandstanding.

This is effectively Labour policy as no private company will bid against a public sector bid.

I also agree with Wolmar on letting the franchises lapse and I would also ensure that there are no successful attempts by train operating cos to amend franchise contracts after they have started.
I would also point out that not only do German Railways operate a substantial number of passenger franchises they also own a large proportion of the rail freight industry as they own DB Schenker.

rearofthestore · Post by **rearofthestore** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 6:08 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:Is it TE who's our resident rail expert? I'm sure there was a post in recent days from someone here who knows the industry quite well. Whoever it is, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the below:

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-ed ... KgoLXs0-g1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Tubby I think.

However I Agree with this.

My feeling is to allow the franchises to lapse and get taken over by the state.”
As opposed to Caroline Lucas grandstanding.

This is effectively Labour policy as no private company will bid against a public sector bid.
I don't know much more than anyone else. I was just saying re Lucas. that the railways aren't how she wants them isn't that much to do with privatisation.

I think Wolmar is esteemed more as a historian of the railways than as an expert on how they're run now. He certainly wrote something fairly lame on HS2 for the LRB.

The nub of it, in policy wonk terms, are whether the money going to shareholders is more or less than the benefits of the competition for franchises. Lucas quoted a figure in passing, but it's the most important point. You can certainly make a case that there's loads of duplication in private train companies- Finance Director, Chief Executive etc.

I'm OK with the LAB policy but I accept that letting all franchises lapse and be run a la East Coast wouldn't be a disaster. Perhaps it should have been embraced. Everyone needs policies that get people out to vote. I do though get a bit annoyed that people like me and Tim Fenton who are basically OK with the current system are corporate cocksucking cowards.

Having worked in the Rail Industry prior to privatisation and after at a senior level and now having a son working in the industry at a very senior level I despise the way the industry is structured. I would never ever insult anybody who disagrees but I am not OK with the present system.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 6:12 pm

Anyone on twitter its Hashtag #RoadToRuin time

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 6:33 pm

Tell us more, RearOTS.

One thing that looks odd about the current system is the role of DfT.

Train procurement has been nationalized, but why are the DfT doing it, and not Network Rail? The National Audit office said they ought to work more closely with Network Rail. Why not go further?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 6:36 pm

GENERAL ELECTION PREDICTIONS 27: LONDON EAST
http://iaindale.com/posts/2015/01/03/ge ... ondon-east

Right Tubby, Roger - and probably others lurking - one to get your gnashers into.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 6:39 pm

Mike Gapes MP retweeted
Michael H. ‏@MichaelH14 36m36 minutes ago
Supreme irony as David Cameron's #RoadToRuin is revealed as being a road in GERMANY ...

Das stimmt !

So Shapps didn't even tell the truth about that ...!

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 6:42 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Apologies if someone has already posted this. I've only just found it via
Jon Snow @jonsnowC4 · 5h 5 hours ago
Adam Curtis onto something serious here: A must watch:
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
[youtube]wcy8uLjRHPM[/youtube]
Published on Dec 31, 2014
From the BBC iPlayer service, a snippet from the documentary film maker Adam Curtis shown during Charlie Brooker's 2014 Wipe program.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can we tweet Jon Snow with.

It is your job to sort this out. Which is why your deficit rant was so poor.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 6:42 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
GENERAL ELECTION PREDICTIONS 27: LONDON EAST
http://iaindale.com/posts/2015/01/03/ge ... ondon-east
Right Tubby, Roger - and probably others lurking - one to get your gnashers into.

He's missed out the Ilford seats, where Labour could make a gain.

He's right about Hornchurch and Romford. And I don't think anyone but Rahman can cause Rushanara Ali a problem.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 6:49 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Tell us more, RearOTS.

One thing that looks odd about the current system is the role of DfT.

Train procurement has been nationalized, but why are the DfT doing it, and not Network Rail? The National Audit office said they ought to work more closely with Network Rail. Why not go further?

Surely the clue is in the desire to separate the ToCs from the network.

That said the whole system is a mess. Why can't, for example, Trans Pennine, go back to having grown up trains with large carriages instead of the crappy little DMUs they run.

Utter shite.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 6:51 pm

I didn't know DB Schenker UK was the biggest freight company in the UK.

Even if Miliaband were "Red", he'd be wary of moving against them. Their HQ is in Doncaster.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 6:52 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
GENERAL ELECTION PREDICTIONS 27: LONDON EAST
http://iaindale.com/posts/2015/01/03/ge ... ondon-east
Right Tubby, Roger - and probably others lurking - one to get your gnashers into.
He's missed out the Ilford seats, where Labour could make a gain.

He's right about Hornchurch and Romford. And I don't think anyone but Rahman can cause Rushanara Ali a problem.

Agree about Ilford since Redbridge council went Labour last time round.

Maybe he's doing a London NE which would then include Wanstead & Woodford, Epping Forest etc.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 6:53 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Tell us more, RearOTS.

