FlyTheNest

Further discontent as Carswell hints at Labour defection
http://labourlist.org/2014/10/further-d ... defection/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shall we take bets?

.....and I don't like the sound of this

Changes within the Labour leadership are likely to take place in the coming week, as it’s rumoured there will be a reshuffle. We’ll keep updated as and when the news breaks.

But think I'm jaded / paranoid today

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Morning All!

I'm now unsure what to do about the Pub. I suggested yesterday we might make it Members Only. So far I think one of us says we definitely should. One says we definitely shouldn't

When we originally discussed this on the old site, the decision to make it Members Only was mainly from concerns about libel and copyright. My view is that we have little to worry about on the DP three, because it feels very public, so people are naturally careful, and because we only have one thread open and that is heavily used, so is essentially self-policing.

If we do have make Pub completely public, and I can see it's an attractive part of the Forum, the whole of FTN will need to keep an eye on it and just be conscious that it is every bit in the public domain as DP and other threads.

What do others think?

I liked/prefer members only.

AngryAsWell wrote:On the ukippery / Labour front here is a link to Labour Mp's who either want out of EU or are backing a referendum
http://labourforareferendum.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
All the usual suspects.....

I'm coming round to the view that we should have a referendum anyway. First it shoots Cameron's fox stone dead, second it would finally put the issue to bed one way or the other.

Given the facts about EU membership, a rather different picture emerges from the rosy future as the key part of the British Empire, which is UKIP's 'vision'. It won't be necessarily a popular view, but one of the key constituencies we've not heard from particularly is that of business. Once the economic facts of life are made abundantly clear - the number of firms relocating to within the EU, jobs lost, export opportunities made harder, etc - then the temptation to give Johnny Foreigner a black eye becomes somewhat dampened if you understand that by voting for 'out' you're putting yourself out of work and impoverishing yourself and family. That might concentrate people's minds a little.

AngryAsWell wrote:On the ukippery / Labour front here is a link to Labour Mp's who either want out of EU or are backing a referendum
http://labourforareferendum.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
All the usual suspects.....

Surprised me to see Owen Jones on there.

Tbh, a referendum now would frighten me given the nonsense that is uttered by the europhobes. We know we can't rely on the media to be honest about anything, let alone the EU so people would be voting based on the lies & spin as opposed to truth.

I hope Ed stands firm.

AngryAsWell wrote:Further discontent as Carswell hints at Labour defection
http://labourlist.org/2014/10/further-d ... defection/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shall we take bets?

.....and I don't like the sound of this

Changes within the Labour leadership are likely to take place in the coming week, as it’s rumoured there will be a reshuffle. We’ll keep updated as and when the news breaks.

But think I'm jaded / paranoid today

I'm calling bollocks on Carswell.

Good morning.

@LadyCentauria

Shattered scours here in the sunny south.

Edited to add:

Oh - and I'm off to a flying start. I meant to say, "Good afternoon".

PorFavor wrote:Good morning.

@LadyCentauria

Shattered scours here in the sunny south.

Thick fog 'oop 'ere (and lots of idiots driving around with no lights ).

PorFavor wrote:Good morning.

@LadyCentauria

Shattered scours here in the sunny south.

My scours are shattered at the moment.

Apologies to everyone I've been (unintentionally) winding up (even the people I'm agreeing with). I seem to be going through some kind of earnestness mania. Like all things it will pass.

ErnstRemarx wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:On the ukippery / Labour front here is a link to Labour Mp's who either want out of EU or are backing a referendum
http://labourforareferendum.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
All the usual suspects.....

I'm coming round to the view that we should have a referendum anyway. First it shoots Cameron's fox stone dead, second it would finally put the issue to bed one way or the other.

Given the facts about EU membership, a rather different picture emerges from the rosy future as the key part of the British Empire, which is UKIP's 'vision'. It won't be necessarily a popular view, but one of the key constituencies we've not heard from particularly is that of business. Once the economic facts of life are made abundantly clear - the number of firms relocating to within the EU, jobs lost, export opportunities made harder, etc - then the temptation to give Johnny Foreigner a black eye becomes somewhat dampened if you understand that by voting for 'out' you're putting yourself out of work and impoverishing yourself and family. That might concentrate people's minds a little.

I'm not, the sheer cost of such an exercise would be astronomical, at a time when the future of the NHS is under question I can see no justification for that kind expenditure just t satisfy some nutters with loud mouths.
If only we had a decent government this clamber would a) never have arisen or b) been nipped sharply in the bud by information about what benefits we get from the EU being given out.

