Tuesday 27th October 2015

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 12:48 pm

Joe Public ‏@jpublik 13m13 minutes ago
PrivateEye expose @SimonDanczuk's hypocrisy of being fearful of being purged. He's had 5 people expelled from Labour

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 12:50 pm

So why shouldn't Danczuk be charged with 'bringing the party into disrepute' ?
If he can play that game, he should abide by the rules.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 1:07 pm

IDS,no show,thus far anyway.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 1:12 pm

Anyone fancy tackling this on AS's blog ?

zenlibdem 14m ago
So Labour have now allowed tax credit cuts by not voting for the LibDem motion; they have also allowed the measures in the welfare Bill (which was everything the tories wanted to do but couldn't over the last 5 years) by not voting against them...... tory enablers, red tories, neo-laberals.... or whatever it is the twitter ranters go in for..... official opposition, yeah, whatever.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 1:16 pm

yahyah wrote:Anyone fancy tackling this on AS's blog ?

zenlibdem 14m ago
So Labour have now allowed tax credit cuts by not voting for the LibDem motion; they have also allowed the measures in the welfare Bill (which was everything the tories wanted to do but couldn't over the last 5 years) by not voting against them...... tory enablers, red tories, neo-laberals.... or whatever it is the twitter ranters go in for..... official opposition, yeah, whatever.

The first part has already been explained over and over again. The second was under Harman's unmourned interim leadership.

They really have remembered, never mind learnt, nothing from 2010-15 at all. Its pretty gobsmacking tbh.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 1:23 pm

Eric_WLothian wrote:Meanwhile, the Labour Party launch another attempt at self-destruction:

SCOTTISH Labour leader Kezia Dugdale and UK party leader Jeremy Corbyn have signed a “statement of intent” which will make the party north of the Border autonomous – handing over control of all membership, administration and selection procedures and allow for separate policies.

It means that at the next general election in 2020 the Scottish and UK parties could have conflicting policies on major issues, including defence and taxation.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/plans-s ... z3pl5JAnpO

Fair enough for the Scottish branch to have control of admin, membership and policy on devolved matters - but defence, taxation and any other UK wide policies?

Does this mean the party can/will vote against itself in Westminster. Could a future Labour PM (from either side of the border) be credible, leading a formally split party?
If I generally agree with Labour in England and wales, but not Scotland, who do I vote for?

It also adds to the sense that the Union is poisonous.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 1:26 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:LibDem of my acquaintance moaning about Labour playing games and not backing LibDem killer motion. I give up.
Sophistry like that helps explain how the LibDems are doing no better now in the polls than under Clegg.

I thought Farron should have been his successor, but it has to be said he has been distinctly underwhelming thus far.

And what happened to the flood of refugees joining them from the Corbyn Terror, as he and Vince promised??
The party is a joke, but doesn't realise it yet. There is no way on god's green earth that anyone is going to go from Labour to the LibDems unless they are really, really desperate to be a big fish in the tiniest of ponds. Both the choices for the leadership were awful. Lamb was too close politically to the Orange Bookers who had wrecked the party, and Farron is a gravitas free zone. It would be in Labour's interest to see the LibDems recover, as they tended to take seats away from the Tories that Labour could never win, but it would stick in my craw now to wish for it. I can't believe they're not collectively hanging their heads in shame for the next four and a bit years in penance for what they've done but they still think they're better than everyone else.

Yeah, it's very inept.

The line should be- "We made plenty of mistakes but we did stop X, X, X in the Coalition. We'd have stopped this the day after the election."

How Corbyn be both a left loon and a Tory lapdog?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 1:31 pm

Nicholas Watt ‏@nicholaswatt 11m11 minutes ago London, England
Looks like @johnmcdonnellMP identified how @George_Osborne will dig out of hole: go for less excessive surplus target, currently £10bn 1/2

Was that £10bn some kind of contingency? Well, looks like it's going to be eaten in to pretty quickly.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 1:32 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:Seriously, a LibDem just said this to me.
Nah - Labour's motion doesn't stop the Tories coming back with something else if they wanted to, so that's a complete red herring. I know you desperately want the moral high ground, but this was the second huge cop out...
Just going to leave that there... (Edit: I'm still simmering at a LibDem telling me I desperately want the moral high ground, and accusing Labour of a cop-out after five years of moralising and filthy deals with the Tories, but I'm not going to argue with him, as he's the sort who would claim black is white and produce a pile of academic papers to back up his position. Perhaps he doesn't realise how angry we still are about the LibDems enbling the Tories for five years).

