Thursday 27th July 2017

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 4:55 pm

Fremontodenron californicum...

Woodstock has fallen in love with a worm

Post by **adam** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 5:01 pm

HindleA wrote:Fremontodenron californicum...

Woodstock has fallen in love with a worm

I am a big fan of the Peanuts stuff, I think it's funny and sad and very grown up and rather lovely.

Post by **adam** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 5:07 pm

Transitory thoughts on loans again, and on distributional effects.

It's true that giving grants instead of loans is a giveaway to the more wealthy, but not collecting repayments has an opposite distributional effect.

The extremely wealthy - especially those who are 'capital' rich - would avoid interest mainly or wholly and just pay the whole thing off asap, treating it as a cheap loan in the short term (which it may not be any more given the new rates, but this is something that has happened to date).

If not, the top 7% or so who are the only ones who will ever actually be making capital repayments will be paying 9% of the surplus over 21K of a very large salary indeed (on comparison with the population as a whole) and whilst getting that 9% back would be a good thing for them, people with less to spare to start with will see the difference in not paying 9% of their much lower earnings to a much greater extent. I understand that it is (by definition) the same proportion of their income, but when you have a lot less to start with the cash value of every percentage point going can be much more significant.

It may have issues with the way you budget the initial capital costs, and I accept that there is an interesting argument about opportunity costs (I am slightly wary of arguments about opportunity costs, I'm not accusing Hugo of this in any way at all but they have a habit of being quite opaque) AND I actually agree fairly whole-heartedly that if you are going to focus spending on education (and so on) from a limited budget you might well be doing much much better by starting with early years and working your way up (which is something Labour tried to do from 1997 and did well).

But you are still left with a present scheme which is a fraud on the taxpayer, making them believe that students are going to be repaying their loans when around 93% of the time they will never repay a penny other than in their general role as taxpayers who will pay for almost all of it - and which chooses to pay commercial rates for loans instead of the cost of government borrowing and charges that commercial cost to the exchequer instead. It's another more elaborate privitisation of public wealth, hiding behind the facade of personal responsibility.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 5:10 pm

Always thought it was a shame Snoopy wasn't allowed to complete in the World's Arm Wrestling championship because he didn't have opposable thumbs.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 5:11 pm

adam wrote:
HindleA wrote:Spending as much as 50p might not sound that interesting to relate,but given it's extreme rarity I thought as least noteworthy.
I have had a electricity back up machine delivered to me - the kind of thing you plug in to your terribly important device so that if there's a power cut there is no interruption to your electricity supply - that I had never even heard of before today and that I certainly didn't order. It came with a couple of things I did order but they were nothing like this. The company are inviting me to pay to send it back to them and promising to then refund me my postage. I've asked if they might come up with a different plan.

Without responsibility.

If you didn't order it (check original order) tell them to fuck off.

They can come and collect it from you if they want it back.

(It is the unsolicited Goods Act, but even at common law there is no requirement to pay for unsolicited stuff people send you. Put it in a drawer and out of politeness tell them they're free to collect it.)

Post by **adam** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 5:11 pm

HindleA wrote:Always thought it was a shame Snoopy wasn't allowed to complete in the World's Arm Wrestling championship because he didn't have opposable thumbs.

*Hums* 'It's a long way to Pensacola...'

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 5:12 pm

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... healthcare

Senate rejects bill to repeal large parts of Obamacare without replacement
Seven Republicans join with Democrats to oppose proposal
Failure suggests GOP’s promise to repeal ACA wholesale will be hugely difficult

Yes, the drama of Tuesday night notwithstanding some of the reporting left a bit to be desired. This saga is far from over.

Post by **adam** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 5:12 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
adam wrote:
HindleA wrote:Spending as much as 50p might not sound that interesting to relate,but given it's extreme rarity I thought as least noteworthy.
I have had a electricity back up machine delivered to me - the kind of thing you plug in to your terribly important device so that if there's a power cut there is no interruption to your electricity supply - that I had never even heard of before today and that I certainly didn't order. It came with a couple of things I did order but they were nothing like this. The company are inviting me to pay to send it back to them and promising to then refund me my postage. I've asked if they might come up with a different plan.
Without responsibility.

