Tuesday 9th June 2015

[refitman]

Morning all.

[55DegreesNorth]

Morning folks,
@RogerO'T. Have pm' you the info.

[rebeccariots2]

Morning all.

Someone wondered the other day if the FIFA scandal could possibly get any worse.

Fifa's Jack Warner accused of diverting funds intended for Haiti earthquake victims
US justice department papers seen by BBC allege that US$750,000 for victims of 2010 quake went to bank account controlled by former Fifa vice-president
http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... ke-victims" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yup.

[utopiandreams]

Morning. Just been pondering on how Brexit may affect Energy Security/Policy having not seen any particular mention. Anyway came across this from November, which is still relevant: The environment is now a key battleground in the UK/EU relationship by Louisa Casson of E3G.

http://www.britishinfluence.org/the_env ... lationship

I've not come across E3G (http://e3g.org/) before but do seem worth a look.

[refitman]

Morning all.

Someone wondered the other day if the FIFA scandal could possibly get any worse.

Fifa's Jack Warner accused of diverting funds intended for Haiti earthquake victims
US justice department papers seen by BBC allege that US$750,000 for victims of 2010 quake went to bank account controlled by former Fifa vice-president
http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... ke-victims" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yup.

On the other hand, the FIFA film took just £397 in its opening weekend in the US.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33050289" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[rebeccariots2]

From article on Angela Eagle's bid for deputy leadership.

With Labour so involved in choosing its next leader, the tendency is for the party to pause, reflect and regroup after the election loss until the results in September. But Eagle is anxious that the party not lose momentum while this is happening.

“We can’t just have a discussion about what happens and where we should go now through the prism of the leadership election. That is only one thing. but there is an obvious thing we have to do very very quickly which is deal with the missing millions off the electoral register,” she says. “By 31 December this year the new register will come into effect and the Tories I bet will be wanting to do the boundary changes on the new register. If we don’t get those people in the next six months found and signed up onto the register then millions of people are going to be disenfranchised.”

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... and-get-it" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She makes a very good point about the need to keep on getting people to register to vote. That's something anyone with some time on their hands - of whatever political persuasion - could get out there and do at the moment. Or at least check the young people etc that they know are registered. It is going to have a long term impact and if the Tories are going to fix things in their favour ... we should at least try to make sure we do everything we can to mitigate their fix.

[RogerOThornhill]

Morning folks,
@RogerO'T. Have pm' you the info.

Thanks.

After having a look yesterday I thought it might be them - they're a converter in their own trust - Sept 2011

Can't see any reason why they would go to Inadequate - exam results are on a slight decline but still just above national average. They might be getting a Good which is why after 4 OS they're not happy.

Last inspected in May 2013 which is interesting as now they wouldn't inspect an inspection unless something warranted it so may be it was the exam results that triggered it.

[giselle97]

Morning. Got some catch up reading to do here but I clocked this from one of my favourite commenters at the G (and ex FTN).

HeronsFlight says a lot for me! Sorry about the formatting but you can see the whole comment via the link. Because the Guardian wrecked their site, you will have to scroll down to the shaded area to actually reach the hyperlink!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/liv ... t-53322889

HeronsFlight

As a centre-left "idealist" rather than a "party tribalist", I really am at a loss in deciding who I would vote for in the Labour leadership.
Initially, I had major reservations about Miliband but in the last few months before the election thought he was doing a reasonable job and had some decent policies which would at least begin, in a small way, to unravel some of the social injustices which have sadly become "business as usual" in todays society. Whilst I know the usual suspects will jump all over this with the usual soundbite codswallop, my personal view is that the "real" Miliband finally started to find his feet and took a firm hold of the reins in February. I cannot help feeling that had he done so three years ago things may have turned out better. However, he left it too late by which time the media were all over him like a rash.
At the same time, he should have rid his "inner circle" of the "legacy of failure" members of his shadow-cabinet, in particular Burnham, Balls, Cooper and Harman. Ironically, whilst Miliband has gone, three out of this four remain and, boy, have they been quick to jump on the point-the-finger bandwagon....it's almost as if they were never there in the first place.
Additionally, Reeves and Hunt were hardly inspired choices at W&P and Education respectively and simply demonstrated that neither of them possesses an original or innovative thought between them and there has to be a question mark over why Reeves is in the Labour Party in the first place other than using it as a stepping stone to hugely remunerative directorships and consultancies post-politics - my own gut feel is that she will stand down as an MP in 2020, anyway, and head off to the land of untold wealth and riches elsewhere.
I digress.
Like many, I am not inspired by any of those who have so far declared their candidacy. However, one who I would most definitely not vote for, and who would also put me off voting Labour in 2020, is Burnham.
My reasons are purely personal and selfish and, no doubt, will be seen by some as irrational. Frankly, I don't care. There is one "achivement" of Burnham's for which I will never forgive him.
Hinchingbrooke Hospital.
It was Burnham who decided this hospital was "a basket case", despite it having the highest levels of successful outcomes, patient satisfaction, and care quality in the region. It was only a "basket case" due to the ideological financial bollocks (there is no other word for it) scrawled on the back of a fag packet by Milburn as his own template for a lifetime of personal riches at the taxpayers expense.
Although he likes to pretend it never happened - I have personally listened to him deny it - Burnham set up the bid process that opened the gates for the shambles that was Circle Health Ltd. He even engineered the process to ensure that the NHS Consortium was finacially unable to bid forcing them to withdraw whilst Burnham was still Health Secretary.
How nobody has been put on trial for the treatment meted out on patients by this bunch of shysters is beyond me. Like I said, my reasons are personal but members of my own family, as well as close friends, were treated despicably under Circle's regime of cutbacks, corner-cutting and outright negligence. Amongst many incidents I could cite, the worst is that my brother-in-laws dad is now dead because Hinchingbrooke told him the pain in his stomach was down to his own imagination...and not the 18cm long tumour in his colon which was discovered just ten days later by Addenbrooks due to my sister refusing to take no for an answer. In this technological age it is unbelieveable that this could have been missed by anything other than negligence or cheap-skating. If it was a one-off perhaps I would be more understanding. But added to the other incidents and abuses I personally witnessed or which have happened to others close to me, this was "business as usual" at this wretched hospital.
I asked him a question in a public forum and he replied "please write to me and I will look at it". I wrote to Burnham four times on this issue. Not one single reply. I now know from a couple of other folk that this is his modus operandii.
I have considered joining the Labour Party to vote against him but it hardly seems a morally sound thing to do. I would, however, plead with anyone who is voting to think twice before putting you tick next to Burnham's name.
Rant over.

