Wednesday 2nd August 2017

[refitman]

Morning all.

[adam]

It'll be like falling off a log / they will be desperate to deal with us / more important for them than us / we can just walk away if we need to / ...

Our 60-year relationship with Euratom offers hard lessons for Brexit negotiators

The miscalculation politicians have always made in negotiating European treaties is that we’ll be welcomed with open arms. Time for a history lesson

More of the kind of detail that should be been at the forefront of the referendum debate and around the time of the Article 50 votes in parliament.

[howsillyofme1]

morning

Following on from Adam, hindsight suggests that the missed opportunity to have the debate was before or around the parliamentary vote and the referendum itself

Once the referendum result was in then it is much more difficult to change

The whole referendum was a debacle - well done Cameron and Osborne!

[adam]

Before anyone else (rightly) says it, it's also true that it's difficult to see how sensible, evidence based detailed arguments would have got a hearing in the referendum campaign as it happened.

If a yes/no referendum had to happen, the government should have structured it around some kind of consultation period with a series of papers on different issued being loudly and angrily but openly and in detail debated. I'm not at all sure that a three-option question would have worked - referenda are good for railroading through decisive answers (thank you for giving up on electoral reform before you'd even begun, Liberal Democrats) and if we'd been able to vote for stay as we are / walk away / some kind of middle ground then we would have been left with a huge fudge. The detail is what parliament should be for.

[HindleA]

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

A million women £32 a week worse off thanks to pension age changes


They do like their £30'ish p.w. policy targeted reductions.

[HindleA]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40798604" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Governors 'devastated' by 'complete decline of prison service'

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... rials-2015" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Research and analysis
Employment and Support Allowance show trials 2015

[Willow904]

Before anyone else (rightly) says it, it's also true that it's difficult to see how sensible, evidence based detailed arguments would have got a hearing in the referendum campaign as it happened.

If a yes/no referendum had to happen, the government should have structured it around some kind of consultation period with a series of papers on different issued being loudly and angrily but openly and in detail debated. I'm not at all sure that a three-option question would have worked - referenda are good for railroading through decisive answers (thank you for giving up on electoral reform before you'd even begun, Liberal Democrats) and if we'd been able to vote for stay as we are / walk away / some kind of middle ground then we would have been left with a huge fudge. The detail is what parliament should be for.

It seems to me that the government chose to make the referendum advisory rather than binding, precisely so they could avoid doing the proper preparation beforehand. If they made it binding, a white paper setting out all the details of what would happen if leave won would have needed to be produced and would have brought attention to all these issues before the referendum happened. How much difference this would have made to the campaigns is hard to tell, but at least we would have been a bit more ready to do this.

And although there are arguments that article 50 had to be triggered even though the referendum was advisory, I still don't agree that Labour had to support the government's timing. Their white paper was a joke. It clearly revealed a government ill prepared for the task at hand and setting the clock ticking under those circumstances was hardly Parliament's finest hour. The timing of when we triggered article 50 was the only bit the UK had full control over. We could have given ourselves far more time to prepare. Sometimes it feels like we're trying to crash out in complete chaos. The huge sums of money being donated to the Tories by hedge funds does little to dispel that feeling.

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/social-care ... -sidelined" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Now the election is over, politicians have sidelined social care again


Lynn Day (care home manager)

[HindleA]

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... ash-repeat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Prison violence: crisis, cash, repeat?

Alice Lilly

(Institute of Government)

[HindleA]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40800587" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

German industry holds 'diesel summit' on car emissions

[adam]

advisory/binding question

I tend to agree wholeheartedly both that a parliament who established a binding referendum on electoral reform (by passing the new system into law but only enacting the law on a Yes vote in the referendum) must have deliberately chosen not to do the same on the EU, and with Anatoly when he points out that everybody said beforehand that the government would consider itself bound by the referendum result and everybody knew this.

The problem I have with the soft leave / hard leave talk is that if you ignore my beloved pedantry about 'not a binding referendum' but just accept the 'feel' of the thing then I'm not at all convinced that 'leaving' but staying in the single market / staying in the customs union / and so on is actually leaving. I think leaving is a disaster, I'm not suddenly going to change my mind about that, but the miserable bastard in me does kind of think that the only thing that will ever possibly change people's minds is seeing how bad it will be to actually functionally properly leave.

But by then we'll never get back in, because we'll never get back the terms we've come to enjoy and we'll never vote to go back on worse terms.

Hi ho.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Yeah, its a mess. That's one thing we can all agree on I think!

[HindleA]

[youtube]cIPfEBuA7HY[/youtube]

[Willow904]

advisory/binding question

I tend to agree wholeheartedly both that a parliament who established a binding referendum on electoral reform (by passing the new system into law but only enacting the law on a Yes vote in the referendum) must have deliberately chosen not to do the same on the EU, and with Anatoly when he points out that everybody said beforehand that the government would consider itself bound by the referendum result and everybody knew this.

