Tuesday 25 April 2017

[SpinningHugo]

Good Corbyn

Howsilly in his usual irenic fashion was pressing Tubby to choose between May and Corbyn as PM.

There is literally no chance of Corbyn ever being PM for any length of time. Why?

Assume, arguendo, that Labour wins a majority in June. Even the most optimistic scenario would give a majority of, say, 10. Corbyn does what he promised, wins back Scotland, converts non-voters into voters. What happens next?

The PM has to be someone who commands a majority in the Commons. Would Corbyn?

The answer is clearly no. Soon enough a decision would arise and the PLP would rebel. if they aren't prepared to follow him in opposition it will be many many times worse in government.

So, eventually, they'll depose him. Perhaps not as leader of the party, but certainly as PM.

Not that it matters, as the premise with which we start is now so ridiculously unlikely (contra uber optimists like Tem).

[SpinningHugo]

Oh, and did anyone catch Mandleson on Newsnight?

I love Mandleson. A ruthless winner for Labour (now we have Andrew Fisher!)

Was tying himself in knots protesting that he wasn't recommending voting against Labour candidates. Yes you are! You think nobody should vote for Kate Hoey. Any Labour candidate who voted for brexit without conditions is obviously suspect. So there are really only 52 candidates he could support (or possibly one of the new ones who hasn't been an MP).

Watch the usual suspects praise Starmer today. Listen and think.

[SpinningHugo]

The FT on the unlikelihood of that Welsh poll being right

https://www.ft.com/content/d3ca4f4a-291 ... 8383da43b7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Labour hasn't lost Wales since Universal suffrage. The Tories have never had that kind of lead in an opinion poll there.

[refitman]

No worries Hugo, I've closed the other thread.

[NonOxCol]

Morning (*weary tone*)

It's so great to see all the Undead Tory relics rejuvenated, isn't it? Normo Tebs, Bill Cash, Redwood, Howard, and now look who's getting in on the act, some 15 years after her last vaguely interesting contribution to national life:

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

Zombie apocalypse, coming to a country near you.

[PorFavor]

Good morfternoon.

Iain Conn, chief executive of biggest energy company Centrica, has criticised the Conservative’s pledge to cap energy bills after the company’s share price fell following the announcement.

Interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Conn said: “I’m the first to admit that the UK market is not perfect. I just don’t think that capping prices is actually the right way to help the market, and it probably will have unintended consequences.” (Politics Live, Guardian)

Surprised that he's said that pre-election.


Edited to add -

Given that it's now the Conservatives' idea. Or is it so that they can say that they're standing up to big business (only to scrap it later)?

[NonOxCol]

The anti-Jenkins/d'Ancona/Glover/G***s F****r writes:

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

Not sure I've ever disagreed with him, all the way back to 2011 when he was saying "how the bloody hell have they managed to convince everyone the financial crisis was all Labour's fault?"

[adam]

The PM has to be someone who commands a majority in the Commons. Would Corbyn?

Yes, of course he would. The PLP didn't turn their backs and leave even when he ignored them voting against him. They'd be in power and wouldn't fuck it up just like that.

I agree that it's not going to happen. I would add, as a more general point, that the only analogy I can find for what it's like here in the evening most nights is with what happens when you talk to leave supporters. It is possible to hold onto your earlier views and not have to change them because other people voted differently and wanting to remain in the EU after a 'Leave' referendum vote does not make me a traitor.

Similarly, saying that a belief that labour are going to lose is the same as wanting them to lose is insulting and delusional. I know this is a public space but it's a focused public space and there are no problems being critical in this space about our own.

I repeat myself, but I think we got to where we are because the PLP ran away after the general election and the membership refused to let them take the party with them. I disagree with a number of people on here because I saw Corbyn and (literally) saw McDonnell campaigning night after night in Labour heartlands talking about exactly why we needed to vote remain, despite the EU's faults, but I think Labour's performance since the referendum - first the PLP gifting chaos to the tories, then the leadership gifting acquiescence to them, has been dreadful.

