Wednesday 19th July 2017

Post by **refitman** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 7:09 am

Morning all.

Post by **adam** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 8:25 am

We might have had this yesterday but it's a very worthwhile read.

A despot in disguise: one man’s mission to rip up democracy - George Monbiot

Buchanan was strongly influenced by both the neoliberalism of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, and the property supremacism of John C Calhoun, who argued in the first half of the 19th century that freedom consists of the absolute right to use your property (including your slaves) however you may wish; any institution that impinges on this right is an agent of oppression, exploiting men of property on behalf of the undeserving masses

.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 8:30 am

Morning all.

Can someone tell me what purpose revealing salaries of BBC employees, presenters and "talent" serves?

As far I can tell, the requirement for private companies to reveal how much employees as well as directors disappeared years ago. Directors pay is analysed in great detail in company reports but that's it.

And I did like this...

Mike Cameron‏ @mikercameron 10m10 minutes ago
More
Given that a PMs salary only seems to attract really shit candidates I'm not sure it's fair to use it as a comparative level for talent.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 9:40 am

what happens when you get poorer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40644850" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

which puts the Evil Blair era into perspective. A period of unrelenting growth, where the government did enormous amounts to stop inequality increasing as a result.

So sad that no such government is on offer, and none will be.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 10:15 am

I don't think very highly of Ben Chu but he's right here.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 10:26 am

SpinningHugo wrote:what happens when you get poorer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40644850" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

which puts the Evil Blair era into perspective. A period of unrelenting growth, where the government did enormous amounts to stop inequality increasing as a result.

So sad that no such government is on offer, and none will be.

No government will ever be on offer that will increase growth?

What an odd thing to say.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 10:30 am

gilsey wrote:I don't think very highly of Ben Chu but he's right here.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I didn't see the piece he's referring to.

But his analysis applies so much more widely that I'm sure he is correct!

I end up so often thinking of the Hunger Games these days. Westminster / White House as 'The Capital', with the rest of us as contestants in some hideous reality game show.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 11:07 am

adam wrote:We might have had this yesterday but it's a very worthwhile read.

A despot in disguise: one man’s mission to rip up democracy - George Monbiot

Buchanan was strongly influenced by both the neoliberalism of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, and the property supremacism of John C Calhoun, who argued in the first half of the 19th century that freedom consists of the absolute right to use your property (including your slaves) however you may wish; any institution that impinges on this right is an agent of oppression, exploiting men of property on behalf of the undeserving masses
.

That was chillingly interesting. Thanks.

Post by **adam** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 11:15 am

PorFavor wrote:
adam wrote:We might have had this yesterday but it's a very worthwhile read.

A despot in disguise: one man’s mission to rip up democracy - George Monbiot

Buchanan was strongly influenced by both the neoliberalism of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, and the property supremacism of John C Calhoun, who argued in the first half of the 19th century that freedom consists of the absolute right to use your property (including your slaves) however you may wish; any institution that impinges on this right is an agent of oppression, exploiting men of property on behalf of the undeserving masses
.
That was chillingly interesting. Thanks.

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” Benjamin Franklin.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 11:41 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:what happens when you get poorer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40644850" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

which puts the Evil Blair era into perspective. A period of unrelenting growth, where the government did enormous amounts to stop inequality increasing as a result.

So sad that no such government is on offer, and none will be.
No government will ever be on offer that will increase growth?

What an odd thing to say.

SH still doesn't get it - the 2008 crash junked the New Labour model of doing things FOREVER.

Something new is needed.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 11:48 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:what happens when you get poorer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40644850" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

which puts the Evil Blair era into perspective. A period of unrelenting growth, where the government did enormous amounts to stop inequality increasing as a result.

So sad that no such government is on offer, and none will be.
No government will ever be on offer that will increase growth?

What an odd thing to say.
SH still doesn't get it - the 2008 crash junked the New Labour model of doing things FOREVER.

Something new is needed.

I always remember reading an article by, I think, Larry Elliott a couple of years before the crash, where he basically said this has to be too good to be true but I can't figure out what's wrong.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 11:55 am

Indeed.

