FlyTheNest

Yo.

Just seen a piece about the first tanks on the tv. Sobering.

tinyclanger2 wrote:Just seen a piece about the first tanks on the tv. Sobering.

lots of squashed tv`s then?
seriously though...things were REALLY bad back then..saw an article about Percy..the first ever
feline tank crew

Good morfternoon.

Hinkley Point C nuclear power station gets go-ahead

Theresa May gives controversial £18bn scheme green light after she delayed approval to review project
(Guardian)

I'd better read the article. Here's a link for me (and for you, too) -

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... gets-go-ah

Morning all.

Bad timing on that list. Is anyone on it denying what they've said?

What list?

Morning all.

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




Elderly Britons bearing brunt of cuts to social care, report warns

http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publication ... ekingsfund" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Social care for older people
Home truths.



http://www.carersuk.org/news-and-campai ... -allowance" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Protect Attendance Allowance



Reply to consultation

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

@refitman

Birthday Greetings!

Have a lovely day.

@refitman

Happy birthday!

This list?

Jeremy Corbyn's team issues list of MPs who it claims undermined leader

Deputy leader Tom Watson, Jess Phillips and Tristram Hunt among 14 Labour MPs singled out for allegedly abusing Corbyn and his allies (Guardian)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ned-leader

Edited - to add the "J" to Jeremy

PorFavor wrote:This list?

Jeremy Corbyn's team issues list of MPs who it claims undermined leader

Deputy leader Tom Watson, Jess Phillips and Tristram Hunt among 14 Labour MPs singled out for allegedly abusing Corbyn and his allies (Guardian)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ned-leader

Edited - to add the "J" to Jeremy

Yes, that'd be the one.

Thanks guys and gals. Think I might treat myself to a new bed.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/ ... ade-public

BBC presenters' salaries over £150,000 to be made public
Salaries of ‘talent’, including Laura Kuenssberg, will be published as part of plan imposed by
government during royal charter renewal

I wasn't really interested in how much their presenters get paid, but thought this was a good
example of 'Flaming' by the Guardian.

Happy birthday, refitman!

Good-morning, everyone.

If the music gets too loud, let me know, I'll turn it down.

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


Junior was a London Paralympics Games Maker. Don’t talk to him about ‘legacy’
Frances Ryan

SH - I genuinely don't mind your contributing here, but can you not use my name in vain please?

The list is silly and counter productive - nobody with any sense would have put Watson on it even if deserved were it meant to have been circulated in public.

And why no Michael Dugher?

http://dpac.uk.net/2016/09/hammersmith- ... ed-people/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Hammersmith and Fulham Council lead the way for Disabled People


https://jennymorrisnet.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... l?spref=tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

StephenDolan wrote:Morning all.

Bad timing on that list. Is anyone on it denying what they've said?

Neil Coyle seems quite put out. He has been talking on BBC News 24 this morning. He doesn't seem to have been accused of anything specific, though, that he has had an opportunity to confirm or deny as far as I can tell. He co-wrote an article with Jo Cox about regretting nominating Jeremy Corbyn and he's quite pro-EU. Does anyone know anything else that may have landed him on the naughty step?

AnatolyKasparov wrote:SH - I genuinely don't mind your contributing here, but can you not use my name in vain please?

The list is silly and counter productive - nobody with any sense would have put Watson on it even if deserved were it meant to have been circulated in public.

And why no Michael Dugher?

I think the point is that no one in Corbyn's inner circle seems to have any sense. Understandable as it may, the paranoid bunker mentality simply further damages the party. Do you happen to know why Neil Coyle might be on such a list, AK?

Willow904 wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:SH - I genuinely don't mind your contributing here, but can you not use my name in vain please?

The list is silly and counter productive - nobody with any sense would have put Watson on it even if deserved were it meant to have been circulated in public.

And why no Michael Dugher?

I think the point is that no one in Corbyn's inner circle seems to have any sense. Understandable as it may, the paranoid bunker mentality simply further damages the party. Do you happen to know why Neil Coyle might be on such a list, AK?

As AK alluded to NC is very pro-EU, his resignation letter apportions a lot of the blame for the referendum result to Corbyn.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... 5/HCWS154/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Housing Benefit:Written statement

On supported housing

StephenDolan wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:SH - I genuinely don't mind your contributing here, but can you not use my name in vain please?

The list is silly and counter productive - nobody with any sense would have put Watson on it even if deserved were it meant to have been circulated in public.

And why no Michael Dugher?

