Saturday 17th & Sunday 18th January 2015

Tizme1 · Post by **Tizme1** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 4:15 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Hang on, that's pretty fearsome austerity there in 2010. Raising percentage of tax taken by 4 points. That's back into recession stuff.

Depends which taxes you raise and who is most likely to have to pay them. I think mostly it would have been on top rate tax, and probably a 'wealth' tax. Oh and chasing major tax evasion rather than claiming to do so and in reality, hassling driving instructors and the like as per the Tories. Also, taxing unearned income at a higher level.

Tizme1 · Post by **Tizme1** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 4:18 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Tizme1 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:I think Labour would find it hard to work with the Greens in national politics. Local government though should be no problem at all, and I gather Labour in Brighton have a rightwing "Progress" leader who has not been cooperative.

Same sort of thing in Tower Hamlets, where the idea that Lutfur Rahman (who used to lead Labour locally) is some lefty Islamist loony has been embraced with relish.
Sadly, Labour in Brighton have frequently voted with the Tories to block the Greens. Here in Watford, I work with the two labour councillors for the ward Farm Terrace allotments are in and we have a good working relationship. Likewise in the ward I'll be standing in, we work with the Labour councillor. Mind you, that's because I invited him to meetings I had set up. I doubt very much he would return the compliment. And I doubt they'd work with us if we were in control of Watford Council.
It depends what the votes are on rather- governing groups put stuff forward, and oppositions oppose. If Lucas had been an MP before 2010, she'd have voted with the Tories on tons and tons, as the SNP doubtless did.

Assuming she keeps her seat, and Labour are in government, we'll find out after May.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 4:47 pm

Fair play to Nick "Dead Man Walking" Clegg, the only one of the party leaders to accept the challenge to persuade Last Leg's Alex Brooker that he should vote in May. And fair play to him for reacting so quickly when Adam Hills upped the ante; could well be cringemaking as Nick tries to show he is still down with the common man, but I shall definitely be watching on Friday.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 85048.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 4:51 pm

For Roger and Tubby.

“TAKE politics out of schools” is the message from the University of Reading’s Vice-Chancellor.

http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/ ... education/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 5:10 pm

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 3h 3 hours ago
We should have at least three Westminster VI polls tonight. @ComResPolls online poll, usual YouGov and a @OpiniumResearch

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 5:15 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 3h 3 hours ago
We should have at least three Westminster VI polls tonight. @ComResPolls online poll, usual YouGov and a @OpiniumResearch

Found this snuck into one of the Graun's sneaky 'Labour at war' pieces:

The latest Opinium/Observer poll today puts Labour five percentage points ahead of the Conservatives, with fewer than four months to go until polling day. Labour is unchanged compared to a fortnight ago on 33%, while the Tories are down four points on 28%, Ukip up three points on 20%, the Lib Dems down one on 7% and the Greens up two on 6%.

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

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 5:20 pm

GENERAL ELECTION PREDICTIONS 74: TYNE & WEAR
http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2015/01/1 ... um=twitter
Seats: 12
Current Political Makeup: Lab 12
Predicted Political Makeup after May 7: Lab 12

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 5:27 pm

Mark Ferguson @Markfergusonuk · 6h 6 hours ago
Ed Miliband loves a Q&A. And it’s why he’d be good at the TV debates, because he’s got an impressive grasp of detail on a range of issues

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 5:35 pm

Latest from cheerleader Caron at Lib Dem Voice.

What do you listen to while leafletting?
http://www.libdemvoice.org/what-do-you- ... 44238.html

I'm saying nothing. (Well, except to ask - is this an important question because they all need to wear headphones?)

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 5:37 pm

Tizme1 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Hang on, that's pretty fearsome austerity there in 2010. Raising percentage of tax taken by 4 points. That's back into recession stuff.
Depends which taxes you raise and who is most likely to have to pay them. I think mostly it would have been on top rate tax, and probably a 'wealth' tax. Oh and chasing major tax evasion rather than claiming to do so and in reality, hassling driving instructors and the like as per the Tories. Also, taxing unearned income at a higher level.

