Saturday 28th Feb & Sunday 1st March 2015

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 9:19 pm

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 7 mins7 minutes ago

CON & LAB level-pegging in tonight's YouGov

CON 34%
LAB 34%
UKIP 14%
LDEM 8%
GRN 5%

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 9:19 pm

Worth recalling that there were 21 Lib Dem rebels over tuition fees.

They're going to have an interesting time.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 9:26 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
giselle97 wrote:Here's another good read from Health Policy Insight on Manchester (I know, I'm getting to be a bore, but this stuff is important. Remember what Oliver Letwin said!).

http://www.healthpolicyinsight.com/?q=node/1589

EDITED to add the link to the newspaper's Healthier Together articles (referred to in previous link). So few people knew or passed comment on this.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... r-together
Not a bore at all giselle.
This is all very scary stuff and its a signed up, done deal. Not sure what anyone can do about it. Take over is April 2016.
I'm sad and ashamed that my council is part of the 10 who have taken the tory's gold without so much as a by-your-leave to their constituents.
Sorry Earnst, but this should have been put to the people of Manchester - at the very least - not to mention the rest of the UK who are joint owners of the NHS.
Hi AAW, don't disagree, except to point out that government does an awful lot of stuff without directly consulting the people affected by it. This is no different. And noone should make either of the following mistakes: (a) that the AGMA leaders in the negotiations are patsies; they're not, they're all as hard as nails and political operators who realise that if it fucks up, it'll come back to bite them, and (b) that this will all actually take place in April 2015. I spoke last Wednesday evening after full council to the head of our health scrutiny committee and the cabinet member for adult socal care, and both were extremely skeptical that any such changes will happen by that date.

As a long term aspiration for a properly funded NHS it would be a good thing, and might encourage a more integrated view of health and social care, which is, after all, Burnham's view is it not? It's - as many realise - Osborne politicking to garner votes. Sadly, he's picked the wrong city.

" except to point out that government does an awful lot of stuff without directly consulting the people affected by it. This is no different"
I beg to differ. This is different, it involves a constitutional change and worse, the people of Manchester rejected a Mayor only 3 / 4 years ago yet part an parcel of this imposes a mayor on the city. This is totally out of order, and really one of the 10 LA's at least should have objected. Very minimum should have passed a word to the Labour party or AB about the Health aspect of the deal.
In a link I found (and have now lost!) it said of those doing the negotiating only Osborne & Reese (Leese? forgot his name I'm so cross about this) the Manchester Leader are elected the others were civil servants. How is that democratic?
Its wrong, its undemocratic, it stinks and as far as I can tell has signed, sealed and delivered Manchester to the Tory's.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 9:30 pm

As a woman I'd like to hear Natalie Bennetts thoughts on all the deaths and misery that will get even worse if the Tories get in. I can't help thinking the push for power can kill finer feelings.

I don't think I could be ruthless enough to be a politician.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 9:33 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote: Not a bore at all giselle.
This is all very scary stuff and its a signed up, done deal. Not sure what anyone can do about it. Take over is April 2016.
I'm sad and ashamed that my council is part of the 10 who have taken the tory's gold without so much as a by-your-leave to their constituents.
Sorry Earnst, but this should have been put to the people of Manchester - at the very least - not to mention the rest of the UK who are joint owners of the NHS.
Hi AAW, don't disagree, except to point out that government does an awful lot of stuff without directly consulting the people affected by it. This is no different. And noone should make either of the following mistakes: (a) that the AGMA leaders in the negotiations are patsies; they're not, they're all as hard as nails and political operators who realise that if it fucks up, it'll come back to bite them, and (b) that this will all actually take place in April 2015. I spoke last Wednesday evening after full council to the head of our health scrutiny committee and the cabinet member for adult socal care, and both were extremely skeptical that any such changes will happen by that date.

As a long term aspiration for a properly funded NHS it would be a good thing, and might encourage a more integrated view of health and social care, which is, after all, Burnham's view is it not? It's - as many realise - Osborne politicking to garner votes. Sadly, he's picked the wrong city.
" except to point out that government does an awful lot of stuff without directly consulting the people affected by it. This is no different"
I beg to differ. This is different, it involves a constitutional change and worse, the people of Manchester rejected a Mayor only 3 / 4 years ago yet part an parcel of this imposes a mayor on the city. This is totally out of order, and really one of the 10 LA's at least should have objected. Very minimum should have passed a word to the Labour party or AB about the Health aspect of the deal.
In a link I found (and have now lost!) it said of those doing the negotiating only Osborne & Reese (Leese? forgot his name I'm so cross about this) the Manchester Leader are elected the others were civil servants. How is that democratic?
Its wrong, its undemocratic, it stinks and as far as I can tell has signed, sealed and delivered Manchester to the Tory's.