More than this, I go back to how I felt immediately after the last general election - Labour can only win when they put together a program that Murdoch supports. That isn't an argument to go down that route, it's a much more fundamentally depressive argument that the world is shit and people are awful. I have seen no change at all in the last two years in this.

An electorate that were frightened off by Miliband are not going to elect Corbyn. Never.

The government are evil shits who are destroying the country and they need to lose, and labour need to win. We need a labour government after the June general election. But it's not going to happen.

[StephenDolan]

Just caught up with yesterday. Morning all and thanks to howsilly. Any Labour government is better than any Tory led one. Any.

[NonOxCol]

So, respondents to Chakrabortty's article deny there's a culture war in Britain, or accuse the liberal left of starting it...

...and then I come across this:

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

[HindleA]

First things first.Up your arse with knobs on ,twat.

[tinybgoat]

Good morfternoon.

Iain Conn, chief executive of biggest energy company Centrica, has criticised the Conservative’s pledge to cap energy bills after the company’s share price fell following the announcement.

Interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Conn said: “I’m the first to admit that the UK market is not perfect. I just don’t think that capping prices is actually the right way to help the market, and it probably will have unintended consequences.” (Politics Live, Guardian)

Surprised that he's said that pre-election.


Edited to add -

Given that it's now the Conservatives' idea. Or is it so that they can say that they're standing up to big business (only to scrap it later)?

His predecessor was very outspoken on Labour's​ plan, basically threatening blackouts, so maybe it's standard policy for them.(though this was 2014, so not so close to election)

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... llion-2013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Laidlaw, who was paid more than £5m last year, admitted his pay was high but said executives needed to be paid well, especially if they had to cope with political attacks.

[Willow904]

The anti-Jenkins/d'Ancona/Glover/G***s F****r writes:

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

Not sure I've ever disagreed with him, all the way back to 2011 when he was saying "how the bloody hell have they managed to convince everyone the financial crisis was all Labour's fault?"

None of this is accidental or simple opportunism, I suspect. The links between the Tory Brexiteers and the Republican Tea Party are well established. And the litany of Brexit supporters of "I want my country back" has been lifted straight from the Tea Party playbook of 2011 and "take our country back".

Given a long time collaboration between the UK and US right wing that goes back to Thatcher and Reagan, there is little doubt that there are elements of the "shock" Brexit vote that was entirely deliberate and not at all just a cack-handed mistake from Cameron, although his cack-handedness certainly presented opportunities that may otherwise not have materialized. That it was not a "shock" at all is clear to anyone who keeps an eye on the polls, which gave the "leave" vote a very healthy lead throughout the Eurozone crisis. That prior to the Eurozone crisis, the Euro was a threat to the dominance of the dollar and that elements of the US right would like to see the EU collapse is undeniable. Where exactly Theresa May fits into all of this is difficult to say, but her bringing of Liam Fox back into government, her fawning over Trump and her lack of enthusiasm for Macron all point to her being more part of the forces aligning against the EU than not.

And even if we're outside the EU, it is in the UK's interests that the EU is successful, I have no doubt of that. So from that perspective, May's continued premiership is poisonous on a level beyond a regular Tory victory. One wonders what our EU supporting neighbours think of our upcoming election and whether they harbour hopes May comes a cropper just as much as some if us here hope Marine Le Pen will.

[HindleA]

Think I am getting the basis of a chorus.

[HindleA]

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

Council spending on 'neighbourhood' services falls by £3bn since 2011
Cuts to services such as bin collection, planning and pothole repair amount to dismantling of core functions of local government, says report

http://www.apse.org.uk/apse/index.cfm/r ... austerity/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HindleA]

http://www.apse.org.uk/apse/index.cfm/r ... austerity/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Food banks report record demand amid universal credit chaos
Charity calls for immediate reduction in six-week wait for first benefit payment after handing out 1,182,954 emergency parcels

[Willow904]

http://www.apse.org.uk/apse/index.cfm/r ... austerity/


Food banks report record demand amid universal credit chaos
Charity calls for immediate reduction in six-week wait for first benefit payment after handing out 1,182,954 emergency parcels

There's never been a satisfactory argument for the gap, has there? Someone coming off minimum wage paid one week in arrears is being deliberately left with no money for food or rent for 4 weeks for no discernable reason other than to ensure they get into debt and remain there, because even careful budgeting can't get around the fact that for one week they will get no money at all plus the basic unfairness of moving from weekly pay to monthly, with your last wage packet clearly not capable of bridging such a gap.

