Friday 26th May 2017

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 26 May, 2017 5:39 am

Morning

Manchester attack: new arrest as police search for accomplices

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/liv ... lices-live" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 26 May, 2017 5:52 am

https://thebristolcable.org/2017/05/loc ... ealthcare/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Three local health trade union branches are among the first in the country to resist government measures which they say will require NHS staff to act as ‘border guards’.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 26 May, 2017 5:55 am

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/vid ... uist-trump" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Trump diehards stay loyal in Montana's 'white man's country' – video

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 26 May, 2017 6:01 am

Repost

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... ection-ifs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Schools face years of funding cuts if Tories win election, say reports

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9252" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://epi.org.uk/report/election-2017 ... -analysis/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 26 May, 2017 6:27 am

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

Ukip 'would ban balaclavas in public'

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 26 May, 2017 6:53 am

Morning all.

Glad to see Charles Clarke pop up. A former Labour home secretary would concentrate his criticism to May, right? Alas, no. Corbyn, Corbyn, Corbyn.

The reaction to Corbyn's speech beforehand by the usual suspects is another let's set the narrative attempt. Sad, but unsurprising.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 26 May, 2017 8:53 am

Morning all.

Shocked etc.

Investigation: DfE ‘hid’ damaging Lord Nash academy cost emails

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/investigation- ... st-emails/

The Department for Education has attempted to hide internal emails showing Lord Nash’s intention to massage the presentation of figures that reveal the spiralling costs of rebrokering academies.

Nash and his cronies decided long ago that academies were the way forward and no expense would be spared in achieving that aim. And of course those who claim to be bitterly opposed to any kind of public spending wouldn't be at all interested in this because it's Tory policy.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 26 May, 2017 9:05 am

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/25/ar ... aining-it/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are the Tories losing ground or regaining it?

It looks as though the Tories really were in trouble over the social care thing. Another day as front page news could have been very damaging for them. Labour need to get the campaigning back squarely on domestic issues as this is where they have an edge over the Tories. Foreign policy isn't a favourable topic for Corbyn, regardless of the rights and wrongs of It. He needs to get the conversation back to Tory manifesto pledges that are very clearly and obviously negative for large groups of voters. It was working. Intelligent and intellectual stuff about foreign wars and Islamic terrorism probably won't work.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 26 May, 2017 9:23 am

This is really depressing if the Tories win, as is likely:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... ection-ifs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The IFS costed Labour’s promise to reverse the cuts seen in recent years at an additional £4.8bn, which would see school budgets rise over the next five years. Overall, secondary schools in England would get £500 more per pupil per year under Labour than under the Conservatives, the IFS calculated.

As Labour are simply aiming to get back to and stay where education funding was in 2015, that should really read that secondary schools will be £500 per pupil per year worse off under the Tories by 2022. That's a lot.

I'm still doubtful about Labour's proposal to abolish tuition fees, though. Grants historically were provided in a system that restricted HE places to match graduate demand. Without that restriction on places, this is a hugely expensive policy that may not justify itself as an investment in required skills. Although learning for the sake of it is a nice thing, it's an awful lot of money and in the same manifesto there is no money made available to reverse benefit and tax credit freezes, which is disappointing. Although this is obviously about appealing to young voters, it feels right on the edge of the cynical vote buying stunt performed by the Libdems. Higher education and its funding, along with apprenticeships and 16 &18 year exams systems, need a proper wholesale review, though I appreciate sensible, long term reforms don't really make for catchy vote winners. I guess the sheer cost of abolishing such fees would force a review and overhaul of place numbers, types of courses and university structures anyway. At least Labour doing better in the polls means consideration of their policies and what they might mean is now less of a pointless exercise.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 26 May, 2017 9:44 am

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

IFS makes damning assessment of Tory and Labour manifestos
Neither party’s general election manifesto sets out an honest set of choices, says leading thinktank

Obviously political parties tend to be overly optimistic with their plans when hoping to get elected. It's just hard to see with either the Tories or Labour what the reality might look like compared to the ideal. Neither seems to be acknowledging the realities of Brexit, making this feel rather like a "take a look at what you could have won" election.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Fri 26 May, 2017 9:54 am

