FlyTheNest

Morning all.

Put the last two up as 2015 was the collapse of a liberal democrat vote when, whilst they've always been distant - it's a very very safe seat - they've always been the main challenger. Would be an interesting seat if tories/ukip were mischievous and didn't contest, but that's so unlikely as to be silly to even mention.

adam wrote:

Screen Shot 2017-02-27 at 08.11.27.png

Put the last two up as 2015 was the collapse of a liberal democrat vote when, whilst they've always been distant - it's a very very safe seat - they've always been the main challenger. Would be an interesting seat if tories/ukip were mischievous and didn't contest, but that's so unlikely as to be silly to even mention.

Gorton and Leigh are the safest of the safe. The swing will be the interesting thing to watch.

The soft coup is underway!


http://labourbriefing.squarespace.com/h ... -under-way" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brilliantly funny. Made my day. Almost as good as that laughable piece by Ellie Mae last night.

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-02-26/cliv ... rship-bid/

Later, a source close to Lewis said it was "categorically it is not true" that the MP registered the websites in preparation for a leadership bid.
"It is just even more silliness, there is clearly a concerted effort to undermine him," the source said.

If a politician aims to possibly run for leader, it's probably good practice to register possible domain names ahead of needing them.

I can't find any UK examples, but definitely seems to be accessed in USA.

https://www.onlinecandidate.com/article ... gns-domain

https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first- ... ames-early

Mentions Chelsea Clinton, registering nearly every possible derivation of her name

Morning all

NHS accused of covering up huge data loss that put thousands at risk

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ds-at-risk

Thousands of patients are feared to have been harmed after the NHS lost more than half a million pieces of confidential medical correspondence, including test results and treatment plans.

In one of the biggest losses of sensitive clinical information in the NHS’s 69-year history, more than 500,000 pieces of patient data sent between GPs and hospitals went undelivered over the five years from 2011 to 2016.

The mislaid documents, which range from screening results to blood tests to diagnoses, failed to reach their intended recipients because the company meant to ensure their delivery mistakenly stored them in a warehouse.

Company?

NHS England secretly assembled a 50-strong team of administrators, based in Leeds, to clear up the mess created by NHS Shared Business Services (NHS SBS), who mislaid the documents. The private company, co-owned by the Department of Health and the French firm Sopra Steria, was working as a kind of internal postal service within the NHS in England until March last year.

So whose brilliant idea was that exactly? Lansley presumably.

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all

NHS accused of covering up huge data loss that put thousands at risk

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ds-at-risk

Thousands of patients are feared to have been harmed after the NHS lost more than half a million pieces of confidential medical correspondence, including test results and treatment plans.

In one of the biggest losses of sensitive clinical information in the NHS’s 69-year history, more than 500,000 pieces of patient data sent between GPs and hospitals went undelivered over the five years from 2011 to 2016.

The mislaid documents, which range from screening results to blood tests to diagnoses, failed to reach their intended recipients because the company meant to ensure their delivery mistakenly stored them in a warehouse.

Company?

NHS England secretly assembled a 50-strong team of administrators, based in Leeds, to clear up the mess created by NHS Shared Business Services (NHS SBS), who mislaid the documents. The private company, co-owned by the Department of Health and the French firm Sopra Steria, was working as a kind of internal postal service within the NHS in England until March last year.

So whose brilliant idea was that exactly? Lansley presumably.

Coverage I've seen / heard blames the NHS. Not a 'why' in sight.

StephenDolan wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all

NHS accused of covering up huge data loss that put thousands at risk

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ds-at-risk

Thousands of patients are feared to have been harmed after the NHS lost more than half a million pieces of confidential medical correspondence, including test results and treatment plans.

In one of the biggest losses of sensitive clinical information in the NHS’s 69-year history, more than 500,000 pieces of patient data sent between GPs and hospitals went undelivered over the five years from 2011 to 2016.

The mislaid documents, which range from screening results to blood tests to diagnoses, failed to reach their intended recipients because the company meant to ensure their delivery mistakenly stored them in a warehouse.