It's not as if this outcome wasn't widely predicted and the government well aware this would happen. Presumably Tory voters just don't care because they get paid monthly and have savings and having to give a toss about a weekly paid temporary worker on minimum wage with no savings is just way too much effort.

[HindleA]

Think "look we told you they couldn't budget" orgasmic inducing parading for misanthropes.

[HindleA]

DWP well known for it's budgeting skills and judicious use of money.Rather than ranting at billions wasted look a tattoo!

[Willow904]

Think "look we told you they couldn't budget" orgasmic inducing parading for misanthropes.

The range of people who might get made redundant and need a little help used to be most of us. These benefits used to be considered "our" benefits and voters were generally more sensitive to their being cut.

Owen Jones was very good on this cultural change in his book "Chavs". It's a good exposition on how we got to where we are now. Less so on how we combat it. Unionism has failed to keep pace with changes in the workplace, I think. People in unions are more informed about their rights and are supported in demanding them. It helps create a culture in which workers have a sense of their worth, where they can see they deserve things. That people who are made redundant, who come to the end of a job through no fault of their own, deserve support.

I'm damned if I know how to get that sense of deserving something at the end of a period of employment back again. The idea of employees being disposable has become endemic, despite being economically ignorant. When I was a manager, minimising employee turnover was paramount because it's so inefficient to keep training up new workers. Even noddy jobs require learning and acclimatisation. That investment in experience is worthwhile in a long-term corporate strategy. This is another effect of predatory capitalism, isn't it?

[HindleA]

[youtube]8mz5Rtx-Eu0[/youtube]

[HindleA]

It's National Feather dusting removal of cobwebs in corner day,I think.If it isn't it should be.

[AnatolyKasparov]

More than this, I go back to how I felt immediately after the last general election - Labour can only win when they put together a program that Murdoch supports. That isn't an argument to go down that route, it's a much more fundamentally depressive argument that the world is shit and people are awful. I have seen no change at all in the last two years in this.

An electorate that were frightened off by Miliband are not going to elect Corbyn. Never.

The government are evil shits who are destroying the country and they need to lose, and labour need to win. We need a labour government after the June general election. But it's not going to happen.

Blair had a chance to do something about the media in 1997 - he could have done literally anything he wanted then.

Instead, he appeased them.

That, even more than Iraq, may well be regarded by historians as his biggest and most costly mistake.

[seeingclearly]

Good Corbyn

Howsilly in his usual irenic fashion was pressing Tubby to choose between May and Corbyn as PM.

There is literally no chance of Corbyn ever being PM for any length of time. Why?

Assume, arguendo, that Labour wins a majority in June. Even the most optimistic scenario would give a majority of, say, 10. Corbyn does what he promised, wins back Scotland, converts non-voters into voters. What happens next?

The PM has to be someone who commands a majority in the Commons. Would Corbyn?

The answer is clearly no. Soon enough a decision would arise and the PLP would rebel. if they aren't prepared to follow him in opposition it will be many many times worse in government.

So, eventually, they'll depose him. Perhaps not as leader of the party, but certainly as PM.

Not that it matters, as the premise with which we start is now so ridiculously unlikely (contra uber optimists like Tem).

This is your reasoning for not taking a stand against May and her intentions?
Roll over snd die?
You know as well as anyone that Corbyn has a centrist agenda that is sensible in the main, far more sensible than the direction we are currently heading.
Stuff it, Hugo. Go watch the vieo of the woman who has had to use food banks. Multiply her experience a couple of million times, and perhaps you will understand why fighting this election is important. Perhaps you wiil feel it, alternatively perhaps you have no shame.

[AnatolyKasparov]

I genuinely don't see how anybody can "love" Mandelson, tbh.

