Monday 15th May 2017

Post by **refitman** » Mon 15 May, 2017 7:10 am

Morning all.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 15 May, 2017 8:14 am

The important point about those Tory employment right proposals is that they are valueless (as are most workers rights now) because unenforceable because

(1) tribunal fees

and

(2) no legal aid.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 15 May, 2017 9:02 am

"Q: But carers benefit is just £62 a week.

Green says that is not meant to be a benefit you can live on. It is designed to top up other income. And it is means-tested.

He says people worry about giving up a job, and not being able to return."

Damian Green head honcho DWP thinks Carers Allowance is means tested,apparently.No it isn't.

This is basic stuff.

They are removing the ability to earn a penny and receive any housing support for homeowners from next April,we happened to do.this, for some years,precisely to retain employment.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 15 May, 2017 9:16 am

I'm still waiting to hear some of these new "workers rights". Has anything actually been announced beyond the one where people who don't need a job can reserve the job they don't need if they decide to take some time off to look after a sick relative? I mean, I'm all for unpaid sabbaticals - for any reason - they're part of a healthy work/life balance and should be encouraged as part of a more employee friendly work culture, but compared to union and bargaining rights (cut by the Tories) and workers on boards (dropped by Tories) it's a bit of a niche offer, really. A lot of people wouldn't be able to afford to give up work and many others would be away from work caring for much longer than a year. As this is about carers, an increase in carers allowance would be of far more use to far more people. These things seem obvious to me, so I wonder what else the Tories are prepared to offer on "workers rights" because otherwise this announcement seems to be an invitation to look at the Tory offer and think "that's not very much, is it? Bunch of cheapskates. Social care on the cheap" etc etc.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 15 May, 2017 9:37 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39917472" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The national living wage for workers aged 25 and over, currently £7.50 an hour, would rise in line with average earnings until 2022.

George Osborne originally had the NLW rising to £9 by 2020. Is that still to happen under new Tory plans? Or will it rise in line with wages from its current £7.50? If so, what are the projections for 2020? £7.50? Wouldn't surprise me....

Still, a bit more in there than the underwhelming limited unpaid sabbatical for carers.

Edited to add - when I say more in there, I mean more information in the BBC article, not anything remotely useful from the Tories. Just for clarity!

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 15 May, 2017 9:41 am

All evidence suggests that Green hasn't a ###king clue on the basics, following the noble tradition of IDS who praised himself forc protecting carers from the bedroom tax by securing 15 million except it was specifically for non residential almost exclusively paid care workers.Scandalous level of ignorance abounds

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 15 May, 2017 9:52 am

HindleA wrote:"Q: But carers benefit is just £62 a week.

Green says that is not meant to be a benefit you can live on. It is designed to top up other income. And it is means-tested.

He says people worry about giving up a job, and not being able to return."

Damian Green head honcho DWP thinks Carers Allowance is means tested,apparently.No it isn't.

This is basic stuff.

They are removing the ability to earn a penny and receive any housing support for homeowners from next April,we happened to do.this, for some years,precisely to retain employment.

Not a lot of leeway for work though anyway, as have to care for 35 hours to qualify.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 15 May, 2017 9:54 am

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/li ... itics-live" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

11- The introduction of new returnships for people returning to the labour market from a period of absence, including from parenthood and elderly care.

Introduction? Re-introduction surely?

http://www.cityam.com/260505/budget-201 ... elp-people" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Budget 2017: £5m in returnship funding pledged to help people coming back from career breaks

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 15 May, 2017 10:13 am

Big wide hole for returners between self employed and medium-large employers then, and no plans to monitor. Not an election promise, then as is cross party initiative. why gender bias for carer returnees. Many are men. Some never even get started, plenty of child carers evolved into adults, and very little support. Woolly offer, if indeed can be spun to be one. Should be a matter of rights but apoears not to be based on selective view not real rights. Also confused by how to make returner programme, if indeed that, stick, when utter fail on getting basic disability working rights to stick after decades.

