Friday 5th February 2016

[citizenJA]

Corporations got one hell of an entitlement junkie attitude.

[Tubby Isaacs]

And anybody will be able to sue the government for not buying their stuff?

I find that very unlikely.

I don't.

Seriously?

Cameron scrapped ID cards without being sued. We've signed investment treaties before, eg with Hong Kong which is pretty pro-corporate.

[refitman]

Ooh.

A cross-party rebellion against the Trade Union Bill in the House of Lords could force a government U-turn
The Government is under pressure from senior Conservatives to water down a controversial plan that could deprive Labour of £8m a year of funding from the trade unions.

A growing number of Tory MPs and peers believe that forcing union members to “opt in” to paying the political levy is partisan and divisive and will undermine David Cameron’s attempt to portray the Conservatives as a One Nation “party of working people.”

A cross-party rebellion against the Trade Union Bill in the House of Lords could force a government U-turn. A committee of peers, which took evidence on iton 4 February, may conclude that ministers have not published a proper impact assessment and ask them to think again.

In a separate attack on Labour’s funding, George Osborne announced in November a 19 per cent cut in the state funding for opposition parties. Labour will lose about £1m a year.

Several Tories say the move on union donations should go ahead only as part of a wider review of how all parties are funded, which would shine a spotlight on the Conservatives’ dependence on rich donors, including City financiers.

David Davis, the former shadow Home Secretary, told The Independent the double hit on Labour was “mean-spirited.” He added: “Whichever party is in government tries to use its power to do down the Opposition. It is borderline immoral. The only way we should do this is by cross-party agreement. This shows that the Tory party does not understand the origins of the Labour Party as the political arm of the trade union movement.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 54151.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ohsocynical]

And anybody will be able to sue the government for not buying their stuff?

I find that very unlikely.

Unlikely or not that's the scenario...I'm surprised you haven't seen some of the info on it.

[ohsocynical]

And anybody will be able to sue the government for not buying their stuff?

I find that very unlikely.

I don't.

Seriously?

Cameron scrapped ID cards without being sued. We've signed investment treaties before, eg with Hong Kong which is pretty pro-corporate.

But we weren't in TTIP then.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I don't.

Seriously?

Cameron scrapped ID cards without being sued. We've signed investment treaties before, eg with Hong Kong which is pretty pro-corporate.

But we weren't in TTIP then.

We're in other investment treaties though, that were written and agreed with virtually no scrutiny. They haven't been the free for alls that TTIP is predicted to be by some.

I mentioned Hong Kong because that's the treaty under which Australia is being sued by Philip Morris, and under which it's said it'll threaten the UK if it brings in plain packaging. Whether you think they can get a big handout from Australia or whether they're trying to scare the UK and others, that's a matter of opinion. But whatever, it's clear that even these old investment treaties haven't seen corporations sue the UK en masse.

There's been some movement on TTIP by the EU. You might or might not be reassured, but it has moved on since Monbiot and all brought it up.

[ohsocynical]

And anybody will be able to sue the government for not buying their stuff?

I find that very unlikely.

I don't.

Seriously?

Cameron scrapped ID cards without being sued. We've signed investment treaties before, eg with Hong Kong which is pretty pro-corporate.

People's NHS ‏@PeoplesNHS 3 hrs3 hours ago

#TTIP could mess up the #NHS -

Excellent 4min youtube video.

https://youtu.be/E2AMNmigWzQ

[HindleA]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Poverty charity blamed for evictions after it sells up to developers
MP Stella Creasey has blasted the Glasspool Trust after it sold 63 houses to a company which promptly started removing tenants

[HindleA]

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/ca ... _1_4406912" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Campaigners launch formal complaint against Norfolk County Council over claims disabled people are losing vital support

[rebeccariots2]

Afternoon.

Isn't this the data and information Jonathan Portes was waiting for as well? He wrote that piece a while back saying British people were almost certainly going to be affected by the proposed curbs.

One in nine 'EU migrant couples' on tax credits are actually half-British
There are 19,600 couples receiving benefit classed as EU migrants by the government where one of the partners is a UK national
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/data ... nt-figures" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More than 7% of couples in the UK comprise one UK national and one non-UK national, according to analysis compiled by the Office for National Statistics for the Guardian.

