Tuesday 8th September 2015

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 12:21 pm

PorFavor wrote:
citizenJA wrote: You can't contribute to war and violence and then turn your back on what it creates.
Sadly, I think you'll find that he can, you know.

Not only can but does. Corbyn must be the gift that keeps on giving. But having said that, the press still wouldn't be making Dave and his cohorts accountable. What they have got away with is beyond belief...

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 12:33 pm

Just catching a bit of the Daily Politics show before going out and see plenty of disparagement toward that idiot of a PM. However and much more importantly David Davis spoke of the harm he may be doing regarding Europe. Granted he may well have been speaking of the referendum but even more seriously is his, or our by association, standing in Europe not to mention the refugees themselves. Pardon my language but to pinch a term from ephe, the twat deserves all the opprobrium directed his way. Why should anybody else be so harmed?

Edit: removed repeated word again. Perhaps I'd be more productive if only I stopped doing it, plus proof read before submitting.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 12:50 pm

@RobertSnozers

Too true, Robert, and just look at the indignation he and his lickspittle friends display whenever so accused in the House.

<tory>How dare they? Such effrontery!</tory>

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 12:52 pm

@ephemerid

Sorry, ephe, I have no intention of implicating you when they come a-knocking at my door.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 1:02 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Talking of propaganda, I didn't watch last night's Panorama ~~hatchet job~~ documentary on Corbyn, but it has been said the programme claimed he was Len McCluskey's preferred choice for leader. If so, that is pretty close to a downright fib (the world and its dog knows he wanted Burnham, but the union overruled him)

I do hope the rest of it was of a somewhat more factually based nature than that.......

It may have had the opposite effect to that intended.

My neighbour sent me an email this morning - I quote directly

''Did you watch the Panorama programme last night? I am so liking JC!
Lots of intellectuals and analysts in diverse disciplines getting behind him too.

http://theconversation.com/four-reasons ... back-46707" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whatever happens, he will have broadened the debate and shown the career politicians how facile and disconnected from many people's reality their Westminster bubble really is and hopefully brought an alternative way of going about things into sharp focus.

Fingers crossed for Saturday! xxxx ''

Maybe she watched a different programme.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 1:14 pm

Peter Jukes ‏@peterjukes 2h2 hours ago
And I've never seen White House or US media spin any drone attack with the same alacrity and crassness as our government and media has done

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 1:20 pm

This is what Boris Johnson being Mayor has actually cost London
A breakdown of costs that show exactly who benefited - and failed to benefit - from the Tory mayor's strategies
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/thi ... 91163.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 1:25 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Talking of propaganda, I didn't watch last night's Panorama ~~hatchet job~~ documentary on Corbyn, but it has been said the programme claimed he was Len McCluskey's preferred choice for leader. If so, that is pretty close to a downright fib (the world and its dog knows he wanted Burnham, but the union overruled him)

I do hope the rest of it was of a somewhat more factually based nature than that.......
I don't think it did, no.

It did have some amusing footage of McCluskey to add to the overall impression of "loony leftiness", but I don't think this view was ever attributed to him.

There is, of course, a certain amount of amusement to be had at McCluskey losing control of the political position of his union to his own leftwing.

The worst bits for Corbyn were the interviews where he lost his cool.

Alleviation of poverty, sharing resources fairly, justice available to everyone without favouritism or cost, protecting people not able to defend themselves and watching each others' back, catching each other to prevent a fall, services provided to the public accountable to the public above all, elected leaders communicating without guile or falsehood, leading as service, a duty working for people and country and carefully protecting our environment mindful we die and other people live after we're gone - they'll need to breathe, grow food and drink clean water.

The current UK Labour party handbook aims and values are recognisable in the paragraph I've written above. I've joined the Labour party because those tenets are dear to me and I'd like to add my individual contribution to the greater good in order for us to have better parties, fewer tears, warm houses, secure tenure, satisfying work for everyone doing what they're good at paid honourable wages demonstrating monetary respect we show everyone regardless of their job, sensible leisure, children educated better with each generation, hiking trails, public transportation allowing us to forgo keeping an automobile, an NHS funded properly with enough staff to do their work, comfort and security during vulnerable times happening throughout the lifetime of individuals.

Could you please describe the Labour party principles that have moved you to join and support the Labour party? I understand you may not wish to share this information; it's personal. Thank you.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 1:33 pm

I'm a leftie.
An Urban Dictionary entry calls it a derogatory term to describe someone having a left-wing political position.
I often read work from people sneering with disdain (sometimes with profanity and other hostile accompaniment) at the thought someone, somewhere is acting altruistically on a routine basis.
Whatever next.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=leftie" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 1:33 pm

citizenJA wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Talking of propaganda, I didn't watch last night's Panorama ~~hatchet job~~ documentary on Corbyn, but it has been said the programme claimed he was Len McCluskey's preferred choice for leader. If so, that is pretty close to a downright fib (the world and its dog knows he wanted Burnham, but the union overruled him)

I do hope the rest of it was of a somewhat more factually based nature than that.......
I don't think it did, no.

