Friday 24 February 2017

[citizenJA]

The denigrating of Brown is appalling.

Yeah, I agree.

[yahyah]

Let's just hope Corbyn is asking himself that question.

[SpinningHugo]

What happened in Stoke did so because Labour people from all over the country worked as one team in order to get the Labour candidate elected. If they stayed away because Corbyn is a poor Labour leader, Stoke Central would have a Tory/UKIP MP instead of a Labour MP. Mr citizen and I have some political differences but we both belong to the Labour party. Keep rifts within the Labour party. You ain't got to like all the other Labour party peoples. We work and study with people we may not like a lot but we do it because cooperative endeavour is better than being someone's slave.

I don't wish to denigrate your efforts, but I don't think that is right.

Labour's vote fell 2.2%. this was a bit better than in Copeland, where it fell 4.9%, but that was not the big difference.

In Stoke the main challenger was ukips. Ukips collapsed under pressure. Their leader is a serial liar and they have no credibility. That meant that Ukips failed in squeezing the Tory vote. In Copeland, where the Tories were the challenger, ukips got squeezed and the Tories won.

Labour only had a 37% share in Stoke. Tories had 24% and Ukips 25%. If one had managed to squeeze the other's vote, Labour would have lost (as they did in Copeland.

I've done plenty of knocking on doors for Labour. I am not sure the 'ground game' makes much difference. if it did, Ed Miliband would be PM (or indeed Gordon Brown might still be).
.

[citizenJA]

Bastards, not anyone here, the news headlines.
It's all about the Copeland loss, not the Stoke Central Labour win.

Utterly predictable. And in this case at least, somewhat understandable.

You're right.
I've had an 'ah, ha' moment.
I was wholly without news outside of what was going on locally for about 24 hours yesterday/today.
Mr citizen gave me the news this morning, he'd been up and out to find out, 'We've won, Copeland was lost'.
Neither of us had the numbers or specifics on either until a few hours ago.

38.16%
The percentage of the electorate who turned out the vote in the Stoke Central by-election.
http://www.itv.com/news/central/update/ ... t-just-38/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All that work and god damn 38.16%?
I know it was stormy.
I know it was a by-election.
We need to talk, citizens.
Together.

[citizenJA]

What happened in Stoke did so because Labour people from all over the country worked as one team in order to get the Labour candidate elected. If they stayed away because Corbyn is a poor Labour leader, Stoke Central would have a Tory/UKIP MP instead of a Labour MP. Mr citizen and I have some political differences but we both belong to the Labour party. Keep rifts within the Labour party. You ain't got to like all the other Labour party peoples. We work and study with people we may not like a lot but we do it because cooperative endeavour is better than being someone's slave.

I don't wish to denigrate your efforts, but I don't think that is right.

Labour's vote fell 2.2%. this was a bit better than in Copeland, where it fell 4.9%, but that was not the big difference.

In Stoke the main challenger was ukips. Ukips collapsed under pressure. Their leader is a serial liar and they have no credibility. That meant that Ukips failed in squeezing the Tory vote. In Copeland, where the Tories were the challenger, ukips got squeezed and the Tories won.

Labour only had a 37% share in Stoke. Tories had 24% and Ukips 25%. If one had managed to squeeze the other's vote, Labour would have lost (as they did in Copeland.

I've done plenty of knocking on doors for Labour. I am not sure the 'ground game' makes much difference. if it did, Ed Miliband would be PM (or indeed Gordon Brown might still be).
.

Yeah, I was euphoric and my writing reflected that.
You've made some legitimate points.
Labour leadership are jerking off on the wrong side of the referendum result with a terrible Labour party leader.
I'm thrilled we managed to keep off the Tory/UKIP bastards.

[yahyah]

No glee or excitement in our household.
A few hysterical laughs at comments by people like Lavery were just temporary, attempts to fight off total fed-upness.
We're banning any mention of Labour and Corbyn in the house this weekend.