On Tuesday, Cameron endorsed an EU proposal to introduce an emergency brake that would allow the UK to restrict the payment of tax credits and other in-work benefits to EU immigrants in the first four years after their arrival.

Because of the definition used by the government, it remains unclear how many British nationals married to Europeans could be hit by a policy targeted at “migrant families”.

No 10 said this was not the intent. “Our policy is to reduce the pull factor of our welfare system, not to affect British nationals,” a spokesman said.

[rebeccariots2]

B&Q to raise basic wage - at the cost of pay for unsociable hours
The DIY chain is lifting its minimum rate by nearly a pound, but people working on weekends and bank holidays may lose out
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016 ... able-hours" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So this is the inevitable trend. They join Tesco, Wilkos, Morrisons, and many care providers .... What a shit deal some people are going to get out of this 'raise'.

[ohsocynical]

Seriously?

Cameron scrapped ID cards without being sued. We've signed investment treaties before, eg with Hong Kong which is pretty pro-corporate.

But we weren't in TTIP then.

We're in other investment treaties though, that were written and agreed with virtually no scrutiny. They haven't been the free for alls that TTIP is predicted to be by some.

I mentioned Hong Kong because that's the treaty under which Australia is being sued by Philip Morris, and under which it's said it'll threaten the UK if it brings in plain packaging. Whether you think they can get a big handout from Australia or whether they're trying to scare the UK and others, that's a matter of opinion. But whatever, it's clear that even these old investment treaties haven't seen corporations sue the UK en masse.

There's been some movement on TTIP by the EU. You might or might not be reassured, but it has moved on since Monbiot and all brought it up.

Oh dear. TTIP isn't like 'other' treaties.

[ohsocynical]

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to deliver lecture in Aberdare
Mr Corbyn will speak at the Keir Hardie Lecture, an annual event put on by the Cynon Valley Labour Party

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

[rebeccariots2]

The Labour right crows about its “electability”. So why isn’t it interested in how it lost to Corbyn?
http://www.newstatesman.com/2016/02/lab ... ost-corbyn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He asks a lot of questions - and raises a lot of points - that have been going round in my head. Be interested to know what others think of his descriptions of the characteristics of two kinds of Labour 'right' - the New Labour and the Blue Labour.

[ohsocynical]

Daniel Hannan ‏@DanHannanMEP Feb 4

Am I the only Tory politician not being offered a job if I back ‘Remain’? Everyone else seems to be getting calls from Downing Street.

He's such a poisonous little shit I doubt even Cameron wants him.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Oh dear. TTIP isn't like 'other' treaties.

I didn't say it was.

I said specifically it was probably like other investment treaties. The UK has signed 110 of those.

http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/I ... ryBits/221" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nearly all of these are with countries which are/were poor, with undeveloped legal systems and the risk of government's seizing assets. But not all of them- once was signed with Hong Kong, presumably out of worries that China would seized stuff.

Why should TTIP be easier to sue under than that treaty? I don't understand.

[seeingclearly]

Seriously?

Cameron scrapped ID cards without being sued. We've signed investment treaties before, eg with Hong Kong which is pretty pro-corporate.

But we weren't in TTIP then.

We're in other investment treaties though, that were written and agreed with virtually no scrutiny. They haven't been the free for alls that TTIP is predicted to be by some.

I mentioned Hong Kong because that's the treaty under which Australia is being sued by Philip Morris, and under which it's said it'll threaten the UK if it brings in plain packaging. Whether you think they can get a big handout from Australia or whether they're trying to scare the UK and others, that's a matter of opinion. But whatever, it's clear that even these old investment treaties haven't seen corporations sue the UK en masse.

There's been some movement on TTIP by the EU. You might or might not be reassured, but it has moved on since Monbiot and all brought it up.

