Thursday 15 September 2016

[tinybgoat]

http://labourlist.org/2016/09/corbyn-pl ... ic-income/

Jeremy Corbyn will today commit Labour to a study of the universal basic income if he wins the leadership contest.
The policy – backed by the Green Party – would lead to the replacement of means-tested benefits with a standard payment for all citizens. Those who have called for the policy say it will help low-paid workers.

[tinybgoat]

http://labourlist.org/2016/09/jeremy-co ... -the-mess/

Full text of Jeremy Corbyn’s speech at Bloomberg in London today.

[tinybgoat]

https://www.opendemocracy.net/peter-ken ... new-labour

As the second Labour party leadership contest in twelve months draws to a close, polls suggest Jeremy Corbyn is set to comfortably beat his opponent Owen Smith and secure a second mandate. It has become startlingly clear that the centre & right wings of the party are lacking any kind of economic strategy beyond Owen Smith’s campaign sloganeering, their shared loathing of Jeremy Corbyn conveniently obfuscating the fact. Are they anti-austerity? If so, how do they wrest ‘economic credibility’ from the Tories? If the party is not avowedly anti-austerity, would a post-Corbyn leader return to the electorally disastrous political triangulation of Ed Miliband’s tenure?

[howsillyofme1]

Tizme1

Yes of course it is my viewpoint.

What else could it be?

I can give you chapter and verse on why the Green's central economic policy, the citizen's income, doesn't fly if you like. But no doubt that would be "so like, just my opinion" and so not worth bothering with.

Yes it would be your opinion. I in turn could give you chapter and verse on the Green Party opinion that it would work.

You know Hugo, when I am on the doorstep talking to members of the public, I don't make comments about their temperament. Nor do I misrepresent what they have said. I don't accuse them of self indulgence, of sixth form silliness, or of a lack of knowledge. I don't tell them that their premise is wrong or that the economic theories they support are daft. Instead, I listen to them. If I have facts applicable to what they are saying, I use them. I also give my viewpoint. We have what is known as a conversation. Sometimes we still land up having to agree to differ in a friendly way. Occasionally I am able to change their mind. Often we find points of agreement and manage to come up with dare I say it - compromises!

[/Drops Mic]

chapeau

[howsillyofme1]

Manners!

Happy Birthday Mr Dan

[SpinningHugo]

.

[SpinningHugo]

In the light of the rather heated exchange above, let me explain why I have little time for Greens (and Lib Dems, and Ukippers). This relates to the referendum and how party politics works.

As we know, during the referendum campaign lots of ridiculous claims were made for the benefits of leaving (£350m per week for the NHS and so on), Why did the Leave campaign make such ridiculous promises?

Mainly because they knew they would never be held to account afterwards if they won. We didn't elect a 'Leave' party who could then be held to account when things didn'tt turn out as easily as promised. We have a PM who campaigned for remain in charge.

The great thing about party politics is that isn't true. Parties that might be in power are constrained by what they can say. Labour has to put forward viable policies that can be carried out because if they cannot, they'll be hit at the next election. Take the (stupid) idea of a graduate tax to replace student loans. There is no doubt that politically this would have been an attractive policy, and that Ed Miliband personally favoured it. But in reality it isn't viable, the numbers don't work. So, Labour didn't promise it.

The Lib Dems have historically had no such constraints, promising the moon on a stick. Their going into government gave them their just reward.

The Greens are similar. They'll never be in power, so it doesn't matter what they say.

That the numbers for the citizens income dont add up can be shrugged off. They can make all kinds of claims about the savings from abolishing housing benefit, because the consequence of doing so when their universal income would fall a very long way short of covering housing benefits for many especially in the south east will never be visited upon them,

The SNP are the same 'eerything will be wonderful once we have independence'. Once they get independence, it won't matter that it wasn't true it will be too late.

The good thing abut the two party system we had in the UK for decades was accountability. Coalitions had to be formed within the parties in advance, not after the election. Voters had to choose which one on balance they preferred, even if it didn't fulfill all that they wanted. Each of the two parties had to have a viable programme.

That system is breaking down,. Corbyn is a symptom of it, with his implausible claims about tax evasion/avoidance, and 'people's QE'. I don't like it. Politics is becoming faith based, with untruths justified on the basis that the other side are worse.