It did have some amusing footage of McCluskey to add to the overall impression of "loony leftiness", but I don't think this view was ever attributed to him.

There is, of course, a certain amount of amusement to be had at McCluskey losing control of the political position of his union to his own leftwing.

The worst bits for Corbyn were the interviews where he lost his cool.
Alleviation of poverty, sharing resources fairly, justice available to everyone without favouritism or cost, protecting people not able to defend themselves and watching each others' back, catching each other to prevent a fall, services provided to the public accountable to the public above all, elected leaders communicating without guile or falsehood, leading as service, a duty working for people and country and carefully protecting our environment mindful we die and other people live after we're gone - they'll need to breathe, grow food and drink clean water.

The current UK Labour party handbook aims and values are recognisable in the paragraph I've written above. I've joined the Labour party because those tenets are dear to me and I'd like to add my individual contribution to the greater good in order for us to have better parties, fewer tears, warm houses, secure tenure, satisfying work for everyone doing what they're good at paid honourable wages demonstrating monetary respect we show everyone regardless of their job, sensible leisure, children educated better with each generation, hiking trails, public transportation allowing us to forgo keeping an automobile, an NHS funded properly with enough staff to do their work, comfort and security during vulnerable times happening throughout the lifetime of individuals.

Could you please describe the Labour party principles that have moved you to join and support the Labour party? I understand you may not wish to share this information; it's personal. Thank you.

Is this a question addressed to me? I did this at great length on here months ago.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 1:38 pm

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

Appalling manners.

Not at all.
Good morfternoon.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 1:40 pm

CJA@

I've voted Labour since my first vote, apart from a tactical anti-Tory vote for the Lib Dems in Cirencester, and wavering about voting Plaid or Lib Dems in 2010 after moving here where there's no Labour presence. Also voted other than Labour in some council votes when there was no Labour candidate but a well respected local.

It would take a lot of going back to the past to describe why I started supporting Labour at 17.
Even more to explain why I carried on voting after the Blair bubble burst and the word Labour became a virtual term of abuse.
Not that I was a fan of Balir's, but thankful that we didn't get another 13 years of the Tories.
I joined two years ago after Ed was elected.

What concerns me now is that Corbyn loses the first preferences, despite being well ahead with Labour members, and one of the others gets in on second preferences and completely ignores the direction the Corbyn vote is pointing to.

At that point I'd cancel my membership.
As I would if Corbyn wins with a clear mandate from Labour members (not £3sign ups) and is bounced out.

There comes a point where one would have to say that's it. For me, that would be the time.

Edited to add: No disrespect to people who signed up for £3, just that less able to question the legitimacy of a win given by votes from longer term members.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 1:45 pm

Wouldn't join another party though.
Disagree with the way Greens do business, despite some of their policies sounding attractive.
Plaid look good on paper but their Nat obsession is too much even for 90% of Wales.

Membership fee would go to Cats Protection. That'd do some good, rather than prop up a continuation of the centre-ish ground.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 1:46 pm

& that's my opinion. Sorry if it grates.

Back to gardening, it is the warmest, sunniest day for weeks.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 1:47 pm

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

"but the most important point is that we are looking to get that up to the level of normal, non-disabled people who are back in work."

My emphasis. Yes Iain we know what you mean.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 1:49 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: I don't think it did, no.

It did have some amusing footage of McCluskey to add to the overall impression of "loony leftiness", but I don't think this view was ever attributed to him.

There is, of course, a certain amount of amusement to be had at McCluskey losing control of the political position of his union to his own leftwing.

The worst bits for Corbyn were the interviews where he lost his cool.
Alleviation of poverty, sharing resources fairly, justice available to everyone without favouritism or cost, protecting people not able to defend themselves and watching each others' back, catching each other to prevent a fall, services provided to the public accountable to the public above all, elected leaders communicating without guile or falsehood, leading as service, a duty working for people and country and carefully protecting our environment mindful we die and other people live after we're gone - they'll need to breathe, grow food and drink clean water.

The current UK Labour party handbook aims and values are recognisable in the paragraph I've written above. I've joined the Labour party because those tenets are dear to me and I'd like to add my individual contribution to the greater good in order for us to have better parties, fewer tears, warm houses, secure tenure, satisfying work for everyone doing what they're good at paid honourable wages demonstrating monetary respect we show everyone regardless of their job, sensible leisure, children educated better with each generation, hiking trails, public transportation allowing us to forgo keeping an automobile, an NHS funded properly with enough staff to do their work, comfort and security during vulnerable times happening throughout the lifetime of individuals.

Could you please describe the Labour party principles that have moved you to join and support the Labour party? I understand you may not wish to share this information; it's personal. Thank you.
Is this a question addressed to me? I did this at great length on here months ago.