Austerity means cutting demand at a time when its weak- so raising taxes by 11% (or 4 points) is quite austere.

It's obviously attractive compared with making cuts, particularly when taxes are progressive. But it hits demand- perhaps the experience of France shows this, where Hollande had a go at filing the gap with tax rises first. The effect wasn't all that different to cuts, because it's taking money out of the economy.

The top rate the Greens would have inherited would have been 50%. I'd be surprised if that could go all that much higher without hitting revenues.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 5:38 pm

ohsocynical wrote:For Roger and Tubby.

“TAKE politics out of schools” is the message from the University of Reading’s Vice-Chancellor.

http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/ ... education/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's funny that the Coalition think they're doing that.

Though handing schools over to vocal Conservative supporters like Toby Young doesn't exactly fit my idea of that.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 5:57 pm

Here's those Opinium poll figures tweeted:

Progressive Polling ‏@progpoll 30m30 minutes ago
Opinium: Labour 33% (-), Cons 28% (-4), UKIP 20% (+3), Lib Dems 7% (-1) & Greens 6% (+2) < Tories falling back & hand Labour 5% lead

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 6:03 pm

Zoe Williams @zoesqwilliams · 17h 17 hours ago
'ppl who assessed hinchingbrooke were left wing: ergo, it's a left wing stitch up' http://polho.me/1xyhQXM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ” so lame!

Look at that Daily Mail cover (if you can bear it). Thing is ... I don't think even Daily Mail readers are that stupid to believe this.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 6:23 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Zoe Williams @zoesqwilliams · 17h 17 hours ago
'ppl who assessed hinchingbrooke were left wing: ergo, it's a left wing stitch up' http://polho.me/1xyhQXM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ” so lame!
Look at that Daily Mail cover (if you can bear it). Thing is ... I don't think even Daily Mail readers are that stupid to believe this.

Evening.

Yes, it's a left-wing stitch up. That's why Circle are bailing and nothing at all to do with the fact they couldn't even do as good a job as the NHS with more money, let alone make a profit!

Meanwhile another private company thinks it can do more cataract operations a day than the NHS, with disastrous results.

We're being experimented on, basically, to see how our illnesses can be exploited for profit. This haphazard, poorly managed privatisation is the Tory party in a nutshell. Not only do they do the wrong things for the wrong reasons, they can't even do them competently. On the plus side, the failure of Hinchingbrooke, as with the failure of free schools in Sweden, means the downsides of leaving essential public services in the hands of the for-profit sector are clear for all to see.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 6:26 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Zoe Williams @zoesqwilliams · 17h 17 hours ago
'ppl who assessed hinchingbrooke were left wing: ergo, it's a left wing stitch up' http://polho.me/1xyhQXM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ” so lame!
Look at that Daily Mail cover (if you can bear it). Thing is ... I don't think even Daily Mail readers are that stupid to believe this.

The usual Mail bunch of ifs and maybes and "Ooh, look at this!" which ends like this:

When the Mail asked the CCG why these affiliations were not disclosed, it claimed: ‘The personal political views of individual members of the CCG governing body will continue to be wholly irrelevant, and have had no impact on the way that the CCG have managed the Hinchingbrooke contract.’

We must, again, take them at their word. But many observers are greatly concerned.

‘Right from the start, the unions have consistently made life as difficult as possible for Circle and for Hinchingbrooke,’ comments Jonathan Djanogly, the hospital’s local MP.

‘To what extent there has been collusion between the unions, Labour, the CCG and the inspectors in what has happened, I don’t know. But this does raise issues of concern that I will be writing to the Secretary of State about.’

What might he uncover? It’s impossible to say. But the more one looks at events that have so tarnished Britain’s first privately-run NHS hospital, and so damaged future efforts to reform the healthcare system, the murkier it becomes.

Oh, I thought you'd found out that it was all a Labour plot but now you're saying you don't know!

