Monday 12th June 2017

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 4:13 pm

@seeingclearly

I for one am always interested to read posts on benefits and IDS's hideous legacy, but don't feel qualified to comment. This goes for some other topics. I'm very glad those posts are there though

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 4:15 pm

I'd clean forgotten about this one...

Kevin‏ @rascalblog 19h19 hours ago
More
With the sheer pace of news over the last few days I would hate for you to miss that Simon Danczuk got just 833 votes and lost his deposit

Hopefully both will sink into obscurity now.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 4:16 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:Leg hurts a lot, but up and about on crutches. Thanks for asking.

NHS was great (unlike my GP surgery which has been crap for over a decade.)

As for the negatively: I'm not a Labour supporter. I voted Green. I think, as I said before the vote, that the crushing of the kind of politics I support by the Hard Brexit parties was a disaster.

Well the Green Party leader set aside HER differences with Labour, but you still do not let go of your habitual need to make an anti-Labour statement. Given that one of the possible ways out of our current dilemma is a progressive alliance, some thing Lucas is calling for, you are not exactly adding anything that is needed to the discussion.

And yes, the NHS is bloody marvellous (and saved my life several times over last year) even in its current state. We talk about it, and so do the tories, as if it were the structures, funding, and assets that are the main importance, but actually, as you may have been able to discern, it is the people working for the NHS that make it great. An aspect of Brexit that surely should be touched upon as many are from Europe, and elsewhere too. There has been a massive drop in them seeking work here and we are soon to face a huge shortage of trained staff, because we failed, as we fail in nearly every other aspect of governance, to train our own people, some of whom would love the chance but are actively denied the chance to do so. Our choice, and nothing to do with the EU. It is those things things that led to the Brexit referendum result, but people still keep carping about Labour, who could with the right kind of support, help turn a lot of this around AND positively affect the Brexit situation. Sure as hell the tories won't be doing that, not any iteration of them.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 4:23 pm

seeingclearly wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
And it is not impossible that if the UK asked for major Treaty changes the other 27 member states would not just dismiss it.

Incredibly unlikely though, and so not sensible to base any plans upon it.

But, it is impossible to have a single market without freedom of movement. The latter is part of what makes it a single market. It isn't just about what others might agree to.

Labour MPs are beginning to sound like Brexiteers. Making all kinds of ridiculous claims about what the EU27 will agree to.

What we really need is some kind of programme of national reconstruction and the Conservative party out for at least a generation. And a dimunition of activity in those who pander to them.

When you are in the pot and the temperature is rising you are mostly too busy dealing with the heat to consider things clearly. The heat is down temporarily, what we are going to do with it is another matter. I suggest that even more than brexit which is looming very large, this should be where efforts should be focussed, before things become unbearable again. I know everything seems wesk and wobbly and on the edge of imploding, but there is plenty of legacy stuff about to hit. Most of it will start hitting even relatively well protected people very soon. (UC is and has been in the bag for years, only the roll out has been delayed, please look for maps on this and what is happening in areas where it is now being rolled out to families. The rest of the country has this to look forward to.)

But you are still focusing on what may or may not be wrong with the Labour approach to Brexit, instead of saying how can we define what is needed given the current state of play, and how can wevmove things in a direction where there will be a good outcome.

On this may I note that neither Corbyn or McDonnell ruled out anything, and they also declined to say that they did or did not support any given stance. They only stated what is known to be currently possible or not. Others have probably said better than I can that this is exactly where negotiation comes in. We cannot know what we don't know.

But whatever happens with Brexit, talks may now be delayed, what happens when we no longer have the EU red herring to blame for our internal woes? Which we fail to address over and over.

I suggest that the answer to that played a key part in the election results. People aren't so fussed about Brexit, but they are hugely fussed about the way their voices have systematically been erased from nearly every aspect of governance you could care to think of, and they want more democracy, and to establish a collective voice again.*

A difficult task in itself. But not if we bolster human rights rather than dispose of them.

Well said.

I've always supported Labour (well, once spoiled my ballot - but we'll gloss over that) and although I'm very pro-EU (improve it, don't ditch it) if we're in a position where we're going to lose the many protections that I believe the EU currently affords us, however Labour plays the "Brexit" thing, they're at least not out to stitch us all up and do away with our rights.

Not well expressed, I know, but energy is at a low ebb today.

(By the way, well done for managing to extract information on Wounded Knee. I've tried (God knows etc etc) but haven't managed to elicit much of a response!)