Yes, I was responding to you and asked the question of you. I've missed your post describing the Labour party principles inspiring you to join and support the Labour party, apologies.
Will you please post a link?
Thank you.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 1:52 pm

Owen Jones ‏@OwenJones84 3h3 hours ago
Here's Jeremy Corbyn's plans on climate change. No re-opening coal mines or top-down nationalisation: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/j ... 1438938988" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Someone had better send this to Kendall.
She shrieked during the Sky Debate that he wanted to reopen coal mines.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 1:53 pm

citizenJA wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
citizenJA wrote: Alleviation of poverty, sharing resources fairly, justice available to everyone without favouritism or cost, protecting people not able to defend themselves and watching each others' back, catching each other to prevent a fall, services provided to the public accountable to the public above all, elected leaders communicating without guile or falsehood, leading as service, a duty working for people and country and carefully protecting our environment mindful we die and other people live after we're gone - they'll need to breathe, grow food and drink clean water.

The current UK Labour party handbook aims and values are recognisable in the paragraph I've written above. I've joined the Labour party because those tenets are dear to me and I'd like to add my individual contribution to the greater good in order for us to have better parties, fewer tears, warm houses, secure tenure, satisfying work for everyone doing what they're good at paid honourable wages demonstrating monetary respect we show everyone regardless of their job, sensible leisure, children educated better with each generation, hiking trails, public transportation allowing us to forgo keeping an automobile, an NHS funded properly with enough staff to do their work, comfort and security during vulnerable times happening throughout the lifetime of individuals.

Could you please describe the Labour party principles that have moved you to join and support the Labour party? I understand you may not wish to share this information; it's personal. Thank you.
Is this a question addressed to me? I did this at great length on here months ago.
Yes, I was responding to you and asked the question of you. I've missed your post describing the Labour party principles inspiring you to join and support the Labour party, apologies.
Will you please post a link?
Thank you.

Sorry JA, I thought you were asking us all !
That's what comes of doing four things at once.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 1:58 pm

"Simply because we cannot help everyone, does not mean we should not help anyone." - Yvette Cooper

Well said. I could almost vote for you. Oops I have

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 2:00 pm

yahyah wrote:& that's my opinion. Sorry if it grates.

Back to gardening, it is the warmest, sunniest day for weeks.

xx
cJA
Please enjoy the warmth in your garden; I wish I could join you.
It's cold and grey here today.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 2:10 pm

yahyah wrote:Sorry JA, I thought you were asking us all !
That's what comes of doing four things at once

No apologies necessary, yahyah, thank you for posting it.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 2:15 pm

citizenJA wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
citizenJA wrote: Alleviation of poverty, sharing resources fairly, justice available to everyone without favouritism or cost, protecting people not able to defend themselves and watching each others' back, catching each other to prevent a fall, services provided to the public accountable to the public above all, elected leaders communicating without guile or falsehood, leading as service, a duty working for people and country and carefully protecting our environment mindful we die and other people live after we're gone - they'll need to breathe, grow food and drink clean water.

The current UK Labour party handbook aims and values are recognisable in the paragraph I've written above. I've joined the Labour party because those tenets are dear to me and I'd like to add my individual contribution to the greater good in order for us to have better parties, fewer tears, warm houses, secure tenure, satisfying work for everyone doing what they're good at paid honourable wages demonstrating monetary respect we show everyone regardless of their job, sensible leisure, children educated better with each generation, hiking trails, public transportation allowing us to forgo keeping an automobile, an NHS funded properly with enough staff to do their work, comfort and security during vulnerable times happening throughout the lifetime of individuals.

Could you please describe the Labour party principles that have moved you to join and support the Labour party? I understand you may not wish to share this information; it's personal. Thank you.
Is this a question addressed to me? I did this at great length on here months ago.
Yes, I was responding to you and asked the question of you. I've missed your post describing the Labour party principles inspiring you to join and support the Labour party, apologies.
Will you please post a link?
Thank you.

Ok.

it was here back at the beginning of March

http://flythenest.org/viewtopic.php?f=4 ... ive#p35189" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Happier days, at least on here.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 2:36 pm

My twopennyworth on drone attacks. As they stand they are extra-judicial murder, that stands for the Americans too. Obviously I lose no sleep over ISIS or whatever you wish to call them or those who choose to fight on their behalf, however there has been no formal declaration of war. I repeat myself but do not consider the war on terror or drugs in anything like the same light.

Perhaps it is time that we and the UN for that matter recognise the so called Islamic State. I appreciate the reluctance because nobody wants to give them any legitimacy but surely the more important issue is validating our own legitimacy to attack them. This must be a multinational coalition of forces and much should come from the Arab world themselves. Whatever the makeup extensive ground forces are needed to face down the enemy, there are innocents amongst them and no doubt used as shields apart from other abuse and atrocities directed their way. This requires support from military aircraft too and neither do I mean indiscriminate bombing as Dave seems to favour. In such a battleground drones may also have an important role to play both in intelligence or eyes from above plus the strategic use of missiles.

My impression of young David, I address him so because he is so infantile is that he is looking for an opportunity to play his war games. Even Mummy had her go with the Falklands. This is the guy who told the military to shut up and do the fighting while he does the talking. Well I'm sorry Dave, perhaps we would pay you more respect if you had anything worth saying. How on earth was an incompetent put in such a position of responsibility? 'And one who thought he'd be good at the job too.