That sound very vitriolic Earnst, and I'd just like to add it truly is not aimed at you personally. I'm just so very very cross about this whole deal, its making me unreasonable.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 9:36 pm

ohsocynical wrote:As a woman I'd like to hear Natalie Bennetts thoughts on all the deaths and misery that will get even worse if the Tories get in. I can't help thinking the push for power can kill finer feelings.

I don't think I could be ruthless enough to be a politician.

It's the stark question that should be asked of every politician who is even vaguely of the left: how many deaths/how much poverty, misery, despair, is an acceptable level when, in pursuit of the 'long term gains' of your politics, you facilitate another Tory Government?

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 9:37 pm

On Manchester I tend to agree with Ernst. After 7th May those Labour councillors responsible for negotiating this deal must be booted from the party.

Utterly unacceptable behaviour and one that puts the healthcare of the people at risk.

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 9:52 pm

Last link from me for today .......

“DevoManc” NHS chaos

https://mancunianspring.wordpress.com/2 ... ses-chaos/

........ as I'm going to get a really fattening Magnum (or two!) out of the freezer, put my feet up, get under the blanket on the sofa and watch "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" on Film 4. That'll only make it about the tenth time I've watched it!

I'm preparing myself for when I feel a little better (got a chesty cough and sore throat which is getting to me) and am able to go to see "The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" at the cinema - because I really, really can't work out how Richard Gere will fit in ..... but look forward to watching him swivelling his hips to the folky dancing! (Down girl, down!)

Night all. See you tomorrow.

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 9:59 pm

Two new members I notice, SNl 22/02 and tinybgoat 23/02, who haven't posted yet. Don't be shy.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 10:28 pm

Daniel Boffey ‏@DanielBoffey 3m3 minutes ago
TV channels block Green Party bid to limit Natalie Bennett’s screen time

http://gu.com/p/46876" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I haven't looked yet. Tell me it's a spoof ....? Can't be for real, surely?

Editing to add: Oh no .... strike me ..... it is for real.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 10:38 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Daniel Boffey ‏@DanielBoffey 3m3 minutes ago
TV channels block Green Party bid to limit Natalie Bennett’s screen time

http://gu.com/p/46876" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I haven't looked yet. Tell me it's a spoof ....? Can't be for real, surely?

Editing to add: Oh no .... strike me ..... it is for real.

It's about the Greens trying to use Lucas in some debates, but the TV companies say same person has to appear in all.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 10:55 pm

As for Nick Robinson, I wish him a full recovery. But I think he should give up the day job.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 11:07 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:As for Nick Robinson, I wish him a full recovery. But I think he should give up the day job.

I hope he realises how lucky he is that he won't have to cope with being assessed for benefits....

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 11:12 pm

Grahame Morris MP ‏@grahamemorris 5m5 minutes ago
RT“@DailyMirror: Top adviser to Chancellor caught on camera smoking crack cocaine in drugs den http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... -osbourne-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

An arresting tweet what .... but the link goes nowhere for me though - to a 404 error page. Article already taken down? Or is this very old news?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 11:16 pm

Here you go

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... ne-5251411" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's not that close to Osborne.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 11:28 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote: Not a bore at all giselle.
This is all very scary stuff and its a signed up, done deal. Not sure what anyone can do about it. Take over is April 2016.
I'm sad and ashamed that my council is part of the 10 who have taken the tory's gold without so much as a by-your-leave to their constituents.
Sorry Earnst, but this should have been put to the people of Manchester - at the very least - not to mention the rest of the UK who are joint owners of the NHS.
Hi AAW, don't disagree, except to point out that government does an awful lot of stuff without directly consulting the people affected by it. This is no different. And noone should make either of the following mistakes: (a) that the AGMA leaders in the negotiations are patsies; they're not, they're all as hard as nails and political operators who realise that if it fucks up, it'll come back to bite them, and (b) that this will all actually take place in April 2015. I spoke last Wednesday evening after full council to the head of our health scrutiny committee and the cabinet member for adult socal care, and both were extremely skeptical that any such changes will happen by that date.