Willow904 wrote:https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/25/ar ... aining-it/

Are the Tories losing ground or regaining it?
It looks as though the Tories really were in trouble over the social care thing. Another day as front page news could have been very damaging for them. Labour need to get the campaigning back squarely on domestic issues as this is where they have an edge over the Tories. Foreign policy isn't a favourable topic for Corbyn, regardless of the rights and wrongs of It. He needs to get the conversation back to Tory manifesto pledges that are very clearly and obviously negative for large groups of voters. It was working. Intelligent and intellectual stuff about foreign wars and Islamic terrorism probably won't work.

You could say JC might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb, the Scum the other night laid into him with no justification whatsoever, then there's Iain Martin. The tories haven't really started on his foreign policy views yet, and possibly wouldn't have bothered if the polls hadn't swung against them.
He might as well get his real views out there for those with ears to hear.
Looking for the positives here!

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Fri 26 May, 2017 9:57 am

Willow904 wrote:https://amp.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -manifesto

IFS makes damning assessment of Tory and Labour manifestos
Neither party’s general election manifesto sets out an honest set of choices, says leading thinktank
Obviously political parties tend to be overly optimistic with their plans when hoping to get elected. It's just hard to see with either the Tories or Labour what the reality might look like compared to the ideal. Neither seems to be acknowledging the realities of Brexit, making this feel rather like a "take a look at what you could have won" election.

On the contrary, Labour's fiscal stimulus is exactly what we'll need to start to combat the Brexit recession. The IFS are known for 'not doing macro', so they don't take the wider economic effects into account.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 26 May, 2017 10:06 am

gilsey wrote:
Willow904 wrote:https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/25/ar ... aining-it/

Are the Tories losing ground or regaining it?
It looks as though the Tories really were in trouble over the social care thing. Another day as front page news could have been very damaging for them. Labour need to get the campaigning back squarely on domestic issues as this is where they have an edge over the Tories. Foreign policy isn't a favourable topic for Corbyn, regardless of the rights and wrongs of It. He needs to get the conversation back to Tory manifesto pledges that are very clearly and obviously negative for large groups of voters. It was working. Intelligent and intellectual stuff about foreign wars and Islamic terrorism probably won't work.
You could say JC might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb, the Scum the other night laid into him with no justification whatsoever, then there's Iain Martin. The tories haven't really started on his foreign policy views yet, and possibly wouldn't have bothered if the polls hadn't swung against them.
He might as well get his real views out there for those with ears to hear.
Looking for the positives here!

The positive is that the Tories appear to be vulnerable on domestic policy. I'd just like to see Labour getting back to exploiting that.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 26 May, 2017 10:22 am

gilsey wrote:
Willow904 wrote:https://amp.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -manifesto

IFS makes damning assessment of Tory and Labour manifestos
Neither party’s general election manifesto sets out an honest set of choices, says leading thinktank
Obviously political parties tend to be overly optimistic with their plans when hoping to get elected. It's just hard to see with either the Tories or Labour what the reality might look like compared to the ideal. Neither seems to be acknowledging the realities of Brexit, making this feel rather like a "take a look at what you could have won" election.
On the contrary, Labour's fiscal stimulus is exactly what we'll need to start to combat the Brexit recession. The IFS are known for 'not doing macro', so they don't take the wider economic effects into account.