[howsillyofme1]

Sorry Hugo....I just see your name on a post and I laugh

I think you are probably annoyed because Tizme got you down to a tee.....

I hope you continue to waste your time posting because I don't think most of the people read you anymore and just shrug their shoulders, laugh at your arrogance and self-awareness and move on

You should go back to your 'friends' over on CiF who you can rant together with and who are probably intellectually immature enough to think you are actually saying anything

The people on here are a bit older and wiser than that

Go and write some more guff on your blog, put on your gown and wig you got from the remainder sale and pretend to be a lawyer as you seem to like to....if you are really some sort of 'legal' person then I pity anyone who has ever had the misfortune to deal with you

Go away and leave this board to the grown ups who used to get along just fine until you started dripping your poison in!

It is so much easier to destroy than create isn't it?

[Tizme1]

Hugo,

Obviously you are by all means perfectly within your rights to argue against a Citizens Income. Before arguing against the Green Party proposal though, I suggest you read if first. That way you would save yourself the embarrassment of dismissing it on erroneous grounds.

https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/assets ... 0Paper.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[howsillyofme1]

Hugo,

Obviously you are by all means perfectly within your rights to argue against a Citizens Income. Before arguing against the Green Party proposal though, I suggest you read if first. That way you would save yourself the embarrassment of dismissing it on erroneous grounds.

https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/assets ... 0Paper.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tizme

don't bother....he isn't worth it

[howsillyofme1]

see Tubby is there....hope you are well.....

any thoughts on how EU/Brexit is going?

Looks a bit of a shambles from here

[citizenJA]

Hugo,

Obviously you are by all means perfectly within your rights to argue against a Citizens Income. Before arguing against the Green Party proposal though, I suggest you read if first. That way you would save yourself the embarrassment of dismissing it on erroneous grounds.

https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/assets ... 0Paper.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tizme

don't bother....he isn't worth it

I learn valuable information from the responses. I'm not joking around, I'm not being snarky, I'm not doing any passive-aggressive thing - no. Some of the best ideas come from responses to difficult or erroneous commentators. I wouldn't mind if the commentator doesn't post again. That'd be okay with me too.

[howsillyofme1]

Hugo,

Obviously you are by all means perfectly within your rights to argue against a Citizens Income. Before arguing against the Green Party proposal though, I suggest you read if first. That way you would save yourself the embarrassment of dismissing it on erroneous grounds.

https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/assets ... 0Paper.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tizme

don't bother....he isn't worth it

I learn valuable information from the responses. I'm not joking around, I'm not being snarky, I'm not doing any passive-aggressive thing - no. Some of the best ideas come from responses to difficult or erroneous commentators. I wouldn't mind if the commentator doesn't post again. That'd be okay with me too.

This one poster has, in my view, been one of the causes for the problems we have seen in the board over the last few months

I do not believe that he is genuinely engaging in discussion like the rest of us but likes to manipulate and throw petrol on smouldering embers

I find his politics pretty obnoxious...far more than anyone else on here but that is not the issue....we should be able to tolerate different opinions

If he stays more people will start drifting away....you can already see a certain frustration in even the most tolerant of our FTN family and the consequence of that is not positive

This poster does sometimes link to interesting articles but it is rare and we have Hindle and others who are much more capable in that area

Remember the history and also the posts he has made on CiF in the past under multiple identities

[Tizme1]

Hugo,

Obviously you are by all means perfectly within your rights to argue against a Citizens Income. Before arguing against the Green Party proposal though, I suggest you read if first. That way you would save yourself the embarrassment of dismissing it on erroneous grounds.

https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/assets ... 0Paper.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tizme

don't bother....he isn't worth it

You're probably right Howsilly. Certainly Hugo's prejudice against Greens is clear. He may think we have been having a 'heated argument' but there is no heat on my part. He doesn't anger me. I feel pity for anyone who is that prejudiced that they can not accept alternative viewpoints are equally valid.

[citizenJA]

@howsillyofme1
I understand and you're probably right.

[citizenJA]

Tubby Isaacs is here!!! Woo-hoo!

