Saturday 5th & Sunday 6th December 2015

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 7:08 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -life-raft" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Guardian view on social care funding: don’t overload the life raft
Editorial
George Osborne sounded generous during last month’s autumn statement, but now it’s clear the squeeze is tighter than ever, and unfair too

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

Using council tax to offset care cuts 'will widen gap between rich and poor'
Disadvantaged areas will be able to raise too little extra revenue to make any difference, says influential thinktank

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 7:17 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Does anyone know more about the number of hours that student nurses work during their training? It seems to me that there may be a case for legal challenge re the government changing their bursaries to loans. How can it be legal that you actually have to pay for providing services / work? And as the article in the G points out - they are not the same as many other students because the work they do as part of their training doesn't allow them the time to be earning from other jobs and supporting themselves that way.

Does anyone know if nurses have to work for the NHS for a length of time on qualification at the moment? I know that graduates used to get a grant to do a PGCE but only if they worked in state schools for a specified time, otherwise it had to be paid back. The point I'm getting at is that the NHS will still need to invest time and resources in training, that may not be fully compensated for in the fees, but will lose the ability to insist graduated nurses work for the NHS for any length of time at all. With the introduction of loans, will we see nurses choosing to go straight into agency or private work? It's not like they'll owe taxpayers anything, having paid for training themselves.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 7:18 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Does anyone know more about the number of hours that student nurses work during their training? It seems to me that there may be a case for legal challenge re the government changing their bursaries to loans. How can it be legal that you actually have to pay for providing services / work? And as the article in the G points out - they are not the same as many other students because the work they do as part of their training doesn't allow them the time to be earning from other jobs and supporting themselves that way.

A friend is training as a midwife,so probably the same as general nursing.
Can't say the exact hours,but she certainly works all week,nights,12hour days etc,with some days in uni plus uni block weeks.
She only has 2 weeks off in the summer,contrast with 4 months for normal degree courses.
She works weekends etc.And has a lot of academic work to complete in her own time.
It would be impossible for her to take a part time job.
Also,normal degree students only need to pay for student accomadation for 6 months or so each year(even though they get completely ripped off for this imo)but a student nurse only gets a few weeks holiday each year.
If student nurses don't recieve a bursary,surely poorer students won't be able to train.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 7:22 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Does anyone know more about the number of hours that student nurses work during their training? It seems to me that there may be a case for legal challenge re the government changing their bursaries to loans. How can it be legal that you actually have to pay for providing services / work? And as the article in the G points out - they are not the same as many other students because the work they do as part of their training doesn't allow them the time to be earning from other jobs and supporting themselves that way.

Dietitians work for the NHS during their training, back in the day their bursaries were means tested, unlike nurses, so if they had a working partner they didn't get paid.

So no, there are no grounds, unpaid student labour has been used by the NHS for years. Whether this is fair is of course an entirely different question.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 7:22 pm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 62281.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sun story about investigator who travelled to Paris without a passport is ‘made up’, Croatia’s interior minister claims

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 7:35 pm

Patrick Wintour ‏@patrickwintour 2m2 minutes ago
Far Right National Front ahead in 6 out of 13 regions and over 40 % in two regions. Sarkozy rejects tactical alliances in next round Dec 13.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 7:37 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Simon Danczuk ‏@SimonDanczuk 19m19 minutes ago
Here's my column in @TheSun today about air strikes against ISIS & Labour, please do let me know what you think.

Chris Williamson ‏@ChriswMP 12m12 minutes ago
@SimonDanczuk @TheSun Don't buy the Sun, that's what I think Simon. Hope you're well.
"That's not on Chris - you're bullying me!"

I reckon anyone who advises people to read The Sun is guilty of cruelty.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 7:39 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Does anyone know more about the number of hours that student nurses work during their training? It seems to me that there may be a case for legal challenge re the government changing their bursaries to loans. How can it be legal that you actually have to pay for providing services / work? And as the article in the G points out - they are not the same as many other students because the work they do as part of their training doesn't allow them the time to be earning from other jobs and supporting themselves that way.
Dietitians work for the NHS during their training, back in the day their bursaries were means tested, unlike nurses, so if they had a working partner they didn't get paid.

So no, there are no grounds, unpaid student labour has been used by the NHS for years. Whether this is fair is of course an entirely different question.

Nurse bursaries are in part means tested.
If my friend decides to live with her lover she will lose a large proportion of her bursary.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 7:41 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
yahyah wrote:@ Technical Ephemera ''mouth breathing activists''

What's with the insult to Labour people with blocked noses TE ?

Is it the anti-Corbyn brigade's slightly more PC version of the right wing troll's 'window lickers', or am I missing something ?
I was trying to find a polite term for the sort of people who send death threats to MPs, mail pictures of dead kids to MPs and make comments after Paris saying that the French had it coming.