Company?

NHS England secretly assembled a 50-strong team of administrators, based in Leeds, to clear up the mess created by NHS Shared Business Services (NHS SBS), who mislaid the documents. The private company, co-owned by the Department of Health and the French firm Sopra Steria, was working as a kind of internal postal service within the NHS in England until March last year.

So whose brilliant idea was that exactly? Lansley presumably.

Coverage I've seen / heard blames the NHS. Not a 'why' in sight.

Sky (TV) News names the private company responsible and also ponders Andrew Lansley's involvement but, admittedly, the lead-in to the item says "NHS blah, blah".

Good morfternoon.

SpinningHugo wrote:The soft coup is underway!


http://labourbriefing.squarespace.com/h ... -under-way" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brilliantly funny. Made my day. Almost as good as that laughable piece by Ellie Mae last night.

Not necessarily far fetched.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ack-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bore Da,

I have been a bit of a masochist today and watched BBC News.

Seems the major news is someone opening the wrong envelope somewhere in the USA.That and the England rugby teams inability to deal with the Italian tactics.

Nothing else happening. No Grandmothers being deported,£ not under pressure again, no more NHS issues, no potential cut off date for new migrants.

Someone at the BBC needs to get a grip.

https://notnumber.wordpress.com/2017/02 ... mcdonnell/

..the ‘Lansman Constitutional Coup’ of Momentum, isn’t really about Lansman at all – its about Corbyn and McDonnell.
A grassroots movement was useful to them at the beginning but now in order to put up a credible fight in the next election they are going to have to come to an accommodation with the centre of the Labour Party. Not the Blairite, ultra-right of the party, they will never support Corbyn. But the soft-left, Guardian-reading, pragmatic, party loyalists who would like to see more left-wing policies if they could be convinced the voters do too (Owen Jones et al).

Think they've probably lost Owen Jones, but some interesting points in blog (I think)

edit, Lost had lost it's l.

55DegreesNorth wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:The soft coup is underway!


http://labourbriefing.squarespace.com/h ... -under-way" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brilliantly funny. Made my day. Almost as good as that laughable piece by Ellie Mae last night.

Not necessarily far fetched.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ack-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Arf.

As if Rupert Murdoch isn't absolutely delighted with the current leadership.

ScarletGas wrote:Bore Da,

I have been a bit of a masochist today and watched BBC News.

Seems the major news is someone opening the wrong envelope somewhere in the USA.That and the England rugby teams inability to deal with the Italian tactics.

Nothing else happening. No Grandmothers being deported,£ not under pressure again, no more NHS issues, no potential cut off date for new migrants.

Someone at the BBC needs to get a grip.

Morning. I think we're long past that time to be honest. BBC News and current affairs is FUBAR and shamefully complicit in the forthcoming disaster.

NonOxCol wrote:

ScarletGas wrote:Bore Da,

I have been a bit of a masochist today and watched BBC News.

Seems the major news is someone opening the wrong envelope somewhere in the USA.That and the England rugby teams inability to deal with the Italian tactics.

Nothing else happening. No Grandmothers being deported,£ not under pressure again, no more NHS issues, no potential cut off date for new migrants.

Someone at the BBC needs to get a grip.

Morning. I think we're long past that time to be honest. BBC News and current affairs is FUBAR and shamefully complicit in the forthcoming disaster.

Four of the most popular news stories on the BBC news app relate to the Oscars.

Until big enough concrete examples come through highlighting the results of the abstract Tory policies in practice I can't see the BBC sticking their head above the parapet. I'm thinking phone hacking. Celebrities were fine, missing schoolgirl breached the outrage threshold.

McDonnell disowns his own article.

This is like a director sending out an email to the staff pissed. Incredibly amateurish.

Should be sacked.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:McDonnell disowns his own article.

This is like a director sending out an email to the staff pissed. Incredibly amateurish.

Should be sacked.

But Labour were miles ahead before the soft coup.

I blame the Bitterites.

