Monday 31st October 2016

Post by **refitman** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 7:08 am

Morning all.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 7:12 am

Morning

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

sick-pay-and-work-assessments-to-be-reviewed-jeremy-hunt-reveals

Jeremy Hunt?

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 7:15 am

I picked out this CiF comment from spacedone

Forcing people to go back to the jobs and the environment that caused their problem in the first place to "aid recovery" is fucking insanity.

Well indeed.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 7:42 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Morning

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

sick-pay-and-work-assessments-to-be-reviewed-jeremy-hunt-reveals

Jeremy Hunt?

Selbie said: “People in work generally have better health

- because only well people go to work. Blindingly obvious, when you think about it.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 8:05 am

Willow904 wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Morning

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

sick-pay-and-work-assessments-to-be-reviewed-jeremy-hunt-reveals

Jeremy Hunt?

Selbie said: “People in work generally have better health
- because only well people go to work. Blindingly obvious, when you think about it.

Sadly, not true.
I think a lot of people return too early to work,
causing themselves & others extra stress
& often leading to bad decisions with both financial & social costs to others & to employers.
Also it's questionable that some apparently 'healthy' people should be in positions of responsibility in the first place.
Don't know if anyone's done a study of hidden cost of employing borderline sociopaths as managers?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 8:53 am

Morning all.

Would tend to agree with DAG who just said that this is a significant intervention from the Treasury select committee chair.

What with Dr Sarah Wollaston on health spending and those county council leaders on school support, there's not a lot of love for this government from its own side right now.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 8:55 am

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... rexit-vote

Descendants of Jewish refugees seek German citizenship after Brexit vote

German authorities report twentyfold increase in applications for reserved citizenship from people living in UK

“It is somewhat ironic that we [the association] were founded partly to help people become naturalised British after the war and, 70 years on, we find ourselves in the position of assisting people who want to acquire German and Austrian citizenship because of the recent developments in Britain,”

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 9:23 am

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... forecasts/

The Chancellor is said to have privately warned that without economic stimulus growth next year could be as low as 0.8 per cent, compared to predictions in the March Budget of 2.2 per cent.
The suggestion, just days after official figures defied forecasts and showed that the economy had grown faster than expected following the EU referendum vote, infuriated some Tory MPs.

John Redwood, a eurosceptic Conservative MP, said: "The real argument is that the Chancellor may face wacky figures that could lead him to spend less or think about future tax rises. It could lead him to think about a punishment Budget.
"It would be wrong because the forecasts are clearly going to be wrong. I think Hammond has a real problem because if the Office for Budget Responsibility [the fiscal watchdog] follows this nonsensical gloom, they will present him with less tax revenue. I would suggest he ignores them. It would be a huge mistake."

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 9:37 am

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tory welfare chief wants to stop mentally ill people 'sitting at home living on benefits'

They're going after people with mental health issues in particular, it seems. When I did the poll, not a single person had expressed confidence in Damien Green. After reading a poll that suggested 73% of people support onshore wind farms in contrast to the impression regularly given by Tory politicians, I'm not even sure if any more than a tiny minority even want to see more cuts to welfare, that people are just being led to believe everyone else does in order to justify the unjustifiable that only benefits a small minority at the top.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 9:46 am

Good morfternoon.

Raheem Kassam withdraws from Ukip leadership contest

Raheem Kassam has announced that he is pulling out of the Ukip leadership contest. Kassam, a former aide to Nigel Farage who was running as the continuity Farage candidate, was always a relative outside, and in a statement he says he is suspending his campaign because he has decided he cannot win. (Politics Live, Guardian)

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 9:50 am

tinybgoat wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... forecasts/

The Chancellor is said to have privately warned that without economic stimulus growth next year could be as low as 0.8 per cent, compared to predictions in the March Budget of 2.2 per cent.
The suggestion, just days after official figures defied forecasts and showed that the economy had grown faster than expected following the EU referendum vote, infuriated some Tory MPs.

John Redwood, a eurosceptic Conservative MP, said: "The real argument is that the Chancellor may face wacky figures that could lead him to spend less or think about future tax rises. It could lead him to think about a punishment Budget.
"It would be wrong because the forecasts are clearly going to be wrong. I think Hammond has a real problem because if the Office for Budget Responsibility [the fiscal watchdog] follows this nonsensical gloom, they will present him with less tax revenue. I would suggest he ignores them. It would be a huge mistake."