What would you prefer to call them? My first preference was ruled out on term of decency.

Plus there is a big difference in describing people who would put Dianne Abbott in post as Shadow Foreign Secretary as bonkers versus commenting on the mental state of an MP (actually in Kens case two MPs).
Your comment was about the alleged death threat sent to Simon Danczuk, of which we have no details apart from the fact that if it happened at all, and was a legitimate death threat rather than hyperbole, it appears to be isolated.

The difference between Livingstone saying Kevan Jone should get psychiatric help is no different whatsoever to what you said. (Also see 'loons'.) Both are colloquial terms for implying mental ill health. And it was a straw man anyway - who seriously suggested Abbott as shadow foreign sec? Most of the predictions I heard were for the Health brief, and even then Corbyn gave the role to someone better qualified.

Sigh.....

Are you implying that Danczuk deserves death threats being made towards him, the implication that this sort of thing was ok, was what I objected to. I have no idea if he has.

That Abbott for foreign secretary thing has been reported by multiple media sources, so it is being promoted by somebody on the left of the party. You really need to stop dismissing stuff because you somehow don't believe it.

And yes there is a difference between commenting on individuals mental health and describing an abstract group of people as bonkers. People here frequently slag off organisations (and certain Tory cabinet ministers) as bonkers.

While I am here, how can you miss the obvious about STW. Three weeks ago we hadn't had their activists slagging off Labour MPs and hurling abuse at them. That is the difference, previously Corbyn's association with them was an embarrassment, now for quite a number of his MPs it is a personal slap in the face.

What possible benefit does the Labour Party derive from his attendance, versus the grief it will cause? Surely as leader that simple question should govern everything he does.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 7:42 pm

I only saw the last 5 minutes or so of the Stella Creasy meeting ... which was a shame as I'd have been interested to hear what people were asking and saying and her responses. HindleA had trouble locating the link - so did others:

Sarah-Jane Skeete
‏@Sarah_Jaaane
@stellacreasy You said you were going to tweet the Periscope link and you did not. Why did you lie? http://periscope.tv/w/1OyJAmENeqbJb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

stellacreasy ‏@stellacreasy 29m29 minutes ago
stellacreasy Retweeted Sarah-Jane Skeete
Alas I couldn’t get my wifi link to work but think @mistertim shared it? Know people watched so v grateful!

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 8:04 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:I only saw the last 5 minutes or so of the Stella Creasy meeting ... which was a shame as I'd have been interested to hear what people were asking and saying and her responses. HindleA had trouble locating the link - so did others:

Sarah-Jane Skeete
‏@Sarah_Jaaane
@stellacreasy You said you were going to tweet the Periscope link and you did not. Why did you lie? http://periscope.tv/w/1OyJAmENeqbJb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

stellacreasy ‏@stellacreasy 29m29 minutes ago
stellacreasy Retweeted Sarah-Jane Skeete
Alas I couldn’t get my wifi link to work but think @mistertim shared it? Know people watched so v grateful!

I caught the section about it on the news. Evidently people could only book to attend an hour before it happened. And didn't know until then where it was being held.

According to the reporter [think it was channel 4 news] Creasy said as their elected MP she felt she had the right to make her own decisions. My reaction was it was also their right not to vote for her next time round. If they reported correctly she came over as rather imperious...

there was mention of representation for constituents which she seems to think wasn't the same as being their MP.

They interviewed people as they left...Fairly they said there had been some people in the hall that agreed with the bombing decision, but the majority were against and those interviewed weren't happy. They seemed to think she should represent the majority of her constituents views, not her own.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 8:12 pm

Jonatton Yeah? ‏@variableobjects 7m7 minutes ago
Jonatton Yeah? Retweeted Krishnan Guru-Murthy

Well, it seems Lucy Allan fake death threat is not important enough for Ch4 to report #LucyAllan #SackLucyAllan Jonatton Yeah? added,

Krishnan Guru-Murthy @krishgm
@ComradeEra @StuartBrownUK don't be daft. It's just not quite as important as the other stuff today - and a bit old now.

More
Krishnan Guru-Murthy ‏@krishgm 2m2 minutes ago
@variableobjects I can see a lot of people think we should take another look at it. I will pass that on to colleagues (tho I'm not on 2moro)

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 8:15 pm

I can't help it but with all that's happened lately, I've got the Citizen Smith 'Wolfie' catchphrase running around in my head.

'Power to the People'

Hobiejoe · Post by **Hobiejoe** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 8:16 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Benjamin Haddad ‏@benjaminhaddad 13m13 minutes ago Manhattan, NY
The National Front seems ahead in almost every region (except Paris IDF, Bretagne, Corsica, and Overseas Territories).