And there is no need for straw men - nearly everybody accepts that the last Labour government did a lot of good and ran the economy well - within the constraints of the post-Thatcherite "common sense" consensus - for a decade (though certainly the latter, and arguably the former too, was more the doing of much-derided in "sensible" circles Brown than Blair)

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 12:30 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote: Can someone tell me what purpose revealing salaries of BBC employees, presenters and "talent" serves?

Here's one useful purpose:

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

Absolute disgrace.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 12:31 pm

Should have been pensioned off years ago.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 12:32 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote: I always remember reading an article by, I think, Larry Elliott a couple of years before the crash, where he basically said this has to be too good to be true but I can't figure out what's wrong.

What was wrong was debt, too much in the banking sector.

What's wrong now is too much private/consumer debt, and it was/is deliberate govt policy.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=36348" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

the British fiscal statements in 2010 and 2011, hidden in all the detail (an obscure Annexe) was a very explicit statement that told me that the British government was inflicting austerity on the economy and relying largely on the growth of non-government indebtedness to offset the fiscal drag and restore the growth cycle.

edited to add the conclusion of that piece

The crunch will come and Britain will fall into recession unless the Tories end their obsession with austerity.

Of course, the recession will be falsely blamed on the Brexit choice, whereas, in fact, it will be the result of poor policy choices.

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 12:37 pm

Pop quiz:

If a British politician was described as "the rear end of a pantomime horse", who would be your first guess as to the subject?

http://uk.businessinsider.com/former-eu ... way-2017-7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Congratulations, you were probably right.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 12:42 pm

NonOxCol wrote:Pop quiz:

If a British politician was described as "the rear end of a pantomime horse", who would be your first guess as to the subject?

http://uk.businessinsider.com/former-eu ... way-2017-7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Congratulations, you were probably right.

I saw that article yesterday and concluded it was just too depressing to link here. Where has the post-GE feeling of hope gone? Down the brexit plughole.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 12:52 pm

Another recent piece from Bill Mitchell.
A government can always afford high-quality health care provision
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=36477" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

for a currency-issuing nation such as the US, Australia, the UK, there is never a financial constraint on the national government from providing a first-class level of health care for all.

Subject to real resource availability, the only issue that prevents the provision of first-class, universal public health care is political.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 12:59 pm

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

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 1:05 pm

gilsey wrote:
NonOxCol wrote:Pop quiz:

If a British politician was described as "the rear end of a pantomime horse", who would be your first guess as to the subject?

http://uk.businessinsider.com/former-eu ... way-2017-7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Congratulations, you were probably right.
I saw that article yesterday and concluded it was just too depressing to link here. Where has the post-GE feeling of hope gone? Down the brexit plughole.

I think the hope is still there.

The GE result was rather cruel, to May! By not quite removing her from power, it's allowing her to demonstrate just how useless the Tories are and just how ludicrous the idea of Brexit, at least on these terms, is.

It's painful now, but surely it's the Tory Party going down the plughole first.

Post by **adam** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 1:33 pm

Government about to announce they are bringing forward an increase in the pension age.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 1:34 pm

Good morfternoon.

According to the Sun’s Steve Hawkes and the Times’ Sam Coates, David Gauke, the work and pensions secretary, will announce plans to bring forward an increase in the state pension age when he makes a statement to MPs at about 2pm. (Politics Live, Guardian)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 1:36 pm

@adam

Snap.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 1:46 pm

http://tomforth.co.uk/ifs_income_and_inequality/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
interactive graph thingy, looked interesting,
but bit challenging to mob.phone

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 1:59 pm

adam wrote:Government about to announce they are bringing forward an increase in the pension age.

They just can't stop spreading misery, can they.

Post by **adam** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 2:01 pm

gilsey wrote:
adam wrote:Government about to announce they are bringing forward an increase in the pension age.
They just can't stop spreading misery, can they.

They've brought forward the rise from 67 to 68 by seven years so it will now come in in 2037.

It's creeping up on me... I will be 69 in 2037 (all being well)

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 2:05 pm

I thought "equality of misery" was meant to be a socialist thing?

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 2:11 pm

That's me working another year then. Hurrah!

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 2:12 pm

Antoinette Sandbach, a Conservative, asks what is being done to tackle consumers having to pay surcharges for using credit cards.

