Thursday 30th July 2015

Post by **refitman** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 7:10 am

Morning all.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 7:48 am

Good morfternoon.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 8:07 am

Must I say everything twice?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 8:08 am

Morning.

Western Mail has posed some questions about Labour's future in Wales etc to Andy Burham.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/news- ... ms-9751925" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 8:10 am

Oh - it's gone. Thank you. But now I look foolish. Still, there's always a millionth time for everything . . .

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 8:40 am

Morning.

norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 13m13 minutes ago
Govt shd build camps in North Africa to repatriate #calais migrants -Tory MP for Monmouth David Davies @BBCr4today

norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 14m14 minutes ago
If French agree, the Govt shd send in the army to police Calais - Tory MP for Monmouth David Davies @bbcr4today

The above tweets don't quite convey the 'style' and 'tone' of his interview though ...

Ian Dunt retweeted
Girl on the Net ‏@girlonthenet 15m15 minutes ago
Fucking hell. Today programme this morning:
"Round them up?"
"There's too many of them!"
Hard to believe they're talking about humans.

Ian Dunt retweeted
Ellie Cumbo ‏@EllieCumbo 12m12 minutes ago
David Davies MP on the Today programme: 'I'm talking about humane refugee camps- not, you know, bad ones.' Well, thank goodness for that.

norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 7m7 minutes ago
PM tells @itvnews that there is now "a swarm" of migrants coming to UK from #calais

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 8:49 am

Morning all. I'll stop banging on about the leadership election soon (I just want it over, to be honest) but there seems to have been a bit of a shift in the tone of the (far-too-many) articles being published about it.

Obviously, there are still plenty of absolute howlers (from execrable drivel-wit Rod Liddle, say http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... e-country/ (wasn't he backing Liz? I wait for her fans to condemn his attacks on Jeremy) or this raving stream of hyperbolic gobguff from someone who thought he'd been selected up in Desbury and wasn't http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/07/27/co ... eserve-it/ Bitter much?)

But then there's this from Sunny Hundal which is sharp and insightful on the confusion at the heart of Blairites who no more understand their loss of control than they have an answer for it:

http://labourlist.org/2015/07/the-blair ... our-party/

I by no means agree with all of it, but Sunny is not on the left and his comments are shrewd and objective enough to be quite an illuminating example of what Blairites might want to learn from.

Then there's John Harris at the Guardian, who I know some have a problem with (myself included at times) but who's always been able to think well and write better:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... are_btn_tw

It's interesting that Harris manages to voice reservations about Corbyn and yet be absolutely engaged and excited by the reasons for the surge and where it might lead. He also nails the problems with the other candidates very acutely. I don't think Corbyn's doing well just because of their flaws but it certainly hasn't hurt:

There is a poetic justice about this. As Corbyn rises, Andy Burnham is suddenly styling himself as the faux-radical saviour of a party “scared of its own shadow”. But do not forget how the latter’s campaign for the Labour leadership began: with a speech at the City offices of a corporation associated with huge tax avoidance, which parroted grim lines about how businesses such as these deserved “wholehearted support”, quickly followed by a claim that when talking about benefits, Labour had to be careful not to speak for people who want “something for nothing”.

Yvette Cooper is now at pains to present herself as the very embodiment of feminism and greenery but spent May and June apparently trying to say as little of note as possible, while exhibiting that awful modern Labour tendency to boil even the great causes of the age down to borderline inanity and talk to people as if they are stupid. (Witness a campaign questionnaire that demands its recipients must tick one of five boxes, from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” next to such imperatives as “end child poverty in a generation”.) Liz Kendall’s progress, meanwhile, underlines a truth as banal as some of her rhetoric: that if you stand before a body of people and suggest that a great deal of their most fundamental beliefs will have to be thrown overboard, they may not like you very much.

Lastly, from the Fabian, something that rightly makes the point that there are plenty of people who are "sick and tired or hearing that we don’t want the “wrong” sort of members":

http://www.fabians.org.uk/the-tories-ar ... to-pieces/

These are far more interesting times than they are The End of Labour. Any split from Jeremy winning is far more likely to be from those who ignored him for years and tolerated him in the party, who now won't return the tolerance when it's the other way round. I've no idea what will happen or even if he'll win. But these conversations - that all reflect a void in the party left by the failure of Blairism to stay as relevant as it imagines itself to be - are the mark of a party that has plenty more to offer should it take heed of its challenges rather than ploughing on into purposeless inanity and convenient deafness.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 8:50 am

Morevetinoon afterbubbles all...

Hoping to drop in later on, but wanted to put in a quick comment about Ms Kendall....I had (again) the misfortune of being within earshot of THE REAL JEREMY VINE yesterday lunchtime....where, following last weeks absolutely marvelous piece on 'Tories for Corbyn'...represented by none other than your favourite and mine, Toady Dung (with a Labour Progress member I think), in which there was much simpering and 'vote for Corbyn, 'cos like that'll be great for the Tories and stuff'....and various other snidey coments about 'what on EARTH are Labour DOING'....Ms Kendall rocked up yesterday.