People like SH make the mistake of thinking the dislike of him is primarily based on his politics. No, its his personality.

[citizenJA]

The government are evil shits who are destroying the country and they need to lose, and labour need to win. We need a labour government after the June general election. But it's not going to happen.

It's not happened
It's demoralising to Labour members, leadership and voters wanting justice calling it over now

[seeingclearly]

http://www.apse.org.uk/apse/index.cfm/r ... austerity/


Food banks report record demand amid universal credit chaos
Charity calls for immediate reduction in six-week wait for first benefit payment after handing out 1,182,954 emergency parcels

There's never been a satisfactory argument for the gap, has there? Someone coming off minimum wage paid one week in arrears is being deliberately left with no money for food or rent for 4 weeks for no discernable reason other than to ensure they get into debt and remain there, because even careful budgeting can't get around the fact that for one week they will get no money at all plus the basic unfairness of moving from weekly pay to monthly, with your last wage packet clearly not capable of bridging such a gap.

It's not as if this outcome wasn't widely predicted and the government well aware this would happen. Presumably Tory voters just don't care because they get paid monthly and have savings and having to give a toss about a weekly paid temporary worker on minimum wage with no savings is just way too much effort.

It is deliberate, ideological and deeply aimed at destroying peoples lives Willow. Not the only heinous measure of its type by any means. Try the legislation that demands that social housing rent arrears be paid in a very short time (2 months/8 weeks?) and unpaid it goes straight to court and bailiffs for one, then marry it with the above. Theres a whole raft of interlocking measures that can only have been designed to create widespread hardship. Goes a long way to ensuring compliance with dire working conditions, imo.

[seeingclearly]

Think "look we told you they couldn't budget" orgasmic inducing parading for misanthropes.

Helps their feckless scroungers narrative, and their nasty survival of the fittest meritocratic bollocks.

[seeingclearly]

Think "look we told you they couldn't budget" orgasmic inducing parading for misanthropes.

The range of people who might get made redundant and need a little help used to be most of us. These benefits used to be considered "our" benefits and voters were generally more sensitive to their being cut.

Owen Jones was very good on this cultural change in his book "Chavs". It's a good exposition on how we got to where we are now. Less so on how we combat it. Unionism has failed to keep pace with changes in the workplace, I think. People in unions are more informed about their rights and are supported in demanding them. It helps create a culture in which workers have a sense of their worth, where they can see they deserve things. That people who are made redundant, who come to the end of a job through no fault of their own, deserve support.

I'm damned if I know how to get that sense of deserving something at the end of a period of employment back again. The idea of employees being disposable has become endemic, despite being economically ignorant. When I was a manager, minimising employee turnover was paramount because it's so inefficient to keep training up new workers. Even noddy jobs require learning and acclimatisation. That investment in experience is worthwhile in a long-term corporate strategy. This is another effect of predatory capitalism, isn't it?

It is a prelude to far higher levels of sutomation with zero social preparation for change. And it is not just wastage of employees. Also people. And lives. It used to considered fanciful and a bit over the top to say things like that. But now it is true. There is also the issue of those who have never known the end of a period of employment, because they cannot find any at all. A couple of years or three or four of not a single reply to the dozens of email and written applications the DWP demands of claimants, their useless and unworkable ?universal Job Match crud, and the threat of Universal Credit is enough. I would love to have an accurate count of young peoples lives screwed up by this vast failure. I heard of another one this morning. Of course it all fuels another narrative, too, too many people, immigrants, stealing our jobs blah blah. There is a horrible logic to this genuinely regressive and outright evil agenda. No wonder they can't tolerate those who have any kind of humanising, rights based agenda, and feel the need to call them saboteurs.