May says the government is going to ban this. In 2010 it was estimated that these charges cost consumers £410m. That money will now be going back to consumers.

Unbelievable cheek. The EU are banning it, aren't they?
And it's exactly the sort of thing the tories will be happy to allow back if they're around after we leave.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 2:22 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:what happens when you get poorer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40644850" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

which puts the Evil Blair era into perspective. A period of unrelenting growth, where the government did enormous amounts to stop inequality increasing as a result.

So sad that no such government is on offer, and none will be.
No government will ever be on offer that will increase growth?

What an odd thing to say.
SH still doesn't get it - the 2008 crash junked the New Labour model of doing things FOREVER.

Something new is needed.

Nah. There is nothing really new under the sun.

The options are much the same as they've been since democracy got going. Socialism. Social democracy. Conservatism.

I favour social democracy in the European tradition, that was a dominant force in Europe from the war in most countries for 60 plus years. Someone like Macron in the UK.

The claims that the capitalist structures were all broken by the 2007 crash just look ridiculous now. Ok, they had some on their face plausibility back in 2009, but they look silly now. You're the one behind the curve, not me.

Yes, liberal social democracy is boring, and requires hard choices, and leaves many unsatisfied. It is just that there isn't really any viable alternative to its boring technical wonkish approach. It isn't perfect, it is just better than anything else.

The best way to help the poorest is

(1) End Brexit

(2) Use investment spending (particularly on housing infrastructure) to get us off the zlb

(3) Use the tax system to give the poorest more money.

Basically, return to the Blair years. It is easy.

I suspect that a party with that platform could win in the UK, but both main parties are in the hands of their fringe elements, so there is no hope.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 2:48 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:SH still doesn't get it - the 2008 crash junked the New Labour model of doing things FOREVER.

Something new is needed.
Nah. There is nothing really new under the sun.

The options are much the same as they've been since democracy got going. Socialism. Social democracy. Conservatism.

I favour social democracy in the European tradition, that was a dominant force in Europe from the war in most countries for 60 plus years. Someone like Macron in the UK.

The claims that the capitalist structures were all broken by the 2007 crash just look ridiculous now. Ok, they had some on their face plausibility back in 2009, but they look silly now. You're the one behind the curve, not me.

Yes, liberal social democracy is boring, and requires hard choices, and leaves many unsatisfied. It is just that there isn't really any viable alternative to its boring technical wonkish approach. It isn't perfect, it is just better than anything else.

The best way to help the poorest is

(1) End Brexit

(2) Use investment spending (particularly on housing infrastructure) to get us off the zlb

(3) Use the tax system to give the poorest more money.

Basically, return to the Blair years. It is easy.

I suspect that a party with that platform could win in the UK, but both main parties are in the hands of their fringe elements, so there is no hope.

But New Labour increased inequality.

They only got away with because of the global bubble, as discussed, so everyone was feeling better off.

See Richard Murphy here

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014 ... ange-that/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What's needed that is new, or new since 1979 at least, is a plan to reduce inequality.

IMO this inequality contributed in no small part to the Brexit disaster. Folk rightly feel left behind on stagnant incomes. The idea that our children will be better off than us is slipping away. They are rightly angry, even if they are misguided in where they are trying to express this on the ballot.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 2:59 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote: But New Labour increased inequality.

They only got away with because of the global bubble, as discussed, so everyone was feeling better off.

This relates to the link I posted at the start, which perhaps you haven't read.

Inequality according to the IFS has been falling since 2008.

Hooray for the Tories?

No, because when growth stalls, inequality doesn't increase.

During times of growth inequality will increase (think of those on fixed incomes or dependent on benefits who won't get the benefits of growth).

The great achievement of Labour from 1997-2007 was to deliver a strong decade of growth (how we'd love that now) and use the leavers of the state to correct for inequality. Tax credits being the obvious one.

The big rise in inequality occurred 1979-1990 (ie under Thatcher). In the UK since then it has hardly moved at all. That Murphy blog you linked to was from 3 years ago. His predicted increase in inequality never happened: see the link I posted which related to the IFS. From today, One of the reasons for that was Osborne's "living" wage which combined with near full employment has benefited the poorest. Not something that will make me any more popular on here, but Osborne looks like he was right on that as there hasn't been any uptick in unemployment as a result.