PS Thanks for the link re-issue

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 4:25 pm

Norman smith (@BBCNormanS)

BREAKING>>>GOAT ALERT... apparently the Queens Speech cd now be back on ....No really #baaaa
June 12, 2017 (Politics Live, Guardian)

Edited to add an "N"

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 4:37 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:@seeingclearly

I for one am always interested to read posts on benefits and IDS's hideous legacy, but don't feel qualified to comment. This goes for some other topics. I'm very glad those posts are there though

Hi Paul. UC is not about what we traditionally call benefits. You must have noticed that somewhere along the line Osbourne and co redesignated tax credits as 'benefits'. Tax credits by in large went and still go to people in work. And were not benefits in the same way as social security. They were a way of adjusting for the difference between the actual cost of living and what people were getting in their pay packets. So not social security for the individual but a redistribution that benefitted the employer, and has been totally exploited in terms of driving down wages. This car crash is about to hit working people who do not even consider themselves as welfare recipients or on benefits. It was rolled out initially to unemployed single people, and was an utter car crash, most were in debt within weeks of being persuaded to try it. Now being offered nearly everywhere, the rise of foodbank usage is likely a side effect of it. Where it is rolled out to families low earners are losing homes to it. The conditionality is punitive. GO pushed back some of the roll out to this year, way back in 2013 when it was evident it was not fit for purpose.

The main thing that is really going to harm workers is the time it takes to even get onto benefit. Formerly you could, if you hadn't given up work voluntarily, get onto some kind of support within a couple of weeks, now it is over five weeks at best. Again people are losing homes and more, getting taken to court for various arrears.

It is also the driver for a programme that goes under work and health where if ill or in need of medical treatment you are assessed for how much time you get off work, regardless of outcomes and your own personal health. Eventually this is likely to require people to take out health insurance.

There is a lot more, and I am not detailed in explaining this, but can give an overview. In work and out if work the intrusion during your working life span will be huge, but again we are being cooked slowly, and are not that aware it is happening. It needs to be addressed and soon,because basically the whole country is being rinsed by these policies.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 4:43 pm

UKIP's Scottish MEP David Coburn has said he will stand for the party's leadership.

"I have had enough of pashmina sofa politics pushed on ukip I want a return to the good old days." (BBC News website)

Pashmina sofas?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-40247180

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 4:46 pm

PorFavor wrote:
UKIP's Scottish MEP David Coburn has said he will stand for the party's leadership.

"I have had enough of pashmina sofa politics pushed on ukip I want a return to the good old days." (BBC News website)

Pashmina sofas?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-40247180

No such thing. The moths would get them. They adore pashmina.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 4:51 pm

Charles Walker and Nicholas Soames turned up in tandem, and they’ve gone in too.
(Politics Live, Guardian)

Misread that, initially . . .

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 4:52 pm

http://www.24housing.co.uk/opinion/bedr ... ciliation/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 4:53 pm

3h ago Sturgeon says Queen's speech delay casts doubt on May's ability to run 'functioning government'
(Politics Live, Guardian)

Misread that, too!

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 4:56 pm

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

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 4:56 pm

HindleA wrote:http://www.24housing.co.uk/opinion/bedr ... ciliation/

That reminds me - anyone in charge of Housing? I missed that announcement (if there was one).

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 5:00 pm

@PF Not as far as I know Priorities ,get lobbed out Minister on your side,rather than bother about such matters of such inconsequentials.

Edited to make more/less clear what I am referring/responding to.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 5:01 pm

seeingclearly wrote:
But you are still focusing on what may or may not be wrong with the Labour approach to Brexit, instead of saying how can we define what is needed given the current state of play, and how can wevmove things in a direction where there will be a good outcome.

As for this. The options are

1. Remain

2. Staying in the single market

3. Hard Brexit of some kind (a Customs Union is nice, but not a big deal)

There are all sorts of things that make any option almost impossible.

One is political: the Condorcet paradox, described here

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/06/1 ... eferendum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So

a majority favour Brexit over Remain

a majority favour staying in the single market to Hard Brexit

a majority favour Remain over just staying in the single market.

So for any option you choose, there is a majority for a different choice.

The problem for Labour is that Brexit is good for it as it neutralises the immigration issue, but it can only do that by committing to end freedom of movement (as the manifesto did). But if you commit to ending freedom of movement that make Hard Brexit inevitable, which Labour says it opposes. Labour seeks to avoid this inevitable ontradiction with warm words and waffle. There is also a split within the leadership between McDonnell/Corbyn (who favour Brexit as it enables things like state aid, renationalisation, contract preferences, regulation) and the European social democratic PLP. That was the cause of the leadership election last year. These tensions can only be hidden so long (and weren't hidden when the party was whipped to vote for art 50 without conditions).

