FlyTheNest

rebeccariots2 wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:Just a thought, but if God forbid Dave gets in in May and they go ahead with cutting overweight people's benefits, what's the betting they'll introduce a limit to how much people can weigh. I don't think for a moment IDS will be satisfied with 1,780 people losing out. He'll want a jolly sight more than that.
I believe the weight that qualifies a female as obese is around fourteen stone.

And at the same time they'll probably bring in a new regulation / expense band for any MPs or Lords / Ladies who weigh more than fourteen stone to make sure they're entitled to double rations in the Westminster bars, tea rooms, restaurants etc. Wouldn't want them unable to concentrate on doing their very very special jobs (aka sleeping, braying and jeering, talking rubbish, playing candy crush and tweeting) for us through lack of sustenance. Pickles, in particular, will need that help to keep his focus on bin collections.

I'm being sarcastic - but as that Andrew Rawnsley piece showed so well - this sort of ludicrous move wouldn't be out of place in their rarified world of one rule for us and another for everyone else.

They'll give some sort of excuse like Type 2 diabetes causing the NHS too much expense so it's for everyone's good if they're made to lose weight.
Smokers are are already being unsympathetically treated, so it's a done deal they'll be struck off the benefits bill at the same time.

ohsocynical wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:Just a thought, but if God forbid Dave gets in in May and they go ahead with cutting overweight people's benefits, what's the betting they'll introduce a limit to how much people can weigh. I don't think for a moment IDS will be satisfied with 1,780 people losing out. He'll want a jolly sight more than that.
I believe the weight that qualifies a female as obese is around fourteen stone.

And at the same time they'll probably bring in a new regulation / expense band for any MPs or Lords / Ladies who weigh more than fourteen stone to make sure they're entitled to double rations in the Westminster bars, tea rooms, restaurants etc. Wouldn't want them unable to concentrate on doing their very very special jobs (aka sleeping, braying and jeering, talking rubbish, playing candy crush and tweeting) for us through lack of sustenance. Pickles, in particular, will need that help to keep his focus on bin collections.

I'm being sarcastic - but as that Andrew Rawnsley piece showed so well - this sort of ludicrous move wouldn't be out of place in their rarified world of one rule for us and another for everyone else.

They'll give some sort of excuse like Type 2 diabetes causing the NHS too much expense so it's for everyone's good if they're made to lose weight.
Smokers are are already being unsympathetically treated, so it's a done deal they'll be struck off the benefits bill at the same time.

On Marr earlier today IDS claimed that it wasn't about losing weight (or rehab etc), it was about seeking help. At the time I thought that that was complete and utter nonsense. It's a nailed on certainty that anyone being required to take part in whatever treatment will be sanctioned if that treatment doesn't show any results because at the end of the day he doesn't give a toss about the people, it's all about money to him.

Rupert Murdoch is such a class act. Tim Fenton's take on the Sunday Times targeting the judiciary for his latest monstering...

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/ ... ciary.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Spacedone wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:
And at the same time they'll probably bring in a new regulation / expense band for any MPs or Lords / Ladies who weigh more than fourteen stone to make sure they're entitled to double rations in the Westminster bars, tea rooms, restaurants etc. Wouldn't want them unable to concentrate on doing their very very special jobs (aka sleeping, braying and jeering, talking rubbish, playing candy crush and tweeting) for us through lack of sustenance. Pickles, in particular, will need that help to keep his focus on bin collections.

I'm being sarcastic - but as that Andrew Rawnsley piece showed so well - this sort of ludicrous move wouldn't be out of place in their rarified world of one rule for us and another for everyone else.

They'll give some sort of excuse like Type 2 diabetes causing the NHS too much expense so it's for everyone's good if they're made to lose weight.
Smokers are are already being unsympathetically treated, so it's a done deal they'll be struck off the benefits bill at the same time.

On Marr earlier today IDS claimed that it wasn't about losing weight (or rehab etc), it was about seeking help. At the time I thought that that was complete and utter nonsense. It's a nailed on certainty that anyone being required to take part in whatever treatment will be sanctioned if that treatment doesn't show any results because at the end of the day he doesn't give a toss about the people, it's all about money to him.