I think the point is that no one in Corbyn's inner circle seems to have any sense. Understandable as it may, the paranoid bunker mentality simply further damages the party. Do you happen to know why Neil Coyle might be on such a list, AK?

As AK alluded to NC is very pro-EU, his resignation letter apportions a lot of the blame for the referendum result to Corbyn.

How is that "abuse"?

http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/news ... iY.twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Large numbers of care leavers left hungry and in debt

HindleA wrote:http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... 5/HCWS154/


Housing Benefit:Written statement

On supported housing

Good news in it, at least for the medium term.

We have heard the concerns regarding the application of the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates to social rents from 2018. So I can announce today that we will be deferring the application of this policy for supported housing until 2019/20. At this point we will bring in a new funding model which will ensure that the sector continues to be funded at current levels, taking into account the effect of Government policy on social sector rents. I can also confirm that the deferral until 2019/20 will extend to fully mutuals/co-operatives, almshouses and community land trusts while we consider whether any additional arrangements will be necessary for this group in the longer term.

Bad news as well, what a surprise.

In March 2016, we introduced a one year deferral for supported housing, fully mutuals/co-operatives, almshouses and Community Land Trusts from the reduction of social rents in England of 1% a year for 4 years from 2016. It is important that providers can continue to provide high-quality and cost-effective supported housing to meet the needs of their tenants. However, it is also important that supported housing should make efficiency savings in the same way as the rest of the social sector.
Therefore, I can confirm that, as planned, we will apply the rent reduction to supported housing, with rents in these properties decreasing by 1% a year for 3 years, up to and including 2019/20.

God they're mean. It must be peanuts in the overall scheme of things.

I’m only a poor Labour MP (aaah)
JC Keeps on picking on me ( its a shame)
I can smear in a tweet
The trot rabble on the street
But nobody can boo the PLP

We once had a leader called Tony (oooh)
He led us to three victories
But he also bombed kids
And the country want rid
Of his tory lite ideology

But I’m only a poor Labour MP (aaah)
My brain can’t comprehend change ( its too small)
and its really not fair
The members don’t care
If selection is mandatory

I added two verses

We once were the party of the workers (hooray)
But now we're all neo-lib whigs (It's a sin)
We can't get further right
We pray to Maggie at night
And dream of initiations with pigs.

I’m only a poor Labour MP (aaah)
JC Keeps on picking on me ( its a lie)
and I'll scweam and scweam
I'd rather run down my team
Than help a socalist to election victory.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/t ... e52a0f6615" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;?


Tory MP Justin Tomlinson Suspended From Parliament For Leaking Report To Wonga
Former minister will have to apologise to the Commons

Ben Bradshaw, boo hoo hoo.

Greetings all.

@Hugo - Thank you for answering my post from yesterday. You state that;

1) You accept the reality of climate change. That being the case, you must surely see why I am increasingly astonished at the energy people put into arguing over the best way to rearrange the deck chairs.

2) That compromise is necessary in politics to 'win'. This is true. I am involved in local politics, I am fully aware of the need to compromise. However, compromise does not mean ditching your policies/beliefs/principles and accepting those of your opposition. What is the point of 'winning' if only to enact pretty much the same policies as the opposition?

3) That Green voters are temperamentally not compromisers. I find that personally insulting. I would also add it indicates prejudice on your part.

https://www.theguardian.com/housing-net ... um=twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Shared ownership comes with risks – here's what to watch out for

Tizme1 wrote: What is the point of 'winning' if only to enact pretty much the same policies as the opposition?

Your premise is just wrong. The policies and decisions of the last Labour government were completely different from the current Tory one. Thinking that the last Labour government was just 'Tory lite' as you claimed is self indulgent silliness. From benefits, through education to Europe, Labour was quite different from the current Tory rule.

I would like something like the last Labour government to be in power. Unfortunately for me, that is not an option any longer.

Tizme1 wrote: That Green voters are temperamentally not compromisers. I find that personally insulting. I would also add it indicates prejudice on your part.

I find it a bit odd that you argue "what is the point of compromising" and then take offence (really?) at being told that Greens are not temperamentally compromisers.

As the Greens have almost no chance of winning anywhere (and after the boundary changes, absolutely no chance of winning anywhere), i don't think it is all that rude to suggest that green voters are more interested in principle than power.

i nice cozy place to be. One Labour has also retreated to.

Re Neil Coyle - I think he has often been fairly, shall we say, "robust" on social media. I don't think the EU has much to do with it tbh.