Sounds like Joe Otten. Was it?

I remember him on the "you privatized more of the NHS that we have" thing.

Did those figures sprung on Burnham by Kirsty Wark get backed up properly?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 1:46 pm

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 1h1 hour ago London, England
Breaking: No10 makes clear letters may NOT now go out in December nor necessarily introduce changes next April

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 1h1 hour ago London, England
Osborne hinting last night he might stick to original tax credit plan with transitional measures. Now appears plan cd be thrown out entirely

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 1h1 hour ago London, England
Breaking: No10 makes clear they may NOT push thru tax credit cuts as set out in SI & they may NOT raise £4.4 from scheme in Autumn statmnt

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 1:46 pm

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Remember what we were told about Bercow? Well, he doesn't think the Lords did anything wrong.

The responsibility of the chair is for order. Nothing disorderly has occurred. There has been no procedural impropriety. That would not have been allowed. Whether people like what happened last night, the substance of the issue, or in terms of their views on constitutionality is a matter for each and every one of them. In terms of where matters rest, as I said last night from the chair, in response to a point of order from the shadow chancellor, this is now a matter for the government to take forward as it thinks fit ...

I do jealously guard the rights of this House. But I have to rest with what I’ve said, that nothing procedurally improper has taken place.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 1:48 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: The party is a joke, but doesn't realise it yet. There is no way on god's green earth that anyone is going to go from Labour to the LibDems unless they are really, really desperate to be a big fish in the tiniest of ponds. Both the choices for the leadership were awful. Lamb was too close politically to the Orange Bookers who had wrecked the party, and Farron is a gravitas free zone. It would be in Labour's interest to see the LibDems recover, as they tended to take seats away from the Tories that Labour could never win, but it would stick in my craw now to wish for it. I can't believe they're not collectively hanging their heads in shame for the next four and a bit years in penance for what they've done but they still think they're better than everyone else.
Yeah, it's very inept.

The line should be- "We made plenty of mistakes but we did stop X, X, X in the Coalition. We'd have stopped this the day after the election."

How Corbyn be both a left loon and a Tory lapdog?
Oh, apparently it was down to the right wing Labour peers putting two fingers up to Corbyn by not voting for the killer motion. So they can have it both ways, ineffectual lefty nutjob leader and craven triangulating Lords.

Corbyn never supported the "fatal" motion!

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 1:52 pm

The Economist ‏@TheEconomist 34m34 minutes ago
The Conservatives deserve little sympathy for their defeat on tax credits: http://econ.st/1XvFnsr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... Still, spare the Tories little pity. Their policy served the government’s unnecessarily stringent bid to create a large surplus by the time of the next election in 2020. It was an attempt to “front load” the pain of austerity, buying Downing Street room for giveaways in the run up to that vote. It was a bid to heap the burden of deficit reduction onto the sorts of young, low-income people who do not vote and spare the old and asset-wealthy who do so in large numbers. It was predicated on the mostly bogus claim that the government is moving Britain from a “high welfare, low skill, low wage” economy to a “low welfare, high skill, high wage” one (it has done lots on the first category and much too little on the second two; moreover to suggest that the three are causally linked is patently nonsense).

The very fact of the Conservatives' defeat on this measure is also, if indirectly, the party’s fault. During the last parliament crusty Conservative back benchers sentimental about the House of Lords and its traditions blocked a bid to reform the chamber by Liberal Democrats and other Tories. This move was at least partly rooted in the Conservatives’ long-standing advantage in the upper house. Today, however, the balance has shifted—hence tonight’s government defeat. Those members of the government bleating about a breach of protocol (the constitutional rules are vague on whether the peers have a right to veto statutory instruments, like the tax credits cut, concerning government spending) pushed through by parties without a mandate should blame their own MPs for blocking previous attempts to make the upper house more representative and accountable. ..

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 1:53 pm

On the World at One Frank Field, the Labour MP who chairs the Commons work and pensions committee, mentioned at least three ways in which George Osborne could change his plans for tax credit cuts.

One would be cost-neutral, and would involve introducing a new threshold to allow the very lowest-paid to keep more money, at the expense of those earning more than £13,000. Field proposed this earlier this year himself, and he said he thought Lord Lawson was in favour. But he suggested in the interview that he was not so keen now.