The problem I have with the soft leave / hard leave talk is that if you ignore my beloved pedantry about 'not a binding referendum' but just accept the 'feel' of the thing then I'm not at all convinced that 'leaving' but staying in the single market / staying in the customs union / and so on is actually leaving. I think leaving is a disaster, I'm not suddenly going to change my mind about that, but the miserable bastard in me does kind of think that the only thing that will ever possibly change people's minds is seeing how bad it will be to actually functionally properly leave.

But by then we'll never get back in, because we'll never get back the terms we've come to enjoy and we'll never vote to go back on worse terms.

Hi ho.

I think your last sentence neatly sums up why I want to see us stay/negotiate to remain in the single market. Hard Brexiters may find life harder than they expected outside the single market but such a "discovery" won't suddenly mean a happy, jolly consensus on going back into the EU/single market, plus such options of applying to rejoin one or the other will be considerably harder to effect than negotiating to remain in the single market at this point.

Given there were polls showing a majority of people saying they expected/wanted to remain in the single market after we left the EU before the referendum, I find it hard to understand the argument that we have to leave the single market because that's what people expect - I've seen more evidence to the contrary so don't know what this is based on. Added to the fact there are polls now showing a majority for staying in the single market, again I don't see why this shouldn't be pursued, although I get why those who want to leave the single market may wish to give the impression we have no choice/it's necessary to fulfil the referendum. They are trying to persuade people to accept their hard Brexit. I see no reason why others who feel staying in the single market is the better option would feel they have to go along with leave argument that staying in the SM isn't leaving. Indeed, I feel it's very important to resist that narrative because failing to counter it will lead to an acceptance of hard Brexit in the same way that failing to resist the Labour overspending narrative led to an acceptance of austerity.

[adam]

I am playing devil's advocate a little here, and I know that Paul in particular would point out that we don't know what might be possible, but the problem with the argument that we can leave the EU but stay in the single market is that the starting point of everybody else in the EU is that staying in the single market means freedom of movement, and however shit I know it is I don't believe that people voted to get out of the EU in order to protect freedom of movement. I know that lots of different people had lots of different ideas of what they were voting for and I know that the leave campaign were irredeemably full of shit, and I know that that we might be able to explore various derogations from a simple 'open borders' policy, but you will struggle to convince me either that this is what people voted for or that the EU are minded to be helpful to us in this regard. It might have been different if we'd taken the time to spell out what different consequences there might be from different outcomes but we didn't.

[adam]

Good long piece on preppers/survivalists in the G that points directly at how they're at the heart of the economic project of recent decades.

America's midlife crisis: lessons from a survivalist summit

They both see America as an experiment in property rather than experiment in democracy. Liberty to them is not government of the people, by the people, for the people. Liberty is ownership. Taxation is legal plunder.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Yes, its interesting to see how many "libertarians" have evolved into caring about property "rights" and almost nothing else.

[Willow904]

I am playing devil's advocate a little here, and I know that Paul in particular would point out that we don't know what might be possible, but the problem with the argument that we can leave the EU but stay in the single market is that the starting point of everybody else in the EU is that staying in the single market means freedom of movement, and however shit I know it is I don't believe that people voted to get out of the EU in order to protect freedom of movement. I know that lots of different people had lots of different ideas of what they were voting for and I know that the leave campaign were irredeemably full of shit, and I know that that we might be able to explore various derogations from a simple 'open borders' policy, but you will struggle to convince me either that this is what people voted for or that the EU are minded to be helpful to us in this regard. It might have been different if we'd taken the time to spell out what different consequences there might be from different outcomes but we didn't.

What you are saying undoubtedly applies to an indeterminate number of leave voters, but by no means all and when trying to build a consensus, bowing to the views of part of 52% of referendum voters is going to leave a majority of the overall population unrepresented. Lots of people are currently being polled as saying they would put staying in the single market before curbing immigration. There is no need for playing devil's advocate. We already have the Tories representing the views of hard Brexit voters. There is no reason why other people can't argue for soft Brexit. To my mind there is more chance of convincing a majority of the population to back a soft Brexit than there is convincing a majority to back a hard Brexit. This is based on the observation that to date the only arguments I've heard for pursuing a hard Brexit is yours above - that this is perceived/guessed/insinuated as what people voted for. For me that's not good enough. There is no evidence. The referendum asked only about the EU and nothing else - not the single market, not immigration, not the ECJ. The case to leave the single market has not been made. To assume it's what people want when we haven't even had the debate seems to me to be lacking in democratic spirit. We're not being persuaded into hard Brexit with well thought through argument, we're being railroaded into it with a familiar brand of right-wing fatalism, a exhortation to take our medicine because "there is no alternative".