The piece began, naturally enough, with the 'no-one knows/cares about Labour but you seem nice'...followed by the bit that had me deafening the surrounding countryside with expletives (which was a surprise, after a period of relative calm in Wolfiedom, where I seem to have managed to become much quieter).......a screechy foamy-mouthed Vine imploring Kendall that 'everyone knows Labour spent far too much and screwed the economy' (wish I could remember verbatim, as it was made to sound very much as though the entire global crisis was 'Labours' fault')...at which point, I would expect a potential leader of the party/country to point out some FACTS and EVIDENCE to contradict the official Clouncy Funt wisdom...but no....just a meek acceptance that, yes, Labour really had had spent too much, really had caused the entire global financial meltdown and simply MUST accept that before they can move on....I mean....really? REALLY?

I am not now and have never been a member of the Labour party (but voted for honesty and decency in public life in 2015 by voting Labour for the first time and backing Ed Miliband)....and frankly, what with that and SHs absolute, complete, total and absolute correctness about being right about everything, especially the uselessness of Miliband (and actually, everyone else in the Labour party who's not a 'Kendallite) I'm finding it difficult not to shout loud and proud for Corbyn. (I'm aware that I'm a 'Burnhamite' by nature....but, as with most things, I'm allowed to change my mind...and Corbyns message becomes more and more appealing the more Clouncys' Murkydochian Monsters (and their Austerity-loving, bankster-adulating sycophants) tell me he's 'unelectable'.) Well, that's what you said about Miliband for 5 years and, surprise, surprise, following an effective media blackout of the policies, the realities of the ConDemnation and on and on and on, it came true....so then, if whoever is elected is unelectable (see what I did there?) I might as well vote with my heart...especially if it'll also get up the nose (and bank account) of Tory Blur.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 8:59 am

yahyah wrote:Morning.

Western Mail has posed some questions about Labour's future in Wales etc to Andy Burham.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/news- ... ms-9751925" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Right. I'll try again.

Thanks for the link.

Westminster Burble. Again.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 9:00 am

Isabel Hardman ‏@IsabelHardman 16m16 minutes ago
This Labour leadership contest shows us Blairism is in its death throes - my politics column in this week’s Spectator http://specc.ie/1JSHKfF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well there's a headline ...

Haven't read it yet. Off to do that now.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 9:04 am

I agree with Harris that the rise of Corbyn is the same phenomenon as the rise of Ukip and the SNP.

This is, without doubt, exciting for a journalist.

Rather less good if you want, say, a Labour majority government. All are the triumph of unreason.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 9:10 am

We had a Kendall canvasser ring last night, just as I dished up supper.
Only call we've had from any candidate team but with 200,000 or so members probably not surprising.

The Kendall-ite was a polite young man but he sounded decidedly down beat after I said 'Liz Kendall, no thanks'. Suspect I was one of many.
Would have delayed eating to talk if it had been one of the other candidates being pushed.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 9:29 am

SpinningHugo wrote:I agree with Harris that the rise of Corbyn is the same phenomenon as the rise of Ukip and the SNP.

This is, without doubt, exciting for a journalist.

Rather less good if you want, say, a Labour majority government. All are the triumph of unreason.

So you believe(TM) that Corbyn is some sort of Murkydochian sleeper agent then?

Again, to sit back and wait for 2020, when untold (further) damage will have been wrought on Britain as an entity, far more human beings will have suffered terribly, the banks and international corporations will have continued to hoover up all the 'money credits' worldwide, the sick, disabled, poor and old will have less and less help from 'society' (if, indeed, such a thing exists anymore) and will be further victimised.....whilst the Tories laugh uproariously into their extremely expensive taxpayer funded bottles of claret is (I believe(TM)) tantamount to complicity in their crimes.

TTFN

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 9:40 am

Lonewolfie wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:I agree with Harris that the rise of Corbyn is the same phenomenon as the rise of Ukip and the SNP.

This is, without doubt, exciting for a journalist.

Rather less good if you want, say, a Labour majority government. All are the triumph of unreason.
So you believe(TM) that Corbyn is some sort of Murkydochian sleeper agent then?

Again, to sit back and wait for 2020, when untold (further) damage will have been wrought on Britain as an entity, far more human beings will have suffered terribly, the banks and international corporations will have continued to hoover up all the 'money credits' worldwide, the sick, disabled, poor and old will have less and less help from 'society' (if, indeed, such a thing exists anymore) and will be further victimised.....whilst the Tories laugh uproariously into their extremely expensive taxpayer funded bottles of claret is (I believe(TM)) tantamount to complicity in their crimes.

TTFN

I see. So you are proposing some kind of revolution to overturn the state, thereby rendering the Tory majority in Parliament irrelevant?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 9:49 am

Speaking to broadcasters in Vietnam, Cameron vowed to do more to protect Britain’s borders. “We have to deal with the problem at source and that is stopping so many people from travelling across the Mediterranean in search of a better life. That means trying to stabilise the countries from which they come, it also means breaking the link between travelling and getting the right to stay in Europe,” he said. (Guardian)

Strange thing to go all the way to Vietnam to say.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 9:53 am

Morningtons all

Astronomers have found that a brown-dwarf (star) - 18 Light Years away - has an aurora a million times brighter than the Aurora Borealis on Earth:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015 ... ern-lights

@Wolfie: Hear! Hear!

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 9:57 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
Lonewolfie wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:I agree with Harris that the rise of Corbyn is the same phenomenon as the rise of Ukip and the SNP.