AngryAsWell wrote:

ErnstRemarx wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:On the ukippery / Labour front here is a link to Labour Mp's who either want out of EU or are backing a referendum
http://labourforareferendum.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
All the usual suspects.....

I'm coming round to the view that we should have a referendum anyway. First it shoots Cameron's fox stone dead, second it would finally put the issue to bed one way or the other.

Given the facts about EU membership, a rather different picture emerges from the rosy future as the key part of the British Empire, which is UKIP's 'vision'. It won't be necessarily a popular view, but one of the key constituencies we've not heard from particularly is that of business. Once the economic facts of life are made abundantly clear - the number of firms relocating to within the EU, jobs lost, export opportunities made harder, etc - then the temptation to give Johnny Foreigner a black eye becomes somewhat dampened if you understand that by voting for 'out' you're putting yourself out of work and impoverishing yourself and family. That might concentrate people's minds a little.

I'm not, the sheer cost of such an exercise would be astronomical, at a time when the future of the NHS is under question I can see no justification for that kind expenditure just t satisfy some nutters with loud mouths.
If only we had a decent government this clamber would a) never have arisen or b) been nipped sharply in the bud by information about what benefits we get from the EU being given out.

..and by "cost" its not just the money, think of the time that should be spent putting the country back on track that would have to be given over to EU debates, meetings, web sites being built - Oh and the whole he said she said media carry on, instead of minds concentrating on how we help those most in need!

I hardly dare say it but I'd rather not have an EU referendum. I don't trust us currently not to make a monumental error. Not to mention am still recovering from the last such event.

pk1 wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:On the ukippery / Labour front here is a link to Labour Mp's who either want out of EU or are backing a referendum
http://labourforareferendum.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
All the usual suspects.....

Surprised me to see Owen Jones on there.

Tbh, a referendum now would frighten me given the nonsense that is uttered by the europhobes. We know we can't rely on the media to be honest about anything, let alone the EU so people would be voting based on the lies & spin as opposed to truth.

I hope Ed stands firm.

Seconded....

AngryAsWell wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:

ErnstRemarx wrote: I'm coming round to the view that we should have a referendum anyway. First it shoots Cameron's fox stone dead, second it would finally put the issue to bed one way or the other.

Given the facts about EU membership, a rather different picture emerges from the rosy future as the key part of the British Empire, which is UKIP's 'vision'. It won't be necessarily a popular view, but one of the key constituencies we've not heard from particularly is that of business. Once the economic facts of life are made abundantly clear - the number of firms relocating to within the EU, jobs lost, export opportunities made harder, etc - then the temptation to give Johnny Foreigner a black eye becomes somewhat dampened if you understand that by voting for 'out' you're putting yourself out of work and impoverishing yourself and family. That might concentrate people's minds a little.

I'm not, the sheer cost of such an exercise would be astronomical, at a time when the future of the NHS is under question I can see no justification for that kind expenditure just t satisfy some nutters with loud mouths.
If only we had a decent government this clamber would a) never have arisen or b) been nipped sharply in the bud by information about what benefits we get from the EU being given out.

..and by "cost" its not just the money, think of the time that should be spent putting the country back on track that would have to be given over to EU debates, meetings, web sites being built - Oh and the whole he said she said media carry on, instead of minds concentrating on how we help those most in need!

I agree about the cost, but at the moment everything printed or spoken about the EU is negative. You name me half a dozen bodies or notable politicians (or anyone else) who's put the pro EU argument with facts and figures. Until that happens then UKIP and the Tories will make hay with it, the lies will proliferate and any eventual referendum (if there is one) would start to the background of wall to wall anti EU fiction.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Morning All!

I'm now unsure what to do about the Pub. I suggested yesterday we might make it Members Only. So far I think one of us says we definitely should. One says we definitely shouldn't

When we originally discussed this on the old site, the decision to make it Members Only was mainly from concerns about libel and copyright. My view is that we have little to worry about on the DP three, because it feels very public, so people are naturally careful, and because we only have one thread open and that is heavily used, so is essentially self-policing.

If we do have make Pub completely public, and I can see it's an attractive part of the Forum, the whole of FTN will need to keep an eye on it and just be conscious that it is every bit in the public domain as DP and other threads.

What do others think?

A private thread may well encourage new members to sign up (out of curiosity) - as long as there's an indication that it's there . But could I just say that the "where's the pub" thread appears to be only visible once you've signed in... in which case, the pub is just above it!