Also 5 million a bit like pissing in the wind.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 15 May, 2017 10:20 am

The Tories are just scratching around for things to say. What they really want is a manifesto with nothing in it, so they can herald their inevitable landslide victory as a mandate for whatever they want to do.

Though there are issues with getting things through the Lords if they are not in the manifesto. So what does go in will need looking at very, very carefully, I suspect. And stuff like "returnships" is just waffle to cover what they're really up to.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 15 May, 2017 10:20 am

"Guaranteed training , advice and support." Delivered by who? Work and health programme, and nice cosy Crapita et al. And integrated into UC perhaps.

Apologies, just reading runes, tea leaves etc.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 15 May, 2017 10:25 am

@seeingclearly
I adjusted accordingly and indeed I did eventually end(note n o t "give up") the employment.Point is the option remained;peoples' circumstances are different,they don't fall into neat knowable discrete categories,necessarilly.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 15 May, 2017 10:41 am

From the G live blog:

This morning PoliticsHome says Labour is planning to increase tax for those earning more than £80,000 by bringing the threshold at which people pay the 45% top rate of income tax down from £150,000 to £80,000.

PoliticsHome also says that, when he was on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, Ashworth seemed to confirm that Labour would also re-introduce a 50% top rate of tax (perhaps for those earning more than £150,000?).

Income tax is progressive so a reasonable way to raise more money. If thresholds are frozen, it will slowly increase tax on higher earners (or suppress higher wages, not a negative). The issue is whether voters see themselves as ultimately being targeted by such a policy eventually. The fuss made over Labour's mansion tax and inheritance tax thresholds suggests people are adverse to taxes on wealth far above their own circumstances. This proposal will test their resolve on income taxes on a similarly small cohort of people. There seems always to be a big gap between what people say they are happy with (taxing earners over £80,000) and what they actually vote for (tax cuts for those over £150,000 and austerity for everyone else).

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 15 May, 2017 11:00 am

There is a band of earnings >£100k where marginal tax rates are already very high, due to withdrawal of personal allowance. Chancellors do love to tinker, they should be banned from doing anything that creates anomalies like that.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 15 May, 2017 11:01 am

Nothing substantial about ZHC's in these "wide ranging proposals" either.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 15 May, 2017 11:01 am

See also Brown's 10p rate, far more trouble than it was worth.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 15 May, 2017 11:03 am

gilsey wrote:There is a band of earnings >£100k where marginal tax rates are already very high, due to withdrawal of personal allowance. Chancellors do love to tinker, they should be banned from doing anything that creates anomalies like that.

And they lose child benefit over 60k I think?
Crazy system.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 15 May, 2017 11:06 am

Survation 15/5
CON 48% (+1)
LAB 30% (=)
LD 8% (+1)
UKIP 4% (=)

Little change from last week in that one.

One thing to keep in mind when comparing poll shares and GE shares, is that the polls are GB only (ie no NI). So 31% UK is about 32% GB.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 15 May, 2017 11:13 am

Also interesting

Survation (Edinburgh S):

SNP 30 (-4)
CON 20 (+3)
LAB 40 (+1)
LD 3 (-1)
GRN 7 (+3)

Chg vs 2015
3rd-4th Apr
N=530

Could Labour hold on to its Scottish seat?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 15 May, 2017 11:16 am

SpinningHugo wrote: One thing to keep in mind when comparing poll shares and GE shares, is that the polls are GB only (ie no NI). So 31% UK is about 32% GB

Ah, something that has long been a bugbear of mine

(people conflating UK and GB-wide vote shares, I mean)

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 15 May, 2017 11:21 am

The oddity of that South Edinburgh poll is that the Greens are not standing, to help out the SNP.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 15 May, 2017 11:26 am

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 36056.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brexit: Almost half of EU businesses already looking to cut ties with UK suppliers

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 15 May, 2017 11:32 am

SpinningHugo wrote:Also interesting

Survation (Edinburgh S):

SNP 30 (-4)
CON 20 (+3)
LAB 40 (+1)
LD 3 (-1)
GRN 7 (+3)

Chg vs 2015
3rd-4th Apr
N=530

Could Labour hold on to its Scottish seat?