It's the Murdoch stuff that gets me.

I venture he's happier with Jez than Blair now. Unelectable Brexit doorman is the perfect Labour leader for him.

tinybgoat wrote:http://www.itv.com/news/2017-02-26/cliv ... rship-bid/

Later, a source close to Lewis said it was "categorically it is not true" that the MP registered the websites in preparation for a leadership bid.
"It is just even more silliness, there is clearly a concerted effort to undermine him," the source said.

If a politician aims to possibly run for leader, it's probably good practice to register possible domain names ahead of needing them.

I can't find any UK examples, but definitely seems to be accessed in USA.

https://www.onlinecandidate.com/article ... gns-domain

https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first- ... ames-early

Mentions Chelsea Clinton, registering nearly every possible derivation of her name

(cJA bold)

Good move on her part - think about it - if I were her, I'd do it too. Keep the possible fakes to a minimum.

SpinningHugo wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:McDonnell disowns his own article.

This is like a director sending out an email to the staff pissed. Incredibly amateurish.

Should be sacked.

But Labour were miles ahead before the soft coup.

I blame the Bitterites.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Small yellow bird behind the times, though must admit it is at times difficult to keep up.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:McDonnell disowns his own article.

This is like a director sending out an email to the staff pissed. Incredibly amateurish.

Should be sacked.

Can't find any mention of 'disowning'...

But McDonnell’s article was written about a week ago, before the Copeland defeat. It was prompted by Tony Blair’s speech on Brexit and Lord Mandelson’s admission that he tries to undermine Corbyn every day. A source close to McDonnell said that this article “does not represent [McDonnell’s] current view

Just that he's moved on... after a week...

Next week is anyone's guess.

Straight talking and honest!

Good-morning, everyone.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39101829" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Average car insurance premiums could increase by up to £75 a year as a result of a government ruling, industry experts have said.

Tory economic mismanagement is costing all of us in so many ways as the above article shows, with all of us having to pay more on our car insurance to offset the low returns on invested lump sum compensation payments. Low interest rates were supposed to be temporary for good reason, they are a sign of an unhealthy economy and come with their own drawbacks and problems.. Simply raising them isn't possible - they are low to support a floundering economy and only a genuine recovery will enable interest rates to rise and we still seem a long way off such an eventuality. Even a crash in the value of the pound couldn't be responded to with a rate rise because the risks of raising rates while the economy is still so fragile are greater.
Can the Tories keep propping up house prices at unrealistic levels indefinitely? This is the question I keep coming back to. So far, losses from the 2008 crash have been successfully passed onto the poorest, with asset prices and especially property prices effectively protected at great cost to the wider economy. This in part was to protect the banks, who would have been exposed if faced with high rates of repossessions. Short term this was sensible, to avoid an asset price crash and buy time to fix the underlying structural problems with the economy. Unfortunately, the Coalition didn't bother to fix these problems, but simply tried to gloss over them instead, going to more and more obscure lengths to prop up house prices and thus their own asset-based wealth.
If strikes me that it is more than possible that Brexit provides an opportunity to the Tories to avoid their economic mismanagement catching up with them politically. People are primed to expect Brexit to be economically painful and it will be difficult for the average voter to distinguish what is caused by Brexit and what is caused by previous policy. Even so, a house price crash would be a huge problem for the Tories, whether blamed on Tory policy or blamed on Brexit. So I come back to the same question - can they prop up house prices indefinitely?

Both Jonathan Ashworth and Andy Burnham (Andy Burnham was particularly guilty of this) missed opportunities to attack the Conservative's overall track record on the NHS (creeping privatisation etc). They should really have got stuck into them. Attacking Jeremy Hunt is, as ever, a laudable cause but it was all rather technical and procedural focussed.

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


Tax changes could cost UK public sector workers 30% of salary

A fast and dirty question.

For each of the shadow cabinet, what mark out ten would you give them?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/drop ... ary-school" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Press release
Drop in poor children's progress at secondary school

Consultation outcome
Fee proposals for grants of probate



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

Tubby Isaacs wrote:It's the Murdoch stuff that gets me.