There were concerns about TTIP well before Monbiot et al started publishing about it, mostly based upon the experience of nations in the far further advanced TPP areas where imports were damaging local traders to the point of killing off their businesses entirely, we are talking about the disruption of the lives of millions of workers in everything from textiles to fishing, and by no means confined to developing nations, with independent fishermen along the length of the US west coast unable to compete with big business, and then there were and are the extractive industries sections that have played havoc in many countries, and bad deals imposed upon national governments, and an increase in corruption. The main point being that the legal basis of TPP overrules national legislation. Any changes in the situation with TTIP are as a result of campaigners highlighting the issues, prior to awareness campaigns it was surrounded by secrecy, as it is densely shrouded in legalese. The fact that there were previous trade agreements should not be used as an argument for TPP and TTIP, both go far further than anything seen before. There is plenty of good independently verified material on this from the effects on local business and workers to the environmental impacts.

[ohsocynical]

The Labour right crows about its “electability”. So why isn’t it interested in how it lost to Corbyn?
http://www.newstatesman.com/2016/02/lab ... ost-corbyn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He asks a lot of questions - and raises a lot of points - that have been going round in my head. Be interested to know what others think of his descriptions of the characteristics of two kinds of Labour 'right' - the New Labour and the Blue Labour.

Pretty accurate I'd say.
It's obvious from the amount of people that have joined in the last two months, that their and the medias campaign against Corbyn isn't making a damn bit of difference. It's actually having the opposite effect.

All that was needed was a sensible decision to shut their mouths and back the man democratically elected by a large majority, then take a bit of time and patience to get the lie of the land before they started to get stroppy.
At present there hasn't been a single one who has been unhappy enough to step down from being an MP. If there were I might look a little more kindly on them as a whole.

I'd also add, he has an enormous workload. He really is getting out and about meeting and listening. I doubt there are many who can equal it.

[rebeccariots2]

Darren McCaffrey ‏@DMcCaffreySKY 5m5 minutes ago Tårnby, Hovedstaden
NEW: FULL STORY: PM turns to Crosby as No.10 worries about EU campaign grow: http://news.sky.com/story/1636884/pm-tu ... gn-falters" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Sky News understands the Government is trying to elicit the services of Lynton Crosby over worries that David Cameron's EU deal is being portrayed too negatively by the press.

On the day a poll revealed falling support for the 'remain' campaign and a critical reception of the Prime Minister's deal from eurosceptic newspapers, Government insiders revealed they are very worried about how it is being received.

Just what we need for an already fairly nasty campaign ... the Crosby touch.

[rebeccariots2]

Darren McCaffrey ‏@DMcCaffreySKY 4m4 minutes ago Tårnby, Hovedstaden
Also my understanding that Crosby has turned down attempts to get involved in the campaign so far.

[Tubby Isaacs]

But we weren't in TTIP then.

We're in other investment treaties though, that were written and agreed with virtually no scrutiny. They haven't been the free for alls that TTIP is predicted to be by some.

I mentioned Hong Kong because that's the treaty under which Australia is being sued by Philip Morris, and under which it's said it'll threaten the UK if it brings in plain packaging. Whether you think they can get a big handout from Australia or whether they're trying to scare the UK and others, that's a matter of opinion. But whatever, it's clear that even these old investment treaties haven't seen corporations sue the UK en masse.

There's been some movement on TTIP by the EU. You might or might not be reassured, but it has moved on since Monbiot and all brought it up.

There hasn't been any real movement, and what movement there has has just been slapped down by German judges. And anyway, if it wasn't for people like Monbiot and 38 Degrees making a fuss, there wouldn't have been any attempt at concession. You can't have it both ways.

Anyway, it's not just Monbiot bringing it up. TTIP has been a worry for people campaigning about the NHS for several years. European law has already been used to stop NHS organisations being treated as preferred providers, and in concert with the Lansley reforms, it could start to get a lot harder to avoid everything having to go to tender.

I don't bloody want it anyway. The answer to 'cui bono?' is not going to be the likes of you and me.

We did cui bono before.

I asked why the UK isn't constantly being sued under existing investment treaties. Nobody has explained to me why TTIP will somehow open the floodgates.

What's been announced with TTIP might have been announced with a nod to Monbiot and 38 Degrees, and the EU's comms was poor. But see here.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExperti ... aties.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Does it look to you like that the EU was trying to do us all down, if it weren't for those pesky kids? It reflects work started in 2008.

[rebeccariots2]

So what’s the evidence?
http://www.libdemvoice.org/so-whats-the ... 49295.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Article arguing against all woman shortlists for candidates.