This is, without doubt, exciting for a journalist.

Rather less good if you want, say, a Labour majority government. All are the triumph of unreason.
So you believe(TM) that Corbyn is some sort of Murkydochian sleeper agent then?

Again, to sit back and wait for 2020, when untold (further) damage will have been wrought on Britain as an entity, far more human beings will have suffered terribly, the banks and international corporations will have continued to hoover up all the 'money credits' worldwide, the sick, disabled, poor and old will have less and less help from 'society' (if, indeed, such a thing exists anymore) and will be further victimised.....whilst the Tories laugh uproariously into their extremely expensive taxpayer funded bottles of claret is (I believe(TM)) tantamount to complicity in their crimes.

TTFN

I see. So you are proposing some kind of revolution to overturn the state, thereby rendering the Tory majority in Parliament irrelevant?

You've got to admit, it's a tempting idea.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 10:00 am

SpinningHugo wrote:I agree with Harris that the rise of Corbyn is the same phenomenon as the rise of Ukip and the SNP.

This is, without doubt, exciting for a journalist.

Rather less good if you want, say, a Labour majority government. All are the triumph of unreason.

I think we might settle for the electoral success the SNP has recently had, though

(the smiley indicates this is not an entirely serious comment, btw)

Still, even winning the Euro elections (as UKIP did last year) would be nice. The last time Labour did that was in 1994.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 10:27 am

http://labourlist.org/2015/07/where-is- ... ming-from/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A couple of days old, and underestimated how well Corbyn would do with Unison (there aren't even soft left unions of any size left now) but pretty accurate I think.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 10:35 am

SpinningHugo wrote:http://labourlist.org/2015/07/where-is- ... ming-from/

A couple of days old, and underestimated how well Corbyn would do with Unison (there aren't even soft left unions of any size left now) but pretty accurate I think.

Thanks for the link.

This bit must be galling for some people -

Whilst it’s frustrating to see the Stop the War Campaign or other single issue groups promote signing up to vote Corbyn, it’s not improper. The system agreed by the Collins Review was deliberately set up to allow this kind of mass recruitment of registered supporters. Ironically, it was a sop to the Blairite right, who wanted primaries. I think that is called being hoist by your own petard. If Labour moderates haven’t recruited as many people as Corbyn we only have ourselves to blame. (LabourList)

But have "Labour moderates" not tried hard to recruit people, or have they tried hard and failed?

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 10:47 am

SpinningHugo wrote:I agree with Harris that the rise of Corbyn is the same phenomenon as the rise of Ukip and the SNP.

This is, without doubt, exciting for a journalist.

Rather less good if you want, say, a Labour majority government. All are the triumph of unreason.

It's exciting because of what it represents; that journalists are attempting to capture the very real excitement many seem to be sharing at the hope for a clear alternative isn't the kind of self-regarding exercise that you implicitly criticise.

And the greatest triumph of unreason in all this is the absolute and utterly condescending rejection of a desire for involvement and change driving engagement with politics and Labour - the patronising condemnation of those involved in this because, you know, "we people who won't engage with them are so much mature than that so la la la not listening". It keeps swiping away any other conclusion than its own premise: "it can't win because it can't win which is why he won't win." Equally - it's a gift - every huff about how terrible Corbyn is by someone sneering from an illusory centre wins over far more people to the very cause they're huffing about.

There's nothing more guaranteed to lose than having no other reason to communicate to voters than a desire to win. That's how everyone other than Corbyn is coming across - and exemplifies the void of purpose Hundal and Harris both capture - not for their careers but as a fair report on the political situation such inane winning-at-any-cost-why-are-we-losing guff has left Labour in.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 10:47 am

The most direct reason we have this electoral system is Falkirk : that whipped-up Blairite nonsense that had the media howling for Unite to be taken out and shot for using proper, party approved methods to increase its own members representation in Parliament.

Instead of rebuking the media and the Blairites, and correcting them about party procedures, Miliband panicked, innocent people were smeared and defamed, and in one case lost their job, and we had a special party conference to re-jig the voting system to the current one.

It is an irony that their demands have backfired on them, and the wider electorate, that they thought would isolate the supposed extremism in Unite, has shown itself to be equally left-wing and defiant of Blairism and all its works.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 10:51 am

Good morning, everyone.
Over 220,000 members makes Labour membership the largest in the UK.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 10:51 am

PorFavor wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:http://labourlist.org/2015/07/where-is- ... ming-from/

A couple of days old, and underestimated how well Corbyn would do with Unison (there aren't even soft left unions of any size left now) but pretty accurate I think.
Thanks for the link.

This bit must be galling for some people -

Whilst it’s frustrating to see the Stop the War Campaign or other single issue groups promote signing up to vote Corbyn, it’s not improper. The system agreed by the Collins Review was deliberately set up to allow this kind of mass recruitment of registered supporters. Ironically, it was a sop to the Blairite right, who wanted primaries. I think that is called being hoist by your own petard. If Labour moderates haven’t recruited as many people as Corbyn we only have ourselves to blame. (LabourList)
But have "Labour moderates" not tried hard to recruit people, or have they tried hard and failed?

It has and will always be the case that the membership has a disproportionate number of ultras. Soggy liberal centrists (Blairites if you like) don't usually care enough. In this I am very unusual.