It is claimed SLab are not just quietly confident of that, but think they have a genuine chance in a couple of other seats as well.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 15 May, 2017 11:48 am

I don't see the rationale behind Labour losing seats it won just 2 years ago in areas that voted predominantly for remain. Iain Dale has Labour losing all its Bristol seats, despite Bristol voting in a Labour mayor just last year. Maybe they will, but there's no particular reason to expect such a result locally, as far as I can see, beyond national swing being applied indiscriminately. The story of this election is clearly leave voters voting Tory to get Brexit. But why would remain voters abandon Labour now, when they were happy to vote for Ed in 2015, despite Labour not offering a referendum? Corbyn isn't that different from Ed. From the perspective of winning a general election, of winning back those swing voters in marginals that gave the Tories their slim majority that's always been the problem. If Corbyn loses ground in remain areas, I think that will reflect far more badly on him than losing northern heartland seats that are desperate for a hard Brexit and immigration curbs, something Labour shouldn't even begin to be offering. Not that holding areas such as London, Edinburgh and Bristol will be much compensation if results in the north and Wales prove as bad as expected.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 15 May, 2017 11:51 am

Good morfternoon.

I've just come across this (from yesterday)-

Freedom of Information Act document leaks could become criminal

Campaigners warn of ‘oppressive’ proposal to lower threshold for prosecution of whistleblowers and journalist (Guardian)

Worrying. Rather neuters the Freedom of Information Act, I feel.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... e-criminal

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 15 May, 2017 11:53 am

Willow904 wrote:I don't see the rationale behind Labour losing seats it won just 2 years ago in areas that voted predominantly for remain. Iain Dale has Labour losing all its Bristol seats, despite Bristol voting in a Labour mayor just last year. Maybe they will, but there's no particular reason to expect such a result locally, as far as I can see, beyond national swing being applied indiscriminately. The story of this election is clearly leave voters voting Tory to get Brexit. But why would remain voters abandon Labour now, when they were happy to vote for Ed in 2015, despite Labour not offering a referendum? Corbyn isn't that different from Ed. From the perspective of winning a general election, of winning back those swing voters in marginals that gave the Tories their slim majority that's always been the problem. If Corbyn loses ground in remain areas, I think that will reflect far more badly on him than losing northern heartland seats that are desperate for a hard Brexit and immigration curbs, something Labour shouldn't even begin to be offering. Not that holding areas such as London, Edinburgh and Bristol will be much compensation if results in the north and Wales prove as bad as expected.

You could have stopped there at "Iain Dale" tbph

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 15 May, 2017 12:04 pm

Businesses and NHS brace for fresh impact as minister blames Labour for UK’s cyber-security failings Politics Live, Guardian)

Saw that coming a mile off.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 15 May, 2017 12:22 pm

ICM/ Guardian: Con 48 (-1) , Lab 28 (+1) , LD 10 (+1) , UKIP 6, Green 3

That Labour uptick is in all the polls. Looks like a Tory lead in the high teens on average.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 15 May, 2017 12:27 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Businesses and NHS brace for fresh impact as minister blames Labour for UK’s cyber-security failings Politics Live, Guardian)
Saw that coming a mile off.