And I don't think this list was ever intended to be made public (as I said, if it was it is hardly likely Watson would have been on it) It wasn't a leak like the "Core Group Hostile etc" one at the start of the year, though - just a blunder. I see that somebody has already taken the rap over it?

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Re Neil Coyle - I think he has often been fairly, shall we say, "robust" on social media. I don't think the EU has much to do with it tbh.

And I don't think this list was ever intended to be made public (as I said, if it was it is hardly likely Watson would have been on it) It wasn't a leak like the "Core Group Hostile etc" one at the start of the year, though - just a blunder. I see that somebody has already taken the rap over it?

And there was an apology to Tom Watson where it would have ended, if Corbyn had said as much in the Sky debate, but unfortunately he managed to whip it all up again.

I've now found the comments Neil Coyle made calling Corbyn a personality cult like Nigel Farage. When I asked if there was something specific, I did so because I didn't know much about him so assumed there might be something I'd missed like this which made his inclusion make more sense.

What I said before about the bunker mentality stands, though. I doubt Tony Blair ever have a second thought to Corbyn's criticisms of himself because he was so popular with the electorate. Although I really, really do get how angry you are about the criticisms of certain parties against the leadership, and agree that it damages Labour's electoral chances, those who want to see a more left wing Labour don't do themselves any favours by pinning all their hopes on someone who was so unpopular with the wider public before the usual suspects even started to criticise him. Labour voters have twice now been bamboozled by a party who passed over the obvious candidate they expected (David Miliband, Andy Burnham, poss Cooper) for an obscure no-hoper. No wonder they don't trust the party to know what they're doing in government when they can't even pick the right leader. I grew to really like and admire Ed Miliband, and still think he would have made a good PM, but that doesn't blind me to the fact that he wasn't the leader Labour voters wanted or expected and that's partly why he lost.

(Edited to change Nick to Neil - I really don't know much about him!)

SpinningHugo wrote:

Tizme1 wrote: What is the point of 'winning' if only to enact pretty much the same policies as the opposition?

Your premise is just wrong. The policies and decisions of the last Labour government were completely different from the current Tory one. Thinking that the last Labour government was just 'Tory lite' as you claimed is self indulgent silliness. From benefits, through education to Europe, Labour was quite different from the current Tory rule.

I would like something like the last Labour government to be in power. Unfortunately for me, that is not an option any longer.

Tizme1 wrote: That Green voters are temperamentally not compromisers. I find that personally insulting. I would also add it indicates prejudice on your part.

I find it a bit odd that you argue "what is the point of compromising" and then take offence (really?) at being told that Greens are not temperamentally compromisers.

As the Greens have almost no chance of winning anywhere (and after the boundary changes, absolutely no chance of winning anywhere), i don't think it is all that rude to suggest that green voters are more interested in principle than power.

i nice cozy place to be. One Labour has also retreated to.

Aren you seriously arguing that current Govt isn't 'Tory Lite'
so therefore previous Labour Govt can't have been 'Tory Lite' either ?

tinybgoat wrote: Aren you seriously arguing that current Govt isn't 'Tory Lite'
so therefore previous Labour Govt can't have been 'Tory Lite' either ?

I don't understand I am afraid.

The current government is a Tory one. I was criticising Tizme for calling the last Labour one 'Tory lite'

SpinningHugo wrote:

Tizme1 wrote: What is the point of 'winning' if only to enact pretty much the same policies as the opposition?

Your premise is just wrong. The policies and decisions of the last Labour government were completely different from the current Tory one. Thinking that the last Labour government was just 'Tory lite' as you claimed is self indulgent silliness. From benefits, through education to Europe, Labour was quite different from the current Tory rule.

I would like something like the last Labour government to be in power. Unfortunately for me, that is not an option any longer.

Tizme1 wrote: That Green voters are temperamentally not compromisers. I find that personally insulting. I would also add it indicates prejudice on your part.

I find it a bit odd that you argue "what is the point of compromising" and then take offence (really?) at being told that Greens are not temperamentally compromisers.

As the Greens have almost no chance of winning anywhere (and after the boundary changes, absolutely no chance of winning anywhere), i don't think it is all that rude to suggest that green voters are more interested in principle than power.

i nice cozy place to be. One Labour has also retreated to.

I should be obliged Hugo if you would point out where I used the phrase 'Tory Lite'. I should also be most obliged if you would show me where I said "what is the point of compromising" [even if I had made that statement, it is still prejudice to extrapolate that to all Greens].