[citizenJA]

I don't think SpinningHugo is for real. Once I came to that conclusion, I've been indifferent to whatever they post. The commentator(s) is/are human and I don't want to hurt feelings. I'm writing this because my friends here aren't happy with this commentator. I'm just trying to help. I'll leave it here.

[howsillyofme1]

Tubby Isaacs is here!!! Woo-hoo!

I would be really interested to hear Tubby's views on Brexit....I know we are not in total agreement on A50 etc but I think we have more insight into things since Tubby last posted and their views were always very thought-provoking

[citizenJA]

Tubby Isaacs is here!!! Woo-hoo!

I would be really interested to hear Tubby's views on Brexit....I know we are not in total agreement on A50 etc but I think we have more insight into things since Tubby last posted and their views were always very thought-provoking

Yep.

[JonnyT1234]

Quick read through of the day and seeing as tilting at spinning windmills appears to be most that's happened, here's some more of it ...

Bell's latest

[HindleA]

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... lStatement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Previous Personal Statement Next 15 September 2016
11.35 am

Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to make a personal statement. In response to the report published by the Privileges Committee today and the report published by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, I wanted to take this opportunity to make a full and unreserved apology to you and to the House.

In 2013, I breached the rules of conduct by sharing a draft report by the Committee of Public Accounts regarding the regulation of consumer credit. An investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards was initiated in 2015, following a complaint made by Wonga. I completely accept the findings of the report published today by the Privileges Committee and the report submitted by the Commissioner for Standards. I accept that my actions in sharing the report constitute an interference in the work of the Committee of Public Accounts, and for this I am truly sorry. This was never my intention.

These actions came as a result of my own naiveté, driven by a desire to strengthen regulations on payday lenders and protect vulnerable consumers. The Commissioner for Standards confirmed this as my motivation, based on evidence that I have worked on cross-party campaigns to protect consumers and that I had long argued for tighter regulation of the payday lending industry. I welcome the report’s conclusion that my actions were not motivated by financial gain, and the report states that I did not act in the way I did for financial gain, nor with the intention of reflecting the views of the company concerned. I also appreciate the acknowledgment that the national newspaper story following the start of the investigation was unsubstantiated.

I have accepted full responsibility since the very beginning of this process and, as acknowledged in the report, I have provided an unreserved acceptance of the findings of the commissioner and have co-operated fully throughout three different inquiries. I would like to add my thanks to the Privileges Committee, the Clerk of that Committee and the Commissioner for Standards for their diligent work throughout this process.

I reiterate my apology today, Mr Speaker, and I am very grateful that the House has allowed me to make this apology at the earliest opportunity.



Bollox

[citizenJA]

"The insistence that government needs the power to exercise judicious control over the ownership of an industry in the national
interest may seem sensible and moderate to most people. Yet it also seems revolutionary and radical. It is a break from a recent
past in which global market forces have routinely been treated as the only secure basis for ownership decisions."

- Brexit was a revolt against liberalism. We’ve entered a new political era
Martin Kettle

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... iberal-age" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kettle writes specifically about Hinkley above but as the article's title suggests, Kettle's writing is more than the nuclear project.
Government, the nation, are on the hook for when private industry fouls up. That's not new, it's not changed. The government,
taxpayers, are still paying for banking failure caused by a relatively few number of people. The economic infrastructure of the
nation is every bit as important as its transportation, communications, energy, health, social and law enforcement infrastructure.
I'm taken aback by the claim someone thinks it's 'revolutionary' for government to exercise control over nuclear energy projects
and other national interest concerns. The economy isn't a geographical feature, it's made by people. It can be changed to function
better for a greater number of people.

[TR'sGhost]

Hugo,

Obviously you are by all means perfectly within your rights to argue against a Citizens Income. Before arguing against the Green Party proposal though, I suggest you read if first. That way you would save yourself the embarrassment of dismissing it on erroneous grounds.

https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/assets ... 0Paper.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tizme

don't bother....he isn't worth it

You're probably right Howsilly. Certainly Hugo's prejudice against Greens is clear. He may think we have been having a 'heated argument' but there is no heat on my part. He doesn't anger me. I feel pity for anyone who is that prejudiced that they can not accept alternative viewpoints are equally valid.

