Wednesday 28th September 2016

Post by **refitman** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 7:16 am

Morning all.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 8:10 am

Morning.

I'm not a Twitter user, but look at the tweets of sensible people like Peter Jukes and found this linked there.

It seems as if Martin Rowson is going to curtail his activities on Twitter.
Not sure if I'm reading it right but seems he may have fallen out with Steve Bell, or others about his cartoons depicting Corbyn et al.

I've linked his last tweets together:

''Actually I think I'm done here.
I'm increasingly dismayed by the rancour accruing on all sides even tho insults are my business.
It's also my business to pillory the powerful and those aspiring to power which is my entire beef with Corbyn and the Corbynites.
I was rather enthusiastic about yer [sic] man last year & in depicting him I was certainly far more generous than to any other of my subjects, or than almost all my colleagues.
And yet, even then, I was attacked as being a vile Blairite, it seems for the blasphemy of even depicting Corbyn.
That had a deeply alienating effect, like many of the other tactics employed all round.
I've been trying to explain that here and elsewhere but there seems absolutely no point.
We seem to have collapsed into a kind of rebarbative universal solipsism, and social media is massively culpable.
I think that people don't understand that this endless stream of opinion is not just in their heads, but published forever.
Well I've had fun ranting for the last few years, I hope you've found it amusing but I can feel my soul withering every time I enter another conversation of the deaf.
And to be honest, my colleague and I thought my friend @BellToons telling me publicly to fuck off is too much.
If that's banter, then to hell with it.
This place diminshes us all so I'm off.....''

https://twitter.com/MartinRowson" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just shows how silly the whole thing has got. Rowson a Blairite ?

I feel quite proud to be in the same club as him, derided for not showing blind loyalty. Maybe he'll design a t-shirt for people like him, Woolmar, Andreou and myself ?

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 8:11 am

Only three out of 700 firms prosecuted for paying below minimum wage - the guardian
https://apple.news/AM7vzqqhTRzOOkIV5QAWHkQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of New Labour's greatest achievements was introducing the minimum wage. Their greatest failure was the way they did it.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 8:40 am

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... my-corbyns" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Sparrow says a source 'in the know' claims it is creative writing.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 8:48 am

Morning all.

Sounds from the Today news that we're no nearer getting to an agreement on what Labour's stance on immigration should be - Corbyn wanting no curbs and others (can't recall who - Rayner?) recognising that it is a major problem on the doorstep.

Post by **refitman** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 8:51 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

Sounds from the Today news that we're no nearer getting to an agreement on what Labour's stance on immigration should be - Corbyn wanting no curbs and others (can't recall who - Rayner?) recognising that it is a major problem on the doorstep.

No curbs, but an improved impact fund.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 8:56 am

yahyah wrote:https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... my-corbyns

The Sparrow says a source 'in the know' claims it is creative writing.

Sorry for source, but similar denial here

http://order-order.com/2016/09/28/missi ... -set-quit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cheer just went up in King's Place.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 9:04 am

Apologies HindleA, have just read last night's posts and you got there first with Martin Rowson.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 9:20 am

Morning all.

Normal service returns in the papers I see. Behr piece is a shocker.

But what about here at FTN? How would you like things to be post conference?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 9:30 am

StephenDolan wrote:Morning all.

Normal service returns in the papers I see. Behr piece is a shocker.

But what about here at FTN? How would you like things to be post conference?

I'd like a small number of 'returnees' most obviously those with leadership ambitions (Jarvis, Starmer, Nandy) with the others staying out.

Then the most important thing is for Labour MPs to stay quiet on the leadership. No briefing, no moaning. Don't give the Corbynites any excuses for their failure: they must own it.

Of course, I doubt that tactic will work. Even if every MP did stay quiet, people would still complain that the disastrous polls were attributable to Blairite plotters and Portland communications.

Then in 18 months, try again.

This is, of course, the tactic most were trying this time, but the EU referendum campaign, and Corbyn's call to invoke art 50 immediately, meant that discipline could not be maintained.

The PLP must now show some real discipline if they are ever to be free of the leadership of John McDonnell.

But one thing I am fully expecting is another 2 years of constant political theatre. Labour is the best show on the pier.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 9:37 am

McDonnell's Living Wage pledge

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

That is the problem with policy not based on expert advice, but on politicians understanding of expert's research.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 9:46 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

Sounds from the Today news that we're no nearer getting to an agreement on what Labour's stance on immigration should be - Corbyn wanting no curbs and others (can't recall who - Rayner?) recognising that it is a major problem on the doorstep.

Coincidentally (*cough*) Stephen Kinnock, was on just before end of program, proposing a points system for limiting numbers.