As a long term aspiration for a properly funded NHS it would be a good thing, and might encourage a more integrated view of health and social care, which is, after all, Burnham's view is it not? It's - as many realise - Osborne politicking to garner votes. Sadly, he's picked the wrong city.
" except to point out that government does an awful lot of stuff without directly consulting the people affected by it. This is no different"
I beg to differ. This is different, it involves a constitutional change and worse, the people of Manchester rejected a Mayor only 3 / 4 years ago yet part an parcel of this imposes a mayor on the city. This is totally out of order, and really one of the 10 LA's at least should have objected. Very minimum should have passed a word to the Labour party or AB about the Health aspect of the deal.
In a link I found (and have now lost!) it said of those doing the negotiating only Osborne & Reese (Leese? forgot his name I'm so cross about this) the Manchester Leader are elected the others were civil servants. How is that democratic?
Its wrong, its undemocratic, it stinks and as far as I can tell has signed, sealed and delivered Manchester to the Tory's.

I thinkyou're wrong about this. For a start, do you imagine for a minute that AB and the other AGMA based MPs were kept in the dark over the negogiations? Christ, I started hearing about this nearly 8 months back (IIRC), and I'm a lowly councillor. The Ivan Lewis's of this world will have known all about what was being said. NW politics is like a fucking sieve: no matter how 'hush hush' negotiations might (be alleged to) be, it was out there, and we were officially briefed over a month ago about it by our leader.

Given that the Tories are actively considering EV4EL (a shit idea, incidentally) I'm very surprised that you're particularly surprised that constitutional changes might be waved through so casually. We have an unwritten constitution, so if the government of the day were to decree that we must all vote underwater and that a village elder will be the local popular representation, then they can do it given a parliamentary majority and a supine meeja. Oh look: a parliamentary majority and a supine meeja - mark my words, this will require parliamentary time, at least.

You're right about Richard Leese: he's been running Manchester for too long and has become for too big for his boots. He can't retire soon enough, to my mind.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 11:36 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Here you go

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... ne-5251411" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's not that close to Osborne.

He's been in the news before...

Top economist questioned by police over claims he attacked prostitute after smoking crack

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... crack.html

I particularly liked this bit...

In December his think tank CEBR suggested UK had overtaken France in 2014 to become the world’s fifth largest economy, thanks to earnings from the drugs and the sex trade.

On Christmas Day, McWilliams tweeted a link to a story about the predictions, writing: “Prostitution and illegal drugs help UK overtake France in global wealth league.”

Edit...picture the scene...

"Yes!...oh yes!...just there...wow, that's wonderful!...wait...why isn't this included in GDP?...no, not now...let me write this down first"

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 11:47 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote: Hi AAW, don't disagree, except to point out that government does an awful lot of stuff without directly consulting the people affected by it. This is no different. And noone should make either of the following mistakes: (a) that the AGMA leaders in the negotiations are patsies; they're not, they're all as hard as nails and political operators who realise that if it fucks up, it'll come back to bite them, and (b) that this will all actually take place in April 2015. I spoke last Wednesday evening after full council to the head of our health scrutiny committee and the cabinet member for adult socal care, and both were extremely skeptical that any such changes will happen by that date.

As a long term aspiration for a properly funded NHS it would be a good thing, and might encourage a more integrated view of health and social care, which is, after all, Burnham's view is it not? It's - as many realise - Osborne politicking to garner votes. Sadly, he's picked the wrong city.
" except to point out that government does an awful lot of stuff without directly consulting the people affected by it. This is no different"
I beg to differ. This is different, it involves a constitutional change and worse, the people of Manchester rejected a Mayor only 3 / 4 years ago yet part an parcel of this imposes a mayor on the city. This is totally out of order, and really one of the 10 LA's at least should have objected. Very minimum should have passed a word to the Labour party or AB about the Health aspect of the deal.
In a link I found (and have now lost!) it said of those doing the negotiating only Osborne & Reese (Leese? forgot his name I'm so cross about this) the Manchester Leader are elected the others were civil servants. How is that democratic?
Its wrong, its undemocratic, it stinks and as far as I can tell has signed, sealed and delivered Manchester to the Tory's.
That sound very vitriolic Earnst, and I'd just like to add it truly is not aimed at you personally. I'm just so very very cross about this whole deal, its making me unreasonable.

No offence taken, I assure you - I'm just trying to point out the local context and some facts gleaned through channels to which the average FTNer or voter wouldn't have access. I'm quite serious that there are very strong misgivings about it all happening at all, it being so soon after the complete reorganisation of the NHS nationally. You'll be unsurprised to hear that in my borough it's still not taken its settled form, sohe idea of another change has been met with considerable doubts. As I say the councillor whose the head of the health overview and scrutiny committee - who should know - and the cabinet member foradult social care - who should also know - gave it a serious thumbs down in terms of it ever occurring, and as I know them both to be absolutely on top of their briefs, I suspect that the whole thing was a ploy by Osborne to dupe northern voters and save a few seats, which, as I've said, won't work.