[howsillyofme1]

Afternoon all

Firstly, I would like to apologise to Tubby as my post in t'other place yesterday didn't read well on further consideration (my excuse is jet lag but it isn't very convincing to be honest) and I would like to thank HindleA, not for the first time, for his wise words last night

I apologise for the manner of that particular post but not for the substance, however. I think if you look back Tubby you were not that clear about supporting Corbyn over May - in the post when yopu said you would like a Labour Government you actually seemed to show a preference for May and were pretty damning of Corbyn

Of course, you are entitled to think May is a better PM than Corbyn would be (and you have since clarified that this is not your view) but if that is the case I would like to know so I can understand some things

I hope we are agreed on here that policy wise the Labour Party has a much better offering than the Tories...if no then I would find it strange that you frequent this board. It seems from all the media comments, comments on here and from anecdotal discussion with friends that we seem to be in a quasi-Presidential election where Corbyn is considered far behind May as a competent PM and that is one of the deciding factors (although Willow would add Brexit I am sure)

To be honest though I have never seen any real concrete reason as to why this is the case. Her policies stink, she is a poor communicator, she is a coward and doesn't expose herself to any sort of scrutiny. She was a pretty incompetent Home Secretary and she was completely invisible in the EU referendum....she may be a sly strategist but I do't think this has translated into political acumen outside her own career

I do understand why people don't rate Corbyn and think he is weak....but I am not convinced he is as incompetent as May and would like to understand if people can explain why. Some of it may be be due to his poor choice of advisers although I would just suggest that if the party itself was more cooperative perhaps that could have been improved a bit

So I have a question (same I asked of Tubby and thanks to him for responding) - is there anyone who thinks May is a more competent PM and, if so, why? I am not interested as to who is likely to win, or what the public think...I just want someone who thinks it to explain to me why....if nobody does then great and we should work as hard as we can to try to ensure that May is beaten in June no matter how long the odds seem now - or if you cannot bring yourself to do that temper the criticism a bit even amongst ourselves...

I would just like to comment on a criticism made forthrightly by TE over the weekend that explains my difficulty

There was the assertion that Corbyn made a mistake in not coming out clearly for a 'Yes' when asked about the targetted assassination of ISIL leaders.....there was no doubt in the post that this was a clear position to take and brooked no opposition. I would just ask, as I did at the time, if this was the case? Is Corbyn wrong not to give a clear indication of support for targetted assassination. is this a clear Labour position as I am not sure we have ever explicitly as a country advocated this type of act. I thought his answer was the right one - look at the intelligence and the evidence and make the decision then. Am I out on a limb here?

Was this comment an example of his 'incompetence' or rather a considered response to a 'to put it bluntly' a stupid question.

I though the electorate didn't like dishonest politicians but one of Corbyn's weaknesses is that he seems to answer questions honestly, even if politically unwise but. like with many other things, the electorate say one thing but vote another

This is compounded by the fact that our 'competent' PM is supposed to believe that a first strike nuclear attack is a possibility (however remote) thus undermining MAD deterrence and justifying proliferation by non-nuclear states. Corbyn's position on Trident would lead to an outcome of us being in the same position as Germany and Japan.....hardly a disaster in my point off view. May's position as reported by her defence secretary is far more dangerous

There are a triumverate of posters here who are continually and stridently anti-Corbyn (although Tubby has said he prefers him to May which is good enough for me), I don't think we see anyone on here who is stridently pro-Corbyn....just some who think as party leader he should be supported during a GE campaign and all opposition put aside

Sadiq Khan did this well, Mandelson and Carwyn Jones less well.....do they not see the damage they do when this is reported in the media? Or perhaps they do

As a final point, I have also seen little mention on here (may have missed it to be fair during absence) about the NEC deciding all GE cadidates with no input from local members. I saw a copy of a letter somewhere that set this out. The members may niominate I think but have io say in the final decision. After all the screaming about deselections etc, do you not find this worrying that local CLP are prevented from having an input into new candidates.....all existing ones could be reconfirmed but any replacements should surely be chosen by the CLP? I think even the Tories allow this

Is this going to do anything to help rebuild the fractured links between PLP and membership......?

[RogerOThornhill]

Oops.

James Carver resigns as party spokesman

http://www.jamescarver.org/James_Carver ... --427.html

West Midlands MEP James Carver has resigned as UKIP’s Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs spokesman, following the announcement of the party’s integration policy, including a pledge to ban the Muslim tradition of women wearing full face veils.