[yahyah]

Good night JA. Well done again, have a good weekend with Mr JA. You must both be exhausted.
Thanks for helping keep Nuttall out.

[citizenJA]

Further (but not much further) to my above post -

Corbyn’s Q&A is over.

Here is the full text of Chris Ship’s question, and Jeremy Corbyn’s answer.

Ship: I want to ask you specifically about Copeland. Since you found out that you’d lost a seat to the governing party for the first time since the Falklands War, have you at any point this morning looked in the mirror and asked yourself this question: ‘Could the problem actually be me?’?

Corbyn: No.

Ship: Why not?

Corbyn: Thank you for your question.

Some in the audience applauded Corbyn’s answer. (Politics Live, Guardian)

Even if I were a supporter, I'd want more of an answer than that.

Not defending Corbyn or the rest of the leadership, but would you expect anyone to answer "yes" to that?

'Leaders need to look in the mirror and ask that question daily', he/she said, with a subdued, yet dignified mien.

[citizenJA]

Good night JA. Well done again, have a good weekend with Mr JA. You must both be exhausted.
Thanks for helping keep Nuttall out.

[citizenJA]

Let's ask Corbyn what he's doing, I mean sincerely ask without cameras or devises shoved in his face, just a FlyTheNester and him, you know?
Where you going with this thing, my man? Is this good for Labour? Good for the country and people?

[citizenJA]

It's astounding how different the world seems when there's no Internet, television or radio telling you about it.

[PorFavor]

Further (but not much further) to my above post -

Corbyn’s Q&A is over.

Here is the full text of Chris Ship’s question, and Jeremy Corbyn’s answer.

Ship: I want to ask you specifically about Copeland. Since you found out that you’d lost a seat to the governing party for the first time since the Falklands War, have you at any point this morning looked in the mirror and asked yourself this question: ‘Could the problem actually be me?’?

Corbyn: No.

Ship: Why not?

Corbyn: Thank you for your question.

Some in the audience applauded Corbyn’s answer. (Politics Live, Guardian)

Even if I were a supporter, I'd want more of an answer than that.

Not defending Corbyn or the rest of the leadership, but would you expect anyone to answer "yes" to that?

No - not "yes" (if you follow my meaning) but some sort of reasoned response (other than a "no" and with what, on the video I saw, was a saintly smirk).

Sorry for the delay in replying!





Edited to add a "with"

And again - "was" added

[RogerOThornhill]

George EatonVerified account‏@georgeeaton 4m4 minutes ago
More
Supreme irony that Brexit has been the worst thing that ever happened to Ukip.

I argued ages ago that whatever the result, UKIP were finished. It was the referendum itself that was the worst thing to happen to them.

[RogerOThornhill]

This is amazing.

igorvolskyVerified account
‏@igorvolsky

Follow
More
Whoa: CNN, NY Times, LA Times, Politico are being blocked from White House press gaggle.

The rest should simply refuse to turn up.

[RogerOThornhill]

School News
‏@schoolsontap

Following
More
Multi-academy trusts: Committee to publish report http://ow.ly/RYjd309kNVX" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; | UK Parliament

Tuesday 1 minute past midnight - normally up at that time anyway but might well read through then too.

[HindleA]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/aishagani/the- ... ate-column" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The Press Watchdog Said Its Own Board Member Broke Its Accuracy Clause In His Column On Refugees

[HindleA]

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


Trump's housing policies will hit the poor - and middle America, too
Dawn Foster

[Tubby Isaacs]

What happened in Stoke did so because Labour people from all over the country worked as one team in order to get the Labour candidate elected. If they stayed away because Corbyn is a poor Labour leader, Stoke Central would have a Tory/UKIP MP instead of a Labour MP. Mr citizen and I have some political differences but we both belong to the Labour party. Keep rifts within the Labour party. You ain't got to like all the other Labour party peoples. We work and study with people we may not like a lot but we do it because cooperative endeavour is better than being someone's slave.

