FlyTheNest

citizenJA wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:

citizenJA wrote:RogerOThornhill, I'm reading some of the associated comments below the line - desperate trolls - oh the humanity

Let me guess. MID STAFFS! DRINKING FROM VASES! And on the other side, PFI! INDEPENDENT SECTOR TREATMENT CENTRES!

They're Labour doctors!
Communist doctors signing documents!
Blair started it!
no John Major started PFIs...
SO?
Blair Doctors Blair Hospitals!
Lions, tigers & bears oh my

We've had the "NHS run for the people who work for it" crap too.

citizenJA wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:Ed Miliband could force firms to share profits with staff under new policy
Labour considers plan to ensure low paid benefit from economic growth as part of legislation that would affect about 53% of people employed in UK
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... aff-policy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

talk !

This may be why some idiots thought rough-housing the Labour party leader a good strategy. It's not. But I can understand the threat a social democratic government in leadership may present people with entitlement problems - they've never worked a day in their lives.

Not sure I follow what you're saying ?

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 51s 51 seconds ago
LAB moves to 2% lead with YouGov
CON 33%, LAB 35%, LD 8%, UKIP 14%, GRN 5%

Forgive me for saying it, but according to the 35%ists, doesn't that indicate a Labour majority?

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 51s 51 seconds ago
LAB moves to 2% lead with YouGov
CON 33%, LAB 35%, LD 8%, UKIP 14%, GRN 5%

But Dave cuddled a lamb and ate a shit load of food.

How can that not get votes?

AngryAsWell wrote:

citizenJA wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:Ed Miliband could force firms to share profits with staff under new policy
Labour considers plan to ensure low paid benefit from economic growth as part of legislation that would affect about 53% of people employed in UK
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... aff-policy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

talk !

This may be why some idiots thought rough-housing the Labour party leader a good strategy. It's not. But I can understand the threat a social democratic government in leadership may present people with entitlement problems - they've never worked a day in their lives.

Not sure I follow what you're saying ?

It's a dirty campaign. I'm frightened by the reports the Labour party leader got shoved around recently. If I've written something untoward, I'll remove the post.

ErnstRemarx wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 51s 51 seconds ago
LAB moves to 2% lead with YouGov
CON 33%, LAB 35%, LD 8%, UKIP 14%, GRN 5%

Forgive me for saying it, but according to the 35%ists, doesn't that indicate a Labour majority?

Yes.

citizenJA wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:

citizenJA wrote:This may be why some idiots thought rough-housing the Labour party leader a good strategy. It's not. But I can understand the threat a social democratic government in leadership may present people with entitlement problems - they've never worked a day in their lives.

Not sure I follow what you're saying ?

It's a dirty campaign. I'm frightened by the reports the Labour party leader got shoved around recently. If I've written something untoward, I'll remove the post.

No problem, I just didn't understand that's all.

Apparently I can't call someone who came out with the "NHS run for the people who work in it" a moron.

Nick Sutton ‏@suttonnick · 3m3 minutes ago
Wednesday's Independent p1:
Exclusive - Cameron says LibDems leaked memo on Sturgeon
#tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers

RogerOThornhill wrote:Apparently I can't call someone who came out with the "NHS run for the people who work in it" a moron.

Why ever not? It's up there with 'long term economic plan' and 'Labour encouraged immigration to get more votes' and 'NHS safe in our hands' as a piece of breathtakingly mendacious bollocks that would never be challenged in the meeja.

Patrick Wintour ‏@patrickwintour 9m9 minutes ago
Dear Lynton "Are you thinking what I am thinking ? "

What is he thinking?

Eric_WLothian wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote: Have I got this right?

Lots of PFIs can be bought out. You just need a public body to lend you a lump sum, and they pay that body back instead of the PFI company.

If so

a) Why don't the Scottish Government sort the worst ones, as Neil Findlay suggested?
b) Why isn't Burnham saying Labour will do that?

Holyrood currently has very limited borrowing powers, but that changes this year (maybe today, as it's a new financial year).

How about hey take the cap off councils and reduce the grant to them?

Or would that piss off Aberdeenshire?

AngryAsWell wrote:Nick Sutton ‏@suttonnick · 3m3 minutes ago
Wednesday's Independent p1:
Exclusive - Cameron says LibDems leaked memo on Sturgeon
#tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers

So what, nobody cares.

Plus, how does he know that?

The civil service investigation shouldn't be reporting to him. It should report to the head of the service who should inform all political parties of its findings.

Plus, again, hurting the lib Dems in Scotland will screw him over, unless he really does believe he can do a deal with the SNP.