FrancesSmith HeronsFlight

this would be the burnham response
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... nhs-record
when I was 17 I developed type 1 diabetes, although I repeatedly went to the doctor I never got a proper diagnosis for nearly a year, it could have killed me, but it didn't. Diagnosis is one of the hardest parts of being a doctor, mistakes are made, Labour did their best, Burnham followed Milburn, he says he did his best to ensure the contract went to the NHS by bringing in NHS preferred provided, and replacing AQP or any qualified provider,
"These were the principles and values I brought to the on-going process I inherited as Secretary of State in late 2009 in respect of Hinchingbrooke Hospital. This process has been initiated some time before I arrived under the then thinking about provider neutrality. When I changed policy to NHS Preferred Provider, I specifically asked for my new rules to be applied to this tender process. In addition, outside of that process (and although there was still an NHS organisation involved in it), I asked the NHS to approach directly all surrounding NHS hospitals to see if an NHS operator could be found."
Medical staff aren't perfect, politicians aren't perfect, you aren't perfect, I'm not perfect, people make mistakes, the real issue is whether they learn from them, not to punish people forever for your own personal grievances, rational or otherwise.

DrJazz HeronsFlight

Many voters want to privatise the NHS, despite the evidence of Circle. Giving the chance for proving that privatisation doesn't work should be a plus point for Burnham.

HeronsFlight FrancesSmith

Whilst I generally agree with your postings, I cannot agree with this.
Labour didn't "try" with Hinchingbrooke, Burnham simply adopted Milburn's ideology and created a situation where the hospital could only end up in private hands. The NHS consortium was set up to fail and Burnham's crocodile tears about them being the "preferred bidder" is just so much cobblers.
Burnham's "solution" was that only the "market" solution would work. He then simply used the gift of hindsight to distance himself from the decisions he, himself, had set in train.
I know many excellent medical practitioners at the hospital who wrote to Burnham whilst he was still in office pleading with him not to marketise Hinchingbrooke. Not one of them received a reply. Burnham was still in office when the withdrawal of the NHS "bidder" meant that the hospital could only go to a private sector contractor.
The NHS constorium's statement issued in February 2010 is quite specific:
"The competitive bidding process will involve considerable investment in both time and money. Continuing to take part would have an impact on services at Addenbrooke's and The Rosie. Accordingly, we have decided to withdraw from the project."
In other words, Burnham's "miracle" bidding formula meant that the only way the NHS consortium could go head-to-head against the five private bidders, who had almost unlimited funds at their disposal, was to divert significant funding away from patient care at other hospitals.
Burnham was warned at the time:
most private sector companies do not know how to run a hospital with intensive care, maternity and emergency services.
He chose to ignore those warnings.
Surprise, surprise. I have written about thjis many times but another time will not hurt. In February 2013 my partner fell and (as it turned out) broke her kneecap. We arrived at Hinchingbrooke A&E at 6.30pm on a Saturday evening. At 9pm we were told that there was nothing they could do as X-Ray and the Fracture Unit were closed for the weekend. "What were you expecting us to do?" asked the one junior doctor on duty. We were given an appointment to come back the following Tuesday. Instead we drove 40 miles to Bury St Edmunds where the NHS operated A&E X-rayed and treated the injury immediately and subsequently organised appropriate surgery.
Later that same year my partner was admitted at 8.30am on a Tuesday with a suspected heart attack. Thank God it wasn't because at 7pm she was still lying on a trolley in what they laughingly called the Ambulatory Treatment Centre...which is where all A&E patients were transferred just before the 4 hour target fell due. At the same time I personally witnessed a stand-up row between a paramedic and a bloke in a blue suit with a clipboard who was refusing to admit a suspected stroke victim. "Blue-suit" was yelling "you know you're not supposed to bring them here" to which the paramedic was yelling "it is your company, not the NHS, who are trying to stop us bringing patients here".
My partner's colleague in May 2013 whilst in labour was turned away by Hinchingbrooke and told to ring the Community Midwife. This was despite Hinchingbrroke being advised by Addenbrooks she had a heart condition which placed her and the baby at risk. She gave birth 30 minutes after arriving home. The Community Midwife told her she was the seventh delivery she had done in the previous 24 hours where patients had been turned away by the hospital.
I could recount a dozen or more incidents.
Whether you like it or not, this shambles was a direct result of Burhman's bidding formula which guaranteed a private sector business into hospital provision. And we all know how it finally ended.

HeronsFlight FrancesSmith

Burnham's subsequent weasel-words cut no ice, I'm afraid, in the same way his silence over the Lister Surgicentre fiasco initiated by his predecessor. The Surgicentre, it was claimed, would:
"enable our staff to deliver modern, efficient care to their patients in a state-of-the-art environment using the very latest equipment".
Instead, it efficiently killed people. and eventually the taxpayer had to cough-up £53m to pay-off Clinicenta and get the NHS back in.
And what did Burnham have to say about this when visiting the Surgicentre
Visiting Stevenage yesterday (January 29), Mr Burnham – who is now the shadow health secretary – was challenged by the Mercury about whether it was right to let a private company run the facility.
He responded: “It was right to bring down NHS waiting lists, that’s what we did, we brought in the capacity of the private sector.
“The NHS couldn’t have trained the doctors and built the centres overnight to bring down waiting lists so we used the private sector capacity to get waiting lists down.
“So, no, I’m not going to say that was wrong. Absolutely not.”
And still the weasel words and teflon shoulders. This was a new facility, so in what how could Clinicenta get hold of doctors and nurses when the NHS, according to Burnham, couldn't? And does he really expect us to believe that a construction company builds a clinic for the private sector any quicker than for the public sector.....who still paid for ....and it was still 18 months late opening.
I'm afraid Burnham represents more of the same outdated and discredited ideology and, for me personally, he is no less of an ideological spiv than Milburn.

Dune1959 HeronsFlight

I asked him a question in a public forum and he replied "please write to me and I will look at it". I wrote to Burnham four times on this issue. Not one single reply. I now know from a couple of other folk that this is his modus operandii.
As their local MP he was particularly helpful and did respond to correspondence to issues my late parents had regarding Leigh Infirmary in his constituency.
He is also well respected by those close to the Hillsborough disaster where he went from being booed a few years to ago to being greeted by a banner "Thank you Andy Burnham" in the Kop at an anniversary event at Anfield Stadium due to his effects in securing the modern day enquiry. He certainly took on board the earlier criticism.
So I guess like everyone else he is neither right all the time nor wrong all the time.