Funny how they didn't mention that the CQC chairman is an ex-Tory MP - can you really imagine a report with such a high profile going out without every detail being scrutinized to the n-th degree?

Utter trash.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 6:29 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Here's those Opinium poll figures tweeted:
Progressive Polling ‏@progpoll 30m30 minutes ago
Opinium: Labour 33% (-), Cons 28% (-4), UKIP 20% (+3), Lib Dems 7% (-1) & Greens 6% (+2) < Tories falling back & hand Labour 5% lead

So much for Ukip "deflating". 20% must be near the highest they've ever polled, surely?!

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 6:42 pm

Oh, and that "two members of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group" are both Labour supporters.

http://www.cambridgeshireandpeterboroug ... os-who.htm

One, according to their website is

Non-voting members
Jessica Bawden Director of Corporate Affairs

Oh right. So how exactly would she have anything to do with any changes in funding?

Ironic really that this is happening under Lansley's wonderful new system. Maybe they ought to blame him for this?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 8:13 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Hang on, that's pretty fearsome austerity there in 2010. Raising percentage of tax taken by 4 points. That's back into recession stuff.
It strikes me that part of the problem with looking at the overall proportion of tax take is that it has fallen because of the recession and its effects, so we lost a huge chunk from financial services with a knock on effect to other industries and even now income tax take overall is depressed, despite the government and MSM trying to make out we have some kind of employment miracle going on. You can't just lose a big whack of tax from a financial crisis and try and take it all back from what's left. It would be like having two creditors, one going bankrupt so you try to recoup your losses from the other.

Again, the Greens' other policies include rebalancing the economy away from financial services, imcluding boosting manufacturing. Which is great but means you have to make the country more attractive to manufacturers, and you won't do that by taxing business a lot more, so I would like to see some detail in how they propose to square that circle. Where is that extra 4% going to come from?

It saddens me to say it, and I do wish the Greens well, but I'm less impressed with them as a serious alternative than I was in 2010.

I think that with more scrutiny over a longer period, they'd become much less distinct. As I say, the zero growth stuff has a very obvious knock on. So that would become "zero growth" but not for the foreseeable future.

The decent Keynsian argument for not cutting (which would get stronger with fears of deflation) wouldn't work if people thought they couldn't keep it up and there's going to be tax rises coming next year.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 8:31 pm

Martin Rowson ‏@MartinRowson Jan 12
More seriously, now @commentisfree btl is largely an echo chamber for anonymous cretins badmouthing Graun for free, what's its point?

Clapton Blues ‏@garyfoskett 13h13 hours ago
@MartinRowson @commentisfree The Kings Place meeting last week was civil & constructive because it was offered to Guardian members &partners

Martin Rowson
‏@MartinRowson
@garyfoskett @commentisfree I'm told new membership disallows anonymity. A is good for fighting tyranny, bad when used by bullies & vandals

Clapton Blues ‏@garyfoskett 12h12 hours ago
@MartinRowson @commentisfree Is it poss to set up a comments section that's only accessible to Guardian Members? We need constructive debate

So Guardian Members - who are presumably self selecting - are guaranteed to be a cut above, are they? Not to mention the exclusivity of that being pretty off putting.

I've got a nasty feeling about what's coming on Monday ... fully Beta-ized G. The Beta comments are no fun for me at all, the format is horrible and I can't even recommend anything when it's good.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 8:35 pm

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 1h 1 hour ago
Almost no change in tonight ComRes online poll for IoS/S Mirror
Con 33% (NC)
Lab 34% (NC)
LD 7% (-1)
UKIP 18% (NC)
GRN 3% (+1)

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 8:36 pm

Many people have good reasons for retaining anonymity - the idea that it should be banned because of trolls is typically depressing.

If the Graun follows up full Beta with that, then I for one will finally cease to post there.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 8:40 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Many people have good reasons for retaining anonymity - the idea that it should be banned because of trolls is typically depressing.

If the Graun follows up full Beta with that, then I for one will finally cease to post there.