If you didn't order it (check original order) tell them to fuck off.

They can come and collect it from you if they want it back.

(It is the unsolicited Goods Act, but even at common law there is no requirement to pay for unsolicited stuff people send you. Put it in a drawer and out of politeness tell them they're free to collect it.)

Thank you - this is what I did, although slighty more politely, and it worked.
Also it's a big heavy box and would not fit in a drawer. A wardrobe, maybe.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 5:56 pm

[youtube]YeGqp4E8azY[/youtube]

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 6:13 pm

Re:student loans.

As some here have already mentioned I think, back in the days of grants, those from wealthier families had no assistance with maintenance costs. Nowadays, although still means tested, I believe those from families with higher incomes can add some (though not all) maintenance costs to their loan. Does this mean these costs, if not repaid by the student, will now fall on the government where previously they didn't? Although I have mixed feelings about the means testing of parents of what are essentially adult individuals in their own right, from the point of view of how few student loans will be repaid, if the above scenario is the case, it is a further point I think against the argument that our current system is saving the taxpayer money.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 6:30 pm

I met the actual Snoopy and Woodstock at Knotts Berry Farm in the early '90's and no one call tell me any different.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 6:35 pm

adam wrote:
HindleA wrote:Just thinking in broader possible application/ usefullness terms(if any)
No, I can entirely see how something like this would be invaluable in all sorts of medical situations. I have a vision at the moment of me ending up having to send it back to them, it getting lost/damaged on the way and them blaming me. The next stage of them saying 'you posting it is the only way to get it back' is going to be me waiting for an absolute waiver on any kind of liability for it at all ever.

(This is astonishingly dull, sorry. I'm going to write up the stuff about student loans from yesterday and send it to Labour's education team to see if they have anything to say).

May I know if the company has charged you for the product sent you didn't order? That's not okay at all.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 6:37 pm

Good-evening, everyone

Post by **adam** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 6:37 pm

citizenJA wrote:
adam wrote:
HindleA wrote:Just thinking in broader possible application/ usefullness terms(if any)
No, I can entirely see how something like this would be invaluable in all sorts of medical situations. I have a vision at the moment of me ending up having to send it back to them, it getting lost/damaged on the way and them blaming me. The next stage of them saying 'you posting it is the only way to get it back' is going to be me waiting for an absolute waiver on any kind of liability for it at all ever.

(This is astonishingly dull, sorry. I'm going to write up the stuff about student loans from yesterday and send it to Labour's education team to see if they have anything to say).
May I know if the company has charged you for the product sent you didn't order?

Nope. It hasn't really caused me any particular problem beyond ten minutes on the phone and on email sorting it out, to be honest.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 6:37 pm

Ah, thank you, adam.

Post by **adam** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 6:40 pm

Willow904 wrote:Re:student loans.

As some here have already mentioned I think, back in the days of grants, those from wealthier families had no assistance with maintenance costs. Nowadays, although still means tested, I believe those from families with higher incomes can add some (though not all) maintenance costs to their loan. Does this mean these costs, if not repaid by the student, will now fall on the government where previously they didn't?

I think the answer has to be yes, as part of the whole general big mishmash of things.

Willow904 wrote: Although I have mixed feelings about the means testing of parents of what are essentially adult individuals in their own right, from the point of view of how few student loans will be repaid, if the above scenario is the case, it is a further point I think against the argument that our current system is saving the taxpayer money.