I've found the headline but not the actual story. Which is a shame, because I wanted to know what convoluted reasoning could possibly lead to such a conclusion. I'm not sure quite what Labour's doomed NHS IT program entailed, but the Tories cancelled it in 2011. It was then up to them what happened next. If they had continued with Labour's program as intended, then maybe they could have shifted some blame, but quite how the Tories doing nothing over 5 years, with the full knowledge large swathes of the NHS had IT that needed updating can be Labour's fault is beyond me. "Warning" NHS trusts they need to do something independently, having cancelled a nationwide IT program, is the action that the Tories decided was appropriate. It wasn't and they can't escape that.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 15 May, 2017 1:03 pm

Willow904 wrote:The Tories are just scratching around for things to say. What they really want is a manifesto with nothing in it, so they can herald their inevitable landslide victory as a mandate for whatever they want to do.

Though there are issues with getting things through the Lords if they are not in the manifesto. So what does go in will need looking at very, very carefully, I suspect. And stuff like "returnships" is just waffle to cover what they're really up to.

(cJA emphasis)

It certainly sounds incoherent and I'm deeply troubled by it for the following reason. Tory government, the Tory party, can access the best public relations and research money can buy. That data is used targeting Tory voters, the people Tory government want/need voting for them. Perhaps I'm being too cynical, maybe I overestimate what Tory money can buy, maybe Tories are out of touch even with their expensive feelers out 'reading' the electorate. Tory minister Green's ignorance of basic policy of the department he's head of and odd Tory 'niche' policies (not an exhaustive list) concern me because it indicates they don't think it matters.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 15 May, 2017 1:03 pm

Good-afternoon, everyone

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 15 May, 2017 1:09 pm

@Willow904

I can't find it either! I skimmed through the blog before posting the strap-line and just assumed I'd missed it. Then I went back, and still couldn't find it. I subsequently found some tortuous and convoluted stuff in the Sun, but even that was nothing like the Guardian's effort.

Bum steer, everyone. Apologies!

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 15 May, 2017 1:13 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Businesses and NHS brace for fresh impact as minister blames Labour for UK’s cyber-security failings Politics Live, Guardian)
Saw that coming a mile off.

They think people will believe that? The idiotic lies Tory distribute are terrifying as hell.
I hope the propaganda Tory government pump out is seen for the horsesh** it is and they're not returned to government.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 15 May, 2017 1:17 pm

I should be able to vote in the middle of next week.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 15 May, 2017 1:19 pm

It will be strong and stable

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 15 May, 2017 1:23 pm

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 15 May, 2017 1:24 pm

PorFavor wrote:Bum steer, everyone. Apologies!

(cJA edit)

You got it right, it's not your fault there's no story yet

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 15 May, 2017 1:29 pm

Found it on page 1 of the ransomware blog:

Ben Wallace, UK security minister has been on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme defending its record on investment in cyber-security.

He said he did not know if the ransomware attack would escalate or stabilise.

Asked if the Government was to blame for cutting budgets, Wallace said reasons for failures to protect against the attack dated back to decisions made by the Labour government in 2007 in relation to agreements with Microsoft.

(my emphasis)

Usual BS emanating from the Cons. Suggest adopting usual advice to ignore & delete from conscious thought.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 15 May, 2017 1:35 pm

@pk1

Thanks (for doing both my and the Guardian's job)!

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 15 May, 2017 1:51 pm

HindleA wrote:It will be strong and stable

Thanks for the link you posted last night

Number of school leavers on electoral roll in England falls 25%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... d-falls-25" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've found some other information, related, not the same

Friday, 5th May, 2017

You might not have realised, but on Thursday [4 May 2017], thousands of 16 and 17 year olds trekked to polling stations across the country to exercise their democratic right to vote. They went with the full support of all the main parties – including the Conservatives. The country in question was Scotland.

Since the law was passed unanimously in June 2015 (on the same day as MPs in Westminster rejected it for the EU referendum), 16 and 17 year olds have been able to vote all elections there, except for the House of Commons.

So it was disappointing that two days ago [Wednesday, 3 May 2017] – just before 16 and 17 year olds marched to the voting booths north of the border – the UK government rejected it for Westminster.