Removing non dom status? That's a biggy in my book.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:Nick Sutton ‏@suttonnick · 3m3 minutes ago
Wednesday's Independent p1:
Exclusive - Cameron says LibDems leaked memo on Sturgeon
#tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers

So what, nobody cares.

Plus, how does he know that?

The civil service investigation shouldn't be reporting to him. It should report to the head of the service who should inform all political parties of its findings.

Plus, again, hurting the lib Dems in Scotland will screw him over, unless he really does believe he can do a deal with the SNP.

Asked if he suspected the hand of the Lib Dems, Mr Cameron replied: “I have heard very clearly David Mundell [the Tory Scotland Office Minister] saying it wasn't him, so one does wonder.”

Oh well, that's that solved then.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 60850.html

Well, well, well .....

Labour at 35% again, Jim Murphy plays a blinder and Nicola Sturgeon goes for the 45ers (and sticks two fingers up at the 55ers) with talk of Neverendum; if Labour aren't toast in Scotland (and Sturgeon seems determined to help them avoid that status) then 35% is darn close to a working majority, and that is without factoring in the key marginals. Maybe room for a little cautious optimism tonight?

Night all.

Labour considers plan to ensure low paid benefit from economic growth...

The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics on company size suggest that there are about 36,000 companies with 50 or more employees in Britain, employing a total of 12.9 million people. The legislation would therefore affect about 53% of the people employed in the UK.

British companies are in a stronger financial position than they have been for years, yet private sector wages are rising at only 2.1%, according to the ONS, half the rate before the crisis. In contrast, publicly listed companies paid shareholders £79bn in regular dividends last year, a record.

There is evidence suggesting that mandatory profit-sharing schemes increase productivity. Last month the respected thinktank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, claimed that the UK must fix its productivity problem to secure future economic growth and improve living standards.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... aff-policy

The title of this article is
Ed Miliband could force firms to share profits with staff under new policy.
I prefer calling it
Ed Miliband supports cooperative prosperity sharing scheme

The 'lobby' verdict on ending the non dom tax status seems to be that it's very clever politics - across the spectrum of political affiliations. Well done Ed.

citizenJA wrote:

Labour considers plan to ensure low paid benefit from economic growth...

The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics on company size suggest that there are about 36,000 companies with 50 or more employees in Britain, employing a total of 12.9 million people. The legislation would therefore affect about 53% of the people employed in the UK.

British companies are in a stronger financial position than they have been for years, yet private sector wages are rising at only 2.1%, according to the ONS, half the rate before the crisis. In contrast, publicly listed companies paid shareholders £79bn in regular dividends last year, a record.

There is evidence suggesting that mandatory profit-sharing schemes increase productivity. Last month the respected thinktank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, claimed that the UK must fix its productivity problem to secure future economic growth and improve living standards.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... aff-policy

The title of this article is
Ed Miliband could force firms to share profits with staff under new policy.
I prefer calling it
Ed Miliband supports cooperative prosperity sharing scheme

I actually think this is bigger than the non-dom one

goodnight, friends
love
cJA

night all

Tubby Isaacs wrote: How about hey take the cap off councils and reduce the grant to them?
Or would that piss off Aberdeenshire?

What - allow LAs a degree of freedom? Lose control over them? As Jim Murphy said to Nicola Sturgeon tonight "don't be ridiculous".

Who on earth thought this one up?

Children who fail English and maths exams must take re-sits, Tories say

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1152106 ... s-say.html

Youngsters who fail primary school leaving exams in English and maths will be given two further chances to pass the tests in their first year of secondary school to bring them in line with their peers.

As Sam Freedman (ex SpAd to Gove) has pointed out, SATs are an accountability measure for primary schools and have no bearing on where a pupil ends up since the choice of secondary has been made before they sit them.

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Well, well, well .....

Labour at 35% again, Jim Murphy plays a blinder and Nicola Sturgeon goes for the 45ers (and sticks two fingers up at the 55ers) with talk of Neverendum; if Labour aren't toast in Scotland (and Sturgeon seems determined to help them avoid that status) then 35% is darn close to a working majority, and that is without factoring in the key marginals. Maybe room for a little cautious optimism tonight?

Night all.

I'm allowing myself a very tiny bit of cautious optimism. Just in case it's WMA/MWA or some other strange quirk of polling like 'crossover.'

Goodnight, TGS – and PF and anyone else who's already turned in for the night.

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Well, well, well .....

Labour at 35% again, Jim Murphy plays a blinder and Nicola Sturgeon goes for the 45ers (and sticks two fingers up at the 55ers) with talk of Neverendum; if Labour aren't toast in Scotland (and Sturgeon seems determined to help them avoid that status) then 35% is darn close to a working majority, and that is without factoring in the key marginals. Maybe room for a little cautious optimism tonight?

