Tuesday 27th June 2017

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 1:52 am

Morning

Disabled patients 'relying on crowdfunding' for wheelchairs

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

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 2:18 am

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... core-trump" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Senate healthcare bill would cut insurance for 22 million Americans, CBO says

The highest impact would fall on low-income and elderly Americans,

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 2:24 am

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... like-scene" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rome metro excavations unearth 3rd-century 'Pompeii-like scene'

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 2:34 am

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

Hundreds of patients potentially harmed by undelivered NHS mail

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/investiga ... -services/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 2:42 am

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

Foreign Secretary joins crucial Cyprus settlement talks in Switzerland offering full UK support

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 2:46 am

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... 16-to-2017" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Corporate report
The Sovereign Grant and Sovereign Grant Reserve annual report and accounts 2016 to 2017

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 4:11 am

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

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 6:49 am

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

"£1bn fund to offset delayed discharges not being spent properly, say 40% of hospitals"

Being "medically fit" doesn't give the whole story as to what support needs to be continued/put in place in own home,not just under the rubric "social"

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 7:04 am

Right off to do a bit of ironing on various rooftops.

Post by **adam** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 8:17 am

Teachers to walk out at failing Willenhall E-ACT Academy

Willenhall E-ACT Academy, which received a damning Ofsted placing it in special measures, will bring in teachers from elsewhere to avoid closure. The strike is being carried out by members of National Union of Teachers (NUT) and NASUWT Teachers Union over 'unreasonable' management and the safety of staff. They have also announced two further walk-outs next month, and are not ruling out more if demands for better support are not met.

and

The report found 70 per cent of teachers left the school during 2015 and 2016.

From Wiki

E-ACT (formerly EduTrust Academies Charitable Trust) is the sponsor of 24 academies and free schools in England. It describes itself as "a leading, independent academy sponsor whose principal purpose is to create centres of excellence for all by establishing, maintaining, managing and developing academies and Free Schools".

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 8:20 am

Good morfternoon.

What - no vox-pops of what the woman-in-the-street\man-on-the-Clapham-omnibus thinks of the DUP deal? I wonder why that might be.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 8:24 am

@adam

Hello.

First chance I've had to thank you for your Barking contribution.

Just to say (as RogerOThornhill alluded to) - the postal address for Barking and Dagenham (and for most bits of what is now known as Havering) was always Essex.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 8:56 am

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

Dozens of Labour MPs are preparing to team up with the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens to back an amendment to the Queen’s speech calling for Britain to remain in the EU customs union and single market.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 9:20 am

Willow904 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... arket-exit

Dozens of Labour MPs are preparing to team up with the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens to back an amendment to the Queen’s speech calling for Britain to remain in the EU customs union and single market.

No Lib Dems?

While I understand the sentiment here, this is largely pointless IMHO.

Everybody, including Remainers like myself, needs to move on. The EU is evolving before our eyes and nobody is taking a blind bit of notice. The "single market" and "customs union" we voted to leave will not be the same by the time, if ever, we do leave. In any case, while these arrangements have been a huge political success for the EU, they are still hugely flawed and we can surely envisage a better EU.

Where is the debate in the UK about a future EU? What would it look like ideally? How would it ensure that the EU, to coin a phrase, was for the many not the few?

Over the Channel Macron is talking about ever stronger union for the Euro nations. What will that mean for the other nations? Is the EU heading towards a two-tier organisation? What would that mean for the hallowed "Single Market"?

I'm really passionate about this. It's my belief that there is a future for the UK in the EU, that we can get there politically and that we should. But this won't be achieved by looking back. We can't just return to June 22 last year. And why would we? It can be better than that.

Post by **adam** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 9:27 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Willow904 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... arket-exit

Dozens of Labour MPs are preparing to team up with the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens to back an amendment to the Queen’s speech calling for Britain to remain in the EU customs union and single market.
No Lib Dems?

While I understand the sentiment here, this is largely pointless IMHO.

Everybody, including Remainers like myself, needs to move on. The EU is evolving before our eyes and nobody is taking a blind bit of notice. The "single market" and "customs union" we voted to leave will not be the same by the time, if ever, we do leave. In any case, while these arrangements have been a huge political success for the EU, they are still hugely flawed and we can surely envisage a better EU.