In the 70s/80s the membership were counterbalanced by rightwing unions. They have all gone. In the 00s Blair and what he represented were tolerated because of electoral success. That has all gone too.

So, just as the Tory members thought it wise to elect IDS and not Clarke, so our ultras can now show their true strength and elect Corbyn.

Thereby consigning Labour to electoral oblivion.

What has begun to look strange is how well David Miliband did in 2010. Not that he lost.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 10:53 am

mikems wrote:The most direct reason we have this electoral system is Falkirk : that whipped-up Blairite nonsense that had the media howling for Unite to be taken out and shot for using proper, party approved methods to increase its own members representation in Parliament.

Instead of rebuking the media and the Blairites, and correcting them about party procedures, Miliband panicked, innocent people were smeared and defamed, and in one case lost their job, and we had a special party conference to re-jig the voting system to the current one.

It is an irony that their demands have backfired on them, and the wider electorate, that they thought would isolate the supposed extremism in Unite, has shown itself to be equally left-wing and defiant of Blairism and all its works.

Huh?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 10:55 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:http://labourlist.org/2015/07/where-is- ... ming-from/

A couple of days old, and underestimated how well Corbyn would do with Unison (there aren't even soft left unions of any size left now) but pretty accurate I think.
Thanks for the link.

This bit must be galling for some people -

Whilst it’s frustrating to see the Stop the War Campaign or other single issue groups promote signing up to vote Corbyn, it’s not improper. The system agreed by the Collins Review was deliberately set up to allow this kind of mass recruitment of registered supporters. Ironically, it was a sop to the Blairite right, who wanted primaries. I think that is called being hoist by your own petard. If Labour moderates haven’t recruited as many people as Corbyn we only have ourselves to blame. (LabourList)
But have "Labour moderates" not tried hard to recruit people, or have they tried hard and failed?

It has and will always be the case that the membership has a disproportionate number of ultras. Soggy liberal centrists (Blairites if you like) don't usually care enough. In this I am very unusual.

In the 70s/80s the membership were counterbalanced by rightwing unions. They have all gone. In the 00s Blair and what he represented were tolerated because of electoral success. That has all gone too.

So, just as the Tory members thought it wise to elect IDS and not Clarke, so our ultras can now show their true strength and elect Corbyn.

Thereby consigning Labour to electoral oblivion.

What has begun to look strange is how well David Miliband did in 2010. Not that he lost.

Just vote Labour.
That's all there is to it.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 10:59 am

LadyCentauria wrote:Morningtons all Astronomers have found that a brown-dwarf (star) - 18 Light Years away - has an aurora a million times brighter than the Aurora Borealis on Earth:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015 ... ern-lights

@Wolfie: Hear! Hear!

Beautiful!

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 11:03 am

British Gas owner Centrica cuts thousands of jobs

Scaling back of energy company’s business comes despite a doubling in profits at residential power supply business
The move comes despite a doubling in profits at its British Gas residential power supply business in the first half of the year despite a further 45,000 customers being lost to rivals along the way.

Conn promised Centrica would in future be more “customer facing” in its scaled down form but his eye is clearly on finding more favour with the City after a period when the share price has suffered badly. (Guardian)

Despite the headline, there's actually not much detail to be had on the job losses.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 11:04 am

British Gas owner Centrica cuts thousands of jobs

Scaling back of energy company’s business comes despite a doubling in profits at residential power supply business
The move comes despite a doubling in profits at its British Gas residential power supply business in the first half of the year despite a further 45,000 customers being lost to rivals along the way.

Conn promised Centrica would in future be more “customer facing” in its scaled down form but his eye is clearly on finding more favour with the City after a period when the share price has suffered badly. (Guardian)

Despite the headline, there's actually not much detail to be had on the job losses.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 11:06 am

As much as I'm sure all the rest of you appreciate the Double PorFavor Effect, this is really pissing me off. Oh well, mustn't be selfish . . .

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 11:06 am

British Gas owner Centrica cuts thousands of jobs
Scaling back of energy company’s business comes despite a doubling in profits at residential power supply business

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... up-shakeup" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Put our money in renewables. That's what Ed Miliband's Labour party government would've done. That's what the current Labour party would do. The Labour party isn't full of MPs with the fossil fuel portfolios like the worthless Tory government.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 11:08 am

PorFavor wrote:
Speaking to broadcasters in Vietnam, Cameron vowed to do more to protect Britain’s borders. “We have to deal with the problem at source and that is stopping so many people from travelling across the Mediterranean in search of a better life. That means trying to stabilise the countries from which they come, it also means breaking the link between travelling and getting the right to stay in Europe,” he said. (Guardian)
Strange thing to go all the way to Vietnam to say.

Heard on the news this morning that the UK get about a quarter of the asylum applications of Germany (24,000 per annum V 100,000 odd) which makes me feel even more justified in asking why we don't just get on and process them. If they are economic migrants, we are legally allowed to reject them and send them home, if genuine asylum seekers we should take them in. I personally feel the Calais camps are already a magnet, so I don't see getting on with processing them as some kind of a further incentive. My symathies are overwhelmingly with the citizens of Calais who shouldn't have to put up with these camps just so Cameron can look "tough". He's not being "tough". He's being negligent, failing to do anything to deal with a growing problem which has escalated primarily because of his inability to work effectively with the French government.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 11:09 am

PorFavor wrote:As much as I'm sure all the rest of you appreciate the Double PorFavor Effect, this is really pissing me off. Oh well, mustn't be selfish . . .