Let me reiterate: a properly funded NHS run via a Manchester/AGMA based authority (let's call it an SHA) with responsibility for social care is where it should go (IMHO). How we get there is only germanein terms of the benefits to be derived, and, in any case the Labour party's already said that's the direction of travel. And do not for a minute think that Andy Burnham was kept in the dark about what's going on - he's the MP for Leigh FFS. That the bum faced overlord might utter what he did in the HoC was pure propaganda, and if you believe it, you should re-examine what it says and how it says it.

It was a statement of divide and conquer - local NW Labour are lovely people who'll do what's best for the NHS, parliamentery Labour are horrid and seek to use the NHS as a weapon, therefore Miliband is unfit to be PM. Compare and contrast. Given that those lovely helpful co-operative Labour local councils and their leaders have seen millions upon millions of pounds of central government grants slashed away since 2010, just what do you imagine the Tory attitude to AGMA authorities actually is? CMD's emollient little homilies to halitosis hall are for the benefit of a gullible and eager meeja only.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 11:59 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:As for Nick Robinson, I wish him a full recovery. But I think he should give up the day job.
I hope he realises how lucky he is that he won't have to cope with being assessed for benefits....

He will be entitled to apply for ESA & as such, would probably be assessed in the same way as everybody else.

He may not apply for it if his household finances are sufficiently robust to allow for any loss of income.

DLA might be a benefit to which he may become entitled but that is some way down the track yet.

I have a different kind of lung cancer to him but I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy & I hope he recovers quickly and without too much trauma to his body from the treatment.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 12:07 am

ErnstRemarx wrote:And do not for a minute think that Andy Burnham was kept in the dark about what's going on - he's the MP for Leigh FFS. That the bum faced overlord might utter what he did in the HoC was pure propaganda, and if you believe it, you should re-examine what it says and how it says it.

By "bum faced overlord" are you meaning Andy Burnham or George Osborne ?

I've tried but failed to find a Hansard link to any debate in Parliament over this where either man was talking so I really have no idea who has said what. A link would be helpful.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 12:51 am

pk1 wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:And do not for a minute think that Andy Burnham was kept in the dark about what's going on - he's the MP for Leigh FFS. That the bum faced overlord might utter what he did in the HoC was pure propaganda, and if you believe it, you should re-examine what it says and how it says it.
By "bum faced overlord" are you meaning Andy Burnham or George Osborne ?

I've tried but failed to find a Hansard link to any debate in Parliament over this where either man was talking so I really have no idea who has said what. A link would be helpful.

Can't give you one PK, but I assumed that the Cameron quote was from the NoC, if not, apologies and I'm sure someone else will produce the URL. G'Night!

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 1:16 am

ErnstRemarx wrote:
pk1 wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:And do not for a minute think that Andy Burnham was kept in the dark about what's going on - he's the MP for Leigh FFS. That the bum faced overlord might utter what he did in the HoC was pure propaganda, and if you believe it, you should re-examine what it says and how it says it.
By "bum faced overlord" are you meaning Andy Burnham or George Osborne ?

I've tried but failed to find a Hansard link to any debate in Parliament over this where either man was talking so I really have no idea who has said what. A link would be helpful.
Can't give you one PK, but I assumed that the Cameron quote was from the NoC, if not, apologies and I'm sure someone else will produce the URL. G'Night!

Still none the wiser about who you mean when you refer to a "bum faced overlord" but maybe the fact you didn't answer means you were referring to Burnham & if that's the case, I'd find it really quite sad that a Labour councillor would refer to a Labour MP in that manner but maybe that's just me. Hopefully I'm wrong.

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 1:24 am

Sorry folks - I should have put the link to this extract from Hansard in my original comment:

Q13. [907705] Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): Does the Prime Minister agree with me that, hot on the heels of devolving powers on transport and housing, the welcome announcement that Manchester will take control of its £6 billion NHS budget shows the coalition’s commitment to local decision-making for Manchester, in stark contrast to the Labour Government that oversaw the closure of Withington hospital from Whitehall?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is an important breakthrough. It has been made possible by our reforms. It will help to bring the NHS and social care together. The shadow Health Secretary, who presumably knew absolutely nothing about this, does not understand that eight Labour authorities in Greater Manchester have been talking to us and working with us about how to make this a reality. What a contrast: people working together to improve the NHS, instead of trying to weaponise it across the Dispatch Box.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 2580000343

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 2:02 am

Just been watching Immigration Street from C4 & was astounded that after the public meeting where the producer of the show, Kieran Smith, was left in no doubt that the residents didn't want the show to be filmed in their street, he attacked the Labour politicians for permitting the residents to speak out !