Where is the debate in the UK about a future EU? What would it look like ideally? How would it ensure that the EU, to coin a phrase, was for the many not the few?

Over the Channel Macron is talking about ever stronger union for the Euro nations. What will that mean for the other nations? Is the EU heading towards a two-tier organisation? What would that mean for the hallowed "Single Market"?

I'm really passionate about this. It's my belief that there is a future for the UK in the EU, that we can get there politically and that we should. But this won't be achieved by looking back. We can't just return to June 22 last year. And why would we? It can be better than that.

The problem with this, however much I agree with the sentiment of it, is that we have forced the rest of the EU to work on a future without us, and they have been, and are, devoting considerable resources to this. I don't think we're in a position to expect them to work in parallel in any detail on an alternative provision that we (and they) might be happier with in the long term. I don't think you can ignore the 'well fuck you then' that our referendum result very deliberately said to them.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 9:37 am

adam wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Willow904 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... arket-exit
No Lib Dems?

While I understand the sentiment here, this is largely pointless IMHO.

Everybody, including Remainers like myself, needs to move on. The EU is evolving before our eyes and nobody is taking a blind bit of notice. The "single market" and "customs union" we voted to leave will not be the same by the time, if ever, we do leave. In any case, while these arrangements have been a huge political success for the EU, they are still hugely flawed and we can surely envisage a better EU.

Where is the debate in the UK about a future EU? What would it look like ideally? How would it ensure that the EU, to coin a phrase, was for the many not the few?

Over the Channel Macron is talking about ever stronger union for the Euro nations. What will that mean for the other nations? Is the EU heading towards a two-tier organisation? What would that mean for the hallowed "Single Market"?

I'm really passionate about this. It's my belief that there is a future for the UK in the EU, that we can get there politically and that we should. But this won't be achieved by looking back. We can't just return to June 22 last year. And why would we? It can be better than that.
The problem with this, however much I agree with the sentiment of it, is that we have forced the rest of the EU to work on a future without us, and they have been, and are, devoting considerable resources to this. I don't think we're in a position to expect them to work in parallel in any detail on an alternative provision that we (and they) might be happier with in the long term. I don't think you can ignore the 'well fuck you then' that our referendum result very deliberately said to them.

I'm not sure you are correct on this. Look at what the EU leaders have said.

For many in the rest of the EU, it is a political dream to unite a continent and end centuries of conflict. To lose the UK would be a terrible blow to that dream. For others, who are more suspicious about the EU, the presence of the UK helps counter what they see as the economic dominance by Germany (and France) and helps them advance their own agendas. I'm sure some people and organisations just want to see the back of us (and who would blame them?), but have you heard that voice?

IMHO we will be welcomed back, not unconditionally, but with open arms.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 9:40 am

“Emanuel Macron, the new French President, spoke about an open door. I agree,” Mr Verhofstadt said. “But like Alice in Wonderland not all the doors are the same. It will be a brand new door, with a new Europe, a Europe without rebates, without complexity, with real powers and with unity. That is the door towards Europe.”

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 9:46 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Willow904 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... arket-exit

Dozens of Labour MPs are preparing to team up with the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens to back an amendment to the Queen’s speech calling for Britain to remain in the EU customs union and single market.
No Lib Dems?

While I understand the sentiment here, this is largely pointless.

Everybody, including Remainers like myself, needs to move on. The EU is evolving before our eyes and nobody is taking a blind bit of notice. The "single market" and "customs union" we voted to leave will not be the same by the time, if ever, we do leave. In any case, while these arrangements have been a huge political success for the EU, they are still hugely flawed and we can surely envisage a better EU.

Where is the debate in the UK about a future EU? What would it look like ideally? How would it ensure that the EU, to coin a phrase, was for the many not the few?

Over the Channel Macron is talking about ever stronger union for the Euro nations. What will that mean for the other nations? Is the EU heading towards a two-tier organisation? What would that mean for the hallowed "Single Market"?

I'm really passionate about this. It's my belief that there is a future for the UK in the EU, that we can get there politically and that we should. But this won't be achieved by looking back. We can't just return to June 22 last year. And why would we? It can be better than that.