Everything you post is worth it being said twice.
I'm sorry PorFavor, I see you've posted the British Gas story ahead of me.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 11:10 am

Willow904 wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
Speaking to broadcasters in Vietnam, Cameron vowed to do more to protect Britain’s borders. “We have to deal with the problem at source and that is stopping so many people from travelling across the Mediterranean in search of a better life. That means trying to stabilise the countries from which they come, it also means breaking the link between travelling and getting the right to stay in Europe,” he said. (Guardian)
Strange thing to go all the way to Vietnam to say.
Heard on the news this morning that the UK get about a quarter of the asylum applications of Germany (24,000 per annum V 100,000 odd) which makes me feel even more justified in asking why we don't just get on and process them. If they are economic migrants, we are legally allowed to reject them and send them home, if genuine asylum seekers we should take them in. I personally feel the Calais camps are already a magnet, so I don't see getting on with processing them as some kind of a further incentive. My symathies are overwhelmingly with the citizens of Calais who shouldn't have to put up with these camps just so Cameron can look "tough". He's not being "tough". He's being negligent, failing to do anything to deal with a growing problem which has escalated primarily because of his inability to work effectively with the French government.

Right on.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 11:16 am

Pension Trends, Chapter 6: Private pensions, 2014 edition - CANCELLED

Released: 30 July 2015

Pensions Analysis Unit
Geographical coverage: UK
This release has been cancelled.

The Pension Trends series is being reviewed and is likely to be replaced. There are no plans to release Pension Trends chapters in future. There will be consultation on a new approach.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pensions/ ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Worthless Tory government.
They'll be nothing left if this carries on to 2020.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 11:18 am

Tuition fees: fall in mature and part-time students 'threatens social mobility'

The collapse in part-time and mature students studying at universities in England threatens social mobility and economic performance and must be urgently addressed, according to a report into the effect of raising tuition fees.

The Independent Commission on Fees said raising the cost of undergraduate tuition to £9,000 a year has led to “a significant and sustained fall in part-time students and mature students”. It added: “We believe that the new fee regime is a major contributory factor.”

While researchers have long suspected that the government’s decision to treble tuition fees in 2012 has been behind the sudden fall in part-time and mature student numbers in England, the commission’s conclusion is the bluntest statement to date. (Guardian)

All those mature student types can, should they wish to retrain (as they're so often urged to do), just become Morrison's apprentices, can't they? I can't see a problem, myself.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... l-mobility

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 11:21 am

<rant>

There's a peculiar logic at play at the moment. For years we've had this syllogism at the head of parties and across opinion-pieces in the press:

A) The left is an anachronism
B) Anachronisms can be ignored
C) Therefore we can ignore the left

This logic has underwritten the proliferation of the use of the term centrism to describe a political position that's plotted using only half of its x-axis - it ignored the other half away because anachronisms, right? It's the kind of centrism that, were Marxism scored zero and far-right libertarianism scored 10, would place the centre a 7.5 - or, in other words, not the centre. It's like trying to work out where an earthquake started by looking at only the parts of the map you like.

But more than that, Corbyn has come along and, given that he isn't part of this logical dead-end - isn't part of the partially-sighted and circular "only the centre can win so we must be in the centre because only that can win, don't-ask-how-we-define centre" solipcism - looks different. Many, many people have drifted away from that centre (if they ever were in it) often simply by not being caught in its very artificial current. For example, there's more disaffection in identical-seeming mainstream politics than ever; Labour lost millions of votes since 1997, for example, many to people who have simply been abandoned by ever-more of what stranded them. To put that another way, for all the centrists say you have to be in their definition of the centre, there's never been a more popular time to be outside it. Different is an alternative, and people want an alternative (as the largest number of votes outside the main parties ever shows, as well as the SNP's success, even if the SNP profit from looking more different than they are).

And, in response to the obvious popularity and clear difference this new (actually quietly growing) difference represents, people who have misunderstood why their Totem won in 1997 (it was because he appeared to offer an alternative that embodied hope, not because of how left or right he was; the same applies with many who have taken to Corbyn) repeat their mantra:

A) The left is an anachronism
B) Anachronisms can be ignored
C) Therefore we can ignore the left

Which is to say: confronted with the evidence of the failure of their argument, they reassert the failing argument. Evidence they don't like can be patronised away - because the problem is clearly that people who disagree don't understand how great their argument is. And if you suggest that dogmatically sticking to that argument (despite its reduction-of-the-party consequences) means they're the ones stuck in an artificial and idealised past - that it's they who need to rethink their position - well, clearly you're being indulgent, right? Indulging their own dogma is logical and centrist, after all. Because, you know "only the centre can win so we must be in the centre because only that can win". And still don't ask them how they define centre.

To be clear: I may be supporting Corbyn in this election, but I don't think he's some kind of perfect answer to our problems; he does challenge some dated assumptions and might well counterbalance the artificial drift that is Blair's true legacy. He is a compromise I can live with, especially given the unalternative alternatives. Don't the very people most criticising Corbyn argue that not compromising is ideological folly? Their problem with me is that their compromise is different than mine - not that I'm a hapless idealist - but why worry about detail when you can erase it with talk of electability and indulgence.