I'm surprised and reassured by Bretagne - the old bastard Le Pen Snr comes from the otherwise lovely La Trinite sur Mer. Although it might well be a case of Breizh nationalists kicking back against French nationalists.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 8:22 pm

Again not totally sure of the source, I'm on medical information overload at present, but think some MPs objected to photos of dead children being sent to them and are classing it as bullying.

Well Whoopsie do. It's about time the delicate souls left their comfy ivory towers and sampled what the real world's like for those poor little mites and their parents.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 8:26 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote: I was trying to find a polite term for the sort of people who send death threats to MPs, mail pictures of dead kids to MPs and make comments after Paris saying that the French had it coming.

What would you prefer to call them? My first preference was ruled out on term of decency.

Plus there is a big difference in describing people who would put Dianne Abbott in post as Shadow Foreign Secretary as bonkers versus commenting on the mental state of an MP (actually in Kens case two MPs).
Your comment was about the alleged death threat sent to Simon Danczuk, of which we have no details apart from the fact that if it happened at all, and was a legitimate death threat rather than hyperbole, it appears to be isolated.

The difference between Livingstone saying Kevan Jone should get psychiatric help is no different whatsoever to what you said. (Also see 'loons'.) Both are colloquial terms for implying mental ill health. And it was a straw man anyway - who seriously suggested Abbott as shadow foreign sec? Most of the predictions I heard were for the Health brief, and even then Corbyn gave the role to someone better qualified.
Sigh.....

Are you implying that Danczuk deserves death threats being made towards him, the implication that this sort of thing was ok, was what I objected to. I have no idea if he has.

That Abbott for foreign secretary thing has been reported by multiple media sources, so it is being promoted by somebody on the left of the party. You really need to stop dismissing stuff because you somehow don't believe it.

And yes there is a difference between commenting on individuals mental health and describing an abstract group of people as bonkers. People here frequently slag off organisations (and certain Tory cabinet ministers) as bonkers.

While I am here, how can you miss the obvious about STW. Three weeks ago we hadn't had their activists slagging off Labour MPs and hurling abuse at them. That is the difference, previously Corbyn's association with them was an embarrassment, now for quite a number of his MPs it is a personal slap in the face.

What possible benefit does the Labour Party derive from his attendance, versus the grief it will cause? Surely as leader that simple question should govern everything he does.

Good evening all

Of course Danczuk doesn't deserve death threats as no-one does. The question is on who did they come from and whether the were just childish nonsense...like has happened for years.

The issue Danczuk has is that he is the 'boy that cried wolf' - a surprising amount of these things seem to happen to him and I ask myself, are they real and anyway he does seem to thrive on them and he makes sure everything is publicised in the paper of a man who has been recently culpable of distorting opinion poll data in order to promote race hatred!

If Abbott for SCF was so commonly put forward in the media can you at least give us some links that make a credible case....not anonymous and not from the Telegraph (your source of choice)

I do think that Corbyn should avoid STW but cannot get so exercised about it

The problem TE is that you are becoming a bit like Danczuk...your posts go too far and so anything useful in them is hidden amongst the hyperbole!

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 8:34 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:I only saw the last 5 minutes or so of the Stella Creasy meeting ... which was a shame as I'd have been interested to hear what people were asking and saying and her responses. HindleA had trouble locating the link - so did others:

Sarah-Jane Skeete
‏@Sarah_Jaaane
@stellacreasy You said you were going to tweet the Periscope link and you did not. Why did you lie? http://periscope.tv/w/1OyJAmENeqbJb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

stellacreasy ‏@stellacreasy 29m29 minutes ago
stellacreasy Retweeted Sarah-Jane Skeete
Alas I couldn’t get my wifi link to work but think @mistertim shared it? Know people watched so v grateful!
I caught the section about it on the news. Evidently people could only book to attend an hour before it happened. And didn't know until then where it was being held.

According to the reporter [think it was channel 4 news] Creasy said as their elected MP she felt she had the right to make her own decisions. My reaction was it was also their right not to vote for her next time round. If they reported correctly she came over as rather imperious...

there was mention of representation for constituents which she seems to think wasn't the same as being their MP.

They interviewed people as they left...Fairly they said there had been some people in the hall that agreed with the bombing decision, but the majority were against and those interviewed weren't happy. They seemed to think she should represent the majority of her constituents views, not her own.

Without a specific constituency poll, the only way for an MP to extrapolate their views would be to assume they are roughly in line with national polls, which I believe were slightly more for bombing than against, so this idea she should represent her constituents views makes little sense to me, as it seems to me she did. It was Labour MPs who voted against, who put their own views above public opinion, but as the polls weren't very decisive, with little in it, I don't think any MP went especially against their constituents wishes.