The economic benefits of the single market revolve around freedom of movement. State aid rules hover over all global trade agreements, not just the single market. So I'm not sure what changes you are expecting to happen to the "single market" or "customs union" which would significantly alter these realities, but if they did happen, it seems to me that we would have to part of these arrangements to benefit, which means resisting a Brexit which takes us out of them.

As for the EU evolving, it is always evolving, but we have given our notice to leave, so it will be evolving without the UK in future unless we revoke article 50, something it is not even clear if we are able to unilaterally do. I don't really understand what you feel has changed since a year ago or why you are so against resisting a hard Brexit. A hard Brexit essentially means isolationism, outside any kind of economic or political bloc. Theresa May's signal that she wishes to take us out of the single market, is a signal that the UK doesn't want to be part of the economic bloc that is currently available and therefore, why should the UK have any say over the future direction of that economic bloc or expect to rejoin it whenever we feel like it?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 9:46 am

Morning all.

I see the printed copy of the DM managed to mysteriously forget that there was any kind of deal going on yesterday and instead concentrate on those leftie HTs telling parents the truth about school funding.

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

The oddest bit of the story is that the only academic that they can find to give a view on electoral purdah rules is Anthony Glees of the University of Buckingham (their go-to uni on everything).

Anthony Glees MA MPhil DPhil (Oxford) is professor of Politics at the University of Buckingham and directs its Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies (BUCSIS).

Definitely an expert on election rules then.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 9:49 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
“Emanuel Macron, the new French President, spoke about an open door. I agree,” Mr Verhofstadt said. “But like Alice in Wonderland not all the doors are the same. It will be a brand new door, with a new Europe, a Europe without rebates, without complexity, with real powers and with unity. That is the door towards Europe.”

A door our current political leaders would never lead us through, in other words. Which is why I'd rather try to stay in the room, than find myself outside the door with a isolationist UK government that is unwilling to knock on it.

Post by **adam** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 9:52 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote: I'm not sure you are correct on this. Look at what the EU leaders have said.

For many in the rest of the EU, it is a political dream to unite a continent and end centuries of conflict. To lose the UK would be a terrible blow to that dream. For others, who are more suspicious about the EU, the presence of the UK helps counter what they see as the economic dominance by Germany (and France) and helps them advance their own agendas. I'm sure some people and organisations just want to see the back of us (and who would blame them?), but have you heard that voice?

IMHO we will be welcomed back, not unconditionally, but with open arms.

I don't think the issue is about them being suspicious of us or wanting us out, and it's entirely possible that a different government's approach could mean we were thinking in more genuine terms about things like the custom's union.

But we don't have a different government, we have a mess that - whilst it is fairly precarious, and I accept entirely that almost anything could happen - is still likely to survive as a mess for long enough to walk us out. The people in parliament who are going to be upset and annoyed about the DUP deal are people who were going to be consistently voting against the government anyway.

The opposition's problem and opportunity is to wait for, and guide the electorate to see, a tipping point in our exit conditions that are finally clearly and obviously horribly disadvantageous for us and then to start to talk about the terms that we will apply to rejoin - but I think we should assume this government will survive long enough for us to have left and to have either negotiated the deal we leave on or just to have left without a deal. Labour need a two strand approach - to challenge what the government are doing and to try to build a consensus about rejoining - but as you say, if it can happen at all it is very unlikely to be on as good terms as we have now.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 10:09 am

Willow904 wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
“Emanuel Macron, the new French President, spoke about an open door. I agree,” Mr Verhofstadt said. “But like Alice in Wonderland not all the doors are the same. It will be a brand new door, with a new Europe, a Europe without rebates, without complexity, with real powers and with unity. That is the door towards Europe.”
A door our current political leaders would never lead us through, in other words. Which is why I'd rather try to stay in the room, than find myself outside the door with a isolationist UK government that is unwilling to knock on it.

A door you don't believe our current political leaders would lead us through.

Well not Theresa May or Arlene Foster I agree.

We are still in the room. We're still in the Single Market and the Customs Union. Article 50 was a piece of theatre for Theresa May to perform that can safely be ignored IMHO in the real world, just like loads of treaties and agreements have been in the past.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 10:11 am

adam wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote: I'm not sure you are correct on this. Look at what the EU leaders have said.