Night all.

I doubt one debate will be a game changer in Scotland.

Labour needs to keep building the consensus and attacking the media narrative. Expect plenty more bias from the media, orchestrated smears (thanks Indy, who have form) and possibly more abuse of government powers from Cameron.

The Tories will start getting desperate fairly soon. The next big risk is the challengers debate. Miliband needs to look in command and everybody will be gunning for him. A very tricky proposition and Sturgeon will be looking for payback.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

Eric_WLothian wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote: Have I got this right?

Lots of PFIs can be bought out. You just need a public body to lend you a lump sum, and they pay that body back instead of the PFI company.

If so

a) Why don't the Scottish Government sort the worst ones, as Neil Findlay suggested?
b) Why isn't Burnham saying Labour will do that?

Holyrood currently has very limited borrowing powers, but that changes this year (maybe today, as it's a new financial year).

How about hey take the cap off councils and reduce the grant to them?

Or would that piss off Aberdeenshire?

Oiiiii, leave Aberdeenshire out of it, my family & other relatives live in Aberdeenshire !

Barry Sheerman ‏@BarrySheerman 7m7 minutes ago
Can we have Michael Gove on every night ? He so clearly represents the bilious nasty true DNA of the Tory party! @BBCNewsnight

He was dreadful apparently - sticking up for the non doms and floundering over the Big Society. Must be that special media knowledge and experience coming to the fore.

Jeremy Cliffe ‏@JeremyCliffe 6m6 minutes ago
Jeremy Cliffe retweeted Duncan Bannatyne
Duncan Bannatyne, who signed the pro-Tory letter, appears to have switched to Labour following non-dom annoucement.

Duncan BannatyneVerified account
‏@DuncanBannatyne
Ed Milliband says he will abolish non-dom status in UK. This gets my vote I never thought any party would have courage to do this.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
I doubt one debate will be a game changer in Scotland.

Round 2 on BBC1 Scotland tomorrow (tonight's line-up plus Greens & UKIP).
Round 3 on BBC Scotland on 3rd May. Same group as today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-32036630

At Twitter via the Guardian.

— Fraser Nelson (@FraserNelson)
April 7, 2015
Never thought I’d be so pleased to hear a swing voter say she has now decided to go for Labour. Tonight’s Scottish debate has been superb.

What have the aliens done with the real Fraser Nelson?

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Jeremy Cliffe ‏@JeremyCliffe 6m6 minutes ago
Jeremy Cliffe retweeted Duncan Bannatyne
Duncan Bannatyne, who signed the pro-Tory letter, appears to have switched to Labour following non-dom annoucement.

Duncan BannatyneVerified account
‏@DuncanBannatyne
Ed Milliband says he will abolish non-dom status in UK. This gets my vote I never thought any party would have courage to do this.

Fair play to the chap, he isn't short of a pound or two.

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Barry Sheerman ‏@BarrySheerman 7m7 minutes ago
Can we have Michael Gove on every night ? He so clearly represents the bilious nasty true DNA of the Tory party! @BBCNewsnight

He was dreadful apparently - sticking up for the non doms and floundering over the Big Society. Must be that special media knowledge and experience coming to the fore.

He was dreadful. To all Evan Davis' questions on 'the Big Society' he just kept trying to go on about the roaring success of the National Citizenship Service which is a roaring success because it's so roaringly successful and that's why they don't need to mention the Big Society because they can point to its successes which show it in action such as the National Citizenship Service which is a roaring success... And Nicky Morgan's going to make a Very Important Speech on education tomorrow...

Evan Davis laughed quite a lot at the 'answers' given by Gove.

Edit: to stick the letter 'y' firmly onto the word it made when I left it off, accidentally

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Jeremy Cliffe ‏@JeremyCliffe 6m6 minutes ago
Jeremy Cliffe retweeted Duncan Bannatyne
Duncan Bannatyne, who signed the pro-Tory letter, appears to have switched to Labour following non-dom annoucement.

Duncan BannatyneVerified account
‏@DuncanBannatyne
Ed Milliband says he will abolish non-dom status in UK. This gets my vote I never thought any party would have courage to do this.

Excellent news. I hope he'll keep that promise. Bannatyne, that is. I'm pretty certain that EdM will.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:At Twitter via the Guardian.

— Fraser Nelson (@FraserNelson)
April 7, 2015
Never thought I’d be so pleased to hear a swing voter say she has now decided to go for Labour. Tonight’s Scottish debate has been superb.