I haven't dogmatically written off some arguments because of something or other to do with centrism. And I still think there's room to apply the left's principles in new ways to the world we're in now. I've no desire to go back to 1983 but neither do I think that 14 years later than that is any more modern or applicable - especially seeing as many who are most dedicated to it seem to refuse to learn any lessons they don't like from what's happened since - exactly the thing they wrongly accuse their opponents of, in fact.

</rant>

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 11:30 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
It has and will always be the case that the membership has a disproportionate number of ultras. Soggy liberal centrists (Blairites if you like) don't usually care enough. In this I am very unusual.

Of course a party of the left will have more left-wing people in it than the general populace. Calling them ultras? Eh?

HARD-LEFT PLOT TO ELECT CORBYN LABOUR LEADER? THE NUMBERS DON’T ADD UP
https://www.byline.com/column/16/article/213

The Sunday Times claimed the ‘entryist’ plot includes members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB), the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC), including the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP), and – most nefarious of all – Green party activists.

Taking these in turn, the CPGB has around 40 members, according to a source with far-left connections.

In the last general election it contested, the party received 6,000 votes nationally. That was in 1987.

SpinningHugo wrote:In the 70s/80s the membership were counterbalanced by rightwing unions. They have all gone. In the 00s Blair and what he represented were tolerated because of electoral success. That has all gone too.

So, just as the Tory members thought it wise to elect IDS and not Clarke, so our ultras can now show their true strength and elect Corbyn.

It's not ultras who might elect him, then - it's new members, often young, people disaffected with the same-old continuity blandness. You're smearing all of his success by categorising it as uniformly unrepresentative.

Equally, Clarke - once quite the firebrand - is now a millstone of unacceptable moderation in a Tory party that is very different, simply for his having stood still. I suspect the Tory party would be more popular with a moderate - but that ignores that he's only moderate in narrow comparison - and doesn't that also just go to show how the centre isn't all it seems?

SpinningHugo wrote:Thereby consigning Labour to electoral oblivion..

You look like someone determined to ensure your own doom-filled prophecy fulfils itself - for the good of feeling in the right rather than in service of having some worth winning for. It's why that refusal to engage with Corbyn;s surge (it's just like UKIP, it's ultras, it's an old fashioned comfort, etc) looks so indulgent to me. Blair never wrote off the left in 1994-1997 - he worked with them. Oh for the willingness to do so now.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 11:32 am

Willow904 wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
Speaking to broadcasters in Vietnam, Cameron vowed to do more to protect Britain’s borders. “We have to deal with the problem at source and that is stopping so many people from travelling across the Mediterranean in search of a better life. That means trying to stabilise the countries from which they come, it also means breaking the link between travelling and getting the right to stay in Europe,” he said. (Guardian)
Strange thing to go all the way to Vietnam to say.
Heard on the news this morning that the UK get about a quarter of the asylum applications of Germany (24,000 per annum V 100,000 odd) which makes me feel even more justified in asking why we don't just get on and process them. If they are economic migrants, we are legally allowed to reject them and send them home, if genuine asylum seekers we should take them in. I personally feel the Calais camps are already a magnet, so I don't see getting on with processing them as some kind of a further incentive. My symathies are overwhelmingly with the citizens of Calais who shouldn't have to put up with these camps just so Cameron can look "tough". He's not being "tough". He's being negligent, failing to do anything to deal with a growing problem which has escalated primarily because of his inability to work effectively with the French government.

And no-one seems to address the problem of why there are so many migrants at Calais. It's clear that the majority of them are from Iraq and warring Eastern countries etc, because we Western countries have created a a right old mess in their homeland.

Sad that it is beyond the capability of our governments to address the root cause and do something about it.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 11:37 am

onebuttonmonkey wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
It has and will always be the case that the membership has a disproportionate number of ultras. Soggy liberal centrists (Blairites if you like) don't usually care enough. In this I am very unusual.
Of course a party of the left will have more left-wing people in it than the general populace. Calling them ultras? Eh?

HARD-LEFT PLOT TO ELECT CORBYN LABOUR LEADER? THE NUMBERS DON’T ADD UP
https://www.byline.com/column/16/article/213

The Sunday Times claimed the ‘entryist’ plot includes members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB), the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC), including the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP), and – most nefarious of all – Green party activists.

Taking these in turn, the CPGB has around 40 members, according to a source with far-left connections.

In the last general election it contested, the party received 6,000 votes nationally. That was in 1987.

SpinningHugo wrote:In the 70s/80s the membership were counterbalanced by rightwing unions. They have all gone. In the 00s Blair and what he represented were tolerated because of electoral success. That has all gone too.

So, just as the Tory members thought it wise to elect IDS and not Clarke, so our ultras can now show their true strength and elect Corbyn.
It's not ultras who might elect him, then - it's new members, often young, people disaffected with the same-old continuity blandness. You're smearing all of his success by categorising it as uniformly unrepresentative.

Equally, Clarke - once quite the firebrand - is now a millstone of unacceptable moderation in a Tory party that is very different, simply for his having stood still. I suspect the Tory party would be more popular with a moderate - but that ignores that he's only moderate in narrow comparison - and doesn't that also just go to show how the centre isn't all it seems?