I'm probably being thick here, but surely it's all the income and corporation tax cuts introduced by the Coalition and Tory governments that is presenting Philip Hammond with less tax revenue, a situation Osborne attempted to cement in law. Hammond will doubtless want to blame the problems created by Osborne on Brexit but I sincerely hope he won't be allowed to. Osborne insisted he had fixed the roof, so regardless of how great the downpour surely there should be questions if the roof doesn't hold. We can but hope.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 9:53 am

Willow904 wrote:
tinybgoat wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... forecasts/

The Chancellor is said to have privately warned that without economic stimulus growth next year could be as low as 0.8 per cent, compared to predictions in the March Budget of 2.2 per cent.
The suggestion, just days after official figures defied forecasts and showed that the economy had grown faster than expected following the EU referendum vote, infuriated some Tory MPs.

John Redwood, a eurosceptic Conservative MP, said: "The real argument is that the Chancellor may face wacky figures that could lead him to spend less or think about future tax rises. It could lead him to think about a punishment Budget.
"It would be wrong because the forecasts are clearly going to be wrong. I think Hammond has a real problem because if the Office for Budget Responsibility [the fiscal watchdog] follows this nonsensical gloom, they will present him with less tax revenue. I would suggest he ignores them. It would be a huge mistake."
I'm probably being thick here, but surely it's all the income and corporation tax cuts introduced by the Coalition and Tory governments that is presenting Philip Hammond with less tax revenue, a situation Osborne attempted to cement in law. Hammond will doubtless want to blame the problems created by Osborne on Brexit but I sincerely hope he won't be allowed to. Osborne insisted he had fixed the roof, so regardless of how great the downpour surely there should be questions if the roof doesn't hold. We can but hope.

Fix it?
Osborne sold the roof. Got a good price for the lead flashing.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 9:56 am

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

Raheem Kassam withdraws from Ukip leadership contest

Raheem Kassam has announced that he is pulling out of the Ukip leadership contest. Kassam, a former aide to Nigel Farage who was running as the continuity Farage candidate, was always a relative outside, and in a statement he says he is suspending his campaign because he has decided he cannot win. (Politics Live, Guardian)

Nothing to do with some of the inflammatory remarks that he's made on social media that would have been eked out over the contest.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 10:18 am

Willow904 wrote: I'm probably being thick here, but surely it's all the income and corporation tax cuts introduced by the Coalition and Tory governments that is presenting Philip Hammond with less tax revenue, a situation Osborne attempted to cement in law. Hammond will doubtless want to blame the problems created by Osborne on Brexit but I sincerely hope he won't be allowed to. Osborne insisted he had fixed the roof, so regardless of how great the downpour surely there should be questions if the roof doesn't hold. We can but hope.

The tax base has been undermined since 2010, certainly. Hammond could stop, or even reverse the changes in the unlikely event that he sees sense.
I heard something last week about that law against tax rises, but didn't catch the drift, whether it happened or not. Parliament could undo it anyway.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 10:22 am

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

Raheem Kassam withdraws from Ukip leadership contest

Raheem Kassam has announced that he is pulling out of the Ukip leadership contest. Kassam, a former aide to Nigel Farage who was running as the continuity Farage candidate, was always a relative outside, and in a statement he says he is suspending his campaign because he has decided he cannot win. (Politics Live, Guardian)

Well, that is a little morsel of cheer. A genuinely nasty piece of work.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 10:28 am

gilsey wrote:
Willow904 wrote: I'm probably being thick here, but surely it's all the income and corporation tax cuts introduced by the Coalition and Tory governments that is presenting Philip Hammond with less tax revenue, a situation Osborne attempted to cement in law. Hammond will doubtless want to blame the problems created by Osborne on Brexit but I sincerely hope he won't be allowed to. Osborne insisted he had fixed the roof, so regardless of how great the downpour surely there should be questions if the roof doesn't hold. We can but hope.
The tax base has been undermined since 2010, certainly. Hammond could stop, or even reverse the changes in the unlikely event that he sees sense.
I heard something last week about that law against tax rises, but didn't catch the drift, whether it happened or not. Parliament could undo it anyway.