HeronsFlight Dune1959

I am sure you are right and good for him but, even so, there is a big difference between constituency issues (which is his primary raison d'etre and provider of his generous pay and expenses), and issues of national policy for which his party, and for a time Burnham himself, is reposnsible.
Philip Hollobone, for example, is a superb constituency MP at an individual level (unless you happen to wear a burqua) but I would no more vote for the national and international policies he represents than I would sever my genitals with a rusty razor.
Of course, setting aside my own feelings about him, if he is elected we will no doubt be constantly reminded of his interesting accommodation arrangements in London which, with the best will in the world, simply represents yet another foot-in-mouth for Labour and another snout in the trough at a time when the people Burnham claims he represents are being evicted from their homes due to the hardships caused by the Bedroom Tax.

HeronsFlight DrJazz

Giving the chance for proving that privatisation doesn't work should be a plus point for Burnham.
Er...do you really believe that was his intention?
If so, then he is simply playing politics with peoples' lives and deliberately setting the system up so people die or suffer to prove his point is tantamount to pulling the trigger himself.
But, as we all know from the continuing IDS saga, politicians are totally immune from any legal responsibility for the suffering they cause in the name of ideology.
If you were a mechanic and deliberately took the nuts off the wheel resulting in its passengers deaths then you would go to jail.
Deliberately removing the nuts on the wheels of society with the same result, on the other hand, generally results in civic honours and a highly lucrative "consultancy".

DrJazz HeronsFlight

Er...do you really believe that was his intention?
No. But giving the private sector a chance to show what it could do is good politics. If Circle had been a success, then there could have been follow up and the NHS might be better. I don't think Circle could be a success, but many of the public believed it could (and some still do), so it was right to try the experiment.
What we need politicians to do is accept that many of their experiments fail. Acadmeis and free Schools come to mind.

jones100 DrJazz

Do they? First I've heard.

[citizenJA]

Morning all.

Good-morning, refitman.
Good-morning, everyone.

[Willow904]

Re Burnham and Hinchingbrooke.

Labour were not in power when Circle was awarded the contract to run Hinchingbrooke and therefore weren't responsible for the terms and conditions of the contract and were never responsible for monitoring patient care while Circle were in charge.

I have no problem with people not wanting to vote for Labour because of the privatisation and continued marketisation of the NHS that took place during the Labour years as that is fair. It is a question of ideology and I respect that a lot of people feel Labour are still wedded to that ideology and they may or may not be right, I don't know.

I do, however, have a problem with people blaming Labour for things that happened after they left power, as it makes a lot of assumptions about how Labour would have responded to those problems, as opposed to the way the coalition responded to them, which is highly speculative and continues the Tory meme of everything being Labour's fault pretty much indefinitely, even though choices are being made constantly that change the original direction and impact of earlier Labour decisions. For this reason I can't hold Andy Burnham responsible for what happened at Hinchingbrooke under the coalition government.

I don't particularly hold him responsible for the general direction of the NHS under Tony Blair, either, and prefer to judge him on what he is saying he will do in the future, which is to continue with Ed Miliband's policy of repealing the Health and Social Care act and eliminating the competitive tendering that threatens the very existence of the NHS as we know it. The truth is, none of the other leadership contenders have had anything to say about the NHS at all, which is even more worrying, in my opinion, than Andy Burnham's past mistakes during his very fleeting time as Health Secretary.

[citizenJA]

From article on Angela Eagle's bid for deputy leadership.

With Labour so involved in choosing its next leader, the tendency is for the party to pause, reflect and regroup after the election loss until the results in September. But Eagle is anxious that the party not lose momentum while this is happening.

“We can’t just have a discussion about what happens and where we should go now through the prism of the leadership election. That is only one thing. but there is an obvious thing we have to do very very quickly which is deal with the missing millions off the electoral register,” she says. “By 31 December this year the new register will come into effect and the Tories I bet will be wanting to do the boundary changes on the new register. If we don’t get those people in the next six months found and signed up onto the register then millions of people are going to be disenfranchised.”

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... and-get-it" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She makes a very good point about the need to keep on getting people to register to vote. That's something anyone with some time on their hands - of whatever political persuasion - could get out there and do at the moment. Or at least check the young people etc that they know are registered. It is going to have a long term impact and if the Tories are going to fix things in their favour ... we should at least try to make sure we do everything we can to mitigate their fix.

Voter registration & electorate participation is something I'm particularly keen about too, so naturally I'm gratified someone I admire so much cares about it too. I've spent time trying to write this without sounding paranoid. The Tory party have demonstrated to me they're no friend of universal suffrage. While I'm glad Eagle is calling attention to this, rightly so, it's also scary to know a government of the UK want power for themselves, friends & family & that's all. No, it's not just like Labour, or many other political parties interested in greater fairness for all people.

[citizenJA]

@Willow904
Excellent post regarding Burnham's soundness regarding the NHS.
Labour, PFI contracts continuing after John Major introduced them & a Labour government, even with Blair as leader, was a different government responding with greater usefulness for everyone. The Tory-led coalition & it's current front & back bench rabble aspire to no such probity.

[giselle97]

Re Burnham and Hinchingbrooke.

Labour were not in power when Circle was awarded the contract to run Hinchingbrooke and therefore weren't responsible for the terms and conditions of the contract and were never responsible for monitoring patient care while Circle were in charge.

I have no problem with people not wanting to vote for Labour because of the privatisation and continued marketisation of the NHS that took place during the Labour years as that is fair. It is a question of ideology and I respect that a lot of people feel Labour are still wedded to that ideology and they may or may not be right, I don't know.

I do, however, have a problem with people blaming Labour for things that happened after they left power, as it makes a lot of assumptions about how Labour would have responded to those problems, as opposed to the way the coalition responded to them, which is highly speculative and continues the Tory meme of everything being Labour's fault pretty much indefinitely, even though choices are being made constantly that change the original direction and impact of earlier Labour decisions. For this reason I can't hold Andy Burnham responsible for what happened at Hinchingbrooke under the coalition government.

I don't particularly hold him responsible for the general direction of the NHS under Tony Blair, either, and prefer to judge him on what he is saying he will do in the future, which is to continue with Ed Miliband's policy of repealing the Health and Social Care act and eliminating the competitive tendering that threatens the very existence of the NHS as we know it. The truth is, none of the other leadership contenders have had anything to say about the NHS at all, which is even more worrying, in my opinion, than Andy Burnham's past mistakes during his very fleeting time as Health Secretary.

I agree with you, apart from the terms and conditions for Hinchingbrooke - I believe I saw a reference by Richard Blogger who's done a series of blogs about Circle where he said that the T&C's were those drafted by Labour's interlopers. Do you think Burnham's carrying a lot of baggage? I do. I honestly can't imagine him standing up against Cameron/A N Other and not being damaged by the past - truth or lies.