What have the aliens done with the real Fraser Nelson?

At the risk of inviting brickbats in my direction ... he can quite often surprise with his perspective. I cut him some slack - as I do Isabel Hardman for her attempts to consider and represent a variety of views on issues.

LadyCentauria wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Barry Sheerman ‏@BarrySheerman 7m7 minutes ago
Can we have Michael Gove on every night ? He so clearly represents the bilious nasty true DNA of the Tory party! @BBCNewsnight

He was dreadful apparently - sticking up for the non doms and floundering over the Big Society. Must be that special media knowledge and experience coming to the fore.

He was dreadful. To all Evan Davis' questions on 'the Big Society' he just kept trying to go on about the roaring success of the National Citizenship Service which is a roaring success because it's so roaringly successful and that's why they don't need to mention the Big Society because the can point to its successes which show it in action such as the National Citizenship Service which is a roaring success... And Nicky Morgan's going to make a Very Important Speech on education tomorrow...

Evan Davis laughed quite a lot at the 'answers' given by Gove.

Deary me ... Evan Davis has been having quite a fun time with the Tories of late. He couldn't stop his face from expressing incredulity and having a fit of the giggles at the ludicrous evasions of Shapps last week.

LadyCentauria wrote: And Nicky Morgan's going to make a Very Important Speech on education tomorrow...

Really?

I guess that letter to the Mail from 80 HTs telling Labour not to reverse anything is just a pure coincidence that it'll appear on the same day.

Oh dear, more on the pupils retaking SATs in year 7

Laura McInerney
‏@miss_mcinerney
WHAT? RT @russellhobby: These new year seven tests are internally marked. Increasing workload as well as the testing burden.

Yeah, that'll work...

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Jeremy Cliffe ‏@JeremyCliffe 6m6 minutes ago
Jeremy Cliffe retweeted Duncan Bannatyne
Duncan Bannatyne, who signed the pro-Tory letter, appears to have switched to Labour following non-dom annoucement.

Duncan BannatyneVerified account
‏@DuncanBannatyne
Ed Milliband says he will abolish non-dom status in UK. This gets my vote I never thought any party would have courage to do this.

Fair play to the chap, he isn't short of a pound or two.

A special edition of Dragons' Den with the party leaders pitching for contributions might be entertaining.
"I'll offer you all the money ... but I want 60% of your party".

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Barry Sheerman ‏@BarrySheerman 7m7 minutes ago
Can we have Michael Gove on every night ? He so clearly represents the bilious nasty true DNA of the Tory party! @BBCNewsnight

He was dreadful apparently - sticking up for the non doms and floundering over the Big Society. Must be that special media knowledge and experience coming to the fore.

Yup. Not just bad, but mystifyingly, appallingly bad. Were I Crosby, I'd have been on the phone to the Beeb within 3 seconds to remind them just who they're meant to be working for. I've long wondered that Gove is seen in some circles as a potential successor to CMD. I mean, Christ, the bar's been set low, but Pob as leader? As Private Eye's Denis would have said, someone's been on the electric soup.

RogerOThornhill wrote:

LadyCentauria wrote: And Nicky Morgan's going to make a Very Important Speech on education tomorrow...

Really?

I guess that letter to the Mail from 80 HTs telling Labour not to reverse anything is just a pure coincidence that it'll appear on the same day.

Oh yes. I'm sure it's a completely unexpected and total surprise from out of the ballpark of a possibility of being anything but a one-in-a-gazillion coincidence. :straightface: :honest:

Oh, and Gove also told us that Free Schools are very important because they'll be opening in 'areas of educational disadvantage.'

rebeccariots2 wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:At Twitter via the Guardian.

— Fraser Nelson (@FraserNelson)
April 7, 2015
Never thought I’d be so pleased to hear a swing voter say she has now decided to go for Labour. Tonight’s Scottish debate has been superb.

What have the aliens done with the real Fraser Nelson?

At the risk of inviting brickbats in my direction ... he can quite often surprise with his perspective. I cut him some slack - as I do Isabel Hardman for her attempts to consider and represent a variety of views on issues.

Agree on both. They both seem to me to be principled and relatively scrupulous. Isobel Hardman appears to put some effort into her work most of the time whilst Nelson's stance - although very much to the right and absolutely anathema to my own - is apparently based upon beliefs that aren't simply in name and actually do have an intellectual framework, even if I don't fancy it. His loathing for Cameron becomes more palpable as the weeks pass.

Major thumbs up from me, BTW, regarding non doms and profit sharing - now that's what I call doing policy. Watch the meeja largely ignore both, unless they can find a way to rubbish them. In the case of the former, no doubt the meeja's proprietors have a 3 line whip out to the hacks telling them to open fire ASAP.