Interesting to see so much opposition to Maths AS Level (as an intermediate to full A level) being abolished.

Thought that Liz Truss who was in the department when this decision was taken was a Maths expert.

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

Guido.. please let him be wrong. Much as I'm not fully happy with Balls, Alexander is not the answer.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Edit coz I want to be in vogue as well

AngryAsWell wrote:Further discontent as Carswell hints at Labour defection
http://labourlist.org/2014/10/further-d ... defection/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shall we take bets?

.....and I don't like the sound of this

Changes within the Labour leadership are likely to take place in the coming week, as it’s rumoured there will be a reshuffle. We’ll keep updated as and when the news breaks.

But think I'm jaded / paranoid today

If there's any jiggery pokery like that I'm staying in bed and keeping my eyes and ears shut. I don't think I could stand it.

I'm strongly against a referendum, because exit wouldn't achieve anything that's said for it, and is therefore pointless.

Hague (in office) woke up to how favourable a single market in services would be to the UK, then softened his tone. Daft time to get out now.

AngryAsWell wrote:Guido.. please let him be wrong. Much as I'm not fully happy with Balls, Alexander is not the answer.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Edit coz I want to be in vogue as well

Maybe we should have a debate or poll where we decide who should be in the SC posts

ErnstRemarx wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote: I'm not, the sheer cost of such an exercise would be astronomical, at a time when the future of the NHS is under question I can see no justification for that kind expenditure just t satisfy some nutters with loud mouths.
If only we had a decent government this clamber would a) never have arisen or b) been nipped sharply in the bud by information about what benefits we get from the EU being given out.

..and by "cost" its not just the money, think of the time that should be spent putting the country back on track that would have to be given over to EU debates, meetings, web sites being built - Oh and the whole he said she said media carry on, instead of minds concentrating on how we help those most in need!

I agree about the cost, but at the moment everything printed or spoken about the EU is negative. You name me half a dozen bodies or notable politicians (or anyone else) who's put the pro EU argument with facts and figures. Until that happens then UKIP and the Tories will make hay with it, the lies will proliferate and any eventual referendum (if there is one) would start to the background of wall to wall anti EU fiction.

When we get Labour back in they can change the narrative one step at a time. There is literally no time before election and there will be no need after, so why go in to the election hamstringing your first 2 terms ?

ErnstRemarx wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:On the ukippery / Labour front here is a link to Labour Mp's who either want out of EU or are backing a referendum
http://labourforareferendum.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
All the usual suspects.....

I'm coming round to the view that we should have a referendum anyway. First it shoots Cameron's fox stone dead, second it would finally put the issue to bed one way or the other.

Given the facts about EU membership, a rather different picture emerges from the rosy future as the key part of the British Empire, which is UKIP's 'vision'. It won't be necessarily a popular view, but one of the key constituencies we've not heard from particularly is that of business. Once the economic facts of life are made abundantly clear - the number of firms relocating to within the EU, jobs lost, export opportunities made harder, etc - then the temptation to give Johnny Foreigner a black eye becomes somewhat dampened if you understand that by voting for 'out' you're putting yourself out of work and impoverishing yourself and family. That might concentrate people's minds a little.

But there was a referendum. And GB said Yes.
Unfortunate that a lot of todays voters weren't even born, but that's the way history works.

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

This is another body blow to David's brother, coming so soon after his abject humiliation in Heywood and Middlemarch, and the pummeling that the highly impressive and highly intelligent and exciting and great Mr. Cameron gave him at the Conservative conference. The only question now is when will David be begged to return to save the day? David's brother has shown that he is rubbish and useless and not as half as good looking as David (in fact I think he looks weird). With poll leads like this Labour under David's brother frankly looks unelectable, and a clutch of more polls showing a seven point lead are really, really bad news for him.

dfhodges wrote:(in fact I think he looks weird).

Indeed, the man has panda eyes and a weird mouth. And it's about time he realised that no-one on this planet thinks pandas are cute. Moreover, David Cameron is completely normal-looking, and he NEVER makes one involuntarily feel an urge to punch him in head.

Glenda must wonder where she went wrong...

With his track record, she may have got to the point of wondering where she went right.

tinyclanger2 wrote:I hardly dare say it but I'd rather not have an EU referendum. I don't trust us currently not to make a monumental error. Not to mention am still recovering from the last such event.