[citizenJA]

Response to the HSBC announcement on jobs - Chris Leslie
Chris Leslie MP, Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, responding to HSBC’s announcement on jobs, said:

“This is a devastating blow for thousands of HSBC’s workforce. Frontline staff deserve to be treated fairly, so the bank’s management should take a voluntary approach to reductions in the number of workers wherever possible. The Government should work with HSBC and encourage them to minimise the number of compulsory redundancies and also ensure that support is provided to the parts of the country worst affected.”

JUNE 9, 2015 (10:22 AM)

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1210946 ... jobs-chris" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[giselle97]

@Willow904
Excellent post regarding Burnham's soundness regarding the NHS.
Labour, PFI contracts continuing after John Major introduced them & a Labour government, even with Blair as leader, was a different government responding with greater usefulness for everyone. The Tory-led coalition & it's current front & back bench rabble aspire to no such probity.

Yes it was.

But Burnham is applying for the Leader's job. Do you think he has the soundness for that because my impression of him is "Labour's NHS man", and so far, the media has managed to damage him with lies. He can't sue if they're told in the House of Commons. Will he ever be able to stand up and talk about anything non-NHS?

[citizenJA]

Re Burnham and Hinchingbrooke.

Labour were not in power when Circle was awarded the contract to run Hinchingbrooke and therefore weren't responsible for the terms and conditions of the contract and were never responsible for monitoring patient care while Circle were in charge.

I have no problem with people not wanting to vote for Labour because of the privatisation and continued marketisation of the NHS that took place during the Labour years as that is fair. It is a question of ideology and I respect that a lot of people feel Labour are still wedded to that ideology and they may or may not be right, I don't know.

I do, however, have a problem with people blaming Labour for things that happened after they left power, as it makes a lot of assumptions about how Labour would have responded to those problems, as opposed to the way the coalition responded to them, which is highly speculative and continues the Tory meme of everything being Labour's fault pretty much indefinitely, even though choices are being made constantly that change the original direction and impact of earlier Labour decisions. For this reason I can't hold Andy Burnham responsible for what happened at Hinchingbrooke under the coalition government.

I don't particularly hold him responsible for the general direction of the NHS under Tony Blair, either, and prefer to judge him on what he is saying he will do in the future, which is to continue with Ed Miliband's policy of repealing the Health and Social Care act and eliminating the competitive tendering that threatens the very existence of the NHS as we know it. The truth is, none of the other leadership contenders have had anything to say about the NHS at all, which is even more worrying, in my opinion, than Andy Burnham's past mistakes during his very fleeting time as Health Secretary.

I agree with you, apart from the terms and conditions for Hinchingbrooke - I believe I saw a reference by Richard Blogger who's done a series of blogs about Circle where he said that the T&C's were those drafted by Labour's interlopers. Do you think Burnham's carrying a lot of baggage? I do. I honestly can't imagine him standing up against Cameron/A N Other and not being damaged by the past - truth or lies.

Burnham whupped Jeremy Behind-the-Tree Hunt with great self-possession & success.

[Willow904]

@Willow904
Excellent post regarding Burnham's soundness regarding the NHS.
Labour, PFI contracts continuing after John Major introduced them & a Labour government, even with Blair as leader, was a different government responding with greater usefulness for everyone. The Tory-led coalition & it's current front & back bench rabble aspire to no such probity.

We're all influenced by our personal experiences, so I have sympathy with HeronsFlight's views and see no point in trying to persuade them to give Labour another chance - I suspect they won't believe Labour capable of protecting the NHS unless they actually see it happen and that's fair enough. I just hope I'm right about Burnham changing his views based on his experiences and being a safe pair of hands for the NHS in future, because at the moment I don't see much hope for the NHS from any other quarter. We need a Labour leader who can win and a Labour leader who is genuinely passionate about the NHS and Burnham's probably the best hope we've got. As to the NHS being better under Blair - blimey, was it ever! I was actually finally able to sign up with an NHS dentist after years without seeing one or having to spend more money than I could really afford going private. Not to mention the deep clean action Labour took to tackle superbugs (probably caused by the privatisation of cleaning under the Tories) which was very successful in getting what was a very problematic hospital issue under control. Labour's positive NHS record has been suppressed by the right-wing press in favour of Midstaffs type bashing but I can still remember how much the NHS improved under Labour, despite the ideological drive to privatisation, that isn't evident under current government. I can only assume other people have much shorter memories than me!

Anyway, I'm off shopping now. Back later.

[giselle97]

I guess what I'm clumsily trying to say is "I think Burnham, who's leading in the Leader's Campaign right now, starts off with a huge disadvantage, not necessarily of his making, and if he is the chosen one, how is the Labour Party going to progress with him when I feel, deep down, that he's badly damaged".

[Willow904]

@Willow904
Excellent post regarding Burnham's soundness regarding the NHS.
Labour, PFI contracts continuing after John Major introduced them & a Labour government, even with Blair as leader, was a different government responding with greater usefulness for everyone. The Tory-led coalition & it's current front & back bench rabble aspire to no such probity.

Yes it was.

But Burnham is applying for the Leader's job. Do you think he has the soundness for that because my impression of him is "Labour's NHS man", and so far, the media has managed to damage him with lies. He can't sue if they're told in the House of Commons. Will he ever be able to stand up and talk about anything non-NHS?

Before I go....yes, I think Burnham can stand up and talk about the EU referendum and in a way which could relate to the concerns of Ukip-inclined voters, something that Ed Miliband clearly couldn't do. He's already talked about inequality also. He's certainly more ready to become leader now than 5 years ago. I was impressed with his handling of the devo-Manc NHS bombshell Osborne threw onto the table shortly before the election, too, as it put him in a very difficult position with other members of Labour on Manchester City council. He took some time to consider the implications before issuing a statement, which was very clear and stuck to his earlier principle of the need to combine health and social care spending on a nationwide basis.
In other words, I think Burnham has potential. I'm less concerned about the baggage because I feel it is baggage Labour are carrying generally and need to confront in order to move on. Picking someone without baggage, like Kendall, is clearly appealing, but many voters are still influenced by Tory propaganda about Labour's past that needs to be addressed regardless who is in charge and to be frank we just tried a relatively inexperienced newcomer who needed time to grow into the role and 5 years wasn't long enough. Burnham's already halfway there on the learning curve and that's no bad thing. All his skeletons are already out in the open, too, which leaves his opponents merely retreading old ground, which may not have much resonance once the Tories are under the microscope, as they undoubtedly will be in the coming months. I believe the new paperless driving licences are currently coming a cropper as we speak!
I haven't made up mind who to vote for, btw, I'm just unwilling to write Burnham off. I need to get a better idea of the candidates priorities before I make up my mind, but I must admit Kendall has an awful lot of catching up to do to overcome an early poor impression, so I will happily admit I'm as biased as anyone else and thus completely respect the views of those who aren't keen on Burnham, I appreciate people have good reasons.

