FlyTheNest

Most of the "hopeless" Tory proposals were culture war stuff, trying to import US political practices into the UK.

And as the results show it did, unfortuately, perform decently with certain groups - but went down like the proverbial cold sick with others.

(of course, the secret of successful "dog whistles" is that - as the name actually suggests - only the people meant to hear them actually do; that wasn't the case in June for sure)

Is there any more news about the Universal Credit debate on, I think, Wednesday?

Are the Tories going to do their no show act again?

Well, some Tory MPs are rumoured to be ready to vote with Labour on this. I will believe it when I actually see it, obviously.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Most of the "hopeless" Tory proposals were culture war stuff, trying to import US political practices into the UK.

And as the results show it did, unfortuately, perform decently with certain groups - but went down like the proverbial cold sick with others.

(of course, the secret of successful "dog whistles" is that - as the name actually suggests - only the people meant to hear them actually do; that wasn't the case in June for sure)

I had the pleasure of spending the last few days in Canada. Work.

It's certain only not some Shangri-La is it? But just to be in a place with basically sound, decent government was a breath of fresh air. I think you can feel the difference on the streets.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well, some Tory MPs are rumoured to be ready to vote with Labour on this. I will believe it when I actually see it, obviously.

Indeed!

I wonder if we may see some tokenistic concessions before Wednesday.

After PMQ's.

HindleA wrote:After PMQ's.

Interesting.

So they will have to really, obviously, uncaringly piss off

When I was a schoolboy in Britain studying history, one of my classmates asked our teacher to nominate the most incompetent British politician of modern times. Without a moment’s hesitation, he named Lord George Germain, who was from November 1775 until February 1782 the secretary of state for the colonies in the government of Lord North, and so the high official most responsible for the conduct of the War of Independence on the British side. Germain’s hazy knowledge of North American geography, combined with his attempts to micromanage the prosecution of the war from London, contributed heavily to the defeat at Yorktown in 1781, and so to the loss of the war and of the thirteen colonies. But Lord George’s claim to this dubious title is now under serious threat, from not one but four contemporary British politicians.

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/10/13 ... k-control/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 01266.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Austria election - live updates: Exit polls show Conservatives led by Sebastian Kurz 'in first place' with far right second


"Kurz's People's Party (OVP) is in the lead on 30.2 percent, with its current coalition partner, the Social Democrats, on 26.3 percent, neck and neck with the the far-right Freedom Party on 26.8 percent, a projection by pollster SORA said shortly after polls closed, based on an early count of 42 percent of non-postal ballots."


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

http://www.scotsman.com/regions/inverne ... -1-4587306" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... -elections" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Venezuelans go to polls in vote seen as gauge of Maduro's grip on power
Polls suggest opposition could win more than half of 23 gubernatorial elections amid claims government is trying to subvert vote

Looking very close for 2nd in Austria now.

Meanwhile, the SPD appear to have some overdue good news in Lower Saxony.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... able-homes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well, some Tory MPs are rumoured to be ready to vote with Labour on this. I will believe it when I actually see it, obviously.

Indeed!

I wonder if we may see some tokenistic concessions before Wednesday.

None of this matters.

Indeed I've rarely been as angry as at Starmer saying he'd vote down a "no deal".

He knows as well as me that once art 50 was triggered we're out. Either we get a Brexit deal or we leave with no deal.

There are no more loathsome politicians than those who voted for art 50, and now pretend they're not responsible for the consequences.

Random word generator,gives up.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... e-will-run" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


New HS2 fears as large crack opens up on land where train line will run
Residents claim high-speed rail company has not taken West Yorkshire area’s coal mining legacy into account

SpinningHugo wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well, some Tory MPs are rumoured to be ready to vote with Labour on this. I will believe it when I actually see it, obviously.

Indeed!

I wonder if we may see some tokenistic concessions before Wednesday.

None of this matters.

Indeed I've rarely been as angry as at Starmer saying he'd vote down a "no deal".

He knows as well as me that once art 50 was triggered we're out. Either we get a Brexit deal or we leave with no deal.

There are no more loathsome politicians than those who voted for art 50, and now pretend they're not responsible for the consequences.

'no more loathsome politicians' - I think a certain Austro-German politician of a previous generation may be a bit disappointed that he has been removed from the running (although he was an ardent European unionist) and a budding fascist over the water may be forced to up his game a bit in the coming years

You really are a bit lacking aren't you (apart from pathetic hyperbole)?