What should the UK do? I favour a party that commits to freedom of movement, sees what can be negotiated, and puts that to a referendum. That will be worse than staying in and rejected. This is why Brexiteers are so keen to avoid a second referendum: it would be lost because of the Condorcet paradox.

As for all the other things you want to discuss, basically they don't matter very much as the ability to do them all turn on Brexit. Brexit will knock c. 3-5% off UK GDP. Permanently. That dwarfs all the difference between Labour and Tory in their manifestos.

People don't like talking about Brexit because it is hard. Other issues are easy: but they all depend on Brexit in the end. That people don't care or understand was demonstrated by the election we just had.

SO yes, I well understand the glee of those who support Labour under Corbyn. But I don't. I'm glad that the Tories lost their majority, but I'd be a lot happier if the shadow Chancellor and Leader of the Opposition were not committing Labour to leave the single market.

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 5:04 pm

Take of the Week, surely:

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

Stick it alongside Rajan and his "liberal Osborne" guff and you can see how we ended up in such an effing state.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 5:09 pm

If I recollect correctly, David Cameron sorted out his Coalition with Clegg before he went to see the Queen. Is this why we've got the confusion now over the Queen's Speech? I mean, she's done it in the wrong order. You delay going to see the Queen, not delay the speech. Doesn't help the general impression of sheer incompetence, does it?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 5:09 pm

Re priority thing,that would have a scintilla of truth if you have historical amnesia/conned by the we had/have to do it and wilfully blind to their purpose,regardless.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 5:19 pm

Rowson's latest As I Please column

https://martinrowson.wordpress.com/2017 ... -weakness/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 5:20 pm

Willow904 wrote:If I recollect correctly, David Cameron sorted out his Coalition with Clegg before he went to see the Queen. Is this why we've got the confusion now over the Queen's Speech? I mean, she's done it in the wrong order. You delay going to see the Queen, not delay the speech. Doesn't help the general impression of sheer incompetence, does it?

There was no reason for her to see the Queen at all.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 5:23 pm

seeingclearly wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:@seeingclearly

I for one am always interested to read posts on benefits and IDS's hideous legacy, but don't feel qualified to comment. This goes for some other topics. I'm very glad those posts are there though
Hi Paul. UC is not about what we traditionally call benefits. You must have noticed that somewhere along the line Osbourne and co redesignated tax credits as 'benefits'. Tax credits by in large went and still go to people in work. And were not benefits in the same way as social security. They were a way of adjusting for the difference between the actual cost of living and what people were getting in their pay packets. So not social security for the individual but a redistribution that benefitted the employer, and has been totally exploited in terms of driving down wages. This car crash is about to hit working people who do not even consider themselves as welfare recipients or on benefits. It was rolled out initially to unemployed single people, and was an utter car crash, most were in debt within weeks of being persuaded to try it. Now being offered nearly everywhere, the rise of foodbank usage is likely a side effect of it. Where it is rolled out to families low earners are losing homes to it. The conditionality is punitive. GO pushed back some of the roll out to this year, way back in 2013 when it was evident it was not fit for purpose.

The main thing that is really going to harm workers is the time it takes to even get onto benefit. Formerly you could, if you hadn't given up work voluntarily, get onto some kind of support within a couple of weeks, now it is over five weeks at best. Again people are losing homes and more, getting taken to court for various arrears.

It is also the driver for a programme that goes under work and health where if ill or in need of medical treatment you are assessed for how much time you get off work, regardless of outcomes and your own personal health. Eventually this is likely to require people to take out health insurance.

There is a lot more, and I am not detailed in explaining this, but can give an overview. In work and out if work the intrusion during your working life span will be huge, but again we are being cooked slowly, and are not that aware it is happening. It needs to be addressed and soon,because basically the whole country is being rinsed by these policies.

Thanks for this. One positive outcome of the election was a good solid majority for Debbie Abrahams in Oldham E & Saddleworth. Hopefully she'll be around for years to come and has a deep understanding of these issues I feel.

Imagine having Debbie in government to sort out the mess! What a difference that would make....

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 5:25 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
Willow904 wrote:If I recollect correctly, David Cameron sorted out his Coalition with Clegg before he went to see the Queen. Is this why we've got the confusion now over the Queen's Speech? I mean, she's done it in the wrong order. You delay going to see the Queen, not delay the speech. Doesn't help the general impression of sheer incompetence, does it?

There was no reason for her to see the Queen at all.