[citizenJA]

@Willow904
Excellent post regarding Burnham's soundness regarding the NHS.
Labour, PFI contracts continuing after John Major introduced them & a Labour government, even with Blair as leader, was a different government responding with greater usefulness for everyone. The Tory-led coalition & it's current front & back bench rabble aspire to no such probity.

Yes it was.

But Burnham is applying for the Leader's job. Do you think he has the soundness for that because my impression of him is "Labour's NHS man", and so far, the media has managed to damage him with lies. He can't sue if they're told in the House of Commons. Will he ever be able to stand up and talk about anything non-NHS?

Probably.
Maybe not.
We'll see.

While I've reconciled myself to the loss of Ed Miliband as Labour party leader, I'm genuinely not attached to any of those seeking the leadership position. I like the ones who don't behave as though becoming Labour party leader has always been their goal since childhood which would be news to any friends or family who knew them as children & can out that as a lie. Have any behaved like that? No, not really. I'm glad for that. That being said, I guess I'm not reconciled to the loss of Ed Miliband as Labour party leader. I like Angela Eagle, Hunty, Burnham - is okay but you're right about his current stature - he was a Shadow Minister on Ed Miliband's team & he still seems a lieutenant. I like the lot of them for not shining too bright just a month after the dashing of all our hopes. Do you think it'd be a sign of a lack of cohesion in Miliband's team prior GE if any of them shined bright this soon after the election result? I do.

They all need a sit down together with RR2, Ephemerid, you & other Labour party members (if any of you are available, that is, life is a busy business) in order to decide what is best to do now.

[ephemerid]

Good morning, everyone.

On the Labour leadership - I am deeply unimpressed by all of them, with the notable exception of Jeremy Corbyn.

Cooper and Burnham are tainted. There's no getting away from this, and though I despise Cooper and mildly like Burnham, neither hold a candle to Ed Miliband and both have been far too quick to criticise. Cooper will be vilified for flipping homes and Atos (rightly) and Burnham for Circle (rightly) and Mid-Staffs (wrongly). Too much baggage in both cases.
Kendall is a nasty little Blairite, has no actual opinions of her own, and might as well join the Tories or UKIP now. Her various utterances and hopelessly inept interviews leave me stunned at her audacity in thinking she is leadership material. As the MP for an area with a large BAME and Muslim community, her remarks on the white working class are beyond reason.
Creagh is OK in terms of her ideas - but not forceful enough in getting them across.

Corbyn is not likely to win, but his presence means that there is at least a possibility that a more left-wing agenda could be discussed.

Until Labour work out why they lost, all of this is utterly pointless. All the candidates apart from Corbyn are busy answering questions that are not being asked - they, and Harman, are assuming that Labour lost because Ed's politics didn't appeal. That's not actually true.

Labour lost because the MSM chose to propagate Tory lies about Labour's stance on the big ticket items (NHS, immigration, social security) whilst obscuring the truth about the Tory-led coalition's record and the intentions of the party which eventually won a tiny majority it wasn't expecting.

There was nothing - nothing - wrong with the policies Ed campaigned on. Harman's suggestion that people who spent hours on end, day after day, knocking on doors and getting Ed's message across are secretly relieved that all their graft was for nothing is deeply insulting.

Labour lost votes to UKIP where immigration is seen as a local problem; it lost votes in marginals to the Greens; it lost votes in Scotland due to a nasty and vicious campaign by the SNP actively encouraged by the Tory press south of the border.
But in fact, according to many experts, Labour did well in many places - and the turnout figures were unkindest of all to the left.

My membership is due for renewal. I am getting ever more frantic emails by the day exhorting me to renew and vote in the leadership election.
I cannot see any profit or purpose in doing so if the front-runners are Blairite-lite who have jumped in so quickly its almost obscene.

[citizenJA]

Office for National Statistics (ONS)
Part of How important is China to the UK economy?
Released: 09 June 2015

The emergence of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) economies over the last 20 years has attributed to the changing composition the world’s economy...Among the BRIC’s China is the only economy to have a notable impact on UK exports and imports...

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/internati ... china.html

China is very important to the UK economy.
The graphs & tables linked above prove this.
China has issued reports of plummeting imports for seven quarters & exports are down for a few quarters too.
I don't know exactly what this means.

[PorFavor]

Good morning, everyone.

On the Labour leadership - I am deeply unimpressed by all of them, with the notable exception of Jeremy Corbyn.

Cooper and Burnham are tainted. There's no getting away from this, and though I despise Cooper and mildly like Burnham, neither hold a candle to Ed Miliband and both have been far too quick to criticise. Cooper will be vilified for flipping homes and Atos (rightly) and Burnham for Circle (rightly) and Mid-Staffs (wrongly). Too much baggage in both cases.
Kendall is a nasty little Blairite, has no actual opinions of her own, and might as well join the Tories or UKIP now. Her various utterances and hopelessly inept interviews leave me stunned at her audacity in thinking she is leadership material. As the MP for an area with a large BAME and Muslim community, her remarks on the white working class are beyond reason.
Creagh is OK in terms of her ideas - but not forceful enough in getting them across.

Corbyn is not likely to win, but his presence means that there is at least a possibility that a more left-wing agenda could be discussed.

Until Labour work out why they lost, all of this is utterly pointless. All the candidates apart from Corbyn are busy answering questions that are not being asked - they, and Harman, are assuming that Labour lost because Ed's politics didn't appeal. That's not actually true.

Labour lost because the MSM chose to propagate Tory lies about Labour's stance on the big ticket items (NHS, immigration, social security) whilst obscuring the truth about the Tory-led coalition's record and the intentions of the party which eventually won a tiny majority it wasn't expecting.

There was nothing - nothing - wrong with the policies Ed campaigned on. Harman's suggestion that people who spent hours on end, day after day, knocking on doors and getting Ed's message across are secretly relieved that all their graft was for nothing is deeply insulting.

Labour lost votes to UKIP where immigration is seen as a local problem; it lost votes in marginals to the Greens; it lost votes in Scotland due to a nasty and vicious campaign by the SNP actively encouraged by the Tory press south of the border.
But in fact, according to many experts, Labour did well in many places - and the turnout figures were unkindest of all to the left.

My membership is due for renewal. I am getting ever more frantic emails by the day exhorting me to renew and vote in the leadership election.
I cannot see any profit or purpose in doing so if the front-runners are Blairite-lite who have jumped in so quickly its almost obscene.