I think it did happen and the problem with undoing it is that having to go through parliament draws a lot of attention to the fact that Osborne got it wrong and the Tories are having to reverse their economic policies. Brexit would provide a figleaf, of course, but I think the real issue is that it blows a giant hole in the perennial right wing argument that reducing taxes leads to more revenue. It would be a big, embarrassing admittance that it doesn't. The truth is austerity is still being pursued, with hopes of chucking people with mental health issues off benefits "because work is good for you". The aim of eliminating the deficit may have been abandoned but the depressing (in both senses of the word) combo of tax cuts with spending cuts that completely fail to free up the revenue to pay for them seems set to continue as far as I can tell.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 10:40 am

Willow904 wrote:
gilsey wrote:
Willow904 wrote: I'm probably being thick here, but surely it's all the income and corporation tax cuts introduced by the Coalition and Tory governments that is presenting Philip Hammond with less tax revenue, a situation Osborne attempted to cement in law. Hammond will doubtless want to blame the problems created by Osborne on Brexit but I sincerely hope he won't be allowed to. Osborne insisted he had fixed the roof, so regardless of how great the downpour surely there should be questions if the roof doesn't hold. We can but hope.
The tax base has been undermined since 2010, certainly. Hammond could stop, or even reverse the changes in the unlikely event that he sees sense.
I heard something last week about that law against tax rises, but didn't catch the drift, whether it happened or not. Parliament could undo it anyway.
I think it did happen and the problem with undoing it is that having to go through parliament draws a lot of attention to the fact that Osborne got it wrong and the Tories are having to reverse their economic policies. Brexit would provide a figleaf, of course, but I think the real issue is that it blows a giant hole in the perennial right wing argument that reducing taxes leads to more revenue. It would be a big, embarrassing admittance that it doesn't. The truth is austerity is still being pursued, with hopes of chucking people with mental health issues off benefits "because work is good for you". The aim of eliminating the deficit may have been abandoned but the depressing (in both senses of the word) combo of tax cuts with spending cuts that completely fail to free up the revenue to pay for them seems set to continue as far as I can tell.

Morning all.

I kindly disagree. Like deficit reduction and other failed Tory policies a "that was the past, nothing to do with us" approach will be taken unquestionably assisted by most of the political media. Sagely nod along, talk of tanks parked on lawns, softening policies. Under no circumstances refer to the Tories 2015 manifesto that (its my understanding?) this government is still to be judged against.

Was this extra £10bn on top of the £350m a week extra by the way?

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 10:40 am

Willow904 wrote: I'm probably being thick here, but surely it's all the income and corporation tax cuts introduced by the Coalition and Tory governments that is presenting Philip Hammond with less tax revenue, a situation Osborne attempted to cement in law. Hammond will doubtless want to blame the problems created by Osborne on Brexit but I sincerely hope he won't be allowed to. Osborne insisted he had fixed the roof, so regardless of how great the downpour surely there should be questions if the roof doesn't hold. We can but hope.

I'd be surprised if Hammond was allowed to blame Brexit, or Osborne.
Suspect story will be rehash of something like:

Following Labours crash the successful long term economic plan is still being followed, but u.k. is facing severe challenges from economic headwinds, and being held back by sluggish European economies.
- too which the answer is of course faster brexit.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 11:06 am

RK blaming "the media" for his withdrawal apparently. Erm, what does he think Breitbart is exactly??

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 11:21 am

Earlier, I caught a snippet of Elinor Goodman on Sky News (I was channel-hopping in an effort to avoid Victoria Derbyshire, in case you're interested). I'd forgotten just how much I like Elinor Goodman and her really dry wit. She was on with a columnist from the Sun (I think) and she observed that there was an article that he must have missed "while he was writing it"!

Womble44 · Post by **Womble44** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 11:25 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:RK blaming "the media" for his withdrawal apparently. Erm, what does he think Breitbart is exactly??

I believe Breitbart is fond of the word 'snowflake' in instances like this

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 11:57 am

"confront the attitudes,prejudices and misunderstandings"

"sitting at home living on sickness benefits"

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 12:17 pm

Remember a DWP bod or agent of getting very excited when she 'phoned and my better half was not sitting at home -"she's "OUT!!!!"(she was shopping with her personal assistant),followed by declining to give any information over the 'phone and the usual we will send forms and not complying with requests for information may effect your benefits line.She probably thought the oft repeated Wail picture isn't posed by an actor.

There are many ways to contribute to the betterment of Society and self,the Government has actively made it harder.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 12:26 pm

Ah,. now this might be quite fun...