Once elected, the job of an MP is to represent the people of his or her constituency (constituents) in Parliament, whether or not they voted for him or her.

http://www.ukpolitical.info/YouandyourMP.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is there some background to the Creasy thing I'm missing? The reaction to her choice in a free vote seems a bit OTT. There were other Labour MPs who voted for, who haven't had this kind focus on them.

ChrisDean · Post by **ChrisDean** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 8:54 pm

Not a hope in hell of my MP (Mark Harper) representing my views in Parliament.

Yeah, I know, what he "believes" to be the majority view.

Hello all, by the way.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 8:56 pm

ChrisDean wrote:Not a hope in hell of my MP (Mark Harper) representing my views in Parliament.

Yeah, I know, what he "believes" to be the majority view.

Hello all, by the way.

Yes - you've got a right charmer there. Commiserations.

ChrisDean · Post by **ChrisDean** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 9:00 pm

Having viewed him at PMQ's, I now refer to him as "noddy" Harper.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 9:01 pm

IMHO she must be free to make her own decisions,of course if people wish to not vote for her next time based on one decision they are equally free to do so.Are people suggesting that MP's should vote contrary to what they actually believe for perceived political gain/to not lose perceived support.I want honesty not satisfying a mob-rule mentality,regardless.We would still have the death penalty as but one example if conforming to such a stricture.Said with love.Of course if people do not think it was an honest decision in some sort of convoluted machination to make yourself less popular,bomb people for the sake of it,as a career move,they can not vote for her even more.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 9:06 pm

The Guardian view on social care funding: don’t overload the life raft

...central government grants are to be cut, with councils allowed to keep their business rate receipts instead. This is likely to mean another poverty penalty. There is less than a fortnight until the details of a new financial settlement are announced, and councils still have no idea what, if any, method of redistributing income from rich to poor boroughs will be used. That is not the only fiddle Mr Osborne has deployed.

...last week, almost unnoticed, a pioneering experiment of the kind that must succeed if the NHS is to stay viable fell apart. UnitingCare was a consortium of Cambridgeshire hospital trusts and community care providers that won a £1.2bn contract to deliver NHS care to older people.

It will take months if not years to identify the reasons for the failure of UnitingCare. Seasoned observers wonder if the savings had been clearly enough identified; they note that GPs were not apparently part of the project; they contemplate the absurdity and the inefficiencies of the rules governing administrative change in NHS foundation trusts...

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cambrid ... story.html

"Collapse of £1.2bn NHS contract..."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4c008640-9a70 ... z3tYlMth1l

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -life-raft

This story ought to be second only to the flooding reports. Thank you for flagging this article up.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 9:07 pm

HindleA wrote:IMHO she must be free to make her own decisions,of course if people wish to not vote for her next time based on one decision they are equally free to do so.Are people suggesting that MP's should vote contrary to what they actually believe for perceived political gain/to not lose perceived support.I want honesty not satisfying a mob-rule mentality,regardless.We would still have the death penalty as but one example if conforming to such a stricture.Said with love.Of course if people do not think it was an honest decision in some sort of convoluted machination to make yourself less popular,bomb people for the sake of it,as a career move,they can not vote for her even more.

Can't keep up with those convolutions HindleA. I think she's to be respected for holding a meeting to discuss her decision with constituents. Not sure why there had to be such a restricted time re releasing venue details etc - that makes it a bigger shame re the link not getting out there as anticipated.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 9:13 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
HindleA wrote:IMHO she must be free to make her own decisions,of course if people wish to not vote for her next time based on one decision they are equally free to do so.Are people suggesting that MP's should vote contrary to what they actually believe for perceived political gain/to not lose perceived support.I want honesty not satisfying a mob-rule mentality,regardless.We would still have the death penalty as but one example if conforming to such a stricture.Said with love.Of course if people do not think it was an honest decision in some sort of convoluted machination to make yourself less popular,bomb people for the sake of it,as a career move,they can not vote for her even more.
Can't keep up with those convolutions HindleA. I think she's to be respected for holding a meeting to discuss her decision with constituents. Not sure why there had to be such a restricted time re releasing venue details etc - that makes it a bigger shame re the link not getting out there as anticipated.

Perhaps part of the problem was caused by Camerons' rush to hold the vote,leaving mps no time to meet with their constituents BEFORE they voted.
Quite deliberate I'm sure.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 9:16 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Again not totally sure of the source, I'm on medical information overload at present, but think some MPs objected to photos of dead children being sent to them and are classing it as bullying.

Well Whoopsie do. It's about time the delicate souls left their comfy ivory towers and sampled what the real world's like for those poor little mites and their parents.