Contains this rather fantastic generalisation ...

AWS are used in the Labour party because their membership tends to be mysoginistic.

[ohsocynical]

Darren McCaffrey ‏@DMcCaffreySKY 5m5 minutes ago Tårnby, Hovedstaden
NEW: FULL STORY: PM turns to Crosby as No.10 worries about EU campaign grow: http://news.sky.com/story/1636884/pm-tu ... gn-falters" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Sky News understands the Government is trying to elicit the services of Lynton Crosby over worries that David Cameron's EU deal is being portrayed too negatively by the press.

On the day a poll revealed falling support for the 'remain' campaign and a critical reception of the Prime Minister's deal from eurosceptic newspapers, Government insiders revealed they are very worried about how it is being received.

Just what we need for an already fairly nasty campaign ... the Crosby touch.

I'm inclined to be anti anything that man is involved in. And Osborne is threatening MPs about future posts if they don't go along with remain, how the hell are we supposed to get a fair, balanced picture in order to make our minds up?

More bloody chaos and shambles.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Any changes in the situation with TTIP are as a result of campaigners highlighting the issues

I thought that was true before, but then I read that link I put up there and saw that people had been working on the issues long before that.

From that, it looks to me like TTIP is pretty much the opposite of how it's made out to be. ie it's not the shadowy EU pulling a fast one on member governments. It's the EU that has expertise and institutions that are up to negotiating properly, whereas member governments don't. You could say we don't want any of this TTIP stuff, but member governments very clearly do.

I'm frustrated with Monbiot and others because I have no sense they're interested in stuff about TTIP that doesn't fit their narrative, and which is incredibly easy to find. Caroline Lucas is another- she used to be an MEP, and should know her way the EU institutions.

[HindleA]

https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/br ... en-and-its" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

'Cuts to support for disabled students: it’s callous – cynical even – and it’s wrong'

[HindleA]

Certainly consistent,no age group is safe.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Did we do cui bono? I must have missed it.

From that link you posted:

Increasingly, multinational companies have used ISDS to demand millions and even billions of pounds in compensation from foreign governments over political decisions that adversely affect their corporate interests. As recent examples, the Chinese insurance company Ping An sought compensation from Belgium when it nationalised the bank Fortis in the beginning of the financial crisis; and Swedish investors sued Germany over its decision to phase out nuclear energy in the wake of Japan's Fukushima disaster in 2011.

We did cui bono- it's strategic, EU-US v China in terms of trade. And to a lesser extent increasing trade and encouraging investment.

That quote from the bit called "What's the Problem?" in that link.

That's bad, but anyone can sue. Hardly a free for all in corporations coining it from governments, is it? If its not completely speculative, I expect there is a bit more to it than "your decision cost us money". What if the Swedish investors relied on government statements about expanding nuclear power, for instance? I think that's pretty much tough shit, but I can see why they might fancy a go in court.

The point of that article is that the LSE man's work has helped address that.

You say "cui bono", but why, on the basis of that, should the Belgian, German, Swedish governments be opening themselves up to more of that by TTIP? That makes no sense.

[seeingclearly]

We're in other investment treaties though, that were written and agreed with virtually no scrutiny. They haven't been the free for alls that TTIP is predicted to be by some.

I mentioned Hong Kong because that's the treaty under which Australia is being sued by Philip Morris, and under which it's said it'll threaten the UK if it brings in plain packaging. Whether you think they can get a big handout from Australia or whether they're trying to scare the UK and others, that's a matter of opinion. But whatever, it's clear that even these old investment treaties haven't seen corporations sue the UK en masse.

There's been some movement on TTIP by the EU. You might or might not be reassured, but it has moved on since Monbiot and all brought it up.

There hasn't been any real movement, and what movement there has has just been slapped down by German judges. And anyway, if it wasn't for people like Monbiot and 38 Degrees making a fuss, there wouldn't have been any attempt at concession. You can't have it both ways.

Anyway, it's not just Monbiot bringing it up. TTIP has been a worry for people campaigning about the NHS for several years. European law has already been used to stop NHS organisations being treated as preferred providers, and in concert with the Lansley reforms, it could start to get a lot harder to avoid everything having to go to tender.