Nick Gibb summoned to grammar schools ‘evidence check’ hearing

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/nick-gibb-summ ... ck-hearing

The schools minister Nick Gibb and several leading academics have been summoned to an ‘evidence check’ hearing on the government’s proposals for new grammar schools.

The education select committee will grill Gibb and five other key witnesses at the session next Tuesday (November 8).

An announcement last month that the government wants to see an expansion of selection by ability across England has sparked a heated debate, with anecdotes of social mobility often pitted against evidence to the contrary.

MPs have now said they wanted to take a closer look at the stated pros and cons of the policy.

The air has been thick with the sound of claims and counter-claims

Becky Allen, director of Education Datalab, economics professor David Jesson from the University of York, Luke Sibieta from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and professor Anna Vignoles from the University of Cambridge’s education department, will also appear.

Also appearing alongside Gibb will be the Department for Education’s chief scientific adviser, Tim Leunig.

There's some serious heavyweights who know their data on that panel beforehand.

Freddie Whittaker ‏@FCDWhittaker 6m6 minutes ago

Freddie Whittaker Retweeted Schools Week

Something tells me this isn't to be Gibb's most comfortable select committee appearance to date...

Quite.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 12:51 pm

http://bjpo.rcpsych.org/content/2/1/18" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Claims for sickness and disability benefits owing to mental disorders in the UK: trends from 1995 to 2014

An interesting article, relevant to recent announcements. The conclusion is particularly interesting:

The disguised unemployment hypothesis suggests that socioeconomic changes, not individual-level treatment, are required to reduce sickness benefit claims, particularly the provision of suitable employment opportunities where health and mental health-related limitations are accommodated. Supported employment interventions may complement such measures, but further research is needed to evaluate their effectiveness for people with severe, and less severe, mental health problems in the context of the UK.

There's other stuff in this article that's well worth discussion, in particular a hypothesis that people with milder mental health disorders may find the more intense modern work practices harder to cope with. Which suggests that while some types of work can make you healthier, other types of work can make you more anxious and unwell. Something I suspect Damien Green is far less interested in tackling, despite the potential financial savings if he did. Most significantly, of course, is that this is most definitely not a UK only problem, so any attempts to "blame" New Labour for high levels of sickness benefit claims is completely bogus, although blaming neo-liberalism in general could be a goer.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 12:52 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37824741" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Petition leads to parliamentary debate on grouse shooting.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 12:56 pm

Paul Nuttall's got EDL support for his Ukip leadership bid. He supports a referendum on the death penalty.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 1:05 pm

yahyah wrote:Paul Nuttall's got EDL support for his Ukip leadership bid. He supports a referendum on the death penalty.

"Off with their nut(talls)"

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 1:10 pm

Tippi Hedren: Alfred Hitchcock sexually assaulted me - the guardian
https://apple.news/AhU1AQP5oRLOWoGg2Y7qMtg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not much that I didn't already know but very pertinent with the US election around the corner. Particularly the final paragraphs.

Womble44 · Post by **Womble44** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 1:12 pm

yahyah wrote:Paul Nuttall's got EDL support for his Ukip leadership bid. He supports a referendum on the death penalty.

I've never understood right-wing support for the death penalty. These are people that don't trust the public sector to run a bus schedule, why are they happy for them to decide whether you live or die?

Hobiejoe · Post by **Hobiejoe** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 1:19 pm

Womble44 wrote:
yahyah wrote:Paul Nuttall's got EDL support for his Ukip leadership bid. He supports a referendum on the death penalty.
I've never understood right-wing support for the death penalty. These are people that don't trust the public sector to run a bus schedule, why are they happy for them to decide whether you live or die?

Maybe they want the private sector to run it - DeCapita perhaps?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 1:23 pm

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/work ... employment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 1:28 pm

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_ ... II.twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Protest for the disabled: 200 people roll through the streets

Womble44 · Post by **Womble44** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 1:52 pm

Looking like Trump is reducing Clinton's poll lead, could it be possible there may be an upset?

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 2:03 pm

Womble44 wrote:Looking like Trump is reducing Clinton's poll lead, could it be possible there may be an upset?

Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
Trying not to think about it, in other words.

Womble44 · Post by **Womble44** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 2:14 pm

gilsey wrote:
Womble44 wrote:Looking like Trump is reducing Clinton's poll lead, could it be possible there may be an upset?
Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
Trying not to think about it, in other words.