It's one of those interesting category things - my older daughter finished A levels last summer and has taken a year out before going to university this September and we've been going through all of this with her. My younger daughter will be there in a few years and she will be seventeen until after results day and offer confirmations. Students applying for finance are, as a rule, somewhere between 17 and 18 and I think means testing parents rather than treating them as adult individuals is probably unavoidable.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 6:45 pm

adam wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:[quote="adam]
I have had a electricity back up machine delivered to me - the kind of thing you plug in to your terribly important device so that if there's a power cut there is no interruption to your electricity supply - that I had never even heard of before today and that I certainly didn't order. It came with a couple of things I did order but they were nothing like this. The company are inviting me to pay to send it back to them and promising to then refund me my postage. I've asked if they might come up with a different plan.
Without responsibility.

If you didn't order it (check original order) tell them to fuck off.

They can come and collect it from you if they want it back.

(It is the unsolicited Goods Act, but even at common law there is no requirement to pay for unsolicited stuff people send you. Put it in a drawer and out of politeness tell them they're free to collect it.)

Thank you - this is what I did, although slighty more politely, and it worked.
Also it's a big heavy box and would not fit in a drawer. A wardrobe, maybe.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

If the sender doesn't collect it, British Airways might take it off your hands.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 6:48 pm

If people aren't trained and/or educated, how do they support themselves? Toss people off the land, forbid hunting and gathering and then what?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 6:57 pm

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ers-tories

Following three tribunal cases, in April the government issued a new guidance to care providers to pay minimum-wage hourly rates when carers are called in to sleep over in a care home or in the homes of disabled people who need 24-hour care. Previously, the guidance was to pay a £25 flat rate a night; the new guidance said they should get £60 a night. The tribunal also ruled that six years’ back pay was due to all the care workers who had been short-changed. That is about £400m.

That caused panic in the sector, including among the 200 charities providing care to 178,000 people. They protested that they couldn’t even get a meeting with ministers to warn of the impending disaster of bankruptcies and closures.

Finally, they got their meeting and this is the panic solution: just ignore the tribunal findings and carry on underpaying care workers. Minimum wage enforcers have been called off. The GMB union, representing many care workers, is consulting lawyers. Can the government legally just set aside a judgment, with no parliamentary vote?

The only thing making me angrier reading about care workers begrudged minimum wage for all hours worked is they're not paid much more than minimum wage, if that, during their care working careers.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 7:01 pm

adam wrote:Transitory thoughts on loans again, and on distributional effects.

It's true that giving grants instead of loans is a giveaway to the more wealthy, but not collecting repayments has an opposite distributional effect.

The extremely wealthy - especially those who are 'capital' rich - would avoid interest mainly or wholly and just pay the whole thing off asap, treating it as a cheap loan in the short term (which it may not be any more given the new rates, but this is something that has happened to date).

If not, the top 7% or so who are the only ones who will ever actually be making capital repayments will be paying 9% of the surplus over 21K of a very large salary indeed (on comparison with the population as a whole) and whilst getting that 9% back would be a good thing for them, people with less to spare to start with will see the difference in not paying 9% of their much lower earnings to a much greater extent. I understand that it is (by definition) the same proportion of their income, but when you have a lot less to start with the cash value of every percentage point going can be much more significant.

It may have issues with the way you budget the initial capital costs, and I accept that there is an interesting argument about opportunity costs (I am slightly wary of arguments about opportunity costs, I'm not accusing Hugo of this in any way at all but they have a habit of being quite opaque) AND I actually agree fairly whole-heartedly that if you are going to focus spending on education (and so on) from a limited budget you might well be doing much much better by starting with early years and working your way up (which is something Labour tried to do from 1997 and did well).

But you are still left with a present scheme which is a fraud on the taxpayer, making them believe that students are going to be repaying their loans when around 93% of the time they will never repay a penny other than in their general role as taxpayers who will pay for almost all of it - and which chooses to pay commercial rates for loans instead of the cost of government borrowing and charges that commercial cost to the exchequer instead. It's another more elaborate privitisation of public wealth, hiding behind the facade of personal responsibility.

(i) You have to distinguish between the distributive effects of giving away this human good, and the financial regressive effect.