I love the brevity and clarity of this post

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 5:42 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
seeingclearly wrote:
But you are still focusing on what may or may not be wrong with the Labour approach to Brexit, instead of saying how can we define what is needed given the current state of play, and how can wevmove things in a direction where there will be a good outcome.
As for this. The options are

1. Remain

2. Staying in the single market

3. Hard Brexit of some kind (a Customs Union is nice, but not a big deal)

There are all sorts of things that make any option almost impossible.

One is political: the Condorcet paradox, described here

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/06/1 ... eferendum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So

a majority favour Brexit over Remain

a majority favour staying in the single market to Hard Brexit

a majority favour Remain over just staying in the single market.

So for any option you choose, there is a majority for a different choice.

The problem for Labour is that Brexit is good for it as it neutralises the immigration issue, but it can only do that by committing to end freedom of movement (as the manifesto did). But if you commit to ending freedom of movement that make Hard Brexit inevitable, which Labour says it opposes. Labour seeks to avoid this inevitable ontradiction with warm words and waffle. There is also a split within the leadership between McDonnell/Corbyn (who favour Brexit as it enables things like state aid, renationalisation, contract preferences, regulation) and the European social democratic PLP. That was the cause of the leadership election last year. These tensions can only be hidden so long (and weren't hidden when the party was whipped to vote for art 50 without conditions).

What should the UK do? I favour a party that commits to freedom of movement, sees what can be negotiated, and puts that to a referendum. That will be worse than staying in and rejected. This is why Brexiteers are so keen to avoid a second referendum: it would be lost because of the Condorcet paradox.

As for all the other things you want to discuss, basically they don't matter very much as the ability to do them all turn on Brexit. Brexit will knock c. 3-5% off UK GDP. Permanently. That dwarfs all the difference between Labour and Tory in their manifestos.

People don't like talking about Brexit because it is hard. Other issues are easy: but they all depend on Brexit in the end. That people don't care or understand was demonstrated by the election we just had.

SO yes, I well understand the glee of those who support Labour under Corbyn. But I don't. I'm glad that the Tories lost their majority, but I'd be a lot happier if the shadow Chancellor and Leader of the Opposition were not committing Labour to leave the single market.

Sorry, I disagree that all the other things turn on Brexit. They were already being legislated for before Cameron even offered a referendum. And all of us watching understood exactly the pit he and his government were digging for us. I will concede that whoever/whatever dictates what the Conservatives try and pass off as their original policies probably had an end aim of a malleable Britain out of Europe and a subsequently weakened EU as a result.

I would prefer to remain, and have never wavered on this, but I also wish for the country to move towards a progressive and responsible social democracy, something we have been giving away in exchange for more and more repressive and life destroying policies for years. This is definitively not because of the EU. This is wholly our own bag of shit.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 5:45 pm

I agree by the way that the whole brexit situation is nigh on inpossible. For any party. Which is why a referendum should never have been offered. But spilt milk and all that stuff. Corbyn and Starmer look at lot better than wobbly may and her merry morons.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 5:47 pm

Hmm...

Caroline Shenton‏
@dustshoveller
Follow
More
I was Director of the @UKParlArchives for 6 years and I can tell you that the Queen's Speech is not made of parchment, goat or otherwise.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 5:49 pm

Well ex Treasury bod Gauke now in charge (the Treasury were suspicious about UC though neat cover for continued "savings")so Gov played we stopped cuts but really haven't if it works out as intended thing,will be interesting so see if any change in tactics and/or conveniently forget promised amelioration under the priority rubric.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 5:59 pm

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

Queen's speech: what the Tories' overhauled priorities may look like

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 6:01 pm

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

Housing policy now depends on a new minister - and the DUP

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 6:02 pm

People don't like talking about Brexit because it is hard. Other issues are easy: but they all depend on Brexit in the end. That people don't care or understand was demonstrated by the election we just had.

Thats an odd statement. We have had around two years of endless dissection of Brexit, and many people expressing both ignorance and knowledge of every nuance of it.

The things people don't discuss these days, though they will grumble about the practical consequences sometimes, are the changing landscape of work, survival, housing and a lot more. Mostly they don't discuss it because no solutions are offered, they believe the changes cannot be turned back because they have been conditioned to believe so.

Also because the very vocabulary of support and social responsibility has been undermined. Many such words are now almost impossible to use openly. Human, rights, social security, freedom of speech, feminism, and a whole load more.