But the point about that is it is nothing much to cheer about. If growth stalls inequality won't get worse. That is not good.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 3:08 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote: But New Labour increased inequality.

They only got away with because of the global bubble, as discussed, so everyone was feeling better off.

This relates to the link I posted at the start, which perhaps you haven't read.

Inequality according to the IFS has been falling since 2008.

Hooray for the Tories?

No, because when growth stalls, inequality doesn't increase.

During times of growth inequality will increase (think of those on fixed incomes or dependent on benefits who won't get the benefits of growth).

The great achievement of Labour from 1997-2007 was to deliver a strong decade of growth (how we'd love that now) and use the leavers of the state to correct for inequality. Tax credits being the obvious one.

The big rise in inequality occurred 1979-1990 (ie under Thatcher). In the UK since then it has hardly moved at all. That Murphy blog you linked to was from 3 years ago. His predicted increase in inequality never happened: see the link I posted which related to the IFS. From today, One of the reasons for that was Osborne's "living" wage which combined with near full employment has benefited the poorest. Not something that will make me any more popular on here, but Osborne looks like he was right on that as there hasn't been any uptick in unemployment as a result.

But the point about that is it is nothing much to cheer about. If growth stalls inequality won't get worse. That is not good.

I did read it.

Sure because the very wealthy are less very wealthy the difference between top and bottom quintiles has narrowed.

But look at the second Figure on the Murphy blog! Look how the gap from the bottom quintile widens right through the New Labour years.

Look just before the crash, real household incomes for the bottom quintile were falling.

I'm not rubbishing New Labour or the many achievements of those years, but surely we can do better than leave the poorest behind all the time.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 3:13 pm

P.S. Is it Johnson, Davis and Fox that you refer to as the "leavers of state"?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 3:16 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote: But New Labour increased inequality.

They only got away with because of the global bubble, as discussed, so everyone was feeling better off.

This relates to the link I posted at the start, which perhaps you haven't read.

Inequality according to the IFS has been falling since 2008.

Hooray for the Tories?

No, because when growth stalls, inequality doesn't increase.

During times of growth inequality will increase (think of those on fixed incomes or dependent on benefits who won't get the benefits of growth).

The great achievement of Labour from 1997-2007 was to deliver a strong decade of growth (how we'd love that now) and use the leavers of the state to correct for inequality. Tax credits being the obvious one.

The big rise in inequality occurred 1979-1990 (ie under Thatcher). In the UK since then it has hardly moved at all. That Murphy blog you linked to was from 3 years ago. His predicted increase in inequality never happened: see the link I posted which related to the IFS. From today, One of the reasons for that was Osborne's "living" wage which combined with near full employment has benefited the poorest. Not something that will make me any more popular on here, but Osborne looks like he was right on that as there hasn't been any uptick in unemployment as a result.

But the point about that is it is nothing much to cheer about. If growth stalls inequality won't get worse. That is not good.
I did read it.

Sure because the very wealthy are less very wealthy the difference between top and bottom quintiles has narrowed.

But look at the second Figure on the Murphy blog! Look how the gap from the bottom quintile widens right through the New Labour years.

1. You mustn't confuse *wealth* inequality and *income* inequality. Different things raising different issues (retired teachers owning their own homes in London will have far more wealth than newly qualified graduates at Goldman Sachs)

2. You mean the second graph down? Very difficult to see what you mean as it doesn't show the relative rates of increase, and is over a very long timeframe (1977-2014) . The gini chart doesn't support the widening. you claim, I think you'll need better data than that, and there is none.

I had thought you were relying on Murphy's central claim about the future, which of course hasn't turned out to be true.

This is by a hate figure on here, but he does know about this issue and explains it well.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/pov ... 81796.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 3:58 pm

From Simon Wren Lewis.

You can see earnings inequality going up under New Labour, income inequality (ie after tax, tax credits) staying about the same.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 4:11 pm

They were breaking the law by not pronouncing on.Epic timing given stalling life expectancy.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 4:57 pm

Though not legislating for,left to next review in 2023.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 4:58 pm

For some reason.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 4:59 pm

Buck attempting fitness for habitation bill,mark 2.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 5:45 pm

John Cleese in the 70s, still true today

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

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 5:48 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

From Simon Wren Lewis.