I don't bloody want it anyway. The answer to 'cui bono?' is not going to be the likes of you and me.

We did cui bono before.

I asked why the UK isn't constantly being sued under existing investment treaties. Nobody has explained to me why TTIP will somehow open the floodgates.

What's been announced with TTIP might have been announced with a nod to Monbiot and 38 Degrees, and the EU's comms was poor. But see here.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExperti ... aties.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Does it look to you like that the EU was trying to do us all down, if it weren't for those pesky kids? It reflects work started in 2008.

They won't be constantly sued, that isn't how trade agreements work. The inherent threat is there and negotiations will be made on that basis, and mostly out of sight. These aren't exactly investment treaties, because the weaker party in the agreement is the national governments, their bargaining power becomes very limited. Now this may be nothing new for exploited developing countries but it takes the power to determine terms away from affluent nations too, something that becomes apparent when you look at the ongoing effects. They do in fact reveal the very dehumanising way that capitalism works, and how voracious its nature is. You might think this an emotive argument, but really it isn't. The faultline in modern economics is that it serves to propagate more money at the expense of people, natural resources and actual wealth, which put plainly is the riches of our planet and the efforts of its workers. Adjustments are desperately needed to this model, TPP and TTIP further entrench the problems and offer no solutions, as bargaining goes they offer something very nihilistic, extract every last drop until nothing more is possible and then move on. In recent times an example of this has been the growth of palm oil plantations at the expense of virgin forests and the species that once lived in them. Older predecessors over the last seventy or so years have wreaked similar havoc, trade agreements in general are not benign, I'll cite the banana industry as an early voracious example, and if you want a less well defined but current example then lets include our own very recent issues regarding our steel industry. The new agreements will be like that but on steroids. And without heavy regulation absolutely unstoppable. This is the real reason the EU has shifted on the issue, not Monbiot and 38degrees. Before the very real problems of the tresties were raised the implications were not understood to any real degree, even by politicians, in a very similar way that our politicians didn't really understand the Health and Social Care bill in front of them. Lobbyists are everything in this game and their relationship to politics is itself corrupt and obscuring. You are right that there is nothing particularly new in such treaties, but it is the scale and power of these that is unusual. It is in fact stepping into a dystopian corporatised future if the treaties are not tamed and made more serviceable for mankind. We are already deep in doodoo, why should we voluntarily step into it up to our necks? Isn't the hollowing out of our governments and the parasitic nature of what now inhabits them already far too far from where we should be? At some point this needs to be rebalanced, and pulling the teeth from TTIP is not a bad place to start.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Crosby would lose a lot of potential clients if he campaigned for "In"

[HindleA]

In ,out,shake it all about..

[Tubby Isaacs]

Oh dear. TTIP isn't like 'other' treaties.

I didn't say it was.

I said specifically it was probably like other investment treaties. The UK has signed 110 of those.

http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/I ... ryBits/221" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nearly all of these are with countries which are/were poor, with undeveloped legal systems and the risk of government's seizing assets. But not all of them- once was signed with Hong Kong, presumably out of worries that China would seized stuff.

Why should TTIP be easier to sue under than that treaty? I don't understand.

Do those treaties have corporate courts? And is there an electric fence effect where governments don't act in a way that might prompt legal action?

I think this sort of tribunal is very common with investment treaties. NAFTA had them, and I would think that's the biggest.

They're specifically for foreign investors (corporations or not) because they're intended to protect foreign direct investment (FDI).

[PaulfromYorkshire]

In ,out,shake it all about..

Yes it's about time Osborne got involved for the cokey bit

[rebeccariots2]

Crosby would lose a lot of potential clients if he campaigned for "In"

He wouldn't be out there in public doing the campaigning though, would he? He'd be orchestrating tactics .... working out the targeted fear bombs for certain groups, the canny bribes for others, preparing the dead cats ready to throw them on the table when Cameron hits a tricky phase ... refining the messages so they are as crude and dishonest as necessary. And spending lots of money in the 'right' places. That's what he'd be doing, surely?