I expect in reality it's just empty rhetoric aimed at keeping the misleading impression that all people on benefits are living the high life at taxpayers expense, rather than slowly starving to death as out of work benefits fail to keep up with the cost of living:

http://metro.co.uk/2014/12/28/the-poor- ... i-5001594/

Spacedone wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:
And at the same time they'll probably bring in a new regulation / expense band for any MPs or Lords / Ladies who weigh more than fourteen stone to make sure they're entitled to double rations in the Westminster bars, tea rooms, restaurants etc. Wouldn't want them unable to concentrate on doing their very very special jobs (aka sleeping, braying and jeering, talking rubbish, playing candy crush and tweeting) for us through lack of sustenance. Pickles, in particular, will need that help to keep his focus on bin collections.

I'm being sarcastic - but as that Andrew Rawnsley piece showed so well - this sort of ludicrous move wouldn't be out of place in their rarified world of one rule for us and another for everyone else.

They'll give some sort of excuse like Type 2 diabetes causing the NHS too much expense so it's for everyone's good if they're made to lose weight.
Smokers are are already being unsympathetically treated, so it's a done deal they'll be struck off the benefits bill at the same time.

On Marr earlier today IDS claimed that it wasn't about losing weight (or rehab etc), it was about seeking help. At the time I thought that that was complete and utter nonsense. It's a nailed on certainty that anyone being required to take part in whatever treatment will be sanctioned if that treatment doesn't show any results because at the end of the day he doesn't give a toss about the people, it's all about money to him.

*cough* Nanny state *cough*

Isn't this something right-wingers are always banging on about? The level of cognitive dissonance is astounding.

ohsocynical wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:Just a thought, but if God forbid Dave gets in in May and they go ahead with cutting overweight people's benefits, what's the betting they'll introduce a limit to how much people can weigh. I don't think for a moment IDS will be satisfied with 1,780 people losing out. He'll want a jolly sight more than that.
I believe the weight that qualifies a female as obese is around fourteen stone.

And at the same time they'll probably bring in a new regulation / expense band for any MPs or Lords / Ladies who weigh more than fourteen stone to make sure they're entitled to double rations in the Westminster bars, tea rooms, restaurants etc. Wouldn't want them unable to concentrate on doing their very very special jobs (aka sleeping, braying and jeering, talking rubbish, playing candy crush and tweeting) for us through lack of sustenance. Pickles, in particular, will need that help to keep his focus on bin collections.

I'm being sarcastic - but as that Andrew Rawnsley piece showed so well - this sort of ludicrous move wouldn't be out of place in their rarified world of one rule for us and another for everyone else.

They'll give some sort of excuse like Type 2 diabetes causing the NHS too much expense so it's for everyone's good if they're made to lose weight.
Smokers are are already being unsympathetically treated, so it's a done deal they'll be struck off the benefits bill at the same time.

And taking this to it's horribly illogical punitive-save-money-at-all-costs-and-keep-you-plebs-in-your-place conclusion - IDS's cap on the number of children child benefit will be payable for will be introduced alongside a sterilisation programme for any single mothers who already have the allowed number of children.

Just saw this in The Telegraph, very sad story:

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

Wonder how many more go unnoticed by the media ?

I know homeless people who would rather their dog got fed before themselves. Sometimes think the homeless have more humanity than quote /unquote 'normal people'.

Anyway time to get off of my soapbox........

refitman wrote:

Spacedone wrote:

ohsocynical wrote: They'll give some sort of excuse like Type 2 diabetes causing the NHS too much expense so it's for everyone's good if they're made to lose weight.
Smokers are are already being unsympathetically treated, so it's a done deal they'll be struck off the benefits bill at the same time.

On Marr earlier today IDS claimed that it wasn't about losing weight (or rehab etc), it was about seeking help. At the time I thought that that was complete and utter nonsense. It's a nailed on certainty that anyone being required to take part in whatever treatment will be sanctioned if that treatment doesn't show any results because at the end of the day he doesn't give a toss about the people, it's all about money to him.

*cough* Nanny state *cough*

Isn't this something right-wingers are always banging on about? The level of cognitive dissonance is astounding.

Nobody should be surprised by this.

100 people with mental health illness are sanctioned every day.
1,000 people with mental illness are part of a trial in which they must engage with DWP-ordered "treatment".

Insisting that people must accept help begs the question where is that help going to come from?
In the case of the trial I mentioned, it is not the NHS; it's jobcentre staff or outsourced providers.

In England, the average wait for a first non-urgent appointment with a consultant psychiatrist is a year. Or longer.
Anyone who understands mental illness knows it can take years to get a definitive diagnosis, let alone effective treatment.
It's a complex and delicate business assessing a treating a mind. It takes time and very skilled handling.
Online CBT or "work coaches" threatening sanctions for non-compliance can be dangerous. As we know.