Mr. Carver said he “strongly disagreed” with the “misguided policy”, which includes the forced medical examination of selected children, and the banning of the burka in public places.

He said: “I would be one of the first to condemn a ban on wearing a crucifix as an infringement of liberty. No-one has the right to dictate what people should wear.

Going full-tilt for the BNP vote will mean there are some casualties...

[adam]

I think the question of competence is an irrelevant distraction, beloved of the press because it allows them to avoid talking about anything of substance. It's not about competence or incompetence, it's about policy.

I don't think most of the electorate agree with me, mind, and I know that the press will spend a long time telling everyone that it's all that matters. We live in a world where the 2:2 history graduate could sneer down at the economics PhDs about competence. It really really should be nothing but an irrelevant distraction.

[seeingclearly]

The government are evil shits who are destroying the country and they need to lose, and labour need to win. We need a labour government after the June general election. But it's not going to happen.

It's not happened
It's demoralising to Labour members, leadership and voters wanting justice calling it over now

Thanks for this post JA. I know there are people out there that would like a different opposition to Labour emerge and Labour to be crushed completely. This isn't going to happen in spite of all efforts. I don't agree/disagree with everything any party proposes, can see the flaws in Labour, they are a mixed bag for sure, plus and minus sides to that, but even the few posts I've read here today document something that goes so far in the opposite direction the majority of people (yes, the electorate) really want that it is sickening to think people would be disuaded from taking a stand against the current regime even though the odds are long. As you say, it has not happened - yet. And as we have recently seen even a week can be a long time in politics. Better to give them a good fight than none at all, and really who knows what hope a vigorous response to Mays outrageous claims could bring. I am thinking of them as a cancer on our society. We still encourage patients fight. Thats where we are at as a society.

[howsillyofme1]

I wish it was about policy Adam but it seems it is all about Corbyn

There are posters on here who continually go on that Corbyn is incompetent....or disliked to such an extent that he is the reason for Labour malaise

There are no shortage of Labour commentators who assume if Corbyn left now then Labour's chances would improve....no mention of policy really

If it was all about policy then surely the Tories would get hammered as their policies are shit?

[adam]

If it was all about policy then surely the Tories would get hammered as their policies are shit?

I think you're ignoring the consistent context that these discussions happen in outside of forums like this. The conservative's policies will not be picked over by the press, their economic failures will not be discussed, their inconsistencies will be left as they are, the hurt and damage done to people will be ignored.

But Labour will be constantly shown up on anything however real or unreal it is. The thing today about the speaker still having a 'remain' sticker on his iPad case is a good example - so fucking what, but it's been a high ranking story through the morning as an example of Labour being in a mess about leaving, with an impression that the conservatives being united, despite having a leadership who campaigned to remain.

Before the last election which picture had more political clout - George Osborne sitting with his arm around a prostitute with a line of white powder chopped out on a table in front of them, or Ed Miliband eating a sandwich. And which picture did everyone see?

Saying 'their policies are shit' is true and pointless. I have no idea what the answer is - in fact I think there is no answer and we're screwed, and the best we can do is point at the spite and hate people spew on the right and call them on it - but in the context of the british media climate Corbyn's labour party is a doll with 'kick me' written on it. But then Cooper's labour party, or Burnham's, or Lewis' would be as well unless it was dancing the papers' dance. Just as one Miliband instead of the other wouldn't have meant victory, it would have meant 'war criminal', so a different leader now would just be a different flavour of 'look how shit labour are'.

Elections in the last few years have often been very very strange but i would much rather be shocked and surprised afterwards in a good way than to pretend to believe even for a moment that things are going to be okay.

[SpinningHugo]

I genuinely don't see how anybody can "love" Mandelson, tbh.

People like SH make the mistake of thinking the dislike of him is primarily based on his politics. No, its his personality.

And his politics (which includes, lest we forget, indulging the likes of Oleg Deripaska). And his conduct, including the fact that he had to resign from government for improper behaviour not once but twice.