Once you've done that, or alternatively apologised for misrepresenting what I said, perhaps you could suggest what 'compromises' Greens should make in an attempt to gain power.

Incidentally, are you suggesting Tony Blair didn't move to the right over the years? Finally perhaps you could address the fact that we are talking about the current situation, not the previous New Labour governments. Since 2010 a majority of Labour Party MPs have accepted the Tory narrative rather than articulate an alternative.

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1504430 ... atement-on" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Labour Press
Debbie Abrahams comments on written statement on Housing Benefit

and John Healey point of order


http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/57 ... t=12:59:22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Happy birthday Refitman !

I did actually bake a cake this morning, was in the mood. It's sticky orange, ginger and sultana and there's plenty for everyone. If it isn't any good blame Nigel Slater, got it from his column.

Tizme1 wrote:
I should be obliged Hugo if you would point out where I used the phrase 'Tory Lite'. I should also be most obliged if you would show me where I said "what is the point of compromising" [even if I had made that statement, it is still prejudice to extrapolate that to all Greens].

A perfectly fair paraphrase of what you said yesterday

"I can't imagine myself voting Labour. Why vote for watered down Tory policies? "

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1039&start=50#p128968" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sixth form silliness IMO. Only someone who doesn't know much about what the Tories have actually been doing could say such a self-indulgent thing.

Tizme1 wrote: perhaps you could suggest what 'compromises' Greens should make in an attempt to gain power.

Up until last year the answer should have been obvious.

"Vote Labour."

I've no idea what the answer is now. Vote for Owen Smith so that Labour will be worth voting for in the future is one option. A long haul though, and would require patience and compromise. I doubt you'd like that.

Tizme1 wrote:Incidentally, are you suggesting Tony Blair didn't move to the right over the years?

In some ways yes. So, he became convinced of the need for further public sector 'reform', and regretted the Freedom of Information Act. He certainly became, wrongly IMO, convinced of the need for further intervention after Kosovo. Basically, experience of government changed his mind on some things.

Tizme1 wrote: Finally perhaps you could address the fact that we are talking about the current situation, not the previous New Labour governments. Since 2010 a majority of Labour Party MPs have accepted the Tory narrative rather than articulate an alternative.

I don't accept that, no. It is what Corbyn supporters like to tell themselves. So there was an alternative in the 2015 General Election, and I was very saddened indeed that it did not win. The idea that Miliband et al just accepted the Tory position seems to me to be an attempt to re-write history.

Further I certainly don't accept that Corbyn has proposed any viable alternative at all. Indeed, I doubt he is really concerned to do so as the battleground is the Labour party, not control of government.

As for the Greens, their economic policies at the GE were daft. Labour's weren't.

Many happy returns Refitman. Have a great day.

Couple of interesting ideas mentioned by Corbyn at Bloomberg. Not much detail but does Labour need to at the moment? Flesh them out in the coming months, years.

http://m.insidehousing.co.uk/7016815.bl ... esuccess=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Jules Birch on supported housing statement

If one is paraphrasing ones understanding of someone else's viewpoint, one should not use inverted commas. To do so implies a direct quotation.

I am acutely aware of what the Tories have been doing. I am also very aware of how little Labour have been offering an alternative over the last 6 years.

I am a Green and yet you tell me that until last year at least, my compromise should have been to vote Labour. That is not a compromise it is tactical voting. I can see no value in voting for preference rather than choice when there is insufficient difference between the two options.

You say "I've no idea what the answer is now. Vote for Owen Smith so that Labour will be worth voting for in the future is one option. A long haul though, and would require patience and compromise. I doubt you'd like that."

Firstly I am not a Labour party member and so I am not in a position to vote for Owen Smith even if I thought that was the answer. Furthermore, you have no idea what levels of patience I have, nor in what ways I would be prepared to compromise. You are also ignoring the fact that Greens have been patient and have been compromising for many years.

You state your opinion that Green economic polices were daft as though that is a fact. It is merely your viewpoint. Granted you have a very high opinion of your viewpoint but that doesn't make it automatically correct.

You may think that it is merely Corbyn supporters who believe Miliband et al were too accepting of the Tory narrative. You are wrong. As I said, I could not see sufficient difference and I am not a Corbyn supporter.

Happy birthday Refitman. Hope you're having a wonderful day.

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.

SpinningHugo wrote: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.

You've got that right! Don't bother

SpinningHugo wrote: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!

Tizme1 wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote: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]