And thanks again! (I use the thanks button for so many different reasons that I thought I'd flag up that I'm really saying, specifically, thank you for your post.) I'm not thinking of resigning because I did that once in the past and I'd feel like a serial resignee. I'll wait and see how the winner, whoever that may be, shapes up once having settled in a bit. But I'm not holding out too much hope.

Good morfternoon, everyone.

[PorFavor]

And - ErnstRemarx. Does anyone have any news\contact?

[citizenJA]

And - ErnstRemarx. Does anyone have any news\contact?

I haven't.
ErnstRemarx, you're in my thoughts, wishing you well.
Please let me know if I can help in any way.
xx
cJA

[rebeccariots2]

Ian Dunt retweeted
Julian Self ‏@Fles__ 15m15 minutes ago
@IanDunt No question. I'm a Labour supporter but, having just read this http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/06 ... nto-labour" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …, I reckon he'd get my vote.

On Zac Goldsmith deciding to run for mayor of London for the Conservatives - in case you are wondering who is drawing this praise.

[rebeccariots2]

MichaelWhite ‏@MichaelWhite 4m4 minutes ago
Vulcan John Redwood just said on R4 that Labour "transferred huge powers" to EU. Not so. Maggie shipped out most under QMV in '86(he knows)

Yes I heard him say that - produced my first growl of the day.

[RogerOThornhill]

MichaelWhite ‏@MichaelWhite 4m4 minutes ago
Vulcan John Redwood just said on R4 that Labour "transferred huge powers" to EU. Not so. Maggie shipped out most under QMV in '86(he knows)

Yes I heard him say that - produced my first growl of the day.

It'll be the first of many lies told about our relationship with the EU.

In fact, their rule is so complete I have to ask an EU commissar whether I can go to the loo...

[Willow904]

Office for National Statistics (ONS)
Part of How important is China to the UK economy?
Released: 09 June 2015

The emergence of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) economies over the last 20 years has attributed to the changing composition the world’s economy...Among the BRIC’s China is the only economy to have a notable impact on UK exports and imports...

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/internati ... china.html

China is very important to the UK economy.
The graphs & tables linked above prove this.
China has issued reports of plummeting imports for seven quarters & exports are down for a few quarters too.
I don't know exactly what this means.

I guess it means that China grew its economy at a staggering rate by taking over the global manufacturing of pretty much everything and selling it to wealthy westerners, except the westerners then lost their well-paid manufacturing jobs because everything's now made in China and so there are fewer and fewer wealthy people to buy all the stuff China is making so their economic boom is starting to slow down.

In terms of the environmental conservation of the planet and our dwindling natural resources, it's probably a good thing. In terms of trickle down, neoliberal, economic theory, it's probably the first nail in its coffin as the "rising tide lifts all boats" thing has a basic flaw - what if you reach high tide and some boats are still stranded halfway up the beach? I guess what I'm saying is that when we reach the end of a finite supply of mined precious metals, what if half the world is drowning in redundant, superseded Apple products, while the other half is still struggling through life without a fridge? Is that what we want? Because that is what we'll get if we don't change our global economic system.

[Eric_WLothian]

... Until Labour work out why they lost, all of this is utterly pointless. All the candidates apart from Corbyn are busy answering questions that are not being asked - they, and Harman, are assuming that Labour lost because Ed's politics didn't appeal. That's not actually true.

Labour lost because the MSM chose to propagate Tory lies about Labour's stance on the big ticket items (NHS, immigration, social security) whilst obscuring the truth about the Tory-led coalition's record and the intentions of the party which eventually won a tiny majority it wasn't expecting.

There was nothing - nothing - wrong with the policies Ed campaigned on. Harman's suggestion that people who spent hours on end, day after day, knocking on doors and getting Ed's message across are secretly relieved that all their graft was for nothing is deeply insulting.

Labour lost votes to UKIP where immigration is seen as a local problem; it lost votes in marginals to the Greens; it lost votes in Scotland due to a nasty and vicious campaign by the SNP actively encouraged by the Tory press south of the border.
But in fact, according to many experts, Labour did well in many places - and the turnout figures were unkindest of all to the left.

I have never been a member of a political party but I seriously considered joining the LP after the election. Seeing the disarray, both in Scotland and the rest of the UK, I decided not to. Why? Firstly, Ed's resignation seemed premature. Fair enough for him to decide to go (though personally, I think he should have opted for a vote of confidence). Going immediately, before even a shortlist of successors had been drawn up, makes the party look fragmented, as media speculation as to who will stand, takes over.
As for Harman's comments - if the higher echelons of the party are content with such statements, they must be hell-bent on political suicide.
Secondly, although Jim Murphy at least allowed time for discussion before stepping down, I can't see how going less than a year before the SE will help the party in Scotland. Jim may not have been everybody's cup of tea but he proved he could stand up to the bullies in the SNP. Is there a potential successor with the same determination (and thick skin)? There has been no successful Scottish party leader who didn't have Westminster experience. (I don't count Sturgeon - she's a one-woman party political broadcast, not an FM).

[PorFavor]

Office for National Statistics (ONS)
Part of How important is China to the UK economy?
Released: 09 June 2015

The emergence of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) economies over the last 20 years has attributed to the changing composition the world’s economy...Among the BRIC’s China is the only economy to have a notable impact on UK exports and imports...

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/internati ... china.html

China is very important to the UK economy.
The graphs & tables linked above prove this.
China has issued reports of plummeting imports for seven quarters & exports are down for a few quarters too.
I don't know exactly what this means.

I guess it means that China grew its economy at a staggering rate by taking over the global manufacturing of pretty much everything and selling it to wealthy westerners, except the westerners then lost their well-paid manufacturing jobs because everything's now made in China and so there are fewer and fewer wealthy people to buy all the stuff China is making so their economic boom is starting to slow down.

In terms of the environmental conservation of the planet and our dwindling natural resources, it's probably a good thing. In terms of trickle down, neoliberal, economic theory, it's probably the first nail in its coffin as the "rising tide lifts all boats" thing has a basic flaw - what if you reach high tide and some boats are still stranded halfway up the beach? I guess what I'm saying is that when we reach the end of a finite supply of mined precious metals, what if half the world is drowning in redundant, superseded Apple products, while the other half is still struggling through life without a fridge? Is that what we want? Because that is what we'll get if we don't change our global economic system.

Yes - (as I've bored on about forever now) - progress or growth?

The two are not often mutually inclusive.

[Willow904]

... Until Labour work out why they lost, all of this is utterly pointless. All the candidates apart from Corbyn are busy answering questions that are not being asked - they, and Harman, are assuming that Labour lost because Ed's politics didn't appeal. That's not actually true.

Labour lost because the MSM chose to propagate Tory lies about Labour's stance on the big ticket items (NHS, immigration, social security) whilst obscuring the truth about the Tory-led coalition's record and the intentions of the party which eventually won a tiny majority it wasn't expecting.