But he is a thoroughly awful individual. I've never met him but have worked with people who did, and I could not find one who had a good word to say about him. Unless you count words such as 'slimy,' 'patronising,' and 'up himself' to be good.

I refute you thus.

[howsillyofme1]

Okay Adam

See where you are coming from now....

A little bit more optimistic (or naive?) from my side, but not much and you are probably right in your assessment

[RogerOThornhill]

Who would have thought that a tri-borough partnership might come unstuck if one borough changed political control?

Cost of tri-borough collapse set to top £1.5m

http://www.cypnow.co.uk/cyp/news/200355 ... top-gbp15m

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (LBHF), the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), and Westminster City Council (WCC) have run joint provision across children's services, adult social care, and public health since June 2011.

But last month the Kensington and Chelsea Council and Westminster, both Conservative-led administrations, said they intend formally to serve notice to ditch Hammersmith & Fulham, a Labour-led council, from the arrangement, stating that they will continue to deliver services on a "bi-borough" basis.

A report on the situation put together by Westminster Council reveals the cost of Hammersmith and Fulham leaving the arrangement is set to be more than £1.5m.

Always likely to happen at some point.

[SpinningHugo]

Fascinating graph on age and voting patterns

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

Explains, to a degree, the change in Wales where the population is more rapidly ageing than the rest of the UK as the young leave.

All of these are fascinating

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

Old, poor and badly educated? You'll vote Tory.

[RogerOThornhill]

Oh!

Harry Wilson‏Verified account @harrynwilson 25m25 minutes ago
More
Wow! Andrew Tyrie, long-serving chairman of the Treasury select committee, won't stand for re-election. Major loss to Westminster

Yes, that is a loss - well-respected across all parties.

[AnatolyKasparov]

I genuinely don't see how anybody can "love" Mandelson, tbh.

People like SH make the mistake of thinking the dislike of him is primarily based on his politics. No, its his personality.

And his politics (which includes, lest we forget, indulging the likes of Oleg Deripaska). And his conduct, including the fact that he had to resign from government for improper behaviour not once but twice.

But he is a thoroughly awful individual. I've never met him but have worked with people who did, and I could not find one who had a good word to say about him. Unless you count words such as 'slimy,' 'patronising,' and 'up himself' to be good.

Gleefully sticking the knife into Ed the weekend after the last GE summed him up really.

[RogerOThornhill]

Forgot to mention earlier, that thing about government grinding to a halt while the election is true.

I'm in an important meeting in school tomorrow to which a couple of DfE bods were invited. Once the election was called....nope, sorry, can't come now. Purdah rules OK...

[gilsey]

Interesting posts from almost everyone this am, good stuff.

Any thoughts on the 'Tory revival' in Scotland, cos I don't really get it? Unionists don't vote for the SNP, obvs, but what logic would lead them to vote Tory? Brexit logic I suppose, but there's a strong possibility that independence would follow, sooner or later? Are potential Tory voters just closing their eyes to that?

[Willow904]

Re: GE Candidate selections.

As previously discussed, the Libdems, with nothing better to do, really did sort out their candidates for an early election...early:

http://www.markpack.org.uk/142206/lib-d ... -election/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Lib Dems select candidates ready for early general election
JULY 16, 2016 - 10:00 PM"

As mentioned in the article, the Libdems felt it was worth doing as the exercise would provide experience for prospective candidates, even though boundary changes would mean having to start again in the event of no early election (see what I mean about nothing better to do?!)

Meanwhile, despite the Guido Fawkes story in Feb 2017 suggesting some Tory selections had started early, this doesn't appear to be the case, although the way the process is arranged, it's possible that some of the so-called non-target seats mentioned by Guido may have been selected already:
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliam ... tions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Exclusive: CCHQ will shortlist candidates for target seats without even inviting applications"

https://order-order.com/2017/02/01/tori ... ess-early/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"CCHQ has told its parliamentary candidates list that the Team Seats programme in 44 seats will be beginning “early”. Team Seats, formerly known as City Seats, is the preliminary stage of the selection process in urban constituencies and Labour strongholds."