There's a difference between capital investment and day to day spending. We need more capital spending and Labour are right to borrow for that and it will pay dividends eventually (we are currently paying the price for Osborne's slash in capital spending back in 2010) but money to pay for day to day spending needs to come from tax revenue and Brexit is going to affect that, how can it not? Taxing corporations and high earners more at the same time as we leave the EU has implications that would not be there if we weren't Brexiting, that's the reality that I fear is missing from Labour's manifesto (and which makes Tory plans even more ominous than they already feel, which is quite ominous enough). The Libdems are possibly being the most realistic with their penny on income tax to pay for vital health and social care services that we all rely on. The Tories reduced income taxes for middle and upper middle earners, who were winners rather than losers from "austerity" and that has cost us a lot in revenue that is not easy to replace just by taxing a very few of the highest earners. Of course, voters won't vote for tax rises, something we saw at the last Holyrood elections where Labour were hammered for a similar honesty, so I'm not advocating Labour say what they would really do, just pointing out the unknown element of it all, when you consider how policies proposed now will be derailed by Brexit.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 26 May, 2017 10:26 am

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAvStV_XoAAUUUE.jpg:large" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

: IFS.PNG (156.24 KiB) Viewed 16853 times

The above is an example of where I would actually hope Labour in government would do something differently than what they say in their manifesto because in their manifesto the poorest aren't much better off than under current Tory plans. The Libdem manifesto is better on this, finding money to reverse Tory cuts.

It's possible that Labour are hoping that a rise in the national minimum wage will release some current welfare spending that can be re-distributed to reverse benefit freezes, but they don't actually say so.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 26 May, 2017 10:27 am

I had to admit to laughing out loud at this...poor Will.

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

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 26 May, 2017 10:30 am

Oh dear...

Katie Hopkins sacked by LBC following Manchester attack 'final solution' comments

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 56776.html

Katie Hopkins is to leave LBC with immediate effect, the radio station has confirmed.

The announcement comes shortly after Hopkins said that a "final solution" is needed following the Manchester terror attack. A controversial tweet even by her standards, it appeared to imply that there should be a genocide of Muslims, her use of 'final solution' presumably referring to the Nazis' plan to murder all Jews within reach.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 26 May, 2017 10:40 am

Following on from that, it appears that free speech does, after all, have its limits...

No doubt Spiked will be along soon to defend her...

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 26 May, 2017 10:44 am

https://www.bma.org.uk/news/media-centr ... -pressures" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BMA analysis shows that NHS patients endured one of the worst winters on record, with year-round crisis set to become the norm

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Fri 26 May, 2017 10:48 am

Labour up in the polls, Tories on the ropes, and the scabs are out in force. Neil Coyle on Sky claiming that there is no link between our foreign policy and terror.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 26 May, 2017 10:51 am

Good-morning, everyone

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 26 May, 2017 10:59 am

Temulkar wrote:Labour up in the polls, Tories on the ropes, and the scabs are out in force. Neil Coyle on Sky claiming that there is no link between our foreign policy and terror.

The point is, in private at least our top military/spooks/diplomats would never claim there is "NO LINK". It is a fatuous assertion.

Unfortunately, one side effect if this Labour rise in the polls is for real would be Coyle retaining his seat.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Fri 26 May, 2017 11:02 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Temulkar wrote:Labour up in the polls, Tories on the ropes, and the scabs are out in force. Neil Coyle on Sky claiming that there is no link between our foreign policy and terror.
The point is, in private at least our top military/spooks/diplomats would never claim there is "NO LINK". It is a fatuous claim.

Unfortunately, one side effect if this Labour rise in the polls is for real would be Coyle retaining his seat.

yeah but a hung parliament and another coalition would see the scabs completely frozen out, they will simply become irrelevant.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 26 May, 2017 11:05 am

http://m.insidehousing.co.uk/7020167.ar ... esuccess=1#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From Inside Housing

Revealed: less than half of Right to Buy replacements are for social rent

Less than half of the council homes built to replace those sold under the Right to Buy are at social rents, an exclusive Inside Housing investigation has revealed.

Since 2012, councils have been allowed to keep a portion of the receipt from a Right to Buy home to build a replacement, with a total of 10,644 started so far against 51,352 sales.

But Freedom of Information Act responses from 111 councils – 75% of those building replacements – showed only 48% (3,962) of the 8,109 new homes they had started were at social rents.

Affordable rent, which is set at up to 80% of the market rate and is much higher than social rents in many areas of the country, made up 3,971 replacements with the remainder temporary housing and other tenures.

