Re: Saturday, July 18th - Sunday, July 19th 2015
Posted: Sat 18 Jul, 2015 9:01 pm
Cameronite = "lightweight", surely?!
Night PFPorFavor wrote:Goodnight, everyone.
Look over there while the government do loads of U-turns.AngryAsWell wrote:Neil Henderson @hendopolis · 10m10 minutes ago
MAIL ON SUNDAY: Boris and Cameron: now it's open war #tomorrowspaperstoday #BBCPapers
https://twitter.com/hendopolis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Never mind parliament ... that's so passeNeil Henderson @hendopolis 40m40 minutes ago
SUNDAY TIMES POLITICAL LEAD: PM - we'll bomb ISIS in Syria #tomorrowspaperstoday
Goodnight, PorFavorPorFavor wrote:Goodnight, everyone.
Right-to-buy battle looms in Lords
Cross-party group backs amendment which could halt Tory plans to extend sales to housing association tenants
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... ssociation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I thought it originated in the Treasury FFS - with George Osborne as a blatant pre election vote buyer. These issues were all glaringly obvious - along with the scum ethics of it. There's no way I want it to actually happen ... but another U turn, on something as totemic as they made this, surely not? They'll be hoping for this to fail then ... that would suit them fine - to blame it on Lib Dem and Labour Lords.Senior figures in Whitehall have told the Observer that the Treasury is increasingly concerned about forcing housing associations to sell their properties, fearing it could add up to £60bn to government debt and mean the Treasury has to step in to fund subsidies to buyers.
The policy has already been criticised by many in the housing industry, as well as by business organisations, who say it was drawn up in haste when the Tories feared losing the election, while the London mayor, Boris Johnson, has voiced concerns about its potential negative effects on housing stock in London.
It's a sad damn day we gotta rely upon the Lords to mitigate danger.rebeccariots2 wrote:Right-to-buy battle looms in Lords
Cross-party group backs amendment which could halt Tory plans to extend sales to housing association tenants
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... ssociation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;I thought it originated in the Treasury FFS - with George Osborne as a blatant pre election vote buyer. These issues were all glaringly obvious - along with the scum ethics of it. There's no way I want it to actually happen ... but another U turn, on something as totemic as they made this, surely not? They'll be hoping for this to fail then ... that would suit them fine - to blame it on Lib Dem and Labour Lords.Senior figures in Whitehall have told the Observer that the Treasury is increasingly concerned about forcing housing associations to sell their properties, fearing it could add up to £60bn to government debt and mean the Treasury has to step in to fund subsidies to buyers.
The policy has already been criticised by many in the housing industry, as well as by business organisations, who say it was drawn up in haste when the Tories feared losing the election, while the London mayor, Boris Johnson, has voiced concerns about its potential negative effects on housing stock in London.
It's because pedestrians are frightened out of going outside without being wrapped in a motor vehicle.- Pedestrians and pedal cyclists have the same fatality rate.
- However the killed or seriously injured (KSI) rate for pedestrians is less than half of that for pedal cyclists.
- The risk for pedestrian killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties is 13 times higher than for car occupants and
over four times lower than for a motorcycle riders.
- The National Travel Survey (NTS) estimates that in 2013 walking trips accounted for 22
per cent of all trips and 3 per cent of the total distance travelled.
- The average number of walking trips has fallen significantly over time. The NTS shows
a 30 per cent decrease from 292 trips per person per year in 1995/97 to 203 trips in 2013.
Oh, god damn.Measured per mile travelled, walking is a safe activity with injuries and fatalities rare events.
Nevertheless, it has a higher risk than driving, probably as a result of a lack of pedestrian-based technologies or protection to mitigate against injuries once an accident has happened.
Help me out here, people, what technological scope is the Department of Transport referring to here?Nevertheless improvements to vehicle design such as pedestrian impact crumple zones and bonnet airbags have helped to reduce pedestrian injuries. There is scope for further such technologies in the future as well.