I venture he's happier with Jez than Blair now. Unelectable Brexit doorman is the perfect Labour leader for him.

He hides it well.

I'm guessing the Labour speeches and meetings on the Business rates changes will be overshadowed by John McDonnell questions.

Freeman "seriously regrets any offence caused "

https://www.ifs.org.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Comparing spending per pupil across different stages of education

IFS

PorFavor wrote:Both Jonathan Ashworth and Andy Burnham (Andy Burnham was particularly guilty of this) missed opportunities to attack the Conservative's overall track record on the NHS (creeping privatisation etc). They should really have got stuck into them. Attacking Jeremy Hunt is, as ever, a laudable cause but it was all rather technical and procedural focussed.

I don't think they got a narrative going. Attacking privatisation didn't work because they'd done that themselves (albeit while massively expanding the traditional NHS ).

Maybe fragmenting would have worked as a narrative?

StephenDolan wrote:I'm guessing the Labour speeches and meetings on the Business rates changes will be overshadowed by John McDonnell questions.

I reckon Hammond will neutralise anyway. But there's a missed chance of political capital.

Which is a shame it's been missed.

The Evening Standard of all places spotted that the Tories werent getting Labour business strategy under Ed at all. It wasn't anti business at all. It was pro SME and a he'll of a lot of people work for those.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

StephenDolan wrote:I'm guessing the Labour speeches and meetings on the Business rates changes will be overshadowed by John McDonnell questions.

I reckon Hammond will neutralise anyway. But there's a missed chance of political capital.

I can't see how Hammond can. In words maybe, but not practice. Osborne has stitched him up, delaying a few years ago.

HindleA wrote:https://www.gov.uk/government/news/drop ... ary-school


Press release
Drop in poor children's progress at secondary school

Wilshaw said about KS3 being the big issue in secondary schools - I've read of KS4 i.e. GCSEs being extended to 3 years, thus squeezing KS down to 2 years. League tables rule...

RogerOThornhill wrote:

HindleA wrote:https://www.gov.uk/government/news/drop ... ary-school


Press release
Drop in poor children's progress at secondary school

Wilshaw said about KS3 being the big issue in secondary schools - I've read of KS4 i.e. GCSEs being extended to 3 years, thus squeezing KS down to 2 years. League tables rule...

The numbers not letters results are presumably going to be a bit of a nightmare for employers in the future. I remember the puzzled look when I said "none" to the question "how many O levels have you got?".

StephenDolan wrote:A fast and dirty question.

For each of the shadow cabinet, what mark out ten would you give them?

John Healey and possibly Nia Griffith are ok.

The rest are dire.

That Richard Burgon is shadow Lord Chancellor tells you all that needs to be known.

StephenDolan wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

StephenDolan wrote:I'm guessing the Labour speeches and meetings on the Business rates changes will be overshadowed by John McDonnell questions.

I reckon Hammond will neutralise anyway. But there's a missed chance of political capital.

I can't see how Hammond can. In words maybe, but not practice. Osborne has stitched him up, delaying a few years ago.

When will governments learn that postponing revaluations is a really bad idea? Labour were just as guilty, over domestic property.
Regular revaluations would be no more than a political storm in a teacup. Postpone it and there's hell to pay.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... 27/HCWS503" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


New rules on personal injury payments to cost NHS around £1bn, No 10 says

HindleA wrote:Consultation outcome
Fee proposals for grants of probate



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

15. The main reasons that respondents gave for disagreeing with the proposal were that:
• the size of the fee should be set according to the cost of providing the service;
• the administration involved and therefore cost to the Probate Service is the same
regardless of the value of the estate; and
• as the proposed fees would be set above cost recovery levels, they in effect
amounted to a form of taxation.

My bold.
695 responses of 829 disagreed with the proposal but needless to say it's going ahead.
£4000 fee for an estate between £500k and £1m, I'd say that's taxation.

I should have stopped reading there.