A lot of the anger from people I speak to (or, more often get spoken at by) seems partly to be due to lack if information, there is seen to suddenly be a large number of immigrants living in certain areas, but no understanding of why this is, ie: where do they work, are they paid under minimum wage, why is this allowed by Government etc.
Locally, one of the key moments in the EU referendum, was apparently (i didn't see this) on tv, Cameron was shown a report about number of east European immigrants in an area of Rotherham, his response gave the impression that he was unaware of the situation,surprised & felt it was wrong.

I don't think a points system is the answer (would prefer minimum wage levels to used, & don't think a maximum limit on number of people would be needed ) , but agree with Kinnock that figures need to be available showing what sectors migrants are working in & what wages they're getting.
Whatever the response is, there needs to be an effort to show that it is understood & hopefully under control, and most importantly that communities at least get informed of what is happening & why.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 9:49 am

tinybgoat wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

Sounds from the Today news that we're no nearer getting to an agreement on what Labour's stance on immigration should be - Corbyn wanting no curbs and others (can't recall who - Rayner?) recognising that it is a major problem on the doorstep.

Coincidentally (*cough*) Stephen Kinnock, was on just before end of program, proposing a points system for limiting numbers.

A lot of the anger from people I speak to (or, more often get spoken at by) seems partly to be due to lack if information, there is seen to suddenly be a large number of immigrants living in certain areas, but no understanding of why this is, ie: where do they work, are they paid under minimum wage, why is this allowed by Government etc.
Locally, one of the key moments in the EU referendum, was apparently (i didn't see this) on tv, Cameron was shown a report about number of east European immigrants in an area of Rotherham, his response gave the impression that he was unaware of the situation,surprised & felt it was wrong.

I don't think a points system is the answer (would prefer minimum wage levels to used, & don't think a maximum limit on number of people would be needed ) , but agree with Kinnock that figures need to be available showing what sectors migrants are working in & what wages they're getting.
Whatever the response is, there needs to be an effort to show that it is understood & hopefully under control, and most importantly that communities at least get informed of what is happening & why.

Kinnock is a classic "do as I say, not as I do" politician on this

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/ ... migration/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am with Corbyn, and not Kinnock, Umunna, Reeves, Reynolds etc on this.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 9:51 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

Sounds from the Today news that we're no nearer getting to an agreement on what Labour's stance on immigration should be - Corbyn wanting no curbs and others (can't recall who - Rayner?) recognising that it is a major problem on the doorstep.

Yes - it was Angela Rayner.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 9:51 am

Good morfternoon.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 9:54 am

Hi NonOxCol.
Was just thinking of you yesterday, wondering how you are.
Was going to ask if anyone had your blog address as I'd forgotten to book mark it.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 10:02 am

Latest homelessness figures:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... ss#history" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 10:23 am

Sorry about the source but interesting anyway, describing the tories position between a rock and a hard place..
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetory ... losed.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The real Brexit choice. Not Hard v Soft, but Open v Closed

The first is what might be called Open Britain.....................London and the South-East would be likely to gain most from such a strategy, at least in the short-term. The losers from imports and high immigration would mostly be concentrated elsewhere – in the Leave-voting North and Midlands among the “ordinary working people” who plumped for Brexit.

Which leads us to the second option. It begins with the conviction that government cannot let down these voters, without whom Leave’s referendum victory would not have happened..................Closed Britain. It is difficult to square this vision of the future with the vigorous construction of new airports or nuclear power stations. We would be more likely to put such decisions off and opt for lower growth...........readers will have spotted the snag with the second. It is ultimately unsustainable – and, in political terms, not consistent with where the Conservative Party has pitched its tent in modern times. This suggests a limit to the degree to which, even in the post-Farage absence of a well-organised UKIP, Theresa May’s party can make progress among those Leave voters in the industrial Midlands and north who might now be willing to give it a second look.

Basically, whichever way they go, it'll do SFA for the 'Leave-voting North and Midlands among the “ordinary working people” who plumped for Brexit'. Not many here will be surprised.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 11:04 am

Good-morning, everyone.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 11:21 am

Angela Rayner bemoaning "communities let down by previous governments" completely dismissing any good that Brown achieved.

This is where I lose it with the new order, glib statements which don't have the intelligence or nuance to look back and consider the broader picture.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 11:22 am

The Mayor's plans for rail devolution

https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/tr ... devolution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 11:24 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
yahyah wrote:https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... my-corbyns

The Sparrow says a source 'in the know' claims it is creative writing.
Sorry for source, but similar denial here

http://order-order.com/2016/09/28/missi ... -set-quit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cheer just went up in King's Place.

You know the drill, never believe anything until it has been officially denied

And the mere fact it is being talked about so intently is significant.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 11:32 am

As for the impact of immigration on areas Brown had already covered it, only for Pickles to scrap it in 2010, still, good that the old bear is still having an impact on Labour's policies.