To be honest, I think Trump, if elected, would be more of an embarrassment than a danger with regards to his policies; the US system has more safeguards than ours (which is why Obama looks like a disappointment to some) so I'd be surprised if he could get too much stupidity passed.

His contribution to an increasingly toxic social atmosphere within the USA however...

Womble44 · Post by **Womble44** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 2:15 pm

And I can't see him stopping making public pronouncements if he loses.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 2:29 pm

Womble44 wrote:
gilsey wrote:
Womble44 wrote:Looking like Trump is reducing Clinton's poll lead, could it be possible there may be an upset?
Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
Trying not to think about it, in other words.
To be honest, I think Trump, if elected, would be more of an embarrassment than a danger with regards to his policies; the US system has more safeguards than ours (which is why Obama looks like a disappointment to some) so I'd be surprised if he could get too much stupidity passed.

His contribution to an increasingly toxic social atmosphere within the USA however...

Safeguards or hindered by a republican majority?

Following 538, Clinton is still a reasonable favourite, but a knock in the polls doesn't look great for the Democrats down ballot.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 2:31 pm

Womble44 wrote:Looking like Trump is reducing Clinton's poll lead, could it be possible there may be an upset?

Anything is possible.

Odds are still against it.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 2:32 pm

Womble44 wrote:And I can't see him stopping making public pronouncements if he loses.

I'd argue that the best result for Trump personally would be a narrow defeat. Sets him up nicely for his next venture with Ailes as an alternative to Fox. Only further to the right.

Womble44 · Post by **Womble44** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 2:34 pm

StephenDolan wrote:
Womble44 wrote:
gilsey wrote: Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
Trying not to think about it, in other words.
To be honest, I think Trump, if elected, would be more of an embarrassment than a danger with regards to his policies; the US system has more safeguards than ours (which is why Obama looks like a disappointment to some) so I'd be surprised if he could get too much stupidity passed.

His contribution to an increasingly toxic social atmosphere within the USA however...
Safeguards or hindered by a republican majority?

Following 538, Clinton is still a reasonable favourite, but a knock in the polls doesn't look great for the Democrats down ballot.

Even with a Republican majority, Trump would have tough time, he is divisive on his own side too.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 2:35 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ve-inquiry" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Government rules out Orgreave inquiry

Womble44 · Post by **Womble44** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 2:38 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Womble44 wrote:Looking like Trump is reducing Clinton's poll lead, could it be possible there may be an upset?
Anything is possible.

Odds are still against it.

Indeed, I'm still not willing to bet he'll win, but Clinton is facing some pretty damaging attacks at the moment. She's at a disadvantage in some ways as she has a long political record that can be scrutinised and Trump doesn't.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 2:55 pm

Full pisspoor statement from Rudd.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... 1/HCWS227/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My summary.

Police actions shouldn't be investigated because it's different to how things are done now and they were careful enough not to kill any miners.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 3:04 pm

StephenDolan wrote:Full pisspoor statement from Rudd.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... 1/HCWS227/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My summary.

Police actions shouldn't be investigated because it's different to how things are done now and they were careful enough not to kill any miners.

Careful - or just happenstance?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 3:19 pm

Actually, there was quite a lot of seemingly well-founded speculation that May might allow an inquiry on this.

(and a while back Nick Timothy, now her chief of staff, wrote a piece in ConHome calling for one)

So I for one would certainly be interested to know the background to this apparent reverse ferret.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 3:21 pm

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ve-inquiry

Government rules out Orgreave inquiry

They don't want Thatcher's orders to SY Police being examined by an independent panel.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 3:26 pm

pk1 wrote:
HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ve-inquiry

Government rules out Orgreave inquiry
They don't want Thatcher's orders to SY Police being examined by an independent panel.

What's the chance of this being in a memo or letter?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 3:46 pm

NHS funding -

Jon Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, told Hunt his figures had been discredited by the Commons health committee. He said they could only be more discredited if they were put on the side of a bus and driven around by Boris Johnson. (Politics Live, Guardian)

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 31 Oct, 2016 3:52 pm

PorFavor wrote:NHS funding -

Jon Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, told Hunt his figures had been discredited by the Commons health committee. He said they could only be more discredited if they were put on the side of a bus and driven around by Boris Johnson. (Politics Live, Guardian)

Boom!