I quote his exact words:

No one was prepared to listen; people were asking questions [of Smith] and people were just shouting down my answers; if they didn't like my answers, they'd boo them; people were running up to me, threatening me, trying to intimidate me (this certainly did not happen at the public meeting !); there was an MP in that room (Alan Whitehead), Labour councillors in that room and yet they're allowing that kind of behaviour and you know, the meeting really was pointless. I think when a television company comes along and wants to make a series using ordinary people and their lives to start a debate about immigration and I think what they get concerned about is that they can't control it because what it feels like at the moment is that this is about censorship; that certain sections of the community and some of the authorities in Southhampton have gone 'we're going to close this down because you know what, we can't keep a handle on what people are going to say and what they're going to do and we don't want that to reflect badly on Southhampton'"

So, public meeting where he was told in no uncertain terms to piss off equates to censorship nowadays ?! That Labour councillors and the local MP are guilty of forcing the locals to speak out against the show being filmed there ?

Here's the link for anybody that wants to watch it:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/immigration-street" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would say what I really thought but don't want to offend anybody with my language so I will be polite and say that Mr Smith was lashing out at those whom he thought would be only too pleased to take part in a show (whose aim aim may have been to further antagonise a country against immigrants) in the same way as Deirdre Kelly was used and abused by this same company.

Scum.

Spacedone · Post by **Spacedone** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 6:46 am

pk1 wrote:Just been watching Immigration Street from C4 & was astounded that after the public meeting where the producer of the show, Kieran Smith, was left in no doubt that the residents didn't want the show to be filmed in their street, he attacked the Labour politicians for permitting the residents to speak out !

I quote his exact words:

No one was prepared to listen; people were asking questions [of Smith] and people were just shouting down my answers; if they didn't like my answers, they'd boo them; people were running up to me, threatening me, trying to intimidate me (this certainly did not happen at the public meeting !); there was an MP in that room (Alan Whitehead), Labour councillors in that room and yet they're allowing that kind of behaviour and you know, the meeting really was pointless. I think when a television company comes along and wants to make a series using ordinary people and their lives to start a debate about immigration and I think what they get concerned about is that they can't control it because what it feels like at the moment is that this is about censorship; that certain sections of the community and some of the authorities in Southhampton have gone 'we're going to close this down because you know what, we can't keep a handle on what people are going to say and what they're going to do and we don't want that to reflect badly on Southhampton'"
So, public meeting where he was told in no uncertain terms to piss off equates to censorship nowadays ?! That Labour councillors and the local MP are guilty of forcing the locals to speak out against the show being filmed there ?

Here's the link for anybody that wants to watch it:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/immigration-street" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would say what I really thought but don't want to offend anybody with my language so I will be polite and say that Mr Smith was lashing out at those whom he thought would be only too pleased to take part in a show (whose aim aim may have been to further antagonise a country against immigrants) in the same way as Deirdre Kelly was used and abused by this same company.

Scum.

Funny how that quote sounds almost exactly like the stuff that that Guido Fawkes flying monkey has been coming out with about the Hacked Off meeting.

If this is what the producer says then it no wonder the residents don't want anything to do with it because he clearly has an agenda. About the only honest thing he says is "using ordinary people". Yep I'm sure they'd feel used afterwards.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 7:28 am

That censorship word. It's the latest from the immigration brigade isn't it? As though we've had no opportunity to debate immigration in the last 5 years.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 8:08 am

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

ed-miliband-on-course-absolute-majority-labour-party

That's about the Opinium poll - to cheer Robert up

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 8:25 am

Police probe slaughter of fox by hunt hosted by PM's father-in-law after picture of dead animal was posted online
Protesters claim eight York & Ainsty hounds chased and killed the fox
The hunt is said to have set off from Sutton Park in the North Yorkshire
It is owned by David Cameron's father-in-law Sir Reginald Sheffield
A photograph of a dead fox was shared online by critics afterwards
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nline.html

What a family the Camerons are. Such breeding .......

This is the father in law alleged to have made his massive donations to the Tories dependent on a pledge to bring back legalised hunting with a full pack of dogs.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 8:31 am

New York job lures Rebekah Brooks as she moves from Oxfordshire to the US after new offer from Rupert Murdoch
Rebekah Brooks moved to New York with her family for a job at News Corp
Former News of the World editor will lead hunt for new online investment
It ends a period out of the public eye after the phone- hacking scandal
An insider said she was still held in very high regard by Rupert Murdoch
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rdoch.html

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 8:52 am

Another Tory defection before the election?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... e-suggests

There is still a chance that another Tory MP could defect to Ukip before the general election, Nigel Farage has suggested.