One thing that looks odd about the current system is the role of DfT.

Train procurement has been nationalized, but why are the DfT doing it, and not Network Rail? The National Audit office said they ought to work more closely with Network Rail. Why not go further?
Surely the clue is in the desire to separate the ToCs from the network.

That said the whole system is a mess. Why can't, for example, Trans Pennine, go back to having grown up trains with large carriages instead of the crappy little DMUs they run.

Utter shite.

Agreed. Particularly galling for northern based posters is the removal of rolling stock from firms like TP (whose trains are invariably full to overflowing) to provide more capacity to southern based operators. Absolute madness.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 6:58 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
GENERAL ELECTION PREDICTIONS 27: LONDON EAST
http://iaindale.com/posts/2015/01/03/ge ... ondon-east
Right Tubby, Roger - and probably others lurking - one to get your gnashers into.
He's missed out the Ilford seats, where Labour could make a gain.

He's right about Hornchurch and Romford. And I don't think anyone but Rahman can cause Rushanara Ali a problem.

I might have thought that Ukip had an opportunity to take quite a lot of votes in Hornchurch and Upminster ... no? Not sure where he's going to include the Ilford seats ... he's already done Essex, were they included in those? He's having a ding dong with someone else who's asking where Leyton and Wanstead, and Walthamstow are. He says they are in N E London.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 7:00 pm

HindleA wrote:Reposting this from last night.
Annoyingly for me no commenting facility.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... -coalition" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re."meals on wheels"

Hence the vast increase in telly adverts for all those companies who prepare and deliver ready meals on a subscription basis, eg., Wiltshire Farm Foods. My local council's 'Meals on Wheels' page simply suggests ways you might get help preparing meals or ordering ready meals then lists info and links to two charitable lunch clubs (one operating Saturday only, the other doing Friday and Saturday,) supermarket delivery services, local milk-plus delivery service, a range of commercial food services (including the example above,) and the local shop-mobility centre ~ to help you go shopping.

I don't know when they stopped the actual Meals on Wheels service but I think it was a few years ago ~ it being a 'flagship Tory Council' and all

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 7:00 pm

Mike Smithson just saying

Tonight's Opinium poll for Observer sees LAB lead down from 7% to 1%
CON 32+3
LAB 33-3
LD 8+2
UKIP 17+1
GRN 4%-1

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 7:01 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Tell us more, RearOTS.

One thing that looks odd about the current system is the role of DfT.

Train procurement has been nationalized, but why are the DfT doing it, and not Network Rail? The National Audit office said they ought to work more closely with Network Rail. Why not go further?
Surely the clue is in the desire to separate the ToCs from the network.

That said the whole system is a mess. Why can't, for example, Trans Pennine, go back to having grown up trains with large carriages instead of the crappy little DMUs they run.

Utter shite.

Are they those buses on rail things? We used to have donkeys years ago from Cheltenham to Swindon.

Probably money. There's quite a few biggish visible stuff going ahead and I assume that nitty gritty like better trains has been cut instead. Or it could be incompetence.

The logic that suggests bringing Network Rail and the DfT train procurers together would lead in the longer term to bringing train companies and Network Rail together. I'm not particularly fussed about renationalization now, and it could easily go tits up, but I'd like to see something happen that could be seen as a step towards it.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 7:04 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote: Right Tubby, Roger - and probably others lurking - one to get your gnashers into.
He's missed out the Ilford seats, where Labour could make a gain.

He's right about Hornchurch and Romford. And I don't think anyone but Rahman can cause Rushanara Ali a problem.
I might have thought that Ukip had an opportunity to take quite a lot of votes in Hornchurch and Upminster ... no? Not sure where he's going to include the Ilford seats ... he's already done Essex, were they included in those? He's having a ding dong with someone else who's asking where Leyton and Wanstead, and Walthamstow are. He says they are in N E London.

Ilford's closer to the centre of London than Hornchurch and Upminster, so think he's just missed them out.

The working class Conservatives in those seats might vote for UKIP, as they might in Bexley too. But I would think though that lots of commuter types would probably be more inclined to Cameron.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 7:14 pm

Toby Latimer wrote:Mike Smithson just saying

Tonight's Opinium poll for Observer sees LAB lead down from 7% to 1%
CON 32+3
LAB 33-3
LD 8+2
UKIP 17+1
GRN 4%-1

The previous was an outlier, this one is an outlier the other way. Also how can they possibly poll in the holiday period?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 7:16 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Toby Latimer wrote:Mike Smithson just saying

Tonight's Opinium poll for Observer sees LAB lead down from 7% to 1%
CON 32+3
LAB 33-3
LD 8+2
UKIP 17+1
GRN 4%-1
The previous was an outlier, this one is an outlier the other way. Also how can they possibly poll in the holiday period?