I don't wish to denigrate your efforts, but I don't think that is right.

Labour's vote fell 2.2%. this was a bit better than in Copeland, where it fell 4.9%, but that was not the big difference.

In Stoke the main challenger was ukips. Ukips collapsed under pressure. Their leader is a serial liar and they have no credibility. That meant that Ukips failed in squeezing the Tory vote. In Copeland, where the Tories were the challenger, ukips got squeezed and the Tories won.

Labour only had a 37% share in Stoke. Tories had 24% and Ukips 25%. If one had managed to squeeze the other's vote, Labour would have lost (as they did in Copeland.

I've done plenty of knocking on doors for Labour. I am not sure the 'ground game' makes much difference. if it did, Ed Miliband would be PM (or indeed Gordon Brown might still be).
.

I think it was a fair better than Copeland. It was easier v UKIP and Nuttall was useless, but the margin was decent. Obviously they should be doing better but relative to the national polls, it went well.

Well done, Citizen.

[Tubby Isaacs]

School News
‏@schoolsontap

Following
More
Multi-academy trusts: Committee to publish report http://ow.ly/RYjd309kNVX" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; | UK Parliament

Tuesday 1 minute past midnight - normally up at that time anyway but might well read through then too.

Please do.

Where do you think Labour policy should be now on this? I don't sense much happening. Democratise the regional Commissioners? Abolish?

[Tubby Isaacs]

No glee or excitement in our household.
A few hysterical laughs at comments by people like Lavery were just temporary, attempts to fight off total fed-upness.
We're banning any mention of Labour and Corbyn in the house this weekend.

Ignore "glee" and other nonsense.

It's the sort of thing IDS will come out with when hard Brexit mucks up.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The denigrating of Brown is appalling.

Always has been. That's when I started feeling sick with foreboding about the direction of the country. Cameron or May in 2008-09.... I dread to think.

Indeed. Livingstone and Loach have done it today.

Livingstone seemed happy enough to be London mayor with Brown in the Treasury.

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... al-inquiry" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


François Fillon 'fake jobs' allegations receive full judicial inquiry
French financial state prosecutor’s office announces further investigation of right-wing presidential candidate

[citizenJA]

I think it was a fair better than Copeland. It was easier v UKIP and Nuttall was useless, but the margin was decent. Obviously they should be doing better but relative to the national polls, it went well.

Well done, Citizen.

(cJA edit)

I thought it was wonderful, thank you!
Good people in Stoke.
I like my home here.

[citizenJA]

Goodnight, everyone.
I love you.
cJA

[RogerOThornhill]

Where do you think Labour policy should be now on this? I don't sense much happening. Democratise the regional Commissioners? Abolish?

I'll give it some thought before Tuesday but yes, the RSCs are the most pressing matter. I saw a comment from Nick Linford that said they had to get DfE permission to even contact an RSC and ask a question!

[AnatolyKasparov]

The denigrating of Brown is appalling.

Always has been. That's when I started feeling sick with foreboding about the direction of the country. Cameron or May in 2008-09.... I dread to think.

Indeed. Livingstone and Loach have done it today.

Livingstone seemed happy enough to be London mayor with Brown in the Treasury.

Ken never liked GB though, like quite a few Campaign Group types then he found it easier to get on with Blair.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Where do you think Labour policy should be now on this? I don't sense much happening. Democratise the regional Commissioners? Abolish?

I'll give it some thought before Tuesday but yes, the RSCs are the most pressing matter. I saw a comment from Nick Linford that said they had to get DfE permission to even contact an RSC and ask a question!

Good article by Warwick the other day about the farce.

I like regions. I grudgingly respect Osborne for reviving them. I think they can take the heat out of West Lothian stuff. And I think Labour could get what it's been missing- a conveyor belt of people with high profile experience with big budgets.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Always has been. That's when I started feeling sick with foreboding about the direction of the country. Cameron or May in 2008-09.... I dread to think.