Farage said there was still “one conversation” going on with a Conservative about switching sides.

Unlike Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless – who both triggered and won byelections – the defecting MP would be almost certain to hold on to their seat until it came up for grabs in the nationwide ballot.

It'd certainly scupper Tory chances in seats if they defected the day before the nominations for seats closed. Think of the frantic running around trying to come up with a candidate in a few hours.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 9:07 am

UPDATE: Councillors fail to make an agreement on council budget
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/11822316 ... il_budget/

The latest from Brighton.

LATE-night talks to decide on Brighton and Hove City Council’s budget failed to create a result.

In a meeting lasting more than five hours, city councillors struggled to find common ground.

With the Greens proposing a referendum-inducing 5.9% rise and a Conservative freeze failing to gather enough support, it was the city council's third party Labour’s 1.99% rise which became the only likely outcome – but it did not happen.

Labour’s plans relied again on sufficient support from Green councillors, with leader Jason Kitcat attempting to convince enough of his colleagues to pass a budget on the night and avoid further delays and uncertainty.

The three budget options were all voted down at the first attempt.

Six Green councillors even voted against their own party’s budget, saying they refused to vote through any more cuts.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 9:25 am

giselle97 wrote:Sorry folks - I should have put the link to this extract from Hansard in my original comment:

Q13. [907705] Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): Does the Prime Minister agree with me that, hot on the heels of devolving powers on transport and housing, the welcome announcement that Manchester will take control of its £6 billion NHS budget shows the coalition’s commitment to local decision-making for Manchester, in stark contrast to the Labour Government that oversaw the closure of Withington hospital from Whitehall?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is an important breakthrough. It has been made possible by our reforms. It will help to bring the NHS and social care together. The shadow Health Secretary, who presumably knew absolutely nothing about this, does not understand that eight Labour authorities in Greater Manchester have been talking to us and working with us about how to make this a reality. What a contrast: people working together to improve the NHS, instead of trying to weaponise it across the Dispatch Box.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 2580000343

Thanks for that, @giselle97. Clears up two matters of confusion in my head. One, that I'd been assuming Leech and Leese were the same person and that I'd misheard the name of the 'Honourable Member' during Wednesday's PMQs. So, Leese is a local Manchester councillor/council leader whereas Leech is the Manchester Withington MP. Secondly, I'd assumed that 'our bum-faced overlord' referred to Osborne – it's the nose, y'knows! - rather than OGRFG Cameron.

BBC are reporting that Manchester starts taking over the budget this April 1st (2015) to be completed by April 2016: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma ... r-31656313

From 1 April, the region will start making its own decisions to "provide the foundations" for a Greater Manchester health and social care strategy.
Manchester City Council said this, along with business and investment proposals, would also give a "transitional plan" for full devolution by April 2016.

The agreement "does not require any reorganisation of the NHS or its principles", the city council said.

Edit: To make second quote a quote instead of the accidental 'code'...

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 9:31 am

john spellar ‏@spellar 13m13 minutes ago
RT @montie: The Sunday Times is reporting that Cameron will try to hang on as Tory leader even if he loses in May http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/new ... 525537.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

His qualities of statesmanship, judgement and gravitas never cease to amaze ...

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 9:35 am

Owen Smith MP ‏@OwenSmithMP 49m49 minutes ago
From France, basking in the afterglow of our magnificent win, I hear the Lib-Con axis says @AMCarwyn & I disagree on new powers. Cobblers.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 10:10 am

pk1 wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:
pk1 wrote: By "bum faced overlord" are you meaning Andy Burnham or George Osborne ?

I've tried but failed to find a Hansard link to any debate in Parliament over this where either man was talking so I really have no idea who has said what. A link would be helpful.
Can't give you one PK, but I assumed that the Cameron quote was from the NoC, if not, apologies and I'm sure someone else will produce the URL. G'Night!
Still none the wiser about who you mean when you refer to a "bum faced overlord" but maybe the fact you didn't answer means you were referring to Burnham & if that's the case, I'd find it really quite sad that a Labour councillor would refer to a Labour MP in that manner but maybe that's just me. Hopefully I'm wrong.