Good-evening, everyone
I've left a couple messages
love,
cJA

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... -committee" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Report on Australia's human rights record to be scrutinised by UN committee
Evidence from NGOs across Australia including on refugees and youth incarceration, will say ‘Australia has clearly gone backwards’ in some areas

SpinningHugo wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well, some Tory MPs are rumoured to be ready to vote with Labour on this. I will believe it when I actually see it, obviously.

Indeed!

I wonder if we may see some tokenistic concessions before Wednesday.

None of this matters.

Indeed I've rarely been as angry as at Starmer saying he'd vote down a "no deal".

He knows as well as me that once art 50 was triggered we're out. Either we get a Brexit deal or we leave with no deal.

There are no more loathsome politicians than those who voted for art 50, and now pretend they're not responsible for the consequences.

Of course it sodding matters because if May's shambolic government falls because of concerns over basic human decency (ref Universal Credit) we will be a better place.

And that could happen and I so hope it does.

Here's the petition btw

https://speakout.38degrees.org.uk/campa ... edit-pause" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please pause the rollout of Universal Credit, until the flaws in the system are fixed.

Free call to lie about your neighbour who doesn't look.ill enough for your liking etc,with impunity or regard to consequences,contrast being made.

SpinningHugo wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well, some Tory MPs are rumoured to be ready to vote with Labour on this. I will believe it when I actually see it, obviously.

Indeed!

I wonder if we may see some tokenistic concessions before Wednesday.

None of this matters.

Indeed I've rarely been as angry as at Starmer saying he'd vote down a "no deal".

He knows as well as me that once art 50 was triggered we're out. Either we get a Brexit deal or we leave with no deal.

There are no more loathsome politicians than those who voted for art 50, and now pretend they're not responsible for the consequences.

My emphasis.

The arrogance here is quite extraordinary. Unless you'd care to share your CV with us Hugo?

It matters even more,you would have thought.

(Close enough)


[youtube]_cS5aCozhcA[/youtube]

https://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/investment ... easing-uk-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;–-here’s-why-we-should-be-worried


Investment in adult skills is decreasing in the UK – here’s why we should be worried

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Here's the petition btw

https://speakout.38degrees.org.uk/campa ... edit-pause" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please pause the rollout of Universal Credit, until the flaws in the system are fixed.

The things that need fixing aren't flaws, they are the system.

This by the Cambridge Prof of Public Law is good on the "misapprehension" of Keir Starmer.

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

gilsey wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Here's the petition btw

https://speakout.38degrees.org.uk/campa ... edit-pause" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please pause the rollout of Universal Credit, until the flaws in the system are fixed.

The things that need fixing aren't flaws, they are the system.

I agree.

The flaws are unfixable.

But this is politics. People can see clearly there are flaws. They may not all be able to understand the fundamental problems with the system, not least because nobody (@BBCLauraK ?) explains it to them.

SpinningHugo wrote:This by the Cambridge Prof of Public Law is good on the "misapprehension" of Keir Starmer.

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

As I've said before, the legal arguments are not irrelevant, but they are not the most important thing.

If, politically, there is the will in the UK and the EU to overturn Article 50, it will be overturned.

I have listed here before examples of the EU simply ignoring treaties and the like. You know them all Hugo.

None of this matters:-

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:This by the Cambridge Prof of Public Law is good on the "misapprehension" of Keir Starmer.

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

As I've said before, the legal arguments are not irrelevant, but they are not the most important thing.

If, politically, there is the will in the UK and the EU to overturn Article 50, it will be overturned.

I have listed here before examples of the EU simply ignoring treaties and the like. You know them all Hugo.

I must have missed this interesting piece of analysis.

What are your instances of the EU breaking treaties?

Laura Kuenssberg‏Verified account @bbclaurak 41m41 minutes ago
More
PM heading to Brussels tmrw with Davis to see Barnier + Juncker, No 10 sources say part of long planned build up to Thurs's crunch meeting

SpinningHugo wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:This by the Cambridge Prof of Public Law is good on the "misapprehension" of Keir Starmer.

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

As I've said before, the legal arguments are not irrelevant, but they are not the most important thing.

If, politically, there is the will in the UK and the EU to overturn Article 50, it will be overturned.

I have listed here before examples of the EU simply ignoring treaties and the like. You know them all Hugo.

I must have missed this interesting piece of analysis.