Maybe the citizens of Syria feel bullied by the bloody RAF.
Trapped by Isis and bombed by everybody.So let's feel sorry for mps.
Anyway,how's Mr Ohso,has he settled down now?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 9:17 pm

David Hencke ‏@davidhencke 13m13 minutes ago
Untrustworthy Truss: The dishonest cover up that left farmers owed hundreds of millions… https://davidhencke.wordpress.com/2015/ ... of-pounds/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

... Now this body- the Government Digital Service – has just been given an extra £200m by George Osborne, the Chancellor, so it can digitalise driving licences and passports. If their handling of farmers money is anything to go by, you will find you won’t be able to get a driving licence or passport by the next General Election.

You might wonder why you have not heard about this mess. A copy of the damning NAO report was sent to every national newspaper but their reporters deemed it too boring to publish. The situation was condemned by Meg Hillier, Labour chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, but it fell on deaf Parliamentary lobby ears...

... This year this completely misleading statement was put out and Elizabeth Truss was nowhere to be seen. It boasted of 33,000 farmers receiving the cash. Last year it was 96,000. In other words it had fallen by 65 per cent – an appalling state of affairs.

To my mind the whole saga shows we are governed by a Metropolitan elite – with no press interest in the plight of anyone outside London and complete disdain for rural issues. That is why obviously Elizabeth Truss thought she could get away with no one knowing anything about this mess. And she has succeeded.

There is a great opportunity for Labour and the Liberal Democrats to take this issue up – it chimes with the parties’ interests in backing grass roots politics away from Westminster.

There is also a sting in the tale – do you know the European Union can and has fined the UK for not paying the money promptly. So due to ministers’ incompetence some of your taxes – will go to pay millions of pounds of EU fines. You couldn’t make this up...

Post by **refitman** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 9:19 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
David Hencke ‏@davidhencke 13m13 minutes ago
Untrustworthy Truss: The dishonest cover up that left farmers owed hundreds of millions… https://davidhencke.wordpress.com/2015/ ... of-pounds/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

... Now this body- the Government Digital Service – has just been given an extra £200m by George Osborne, the Chancellor, so it can digitalise driving licences and passports. If their handling of farmers money is anything to go by, you will find you won’t be able to get a driving licence or passport by the next General Election.

You might wonder why you have not heard about this mess. A copy of the damning NAO report was sent to every national newspaper but their reporters deemed it too boring to publish. The situation was condemned by Meg Hillier, Labour chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, but it fell on deaf Parliamentary lobby ears...

... This year this completely misleading statement was put out and Elizabeth Truss was nowhere to be seen. It boasted of 33,000 farmers receiving the cash. Last year it was 96,000. In other words it had fallen by 65 per cent – an appalling state of affairs.

To my mind the whole saga shows we are governed by a Metropolitan elite – with no press interest in the plight of anyone outside London and complete disdain for rural issues. That is why obviously Elizabeth Truss thought she could get away with no one knowing anything about this mess. And she has succeeded.

There is a great opportunity for Labour and the Liberal Democrats to take this issue up – it chimes with the parties’ interests in backing grass roots politics away from Westminster.

There is also a sting in the tale – do you know the European Union can and has fined the UK for not paying the money promptly. So due to ministers’ incompetence some of your taxes – will go to pay millions of pounds of EU fines. You couldn’t make this up...

There appears to be many, many things GDS can't do very well. There's a long list on TheRegister: http://search.theregister.co.uk/?q=gds" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 9:22 pm

HindleA wrote:IMHO she must be free to make her own decisions,of course if people wish to not vote for her next time based on one decision they are equally free to do so.Are people suggesting that MP's should vote contrary to what they actually believe for perceived political gain/to not lose perceived support.I want honesty not satisfying a mob-rule mentality,regardless.We would still have the death penalty as but one example if conforming to such a stricture.Said with love.Of course if people do not think it was an honest decision in some sort of convoluted machination to make yourself less popular,bomb people for the sake of it,as a career move,they can not vote for her even more.

I tend to agree. If an MP is elected on an anti-capital punishment ticket - or if, indeed, the subject never arose - should he\she vote for capital punishment if the matter arises in Parliament, just because his\her constituents suddenly go into lynch mob mode for some reason or another?

As much as it pains me to admit it, I modestly concede that Edmund Burke put it better than I did with that collection of gobbledyegook -

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

And, of course, come the next election . . . .

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 9:26 pm

Mondelez, which owns Cadbury, is facing controversy over its tax arrangements after it was reported that it had not paid UK corporation tax last year.

An investigation by the Sunday Times found the company was wiping out Cadbury’s bills using interest payments on an unsecured debt, which is listed as a bond on the Channel Islands’ stock exchange. The interest paid on the loan can be offset as a loss against gains made elsewhere in the company.