We have listened to the concerns of respondents who believed that the level of fees
could contribute to executors being out of pocket or suffering financial hardship if
financial resources could not be released early or were insufficient.

We believe that the standard ways that executors will pay the fee will include using:
• Cash in the deceased’s estate, if released by the bank or building society. HMRC
data suggests that the average estate comprises 25% cash. One respondent, a
firm of solicitors, carried out an analysis of its client case files to determine whether
on the whole estates would have adequate cash available to cover the proposed
fee, and found that on the limited sample of 40 estates, only 25% would have had
insufficient funds.
• Personal assets of the executor, bearing in mind they would only be out of
pocket temporarily and would be able to reclaim the fee as a credit against the
estate.
• Assistance from beneficiaries of the estate.
• A loan (depending on the executor’s credit rating).
• A solicitor or professional probate company could be appointed to act on the
executor’s behalf, who may be willing to pay the fee up front.
• An alternative executor named in the will may have adequate funds available, or
a better credit rating and therefore be better placed to act.

Only 25% would have insufficient funds? Only?
The executor can get a loan?

StephenDolan wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

StephenDolan wrote:I'm guessing the Labour speeches and meetings on the Business rates changes will be overshadowed by John McDonnell questions.

I reckon Hammond will neutralise anyway. But there's a missed chance of political capital.

I can't see how Hammond can. In words maybe, but not practice. Osborne has stitched him up, delaying a few years ago.

They are so secure they can basically stick what they want on the national debt.

Just to make clear, I'm certainly not opposed to inheritance tax, but this back door stuff is a disgrace.

SpinningHugo wrote:

StephenDolan wrote:A fast and dirty question.

For each of the shadow cabinet, what mark out ten would you give them?

John Healey and possibly Nia Griffith are ok.

The rest are dire.

That Richard Burgon is shadow Lord Chancellor tells you all that needs to be known.

Abrahams is good. Surprised she stuck with Corbyn. But think it's probably a point in her favour because he wasn't going to be removed last summer.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

StephenDolan wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote: I reckon Hammond will neutralise anyway. But there's a missed chance of political capital.

I can't see how Hammond can. In words maybe, but not practice. Osborne has stitched him up, delaying a few years ago.

They are so secure they can basically stick what they want on the national debt.

You're dead right, but it's clear that they won't and don't want to. They're going to go on using the level of debt as a reason to send us all to the poorhouse.

gilsey wrote:I should have stopped reading there.

We have listened to the concerns of respondents who believed that the level of fees
could contribute to executors being out of pocket or suffering financial hardship if
financial resources could not be released early or were insufficient.

We believe that the standard ways that executors will pay the fee will include using:
• Cash in the deceased’s estate, if released by the bank or building society. HMRC
data suggests that the average estate comprises 25% cash. One respondent, a
firm of solicitors, carried out an analysis of its client case files to determine whether
on the whole estates would have adequate cash available to cover the proposed
fee, and found that on the limited sample of 40 estates, only 25% would have had
insufficient funds.
• Personal assets of the executor, bearing in mind they would only be out of
pocket temporarily and would be able to reclaim the fee as a credit against the
estate.
• Assistance from beneficiaries of the estate.
• A loan (depending on the executor’s credit rating).
• A solicitor or professional probate company could be appointed to act on the
executor’s behalf, who may be willing to pay the fee up front.
• An alternative executor named in the will may have adequate funds available, or
a better credit rating and therefore be better placed to act.

Only 25% would have insufficient funds? Only?
The executor can get a loan?

If they go through with this they'll do it in a way that's failsafe for collecting the money so far as they can - so there will be provisions for attaching charges to estates if (as will very very often be the case) their 'value' is in property rather than cash. And they'll charge more for the cost of administering the charge. And they'll charge interest.

Poor Barry Gardiner gets the short straw of having to defend McDonnell. Calls it "frustration".

"Bollocks" is a better word. Plus the stupid "coup" word, like critics of Corbyn on policy (as Blair was here) are like General Pinochet.