ISIS needs to be legitimately annihilated; David may have had his war had he only been a statesman. So speaks a pacifist.

May I up my fee now? I'm an awful lot cheaper than that Bullingdon boy.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 3:03 pm

Went to the CAB,I wish I hadn't.I wanted some clarification of my reading of the situation according to the DWP's guidance,easilly accessible with a few clicks of a mouse.I knew it wouldn't go well when I was guiding them as to how to get said information and they persisted in thinking that it was my NI contributions that mattered,not my late wife's when it clearly states otherwise.The head honcho was consulted and was equally confused as the only other case(apparently)he encountered was so based.Hard to think our case is so unique when it is a regularly occurrence.Now questioning my own sanity,ability to read and thoughts of "if it starts like this" inevitably enter my thought processes.I have given the requested information as best I can,with the assistance of a very nice gentleman at Jobcentre Plus,who signed confirmation of seeing required documentation,rather than it disappearing into the ether never to return.Just walked in,ten minutes later done.Feel better,a bit.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 3:10 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:This is what Boris Johnson being Mayor has actually cost London
A breakdown of costs that show exactly who benefited - and failed to benefit - from the Tory mayor's strategies
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/thi ... 91163.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks, AAW, that looks interesting; I have it opened for later. I've also opened Google in another tab to learn of Christian Wolmar, the author of the piece.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 3:18 pm

@SpinningHugo
Thank you for linking your post regarding the reasons you support the Labour party below.
I've asked questions below after having read your linked comment.
You may or may not have time or inclination to respond and that's fine.
Please don't feel obliged; I appreciate the time you've already given my posts.

http://flythenest.org/viewtopic.php?f=4 ... ive#p35189" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Reducing inequality, ensuring adequate social security provision for the poor, economic & foreign relations competence, building houses, remaining in the EU and keeping comprehensives in education policy form part of Labour's policies in the 2015 manifesto and historical record.

How do you envision Labour achieving those goals?
Are the homes built going to be affordable? There's already over a million homes in England and Wales usually remaining empty. Will homes be built by the private sector in much the same way the private sector is building (or not building) homes now?
The NHS and railways are franchised out to the private sector and as long as the NHS remains free at point of use that's okay with you. The NHS is in crisis now in part because expensive tenders providing income to private companies is not only preferred but mandated by law. You mentioned nothing about government funding the NHS - your only stipulation was that the NHS was to remain free at point of use.
You're okay with private industry in UK rail only you'd cut government subsidies to rail companies. We'd no longer have a railway system in the UK if that were the case because it's only government subsidy providing infrastructure investment. The private sector provides none.

If you could choose anyone to lead the Labour party, who would it be?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 3:42 pm

citizenJA wrote:@SpinningHugo
Thank you for linking your post regarding the reasons you support the Labour party below.
I've asked questions below after having read your linked comment.
You may or may not have time or inclination to respond and that's fine.
Please don't feel obliged; I appreciate the time you've already given my posts.

http://flythenest.org/viewtopic.php?f=4 ... ive#p35189" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Reducing inequality, ensuring adequate social security provision for the poor, economic & foreign relations competence, building houses, remaining in the EU and keeping comprehensives in education policy form part of Labour's policies in the 2015 manifesto and historical record.

How do you envision Labour achieving those goals?
Are the homes built going to be affordable? There's already over a million homes in England and Wales usually remaining empty. Will homes be built by the private sector in much the same way the private sector is building (or not building) homes now?
The NHS and railways are franchised out to the private sector and as long as the NHS remains free at point of use that's okay with you. The NHS is in crisis now in part because expensive tenders providing income to private companies is not only preferred but mandated by law. You mentioned nothing about government funding the NHS - your only stipulation was that the NHS was to remain free at point of use.
You're okay with private industry in UK rail only you'd cut government subsidies to rail companies. We'd no longer have a railway system in the UK if that were the case because it's only government subsidy providing infrastructure investment. The private sector provides none.

If you could choose anyone to lead the Labour party, who would it be?

Housing: my view is that we need to combine a Land Value Tax (which provides an incentive to build), deregulation of planning (removing some of the Town and Country Planning Act which came from a different age) and state investment in infrastructure (not the houses themselves). Wonkish but it would work.

NHS: I don't accept your premise. Labour has focused far too much on the NHS which has been ringfenced. There are far, far more brutal cuts elsewhere. particularly in local government and social security.

Rail: I am against market distortions, particularly where they are regressive and environmentally damaging. We should introduce road charging as well (as with the London congestion charge).

In an ideal world I'd introduce a guaranteed income, removing the benefit structure we currently have. the Greens were right about that, and it is a tragedy Bennett was so hopeless at arguing for it.

Anyone at all? Me.

Anyone with a high profile? Tony Blair.