The arrangement, which is legal, meant Mondelez was able to pay no UK corporation tax despite accounts showing that Cadbury UK, its subsidiary, made profits of £96.5m in 2014 and £83.6m in 2013.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -last-year

Is there no end to the list of despicable?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 9:28 pm

citizenJA wrote:
Mondelez, which owns Cadbury, is facing controversy over its tax arrangements after it was reported that it had not paid UK corporation tax last year.

An investigation by the Sunday Times found the company was wiping out Cadbury’s bills using interest payments on an unsecured debt, which is listed as a bond on the Channel Islands’ stock exchange. The interest paid on the loan can be offset as a loss against gains made elsewhere in the company.

The arrangement, which is legal, meant Mondelez was able to pay no UK corporation tax despite accounts showing that Cadbury UK, its subsidiary, made profits of £96.5m in 2014 and £83.6m in 2013.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -last-year
Is there no end to the list of despicable?

It would appear not. 'Shafted' is probably appropriate here.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 9:31 pm

Pause

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 9:33 pm

Welsh honey 'as potent as Manuka' found in new drugs hunt
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-34965010" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 9:42 pm

Otto English ‏@Otto_English 10m10 minutes ago
Otto English Retweeted Le Monde Politique
Jesus Christ

: Le Monde Politique_Regionales 2015.jpg (42.55 KiB) Viewed 5444 times

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 9:47 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Otto English ‏@Otto_English 10m10 minutes ago
Otto English Retweeted Le Monde Politique
Jesus Christ

Le Monde Politique_Regionales 2015.jpg

Merde.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 9:49 pm

David Cameron has made a statement about the floods,for some reason it is embargoed until 10pm.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 9:51 pm

I can absolutely understand that there is a danger in bowing to populist pressure on some matters, the death penalty, immigrants ( not immigration, because immigrants are already here, exist and are not abstract), human rights of various kinds etc. There are things that are non-negotiable. Or we used to believe that, it was part of what we were proud about, what we thought was part of a national characteristic.

In terms of the vote last week I can see how some local constituents might be offended by their MPs stance on war in Syria. Regardless of the general feeling about ISIS the majority of people seem to believe that not enough thought has been put into our intervention, many are bemused by the fact we are already in this war and there has been little openness about it, and quite a lot of people don't think their views are represented. A number of MPs did seek opinion before the vote, something that many people of all political persuasions found refreshing and the most common comment has been 'nobody ever asked me before'. I have no idea whether non-Labour MPs did this, or met with any constituents to discuss it. It is one thing to bow to populist views that do not have an ethical or humanist rationale, completely another to be so divorced from your constituents that you refuse to take their views into account before making a decision. I am differentiating deliberately between consulting with constituents and casting a vote in the Commons, or even the Lords, because we have a context for political decisionmaking in recent years where popular opinion has been said to be the motivating factor, this has been used many times, 'It's what people want' has been the justification for more changes than I care to list here, but I know you will all be able to think of notable examples. In fact it seems to be the rationale, if a bit of a failing one, in many departments of state.

So lets not be too stuffy about what we will and won't accept in this repect, the fact is we are coereced into acceptance on many issues by the decisions taken in parliament, many of which go completely against the grain, and are powerless to prevent them happening. So obviously our democracy isn't exactly performing well. I see these more recent manifestations as an attempt to make adjustments so we restore some balance, and that they are a result of the need for more democracy not less. If parliament won't do that, and won't see that the public are quite deeply offended by their views being sidelined for other agendas that they know are not in their interests, and in particular if a section of Labour will not understand that is exactly. what they are doing, then a safety valve is being very foolishly blocked. We are not Scotland, who have different options, that even Wales cannot really claim as being so strong. We cannot break away, do something different. So if we keep ascribing to a more authoritarian type of government that refuses to even look at consensual decisionmaking then we are in a lot of trouble.

The so-called moderates were not being consensual in standing with the tories on Syria, they were allowing themselves to be wooed by the Cameron view, which is, as most of us know, deeply flawed. Special tory briefings notwithstanding.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 9:52 pm

Please find the 'boring' information from the National Audit Office (NAO) below.

The digital skills gap in government
Survey findings
December 2015

This interactive publication details the survey results and summarises a number of areas we believe
need to be considered if government is going to able to attract and retain the necessary skills in the
short term.

- “Digital” is more than just technology, websites, internet – it requires radical, flexible
operating models, designed around users and data; with a much lower cost base.

- UK digital skills gap across all industries exacerbates the government’s situation, even
before considering demands of transformation.

- There is a risk of unsustainable cost reduction or service deterioration if government is
unable to deliver transformation to any significant degree over next 5 years.