Oh the sick irony. Where was the BBC all the whilst so many people were screaming about the damage to the NHS from Lansley's Health Service 'reforms'?Emily Thornberry retweeted
The Guardian @guardian 46m46 minutes ago
Jonathan Dimbleby urges public to rise up in support of embattled BBC http://trib.al/bIbQs4s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
They were meant to fail the efficiency target.HindleA wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... bn-savings
NHS ‘will fall well short of £22bn savings target’
Health service leaders warn they will need almost double the £8bn boost promised by ministers because delivering target is ‘pie in the sky’
Gosh, look:HindleA wrote:https://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2015/0 ... onditions/
DWP Hires Miracle Lifestyle Guru Who Claims 95% Success Rate In Curing Mental Health Conditions
https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/ ... ling-againCompany Registration No.:09523989
Incorporation Date: 2 Apr 2015 (3 Months old)
Financial Year End: 30 Apr
Capital: £1.00 on 2 Apr 2015
Increase in non-FSM pupils at uni too, but not bad at all.Pupils on free school meals are catching up to their more advantaged peers when it comes to taking a university place after they finish school.
New official statistics released by the Department for Business, Skills and Innovation show that in 2005/06 just 13 per cent of 15-year-olds on free school meals (FSM) went on to higher education by the age of 19.
In 2012/13, the latest cohort for which figures are available, this leapt to 23 per cent – meaning nearly one in four children from low income families is now accessing higher education.
That's applying, not actually going. Admittedly, it was starting from a low base, but that's going from 7 to 15 in 10 years, of which 7 were under the SNP.Around 15 per cent of 18-year-olds from Scotland’s most deprived communities had made a university application by the January 2014 deadline – a 108 per cent rise from 2004, when the application rate was just 7.2 per cent.
Shame we don't have the 2004 figures for the UK as a whole, or the Scottish figures for 2006/7 - and the Scottish figures for 'had started at university by age 19' in order to do some direct comparisons. We could also do with the 2010 and or '11 so we could see whether or not the rate of increase has changed since the Coalition took over. I understand that Scotland has its own education system but it is dependent on Barnet consequentials so the UK Government's education funding decisions must have some sort of an effect.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Wow look how progressive Scotland does on access.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/leaders-ne ... -1-3815230" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That's applying, not actually going. Admittedly, it was starting from a low base, but that's going from 7 to 15 in 10 years, of which 7 were under the SNP.Around 15 per cent of 18-year-olds from Scotland’s most deprived communities had made a university application by the January 2014 deadline – a 108 per cent rise from 2004, when the application rate was just 7.2 per cent.
UK in 7 years went from 13 to 23 percent actually going.
Well, Cameron (or someone in his Cabinet) seemed to suggest that simply hoping for a re-founded Caliphate/truly-Islamic nation-state/empire, or believing that it would come some day, is enough. But for many Muslims (a majority?) that's a devout wish that is pretty much tied up with waiting for the coming of, or the second-coming of, the Mahdi who, according to some Hadiths and legends, will arrive at the same time as the Messiah (probably Christ, in Christianity, or an other in messianic-Judaism). The two of them will join forces to defeat the anti-Christ (the false-Messiah) heralding the Day of Judgement and then an idyllic world for the faithful who will, naturally, live according to The One God's true law. Try persuading anyone to stop holding those deeply-rooted beliefs, even though they've been exploited by charlatans (or purely misguided folk) from all three Abrahamic faiths.Tubby Isaacs wrote:That Isis article.
Laws against people who "quietly condone"? What on earth does that mean?
And hang on? Tighter laws after Trojan Horse?
The problem wasn't the law- it was lack of oversight by the DfE and Ofsted.
Infiltrated schools here means couple of religious conservatives got onto some governing bodies.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 1541000001In the 1937 novel “Coming Up for Air” by George Orwell, the narrator tells us that his neighbours all think they have bought their own homes, and remarks,
“they don’t, the building society does”.
Although it was an inter-war satire of social mores in the suburbs, many Londoners now in precarious employment and accommodation would welcome the possibility of being beholden to the building society—they may even kill to have a mortgage. As was written in the paper the other day:
“Increasingly…owning your house is the preserve of the rich. Home ownership levels in England are plummeting just as new homes are shrinking”.
That was not in the Morning Star or the Socialist Worker; it was in The Sunday Times property section. This debate is supposed to be on the housing supply in London, but it would be no exaggeration to say that it is on the housing crisis in London, as that is what we now face.