For many in the rest of the EU, it is a political dream to unite a continent and end centuries of conflict. To lose the UK would be a terrible blow to that dream. For others, who are more suspicious about the EU, the presence of the UK helps counter what they see as the economic dominance by Germany (and France) and helps them advance their own agendas. I'm sure some people and organisations just want to see the back of us (and who would blame them?), but have you heard that voice?

IMHO we will be welcomed back, not unconditionally, but with open arms.
I don't think the issue is about them being suspicious of us or wanting us out, and it's entirely possible that a different government's approach could mean we were thinking in more genuine terms about things like the custom's union.

But we don't have a different government, we have a mess that - whilst it is fairly precarious, and I accept entirely that almost anything could happen - is still likely to survive as a mess for long enough to walk us out. The people in parliament who are going to be upset and annoyed about the DUP deal are people who were going to be consistently voting against the government anyway.

The opposition's problem and opportunity is to wait for, and guide the electorate to see, a tipping point in our exit conditions that are finally clearly and obviously horribly disadvantageous for us and then to start to talk about the terms that we will apply to rejoin - but I think we should assume this government will survive long enough for us to have left and to have either negotiated the deal we leave on or just to have left without a deal. Labour need a two strand approach - to challenge what the government are doing and to try to build a consensus about rejoining - but as you say, if it can happen at all it is very unlikely to be on as good terms as we have now.

Exactly this. And IMHO clinging on to a "single market" as an immutable object will make that nigh on impossible. And is borderline silly when the rest of the EU is talking about reform.

Post by **adam** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 10:11 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote: A door you don't believe our current political leaders would lead us through.

Well not Theresa May or Arlene Foster I agree.

We are still in the room. We're still in the Single Market and the Customs Union. Article 50 was a piece of theatre for Theresa May to perform that can safely be ignored IMHO in the real world, just like loads of treaties and agreements have been in the past.

We are still in the room but time is passing and we are walking towards the out door, and however fragile the empowerment of those in charge is it does exist and is real. Do you think May will have a change of heart and decide to try to lead her government towards your way of thinking? Do you think the conservative party, who are extraordinarily and overwhelmingly likely to get rid of her before the next election, would replace her with somebody more Philip Hammond than David Davis? I have to say that I think the answer to both of those is no.

Again, I know that anything could happen with the government's majority but as a starting point they are secure enough to get all of this done.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 10:33 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
A door our current political leaders would never lead us through, in other words. Which is why I'd rather try to stay in the room, than find myself outside the door with a isolationist UK government that is unwilling to knock on it.
A door you don't believe our current political leaders would lead us through.

Well not Theresa May or Arlene Foster I agree.

We are still in the room. We're still in the Single Market and the Customs Union. Article 50 was a piece of theatre for Theresa May to perform that can safely be ignored IMHO in the real world, just like loads of treaties and agreements have been in the past.

The Tories will not take us back into the EU in the near future having left, I think we can agree. It would be hard for any party to take us back in, though, unless specifically elected to do so (which is unlikely). Unless there is another election in the next 2 years, we have a Tory/DUP coalition leading exit negotiations and the only thing the opposition can do is oppose. Which means opposing Tory intentions to take us out of the single market. If Labour doesn't oppose this, they are implicitly supporting the Tory position - there is no nuanced "Labour negotiating stance" to sell to the electorate outside of an election campaign or Labour being in government. There is only support (for Tory hard Brexit) or oppose (against Tory hard Brexit). The only reasons not to oppose are either fear of losing leave votes in an early second election (certainly worth waiting until after the Autumn budget before getting off the fence entirely, I suppose, if you're being cynical) or actually desiring a Tory hard Brexit (which I hope no one in Labour genuinely does). Generally speaking, the election result was the opposite of the mandate Theresa May was seeking for her proposed Brexit, so for democracy to prevail it seems fitting for the opposition to take the soft Brexit stance against the government's hard Brexit stance, if only purely because that's what the electorate appears to have voted for.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 10:36 am

adam wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote: A door you don't believe our current political leaders would lead us through.

Well not Theresa May or Arlene Foster I agree.