I agree entirely. An EU referendum, like the one which you don't mention, would inevitably be another bonanza for the spin doctors (aka liars) on both sides - encouraged by slanted reporting in the press.

There's an excellent (imo) satirical film - "The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer" which looks at the pitfalls of both opinion polling and too many referenda:

http://www.britmovie.co.uk/films/The-Ri ... immer_1970

ErnstRemarx wrote:I agree about the cost, but at the moment everything printed or spoken about the EU is negative. You name me half a dozen bodies or notable politicians (or anyone else) who's put the pro EU argument with facts and figures. Until that happens then UKIP and the Tories will make hay with it, the lies will proliferate and any eventual referendum (if there is one) would start to the background of wall to wall anti EU fiction.

But that's precisely what would happen anyway. We've already had 20 years of it. The positive case for being in the EU needs to be made before an referendum is promised. If that happened I think the desire for a referendum would slip away anyway. The reason we have people calling for one now is because we're had decades of the media portraying it as the Evil Empire and very little effort in the way of countering that nonsense.

Ed needs to ignore the calls to pander to the mass delusion. Anything else and we all might as well just vote UKIP because they'll have dictated the terms of the next Parliament.

Teachers take to Twitter to criticise Tristram Hunt's calls for 'Hippocratic oath'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 89374.html

Sorry - but if there is going to be a shadow cabinet reshuffle tomorrow - I now hope Hunt is being shifted. Was prepared to give him some benefit of doubt after his impassioned speech the other day .... but this? What sort of policy making is this? It's almost Govian in its patronising 'I saw, experienced and liked it so it must be good for everyone else' approach. Embarrassing.

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Teachers take to Twitter to criticise Tristram Hunt's calls for 'Hippocratic oath'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 89374.html

Sorry - but if there is going to be a shadow cabinet reshuffle tomorrow - I now hope Hunt is being shifted. Was prepared to give him some benefit of doubt after his impassioned speech the other day .... but this? What sort of policy making is this? It's almost Govian in its patronising 'I saw, experienced and liked it so it must be good for everyone else' approach. Embarrassing.

Here's the full BBC bit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-29482160" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To be honest I think its quite a nice idea, and I like that Singapore's new teachers receive a compass to point them in the right direction. It might not be best for UK - I'm not a teacher so don't know - but I don't see why a suggestion has to be so ridiculed without examining the idea behind it. Which seems to be, to raise the stature of teaching in this country.
People need to be able to discuss ideas without being thrown to the lions for daring to think a little "out of the box".

AngryAsWell wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Teachers take to Twitter to criticise Tristram Hunt's calls for 'Hippocratic oath'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 89374.html

Sorry - but if there is going to be a shadow cabinet reshuffle tomorrow - I now hope Hunt is being shifted. Was prepared to give him some benefit of doubt after his impassioned speech the other day .... but this? What sort of policy making is this? It's almost Govian in its patronising 'I saw, experienced and liked it so it must be good for everyone else' approach. Embarrassing.

Here's the full BBC bit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-29482160" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To be honest I think its quite a nice idea, and I like that Singapore's new teachers receive a compass to point them in the right direction. It might not be best for UK - I'm not a teacher so don't know - but I don't see why a suggestion has to be so ridiculed without examining the idea behind it. Which seems to be, to raise the stature of teaching in this country.
People need to be able to discuss ideas without being thrown to the lions for daring to think a little "out of the box".

We'll have to agree to disagree over this one. If I was an over worked teacher - already at a low ebb and morale having been subjected to Gove and co's constant belittling and perjorative stuff for several years - this would infuriate me. It would say to me - once again - that despite all my hard work and commitment - I needed to go through a little ritual to prove I was a proper teacher going into it for the right reasons according to the government. And it seems such a superficial suggestion to come out with given the real challenges facing teachers and schools. I don't see how this raises the stature of teaching in this country.

Eric_WLothian wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Morning All!

I'm now unsure what to do about the Pub. I suggested yesterday we might make it Members Only. So far I think one of us says we definitely should. One says we definitely shouldn't

When we originally discussed this on the old site, the decision to make it Members Only was mainly from concerns about libel and copyright. My view is that we have little to worry about on the DP three, because it feels very public, so people are naturally careful, and because we only have one thread open and that is heavily used, so is essentially self-policing.

If we do have make Pub completely public, and I can see it's an attractive part of the Forum, the whole of FTN will need to keep an eye on it and just be conscious that it is every bit in the public domain as DP and other threads.