Anyone plausible? Either of the women standing as candidates would do a very good job in my view.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 3:49 pm

HindleA wrote:Went to the CAB,I wish I hadn't.I wanted some clarification of my reading of the situation according to the DWP's guidance,easilly accessible with a few clicks of a mouse.I knew it wouldn't go well when I was guiding them as to how to get said information and they persisted in thinking that it was my NI contributions that mattered,not my late wife's when it clearly states otherwise.The head honcho was consulted and was equally confused as the only other case(apparently)he encountered was so based.Hard to think our case is so unique when it is a regularly occurrence.Now questioning my own sanity,ability to read and thoughts of "if it starts like this" inevitably enter my thought processes.I have given the requested information as best I can,with the assistance of a very nice gentleman at Jobcentre Plus,who signed confirmation of seeing required documentation,rather than it disappearing into the ether never to return.Just walked in,ten minutes later done.Feel better,a bit.

Sorry that you had such a disheartening experience at the CAB. It seems odd that they hadn't had experience of cases such as yours - perhaps more that the individuals working/volunteering there, today, hadn't. They've been subject to such cuts in funding (CAB in general) that they'll have lost a lot of expertise along with the people who used to be funded but are no longer there. Glad that you found an efficient and helpful person at the JobcentrePlus, though. A glimmer of light, at least. x

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 4:06 pm

utopiandreams wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:This is what Boris Johnson being Mayor has actually cost London
A breakdown of costs that show exactly who benefited - and failed to benefit - from the Tory mayor's strategies
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/thi ... 91163.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks, AAW, that looks interesting; I have it opened for later. I've also opened Google in another tab to learn of Christian Wolmar, the author of the piece.

CW has written a lot of very good, (imo), books about the railways. He's very good at mining his facts usually.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 4:10 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
citizenJA wrote: The NHS is in crisis now in part because expensive tenders providing income to private companies is not only preferred but mandated by law. You mentioned nothing about government funding the NHS - your only stipulation was that the NHS was to remain free at point of use.
NHS: I don't accept your premise. Labour has focused far too much on the NHS which has been ringfenced. There are far, far more brutal cuts elsewhere. particularly in local government and social security.
I suggest you do some research before making statements like this, which falls rather easily into the Tory trap of only regarding the NHS in terms of overall budget, and 'ringfencing' as meaning it can stay the same. There are a number of crises facing the NHS: too little has been done to address the steadily rising demand which means the NHS has to grow at 5% a year just to keep pace; too much disruptive reorganisation has been carried out preventing progress on the previous point; the reorganisation was a smokescreen for a huge transfer of back office and frontline services to private hands, much of which is costing too much and/or failing, and preventing the kind of collaborative approach that can turn things around; brutal cuts in local government and social security are having a significant knock-on effect; primary care is falling over, it cannot go on as it is for much longer yet the government is forcing unnecessary and wasteful seven-day services on it.

The Tories are showing every appearance of setting the NHS up to fail so they can break it up, but you'd have us ignore it and focus on something else? I suspect your view may have something to do with your dislike of Andy Burnham, who is just about the only person with a realistic plan to save the health service before it's too late.

Outcomes and satisfaction ratings are the easiest criteria to judge by.

Labour has made it too easy for the Tories. Going on and on about how the Tories were about to destroy the NHS has given them the space to actually destroy large other areas of the public sector.

No doubt the NHS has cost increases greater than the increases in funding, but compared to what has happened to local government and social security, it has hardly been touched.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 4:11 pm

Re JC losing his cool. I would like to see all Labour spokespeople lose their cool occasionally with some of the slime-buckets who interview them. Not lose control you should note, appealing though the prospect of seeing someone deck the smugtastic Dimbleby would be. If they are constantly interrupted they should make it clear to an audience only half paying attention what is happening. Otherwise, they'll keep doing it. They should also call out bias more often too. Go on the attack and stop being like rabbits in headlights.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 4:13 pm

I see IDS has let his hideous insideous slip show a bit more ...

Iain Duncan Smith calls people without a disability 'normal'
Work and pensions secretary criticised for Commons remark as he prepares radical overhaul of sickness benefit rules
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... al-commons" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is a typical and wonderful response from BTL:

sallyo57 5m ago
Well, as the daughter has just said with regards to Mr Smith, if he's so-called 'normal' give me my disability (cerebral palsy) any day...

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 4:20 pm

File this under heart-warming.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34182628

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 4:33 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: I suggest you do some research before making statements like this, which falls rather easily into the Tory trap of only regarding the NHS in terms of overall budget, and 'ringfencing' as meaning it can stay the same. There are a number of crises facing the NHS: too little has been done to address the steadily rising demand which means the NHS has to grow at 5% a year just to keep pace; too much disruptive reorganisation has been carried out preventing progress on the previous point; the reorganisation was a smokescreen for a huge transfer of back office and frontline services to private hands, much of which is costing too much and/or failing, and preventing the kind of collaborative approach that can turn things around; brutal cuts in local government and social security are having a significant knock-on effect; primary care is falling over, it cannot go on as it is for much longer yet the government is forcing unnecessary and wasteful seven-day services on it.

The Tories are showing every appearance of setting the NHS up to fail so they can break it up, but you'd have us ignore it and focus on something else? I suspect your view may have something to do with your dislike of Andy Burnham, who is just about the only person with a realistic plan to save the health service before it's too late.
Outcomes and satisfaction ratings are the easiest criteria to judge by.