We are still in the room. We're still in the Single Market and the Customs Union. Article 50 was a piece of theatre for Theresa May to perform that can safely be ignored IMHO in the real world, just like loads of treaties and agreements have been in the past.
We are still in the room but time is passing and we are walking towards the out door, and however fragile the empowerment of those in charge is it does exist and is real. Do you think May will have a change of heart and decide to try to lead her government towards your way of thinking? Do you think the conservative party, who are extraordinarily and overwhelmingly likely to get rid of her before the next election, would replace her with somebody more Philip Hammond than David Davis? I have to say that I think the answer to both of those is no.

Again, I know that anything could happen with the government's majority but as a starting point they are secure enough to get all of this done.

Thanks Adam.

I'm not at all complacent. I feel the Tories are desperate to hang on at all costs precisely to push Hard Brexit through. For this and many other reasons they must be stopped.

But all my instincts are we have to let go of our own certainties about the EU to make this happen. Otherwise we will still be "saboteurs". It's risky I know but I truly believe we have to offer a vision of a better EU to win this game, not the old model that was, albeit by a small margin, rejected by voters.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 10:41 am

Willow904 wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
A door our current political leaders would never lead us through, in other words. Which is why I'd rather try to stay in the room, than find myself outside the door with a isolationist UK government that is unwilling to knock on it.
A door you don't believe our current political leaders would lead us through.

Well not Theresa May or Arlene Foster I agree.

We are still in the room. We're still in the Single Market and the Customs Union. Article 50 was a piece of theatre for Theresa May to perform that can safely be ignored IMHO in the real world, just like loads of treaties and agreements have been in the past.
The Tories will not take us back into the EU in the near future having left, I think we can agree. It would be hard for any party to take us back in, though, unless specifically elected to do so (which is unlikely). Unless there is another election in the next 2 years, we have a Tory/DUP coalition leading exit negotiations and the only thing the opposition can do is oppose. Which means opposing Tory intentions to take us out of the single market. If Labour doesn't oppose this, they are implicitly supporting the Tory position - there is no nuanced "Labour negotiating stance" to sell to the electorate outside of an election campaign or Labour being in government. There is only support (for Tory hard Brexit) or oppose (against Tory hard Brexit). The only reasons not to oppose are either fear of losing leave votes in an early second election (certainly worth waiting until after the Autumn budget before getting off the fence entirely, I suppose, if you're being cynical) or actually desiring a Tory hard Brexit (which I hope no one in Labour genuinely does). Generally speaking, the election result was the opposite of the mandate Theresa May was seeking for her proposed Brexit, so for democracy to prevail it seems fitting for the opposition to take the soft Brexit stance against the government's hard Brexit stance, if only purely because that's what the electorate appears to have voted for.

My advice, again, is to stop talking about "The Single Market". For ever. Keir Starmer gets this. It belongs in the past. We need to talk about what we want for people, not an agreement that people are suspicious of and that for many didn't seem to improve their lives.

It may look very like a single market in the end, but let's see.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 11:08 am

Morning all. Another fine mess on the watch of the Hunt.

Over 1,700 patients at risk in 'colossal' NHS mail blunder - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40408458" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 11:17 am

One for Dr RoT.

Everest was the school we were heavily pushed to have our eldest join. I don't freaking think so.

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/academies-ente ... e-schools/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 11:17 am

StephenDolan wrote:Morning all. Another fine mess on the watch of the Hunt.

Over 1,700 patients at risk in 'colossal' NHS mail blunder - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40408458" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These two points are quite telling.

The episode suggested there had been a conflict of interest between the health secretary's responsibility for the health service as a whole and his department's position as a shareholder in NHS SBS

NHS England said the company had been "obstructive and unhelpful" when it had tried to investigate issue

Most reasonable people would ask the question as to why NHS England isn't responsible for this in the first place.

The worst kind of free market ideology.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 11:27 am

Early start this morning AH!

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 11:35 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote: A door you don't believe our current political leaders would lead us through.

Well not Theresa May or Arlene Foster I agree.