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... r-2015.pdf

There is limited supply of digital skills in the private, as well as public and third sectors. Combined with
government funding and pay pressures, there is widespread acknowledgement of the digital skills gap and
challenges of filling it, particularly in specialist areas such as cyber security and data analytics.

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-digit ... -findings/

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 9:59 pm

Jim Pickard ‏@PickardJE 4m4 minutes ago
Cameron's advisers urge him to postpone categorical decision on Heathrow until after May. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b7aba59e-9ab8 ... z3tZwz2ibr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; … While leaning pro Heathrow

Well of course, he doesn't want to have any public tiffs with Zac Goldsmith - wants to make sure he has a smooth run at London Mayor. Once the contest is over he'll announce whatever he already knows he is going to announce. Just don't let the public know your intention before anything so democratic as a vote.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 10:02 pm

citizenJA wrote:
Mondelez, which owns Cadbury, is facing controversy over its tax arrangements after it was reported that it had not paid UK corporation tax last year.

An investigation by the Sunday Times found the company was wiping out Cadbury’s bills using interest payments on an unsecured debt, which is listed as a bond on the Channel Islands’ stock exchange. The interest paid on the loan can be offset as a loss against gains made elsewhere in the company.

The arrangement, which is legal, meant Mondelez was able to pay no UK corporation tax despite accounts showing that Cadbury UK, its subsidiary, made profits of £96.5m in 2014 and £83.6m in 2013.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -last-year
Is there no end to the list of despicable?

I'm sceptical on that story.

Paying interest on a loan is a perfectly legitimate business expense. You want to pay as little interest as you can because it reduces your profits more than it reduces your tax. And it should be included in the calculation of the £96.5m profit anyway.

I don't trust The Sunday Times. You can easily make something sound dodgy by saying "profits", "paid no tax", "Channel Islands".

Margaret Hodge ought to be a bit more careful before commenting, I think. Unless she's seen the whole tax comp.

Post by **refitman** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 10:07 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
Mondelez, which owns Cadbury, is facing controversy over its tax arrangements after it was reported that it had not paid UK corporation tax last year.

An investigation by the Sunday Times found the company was wiping out Cadbury’s bills using interest payments on an unsecured debt, which is listed as a bond on the Channel Islands’ stock exchange. The interest paid on the loan can be offset as a loss against gains made elsewhere in the company.

The arrangement, which is legal, meant Mondelez was able to pay no UK corporation tax despite accounts showing that Cadbury UK, its subsidiary, made profits of £96.5m in 2014 and £83.6m in 2013.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -last-year
Is there no end to the list of despicable?
I'm sceptical on that story.

Paying interest on a loan is a perfectly legitimate business expense. You want to pay as little interest as you can because it reduces your profits more than it reduces your tax. And it should be included in the calculation of the £96.5m profit anyway.

I don't trust The Sunday Times. You can easily make something sound dodgy by saying "profits", "paid no tax", "Channel Islands".

Margaret Hodge ought to be a bit more careful before commenting, I think. Unless she's seen the whole tax comp.

I think it might just be a culmination of things: leveraged buyout of a British institution, sacking workers after they said there would be no job losses and now making 10s of millions in profit but appearing to pay no tax.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 10:09 pm

That's what I'm getting at. How much of this is about other stuff the new Cadburys have done?

I reckon it's probably correct that there's no tax paid in this period. But there could be good reasons for that, like big investments in plant and machinery.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 10:10 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote: I'm sceptical on that story.

Paying interest on a loan is a perfectly legitimate business expense. You want to pay as little interest as you can because it reduces your profits more than it reduces your tax. And it should be included in the calculation of the £96.5m profit anyway.

I don't trust The Sunday Times. You can easily make something sound dodgy by saying "profits", "paid no tax", "Channel Islands".

Margaret Hodge ought to be a bit more careful before commenting, I think. Unless she's seen the whole tax comp.

Of course paying interest is perfectly legitimate but if you engineer it so that the money is loaned from the CI then you pay minimal tax in the UK where your UK-based company has a large interest bill to offset UK profits...and a minimal tax in the CI where the company does nothing apart from receiving interest but pays next to nothing on it.

That "multi-million pound dividend" that Philip Green paid out some years back was to set up the loan from the CI to the UK - almost certainly no money actually changed hands - just book transactions.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 10:14 pm

Here in the home of Cadbury feelings are running high on the subject as even the sell off is still felt as a deep betrayal. More recently a different dimension has emerged as the city has become more divided following Trojan Horse and so on.

Yes, I am talking about 'halal' Cadburys chocolate!

As someone here said, 'beans, sugar, milk, what's not to be halal about that'! Flame wars ongoing......

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 10:18 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: I'm sceptical on that story.

Paying interest on a loan is a perfectly legitimate business expense. You want to pay as little interest as you can because it reduces your profits more than it reduces your tax. And it should be included in the calculation of the £96.5m profit anyway.