[HindleA]

Happy World Nutella Day(or nut)

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Crosby would lose a lot of potential clients if he campaigned for "In"

He wouldn't be out there in public doing the campaigning though, would he? He'd be orchestrating tactics .... working out the targeted fear bombs for certain groups, the canny bribes for others, preparing the dead cats ready to throw them on the table when Cameron hits a tricky phase ... refining the messages so they are as crude and dishonest as necessary. And spending lots of money in the 'right' places. That's what he'd be doing, surely?

He lives by his reputation RR. He won't do Machiavellian behind the scenes stuff. In fact you have to admire Crosby in a certain sense. His methods are no surprise. He manipulates us all in plain sight.

[Vordy]

Evening All.

Reforming welfare from a distance.

Source:

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/22694" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tubby Isaacs]

Hague made a huge song and dance about reviewing the competencies the EU had. Rather embarrassingly, it concluded they were basically OK.

Trade treaties look to me like something where the EU has far more knowledge and competence that national governments.

I saw David Jones, Welsh Tory, on the news the other day. He was saying he wanted a free trade treaty with China. (while, no doubt also blaming the Welsh Government for not saving Port Talbot). Can you imagine how hopelessly negotiated that would be?

With pooled sovereignty in the EU, you don't get individual countries racing to be the first to sign a treaty, and all the short cuts that would bring.

[seeingclearly]

https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/br ... en-and-its

'Cuts to support for disabled students: it’s callous – cynical even – and it’s wrong'

Indeed. I have often said if they can't deal with dyslexia then how the hell are they going to deal with other more complex needs. This is not to downplay dyslexia, I was unaware of just how deeply it affects education and prospects until one of my own came face to face with the brick wall, profound dysgraphia being reinterpreted as illiteracy. This was so marked that the work programme resulted in an endless referral to unsuitable work provider destinations, and a confounding array of slammed doors, even the friendlier ones had no signposts to anything positive. I shan't relate the FE circumstances that led to the impossibility of a university place, But this is one young person with a more than adequate brain whose prospects have been destroyed by the removal of protections and provisions, and who could have been a net contributor. Expect this to happen as many thousands more are failed. I have watched programmes about positive college experiences in specialist units for disabled people, they are so starry eyed about what life could bring them. There are no followups to show what happens next and I guess there will be a few successes where family or friends can be invoked to create meaningful work, or charities create a showcase opportunity, but left to their own devices the picture is not great, and uni for many increasingly distant. Take away the scribes and other helpers, snd the support for them to be employed and disabled people are back at square one and facing the same brick wall my youngster did. We used to think bring down the barriers and everything will become possible, today the picture is far worse, the barriers are being built, unforgiveably, and deliberately to exclude, and then comes the punishment for not being able to overcome them.

There are enlightened pockets of safety, I heard of one recently, but have to say that it existed due to exceptional parental persistence in the face of three siblings with related conditions, and tbh many youngsters do want to be able to have some level of selfdetermination, the reported current situation doesn't bode well for the bright.

[rebeccariots2]

State schools success in fighting 'pot smoking' making it tough for private rivals, says Lord
There are concerns middle-class parents are being priced out of private education
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/12 ... -Lord.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

State schools success in their war against ‘pot smoking and violence’ is making it difficult for private schools are on the decline as they find it difficult to justify their fees, the Good Schools Guide owner has said.
Ralph Lucas, an old Etonian and hereditary peer, argues state schools have improved beyond all recognition in the last three decades.
This follows an increase in the number of state schools including in his publication – ten in 1986 versus 264 now, which represent a third of the total recommended institutions.
His remarks emerged amid growing worries that middle-class parents are increasingly opting for state schools due to the highest prices at private schools for generations.

Growing worries of private school operators presumably. What a strange article this is.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Now this may be nothing new for exploited developing countries but it takes the power to determine terms away from affluent nations too, something that becomes apparent when you look at the ongoing effects.

That's a good point, SC, about these treaties having grown up first between first world and third world, with the latter desperate for foreign investment.

It's not so clear to me why the EU should want to go into such destructive treaties. National governments (ours, for sure, see its negotiating skills) might rush into one and not understand it, like they didn't understand the Lansley Act. Particularly before elections, I can imagine Cameron signing any old rubbish.