Even if abolishing fees wasn't regressive (ie it didn't benefit the richest) it would still be unfair. Giving 3 years of free education away to a select group is distributionally unfair.

Yes, we give, say, expensive cancer treatment to a minority as well. But we do that on the basis of need, not on the basis that you've parents paid for private school and you've got 3 Bs at A level.

(ii) Having a performing loan for 30 years (with interest paid) is good, even if the capital is not repaid. You have to look at the overall effect for the treasury, not whether "X number of students won't repay anything."

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 7:01 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... healthcare

Senate rejects bill to repeal large parts of Obamacare without replacement
Seven Republicans join with Democrats to oppose proposal
Failure suggests GOP’s promise to repeal ACA wholesale will be hugely difficult
Yes, the drama of Tuesday night notwithstanding some of the reporting left a bit to be desired. This saga is far from over.

A few Republican governors in swing/blue states have opposed repeal, including from Nevada and Ohio. Republican senators from those states (Heller, Portman) should feel emboldened by that because they're less likely to be beaten in a primary challenge by a Trumpist. So they'll worry more about their electorate, and won't want to alienate them.

Of the others, Collins is going to vote against. Plus, I guess, Capito, because ACA repeal will kill West Virginia. Murkowski might vote against too. And though he's said he'll vote for, Rand Paul, won't want it to pass because of how it hits Kentucky, so might change his vote if he thinks it'll pass.

I think it should be OK.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 7:01 pm

Grenfell Tower: Reasonable grounds for charges, police say

There are grounds for corporate manslaughter charges over the Grenfell Tower fire that killed at least 80 people, police have said.

Kensington and Chelsea council and the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation have both been told there are grounds for considering charges against them.

This has come to light in a letter from Metropolitan Police to Grenfell residents. (BBC News website)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40747241

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 7:06 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Grenfell Tower: Reasonable grounds for charges, police say

There are grounds for corporate manslaughter charges over the Grenfell Tower fire that killed at least 80 people, police have said.

Kensington and Chelsea council and the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation have both been told there are grounds for considering charges against them.

This has come to light in a letter from Metropolitan Police to Grenfell residents. (BBC News website)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40747241

Yes very interesting.

And perhaps John McDonnell deserves an apology or two, though he did use the term murder rather than manslaughter.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 7:08 pm

From the letter these governors wrote (with some Democrat governors).

"The bill's Medicaid provisions shift costs to states and fail to provide the necessary resources to ensure that no one is left out,
including the working poor or those suffering from mental illness or addiction. The Senate should also reject efforts to amend the bill into a "skinny repeal," which is expected to accelerate health plans leaving the individual market, increase premiums, and result in fewer Americans having access to coverage."

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 7:12 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
Grenfell Tower: Reasonable grounds for charges, police say

There are grounds for corporate manslaughter charges over the Grenfell Tower fire that killed at least 80 people, police have said.

Kensington and Chelsea council and the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation have both been told there are grounds for considering charges against them.

This has come to light in a letter from Metropolitan Police to Grenfell residents. (BBC News website)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40747241
Yes very interesting.

And perhaps John McDonnell deserves an apology or two, though he did use the term murder rather than manslaughter.

He doesn't deserve anything. He was at best reckless about things kicking off. Last time that happened, buildings got set on fire with people in them.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 7:43 pm

@Tubby Isaacs
McDonnell is okay on this issue
Please reconsider

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 7:45 pm

Nothing to do with politics really, but this is a short and very unusual court judgment that I thought moving.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2017/48.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 7:57 pm

@PorFavor
the Keele University students (and others) electoral problems in the 2017 GE in Stoke South
I'll find out more soon

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 8:02 pm

After a mere several years I have just noticed the thanks button goes to a thumbs down when" pressed".