You can see earnings inequality going up under New Labour, income inequality (ie after tax, tax credits) staying about the same.

Earnings inequality will increase with economic growth, whihc is why you need to take steps to redistribute through the tax and benefits system.

There are downsides of this approach of course. It is just the best option available.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 6:06 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:John Cleese in the 70s, still true today

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

He supported Brexit, mind.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 6:37 pm

Good afternoon

'The Blair Legacy' - I was a very active member in the early Blair years and remember the euphoria of ending the Tory hegemony in 1997

I had so many hopes and things started okay but looking back there were some indications of what was to follow

The 97 election looking back was a success but possibly not as transformative as we saw at the time. The lead stayed the same under Blair, most of the rise was due to Tory incompetence and John Smith earlier in the 90s. The number of votes was less than Major got in 92 and it seemed Tories just stayed at home

There were no real complaints from me during the first term and a half of the Blair Government but then Iraq came and after that he seemed to become a different person and moved further to the right. Clearly there was a conflict at the heart of Government and it became more and more apparent as we approached 2010

The party that contested the 2010 election was very different from that of 97

The party became very much controlled from the centre and the emasculation of the membership was started then, only becoming apparent now as membership has exploded and the weaknesses left by Blair and Brown are there to see. Corbyn is the result of this loss of party identity as the move to the right led to the loss of Labour voters - not always to the Tories more to fringe parties or to non-voters

Yes the economy grew but the world economy was growing at the same time, and some indications of its weakness were seen in the dotcom implosion and the Sort East Asian crisis. The growth built on debt and house price rises was never sustainable and the deregulation of financial services ended badly

Also it has to be said that a not insignificant number of the Tory's policies since 2010 are continuation of programs started under Labour and Blair and his acolytes were always seeming to support the austerity policies of the Tory government rather than the even slightly left wing policies of Miliband

So, to me Blair and his Government - did some good things, disappointed that more was not done to ensure the changes were sustainable (8 years of huge majorities) and in the end he has actually become a Tory.....if you look at his comments they support the Tory Government - apart from Brexit - and he has to take some blame for the disillusionment that fuelled that decision. And of course Iraq followed by his cuddling up to dictators and his piss poor attempts at Middle East peacemaking

Compare him to that old man Carter in the US, or even Major who is more fondly remembered than him

He was a man of a time that doesn't exist now.....and he should slink away into obscurity

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 6:37 pm

Ros Altman talking rubbish (as usual) on pensions.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 7:09 pm

PorFavor wrote:Ros Altman talking rubbish (as usual) on pensions.

How many (if any) political parties is she a member of now?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 7:33 pm

HindleA wrote:They were breaking the law by not pronouncing on.Epic timing given stalling life expectancy.

In 2016, there were fewer deaths at ages 75 and over, while the number of deaths at ages 65 to 74 increased compared to 2015.

- ONS Deaths registered in England and Wales: 2016

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ables/2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ONS report released today

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 7:36 pm

Good-evening, everyone

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 7:41 pm

Ben Bradshaw: Brexit will Not Happen!

http://www.europeanscom.eu/ben-bradshaw ... ot-happen/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted for the enjoyment of these comments (from Tory's) about their "top team"

“That Prime Minister has now lost her majority and with it her authority. The level and tone of public squabbling among her Ministers is unprecedented.

“This week Michael Gove’s ex advisor and head of the Leave campaign described the Brexit Secretary, David Davis, as ‘thick as mince, lazy as a toad and vain as Narcissus’.

“Soft Brexiter Cabinet Ministers hit back at Gove and Boris Johnson calling them ‘testosterone-fuelled donkeys’ and ‘safe seat kids’ who should ‘go back to being the juvenile scribblers they were before they entered politics’.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 7:43 pm

The pensions minister is facing criticism after suggesting that millions of women in their 60s who are facing cuts to their state pension could take up apprenticeships as a route to re-employment.

Guy Opperman said the government would not change laws that have disadvantaged older women, but instead highlighted “extended apprenticeship opportunities” to get older people into work.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/ ... nticeships" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;