In this context Brexit is the EASY topic.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 6:03 pm

http://www.welfareweekly.com/theresa-ma ... provision/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 6:05 pm

Not a new minister that will make a difference. Building more houses at genuinely afforable prices. Not a tory strong point.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 6:12 pm

Yeah but not bothering to have one,so far,speaks volumes.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 6:18 pm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 86056.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 6:18 pm

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... priorities

Queen's speech: what the Tories' overhauled priorities may look like

May/may speculation.
The G should know better.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 6:25 pm

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

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 6:26 pm

Tired of seeing that council house tbh. Is it the only one?

Plenty in that article to get people on the mainland frothing, a reason it is not in the mainstream?
More devolutionionary divisiveness in action. Sorry, don't see anything changing. It is how they control us. Easy to forget in days the prelude to the election. Or discount it. Look at what Cameron did in coalition.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 6:36 pm

Watching the whole charade, and it is one, they even frame it in terms of performance. Someone else more correctly called it pantomime.

Hoping they can eventually be hoist with the rope they have made.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 6:44 pm

NonOxCol wrote:Take of the Week, surely:

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

Stick it alongside Rajan and his "liberal Osborne" guff and you can see how we ended up in such an effing state.

Merrick is a genuinely terrible political "journalist" even given the generally low standard there. Rajan is just a creepy craven power-worshipper - how such a person was ever considered suitable for a key BBC post says much about that organisation's degeneration.

Post by **adam** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 6:53 pm

NonOxCol wrote:Take of the Week, surely:

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

Stick it alongside Rajan and his "liberal Osborne" guff and you can see how we ended up in such an effing state.

Go and look at the Rajan tweet again. I thought he was saying 'if you think Osborne's a liberal you're a fool'.

ETA - it's here

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 7:12 pm

adam wrote:
NonOxCol wrote:Take of the Week, surely:

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

Stick it alongside Rajan and his "liberal Osborne" guff and you can see how we ended up in such an effing state.
Go and look at the Rajan tweet again. I thought he was saying 'if you think Osborne's a liberal you're a fool'.

ETA - it's here

I've just re-read it. I can see what you mean. It's almost written in "double negative" style, if you follow my meaning.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 7:59 pm

Labour + Lib + Green + SNP + Plaid + Scottish Cons = 327

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 8:09 pm

HindleA wrote:More pensioners forced to rent as housing crisis grows

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/more ... 03dbbbafe2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One in 12 private rental tenants is a pensioner, according to research that shows it is not just young people who are being priced out of the housing market.

Eight per cent of tenants are retired, compared with 5.2 per cent in 2007, the letting agency Countrywide has found. It says that about £1 in every £14 paid by tenants across Britain comes from a pensioner’s wallet.

The future does not look much better, with the number of those in retirement who never managed to buy their own home due to rise.

In a separate report, Steve Wilcox, head of the University of York’s centre for housing policy, found that up to a third of 60-year-olds will be renting by 2040. He said the trend would have serious implications for public spending on both housing benefit and social care.

Professor Wilcox, who wrote the report for the Chartered Institute of Housing, said it was not just young people that ministers needed to think about as they planned future housing projects. “Britain is facing a housing benefit ticking time bomb. There will soon be huge proportions of pensioners who never own their own home,” he said. “This will inevitably have an impact on housing benefit costs because many pensioners will not be able to afford the rent on their pensions.

As one such may I add to this that penioners without a private pension have zero manouvreability in this market because credit checks class those on state pensions and pension credit as 'on benefits' and nearly all btl insurance policies demand no social tenants. So if your needs change with age or health trying to find alternative housing is practically impossible. There are lots of people trapped in this situation.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 8:31 pm

Robert Halfon‏Verified account @Halfon4Harlow 52m52 minutes ago
More
It's been an honour to have served as Apprenticeships Minister. I'm proud we have a record 900K apprentices & to have passed the FE/TE Bill.

Gone. Mistake according to some but there was a fair bit of criticism over provider lists recently.

Gibb hasn't been confirmed in post yet - would love to see him gone too but have this awful feeling that the dreadful Suella Fernandes might get a post.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 8:56 pm

New blog if anyone's interested

https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2017 ... to-resign/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 9:05 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:New blog if anyone's interested

https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2017 ... to-resign/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nope

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 9:13 pm

oh go on!
(actually made me laugh out loud)

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 9:15 pm

Theresa May: putting the ****s back in government.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 9:17 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -labour-mp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Keir Starmer: Labour keen to keep EU single market option on table
Shadow Brexit secretary admits membership unlikely to continue but criticises Tories for ruling it out before talks begin

Soz if we've already had it.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 9:19 pm

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

latest Rowson

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 9:20 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:Theresa May: putting the ****s back in government.

Is there more than one Gove?