I find it hard to believe that Ernst would do any such thing, though it would be nice to have that confirmed

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 10:50 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
pk1 wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote: Can't give you one PK, but I assumed that the Cameron quote was from the NoC, if not, apologies and I'm sure someone else will produce the URL. G'Night!
Still none the wiser about who you mean when you refer to a "bum faced overlord" but maybe the fact you didn't answer means you were referring to Burnham & if that's the case, I'd find it really quite sad that a Labour councillor would refer to a Labour MP in that manner but maybe that's just me. Hopefully I'm wrong.
I find it hard to believe that Ernst would do any such thing, though it would be nice to have that confirmed

Sorry, but isn't it obvious he's talking about Osborne?! After telling us not to believe Andy Burnham didn't now anything, he refers to an HoC speech in which said 'bum-face overlord' claims Parliamentary Labour (ie the Shadow Health Secretary) knew nothing and tells us to ignore that. How can it be read as meaning anyone different?

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 10:50 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
john spellar ‏@spellar 13m13 minutes ago
RT @montie: The Sunday Times is reporting that Cameron will try to hang on as Tory leader even if he loses in May http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/new ... 525537.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
His qualities of statesmanship, judgement and gravitas never cease to amaze ...

Ha! Perhaps those 'top Tories' don't think that anyone else in the party 'looks Prime Ministerial'. Or perhaps they're all terrified of Theresa May.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 10:56 am

Shapps is being mullered by Dermot Murnaghan, hope Sky News links it later.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 11:02 am

I am sure this surgeon won't endure undue hardship, but good on the NHS for sacking him.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/114 ... tient.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 11:14 am

giselle97 wrote: ........ as I'm going to get a really fattening Magnum (or two!) out of the freezer, put my feet up, get under the blanket on the sofa and watch "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" on Film 4. That'll only make it about the tenth time I've watched it!

I'm preparing myself for when I feel a little better (got a chesty cough and sore throat which is getting to me) and am able to go to see "The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" at the cinema - because I really, really can't work out how Richard Gere will fit in ..... but look forward to watching him swivelling his hips to the folky dancing! (Down girl, down!)

Night all. See you tomorrow.

Don't be too optimistic about "The Second Best...". I saw it last night and it was (compared with the original) a bit of a disappointment. I won't spoil it for you - it had its moments - but Andrew Pulver in the Guardian was, imo, right in saying

It’s hard to be harsh on a film so essentially good-natured, though collective patience may snap if a Third Best Exotic Marigold Hotel hobbles into view.

(I suspect that Maggie Smith feels the same)!

Hope you're feeling better by now.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 11:21 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
john spellar ‏@spellar 13m13 minutes ago
RT @montie: The Sunday Times is reporting that Cameron will try to hang on as Tory leader even if he loses in May http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/new ... 525537.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
His qualities of statesmanship, judgement and gravitas never cease to amaze ...

Which only highlights the arrogance of the man.

After all he failed to win an outright majority against the worst PM this country had ever had.

Supposedly.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 11:22 am

Hahaha, Ed Davey tells Murnaghan that Labour's cutting of tuition fees to £6k is a really bad policy

No mention of how it was once their of course.....

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 11:24 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
giselle97 wrote:I'm sorry Paul, but a coalition with SNP blackmailing - yes, blackmailing! - Ed Miliband and Labour is not what I want, thank you. SNP want one thing and one thing only. EM would spend all of the time in defence of manoeuvres from SNP for their one aim instead of running the country - the COUNTRY! The United Kingdom.

Unless, of course, the preferred route for some people is that Westminster becomes the ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. Bloody hell!
Hi Giselle

I understand what you say.

BUT look at Electoral Calculus's most recent prediction (admittedly based on the polls we know must be shaky at best).

If this is the outcome on 7 May Labour and the SNP can consign the Coalition parties to the dustbin. Despite all the reservations I have about the separatist movement, I'm learning to live with this idea because it's likely and I think it will be OK. Miliband will never allow independence as a condition of coalition.

Sure I still want a Labour majority, but it's my way to live with what's probable and think about getting the best from that. If I'm right, we should stop worrying about Scotland because they aren't going to elect Coalition MPs.

Electoral Calculus has reduced the labour 'deficit' from 28 seats to 25 seats. Not a huge difference, but a move in the right direction (and I find it hard to believe there will be the predicted huge swing to the SNP).

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 11:30 am

mbc1955 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
pk1 wrote: Still none the wiser about who you mean when you refer to a "bum faced overlord" but maybe the fact you didn't answer means you were referring to Burnham & if that's the case, I'd find it really quite sad that a Labour councillor would refer to a Labour MP in that manner but maybe that's just me. Hopefully I'm wrong.
I find it hard to believe that Ernst would do any such thing, though it would be nice to have that confirmed
Sorry, but isn't it obvious he's talking about Osborne?! After telling us not to believe Andy Burnham didn't now anything, he refers to an HoC speech in which said 'bum-face overlord' claims Parliamentary Labour (ie the Shadow Health Secretary) knew nothing and tells us to ignore that. How can it be read as meaning anyone different?