SpinningHugo wrote:Thereby consigning Labour to electoral oblivion..
You look like someone determined to ensure your own doom-filled prophecy fulfils itself - for the good of feeling in the right rather than in service of having some worth winning for. It's why that refusal to engage with Corbyn;s surge (it's just like UKIP, it's ultras, it's an old fashioned comfort, etc) looks so indulgent to me. Blair never wrote off the left in 1994-1997 - he worked with them. Oh for the willingness to do so now.

Anyone else noticed, that although his age is off putting amongst some Labour members, it doesn't seen to be such a big deal for the young?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 11:42 am

PorFavor wrote:
Tuition fees: fall in mature and part-time students 'threatens social mobility'

The collapse in part-time and mature students studying at universities in England threatens social mobility and economic performance and must be urgently addressed, according to a report into the effect of raising tuition fees.

The Independent Commission on Fees said raising the cost of undergraduate tuition to £9,000 a year has led to “a significant and sustained fall in part-time students and mature students”. It added: “We believe that the new fee regime is a major contributory factor.”

While researchers have long suspected that the government’s decision to treble tuition fees in 2012 has been behind the sudden fall in part-time and mature student numbers in England, the commission’s conclusion is the bluntest statement to date. (Guardian)
All those mature student types can, should they wish to retrain (as they're so often urged to do), just become Morrison's apprentices, can't they? I can't see a problem, myself.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... l-mobility

This is dreadful & close to home.
Are older students being denied places to study or loans for study given their age?
What the hell are people supposed to do?
I don't want an answer from Tory government - they'd jeer & recommend I head off to Calais.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 11:48 am

ohsocynical wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
It has and will always be the case that the membership has a disproportionate number of ultras. Soggy liberal centrists (Blairites if you like) don't usually care enough. In this I am very unusual.
Of course a party of the left will have more left-wing people in it than the general populace. Calling them ultras? Eh?

HARD-LEFT PLOT TO ELECT CORBYN LABOUR LEADER? THE NUMBERS DON’T ADD UP
https://www.byline.com/column/16/article/213

The Sunday Times claimed the ‘entryist’ plot includes members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB), the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC), including the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP), and – most nefarious of all – Green party activists.

Taking these in turn, the CPGB has around 40 members, according to a source with far-left connections.

In the last general election it contested, the party received 6,000 votes nationally. That was in 1987.

SpinningHugo wrote:In the 70s/80s the membership were counterbalanced by rightwing unions. They have all gone. In the 00s Blair and what he represented were tolerated because of electoral success. That has all gone too.

So, just as the Tory members thought it wise to elect IDS and not Clarke, so our ultras can now show their true strength and elect Corbyn.
It's not ultras who might elect him, then - it's new members, often young, people disaffected with the same-old continuity blandness. You're smearing all of his success by categorising it as uniformly unrepresentative.

Equally, Clarke - once quite the firebrand - is now a millstone of unacceptable moderation in a Tory party that is very different, simply for his having stood still. I suspect the Tory party would be more popular with a moderate - but that ignores that he's only moderate in narrow comparison - and doesn't that also just go to show how the centre isn't all it seems?

SpinningHugo wrote:Thereby consigning Labour to electoral oblivion..
You look like someone determined to ensure your own doom-filled prophecy fulfils itself - for the good of feeling in the right rather than in service of having some worth winning for. It's why that refusal to engage with Corbyn;s surge (it's just like UKIP, it's ultras, it's an old fashioned comfort, etc) looks so indulgent to me. Blair never wrote off the left in 1994-1997 - he worked with them. Oh for the willingness to do so now.
Anyone else noticed, that although his age is off putting amongst some Labour members, it doesn't seen to be such a big deal for the young?

Straightforward fairness is ageless.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 11:53 am

ohsocynical wrote:
Anyone else noticed, that although his age is off putting amongst some Labour members, it doesn't seen to be such a big deal for the young?

You're spot on.

I suppose a problem with that is that the over-65s were the only age group in 2015 where a greater proportion voted Tory than Labour. That said: (a) young voters are traditionally the least likely to vote, which suggests that energising them might involve a genuine electoral return; (b) the fact that over-65s supported the Tories shows the hollowness of the idea that being unquestioningly "pro-business" is the key to having popular policies, and: (c) who knows how they'd react at a chance to vote for someone over 65?

mrs. onebuttonmonkey is by no means a terrible lefty. She does, however, despise the void of principles she (rightly, I think) associates with much of modern Labour and especially considers a legacy of Blair. Judging by the diversity of people at Corbyn's meetings, I don't think he's as harmful per se as is suggested; I also think the key to Labour regaining popularity is reconnection, not recalibration. It's a mark of how confused the Blairites are that they simply cannot conceive of people responding to him as many are - it must be bad people or indulgent fools or who knows what. Which is also an indication that their so-certain pontifications on how disastrous he is may not be as sharp as they think. Well, unless they hatchet the party by refusing to listen to the support he's gathered - regardless of the result - in a way that helps them to blame everyone else for their decision to prove themselves right by sabotage.

Obligatory edit for obligatory typos.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 11:56 am

SpinningHugo wrote:http://labourlist.org/2015/07/where-is- ... ming-from/

A couple of days old, and underestimated how well Corbyn would do with Unison (there aren't even soft left unions of any size left now) but pretty accurate I think.