What are your instances of the EU breaking treaties?

Google it.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

I must have missed this interesting piece of analysis.

What are your instances of the EU breaking treaties?

Google it.

Thanks.

That tells me what I need to know about the value of this analysis.

It seems to me that the growing complexity of the benefit system under Labour was a natural consequence of deliberately targeted help. Aims of reducing pensioner and child poverty produced more layers and complexities within the benefit system (whether means tested child tax credits or non means tested winter fuel payments) designed as the best way to achieve specific outcomes. Which they did achieve. Child poverty went down as did pensioner fuel poverty. Subsequent governments have attacked this complexity as a flaw and this narrative has been broadly accepted, despite the fact that when measured by outcomes this complexity appears to have been a relative success compared to the supposedly more simplistic universal credit which in terms of outcomes has achieved more poverty not less. Of course this assumes the Tory aim is to reduce poverty, which it clearly is not, but at a very basic level it's disappointing that few people are challenging the idea that making the benefit system "simpler" is automatically to make it better. Complexity can be a positive consequence of an effective and flexible system.

@Hindle - shrunk your image a bit

SpinningHugo wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote: Google it.

Thanks.

That tells me what I need to know about the value of this analysis.

Totaly agree,further evidentially introduced,also according to changing societal and preferred(thankfully),methods of accounting for sickness/disability in own home.Contrary to the current Tory Minister for Care nonsense about the halycon times of caring for each other somehow lost,we do it ever more and for longer.The halycon times were encouragement to chuck in a home/institution or lives of desperate segregation and isolation.Noticeable to me and perhaps I may exaggerate the fascistic intention line but on design of UC,simplification was removal/cuts/transfer to interest bearing loan with charges either soley or overwhelmingly applicable to the sick/disabled in particular circumstances.

Thanks refitman.

Being too big,is a new experience for me.


Titter ye not.

SpinningHugo wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:This by the Cambridge Prof of Public Law is good on the "misapprehension" of Keir Starmer.

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

As I've said before, the legal arguments are not irrelevant, but they are not the most important thing.

If, politically, there is the will in the UK and the EU to overturn Article 50, it will be overturned.

I have listed here before examples of the EU simply ignoring treaties and the like. You know them all Hugo.

I must have missed this interesting piece of analysis.

What are your instances of the EU breaking treaties?

The imagined shame rains down upon the harsh dirt.

Can't disagree with that,to be fair.

SpinningHugo wrote:

Thanks.

That tells me what I need to know about the value of this analysis.

Would it be, by any chance, that the audio moans without a presence?

RWG making a comeback.

Fighting fire with fire.

[youtube]Lrle0x_DHBM[/youtube]

There I was last night,dressed up in my white suit ready to do my best John Travolta impersonation and the bloody DJ didn't turn up.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:This by the Cambridge Prof of Public Law is good on the "misapprehension" of Keir Starmer.

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

As I've said before, the legal arguments are not irrelevant, but they are not the most important thing.

If, politically, there is the will in the UK and the EU to overturn Article 50, it will be overturned.

I have listed here before examples of the EU simply ignoring treaties and the like. You know them all Hugo.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/get ... nguage=ENB" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Barnier apparently insisted on the following

L. whereas a revocation of notification needs to be subject to conditions set by all EU-27, so that it cannot be used as a procedural device or abused in an attempt to improve on the current terms of the United Kingdom’s membership

Which isn't binding, but infers that revocation would be possible unilaterally otherwise, so - although it may need to proven legally - it suggests that it can be revoked.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... 0-brussels" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wrote to Jacob Rees-Mogg about the £30 per week cut to ESA. I made the point that ESA or sickness benefits have always been more than jobseekers or normal unemployment benefits because people who are unable to work because they are sick can sometimes be unemployed for a longer time than regular jobseekers so need to be able to cover occasional costs such as new shoes and also may have other extra costs such as a need for more heating because they are unwell. I asked how the cut to ESA could be justified as these are people who have been deemed unfit for work and the moment they are deemed fit for work again would automatically be moved onto JSA anyway.

This is the reply I got. Apparently ESA has to be the same as JSA because sometimes people who should be on JSA are on ESA by mistake. Which kind of begs the question - and what of the vast majority of people who should be on ESA? The PIP thing is particularly contradictory as Mogg starts by stating ESA is for short term sickness and of course PIP is only for people who will be ill for at least 9 months.