We are still in the room. We're still in the Single Market and the Customs Union. Article 50 was a piece of theatre for Theresa May to perform that can safely be ignored IMHO in the real world, just like loads of treaties and agreements have been in the past.
The Tories will not take us back into the EU in the near future having left, I think we can agree. It would be hard for any party to take us back in, though, unless specifically elected to do so (which is unlikely). Unless there is another election in the next 2 years, we have a Tory/DUP coalition leading exit negotiations and the only thing the opposition can do is oppose. Which means opposing Tory intentions to take us out of the single market. If Labour doesn't oppose this, they are implicitly supporting the Tory position - there is no nuanced "Labour negotiating stance" to sell to the electorate outside of an election campaign or Labour being in government. There is only support (for Tory hard Brexit) or oppose (against Tory hard Brexit). The only reasons not to oppose are either fear of losing leave votes in an early second election (certainly worth waiting until after the Autumn budget before getting off the fence entirely, I suppose, if you're being cynical) or actually desiring a Tory hard Brexit (which I hope no one in Labour genuinely does). Generally speaking, the election result was the opposite of the mandate Theresa May was seeking for her proposed Brexit, so for democracy to prevail it seems fitting for the opposition to take the soft Brexit stance against the government's hard Brexit stance, if only purely because that's what the electorate appears to have voted for.
My advice, again, is to stop talking about "The Single Market". For ever. Keir Starmer gets this. It belongs in the past. We need to talk about what we want for people, not an agreement that people are suspicious of and that for many didn't seem to improve their lives.

It may look very like a single market in the end, but let's see.

We can't make a single market on our own. If we indicate to the EU we wish to remain in an economic bloc (the single market) when we leave the political bloc (the EU) and the other EU and EEA countries are agreeable then reform can begin, will have to begin, in fact, because the size of our economy would change the relationship between those wholly in the EU and those only in the EEA or only accepting single market rules. Saying we want to leave the "single market" indicates this is not a route we wish to pursue. Keir Starmer may secretly wish to follow this route, who knows? I certainly don't because that's not what he's saying. It's certainly not what Corbyn and McDonnell are saying. They are quite plain about leaving the single market and no freedom of movement. That's not a starting point that leads to a soft Brexit, as far as I can see. A starting point that leads to a soft Brexit must at least start with an indication that we would rather not leave the current economic club, which right now is the "single market". If we don't talk about the "single market" for fear of spooking the leave voting horses, how on earth would EU negotiators understand that we want "in" the economic club rather than "out"? How would remain voters or anyone who opposes a hard Brexit, know Labour or other opposition parties oppose hard Brexit unless they clearly indicate that they do so? Everything you are saying may be relevant if Labour were leading negotiations and was trying to build a consensus towards a halfway house "soft Brexit" solution that all voters could get behind, but they are not in a position at the moment to influence an outcome they want, they are only in a position to oppose the outcome they don't want, which is a Tory deal which takes us out of all current arrangements - "EU", "single market trading bloc" and "customs union".

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 11:38 am

Well, it's official...

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... -06-21/128" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Answered by: Justine Greening Answered on: 27 June 2017
There was no education bill in the Queen’s Speech, and therefore the ban on opening new grammar schools will remain in place.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 11:45 am

Excellent. Next step - halting and in due course rolling back Academy-isation.......

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 12:08 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Excellent. Next step - halting and in due course rolling back Academy-isation.......

Not sure that will ever happen - some LAs are too weak now to ever take any schools back.

The best we can hope for - and this one is really easy - is to make RSCs locally accountable instead of being civil servants, and Head Teacher Boards' transactions transparent.

The ludicrous thing about the RSCs being part of the civil service is that they were covered by the election purdah rules.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 12:12 pm

Hooray! The government are allocating money for mental health training for teachers...oh...wait..

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/mental-health- ... -per-head/

A commitment to train secondary teachers to identify and deal with mental health problems in pupils will be funded by the government at a rate of just £67 per head.
Funding totalling £200,000 has been allocated by the prime minister Theresa May for the first round of mental health “first aid” training, which the government claims will reach 3,000 staff “covering every secondary school in England” over the next three years.

According to the latest school census data, there are more than 3,400 secondary schools in England.

However, Mental Health First Aid, the charity set to deliver the training, says it costs at least £117.25 per head based on a cost of £1,876 per 16-person training session, and that it expects to receive additional money after the first year of the programme.

Pathetic.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 12:27 pm

Points taken RO'T.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 12:58 pm

Good-afternoon, everyone

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 1:01 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:[

My advice, again, is to stop talking about "The Single Market". For ever. Keir Starmer gets this. It belongs in the past. We need to talk about what we want for people, not an agreement that people are suspicious of and that for many didn't seem to improve their lives.