But I think it's different with the EU, because it's one of the core things it's long done.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Four local council byelections to kick off February:

North West Leicestershire DC - Labour hold this marginal ward in an area which was Labour inclined but competitive before the boundary changes last year as well. On that occasion, a straight fight with the Tories saw then win by 55-45 - now both experienced double figure drops as UKIP (who had maybe surprisingly sat this one out on GE day, given they polled well here in the 2013 Leics CC elections) intervented and took over 23 per cent. Overall there was a fractional pro-Tory "swing" but Labour might not be too bothered about that given the rather murky circumstances in which the previous incumbent was forced to resign this seat.

Northumberland - Independent (or strictly speaking "No Description") gain from Tory, though the picture there is slightly muddied by the fact the winner stood for the LibDems in 2013 and was actually comfortably elected as such in the final county council elections here in 2008 (though the boundaries were slightly different then) However, it seems this was not another of the ballot paper mishaps we have seen a few of - they have cut ties with their former party at present, though the recognition factor from their previous contests clearly did them little harm. Tories gained nearly half the vote three years ago, but fell to a third now and were narrowly beaten. Labour remained third with almost no change, but they may not be too displeased with that given the Greens intervened and took over 6% - though that meant they were beaten into the wooden spoon position by another Independent (this time round, appearing as such on the ballot paper)

Shropshire - Green gain from Tory, with nearly half the vote and a swing of 14% since 2013 and close to double that since 2009 (before the boundaries were only slightly altered) Tories with a double figure drop from three years ago and down over 20% on the election before that - whilst that is explainable through the previous incumbent (the former council leader, no less) being forced to step down following a corruption scandal, it is still a notable Green triumph and painful Tory reverse. Labour got 9% here having not bothered last time, whilst that is only slightly up on 2009 it was still enough to beat the LibDems who have more than halved since then. UKIP absent, despite scoring 16% in the last contest.

East Cambridgeshire DC - Tory hold, though this was not far off a third reverse of the week as the LibDems ran them close with a swing of roughly 9% since last May. They may actually have hoped for even better, given that they shared the spoils with the Tories here as both won a councillor in 2003 and 2011 (in the former case, the blues only stood a single candidate) and actually managed both seats in 2007. Labour have been perpetual also rans here, and duly saw their vote squeezed - though it actually dropped by less than the Tory share and they still managed to outpoll UKIP who in their first contest here polled less than 5%, which is notably low by their usual standards in these parts.

Four contests again next week.

[rebeccariots2]

Crosby would lose a lot of potential clients if he campaigned for "In"

He wouldn't be out there in public doing the campaigning though, would he? He'd be orchestrating tactics .... working out the targeted fear bombs for certain groups, the canny bribes for others, preparing the dead cats ready to throw them on the table when Cameron hits a tricky phase ... refining the messages so they are as crude and dishonest as necessary. And spending lots of money in the 'right' places. That's what he'd be doing, surely?

He lives by his reputation RR. He won't do Machiavellian behind the scenes stuff. In fact you have to admire Crosby in a certain sense. His methods are no surprise. He manipulates us all in plain sight.

Not quite sure I entirely agree with you. He was public in his campaigning for the Tories - in that he was clearly appointed / contracted to organise the campaign. Clearly wants the kudos of having won for them. But some of the methods that campaign employed were pretty Machiavellian ... and not particularly overt ... I'm thinking in particular of getting the Telegraph to send out that email to all the people who had given them their email address for entirely different purposes and who ended up being fined for infringing data protection / electoral regulations. I also think he probably had a lot to do with the dead cat stuff re whether Cameron would engage in a live TV debate or not ... and the pressure brought to bear on the Beeb and others to change their programming to suit Tory wishes.

[seeingclearly]

Now this may be nothing new for exploited developing countries but it takes the power to determine terms away from affluent nations too, something that becomes apparent when you look at the ongoing effects.

That's a good point, SC, about these treaties having grown up first between first world and third world, with the latter desperate for foreign investment.

It's not so clear to me why the EU should want to go into such destructive treaties. National governments (ours, for sure, see its negotiating skills) might rush into one and not understand it, like they didn't understand the Lansley Act. Particularly before elections, I can imagine Cameron signing any old rubbish.