I would stop posting, there isn't any other option but anonymity for most people.

To be honest the beta format means there is no point in posting anyway. Nobody will read the comments.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 8:42 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote: Look at that Daily Mail cover (if you can bear it). Thing is ... I don't think even Daily Mail readers are that stupid to believe this.
The usual Mail bunch of ifs and maybes and "Ooh, look at this!" which ends like this:

When the Mail asked the CCG why these affiliations were not disclosed, it claimed: ‘The personal political views of individual members of the CCG governing body will continue to be wholly irrelevant, and have had no impact on the way that the CCG have managed the Hinchingbrooke contract.’

We must, again, take them at their word. But many observers are greatly concerned.

‘Right from the start, the unions have consistently made life as difficult as possible for Circle and for Hinchingbrooke,’ comments Jonathan Djanogly, the hospital’s local MP.

‘To what extent there has been collusion between the unions, Labour, the CCG and the inspectors in what has happened, I don’t know. But this does raise issues of concern that I will be writing to the Secretary of State about.’

What might he uncover? It’s impossible to say. But the more one looks at events that have so tarnished Britain’s first privately-run NHS hospital, and so damaged future efforts to reform the healthcare system, the murkier it becomes.

Oh, I thought you'd found out that it was all a Labour plot but now you're saying you don't know!

Funny how they didn't mention that the CQC chairman is an ex-Tory MP - can you really imagine a report with such a high profile going out without every detail being scrutinized to the n-th degree?

Utter trash.
Djanogly is ridiculous, as is the Mail's position on this. It's the usual rightwing thing. They can't stand the NHS because if it works it proves that their entire world view is misguided, and they can't accept that the private sector can't do it better. It has to be a lefty plot. Either that or the old Friedman defence if the free market isn't working - it must not be free enough yet.

And equally absurd, despite the report disclosing exactly the kind of issues that were such a scandal at Stafford, Saint Julie says absolutely nothing. Nothing at all.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 8:46 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Many people have good reasons for retaining anonymity - the idea that it should be banned because of trolls is typically depressing.

If the Graun follows up full Beta with that, then I for one will finally cease to post there.

I wouldn't post on education if I had to use my real name -not good form for a serving chair of governors to be overtly political IMHO. I don't take politics into school...well not much we (me and the HT) used to grumble about the latest Gove absurdity but not in governing body meetings.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 8:51 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Many people have good reasons for retaining anonymity - the idea that it should be banned because of trolls is typically depressing.

If the Graun follows up full Beta with that, then I for one will finally cease to post there.
I wouldn't post on education if I had to use my real name -not good form for a serving chair of governors to be overtly political IMHO. I don't take politics into school...well not much we (me and the HT) used to grumble about the latest Gove absurdity but not in governing body meetings.

I don't post there anymore anyway. But if I did removal of anonymity would end it for me too ... some of the issues I like to talk about and am engaged in mean I need to be careful about who gets to know who I am. I'm already pretty careful with what I say ... even when I have a username.

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 8:59 pm

Apologies if you've read this before, but I've only just absorbed it. It's from quite a lengthy article by Richard Blogger in Open Democracy.

The Tories and Liberal democrats want NHS hospitals to leave the NHS whether you believe Lambs description as mutualism being “an alternative to privatisation” or Maude’s “mutualism is a form of privatisation”. However, we have heard nothing from the Labour party. Is the Labour party, the founders of the nationalised NHS, in favour of hospitals leaving the NHS? In a speech for the Labour National Policy Forum in 2010 Ed Miliband said:

“What are the solutions for the future that I am interested in? I am interested in mutual solutions to some of the issues we face in our public services. To community ownership of our public services. To public services where people don’t feel, both users and those working in them, like cogs in the machine which to [sic] often they do. And also we have to be the people who stand up for local democracy and local control over public services as well.”