What do others think?

A private thread may well encourage new members to sign up (out of curiosity) - as long as there's an indication that it's there . But could I just say that the "where's the pub" thread appears to be only visible once you've signed in... in which case, the pub is just above it!

That's right Eric. The idea would be to make the Where's the Pub? thread visible.

I think we're somewhat divided on what is best to do

Have we heard Refitman's view? He's potentially the most exposed to any complaints about this place.

rebeccariots2 wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote: Sorry - but if there is going to be a shadow cabinet reshuffle tomorrow - I now hope Hunt is being shifted. Was prepared to give him some benefit of doubt after his impassioned speech the other day .... but this? What sort of policy making is this? It's almost Govian in its patronising 'I saw, experienced and liked it so it must be good for everyone else' approach. Embarrassing.

Here's the full BBC bit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-29482160" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To be honest I think its quite a nice idea, and I like that Singapore's new teachers receive a compass to point them in the right direction. It might not be best for UK - I'm not a teacher so don't know - but I don't see why a suggestion has to be so ridiculed without examining the idea behind it. Which seems to be, to raise the stature of teaching in this country.
People need to be able to discuss ideas without being thrown to the lions for daring to think a little "out of the box".

We'll have to agree to disagree over this one. If I was an over worked teacher - already at a low ebb and morale having been subjected to Gove and co's constant belittling and perjorative stuff for several years - this would infuriate me. It would say to me - once again - that despite all my hard work and commitment - I needed to go through a little ritual to prove I was a proper teacher going into it for the right reasons according to the government. And it seems such a superficial suggestion to come out with given the real challenges facing teachers and schools. I don't see how this raises the stature of teaching in this country.

Is there any practical advantage in a 'Hippocratic oath'? It didn't seem to affect Harold Shipman's thinking or actions. (There might be some milage in an enforceable one for MPs though - something along the lines of 'I'm here to serve my constituents, not my own interests').

PaulfromYorkshire wrote: That's right Eric. The idea would be to make the Where's the Pub? thread visible.

I think we're somewhat divided on what is best to do

Have we heard Refitman's view? He's potentially the most exposed to any complaints about this place.

I think that not having every part of the site open to non-members is probably a good idea.

I think that we can make a public facing thread inside a members section (i.e. Where's the Pub inside the Pub section itself). If we decide to make it members only, I will have a look at doing that.

Lonewolfie wrote: How many people use Foodbanks? (Rhetorical, as we don't know of course - I think they stopped counting in 2011)

Trussell Trust started auditing properly in 2011 - their figures are reasonably accurate.

913,138 parcels were distributed via their community food banks in 2013-14, nearly 3 times the figure for the year before.
Reasons for the need - Benefit delays 30.9%, Low incomes 20.29%, Benefit changes 16.97%.

TT complained when DWP removed the part of the referral form in which the person issued with the voucher put the reasons why they were asking for help; DWP issues guidance for staff in which they are ordered to "signpost" people but not "refer" them, and they are not allowed to call a "signposting slip" a food bank voucher even though that is exactly what they are.
DWP insists that food banks are not an integral part of the benefits system, despite having what they call "high level guidance" on how DWP staff must proceed when someone is due delayed benefits or refused a Short Term Benefit Advance. Jobcentres keep a tally of how many slips/vouchers they issue - DWP knows exactly how many are given out, but pretend they're not recording them.
Despite the fact that people who have issues with benefits comprise nearly half the people using the food banks, DWP insist that there is "no robust evidence" that the increased use of food banks, occurring at the same time as benefit changes, is in any way linked.

TT's latest figures combined with records from LAs and independent food banks suggest that TT supplies 29% of all emergency food aid in the UK. That does not include soup kitchens, street soup runs for homeless people, and ad-hoc things (like the Sikh gurdwaras in Birmingham who open their doors to feed people, or churches/mosques/synagogues etc. which do the same, or community services and charities which don't always keep records). Plus the Red Cross and Save the Children, providing food in the UK for the first time.

The real figure is probably closer to 2 million, if you discount the people who get help more than once. Some food banks, including TT ones, arrange for people to have a few week's worth of parcels to keep them going while they try to get help or serve out a sanction.
There are a few food banks which will not honour a voucher if they believe that the claimant has a "chaotic" lifestyle or if they have been sanctioned - presumably because they think these people are the "undeserving" and are hungry through their own actions.