Reading it again, yes I agree it does look like it may have been Osborne but given the previous remarks made:

For a start, do you imagine for a minute that AB and the other AGMA based MPs were kept in the dark over the negogiations? Christ, I started hearing about this nearly 8 months back (IIRC), and I'm a lowly councillor. The Ivan Lewis's of this world will have known all about what was being said. NW politics is like a fucking sieve: no matter how 'hush hush' negotiations might (be alleged to) be, it was out there, and we were officially briefed over a month ago about it by our leader.

and

And do not for a minute think that Andy Burnham was kept in the dark about what's going on - he's the MP for Leigh FFS.

it suggests something altogether more worrying because Ernst suggests that Labour councillors & Labour MP's including Andy Burnham have been colluding with Osborne behind the backs of Manchester residents specifically & the country more generally.

I find it hard to believe that is the case & I'm surprised that if it was so well known, how come nobody ever mentioned it before ? Not even our posters at FTN who hail from Manchester & who would be directly affected by this change gave even a hint at it.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 11:44 am

EXCLUSIVE YOUGOV POLLING
Two-thirds back Labour fees policy
Using YouGov's First Verdict, we have a strong “thumbs up” for Ed Miliband's tuition fees policy (Stephan Shakespeare writes). The sample of 617 who answered after the announcement of the policy split 64 per cent to 20 in support on Friday.

Also on Friday, exclusively for Red Box, we ran a survey asking whether the fees policy had shown a positive or negative effect in four areas:

the universities themselves (positive net score, +20 per cent),
the government's finances (+11),
students from poor background (-44)
students from well-off backgrounds (0)

http://times-deck.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaw ... 0c026.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 12:12 pm

pk1 wrote:
Reading it again, yes I agree it does look like it may have been Osborne but given the previous remarks made:

For a start, do you imagine for a minute that AB and the other AGMA based MPs were kept in the dark over the negogiations? Christ, I started hearing about this nearly 8 months back (IIRC), and I'm a lowly councillor. The Ivan Lewis's of this world will have known all about what was being said. NW politics is like a fucking sieve: no matter how 'hush hush' negotiations might (be alleged to) be, it was out there, and we were officially briefed over a month ago about it by our leader.

and

And do not for a minute think that Andy Burnham was kept in the dark about what's going on - he's the MP for Leigh FFS.
it suggests something altogether more worrying because Ernst suggests that Labour councillors & Labour MP's including Andy Burnham have been colluding with Osborne behind the backs of Manchester residents specifically & the country more generally.

I find it hard to believe that is the case & I'm surprised that if it was so well known, how come nobody ever mentioned it before ? Not even our posters at FTN who hail from Manchester & who would be directly affected by this change gave even a hint at it.

It was Cameron at PMQs, see giselle's post in the small hours.

Maybe the Labour councillors thought it was some hypothetical plan for a few years down the road and therefore not of immediate interest?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 12:18 pm

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 37 mins37 minutes ago

Latest ICM Wisdom Index for S Telegraph in which sample estimates party shares

Con 31.8
LAB 31.4
LD 13.3
UKIP 13.3

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 12:31 pm

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/561175 ... lm-Rifkind

Sol Campbell tight-lipped over rumours he is being lined up as a Tory election candidate

FORMER England football ace Sol Campbell could be lined up as the Tory candidate in a plum London seat, it emerged today.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 12:34 pm

If that is a reference to Kensington, there is as much chance of George Galloway being the Tory choice quite frankly......

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 12:36 pm

Re Manchester
Negotiation talks about Manchester devolution deal started last November. That was well known
The devolution of the NHS to Manchester was not well known or discussed. It was leaked on (last) Tuesday night.
Which suggests to me it's a stich up.

The announcement was a genuine surprise - there had been no nudges and winks in preceding weeks.
It was leaked by over-eager councillors in the Manchester area briefing BBC Radio Manchester and the Manchester Evening News. Well done to them on a fine scoop.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31661416" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AB did not know about it, which is why he is concerned.

Andy Burnham's warning over a 'Swiss-cheese' NHS with cities opting out

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... se-8721228" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now the question is - could 10 LA's have kept all their councillors quiet about this for months? I don't think so. In fact they didn't, being the ones who leaked it on Tuesday when they found out about it
So the next question is -
Who did know and why was no consultation done about it ?