John Healey, Labour’s housing spokesperson, said the figures show that the Conservatives’ “damaging approach” to Right to Buy is “failing”.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 26 May, 2017 11:40 am

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... he-economy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FactCheck Q&A: Which party has a better track record on the economy?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 26 May, 2017 11:40 am

Great news about Hopkins.

One thing that should be mentioned about her - she is often described as a "former meteorologist". She's not, rather a former admin worker in the Met Office.

Now I'm an admin worker, so no shame in that. It matters when she uses the "authority" of her supposed former position to claim global warming is a scam, though

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 26 May, 2017 11:54 am

http://paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... still.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A QUARTER OF ADVISERS' INCOME STILL COMES FROM COMMISSION

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 26 May, 2017 12:28 pm

I thought Jeremy Corbyn's speech was measured, thoughtful, and held no shock\horror elements for the press to froth about (I'm sure they'll try, though). It was a shrewd move to make it - contrary to my fears.

Edited - typo

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 26 May, 2017 12:29 pm

Good morfternoon.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 26 May, 2017 12:35 pm

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

Myers isn't noted for being a Corbyn enthusiast.

And that bit in the middle about "That assessment in now way reduces the guilt of those who attack our children"? Funny how that will be brushed aside...

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 26 May, 2017 12:36 pm

And Fallon pops up lol.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 26 May, 2017 12:46 pm

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/ju ... -good-harm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 26 May, 2017 1:52 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Following on from that, it appears that free speech does, after all, have its limits...

No doubt Spiked will be along soon to defend her...

No sooner said than done...

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/ar ... Sgkc2jyvct" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What a dick.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 26 May, 2017 2:48 pm

14:37
Boris Johnson calls Corbyn's terror policy speech 'absolutely monstrous' (Politics Live, Guardian)

The Guardian does give quotes from Jeremy Corbyn's speech which make Boris Johnson look stupid. Not difficult, I realise.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 26 May, 2017 2:55 pm

FFS these liberal easilly offended mobsters.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 26 May, 2017 3:16 pm

The Conservatives are getting a bit hysterical.

Edited to add - Amber Rudd's joined in, now.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 26 May, 2017 3:22 pm

I assume, owing to the time lag since the speech was made, the Conservatives have had to wait for instructions.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 26 May, 2017 3:32 pm

15:25

But the Lib Dem leader Tim Farron has criticised Jeremy Corbyn for giving his speech today. (Politics Live, Guardian)

So we talk about it when, Mr Personal Anecdote?

Edited to tidy up

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 26 May, 2017 3:34 pm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 57686.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Pigeon 'caught carrying large stash of drugs in miniature backpack by Kuwait customs officials'

one name sprang to mind immediately.
apologies for even thinking it.
(L)

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 26 May, 2017 3:36 pm

StephenDolan wrote:Morning all.

Glad to see Charles Clarke pop up. A former Labour home secretary would concentrate his criticism to May, right? Alas, no. Corbyn, Corbyn, Corbyn.

The reaction to Corbyn's speech beforehand by the usual suspects is another let's set the narrative attempt. Sad, but unsurprising.

I'm no great fan of ... (etc etc) but I was pretty appalled to see Clarke's 'contribution' this morning. Wtf? really.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 26 May, 2017 3:45 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:Morning all.

Glad to see Charles Clarke pop up. A former Labour home secretary would concentrate his criticism to May, right? Alas, no. Corbyn, Corbyn, Corbyn.

The reaction to Corbyn's speech beforehand by the usual suspects is another let's set the narrative attempt. Sad, but unsurprising.
I'm no great fan of ... (etc etc) but I was pretty appalled to see Clarke's 'contribution' this morning. Wtf? really.

Saw of an anecdote today of him having to canvass on his own during the 2010 campaign because even his local activists were sick of the systematic "well lunched" disloyalty.