Interesting comment BTL, there, from one David Lindsay who argues that Corbyn is "well to the right of Harold MacMillan and Alec Douglas-Home.":
http://labourlist.org/2015/07/where-is- ... 2161419889

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 11:58 am

ohsocynical wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
PorFavor wrote: Strange thing to go all the way to Vietnam to say.
Heard on the news this morning that the UK get about a quarter of the asylum applications of Germany (24,000 per annum V 100,000 odd) which makes me feel even more justified in asking why we don't just get on and process them. If they are economic migrants, we are legally allowed to reject them and send them home, if genuine asylum seekers we should take them in. I personally feel the Calais camps are already a magnet, so I don't see getting on with processing them as some kind of a further incentive. My symathies are overwhelmingly with the citizens of Calais who shouldn't have to put up with these camps just so Cameron can look "tough". He's not being "tough". He's being negligent, failing to do anything to deal with a growing problem which has escalated primarily because of his inability to work effectively with the French government.
And no-one seems to address the problem of why there are so many migrants at Calais. It's clear that the majority of them are from Iraq and warring Eastern countries etc, because we Western countries have created a a right old mess in their homeland.
Sad that it is beyond the capability of our governments to address the root cause and do something about it.

Of course, you're absolutely correct. Look at how far off Dave is responding to this crisis - not just geographically at the moment (his currently being in Vietnam). Ridiculous, vacuous speeches on mythical corruption of asylum-seekers/migrants' governments - really, Dave?
Corruption just broke out in those countries making people bunk down in Calais?
UK-made armaments, Dave, you wouldn't pass a first tier question asked of people coming to the UK.
Dave would find himself negotiating a place to camp outside the EU if he weren't Tory PM.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 12:01 pm

How do I stop war?
By not starting one.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 12:16 pm

KGB agents tried to recruit a 19-year-old David Cameron as a Cold War spy during his gap year travels in the Soviet Union.
Or so the story goes when told by the Prime Minister.
But the Kremlin has dismissed the much-told tale, telling Mr Cameron that the 'agents' were in fact dodgy salesmen.
Moscow's secret services delivered a further blow to the Old Etonian by claiming that he had simply been the target of a gay pick-up.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... ck-up.html

This might be my best laugh of the day....

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 12:17 pm

citizenJA wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
Tuition fees: fall in mature and part-time students 'threatens social mobility'

The collapse in part-time and mature students studying at universities in England threatens social mobility and economic performance and must be urgently addressed, according to a report into the effect of raising tuition fees.

The Independent Commission on Fees said raising the cost of undergraduate tuition to £9,000 a year has led to “a significant and sustained fall in part-time students and mature students”. It added: “We believe that the new fee regime is a major contributory factor.”

While researchers have long suspected that the government’s decision to treble tuition fees in 2012 has been behind the sudden fall in part-time and mature student numbers in England, the commission’s conclusion is the bluntest statement to date. (Guardian)
All those mature student types can, should they wish to retrain (as they're so often urged to do), just become Morrison's apprentices, can't they? I can't see a problem, myself.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... l-mobility
This is dreadful & close to home.
Are older students being denied places to study or loans for study given their age?
What the hell are people supposed to do?
I don't want an answer from Tory government - they'd jeer & recommend I head off to Calais.

You can get a student loan whatever your age, as long as you have never attended higher education before. Many part-time and older Open Uni students are second timers who are studying for a mid-life career change. They have to pay all fees themselves. Since the OU put up its fees ( because the higher fees were introduced to compensate for a big cut in direct government funding leaving the OU no choice but to charge more) I believe OU enrolments have fallen because these students specifically have been priced out of the market.

As for first timer older students, when loans were first introduced, I believe they were written off after a shorter amount of time for those over 25. I would be interested in knowing whether that is still the case as it could be a factor in putting older students off if they could be faced with repaying loans into their 60s.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 12:26 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... up-shakeup
Centrica is to cut 6,000 jobs, slash gas exploration and sell off its wind farms in a dramatic restructuring ordered by its new boss and former BP executive, Iain Conn. The move comes despite a doubling in profits at its British Gas residential power supply business in the first half of the year despite a further 45,000 customers being lost to rivals along the way.

Conn promised Centrica would in future be more “customer facing” in its scaled down form but his eye is clearly on finding more favour with the City after a period when the share price has suffered badly.

“Alongside a major group-wide efficiency programme, this (new strategy) will underpin long-term shareholder value, as we target operating cash flow growth of 3-5% per year and deliver a progressive dividend policy,” he said.

What do the bold bits even mean?
"Long-term shareholder value"?
You're just hoping everyone is too strung out stressed & scared to notice you're talking total garbage, Conn, what a stunning name you've got, by the way.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 30 Jul, 2015 12:26 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:F*** it. I think it's Corbyn for me.

I (probably) know how you feel. For me it would be more a vote for Jeremy Corbyn out of despair at the other candidates, though, as distinct from active enthusiasm for him.

I don't even feel that he is the "least bad" option. He's may be just a "better bad". If that makes any sense at all.

(I hope this doesn't appear twice.)

Edited to add

Or do I mean "different bad"? Probably.