I think Field's heart is in the right place here, but I'm not sure he needs to be in the media today. Ball in Osborne's court, surely.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 1:58 pm

''One would be cost-neutral, and would involve introducing a new threshold to allow the very lowest paid to keep more money, at the expense of those earning more than £13,000''

Does he mean all people earning more than £13,000 should pay more tax to mitigate the loss of those on lower pay or does he mean only those receiving tax credits ?
Anyone earning £13,000 to something like £20,000 is hardly in a position to be paying more ?

That would seem unfair, and create losers in households where tax credits aren't claimable.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 2:01 pm

I assume he means tax credit recipients only. I think he's saying it's for the Chancellor to say what he cuts, but if he wants to cut tax credits, there's a fairer way of doing it. Otherwise, why start at £13k, and not a much bigger figure?

The SNP and Lib Dems will say Labour wants to make people on £13k worse off.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 2:09 pm

Boris Johnson ✔ @MayorofLondon
tax credits must be reformed - massive subsidy for fat cat companies and poverty traps. but must protect poorest #askboris @chithecynic

As opposed to the poverty trap of work not paying, especially to single parents with kids?

And people who get tax credits work for small business too, and are self-employed.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 2:10 pm

Lord Forsyth, the Conservative former Scottish secretary, told the World at One that the government made a mistake when it decided to try introducing the tax credit cuts as secondary legislation, instead of as a money bill. If it were a money bill, the Lords would not have been able to block it, he said.

He said George Osborne decided to amend his plans, instead of choosing to try a second time to force them through the Lords in a different form, because “there is feeling in the House of Commons that there was need for movement on this matter”.

And he urged fellow Tories to stop talking about a constitutional crisis

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 2:13 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:I assume he means tax credit recipients only. I think he's saying it's for the Chancellor to say what he cuts, but if he wants to cut tax credits, there's a fairer way of doing it. Otherwise, why start at £13k, and not a much bigger figure?

The SNP and Lib Dems will say Labour wants to make people on £13k worse off.

I assume he means child tax credit claimants with household incomes over 13k would lose more so lower earners lose less. I don't think he's seen the full implications of this, or he wouldn't consider this more fair. Those on the lowest incomes will be able to claim more housing benefit and council tax relief to offset some of their lost tax credits, while those on higher incomes are less likely to be compensated in any way. They are less likely to benefit from the rise in the NMW, free school meals and prescriptions etc and will only get 80 pounds each from raising the tax threshold.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 2:18 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Ha ha ha ha ha.

Remember what we were told about Bercow? Well, he doesn't think the Lords did anything wrong.

The responsibility of the chair is for order. Nothing disorderly has occurred. There has been no procedural impropriety. That would not have been allowed. Whether people like what happened last night, the substance of the issue, or in terms of their views on constitutionality is a matter for each and every one of them. In terms of where matters rest, as I said last night from the chair, in response to a point of order from the shadow chancellor, this is now a matter for the government to take forward as it thinks fit ...

I do jealously guard the rights of this House. But I have to rest with what I’ve said, that nothing procedurally improper has taken place.

Yes, I read that.

The Government, by dint of having lied when it said that it wouldn't cut Tax Credits and, by thinking to be clever, shutting down proper Commons debate on the issue, rendered itself able to be defeated in the Lords. It is now trying to recover by compounding the lie by insisting there's a constitutional crisis and by insisting that the cuts were detailed in their last manifesto (which they weren't). Surely there must soon come a point when this, frankly farcical, pantomime has to be knocked firmly on the head?

Edited to add an "it"

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 2:21 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Boris Johnson ✔ @MayorofLondon
tax credits must be reformed - massive subsidy for fat cat companies and poverty traps. but must protect poorest #askboris @chithecynic
As opposed to the poverty trap of work not paying, especially to single parents with kids?

And people who get tax credits work for small business too, and are self-employed.

I was very pleased to see John McDonnell on the TV the other day insisting tax credits don't need to be cut at all. I hope he sticks to that basic principle. Osborne doesn't have to cut corporation tax, for instance. Or raise the inheritance tax threshold. Neither of these taxes are causing hardship, so why should hardship be caused to low earners to fund them? If McDonnell can show how Tory giveaways are making balancing the books harder it undermines Osborne's argument that welfare cuts are necessary rather than just an ideological choice.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 2:22 pm

Willow904 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:I assume he means tax credit recipients only. I think he's saying it's for the Chancellor to say what he cuts, but if he wants to cut tax credits, there's a fairer way of doing it. Otherwise, why start at £13k, and not a much bigger figure?