Patrick Butler has some good stuff on this - he seems to be the only one who researches this issue with any accuracy.
The fact is that we DO know how many there are relying on food banks, because they are counted.
We also know who is responsible for the need.

Unless,I misheard Watt in the Sunday Politics repeating the "unions got Miliband in" lie.No,an electioral college which included individual members of unions voting as I did.

rebeccariots2 wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote: Sorry - but if there is going to be a shadow cabinet reshuffle tomorrow - I now hope Hunt is being shifted. Was prepared to give him some benefit of doubt after his impassioned speech the other day .... but this? What sort of policy making is this? It's almost Govian in its patronising 'I saw, experienced and liked it so it must be good for everyone else' approach. Embarrassing.

Here's the full BBC bit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-29482160" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To be honest I think its quite a nice idea, and I like that Singapore's new teachers receive a compass to point them in the right direction. It might not be best for UK - I'm not a teacher so don't know - but I don't see why a suggestion has to be so ridiculed without examining the idea behind it. Which seems to be, to raise the stature of teaching in this country.
People need to be able to discuss ideas without being thrown to the lions for daring to think a little "out of the box".

We'll have to agree to disagree over this one. If I was an over worked teacher - already at a low ebb and morale having been subjected to Gove and co's constant belittling and perjorative stuff for several years - this would infuriate me. It would say to me - once again - that despite all my hard work and commitment - I needed to go through a little ritual to prove I was a proper teacher going into it for the right reasons according to the government. And it seems such a superficial suggestion to come out with given the real challenges facing teachers and schools. I don't see how this raises the stature of teaching in this country.

Its an idea put forward to try to improve the status of teacher in view of the battering they have had from this government. It something to say "Teaching Is A Profession" not just a job.
As I said above, it might not be right for the UK, but every time new thoughts and ideas are put forward they are open for discussion, not automatic implementation. So let the teachers have that discussion about how to improve their professional standing.
Don't toss Hunt out for daring to put a (seemingly) off the wall proposal forward.

Eric_WLothian wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote: Here's the full BBC bit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-29482160" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To be honest I think its quite a nice idea, and I like that Singapore's new teachers receive a compass to point them in the right direction. It might not be best for UK - I'm not a teacher so don't know - but I don't see why a suggestion has to be so ridiculed without examining the idea behind it. Which seems to be, to raise the stature of teaching in this country.
People need to be able to discuss ideas without being thrown to the lions for daring to think a little "out of the box".

We'll have to agree to disagree over this one. If I was an over worked teacher - already at a low ebb and morale having been subjected to Gove and co's constant belittling and perjorative stuff for several years - this would infuriate me. It would say to me - once again - that despite all my hard work and commitment - I needed to go through a little ritual to prove I was a proper teacher going into it for the right reasons according to the government. And it seems such a superficial suggestion to come out with given the real challenges facing teachers and schools. I don't see how this raises the stature of teaching in this country.

Is there any practical advantage in a 'Hippocratic oath'? It didn't seem to affect Harold Shipman's thinking or actions. (There might be some milage in an enforceable one for MPs though - something along the lines of 'I'm here to serve my constituents, not my own interests').

I doubt there would be a practical advantage, as far as I can see its the symbolism of recognising teaching as a profession with a ritual that declares "I am part of the professional group of people". I sound like I'm all in favour, which I'm not necessarily. But I do find the idea behind marking a point time (how to do that is the question) when someone "qualifies" to be part of the profession worthy of discussion (esp by those involved) and not ridiculed out of hand.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:The £8bn is what the Coalition have gone overbudget on disability benefits in this Parliament.

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/9953321 ... erspend-on" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Labour, mainly in the person of Kate Green, have been on about this all week. As usual, they conflate disability and sickness benefits as though they were the same thing. They are not. There has been no overspend on DLA. There has been a small overspend on IB/ESA, which amounts to about £1.75BN a year.

Here's why -
1. Due to the rise in the retirement age, there will be progressively more poorly people claiming ESA as time goes on - I am a case in point. At 58, and unlikely to ever get better enough to obtain paid employment, I was due to retire in 2 years time. Now it's 2022.
There will already be some people claiming ESA longer than there were before the changes.
2. Due to the backlog of ESA first assessments, which has been building up for more than a year, there are 750,000 people claiming Assessment Phase ESA of whom at least a third would be disqualified after their Work Capability Assessment. The projected spend has also gone over because all claimants should be on ESA by now but they're not - there remain a significant cohort on IB and Income Support with extra premiums, which in some cases are higher awards than SG or WRAG ESA.
3. Because of the delays in appeals, with some claimants still being processed through the old system before mandatory reconsideration came in a year ago, there are still people being paid ESA while they wait for their Tribunal hearings plus those who go on to the Upper Tribunal. There are also many people who it was assumed would be found fit for work at appeal but weren't - the number of people winning and having benefits reinstated was increasing, and they are now being paid when they weren't expected to be.