What are you on about? The UK is much, much richer than in 1993, and a lot richer than it would have been absent the Single Market. It has been worth thousands of pounds per head. That increased wealth in turn enables lots of lovely things like hospitals to be paid for.

What a shame the Lexiters are winning.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 1:09 pm

Willow904, PaulfromYorkshire & adam
Thank you for your commentary regarding Labour's current party position(s) on Tory 'Brexit'
I haven't the first idea how to advise or meaningfully contribute on the topic

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 1:18 pm

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... l-says-nao

Hundreds of patients potentially harmed by undelivered NHS mail

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/investiga ... -services/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More than 1,700 people may have been harmed by an NHS contractor’s loss of almost 709,000 pieces of medical correspondence, including patient records and cancer test results, an investigation has found.

But the real total could be much higher, as almost a third of the documents have still to be assessed to see if long delays in analysing them damaged human health, according to a report by the National Audit Office (NAO) into what MPs have called “a colossal blunder”.

(cJA emphasis)

I can't believe this.
May help explain why my NHS correspondence hasn't turned up lately. Good thing I've established other communication avenues with my healthcare provider.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 1:25 pm

- When NHS SBS took over the work of forwarding misdirected clinical correspondence from East Midlands PCTs in 2011, it inherited a backlog of unprocessed clinical correspondence. It found 8,146 items of unprocessed correspondence.

- Over the next four years the backlog continued to grow, from 8,146 items in 2011 to 205,000 items in January 2014, 351,000 items in June 2015, and 435,000 items by the time NHS SBS reported the incident to NHS England in March 2016.

- Managers at NHS SBS had been aware of the clinical risk to patients since January 2014 but did not develop a plan to deal with the backlog. NHS SBS informed NHS England and the Department about the problem in March 2016.

- The Department decided in March 2016 not to alert Parliament or the public about the incident initially as it considered it too early to understand the full extent of harm that may have been caused to patients.

NHS Shared Business Services is a limited company set up as a joint venture between the Department of Health (the Department) and a private company, Sopra Steria. The Department has a 49.99% share in NHS SBS. In 2015, NHS SBS had revenues of around £87 million from its services to the NHS.

National Audit Office (NAO)
Investigation: clinical correspondence handling at NHS Shared Business Services
June 27, 2017

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 1:30 pm

Investigation: clinical correspondence handling at NHS Shared Business Services
The NAO has investigated how NHS Shared Business Services handled its backlog of unprocessed clinical correspondence.

NAO Podcast on NHS Shared Business Services (mp3|m4a|m4b - 18021KB)

NAO Podcast on NHS Shared Business Services transcript (docx - 32KB)

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 1:38 pm

Has Hugo gone a bit Albert Square, since moving? It's like a cross between Phil Mitchell & Harry Enfield in 'Loads of Money' mode.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 1:45 pm

Its a decade, to the day and pretty much the hour, since Gordon Brown became PM.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 1:50 pm

Schools Week LIVE‏ @SchoolsWeekLive 9m9 minutes ago
More
Greening saying very little about govt's plans so far. Criticising Labour a lot and taking lots if Qs from others #QueensSpeech

Saying very little because there is very little left of the government's education plans. New grammars were their big idea and that bit the dust as soon as Nick Timothy walked out of No 10.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 2:12 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/und ... emy-corbyn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The question facing the Pitchford inquiry is whether those in charge of special branch will be pulled out of obscurity and called to account for their decisions – including why Corbyn was spied on.

Be interesting to see reasons for others having been spied on (mentions Caroline Lucas) & if possibly more deserving candidates such as Farage, have or haven't been.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 2:17 pm

Well, there we go - the reason for the Mail front page having a pop at HTs worried about their funding...

Tes‏Verified account @tes 6m6 minutes ago
More
Greening says concerned by reports of "utterly political messages being put out inappropriately" by some schools #QueensSpeech

Thought it was odd timing - now explained.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 2:29 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6246114.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 2:38 pm

HindleA wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6246114.stm

He promised "change" but, largely, didn't deliver it. That's when left wing parties really get hammered (as recently shown even more starkly in France)

Still, history will recall that he rose to the occasion when it was most needed (after the 2008 financial crash) That cancels out quite a few negatives.