There was nothing - nothing - wrong with the policies Ed campaigned on. Harman's suggestion that people who spent hours on end, day after day, knocking on doors and getting Ed's message across are secretly relieved that all their graft was for nothing is deeply insulting.

Labour lost votes to UKIP where immigration is seen as a local problem; it lost votes in marginals to the Greens; it lost votes in Scotland due to a nasty and vicious campaign by the SNP actively encouraged by the Tory press south of the border.
But in fact, according to many experts, Labour did well in many places - and the turnout figures were unkindest of all to the left.

I have never been a member of a political party but I seriously considered joining the LP after the election. Seeing the disarray, both in Scotland and the rest of the UK, I decided not to. Why? Firstly, Ed's resignation seemed premature. Fair enough for him to decide to go (though personally, I think he should have opted for a vote of confidence). Going immediately, before even a shortlist of successors had been drawn up, makes the party look fragmented, as media speculation as to who will stand, takes over.
As for Harman's comments - if the higher echelons of the party are content with such statements, they must be hell-bent on political suicide.
Secondly, although Jim Murphy at least allowed time for discussion before stepping down, I can't see how going less than a year before the SE will help the party in Scotland. Jim may not have been everybody's cup of tea but he proved he could stand up to the bullies in the SNP. Is there a potential successor with the same determination (and thick skin)? There has been no successful Scottish party leader who didn't have Westminster experience. (I don't count Sturgeon - she's a one-woman party political broadcast, not an FM).

I was very surprised myself that Jim Murphy felt he had to stand down. It seemed to me that the damage to Scottish Labour had been done well before he took over as leader and that his appointment was one that should have been intended for leadership of Scottish Labour in the elections for the Scottish parliament, with his ability as leader judged on Labour's performance in 2016, not 2015.
I feel the media making it impossible for defeated leaders to remain, regardless of the sentiments of the actual members of the party, is all part of the subversion of our democracy by a powerful oligarchy of vested interests. The way many Labour MPs feel they have no choice but to give in to this bullying is extremely depressing and why I don't regret supporting Ed Miliband, despite the defeat. Taking the chance to get the Murdoch monkey off our collective backs was an opportunity not to be missed, imo, even if it didn't work.

[Eric_WLothian]

I was very surprised myself that Jim Murphy felt he had to stand down. It seemed to me that the damage to Scottish Labour had been done well before he took over as leader and that his appointment was one that should have been intended for leadership of Scottish Labour in the elections for the Scottish parliament, with his ability as leader judged on Labour's performance in 2016, not 2015.
I feel the media making it impossible for defeated leaders to remain, regardless of the sentiments of the actual members of the party, is all part of the subversion of our democracy by a powerful oligarchy of vested interests. The way many Labour MPs feel they have no choice but to give in to this bullying is extremely depressing and why I don't regret supporting Ed Miliband, despite the defeat. Taking the chance to get the Murdoch monkey off our collective backs was an opportunity not to be missed, imo, even if it didn't work.

Imo the "leaders' debates" were a big mistake - not just this year, but their inception. We don't elect the leader unless we live in his/her constituency (and even then, there's likely to be no credible opposition, due to FPTP - and I won't mention the leader who wasn't even standing in any constituency).
There is far too much emphasis on the leader and his/her public performance, and not enough on the supporting team (by which I mean all the constituency candidates) and the policies they represent.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Re Burnham and Hinchingbrooke.

Labour were not in power when Circle was awarded the contract to run Hinchingbrooke and therefore weren't responsible for the terms and conditions of the contract and were never responsible for monitoring patient care while Circle were in charge.

I have no problem with people not wanting to vote for Labour because of the privatisation and continued marketisation of the NHS that took place during the Labour years as that is fair. It is a question of ideology and I respect that a lot of people feel Labour are still wedded to that ideology and they may or may not be right, I don't know.

I do, however, have a problem with people blaming Labour for things that happened after they left power, as it makes a lot of assumptions about how Labour would have responded to those problems, as opposed to the way the coalition responded to them, which is highly speculative and continues the Tory meme of everything being Labour's fault pretty much indefinitely, even though choices are being made constantly that change the original direction and impact of earlier Labour decisions. For this reason I can't hold Andy Burnham responsible for what happened at Hinchingbrooke under the coalition government.

I don't particularly hold him responsible for the general direction of the NHS under Tony Blair, either, and prefer to judge him on what he is saying he will do in the future, which is to continue with Ed Miliband's policy of repealing the Health and Social Care act and eliminating the competitive tendering that threatens the very existence of the NHS as we know it. The truth is, none of the other leadership contenders have had anything to say about the NHS at all, which is even more worrying, in my opinion, than Andy Burnham's past mistakes during his very fleeting time as Health Secretary.

I agree with you, apart from the terms and conditions for Hinchingbrooke - I believe I saw a reference by Richard Blogger who's done a series of blogs about Circle where he said that the T&C's were those drafted by Labour's interlopers. Do you think Burnham's carrying a lot of baggage? I do. I honestly can't imagine him standing up against Cameron/A N Other and not being damaged by the past - truth or lies.

His "baggage" is a problem - maybe the main thing that makes people doubt his leadership capacities.

However, I have no doubt he realises this himself - and has a plan for at least neutralising it. I look forward to hearing more from him on this

[ohsocynical]

YvetteForLabour ‏36 minutes ago

.@YvetteCooperMP - Never again can we have a plan that just targets lib dem voters. It wasn't enough. #GMBCONGRESS15

Huh? Was I listening to the wrong manifesto?

[ohsocynical]

Just started reading this...

Positive affect as coercive strategy: conditionality, activation and the role of psychology in UK government workfare programmes

http://mh.bmj.com/content/41/1/40.full

[AnatolyKasparov]

YvetteForLabour ‏36 minutes ago

.@YvetteCooperMP - Never again can we have a plan that just targets lib dem voters. It wasn't enough. #GMBCONGRESS15

Huh? Was I listening to the wrong manifesto?

Whenever I am starting to think a bit more of her, she comes up with a doozy like that and its back to square one again

[PorFavor]

Just started reading this...

Positive affect as coercive strategy: conditionality, activation and the role of psychology in UK government workfare programmes

http://mh.bmj.com/content/41/1/40.full

I know it's not your error but theirs. But the article would perhaps be more convincing if they knew the difference between "affect" and "effect".

[ohsocynical]

Just started reading this...

Positive affect as coercive strategy: conditionality, activation and the role of psychology in UK government workfare programmes

http://mh.bmj.com/content/41/1/40.full

I know it's not your error but theirs. But the article would perhaps be more convincing if they knew the difference between "affect" and "effect".