Labour's plan appears to be getting disabled people into work. What none of their recent stuff on this recognises is that "disabled people" are not necessarily ESA claimants. They keep on using this "disabled" thing and ignore the fact that ESA is a benefit for ill people not disabled people. Yes, there are people who are both; but the condition for claiming ESA is illness as certified by a doctor and that is not about "getting disabled people back to work" it's about incapacity due to illness. There is also a large cohort of ESA claimants who only ever claim temporarily; these are people who have jobs but no sick pay or very limited entitlement to SSP and there are about 700,000 of them who "churn" on an annual basis (which is where Shapps got his "800,000 people on ESA are fit to work figure from)

There are exactly the same number of people claiming sickness benefits (which is where the "overspend is, not in disability benefits) as there were when Labour left office, give or take a few thousand. The reasons why more is being spent on them is as above.
This "overspend" was based on the assumption that DWP would make the savings IDS said it would. It hasn't. That's all there is to it, and if Green could only bring herself to actually research her subject I might have a bit of respect for what she says.
As it is, I don't.

ErnstRemarx wrote:Glenda must wonder where she went wrong...

To paraphrase Chubby Brown, every time DFH's father looks at him he wishes he'd committed the sin of Onan instead

ErnstRemarx wrote:Glenda must wonder where she went wrong...

I read: he said, he used to get bullied at school because she was his mother[and wasn't there something to do with her appearing nude in a film?] She says he was dead happy at school and if he wasn't she'd have moved him.

Own backs I reckon.

tinyclanger2 wrote:

dfhodges wrote:(in fact I think he looks weird).

Indeed, the man has panda eyes and a weird mouth. And it's about time he realised that no-one on this planet thinks pandas are cute. Moreover, David Cameron is completely normal-looking, and he NEVER makes one involuntarily feel an urge to punch him in head.

DFH judging someone by their looks. Priceless.

I haven't trotted over to LibDemVoice for a while. Just taken a look ... and there is this little gem.

Apparently Douglas Carswell would also have been re elected if he had been standing as a Lib Dem, Green or Independent - because he is a nice man who really cares about his constituents, doesn't take them for granted, just like Lib Dems - and very unlike Labour or Tory MPs. Really.

Brian Paddick writes… Are We Confusing Anti-politics with Anti-Westminster?
http://www.libdemvoice.org/brian-paddic ... 42852.html

It's a piece designed to console themselves that the election strategy of 57 incumbents standing as very nice, hard working individuals is going to work for them. (He lost me entirely at this ... 'It was in the midst of the NHS reorganisation debate, when my colleague Shirley Williams was leading the Lib Dem revolt against the Coalition Government proposals which resulted in a withdrawal and a rethink...')

Tycoons mix with top Tories at fundraising ball in London
Lobbyists and oligarchs pay up to £1,000 a head to dine with David Cameron and ministers at Conservative fundraising event

A doorstep lender, a host of property tycoons and a Ukraine-born energy magnate were among guests worth £22bn who attended the Conservatives’ most important fundraising event of the year, a table plan leaked to the Guardian reveals.

The secret list of around 570 guests at the Tories’ “black and white ball” in February will heighten concerns that the country’s wealthiest people are gaining access to David Cameron and senior Conservative cabinet members in private.(Guardian)

I'm flabbergasted. I can't convey how betrayed I feel.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... white-ball

'It was in the midst of the NHS reorganisation debate, when my colleague Shirley Williams was leading the Lib Dem revolt against the Coalition Government proposals which resulted in a withdrawal and a rethink...')

I see Dominic Cummings has been assessing the state of play for the right...

https://twitter.com/odysseanproject

If you go down the page you'll find the 1st of 26...I like this.

odysseanproject @odysseanproject · 6h 6 hours ago
3/ Tory MPs who demand DC gives more speeches on immigration are also missing the point. They can't work

4/ Why? Cos DC speeches on immigrtn to extent they're noticed (v little) simply evoke the response: the useless git lies and does nothing

And this.

odysseanproject @odysseanproject · 5h 5 hours ago
24/ Many on Right still don't (want to) understand what a DISASTER the 50p tax cut was

Yep. When you've got a huge deficit to deal with, the last thing you do is give the top earners a freebie.

ohsocynical wrote:

'It was in the midst of the NHS reorganisation debate, when my colleague Shirley Williams was leading the Lib Dem revolt against the Coalition Government proposals which resulted in a withdrawal and a rethink...')