Labour has made it too easy for the Tories. Going on and on about how the Tories were about to destroy the NHS has given them the space to actually destroy large other areas of the public sector.

No doubt the NHS has cost increases greater than the increases in funding, but compared to what has happened to local government and social security, it has hardly been touched.
Talk to some fucking staff and say that.

talk to some people dependent on benefits to live

talk to some people dependent on local authority care

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 4:56 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: I suggest you do some research before making statements like this, which falls rather easily into the Tory trap of only regarding the NHS in terms of overall budget, and 'ringfencing' as meaning it can stay the same. There are a number of crises facing the NHS: too little has been done to address the steadily rising demand which means the NHS has to grow at 5% a year just to keep pace; too much disruptive reorganisation has been carried out preventing progress on the previous point; the reorganisation was a smokescreen for a huge transfer of back office and frontline services to private hands, much of which is costing too much and/or failing, and preventing the kind of collaborative approach that can turn things around; brutal cuts in local government and social security are having a significant knock-on effect; primary care is falling over, it cannot go on as it is for much longer yet the government is forcing unnecessary and wasteful seven-day services on it.

The Tories are showing every appearance of setting the NHS up to fail so they can break it up, but you'd have us ignore it and focus on something else? I suspect your view may have something to do with your dislike of Andy Burnham, who is just about the only person with a realistic plan to save the health service before it's too late.
Outcomes and satisfaction ratings are the easiest criteria to judge by.

Labour has made it too easy for the Tories. Going on and on about how the Tories were about to destroy the NHS has given them the space to actually destroy large other areas of the public sector.

No doubt the NHS has cost increases greater than the increases in funding, but compared to what has happened to local government and social security, it has hardly been touched.
Talk to some fucking staff and say that.

There's some pretty rum stuff going on in the NHS at the moment. It's not about funding, it's about accountability, who is ultimately responsible for ensuring our universal healthcare system is adequately provided? When my brother in law was knocked unconscious, the ambulanceman that attended was apparently more concerned with filling in forms than taking him to A&E. We still don't really understand what happened as he was then dropped off at a minor injuries unit where his cuts were bandaged but seemingly no treatment or care in relation to his being unconscious for some minutes, coming round and then collapsing. He came to in the ambulance, so surely he should have been treated as a potential major head injury? He is now extremely unwell and awaiting a CT scan for a possible blood clot (7.30pm in the evening, so will have to go by taxi if no one can give him a lift, why such a weird time?). None of us can fathom the ambulance's actions. When I was knocked unconscious when hit by a car in 1984, I was x-rayed and kept in over night. He came off his bike at speed and knocked himself out. I know of someone who died following a similar accident, so we're all very disappointed by how poorly he was looked after. He was sent home alone with an unravelling bandage.

SpinningHugo may not have used the NHS recently. My confidence in it has been seriously undermined since Cameron became PM. I fear one day, when I need it, it will let me down and I've never felt that before, not even under Thatcher.
Which is why the NHS is a priority for me and why I voted for Andy Burnham.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 5:01 pm

I can see both points there- clearly, there are long term pressures building up all over the NHS. But the government just about got away with it in the short term. Plus of course, they swiftboated Labour with Mid Staffs. So it may or may not have been right to bet the shirt on it as an issue.

But equally, it's something everyone identifies with, and that's not true of everything.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 5:11 pm

yahyah wrote:Owen Jones ‏@OwenJones84 3h3 hours ago
Here's Jeremy Corbyn's plans on climate change. No re-opening coal mines or top-down nationalisation: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/j ... 1438938988" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Someone had better send this to Kendall.
She shrieked during the Sky Debate that he wanted to reopen coal mines.

He did mention reopening coal mines, with caveats. It was pie in the sky and a Green politician would have been scornful too. One of the populist things I've not liked about him.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 5:14 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: Outcomes and satisfaction ratings are the easiest criteria to judge by.

Labour has made it too easy for the Tories. Going on and on about how the Tories were about to destroy the NHS has given them the space to actually destroy large other areas of the public sector.

No doubt the NHS has cost increases greater than the increases in funding, but compared to what has happened to local government and social security, it has hardly been touched.
Talk to some fucking staff and say that.
talk to some people dependent on benefits to live

talk to some people dependent on local authority care

I would have thought Andy Burnham's proposals to combine health and social care puts both the NHS and social care firmly at the top of the agenda. All these things need to be addressed. We are only short of money for them because Osborne is squandering Britain's wealth on tax cuts and costly privatisations

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 5:21 pm

SpinningHugo wrote: Outcomes and satisfaction ratings are the easiest criteria to judge by.

Labour has made it too easy for the Tories. Going on and on about how the Tories were about to destroy the NHS has given them the space to actually destroy large other areas of the public sector.

No doubt the NHS has cost increases greater than the increases in funding, but compared to what has happened to local government and social security, it has hardly been touched.