The mixed messages of the past week are as follows -
Be a working person on tax credits or UC and your housing support could be sanctioned if you don't try harder.
Be a working person in a council house and you can buy your home at a 100% discount.
Be a person who finds a new job and lives in a council house you get your home for free if you stay in that job.
Be a person who is obese (like 20% of the adult population) but not working and you will get forced "help".
Be in thrall to addiction, and you will be required to comply with orders to seek help or lose benefit.

TGS - cognitive dissonance (I understand) is the psychological unease caused by holding two opposing views at the same time.

These people feel no such unease. They simply do not care about other human beings.

Willow904 wrote: I expect in reality it's just empty rhetoric aimed at keeping the misleading impression that all people on benefits are living the high life at taxpayers expense, rather than slowly starving to death as out of work benefits fail to keep up with the cost of living:

http://metro.co.uk/2014/12/28/the-poor- ... i-5001594/

The genius of it is that if you're that way inclined, you can see any fat poor person in the street, assume they're on benefits and feel resentful.

Did someone day D'Ancona was one of the better writers binned by the Telegraph?

The reinvention of Iain Duncan Smith: is he the man to save the Tories?
The former leader was once seen as a problem. Thanks to universal credit, he could be his party’s trump card

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

For starters, IDS incarnates the simplicity of style, calmness of countenance and visible sincerity of motive that elude many of his colleagues. Privately petulant though he can be, he is never smug. And, with less than three months to go, the Tory party badly needs comprehensive desmugification.

You won't believe this.

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

Where has this recent "UC has morphed into an amazing success" meme come from, exactly?

Tubby Isaacs wrote:You won't believe this.

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

Unfortunately, I do. It's the natural, and indeed inevitable outcome of constantly bringing in right-wing commentators into an increasingly right-wing newspaper.

Edited for (you'll never guess) a typo

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Where has this recent "UC has morphed into an amazing success" meme come from, exactly?

Lying.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Where has this recent "UC has morphed into an amazing success" meme come from, exactly?

From Duncan Gaffney:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:You won't believe this.

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

From the newspaper that brought us "In Praise of IDS" I can believe anything; but, all the same, I'll give it a miss if you don't mind.

There is something odd about the GMG's 'relationship' with Odious. That "In Praise of ..." was the most blatant example and, I'm guessing from your reactions here, that this is another piece in that vein; but it goes deeper than that, with The Sparrow rarely (if ever) covering DWP questions or his committee appearances, with the speed with which comments critical of him vanish, with the discrete veil of silence the Graun draws over his many, many failings. This isn't just about the "inevitable outcome of constantly bringing in right-wing commentators into an increasingly right-wing newspaper", it has been there for close on four years. Something is, as they say, rotten in the state of Denmark.

HindleA wrote:https://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2015/0 ... y-remploy/


"Maximus trying to buy remploy"

From Project Jupiter (the project to bring the private sector into co-ownership with the Employees' Council of Remploy):

We have two very different bidders. Prospects is a social business spun out of public sector organisations while Maximus, is a US quoted company operating on three continents to deliver contracts on behalf of governments.

http://rejupiter.co.uk/

As the deadline for bids was Friday 13th Feb, the exact details of both bids are now secret until McVey makes an announcement expected in March...

On a lighter note, there is this over at LDV: http://www.libdemvoice.org/paul-tyler-r ... 44701.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Paul Tyler reminds the Guardian that Labour ruined Lords reform

Which has been instantly destroyed by the BTL regulars.

On IDS and the media.

Nobody ever really picked up on my (obviously boring ) observations about Alun Milburn's Poverty Tsar report.

All the bits of the first report that attacked Smith and UC etc. had been rewritten. Of course I have no proof that he did it, but...

For me it was shocking interference in a supposedly influential report that has in fact had no effect.

Dear old Vince jumps on a passing band wagon

Vince Cable: Former HSBC chief Lord Green should never have been given Government job

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vi ... ef-5169213" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This bit is interesting though :

Meanwhile a whistleblower said a major oil firm could become embroiled in the tax avoidance scandal as 1m pieces of leaked data are yet to be made public

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:On IDS and the media.

Nobody ever really picked up on my (obviously boring ) observations about Alun Milburn's Poverty Tsar report.

All the bits of the first report that attacked Smith and UC etc. had been rewritten. Of course I have no proof that he did it, but...

For me it was shocking interference in a supposedly influential report that has in fact had no effect.