But I think it's different with the EU, because it's one of the core things it's long done.

It is the reason I am for staying in, however I do not think the EU was that well informed in this case, a kind of dawning awareness has shifted them into a more questioning mode, alongside some of their own mistakes re austerity and so on. Previously there was a reliance on World Bank expertise, my take on this is that Europe is more sceptical now than it was, and that is no bad thing. Re Cameron, yes of course he would, he is an unmitigated pillock, and relating back to earlier reference to the PTB (did I get that right?) then I should think they must be getting more than a little fed up with his antics, he is obviously meant to deliver, and is way overdue to do so. But is still a useful clown.

Edited to add:

The thing about 'third world countries' being desperate for foreign investment. Third world is now not really that great a terminology, developing nations is preferred. And 'foreign investment' is not really what they are looking for, more a way forward in self determination on a more egalitarian footing. After all many of them supply the goods we so desire, foodstuffs, mineral resources, tourist destinations and so on. But there is a strong element of economic oppression involved, the capitalist core philosophy is keep driving prices down, which means no parity in the world for their workers. The deals that are pushed come with heavy financial instruments and increased military budgets they do. not really want, and the vanity projects forced on them for the dubious privilege of that same foreign ibvestment are something their grandchildren will be paying for. As I said things need to be quite radically adjusted, because such things are not sustainable. And because people in such places are more educated, aware and hardworking than the propaganda supposes and understand the role they have been given does them no favours.

[HindleA]

"During the drafting of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill, Dick Crossman, the Secretary of State for Social Services, told Alf that he couldn’t have provision for dyslexia, because dyslexia “didn’t exist”. “Well, then”, replied Morris, “it won’t cost you anything”

"If we could bequeath one precious gift to posterity, I would choose a society in which there is genuine compassion for long-term sick and disabled people; where understanding is unostentatious and sincere; where needs come before means; where if years cannot be added to their lives, at least life can be added to their years; where the mobility of disabled people is restricted only by the bounds of technical progress and discovery; where they have the fundamental right to participate in industry and society according to ability; where socially preventable distress is unknown; and where no one has cause to be ill at ease because of his or her disability."

[HindleA]

Now we get a report from a think tank that has the ear of the Government with zero input from those it wishes to inflict their ill-informed misanthropy on.

[HindleA]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... um=twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Hundreds of ticket machines still keeping passengers in dark about cheaper fares despite minister's pledge

[seeingclearly]

"During the drafting of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill, Dick Crossman, the Secretary of State for Social Services, told Alf that he couldn’t have provision for dyslexia, because dyslexia “didn’t exist”. “Well, then”, replied Morris, “it won’t cost you anything”

"If we could bequeath one precious gift to posterity, I would choose a society in which there is genuine compassion for long-term sick and disabled people; where understanding is unostentatious and sincere; where needs come before means; where if years cannot be added to their lives, at least life can be added to their years; where the mobility of disabled people is restricted only by the bounds of technical progress and discovery; where they have the fundamental right to participate in industry and society according to ability; where socially preventable distress is unknown; and where no one has cause to be ill at ease because of his or her disability."

One of the first things that disappeared after the 2010 elections was the Civil Service advisory on accomodations for disabled civil servants and other related employees, that was informally used as a guideline in other public workplaces. It preceded all the legal changes, the bills and all the rest. It felt an ominous move at the time. Today we have the opposite of your quote, instead socially preventable distress is everywhere, it fills my social media, and the tangibly ill at ease people who relate their everyday stories of distressing situations often sound at the end of their tether. Here of all places, the world once regarded us as a leader and protector of such things, and looked up to us for our enlightened civic system, and wished to emulate it. Brought to nowt. The bastards.

[seeingclearly]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... um=twitter


Hundreds of ticket machines still keeping passengers in dark about cheaper fares despite minister's pledge

Had to laugh at the 'selfserving machines' described in your link, A, thats about the sum of it!

[HindleA]

https://joehalewood.wordpress.com/2016/ ... cut-farce/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LHA (maxima) cap / cut (farce)

[HindleA]

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... ate-sector" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

'Massively' improved state schools threaten private sector