Outcomes - since 2010, these are appalling in many areas.
Waiting lists for outpatient appointments are longer; in psychiatric care and substance misuse, budgets have been slashed by up to 70% in parts of England; people are waiting as long as 2 years for a psychiatric consultant appointment; bed closures have left some children only able to get a bed many miles from home;drug/alcohol treatment is nearly all outsourced in NHS England and the NTA has been abolished, swallowed up by Public Health England which is too stretched to fund services.
Waiting lists for minor elective procedures are much longer, with people in England expected to be much more disabled by their condition before they get help; minor procedures which prevent major problems are not being done, so patients are much more complex to treat when they eventually get seen; various scandals have beset outsourced providers of eye, joint, and gynae surgery with NHS trusts taking work back in-house with knock-on effects on the waiting lists.

Satisfaction - this has fallen significantly since 2010.
Partly due to all the above. Partly due to problems associated with GPs, eg. inability to book appointments when needed with many practices having 2-week waits; too few GPs, practice and community nurses, community physio's, leaving elderly and disabled people without the primary care they need to stay out of hospital. Closures of well man/woman clinics, chronic disease management clinics, and poor funding for specialist nurses (eg.Diabetes care)
Early discharge from hospital after surgery (elective or otherwise) masks SSI rates - hospitals report a 5% to 10% SSI rate in England (already an increase since 2010), but as the infections don't show until some days after release, it's no surprise that GPs report a rate of 20% to 28% which is horrifying.
Long waits for advice from the ridiculous 111 service, not staffed by qualified nurses, and poor advice (if any) given, has led to more people using A&E inappropriately than ever. All A&E patients are waiting much longer for both triage and treatment.

Cuts to local authorities' budgets haven't helped - but most LAs do their best to fulfil what are statutory obligations, cutting elsewhere.
The NHS may have had some increase in funding, but that has not kept pace with inflation nor has it allowed for the billions saved through various means which has been clawed back by Osborne and not used for clinical purposes.

NB. There have been NO cuts to the social security budget.
Individual claimants have had their benefits cut, obviously; they have also been subject to new charges, fines, and sanctions.
But there has been no cut to the budget - in fact, it has been allowed to increase exponentially.
On paper, there has been "£20-billion's-worth" of "cuts", which have yielded a paper "saving" of £2BN - taken from claimants.
But the spend on HB is up by £5BN, tax credits by £18BN, and billions more have been squandered on vanity projects.

The NHS is a wonderful thing, but it is fighting for its' life. Outcomes and satisfaction are both way poorer than in 2010.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 5:28 pm

This from Corbyn's document looks dodgy.

. Despite the UK having the highest levels of fuel poverty in
Europe

From here:

http://fuelpoverty.eu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 5:35 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:I can see both points there- clearly, there are long term pressures building up all over the NHS. But the government just about got away with it in the short term. Plus of course, they swiftboated Labour with Mid Staffs. So it may or may not have been right to bet the shirt on it as an issue.

But equally, it's something everyone identifies with, and that's not true of everything.
The NHS expects to hit capacity occasionally, and have to marshal additional resources to get through a bad week or two. Last winter many, if not most trusts were running at that kind of level for months on end. I've never seen anything like it. They just about got away with it, but it's Russian Roulette. It can't last.

A big part of that is because of cuts to social care. People who would have been in social care are stuck in hospitals. Moreover, the so-called 'better care fund' is basically a means of transferring NHS funds to social care while still claiming that the NHS has been 'ringfenced'. People pontificating about the NHS not being cut should know this stuff.

I don't think the swiftboating worked. Labour still has a substantial lead on the NHS I believe, and that never really changed.

I don't know if the Tories are angling for a catastrophe or just incompetent, but letting them off the hook on the NHS is not the right thing to do now.

Gotcha, thanks.

My consultant friend (when she was a junior doctor) told me about one of those occasions where the NHS hit capacity- 1998, something like that? She said the new Labour government, to its credit, had recognised the problem and put enough money in to get through the sticky period. Within the context of an incredibly austere first term, that was an important achievement.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 5:41 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
There is, of course, a certain amount of amusement to be had at McCluskey losing control of the political position of his union to his own leftwing.

Some friends of mine who know a lot about Unite were very surprised about McCluskey and co losing control. Often these things are personal- see for instance Andy Gilchrist losing his re-election bid at the FBU some years ago.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 5:48 pm

utopiandreams wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:This is what Boris Johnson being Mayor has actually cost London
A breakdown of costs that show exactly who benefited - and failed to benefit - from the Tory mayor's strategies
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/thi ... 91163.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks, AAW, that looks interesting; I have it opened for later. I've also opened Google in another tab to learn of Christian Wolmar, the author of the piece.

You'll like Wolmar! Like you, he's against HS2. I'm in favour of it, but find tons to agree with Wolmar on.

Great to see the disastrous bus flagged up so prominently. As he points out, we've basically got a conductor on buses that operate cashless fares!

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 5:51 pm

Woolmar is backing Corbyn though Tubby, so you won't agree on that.