I didn't spot that...

All the mind games...Brain washing. I should stop bewailing the way people are these days.

[PorFavor]

YvetteForLabour ‏36 minutes ago

.@YvetteCooperMP - Never again can we have a plan that just targets lib dem voters. It wasn't enough. #GMBCONGRESS15

Huh? Was I listening to the wrong manifesto?

Whenever I am starting to think a bit more of her, she comes up with a doozy like that and its back to square one again

Yes - but she surprised me by saying this (re the last manifesto):

Cooper says it was not too leftwing. We should not be rejecting it; we should be building out from it, she says. She would have liked more explaining how high-tech jobs would come to a place like Yorkshire.(Politics Blog, Guardian, 15.07)

Although the last sentence puzzles me a bit. Why Yorkshire, in particular?

[ohsocynical]

YvetteForLabour1 hour ago

@YvetteCooperMP - We need to take on ukip. Because we can't fall for the myth that they're only taking votes from Tories. That isn't true

I think she needs to make a list and stick to it.

[ohsocynical]

Ed Wilson ‏2 minutes ago

Mark Durkan MP on the private members' bill for an EU referendum: "The ADHD wing of the Tory party was pleasuring itself..."

[ohsocynical]

@YvetteCooperMP the Scots want Labour further to the left while the English don't

Sigh !!!!!

[ohsocynical]

Mary Creagh: Labour didn't lose because it was "too left-wing" but because it had "no vision". #labourleadership

More sighs....

[55DegreesNorth]

Just started reading this...

Positive affect as coercive strategy: conditionality, activation and the role of psychology in UK government workfare programmes

http://mh.bmj.com/content/41/1/40.full

I know it's not your error but theirs. But the article would perhaps be more convincing if they knew the difference between "affect" and "effect".

Hi PF,
Affect has a very specific meaning in a psycho-social context, as opposed to its every day use.

Affective states are psycho-physiological constructs. According to most current views, they vary along three principal dimensions: valence, arousal, and motivational intensity.[2] Valence is the subjective positive-to-negative evaluation of an experienced state. Emotional valence refers to the emotion’s consequences, emotion-eliciting circumstances, or subjective feelings or attitudes.[3] Arousal is objectively measurable as activation of the sympathetic nervous system, but can also be assessed subjectively via self-report. Arousal is a construct that is closely related to motivational intensity but they differ in that motivation necessarily implies action while arousal does not.[4] Motivational intensity refers to the impulsion to act.[5] It is the strength of an urge to move toward or away from a stimulus.

In this context, the punitive DWP approach to benefit claimants is designed to produce an affective response, ie increased job seeking behaviour. This is why they claim to be able to cut the costs due to behaviour change. Psychobabble like this is presented as a quantifiable, scientifically provable process, when in reality it's bollocks.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Mary Creagh: Labour didn't lose because it was "too left-wing" but because it had "no vision". #labourleadership

More sighs....

There is more truth in that claim than some, tbf. Though it (mostly) wasn't Ed's fault.

[PorFavor]

Just started reading this...

Positive affect as coercive strategy: conditionality, activation and the role of psychology in UK government workfare programmes

http://mh.bmj.com/content/41/1/40.full

I know it's not your error but theirs. But the article would perhaps be more convincing if they knew the difference between "affect" and "effect".

Hi PF,
Affect has a very specific meaning in a psycho-social context, as opposed to its every day use.

Affective states are psycho-physiological constructs. According to most current views, they vary along three principal dimensions: valence, arousal, and motivational intensity.[2] Valence is the subjective positive-to-negative evaluation of an experienced state. Emotional valence refers to the emotion’s consequences, emotion-eliciting circumstances, or subjective feelings or attitudes.[3] Arousal is objectively measurable as activation of the sympathetic nervous system, but can also be assessed subjectively via self-report. Arousal is a construct that is closely related to motivational intensity but they differ in that motivation necessarily implies action while arousal does not.[4] Motivational intensity refers to the impulsion to act.[5] It is the strength of an urge to move toward or away from a stimulus.

In this context, the punitive DWP approach to benefit claimants is designed to produce an affective response, ie increased job seeking behaviour. This is why they claim to be able to cut the costs due to behaviour change. Psychobabble like this is presented as a quantifiable, scientifically provable process, when in reality it's bollocks.

Ooh - thanks for enlightening me. I didn't know that (she said, stating the bleedin' obvious). However, bollocks I do recognise!

[ohsocynical]

Mary Creagh: Labour didn't lose because it was "too left-wing" but because it had "no vision". #labourleadership

More sighs....

There is more truth in that claim than some, tbf. Though it (mostly) wasn't Ed's fault.

When Ed spoke I was able to visualise his 'vision'. Given how far we've slipped into Capitalism, I thought it was far reaching but practical. Doable in other words.

[ohsocynical]

Just started reading this...

Positive affect as coercive strategy: conditionality, activation and the role of psychology in UK government workfare programmes

http://mh.bmj.com/content/41/1/40.full

I know it's not your error but theirs. But the article would perhaps be more convincing if they knew the difference between "affect" and "effect".

Hi PF,
Affect has a very specific meaning in a psycho-social context, as opposed to its every day use.

Affective states are psycho-physiological constructs. According to most current views, they vary along three principal dimensions: valence, arousal, and motivational intensity.[2] Valence is the subjective positive-to-negative evaluation of an experienced state. Emotional valence refers to the emotion’s consequences, emotion-eliciting circumstances, or subjective feelings or attitudes.[3] Arousal is objectively measurable as activation of the sympathetic nervous system, but can also be assessed subjectively via self-report. Arousal is a construct that is closely related to motivational intensity but they differ in that motivation necessarily implies action while arousal does not.[4] Motivational intensity refers to the impulsion to act.[5] It is the strength of an urge to move toward or away from a stimulus.

In this context, the punitive DWP approach to benefit claimants is designed to produce an affective response, ie increased job seeking behaviour. This is why they claim to be able to cut the costs due to behaviour change. Psychobabble like this is presented as a quantifiable, scientifically provable process, when in reality it's bollocks.

Bollocks maybe, in how they explain their reforms to the public, but not bollocks in that it's doing a bloody fine job of damaging and taking away what self confidence people had, and an even bloodier job of brainwashing public attitudes to work, the under employed, underpaid, unpaid and the workless.

Coldly calculated meddling in the hands of rank amateurs.

[55DegreesNorth]

Just started reading this...

Positive affect as coercive strategy: conditionality, activation and the role of psychology in UK government workfare programmes

http://mh.bmj.com/content/41/1/40.full

It's worth reading this article. The misuse of psychology is horrific.