LadyCentauria wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:

LadyCentauria wrote: And Nicky Morgan's going to make a Very Important Speech on education tomorrow...

Really?

I guess that letter to the Mail from 80 HTs telling Labour not to reverse anything is just a pure coincidence that it'll appear on the same day.

Oh yes. I'm sure it's a completely unexpected and total surprise from out of the ballpark of a possibility of being anything but a one-in-a-gazillion coincidence. :straightface: :honest:

Oh, and Gove also told us that Free Schools are very important because they'll be opening in 'areas of educational disadvantage.'

It's always a pleasure to get an opportunity to share this view of Pob with the wider world:

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

The FT back in March, wrote that the non-Dom status should be abolished

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9545f01c-be78 ... z3WfHFkqLe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LOL, I have upset a Nat on UKPR by calling them separatists !

Oh dear.......

RogerOThornhill wrote:... I'll take a look tomorrow and see how many have had honours given them by Gove. Lots probably.

And almost certainly the same bunch as last time. Do I still have the list? Oh yes...

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by honours, Roger, because there's also the small matter of school deeds. Which reminds me because you may know. Some time back I got into an argument with OpenSeas (I think it was he) about transference of deeds, but had clearly stated in my initial post that any future disposal of land or premises was subject to some adjudicator's (can't remember the official position) decision as to compensation to the local authority. Nevertheless with the passage of time so that such things drop out of media attention, not that our right-wing media ever gave it much, and the fact that LEAs have been somewhat pushed to the margins, do you know how things stand today?


OpenSeas or whoever it was maintained that there would be a huge outcry over the £1bn+ of asset transfers, which of course there should. My concern is that the previous safeguards against change of use may have quietly slipped under the radar and no longer apply. This government gets more and more sickening the more you think of what they have done.

pk1 wrote:LOL, I have upset a Nat on UKPR by calling them separatists !

Oh dear.......

You're living right. Let's just put this straight: you can't be a nationalist and a socialist. Socialism is internationalist in nature, and anybody who tries to argue otherwise is talking out of their arse. If people want to claim to be nationalist and socialist in the same breath, then fine, but that's quite a statement to make about yourself (not you, obvs, pk1).

utopiandreams wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:... I'll take a look tomorrow and see how many have had honours given them by Gove. Lots probably.

And almost certainly the same bunch as last time. Do I still have the list? Oh yes...

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by honours, Roger, because there's also the small matter of school deeds. Which reminds me because you may know. Some time back I got into an argument with OpenSeas (I think it was he) about transference of deeds, but had clearly stated in my initial post that any future disposal of land or premises was subject to some adjudicator's (can't remember the official position) decision as to compensation to the local authority. Nevertheless with the passage of time so that such things drop out of media attention, not that our right-wing media ever gave it much, and the fact that LEAs have been somewhat pushed to the margins, do you know how things stand today?


OpenSeas or whoever it was maintained that there would be a huge outcry over the £1bn+ of asset transfers, which of course there should. My concern is that the previous safeguards against change of use may have quietly slipped under the radar and no longer apply. This government gets more and more sickening the more you think of what they have done.

Edit; probably worth a search of my G profile so I can get the figures, albeit outdated by now. £1bn+ of asset transfers? I'm not so sure now it may have been a lot more and that £1bn be the legal fees Gove, or taxpayers covered, for said transference. Whatever the figures, should I look them up, I do know that that year his department was £1bn over budget.

Edit: oh well I think you realise I pressed quote instead of edit.

LDV bragging that the Mayor of Deal has defected from Labour to the LDs.

They should have read this change.org page before accepting him:

https://www.change.org/p/deal-town-coun ... or-2014-15" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ErnstRemarx wrote:

LadyCentauria wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote: Really?

I guess that letter to the Mail from 80 HTs telling Labour not to reverse anything is just a pure coincidence that it'll appear on the same day.

Oh yes. I'm sure it's a completely unexpected and total surprise from out of the ballpark of a possibility of being anything but a one-in-a-gazillion coincidence. :straightface: :honest:

Oh, and Gove also told us that Free Schools are very important because they'll be opening in 'areas of educational disadvantage.'

It's always a pleasure to get an opportunity to share this view of Pob with the wider world:

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

I love that cartoon

That letter to the Mail seems to have been organised by a body calling itself the Freedom and Autonomy for Schools National Association
- some bunch that dislikes anyone monitoring what they're doing.

I looked at their website the other day - typical anti-local authority bunch. Don't mind spending public money but accountability? Not so much...