If they were following their usual schedule, Opinium would have polled on Wed/Thurs - nuff said. Whereas if there is a YouGov tonight, it will be more recent.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 7:36 pm

Back to shoddy media reporting of air accidents.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30665499

Can anybody tell me what Indonesia's weather agency knows about modern aircraft. Why does the media report this stuff without thinking about it?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 7:46 pm

: Tories Road In Germany.jpg (48.78 KiB) Viewed 6944 times

John Denham retweeted
Brian Whelan ‏@brianwhelanhack 16m16 minutes ago
That Tory poster showing the road to recovery? We contacted the photographer, he says it runs through Germany #c4news

Surprised Ukip haven't had a good laugh with this one .... but then I remembered they've been told not to go on Twitter. Shapps really is a weasel isn't he. He mumbled away about the road being a composite of various place in the UK when he was asked a direct question on WATO re where it was. Composite image my arse ... it's German Shapps, that's what you didn't want to say. And maybe in Germany roads might be leading towards a fairer and stronger economy ... they haven't got Osborne at the wheel.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 7:47 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Mike Gapes MP retweeted
Michael H. ‏@MichaelH14 36m36 minutes ago
Supreme irony as David Cameron's #RoadToRuin is revealed as being a road in GERMANY ...

Das stimmt !
So Shapps didn't even tell the truth about that ...!

They've used photos that aren't pukka before. Caught out more times than that and still doing it...Like I said. Dumbasses.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 7:50 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Tories Road In Germany.jpg

John Denham retweeted
Brian Whelan ‏@brianwhelanhack 16m16 minutes ago
That Tory poster showing the road to recovery? We contacted the photographer, he says it runs through Germany #c4news
Surprised Ukip haven't had a good laugh with this one .... but then I remembered they've been told not to go on Twitter. Shapps really is a weasel isn't he. He mumbled away about the road being a composite of various place in the UK when he was asked a direct question on WATO re where it was. Composite image my arse ... it's German Shapps, that's what you didn't want to say. And maybe in Germany roads might be leading towards a fairer and stronger economy ... they haven't got Osborne at the wheel.

On Twitter there is a Kipper called Evans who is still making a nuisance of himself. They should exchange insults with him and then after a bit tell him to piss off. He's only too glad to.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 7:55 pm

LadyCentauria wrote:
HindleA wrote:Reposting this from last night.
Annoyingly for me no commenting facility.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... -coalition" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re."meals on wheels"
Hence the vast increase in telly adverts for all those companies who prepare and deliver ready meals on a subscription basis, eg., Wiltshire Farm Foods. My local council's 'Meals on Wheels' page simply suggests ways you might get help preparing meals or ordering ready meals then lists info and links to two charitable lunch clubs (one operating Saturday only, the other doing Friday and Saturday,) supermarket delivery services, local milk-plus delivery service, a range of commercial food services (including the example above,) and the local shop-mobility centre ~ to help you go shopping.

I don't know when they stopped the actual Meals on Wheels service but I think it was a few years ago ~ it being a 'flagship Tory Council' and all

Haven't had much to do with food provision, but an old couple we used to visit every couple of weeks used Wiltshire Farm Foods and from what I could see it looked fairly appetizing, but was bloody expensive. They used to buy a meal for one and share it. Not good.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 8:13 pm

Since last night, the "old style" user profiles on CiF seem to be out of operation - a prelude to "full Beta" coming into force on Monday?

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 8:27 pm

Bloody foreign roads, coming over here taking over our deceitful Vermin party propaganda

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 8:28 pm

Faisal Islam
‏@faisalislam
further confusion for left-right political lens, c-right thinktank Civitas calls for inflation cap on private rents: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/thefutureofprivaterenting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

It's a good report. Chairman Shapps (former housing minister) and the benefit blamers at the DWP, and Osborne with his awful inflationary housing policies .... should take note.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Sat 03 Jan, 2015 8:32 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Toby Latimer wrote:Mike Smithson just saying

Tonight's Opinium poll for Observer sees LAB lead down from 7% to 1%
CON 32+3
LAB 33-3
LD 8+2
UKIP 17+1
GRN 4%-1
The previous was an outlier, this one is an outlier the other way. Also how can they possibly poll in the holiday period?
If they were following their usual schedule, Opinium would have polled on Wed/Thurs - nuff said. Whereas if there is a YouGov tonight, it will be more recent.

I was struck that immediately after the launch of the Tory campaign, they were laid into for both technical (the deficit) and aesthetic (the appalling choice of imagery) reasons. Didn't happen in 2010, so I'm beginning to wonder if Osborne and co really have overstepped the mark with the promise of further savage cuts?

People in the UK gave them a chance and were willing to put up with some hardship (to others, mainly) to 'sort' the economy, but I rather suspect the "let's have 1930s health and social provision" is the proverbial cup of cold sick to many voters, even if some Tories will welcome it. But Tories have kids and health issues too - why vote for the destruction of everything that's been built up since 45? A step rather too far for most people, I hope.

[edit] And the point I was going to make? Let's see how the polls look after that little lot was been absorbed.