Norwich South is rather better served by its incumbent (and hopefully future) MP.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 26 May, 2017 4:09 pm

What,L,?Yeah I know you only have an occasional spliff,they did apologise for their thought.Seeking an UN Resolution on the matter,maybe a bit of an overreaction.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Fri 26 May, 2017 4:13 pm

gilsey wrote:
Willow904 wrote:https://amp.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -manifesto

IFS makes damning assessment of Tory and Labour manifestos
Neither party’s general election manifesto sets out an honest set of choices, says leading thinktank
Obviously political parties tend to be overly optimistic with their plans when hoping to get elected. It's just hard to see with either the Tories or Labour what the reality might look like compared to the ideal. Neither seems to be acknowledging the realities of Brexit, making this feel rather like a "take a look at what you could have won" election.
On the contrary, Labour's fiscal stimulus is exactly what we'll need to start to combat the Brexit recession. The IFS are known for 'not doing macro', so they don't take the wider economic effects into account.

The IFS are standing in for the BBC on this, imo, presumably wishing to appear impartial. To pretend that the manifestos are equally rubbish in economic terms is doing Labour a great injustice.

Sorry I had to delete your second comment because of PfY's nesting rule!

A shortfall of tax revenues against current spending wouldn't be a problem for a year or two, so badly do we need that fiscal stimulus. Here's an alternative view.
http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/ ... -telescope" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 26 May, 2017 4:28 pm

Both Boris Johnson and Tim Farron are being exposed for the hypocrites that they are over at Politics Live (Guardian).

Boris Johnson won't care much - but Tim Farron has dented his halo.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 26 May, 2017 4:32 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... hakespeare" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A plague o' both your houses: error in GCSE exam paper forces apology

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 26 May, 2017 4:41 pm

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... hakespeare

A plague o' both your houses: error in GCSE exam paper forces apology

From the article -

One of England’s biggest exam boards has been forced to apologised [sic] after thousands of students sat an English literature GCSE paper with a mistake in it. (Guardian)

The Guardian - rarely disappoints in these areas. Poignant.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 26 May, 2017 4:52 pm

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... hakespeare

A plague o' both your houses: error in GCSE exam paper forces apology

I would say it's a schoolboy error but in this case it seems the schoolboys knew best...

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 26 May, 2017 4:58 pm

Farron rushing to attack JC today before he had even delivered his speech was not a great look.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 26 May, 2017 5:02 pm

@gilsey

I don't particularly disagree. The general thrust of government spending from Labour is better than further Tory shrinking of the state, I just feel the Labour commitment to not tax anyone on less than £80,000 a year ignores both just how much Osborne has already depleted our tax base through tax cuts and just how much our tax revenues are likely to fall further due to Brexit.

My point is a broad one, really, about how both manifestos have been drawn up based on now when we know with so much more certainty than usual that all the assumptions they are based on are on the cusp of changing quite significantly. It's always true, circumstances always change, hence the impossibility of manifesto promises being anything more than hopeful pledges, it's just this time it feels extra false and I'm left wondering what either party will really do.

As for fiscal stimulus, our country's benefit system kicks in during a downturn in the economy, hence creating that stimulus - the automatic stabilizers. Osborne undermined their impact with benefit freezes, the benefit freezes I have been grumbling about because Labour seem to have forgotten to reverse quite a lot of them, something which is vitally important with Brexit looming and threatening to push us into recession. Corbyn's manifesto is good with big ideas, but ignores the huge damage done by Osborne's tax cuts for middle and higher middle earners and by benefit cuts for the poorest and the urgent need to reverse both. Bear in mind, a rise in NMW leads to a drop in tax credits, so families in particular won't feel the full benefit of this policy unless tax credits are made more generous again, so forgetting to reverse tax credit cuts feels like a real oversight from Labour. And not asking above average earners who were net winners under Osborne to contribute a bit more just feels a bit cowardly, although probably electorally smart.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 26 May, 2017 5:55 pm

The Times says its YouGov poll (see 11.07am), if replicated at a general election, would give the Conservatives a majority of just two.

Lord Ashcroft, a former Tory deputy chairman who is now a polling specialist, is running a model based on multilevel regression and poststratification, or MRP (don’t ask.) He says his model now implies a majority of 142. (Politics Live, Guardian)