SpinningHugo wrote:Observer all pro-Kendall this am
Darling
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ir-darling" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Grim polling (with amusing blaming of electorate BTL)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... n-election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nick Cohen (who I would like if he were not quite so keen on intervention abroad regardless of international law)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/com ... p-election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
the leader is very tough
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... SApp_Other" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
last couple of paras.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 6s6 seconds ago
Asked why @Corbyn4Leader gets most Twitter support, @LizforLeader tells @tnewtondunn :"You think the only world is Twitter?" @JPonpolitics
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 2m2 minutes ago
.@LizforLeader says @Corbyn4Leader vision is "not serious politics" and it's "ridiculous" to suggest she'd work with him. @jppo
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 4m4 minutes ago
.@LizforLeader tells R5L "I'm not doing badly in the race". "My experience of phone banks..I'm doing strong, I'm doing well"
That's inevitable. What's important is how people react to the monstering. I think Corbyn is the only one who would tell them where to get off with their narratives. The rest would try to appease, or simply fail to counter, judging from past experience.Each of the candidates seems to come with a poisoned chalice - a pre prepared story ripe for the inevitable MSM bashing.
AnatolyKasparov wrote:This morning's Observer is shrill, one sided propaganda which should embarrass all those who colluded in it.
You do realise that people who voted Labour in 2010 and Tory this year are a TINY percentage of the overall electorate, right? But the same people who think we should worry about such types obsessively are the same who sneer at the very idea that there are gains to be made amongst (for instance) non voters. Polls predicted a turnout of 70-75% when it was actually just 66%, that was a major reason both why they were wrong and Labour lost. Has there been any work done (proper *research* I mean - not the bogus mendacious stuff being touted this morning) about why that happened?
To some extent, but they were a lot closer in 2005 and 2010. To a degree in recent years, it has become fashionable amongst certain groups to say you *won't* vote in order to express your dissatisfaction with the political process.SpinningHugo wrote:AnatolyKasparov wrote:This morning's Observer is shrill, one sided propaganda which should embarrass all those who colluded in it.
You do realise that people who voted Labour in 2010 and Tory this year are a TINY percentage of the overall electorate, right? But the same people who think we should worry about such types obsessively are the same who sneer at the very idea that there are gains to be made amongst (for instance) non voters. Polls predicted a turnout of 70-75% when it was actually just 66%, that was a major reason both why they were wrong and Labour lost. Has there been any work done (proper *research* I mean - not the bogus mendacious stuff being touted this morning) about why that happened?
Don't polls always overstate turnout?
Will you vote?
Nah, I am too lazy. (Not a popular answer)
Twasn't an expensive phone. Ten quid from Sainsburys, thank goodness!LadyCentauria wrote:This, I think will be the last of this flurry of posts from me but...
@Ohso: I hope Mr. Ohso is feeling a bit stronger and more hopeful - and that the accidentally washed 'phone will be ok. If you just leave it in a dry place at room temperature (not on or by a radiator!) for 24-48 hours before attempting to switch it on, it might well be fine. Or, it is sometimes recommended that you 'bury it' in dry rice in an airtight container - tupperware, perhaps - for about 36 hours. The rice substitutes for those dessicating-gel packets you often find in the packaging of electrical or electronic goods. If it wo'n't power up after you've given it proper time to dry out you'll find phone-repair shops dotted about all over the place in even pretty small towns with guys who can work wonders for a small charge; and, of course, if it's under a replacement insurance policy you can take advantage of that and the shop he got it from should be able to retrieve any data on it. The SIM should have survived, so you could just remove that and stick it in another phone - it will have some data on it and, possibly, all his contacts. xxx
@RR2: Was it you posted about that awful plan to open a new beagle- and ferret-breeding 'kennels' with the animals being used for medical/scientific research? It's bloody heartbreaking and I would have great difficulty in accepting that it's necessary, in this day and age!
:flame:
I honestly think the Tories were taken aback when they won. And the low polling figures were a shock to them too.AnatolyKasparov wrote:To some extent, but they were a lot closer in 2005 and 2010. To a degree in recent years, it has become fashionable amongst certain groups to say you *won't* vote in order to express your dissatisfaction with the political process.SpinningHugo wrote:AnatolyKasparov wrote:This morning's Observer is shrill, one sided propaganda which should embarrass all those who colluded in it.
You do realise that people who voted Labour in 2010 and Tory this year are a TINY percentage of the overall electorate, right? But the same people who think we should worry about such types obsessively are the same who sneer at the very idea that there are gains to be made amongst (for instance) non voters. Polls predicted a turnout of 70-75% when it was actually just 66%, that was a major reason both why they were wrong and Labour lost. Has there been any work done (proper *research* I mean - not the bogus mendacious stuff being touted this morning) about why that happened?
Don't polls always overstate turnout?
Will you vote?
Nah, I am too lazy. (Not a popular answer)
There is also, of course, the fact that the "shortfall" in turnout this time didn't affect all parties equally. Tories and SNP got their vote out extremely efficiently - other parties, not so much.