Sorry must have missed it, I'm a bit slow at the moment.

refitman wrote:On a lighter note, there is this over at LDV: http://www.libdemvoice.org/paul-tyler-r ... 44701.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Paul Tyler reminds the Guardian that Labour ruined Lords reform

Which has been instantly destroyed by the BTL regulars.

Yep.

The fact Clegg tied it to changing the Commons meant that they couldn't support it without getting those passed too.

Utter incompetence by Clegg, who surely more than anything cared about his "place in history" (ie being an answer to pub quiz questions about who first brought in elected peers).

AngryAsWell wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:On IDS and the media.

Nobody ever really picked up on my (obviously boring ) observations about Alun Milburn's Poverty Tsar report.

All the bits of the first report that attacked Smith and UC etc. had been rewritten. Of course I have no proof that he did it, but...

For me it was shocking interference in a supposedly influential report that has in fact had no effect.

Sorry must have missed it, I'm a bit slow at the moment.

It was ages ago your forgiven

AngryAsWell wrote:Dear old Vince jumps on a passing band wagon

Vince Cable: Former HSBC chief Lord Green should never have been given Government job

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vi ... ef-5169213" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This bit is interesting though :

Meanwhile a whistleblower said a major oil firm could become embroiled in the tax avoidance scandal as 1m pieces of leaked data are yet to be made public

The SNP won't like that.

People might think the industry they're depending on aren't very cuddly.

They might then look at finance and defence, which are also v important in Scotland.

Still a moan about Mrs Thatcher will make all the books balance.

Sweeping statement ...... I know, but
Its no wonder half of US is bonkers

South Carolina Inmate Receives 37 Years In Solitary Confinement For Updating Facebook

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/0 ... -facebook/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One example of the alleged (by me) Smith interference with the Poverty Commission report, from the old place

Hang on, it's Labour's fault that Cameron's kept adding peers to the Lords?

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:Dear old Vince jumps on a passing band wagon

Vince Cable: Former HSBC chief Lord Green should never have been given Government job

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vi ... ef-5169213" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This bit is interesting though :

Meanwhile a whistleblower said a major oil firm could become embroiled in the tax avoidance scandal as 1m pieces of leaked data are yet to be made public

The SNP won't like that.

People might think the industry they're depending on aren't very cuddly.

They might then look at finance and defence, which are also v important in Scotland.

Still a moan about Mrs Thatcher will make all the books balance.

I saw an interview with the whistleblower and he said the Tax evasion was only the tip of the iceburg...

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:One example of the alleged (by me) Smith interference with the Poverty Commission report, from the old place

Sorry I know I'm really dim but is this a new report? or an update of an old one?

(looks for scratching-head-wonderingly smiley but fails to find it)

I thought this particular phrase had been retired.

Bristol Lib Dems @BristolLibDems
Follow
#TeamWilliams leader @swilliamsmp with just some of the @LiberalYouth activists out in Bristol #WinningHere

I suppose they might just get away with it in that seat. They won it by 20 points in 2010.

ohsocynical wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:Dear old Vince jumps on a passing band wagon

Vince Cable: Former HSBC chief Lord Green should never have been given Government job

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vi ... ef-5169213" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This bit is interesting though :

Meanwhile a whistleblower said a major oil firm could become embroiled in the tax avoidance scandal as 1m pieces of leaked data are yet to be made public

The SNP won't like that.

People might think the industry they're depending on aren't very cuddly.

They might then look at finance and defence, which are also v important in Scotland.

Still a moan about Mrs Thatcher will make all the books balance.

I saw an interview with the whistleblower and he said the Tax evasion was only the tip of the iceburg...

Yikes! found some more (not sure if from twitter or someone posted earlier?)
Leaked List Shows HSBC’s Swiss Arm Helped Putin Allies, Drug Lords and Fugitives Hide
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... ign=buffer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ed's on a roll ...another speech tomorrow at Jaguar Land Rover
Miliband pitches to business with "a better" economic plan
Labour leader fights to claim the territory of growth from the Conservatives in speech at Jaguar Land Rover.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... nomic-plan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow, that right wing Lib Dem Nick Thoresby has blocked me.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Wow, that right wing Lib Dem Nick Thoresby has blocked me.

Ooops! What did you say?

No idea.

But I'm sure his blocking me was in line with liberal values.