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/natio ... 9be1a02-ds" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 11:38 am

letsskiptotheleft wrote:Angela Rayner bemoaning "communities let down by previous governments" completely dismissing any good that Brown achieved.

This is where I lose it with the new order, glib statements which don't have the intelligence or nuance to look back and consider the broader picture.

The point is she is right things are widely *percieved* that way. You wouldn't have had your and my areas voting for Brexit, otherwise.

Part of the problem was that Blairism preferred doing much of its good stuff "by stealth" as keeping the right wing press sweet mattered above all else.

That meant, unfortunately, that many of the people actually benefiting from it never really noticed either.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 11:46 am

That's the problem in a nutshell. Tell the electorate just what you want to do and risk not getting elected, or do good stuff by stealth and it gets ignored even by some of Labour's own.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 11:48 am

I think this must be the highlight of the conference for everyone (Watson)
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 11:50 am

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

Consultation outcome
Local government pension scheme: investment regulations

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 11:51 am

SpinningHugo wrote:I think this must be the highlight of the conference for everyone (Watson)
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Indeed. If by everyone, you mean "not everyone".

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 11:54 am

Did I imagine it ?

Am sure I heard something on Radio 4 this morning about MPs who are not convinced that things will improve are going to stop briefing and speaking against Corbyn but will instead focus their attention on select committees etc. The idea seems to be to show they are effective in areas that Corbyn and his group don't control and model how they think things should be done.

That would be at least be less counterproductive than what's been happening.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 11:58 am

Depressing to see some of the responses to Shimon Peres's death.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 11:58 am

StephenDolan wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:I think this must be the highlight of the conference for everyone (Watson)
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Indeed. If by everyone, you mean "not everyone".

The criticism of Miliband immediately afterwards (and throughout) is also pretty striking.

Watson the Blairite, who'd have thought it.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 12:01 pm

yahyah wrote:Did I imagine it ?

Am sure I heard something on Radio 4 this morning about MPs who are not convinced that things will improve are going to stop briefing and speaking against Corbyn but will instead focus their attention on select committees etc. The idea seems to be to show they are effective in areas that Corbyn and his group don't control and model how they think things should be done.

That would be at least be less counterproductive than what's been happening.

it is the strategy Cooper (who I think very highly of) has adopted from the start. So she is goinh for Vaz's hob, while Benn is trying to go for the chair of the Brexit committee.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 12:03 pm

yahyah wrote:Did I imagine it ?

Am sure I heard something on Radio 4 this morning about MPs who are not convinced that things will improve are going to stop briefing and speaking against Corbyn but will instead focus their attention on select committees etc. The idea seems to be to show they are effective in areas that Corbyn and his group don't control and model how they think things should be done.

That would be at least be less counterproductive than what's been happening.

That was the rumour last week in relation to Cooper, Umunna and Jarvis. For that to be effective they need to ensure the hackles aren't raised of those supporting Corbyn. Stopping all the public and private bitching from others, ie silence or come down hard on Reed, Mann, Streeting etc.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 12:11 pm

Benn should be persona non grata on both sides of the Corbyn divide. It's because of his rank ineptitude that the Party has just wasted weeks and weeks on a leadership contest that was completely counterproductive for his own cause. He's the prize no. 1 tit in the party and it'd be far better off if he never put his head above the parapet again. Frankly, if there's any cause for deselections, he's the one who should be first out the door, with the boot from every other MP in the party planted firmly on his arse to get him out of it.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 12:14 pm

Bollox,judge finds in favour of Government over JD's contract.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 12:15 pm

"So Farewell Then Seumas Milne
One reason for taking Milne back was easy to deduce: “if Seumas Milne does go back to #Guardian, he'll apparently be keen to ‘spill the beans’ on the past year in team #Corbyn”. "

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2016/ ... milne.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 12:19 pm

http://www.24housing.co.uk/news/mps-urg ... 9U.twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MPs urged to act on eviction ‘crisis’
The number of households made homeless after eviction from a privately rented home is now at the highest since records began.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 12:23 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:Then the most important thing is for Labour MPs to stay quiet on the leadership. No briefing, no moaning. Don't give the Corbynites any excuses for their failure: they must own it.

Of course, I doubt that tactic will work.

That tactic won't work because the people who need to adopt it are complete and utter morons who can't keep their traps shut for a microsecond.

However, it's absolutely what they should have done from day one of Corbyn's election - if he is going to fail, let that failure be his alone. But, no. The Bitterites always 'know what's best' and just had to stick their oars in. Constantly. So they get the blame they absolutely deserve for siding with the Tories and the right wing press and sabotaging the Party, and they're now loathed even more than they were before by almost everyone other than their most ardent acolytes.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 12:25 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:I think this must be the highlight of the conference for everyone (Watson)
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Indeed. If by everyone, you mean "not everyone".

The criticism of Miliband immediately afterwards (and throughout) is also pretty striking.