The SNP and Lib Dems will say Labour wants to make people on £13k worse off.
I assume he means child tax credit claimants with household incomes over 13k would lose more so lower earners lose less. I don't think he's seen the full implications of this, or he wouldn't consider this more fair. Those on the lowest incomes will be able to claim more housing benefit and council tax relief to offset some of their lost tax credits, while those on higher incomes are less likely to be compensated in any way. They are less likely to benefit from the rise in the NMW, free school meals and prescriptions etc and will only get 80 pounds each from raising the tax threshold.

I think that's a separate point about council tax relief- it'll be a cost for councils to bear. That wouldn't contradict the objective of cutting £4.4bn from central government tax credits. as the Chancellor has been determined to do. It would be a stretch not to include Housing Benefit though, because that's from Central Government too. So maybe he hasn't see what you've seen.

I note Field says he needs more info. Why is he putting this forward if that's true? Perhaps there are caveats and all, but doesn't look worth doing to me.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 2:32 pm

1pm: Robert Caro, the biographer of Lyndon Johnson, is interviewed by Michael Gove, the justice secretary, at a press gallery event.

Do what your paid for, Gove.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 2:37 pm

Hang on a minute.

Wasn't Gove the one who told the clearest lie about tax credits?

Bet he disappears off the stage quickly.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 2:39 pm

Rob Marris, a shadow Treasury minister, says Labour does want to deal with the deficit. It just thinks Osborne is going about it in the wrong way. He asks what Osborne is doing to stop job losses in the solar industry.

Osborne says the costs have risen in the industry. That is why the government has cut subsidies.

The what?

I thought solar was getting more efficient all the time. Weren't his pals saying it showed we didn't need any wind power?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 3:01 pm

Several MPs are now making points of order about the Lords votes. Alex Salmond, the former Scottish first minister, is one. He asks if there is any precedent for a chancellor of the exchequer being outflanked by the House of Lords as a defender of the working class.

I like him more than I did.

Of course the apparently compelling 1911 precedent was the Lords voting to protect their own wealth.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 3:09 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Hang on a minute.

Wasn't Gove the one who told the clearest lie about tax credits?

Bet he disappears off the stage quickly.

One of the reports posted earlier today describes him as doing exactly that when asked.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 3:20 pm

Johnson:

I think the House of Lords is in grave danger of pushing its luck, frankly. This is not what they are there to do. They are a revising chamber. They are not there to throw out financial bills from the elected House of Commons. And I think the prime minister and the chancellor and right to feel pretty aggrieved about that.

Financial bills?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 3:22 pm

seeingclearly wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Hang on a minute.

Wasn't Gove the one who told the clearest lie about tax credits?

Bet he disappears off the stage quickly.
One of the reports posted earlier today describes him as doing exactly that when asked.

Excellent. Shame Caro didn't mention it.

"You ask me what LBJ was like, Michael. Well, a great man, but flawed. He told plenty of political lies. I gather you're in the news for doing that"

martinson · Post by **martinson** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 3:31 pm

Good afternoon. I am hard of hearing and rely on text and subtitles for understanding. I've recently seen Osborne's latest mantra expressed in two ways;
"..we are building a low tax, low welfare and high wage economy.." or,
"..we are building a low tax, low welfare and higher wage economy..".
Which would he like us to believe?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 3:43 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Johnson:

I think the House of Lords is in grave danger of pushing its luck, frankly. This is not what they are there to do. They are a revising chamber. They are not there to throw out financial bills from the elected House of Commons. And I think the prime minister and the chancellor and right to feel pretty aggrieved about that.
Financial bills?
Wrong and wrong

Or not even wrong?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 3:44 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
1pm: Robert Caro, the biographer of Lyndon Johnson, is interviewed by Michael Gove, the justice secretary, at a press gallery event.
Do what your paid for, Gove.
My prediction: Gove steps down at the next election, after having spent his time working on a biography of one well known Thatcherite politician or another (Reagan, perhaps, surely not Pinochet?) rather than doing his actual job. It's a move known as the 'Portillo Traverse' or possibly the 'Hague Switcheroo'.

Or maybe before the election? Must be some seriously easy neo-con money out there for Gove.

"He was perhaps never a natural politician, with his extensive hinterland"

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 3:46 pm

I think I was a bit unfair on Field.

It is useful that he's produced something that suggests Osborne can cut tax credits by the same amount but more fairly. It blows away the "Lords block the budget" bollocks.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 4:07 pm

Another funny I wasn't aware of.