This is an interesting article, by Janet Daley of all people, about the goings on at her local GP surgery, and the attempts by NHS Property Services to take control of the building and turn it into a commercial redevelopment, complete with residential properties, which would have left the doctors stuck in unsuitable temporary buildings for four years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... -sort.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course, becouse its written by Janet Daley it completely misses the central point, that the government is using NHS Property Services as a front organisation to sell off valuable, publicly owned land to property developers, and is instead wrapped up in some "the private sector would never behave in such a manner" dogma, but I thought it was interesting anyway, becouse it shows that what we've been saying on here about the reasoning behind the creation of NHS Property Services is now starting to happen on the ground. Who knows how many more GP surgeries in expensive areas of the country are facing similar attacks?

Tish wrote:This is an interesting article, by Janet Daley of all people, about the goings on at her local GP surgery, and the attempts by NHS Property Services to take control of the building and turn it into a commercial redevelopment, complete with residential properties, which would have left the doctors stuck in unsuitable temporary buildings for four years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... -sort.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course, becouse its written by Janet Daley it completely misses the central point, that the government is using NHS Property Services as a front organisation to sell off valuable, publicly owned land to property developers, and is instead wrapped up in some "the private sector would never behave in such a manner" dogma, but I thought it was interesting anyway, becouse it shows that what we've been saying on here about the reasoning behind the creation of NHS Property Services is now starting to happen on the ground. Who knows how many more GP surgeries in expensive areas of the country are facing similar attacks?

She was a bit puzzled as to why NHS property Services was a private limited company owned by the Sec of State. I pointed out gently that it was fairly likely to have been done that way so that it can be sold off in one go...that'd be a nice reduction to the national debt just before the election.

RogerOThornhill wrote:

Tish wrote:This is an interesting article, by Janet Daley of all people, about the goings on at her local GP surgery, and the attempts by NHS Property Services to take control of the building and turn it into a commercial redevelopment, complete with residential properties, which would have left the doctors stuck in unsuitable temporary buildings for four years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... -sort.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course, becouse its written by Janet Daley it completely misses the central point, that the government is using NHS Property Services as a front organisation to sell off valuable, publicly owned land to property developers, and is instead wrapped up in some "the private sector would never behave in such a manner" dogma, but I thought it was interesting anyway, becouse it shows that what we've been saying on here about the reasoning behind the creation of NHS Property Services is now starting to happen on the ground. Who knows how many more GP surgeries in expensive areas of the country are facing similar attacks?

She was a bit puzzled as to why NHS property Services was a private limited company owned by the Sec of State. I pointed out gently that it was fairly likely to have been done that way so that it can be sold off in one go...that'd be a nice reduction to the national debt just before the election.

Just a shame it reduces national assets at the same time.

@yahyah - here's another couple of items re the Green Party of Wales / Plaid Cymru relationship/s. The first blog post is long - but quite interesting as it sets out some background and lead up to the Bartolotti statement. The person writing it challenged her for the leadership last year and didn't get it ... is quite open about that and not rating her strategy for and leadership of the party in Wales. He is also the person that urged Green supporters to vote for Plaid in the Euro elections.

I have read other news stories fairly recently about dissension in the party - so there seems to have been a bit of a storming season going on - inevitable when it's a time of rapid growth and changing political and social environment.

Time for me to move on
http://bridgendgreens.net/2015/02/02/ti ... /#comments

Green’s former leadership candidate leaves Welsh branch of party
http://dailywales.net/2015/02/03/greens ... -of-party/

Sorry AAW that IDS thing was an old story.

I just felt it was very significant at the time, but nobody else really seemed interested

Cherry picked from about the only people they can possibly make that claim,once it gets more complicated ie.the vast majority of people they can't.Indeed,boring repeat we would be worse off in work.They know this.

Paul,I did remember,apologies for not acknowledging.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Where has this recent "UC has morphed into an amazing success" meme come from, exactly?

From Duncan Gaffney:

I think the final line in that Duncan Gaffney bit should be highlighted:

It is importand to note that we cannot estimate the impact of UC on hours worked or hourly wage rates as this information is not contained in the RTI.

So they cannot properly substantiate the claim that "...UC claimants, on average, work 4 more days and earn about £50 gross earnings more that matched new Pathfinder eligible JSA claimants in comparator offices." Surely?

And I'm feeling rather sick after reading d'Ancona's piece of shit about how wonderful and glorious is IDS. Another round of arse-licking from the chairman of yet another Tory unthink-tank

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Sorry AAW that IDS thing was an old story.

I just felt it was very significant at the time, but nobody else really seemed interested

Sorry to say I missed it, at the time, but I still think it's significant now. The contrast between the 'draft' on the 10th of the month and how the same section of the report phrased it by the 17th is dramatic, to say the least!