This sounds remarkably like the statements made by Lamb. A lot has happened since then and it may be that Ed has now realised that public ownership is important to public service delivery. If that is the case then it would be good for him to say this, and pledge to reverse any mutualising of NHS hospitals that has happened under the current government.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/ri ... th-ministe

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 9:05 pm

giselle97 wrote:Apologies if you've read this before, but I've only just absorbed it. It's from quite a lengthy article by Richard Blogger in Open Democracy.

The Tories and Liberal democrats want NHS hospitals to leave the NHS whether you believe Lambs description as mutualism being “an alternative to privatisation” or Maude’s “mutualism is a form of privatisation”. However, we have heard nothing from the Labour party. Is the Labour party, the founders of the nationalised NHS, in favour of hospitals leaving the NHS? In a speech for the Labour National Policy Forum in 2010 Ed Miliband said:

“What are the solutions for the future that I am interested in? I am interested in mutual solutions to some of the issues we face in our public services. To community ownership of our public services. To public services where people don’t feel, both users and those working in them, like cogs in the machine which to [sic] often they do. And also we have to be the people who stand up for local democracy and local control over public services as well.”

This sounds remarkably like the statements made by Lamb. A lot has happened since then and it may be that Ed has now realised that public ownership is important to public service delivery. If that is the case then it would be good for him to say this, and pledge to reverse any mutualising of NHS hospitals that has happened under the current government.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/ri ... th-ministe

I believe he is guilty of a fundamental misunderstanding of what Miliband was saying and what he was saying it about.

So given that sort of basic error I can happily ignore the rest of his stuff.

You need an National Health Service - because healthcare is all about economies of scale.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 9:38 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
giselle97 wrote:Apologies if you've read this before, but I've only just absorbed it. It's from quite a lengthy article by Richard Blogger in Open Democracy.

The Tories and Liberal democrats want NHS hospitals to leave the NHS whether you believe Lambs description as mutualism being “an alternative to privatisation” or Maude’s “mutualism is a form of privatisation”. However, we have heard nothing from the Labour party. Is the Labour party, the founders of the nationalised NHS, in favour of hospitals leaving the NHS? In a speech for the Labour National Policy Forum in 2010 Ed Miliband said:

“What are the solutions for the future that I am interested in? I am interested in mutual solutions to some of the issues we face in our public services. To community ownership of our public services. To public services where people don’t feel, both users and those working in them, like cogs in the machine which to [sic] often they do. And also we have to be the people who stand up for local democracy and local control over public services as well.”

This sounds remarkably like the statements made by Lamb. A lot has happened since then and it may be that Ed has now realised that public ownership is important to public service delivery. If that is the case then it would be good for him to say this, and pledge to reverse any mutualising of NHS hospitals that has happened under the current government.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/ri ... th-ministe
I believe he is guilty of a fundamental misunderstanding of what Miliband was saying and what he was saying it about.

So given that sort of basic error I can happily ignore the rest of his stuff.

You need an National Health Service - because healthcare is all about economies of scale.

Richard Blogger is strongly pro-Labour.

That looks like a load of waffle from Miliband really. But I'm also wary that governments like to have particular types of schools and hospitals that they can point to as theirs. So I am a worried.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 10:07 pm

Mail going for the jugular.

Two Eds hid truth about global crash

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

Getting worried that Cameron isn't going to win are we?

Edit - not quite sure what they were supposed to do with this information -shout "Panic!!!!" and have umpteen runs on banks?

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 10:17 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Mail going for the jugular.

Two Eds hid truth about global crash

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

Getting worried that Cameron isn't going to win are we?

Edit - not quite sure what they were supposed to do with this information -shout "Panic!!!!" and have umpteen runs on banks?

McBride just put that pile of steaming shit to bed, pointed out that not once during the contorted 2007 'will we, wont we election debate'' did the impending economic melt-down come up, but hey, when did facts matter to the Wail?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 10:19 pm

These 'revelations' are based on a book by someone Ed presumably trusted - ex-Mayor of Doncaster Martin Winter...who was kicked out by Labour in May 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Winter_(mayor" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

I loathe nasty little pricks like this who've clearly taken the Mail's shilling and waited until they think it causes maximum damage.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 10:26 pm

Panelbase have Labour on 31% to the SNP 41% in Escosse.