Hugo's strategy is to spread dissent, cynicism about anyone left of May, depression and division. Part of this is portraying everyone else as an unreasonable extremist who is "unwilling to compromise". Ever more "compromises" being the only way, says Hugo, of ever winning an election. And compromise being good and a worthy aim in itself unless you're an "extremist".

And when you've compromised everything away, no doubt mates of Hugo will be along to point out there's really no point in voting at all if you want change is there. Because the parties are now all, sadly, so alike.....

[citizenJA]

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... lStatement


Previous Personal Statement Next 15 September 2016
11.35 am

Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)

[cJA edit]

I reiterate my apology today, Mr Speaker, and I am very grateful that the House has allowed me to make this apology at the earliest opportunity.


Bollox

Mr. Speaker liked it.

Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and, indeed, for the way in which he has said it.

[HindleA]

Current incumbent likes to make cock jokes.As the position becomes more exalted the more inappropriate the holder.

[citizenJA]

Quick read through of the day and seeing as tilting at spinning windmills appears to be most that's happened, here's some more of it ...

Bell's latest

That's the second Tory Bell's put on an animal equipped police riot gear, raised baton whacking at harmless within as many years
J Hunt a mosquito armed with the same baton trying to take out a junior doctor

[frightful_oik]

I've got Matthew Parris in my train compartment as I type. I've not given him a slap yet as he's behaving himself.

[SpinningHugo]

Hugo,

Obviously you are by all means perfectly within your rights to argue against a Citizens Income. Before arguing against the Green Party proposal though, I suggest you read if first. That way you would save yourself the embarrassment of dismissing it on erroneous grounds.

https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/assets ... 0Paper.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I read this in May of last year, unless this is a new version.

The basic idea is well known. There is a large literature on it.

it doesn't work (unless you want quite a large number to fall into destitution or alternatively punitive tax rates).

[Hobiejoe]

I've got Matthew Parris in my train compartment as I type. I've not given him a slap yet as he's behaving himself.

Was listening to his R4 programme - I think it's called Great Lives - with my daughter on the way home from school the other day. Eliza Carthy was talking about Caroline Norton, we both very much enjoyed it, so you can thank him for that.

[SpinningHugo]

. I feel pity for anyone who is that prejudiced that they can not accept alternative viewpoints are equally valid.

I am nt sure you have grasped how arguments like this work. It is not like preference for a flavour of ice cream, no one better than another.

So, for example, some people thought Brexit a good idea. They were wrong. They are entitled to their view, but they were wrong.

You think the Greens' citizens income idea could work. I am sure it can't, which is why serious parties don't propose it.

One of us is wrong. It isn't like preferring vanilla.

[HindleA]

Yes.

Great Lives


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qxs ... /downloads" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HindleA]

Radio 4/4extra addict confession.


Though does get confusing,currently the latter also repeating episides from ten years ago.

[HindleA]

There is some spam in the welfare & benefits section.Something about wrinkles.

[citizenJA]

Radio 4/4extra addict confession.


Though does get confusing,currently the latter also repeating episides from ten years ago.

Mr citizen loves them. I can never make up my mind and choose just one. I collect Radio 4 programme titles.

[citizenJA]

Goodnight, everyone.
love,
cJA

[refitman]

There is some spam in the welfare & benefits section.Something about wrinkles.

Cheers, zapped.

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/social-care ... m-as-human" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Stop calling disabled people superhuman - just treat them as human
Peter Beresford

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... re-funding" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Research and analysis
A cohort approach to social care funding


The need for social care will increasingly be an issue for both individuals and wider society. More people are living to be “very old”, the risk of devastating illness at younger ages seems to be increasing, and increasing numbers of adults live alone. Taken together, these trends mean that the need for some form of paid care for help with daily living will become a reality for increasing numbers of the population.

We suggest that considering each generational group separately, and developing solutions for the group, will help a robust, practical and workable set of solutions to be developed for the longer term. We refer to this as a cohort approach to social care funding. This paper, which is based on the position in England, briefly explores the issues and how such a cohort approach might be developed.

[HindleA]

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

Doctors urge inquiry into Jeremy Hunt's NHS 'weekend effect' claims
Letter signed by doctors and scientists including Stephen Hawking accuses health secretary of misrepresenting evidence