I know - and it's but one example of incredible / deluded statements in an article full of them.

The comments BTL are something else. Ranging from even worse self delusion - to utter despair at the 'Group Think' (John Tilley, always good at expressing the despair reality) - and a vicious swipe at Labour in the north which really merits a swipe back by Ernst and other friends in the north.

http://www.libdemvoice.org/brian-paddic ... 42852.html

RogerOThornhill wrote:I see Dominic Cummings has been assessing the state of play for the right...

https://twitter.com/odysseanproject

If you go down the page you'll find the 1st of 26...I like this.

odysseanproject @odysseanproject · 6h 6 hours ago
3/ Tory MPs who demand DC gives more speeches on immigration are also missing the point. They can't work

4/ Why? Cos DC speeches on immigrtn to extent they're noticed (v little) simply evoke the response: the useless git lies and does nothing

And this.

odysseanproject @odysseanproject · 5h 5 hours ago
24/ Many on Right still don't (want to) understand what a DISASTER the 50p tax cut was

Yep. When you've got a huge deficit to deal with, the last thing you do is give the top earners a freebie.

Do you reckon Gove is regretting the moment Cummings resigned?

PorFavor wrote:

Tycoons mix with top Tories at fundraising ball in London
Lobbyists and oligarchs pay up to £1,000 a head to dine with David Cameron and ministers at Conservative fundraising event

A doorstep lender, a host of property tycoons and a Ukraine-born energy magnate were among guests worth £22bn who attended the Conservatives’ most important fundraising event of the year, a table plan leaked to the Guardian reveals.

The secret list of around 570 guests at the Tories’ “black and white ball” in February will heighten concerns that the country’s wealthiest people are gaining access to David Cameron and senior Conservative cabinet members in private.(Guardian)

I'm flabbergasted. I can't convey how betrayed I feel.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... white-ball

I now want to know what a 'flabber' is - and then how to 'gast' it. And I'm sure only you will be able to tell me PF.

Owen Jones' response to this report is spot on:

Owen Jones ‏@OwenJones84 14m14 minutes ago
of the rich, by the rich, for the rich http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... white-ball" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

They're all in it together.

RogerOThornhill wrote:I see Dominic Cummings has been assessing the state of play for the right...

https://twitter.com/odysseanproject

If you go down the page you'll find the 1st of 26...I like this.

odysseanproject @odysseanproject · 6h 6 hours ago
3/ Tory MPs who demand DC gives more speeches on immigration are also missing the point. They can't work

4/ Why? Cos DC speeches on immigrtn to extent they're noticed (v little) simply evoke the response: the useless git lies and does nothing

And this.

odysseanproject @odysseanproject · 5h 5 hours ago
24/ Many on Right still don't (want to) understand what a DISASTER the 50p tax cut was

Yep. When you've got a huge deficit to deal with, the last thing you do is give the top earners a freebie.

Maybe EM should hire Cummings. Within a constrained environment (not education) he might be useful. They also have more in common than they realise.

rebeccariots2 wrote:

PorFavor wrote:

Tycoons mix with top Tories at fundraising ball in London
Lobbyists and oligarchs pay up to £1,000 a head to dine with David Cameron and ministers at Conservative fundraising event

A doorstep lender, a host of property tycoons and a Ukraine-born energy magnate were among guests worth £22bn who attended the Conservatives’ most important fundraising event of the year, a table plan leaked to the Guardian reveals.

The secret list of around 570 guests at the Tories’ “black and white ball” in February will heighten concerns that the country’s wealthiest people are gaining access to David Cameron and senior Conservative cabinet members in private.(Guardian)

I'm flabbergasted. I can't convey how betrayed I feel.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... white-ball

I now want to know what a 'flabber' is - and then how to 'gast' it. And I'm sure only you will be able to tell me PF.

Owen Jones' response to this report is spot on:

Owen Jones ‏@OwenJones84 14m14 minutes ago
of the rich, by the rich, for the rich http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... white-ball" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

They're all in it together.

Tweet him back.

Not quite, more Of the idle rich for the idle rich.