No idea how reliable Panelbase are though.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 10:34 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote:Panelbase have Labour on 31% to the SNP 41% in Escosse.

No idea how reliable Panelbase are though.

They tend to be quite good for the Nats, so a 10% deficit is not terrible - if other polls back it up it could be "game on"........

Post by **refitman** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 10:36 pm

Hmm, just done one of the Graun pop-up surveys and look at what was missing from the 'What section did you visit?'

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 10:49 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
letsskiptotheleft wrote:Panelbase have Labour on 31% to the SNP 41% in Escosse.

No idea how reliable Panelbase are though.
They tend to be quite good for the Nats, so a 10% deficit is not terrible - if other polls back it up it could be "game on"........

There are a plenty of problems with schools and council services in Scotland. Westminster cuts must only wash for so long, surely?

You'd think that "nice policies" like free prescriptions and tuition fees came at a cost in other areas or something....

If you're not familiar with SNP history on local government, in 2007 they got elected on a promise of a local income tax. It added 3p (I think) to income tax and abolished council tax. Unfortunately, per the IFS, it left a nice £450m hole in council budgets. This was explained away with "efficiency savings", in true hard right style. Scotland being under 1/10 population of England, you could compare that to £4.5bn coming out of English budgets. Labour, old, Blairite, party of the rich, Labour argued against it in favour of tax and spend. Best that Sturgeon could do was "whaddabout Trident?" (which cost Scotland way under that) but this schtick got taken seriously, as it still seems to be.

Local government, the police- bring that under Holyrood, anything to make it more important.

Chancers.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 10:56 pm

Alastair Campbell ‏@campbellclaret 1h1 hour ago
Mail on Scumday. Desperate desperate stuff.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 11:17 pm

Theresa May is off again. Take that multiculturalist lefties!

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... eking-help" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Plans by the home secretary, Theresa May, to force health professionals to report cases of female genital mutilation (FGM) to the police

I bet you've spotted the problem already.

risks a series of unintended consequences, including deterring families and abused children from visiting their doctor

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 11:26 pm

Funny this bloke who taught this "bumbling oddball" Ed Miliband everything he knew.

Why did Ed get elected leader of the Opposition, and he fail as Mayor of Doncaster?

Funny how "bumbling oddball" is good for Johnson and bad for Miliband, isn't it?

It's school bully stuff. React to it and you prove it's true, or something.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 11:32 pm

Lord Ashcroft ‏@LordAshcroft 35m35 minutes ago
Average of the 3 polls out tonight LAB 33.0% CON 30.7% UKIP 18.7% LDEM 7.0% GRNS 5.3%

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 11:46 pm

Coalition governments: Which one would you prefer?
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/

Has taken the time to think through all the coalition permutations - and comment on the challenges and issues for each.

Was worth reading IMO for this spot on summing up of the current coalition.

Tory/Lib-Dem
Who on earth would want to see a repeat of this freakshow? The last four and a half years have witnessed an unprecedented combination of outrageous incompetence, illiberal attacks on our rights and freedoms and outright malice. However, just because nobody in their right minds would want it to happen again, that's no guarantee that it won't.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 11:47 pm

Oh, may be the line is "Ed Miliband was more useless than this bloke and he's a right nobody!"

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 11:54 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote:Panelbase have Labour on 31% to the SNP 41% in Escosse.

No idea how reliable Panelbase are though.

It's irrelevant. The SNP are going to win whatever share of the vote they need to beat Labour everywhere. That's every single seat to the SNP.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 11:55 pm

Bid to appoint Andrew Lansley as UN relief head angers aid organisations
Eighty groups sign letter to Ban Ki-moon insisting it is ‘critical to secure the service of a highly qualified humanitarian leader’
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... an-ki-moonEfforts by David Cameron to parachute his former health secretary, Andrew Lansley, into a plum United Nations role have met with furious opposition from numerous of the world’s leading international disaster-relief organisations.