I don't trust The Sunday Times. You can easily make something sound dodgy by saying "profits", "paid no tax", "Channel Islands".

Margaret Hodge ought to be a bit more careful before commenting, I think. Unless she's seen the whole tax comp.
Of course paying interest is perfectly legitimate but if you engineer it so that the money is loaned from the CI then you pay minimal tax in the UK where your UK-based company has a large interest bill to offset UK profits...and a minimal tax in the CI where the company does nothing apart from receiving interest but pays next to nothing on it.

That "multi-million pound dividend" that Philip Green paid out some years back was to set up the loan from the CI to the UK - almost certainly no money actually changed hands - just book transactions.

So it's a connected party charging some ridiculously high amount of interest?

But wouldn't that already be reflected in the £96.5m profit figure?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 10:21 pm

Ah, seems like this is nub.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/18a809bc-73d4 ... z3ta8bP1Al" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The scandal has not been the only threat to the exchange. In the summer, Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, announced plans, if the Labour party is elected, to block companies from channelling tax-free interest out of the UK using the “quoted eurobond exemption”, which eliminates withholding tax on interest paid to foreign investors.
A crackdown on the exemption would have a big impact on the Channel Islands Securities Exchange, which has become a popular and inexpensive way of listing loan notes to make them eligible for the exemption.

Nice sighting of Jon Moulton too.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 10:24 pm

Cobra meeting tomorrow
DC statement:

"The thoughts of the whole country will be with the people in Cumbria and the north west who have suffered so terribly from the devastating storms this weekend. The government is doing everything it can to help those who have seen their homes flooded – and to try and prevent further damage.

“I would like to pay a huge tribute to all those emergency workers and troops who have worked tirelessly to respond to this weekend’s events. There has been a tremendous response from local communities too, with people taking in families affected by the flooding.”

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 10:25 pm

For our Welsh peps
Welsh honey 'as potent as Manuka' found in new drugs hunt

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-34965010" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 10:27 pm

Apologies...the 'boring' NAO report refered to in another's post is probably the one linked below.

Early review of the Common Agricultural Policy Delivery Programme
1 December 2015

Defra, the Rural Payments Agency and Government Digital Service have not worked
together effectively to deliver the Common Agricultural Policy Delivery Programme.

The original vision and design of the Programme was narrow, according to the NAO. It
focused largely on procuring IT systems and did not set out the wider organisational
transformation required.

In 2013, the Cabinet Office applied spending controls which introduced innovation,
but also increased the risk that the Programme would fail to deliver.

Today’s report found that the Programme has been set back by numerous changes in
leadership. There were four senior responsible owners within the space of a year,
each bringing their own style and priorities. Repeated changes were disruptive to
the Programme and caused uncertainty and confusion for its staff.

The Department failed to prevent counter-productive behaviours, with deep rifts in
working relationships and inappropriate behaviour at the senior leadership level at
many stages of the Programme’s three-year history.

GDS did not provide the support the Department believed it needed to adapt to
the changes during the spend control process.

In March 2015, in response to serious failings of the system, the online application
system was withdrawn and replaced by “paper-assisted digital” applications for the
2015 scheme.

The NAO found...the focus on resolving immediate issues has diverted attention from
long-term goals of improving the service to farmers, minimising future EC penalties and
achieving other intended benefits such as addressing the land data issues that are causing
current penalties.

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/early-rev ... programme/

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 10:34 pm

The damage is done when it comes to the STW event. It would have been done if he'd pulled out.

But it would have been right to pull out, surely?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 10:35 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
Mondelez, which owns Cadbury, is facing controversy over its tax arrangements after it was reported that it had not paid UK corporation tax last year.

An investigation by the Sunday Times found the company was wiping out Cadbury’s bills using interest payments on an unsecured debt, which is listed as a bond on the Channel Islands’ stock exchange. The interest paid on the loan can be offset as a loss against gains made elsewhere in the company.

The arrangement, which is legal, meant Mondelez was able to pay no UK corporation tax despite accounts showing that Cadbury UK, its subsidiary, made profits of £96.5m in 2014 and £83.6m in 2013.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -last-year
Is there no end to the list of despicable?
I'm sceptical on that story.

Paying interest on a loan is a perfectly legitimate business expense. You want to pay as little interest as you can because it reduces your profits more than it reduces your tax. And it should be included in the calculation of the £96.5m profit anyway.

I don't trust The Sunday Times. You can easily make something sound dodgy by saying "profits", "paid no tax", "Channel Islands".

Margaret Hodge ought to be a bit more careful before commenting, I think. Unless she's seen the whole tax comp.

Hodges is likely making an informed statement.
An unsecured loan...hmmmm...