Indeed. Livingstone and Loach have done it today.

Livingstone seemed happy enough to be London mayor with Brown in the Treasury.

Ken never liked GB though, like quite a few Campaign Group types then he found it easier to get on with Blair.

There was hostility over the PPP but his agenda of attracting business to London gelled well enough with Brown, and he got a decent budget. But I might have missed it. Didn't know there was a broader Campaign Group thing.

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... rain-tumor" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Salvadoran asylum seeker with brain tumor seized from Texas hospital

[Temulkar]

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sp1ahb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tubby Isaacs]

Further (but not much further) to my above post -
Even if I were a supporter, I'd want more of an answer than that.

Not defending Corbyn or the rest of the leadership, but would you expect anyone to answer "yes" to that?

'Leaders need to look in the mirror and ask that question daily', he/she said, with a subdued, yet dignified mien.

You're better than Seumas Milne.

Looks like his advice was blame Tony Blair. I have no idea how he passed his probation.

[HindleA]

https://www.ft.com/content/2b3a7aa8-faa ... 969e0d3b65" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



May faces fight over £3.7bn worth of disability payments

[HindleA]

Theresa May is facing a high-stakes political battle as the government tries to close a £3.7bn hole in the public finances by stripping benefit entitlements from people with disabilities and health problems.

The government wants MPs and peers to legislate to nullify recent court rulings which broadened the scope of people entitled to personal independence payments: some 160,000 people with conditions including dementia are thought to be affected.

But Labour and the Liberal Democrats are preparing to resist the move, threatening a repeat of the row which last year forced George Osborne, former chancellor, to abandon plans to cut £4.4bn in tax credits for low-income families.


The issue has already caused nervousness at the top of government, amid fears that the issue could undermine Mrs May’s attempt to soften the face of the Tory party and her promise to look after those who are struggling to get by.

Conservative MPs who rebelled against Mr Osborne’s cuts say they are looking at the details of the government’s move on PIPs, which was announced in a low-profile statement from the Department of Work and Pensions on Thursday.

But Labour is planning to raise the issue in an urgent Commons question on Monday and Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords are planning a “fatal motion” intended to block the changes when they are put to the upper house next month.


Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary, said: “By shifting the goalposts, the Tory government will strip entitlements from over 160,000 disabled people, money which the courts believe is rightfully theirs.”

Ministers say the legal rulings before Christmas extended the scope of PIP beyond what was originally intended, creating a hole in the budget of £3.7bn in total over the next five years.

If ministers had not made it clear in written statements that they intended to act to supersede the legal judgments, the Office for Budget Responsibility would have increased the estimates for public spending on PIP ahead of next month’s Budget. Ministers have tabled parliamentary amendments to the PIP regulations “to restore the original aim of the benefit”. Labour is expected to force a vote in the Commons, where Mrs May has a working majority of just 16.

Philip Hammond, chancellor, is determined to keep a tight grip on public spending and is backing the plan to “restore the original aim of the policy and ensure that support goes to those most in need”.


One DWP official said: “This is not about making savings, it’s about going back to the original intention of the policy.”

One court ruling decided that people with diabetes should be entitled to PIPs because they monitored their condition at home, while ministers contend the policy was intended to help those with the most severe cases.

Another court ruling said that people with “overwhelming psychological distress”, including agoraphobia, should be given assistance with mobility, while ministers claim the policy was originally conceived for people with conditions such as blindness.

A spokesman for Disability Rights UK said of the proposed government changes: “These new regulations will hit disabled people and those with serious health conditions very hard.

“The DWP itself admits this will include those who have a learning disability, diabetes, epilepsy, anxiety or dementia.” The DWP declined to confirm how many people might be affected.

PIP and other disability benefits are expected to cost taxpayers £16.6bn in 2016-17, rising to £19bn by 2021-22.