At some stage I will remember what number of house I live in.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 8:03 pm

I think it has a number.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 8:06 pm

Ask a friend if you need to know it

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 8:08 pm

All mail is addressed to Tarquin Towers.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 8:13 pm

Visions of Adam trapped in a corner by unsent for item.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 8:27 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-40643413" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Partition 70 years on: The turmoil, trauma - and legacy

Post by **adam** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 8:28 pm

HindleA wrote:Visions of Adam trapped in a corner by unsent for item.

Sending out arcs of static and appearing to stare despite not having a face.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 9:05 pm

Ukip leadership hopeful gets help with campaign from ex-BNP member
Jack Buckby is barred from joining Ukip but has been assisting anti-Islam candidate Anne Marie Waters

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

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 9:16 pm

McDonnell was maybe slightly intemperate. But the pearl clutching over his comments was ridiculous, and in some cases also cynical and disingenuous.

Indeed, the current tendency of certain "centrist" types to fetishise civility and "manners" - also in evidence over the pond this week - is really starting to get on my wick.

Anger is sometimes justified and healthy. The problem with a lot of people right now isn't that they are angry, but that they are angry about the wrong things.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 9:19 pm

Stomach-churning US food standards that could be imported after Brexit

Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/uk/ ... -imported/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 9:22 pm

A volunteer got attacked when he was mistaken for a council big wig. I get quite angry about paedophiles but when people are going after paediatricians I know to calm down. Especially if I'm the Shadow Chancellor.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 9:24 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Ukip leadership hopeful gets help with campaign from ex-BNP member
Jack Buckby is barred from joining Ukip but has been assisting anti-Islam candidate Anne Marie Waters

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

I notice Patrick O'Flynn resigned as their economics spokesman over their direction.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40740027" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"It is clear to me that UKIP's activist base wishes to go in a more libertarian, shrink-the-state and Thatcherite direction.

I take it he hadn't read, for example, Roger Helmer's biog?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 9:26 pm

Farce in the US senate. McConnell has been telling Republicans to vote for repeal because the House will take the bits out they don't like or stall it. But some are worried that Ryan wont do that, but send the bill straight to Trump.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 9:31 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:A volunteer got attacked when he was mistaken for a council big wig. I get quite angry about paedophiles but when people are going after paediatricians I know to calm down. Especially if I'm the Shadow Chancellor.

I understand better now, thank you

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 9:51 pm

Nah, I was probably overreacting.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 10:10 pm

Lindsey Graham‏Verified account
@LindseyGrahamSC
Holding press conference with Ron Johnson and others at 5:15 pm RE: Skinny Repeal.

"It's with a heavy heart, that we vote for this bill".

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 10:23 pm

Oh my good God.

Newly minted White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci unloaded on Reince Priebus in a profanity-laced tirade with the New Yorker on Thursday. “Reince is a fucking paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac,” the new White House communications director said of the president's chief of staff. “Reince Priebus—if you want to leak something—he’ll be asked to resign very shortly.” Scaramucci said he had no interest in media attention: “I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock.”

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 10:23 pm

UK higher education giant eyes £700m sale as Brexit looms
Providence-owned Study Group has hired banks to handle a sale amid doubts about future UK immigration rules, Sky News learns.

http://news.sky.com/story/uk-higher-edu ... ign=buffer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 10:25 pm

Sigh.

Ian Katz‏Verified account @iankatz1000 8m8 minutes ago
More
Jeremy Corbyn on Sunday: UK is leaving the single market. @HackneyAbbott on #newsnight tonight: "We're not taking any options off the table"

Has there ever been a major issue where both major parties seem utterly clueless and uncoordinated?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 10:31 pm

Goodnight, everyone
love,
cJA

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 10:34 pm

Typical Tory Cabinet meeting to agree common positions on #brexit policies...
#TiryBrexitOmnishambles

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

(illustration to Rogers above )

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 27 Jul, 2017 10:36 pm

Political Cartoon‏
@Cartoon4sale

Here is the original version of the Steve Bell's cartoon which was considered in too bad taste by The Guardian

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