40 Lib Dem peers were appointed by Cameron himself.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 4:11 pm

Just seen an advert appealing for teachers. The world has turned upside down.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 4:14 pm

"He was perhaps never a natural politician, with his extensive hinterland"

Sorry but now I've got 'does my bum look big in this?' echoing around my brain....

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 4:19 pm

Rentoul making a pillock of himself on Twitter with Owen Jones and others I see.

What on earth makes him think Gove needs defending or giving the benefit of the doubt?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 4:21 pm

Warwick Davis (wink) has a new schools column today.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... tion-trust" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Should a company that oversaw the consultation on a controversial sponsored academy conversion also have been advising the would-be sponsor on public relations?

The question arises after correspondence was released, through a freedom of information request, between senior figures at the Inspiration Trust academy chain and the man who handled interactions with parents before the trust’s takeover of the Hewett school in Norwich.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 4:26 pm

Time is running out for UK steel industry, trade chief tells ministers

Head of UK Steel says industry needs assurances from government that it will help amid job losses, high energy costs and the dumping of steel from abroad (Guardian)

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -ministers

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 4:41 pm

Robert Hutton ✔ @RobDotHutton
Caro key learnings: two sources for everything; supply silence to get people to talk; people do want to read big books...
3:35 PM - 27 Oct 2015

That'll be news to Gove.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 4:51 pm

Isabel Hardman ‏@IsabelHardman 8m8 minutes ago
I hear Tory MPs have just been told that George Osborne will speak to them at the 1922 Committee meeting tomorrow http://bit.ly/1N5xwyx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well what a surprise - apparently Tory MPs are much angrier with the Lords and want a quick and sharp revenge on them rather than with Osborne for making such a pigs ear of his attempt to take money off the poorest households. Hardman reckons their anger with the Lords will let Osborne's over clever use of a statutory instrument and refusal to tell the electorate what he was planning - his tricksy tactics and manipulation - get away without much scrutiny and disapproval.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 4:52 pm

Gareth Edwards ‏@GarethEdwards88 Oct 26

Everyone shush, Martin Amis has something to say about politics lets all gather round and listen and pay close attention.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 4:55 pm

Stephen Doughty ‏@SDoughtyMP 3m3 minutes ago
If Richard Fuller represents Tory attitude to #steel - god help us - shocking - strong rebuttal from @EEF_UKSTEEL #BISSelectCommittee

Stephen Doughty ‏@SDoughtyMP 42s42 seconds ago
More outrageous comments from Richard Fuller, will Ministers distance? He's now telling steel industry to "say sorry"! #BISSelectCommittee

What on earth is Fuller saying? Sounds as though it could be worse than Heseltine's crass comments re it being a good time to lose a job ...

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 4:56 pm

Crescent Radio @redrum57

Martin Amis has never done anything hungry, pressured by debt, or financial /social despair. Therefore I lean towards him talking Bollocks.

J Wallis Martin Retweeted Crescent Radio

He does, however, live with the painful knowledge that he is not regarded as being as good a writer as his father. J Wallis Martin added,

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 5:00 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Crescent Radio @redrum57

Martin Amis has never done anything hungry, pressured by debt, or financial /social despair. Therefore I lean towards him talking Bollocks.

J Wallis Martin Retweeted Crescent Radio

He does, however, live with the painful knowledge that he is not regarded as being as good a writer as his father. J Wallis Martin added,

(my bold)

That bad, eh?

(I'm not a fan, as you may have gathered.)

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 5:06 pm

Cancer made me too ill to work yet I’m well enough for my benefits to be cut
Now my leukaemia’s in remission, I’d love to return to teaching, hang on to my house and look after my disabled daughter: the idea I need to be ‘incentivised’ by poverty is ludicrous and insulting
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... rk-poverty" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This painful reality is shared with us just a day after the Guardian published "The Conservatives have become the party of equality" by David Cameron no less.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 5:07 pm

Looks like,thankfully a clause to enable terminally ill transferees from DLA to PIP no longer seeing a gap in payments will be accepted.Has been up to eight weeks,needless to say som people wouldn't live to get it.A bureaucratic ballsup rather than design.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 5:10 pm

Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) is a nasty bullshitter, and refusing to take interventions.

Before the benefit cap apparently, people got more on benefits.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 5:12 pm

This is utter fucking bollocks.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 27 Oct, 2015 5:13 pm

I agree.