He says he had voted JC partly to escape “five years of Yvette or Andy Burnham basically trying to appease the Tories”.
“I don’t think we’ll get anywhere by that. I think we’ll get genuine opposition [with Corbyn],”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 70401.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 5:52 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
yahyah wrote:Owen Jones ‏@OwenJones84 3h3 hours ago
Here's Jeremy Corbyn's plans on climate change. No re-opening coal mines or top-down nationalisation: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/j ... 1438938988" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Someone had better send this to Kendall.
She shrieked during the Sky Debate that he wanted to reopen coal mines.
We've had that here. Even when Corbyn's actual words were quoted, the response was that it was equivocation and we all know he really wants to re-open coal mines.

Really? It's the opposite problem. He's deliberately chucking in a populist line that raises false hopes.

Which is a big part of my problem with him in general. His big ticket stuff doesn't yield the money or effiencies he says, and we're stuck.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 5:54 pm

yahyah wrote:Woolmar is backing Corbyn though Tubby, so you won't agree on that.

Indeed not.

Wolmar's strongly in favour of rail renationalization, could be that.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 6:00 pm

frightful_oik wrote:File this under heart-warming.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34182628

Did you notice the beeb's little comment at the end?

A note on terminology: The BBC uses the term migrant to refer to all people on the move who have yet to complete the legal process of claiming asylum. This group includes people fleeing war-torn countries such as Syria, who are likely to be granted refugee status, as well as people who are seeking jobs and better lives, who governments are likely to rule are economic migrants.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 6:07 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:I can see both points there- clearly, there are long term pressures building up all over the NHS. But the government just about got away with it in the short term. Plus of course, they swiftboated Labour with Mid Staffs. So it may or may not have been right to bet the shirt on it as an issue.

But equally, it's something everyone identifies with, and that's not true of everything.

I think I understand you.
'Shock Doctrine' procedure.
People will continue to live their way into the fall-out from profound Tory changes made everywhere for over five years.

SpinningHugo writes about the NHS and other things Tories have changed:

Outcomes and satisfaction ratings are the easiest criteria to judge by. Labour has made it too easy for the Tories. Going on and on about how the Tories were about to destroy the NHS has given them the space to actually destroy large other areas of the public sector. No doubt the NHS has cost increases greater than the increases in funding, but compared to what has happened to local government and social security, it has hardly been touched.

I think I understand and disagree. It's not Labour going easy on Tories, it's Tories owning the conversation, SpinningHugo, I mean that literally. Not all Local Authorities are structured the same, their resources vary, Tory cuts were varied. That's confusing to everyone. Please don't aid Tory government. Please don't divide the NHS from social care funding and local authority cuts into "you're better off, no you're better off, this is worse off over here, no this is worse off over here"...please don't do that. The changes Tories have made have happened over five years and the changes continue.

Tories have made many changes in just about every department and UK institution, the NHS, local authority budgets cuts (some cut more, others given more funding), cutting & chopping department staff for environmental protections, other departmental staff gone - these are people we really need doing their work, law enforcement staff cut, changed employment contracts for fire-fighters, housing association property sell-off notifications, built the fewest number of homes within living memory, done nothing to clean up pollution, want to commence hydraulic fracturing, stopping renewable energy investment, sent an aircraft strike killing some people in Syria last month without telling anyone, teachers not hired, a shortage unacknowledged by government, valuable public property (Royal Mail, council land with schools on top, part of Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and government won't tell us who bought the bank shares) sold off, people hit with the Bedroom Tax causing massive displacement throughout the country, Universal Credit (UC) débâcle continues, benefit entitlement changes terrifying and confusing, homelessness rising some more, this isn't a comprehensive list by any means.

Don't forget the expensive things Tories have decided to spend taxpayers' money on either. Police and crime commissioners (PCC) - there's one. Can anyone think of all the others?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 6:13 pm

frightful_oik wrote:Re JC losing his cool. I would like to see all Labour spokespeople lose their cool occasionally with some of the slime-buckets who interview them. Not lose control you should note, appealing though the prospect of seeing someone deck the smugtastic Dimbleby would be. If they are constantly interrupted they should make it clear to an audience only half paying attention what is happening. Otherwise, they'll keep doing it. They should also call out bias more often too. Go on the attack and stop being like rabbits in headlights.

Someone suggested a member of the opposition calling out a liar sitting on the government front bench in the House of Commons by identifying that liar and what the liar is lying about. Have documentation and call out the liar. What would happen? What are the risks? Is there a better suggestion?

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 08 Sep, 2015 6:16 pm

I was just flicking through AS blog on Osborne at the HoL economic affairs committee, which AS described as a snoozathon, but this caught my eye.

Osborne says it is unfair to give people in council homes the right to buy, but not people in housing association homes. That is a “public sector anomaly”, he says. He is correcting it.

HAs aren't in the public sector currently, as we know, although they might soon be if he keeps interfering with them.

And then this terribly useful statement:

Q: Are you worried about the impact that interest rate rises will have on people?

Osborne says the governor of the Bank of England has said that, when rates rise, their peak will be lower than in previous interest rate cycles.

How does he get away with this crap?