- Josiah Mortimer
The next government must extend votes at 16 beyond Scotland
5th May, 2017

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog ... yUWua.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 15 May, 2017 1:57 pm

pk1 wrote:Suggest adopting usual advice to ignore & delete from conscious thought.

(cJA edit)

Done, thank you!

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 15 May, 2017 2:48 pm

Some regional polls from yougov

Westminster voting intention (West Mids)
CON 51%
LAB 28%
LD 9%
UKIP 9%
(Con lead over Lab +23, from +9 at GE2015)

Westminster voting intention (North East)
CON 40%
LAB 42%
LD 6%
UKIP 8%
(Con lead over Lab -2, from -22 at GE2015)

Westminster voting intention (North West)
CON 42%
LAB 42%
LD 8%
UKIP 6%
(Con lead over Lab +0, from -13 at GE2015)

Westminster voting intention (Yorks&Humber)
CON 43%
LAB 38%
LD 9%
UKIP 7%
(Con lead over Lab +5, from -7 at GE2015)

Westminster voting intention (East Mids)
CON 54%
LAB 28%
LD 8%
UKIP 7%
(Con lead over Lab +26, from +12 at GE2015)

Westminster voting intention (East Eng)
CON 56%
LAB 19%
LD 12%
UKIP 9%
(Con lead over Lab +37, from +27 at GE2015)

Westminster voting intention (London)
CON 36%
LAB 41%
LD 14%
UKIP 6%
(Con lead over Lab -5, from -9 at GE2015)

Westminster voting intention (South East)
CON 56%
LAB 19%
LD 15%
UKIP 6%
(Con lead over Lab +37, from +33 at GE2015)

Westminster voting intention (South West)
CON 52%
LAB 22%
LD 16%
UKIP 6%
(Con lead over Lab +30, from +29 at GE2015)

Westminster voting intention (Scot)
SNP 41%
CON 28%
LAB 18%
LD 7%
UKIP 2%
(Con lead over Lab +10, from -9 at GE2015)

Westminster voting intention (Wales)
CON 41%
LAB 35%
PC 11%
LD 7%
UKIP 4%
(Con lead over Lab +7, from -10 at GE2015)

London bucking the trend, showing the smallest Con swing, as one would expect given the profile of those who are pro-Corbyn. Wales astonishing. Tories haven't won Wales, since, well ever.

The regional swings
NE 10%
NW 6.5%
YH 6%
EM 7%
WM 7%
E 5%
L 2%
SE 2%
SW 0.5%
Wales 8.5%
Scot 9.5%

(That is by the way, bad news. We want to be seeing big Tory swings where they are already strong (eg the SE and SW), not where they are weak. Other than in London, that is v bad in seat terms.)

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 15 May, 2017 3:20 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/t ... k-politics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 15 May, 2017 3:24 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/t ... f69cb1?3jh" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 15 May, 2017 3:41 pm

She[Theresa May] has a plan for a stronger Britain, she says. (Politics Live, Guardian)

And?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 15 May, 2017 3:51 pm

I've had a plan to become the supreme ruler of both the known and unknown World,a bit behind schedule,mind.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 15 May, 2017 3:53 pm

Think I will enrol Cathy though.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 15 May, 2017 3:56 pm

HindleA wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/t ... k-politics

Sadly, Cathy won't be getting her DLA back & her only hope of getting a PIP if she's already been turned down is by ultimately appealing to the Upper Tribunal after jumping through the mandatory hoops.

Personal experience of DLA --> PIP:
I got my 'invitation to apply for PIP' just before Christmas. Had ATOS assessment on 24th April & was astonished when I got a letter dated 6th May ! Never expected it to be so fast.
I was awarded SR Care & Enhanced Mob. I was on MRC & HRM DLA so haven't lost any benefit at all. All that stress & worry was for nothing.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 15 May, 2017 4:05 pm

Glad it went o.k.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 15 May, 2017 4:07 pm

Sorry you had to go through it of course,what a tremendous judicious use of money.