Watson the Blairite, who'd have thought it.

I much preferred Khan's speech (for that reason amongst others) Despite his differences with Corbyn he is an instinctive unifier, Watson.....well, not so much.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 12:36 pm

Burnham is standing down from Shadow Cabinet to concentrate on running for Mayor of Manchester.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 12:38 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Burnham is standing down from Shadow Cabinet to concentrate on running for Mayor of Manchester.

Least surprising news of the year?

I think he deserves credit for how he has behaved in the past year, even if some will inevitably disagree. It would have been so easy to flounce off and sulk.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 12:44 pm

HindleA wrote:Bollox,judge finds in favour of Government over JD's contract.

I really don't understand the logic of the judgment.

The whole point about Lansley's changes was to make NHS England completely autonomous and take the day to day running away from the Sec of State.

But this seems to be saying that the Sec of State can simply override that when he wants to. It's a shame that the CEO of NHS England didn't stand up and say "Sorry Jeremy, this is my organisation - you have no legal right to do this"

Otherwise what was the point of Lansley's changes?

That last question was purely rhetorical...

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 12:46 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:Burnham is standing down from Shadow Cabinet to concentrate on running for Mayor of Manchester.
Least surprising news of the year?

I think he deserves credit for how he has behaved in the past year, even if some will inevitably disagree. It would have been so easy to flounce off and sulk.

Two good things he's been involved with this year, Hillsborough and showing the other Labour MPs how you manage dealing with a situation where you don't like your party's leader. For both, he does deserve praise. He might even become a good politician one day if he could show these skills more broadly.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 12:46 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:Burnham is standing down from Shadow Cabinet to concentrate on running for Mayor of Manchester.
Least surprising news of the year?

I think he deserves credit for how he has behaved in the past year, even if some will inevitably disagree. It would have been so easy to flounce off and sulk.

Quite wrong.

It would have been the courageous thing to resign because he would then have run the serious risk of losing out on the nomination for the (nailed on) Manchester Mayoralty.

By staying, he guaranteed that he'd get it, and has a nice parachute out of the mess that is the Labour shadow cabinet.

i thought and think Burnham is utterly useless as a politician. He just isn't very bright, which is why he flip flops all the time. Tristram Hunt's joke about Burnham's 'political journey' was rather a good one I thought.

Put another way, Burnham was the one and only member of the PLP who behaved as he did (the other cabinet members are basically all Corbynites).

What was the one and only thing that made Burnham's position different from the other 171?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 12:48 pm

As I said, some will disagree with me

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 12:51 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
HindleA wrote:Bollox,judge finds in favour of Government over JD's contract.
I really don't understand the logic of the judgment.

The whole point about Lansley's changes was to make NHS England completely autonomous and take the day to day running away from the Sec of State.

But this seems to be saying that the Sec of State can simply override that when he wants to. It's a shame that the CEO of NHS England didn't stand up and say "Sorry Jeremy, this is my organisation - you have no legal right to do this"

Otherwise what was the point of Lansley's changes?

That last question was purely rhetorical...

Actually what this does do is establish that it is Jeremy Hunt that has responsibility for the NHS so that any failings can be laid at his door and not simply blame the NHS - a bit like people used to do for Burnham.

Maybe a few people should take note of that.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 12:52 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:As I said, some will disagree with me

"Millions of lifelong Labour supporters voted to leave the EU and...voted for change on immigration."

Burnham just now in his speech.

The idea that Burnham, Andy Burnham!!!, is a man of high principle is really just not plausible at all.

GetYou · Post by **GetYou** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 12:53 pm

Benn should be persona non grata on both sides of the Corbyn divide. It's because of his rank ineptitude that the Party has just wasted weeks and weeks on a leadership contest that was completely counterproductive for his own cause

That tactic won't work because the people who need to adopt it are complete and utter morons who can't keep their traps shut for a microsecond. However, it's absolutely what they should have done from day one of Corbyn's election - if he is going to fail, let that failure be his alone. But, no. The Bitterites always 'know what's best' and just had to stick their oars in. Constantly

I'm not posting much at the moment, but thanks JonnyT1234 for writing pretty much exactly what I'm thinking about Labour right now.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 12:56 pm

Or

"For some of country's least affluent areas... [EU membership] not working out well at all" A Burnham, today.

Perhaps Andy 'Principles' Burnham would like to explain how those people will be made better off, and not significantly worse off, by Brexit?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 28 Sep, 2016 12:59 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:As I said, some will disagree with me
"Millions of lifelong Labour supporters voted to leave the EU and...voted for change on immigration."

Burnham just now in his speech.

The idea that Burnham, Andy Burnham!!!, is a man of high principle is really just not plausible at all.

Well, he's not wrong in those statements is he? A fair way removed from the deeply inflammatory stuff by Reeves yesterday.