More than 80 of the world’s most important NGOs, including Oxfam, Save the Children and Christian Aid, have signed a letter to the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, that implicitly criticises the appointment of a politician without long-standing experience of humanitarian crises to the role of emergency relief coordinator, a position currently held by the UK’s Baroness Amos...

Lansley certainly fails on that criteria ... can you imagine what chaos and carnage he could preside over in that role if he went off on one of his obsessively hatched reforming programmes.

Cameron's judgement to the fore yet again. Stinks. Very glad these 80 groups are prepared to speak out.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 17 Jan, 2015 11:57 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
letsskiptotheleft wrote:Panelbase have Labour on 31% to the SNP 41% in Escosse.

No idea how reliable Panelbase are though.

It's irrelevant. The SNP are going to win whatever share of the vote they need to beat Labour everywhere. That's every single seat to the SNP.

Is that every single seat in Scotland - or everywhere in the UK Tubby?

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sun 18 Jan, 2015 12:14 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
letsskiptotheleft wrote:Panelbase have Labour on 31% to the SNP 41% in Escosse.

No idea how reliable Panelbase are though.

It's irrelevant. The SNP are going to win whatever share of the vote they need to beat Labour everywhere. That's every single seat to the SNP.

You are OpenSeas and I claim my £50

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sun 18 Jan, 2015 12:19 am

Bingo!

Angus Robertson, the SNP’s Westminster leader and defence spokesman, said: “When Labour MPs have voted with the Tories for another £30bn of austerity cuts, it is frankly scandalous that a further quarter of a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money is to be spent on Trident before parliamentarians even get a vote on whether or not to replace the system.

Liar.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... submarines" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 18 Jan, 2015 8:54 am

2015 general election: enough of the fatalism. It’s a great time to push for change in politics
Politicians are fearful, the electorate is confused, but let’s harness the ideas and passion alive in the country
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... for-change
... I would argue the opposite, that now is the best time in a generation to go out and vote. With such a fragmented system on offer, nothing is inevitable. Uncertainty may create instability, but it can also generate churn and change in a way that doing nothing never can...
Now, each one of us has the opportunity to look at our constituency result in the last election and see what would best make a difference this time round. Alternative answers such as Green, nationalist, pro-NHS, even the Pub Landlord, no longer look like stupid also-rans. This time round, the day after the election, party leaders are going to look at the numbers – how many voted and how many didn’t vote for them. If both those figures breach certain tipping points then, irrespective of the number of seats won, and regardless of the make-up of the new House of Commons, the political agenda will have changed utterly.

It may cause confusion, anger and upset. It could all end badly, but it’s there as an opportunity if we want to have any sort of impact on the national political agenda. It will only happen if we come out in numbers;

There's some sense in this argument re the large turnout - and also looking carefully at the options seat by seat. And then I read BTL that he urged people to vote for the Lib Dems last time round ... is that true? Another credibility blow - especially as he refers to himself in this piece as a left winger.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sun 18 Jan, 2015 9:02 am

Oh dear what a shock.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... mentpage=1

Where are Anonymous when you need them? It would be wonderful to know what Cameron is hiding. My guess dodgy investment vehicles and the fact he earns multiples of his salary from other sources that he only pays a minimum tax rate on.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sun 18 Jan, 2015 9:05 am

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Oh dear what a shock.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... mentpage=1

Where are Anonymous when you need them? It would be wonderful to know what Cameron is hiding. My guess dodgy investment vehicles and the fact he earns multiples of his salary from other sources that he only pays a minimum tax rate on.

Notice NickyB pretty earlier on the scene to do a "nothing to see here" and giveusaclue to do her usual "I'm trying to show that I'm not biased in any way...but I'm an obvious Tory"

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 18 Jan, 2015 9:14 am

Wrongly convicted men launch new case against the Justice Secretary
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 85773.html