Labour, meanwhile, do seem to have a bit of catching up to do:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -committee" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"The timetable for selections is extremely tight. MPs will have to declare their intentions by 6pm on Thursday. Applications for remaining seats will open on Friday and close on Sunday, followed by a week of officials longlisting and interviewing candidates for priority retirement seats.

The NEC and regional board panels will meet to appoint candidates directly from Sunday next week, and all candidates will be in place within two days, by 2 May."

I suppose some will accuse Labour's NEC of not even trying to give members a say, given the Tories are managing to, but seeing as the above article was printed on 19th April, just one day after the snap election was called and yet included this:

"The Conservatives are further ahead with their selection process, having finalised their list of approved candidates."

- one has to suggest that the Tories are blessed with organisational powers verging on the prophetic.

[PorFavor]

Oh!

Harry Wilson‏Verified account @harrynwilson 25m25 minutes ago
More
Wow! Andrew Tyrie, long-serving chairman of the Treasury select committee, won't stand for re-election. Major loss to Westminster

Yes, that is a loss - well-respected across all parties.

"Oh!" indeed. Odd cove though he may be in many respects, he was pretty good.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Interesting posts from almost everyone this am, good stuff.

Any thoughts on the 'Tory revival' in Scotland, cos I don't really get it? Unionists don't vote for the SNP, obvs, but what logic would lead them to vote Tory? Brexit logic I suppose, but there's a strong possibility that independence would follow, sooner or later? Are potential Tory voters just closing their eyes to that?

As has long been the case in NI, Scotland has to a depressing extent become a place where people vote on the basis of "flegs".

Tories will always be better placed to wrap themselves in the Union Jack variety than Labour.

Though the ineffectuality of the SLab (still "moderate" dominated) leadership hardly helps either.

The sight of Wee Kez lecturing Jez about "electability" (which has happened more than once) has been beyond cringeworthy.

[SpinningHugo]

I genuinely don't see how anybody can "love" Mandelson, tbh.

People like SH make the mistake of thinking the dislike of him is primarily based on his politics. No, its his personality.

And his politics (which includes, lest we forget, indulging the likes of Oleg Deripaska). And his conduct, including the fact that he had to resign from government for improper behaviour not once but twice.

But he is a thoroughly awful individual. I've never met him but have worked with people who did, and I could not find one who had a good word to say about him. Unless you count words such as 'slimy,' 'patronising,' and 'up himself' to be good.

Gleefully sticking the knife into Ed the weekend after the last GE summed him up really.

Justifiably. Miliband's hubris caused the defeat, that led to Corbyn, that led to Brexit, that led to this.

Quite a good case that Charlie Whelan trashed Labour and consequently the UK in 2010.

[SpinningHugo]

Interesting posts from almost everyone this am, good stuff.

Any thoughts on the 'Tory revival' in Scotland, cos I don't really get it? Unionists don't vote for the SNP, obvs, but what logic would lead them to vote Tory? Brexit logic I suppose, but there's a strong possibility that independence would follow, sooner or later? Are potential Tory voters just closing their eyes to that?

The Scottish Tories have the most effective leader anywhere in the UK. Leadership matters. She has quite brilliantly detoxified them.

The Tories are also benefiting from the collapse of Ukips. Ukips strength has disguised how poorly Labour were doing because they ate into the Tory vote.

[seeingclearly]

Fascinating graph on age and voting patterns

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

Explains, to a degree, the change in Wales where the population is more rapidly ageing than the rest of the UK as the young leave.

All of these are fascinating

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

Old, poor and badly educated? You'll vote Tory.

But that is only part of the picture isn't it.

How about old, poor and educated. (I can remember a time when working class people were very proud of education, people here might have parents like that?) Fascinating is when you look at the whole picture, not when you just cherrypick the bits that suit you. Dividing people up by stereotypes is a mugs game. Or propagandists...

[howsillyofme1]

Wow.....Hugo posts that and criticises someone for hubris

You have to respect the complete lack of self awareness

Nice to see Ed getting the blame for Brexit.....or is it Corbyn?

Mr Cameron was just an innocent bystander