I'm with Lost Soul. I'm going to keep making the arguments against hard Brexit until we're out of the single market and it's over. The people who want to leave the single market are quite capable of making the TINA arguments for themselves. We don't have to help them. The reason I get frustrated is several people here say they think staying in the single market is preferable (given the poor options) but then go to great lengths to explain why we can't. It might be difficult, it might be politically awkward, but it is perfectly possible, but to have a chance of staying in we have to try. And I know the Tories are in charge, but they are by no means in agreement on leaving the single market. The more arguments for not leaving the single market, the more the public are persuaded against the hard Brexit option, the harder it will be for Theresa May to deliver her plan. Given it's the Tories who have more voters who support curbing immigration, Labour have much to gain and little to lose by trying to build a consensus for soft Brexit. I'm not saying there's any certainty people can be persuaded to accept freedom of movement, just pointing out that if Labour go along with the Tory narrative that immigration curbs have to be achieved in order to fulfil the referendum, we are actively encouraging people away from accepting a soft Brexit option and I really can't understand why anyone who favours the soft Brexit option would want to do that.

[adam]

I am playing devil's advocate a little here, and I know that Paul in particular would point out that we don't know what might be possible, but the problem with the argument that we can leave the EU but stay in the single market is that the starting point of everybody else in the EU is that staying in the single market means freedom of movement, and however shit I know it is I don't believe that people voted to get out of the EU in order to protect freedom of movement. I know that lots of different people had lots of different ideas of what they were voting for and I know that the leave campaign were irredeemably full of shit, and I know that that we might be able to explore various derogations from a simple 'open borders' policy, but you will struggle to convince me either that this is what people voted for or that the EU are minded to be helpful to us in this regard. It might have been different if we'd taken the time to spell out what different consequences there might be from different outcomes but we didn't.

What you are saying undoubtedly applies to an indeterminate number of leave voters, but by no means all and when trying to build a consensus, bowing to the views of part of 52% of referendum voters is going to leave a majority of the overall population unrepresented. Lots of people are currently being polled as saying they would put staying in the single market before curbing immigration. There is no need for playing devil's advocate. We already have the Tories representing the views of hard Brexit voters. There is no reason why other people can't argue for soft Brexit. To my mind there is more chance of convincing a majority of the population to back a soft Brexit than there is convincing a majority to back a hard Brexit. This is based on the observation that to date the only arguments I've heard for pursuing a hard Brexit is yours above - that this is perceived/guessed/insinuated as what people voted for. For me that's not good enough. There is no evidence. The referendum asked only about the EU and nothing else - not the single market, not immigration, not the ECJ. The case to leave the single market has not been made. To assume it's what people want when we haven't even had the debate seems to me to be lacking in democratic spirit. We're not being persuaded into hard Brexit with well thought through argument, we're being railroaded into it with a familiar brand of right-wing fatalism, a exhortation to take our medicine because "there is no alternative".

I'm with Lost Soul. I'm going to keep making the arguments against hard Brexit until we're out of the single market and it's over. The people who want to leave the single market are quite capable of making the TINA arguments for themselves. We don't have to help them. The reason I get frustrated is several people here say they think staying in the single market is preferable (given the poor options) but then go to great lengths to explain why we can't. It might be difficult, it might be politically awkward, but it is perfectly possible, but to have a chance of staying in we have to try. And I know the Tories are in charge, but they are by no means in agreement on leaving the single market. The more arguments for not leaving the single market, the more the public are persuaded against the hard Brexit option, the harder it will be for Theresa May to deliver her plan. Given it's the Tories who have more voters who support curbing immigration, Labour have much to gain and little to lose by trying to build a consensus for soft Brexit. I'm not saying there's any certainty people can be persuaded to accept freedom of movement, just pointing out that if Labour go along with the Tory narrative that immigration curbs have to be achieved in order to fulfil the referendum, we are actively encouraging people away from accepting a soft Brexit option and I really can't understand why anyone who favours the soft Brexit option would want to do that.

Having a binary referendum on a question that splits the country is meant to leave half the country unrepresented.

Part of my response comes from the fact that I don't favour a 'soft' response, I bloody-mindedly favour not leaving, and when you're faced with a choice between two options and you want neither of them then the right thing to do is to reject them both. I honestly think the best chance we have of getting through this is by taking the country to the brink and letting them see what will follow. Given that I'm all but sure that the government's plan is to rush us over the brink I think this is what might happen.

Yes, what do I know, but I don't believe the conservatives will risk breaking themselves apart, and so risk an election and a further loss of seats and even the possibility of a labour government, on any question, even this one. Whoever there is on the government back benches who is unhappy with this has done nothing at all about it in the lobbies so far, other then Clarke, and I think is very very unlikely to. They will see this through.

They have created all sorts of problems for themselves - even some ridiculous apparent red line about the ECJ which as much as anything they've done by conflating in the public's mind the ECJ and the ECHR. Back to Euratom as an example, but why do we think we can have all of the benefits of membership of a transnational organisation without accepting the transnational regulation and oversight that comes with it? But the public (big generalisation but you know what I mean) don't know or understand this at all and it's difficult to see how the government can backtrack on their own bullshit and now say 'no, that's not what we meant'.

[tinybgoat]

Bit all over the place, but I'm back to thinking along the lines that article50 isn't fit for purpose & whatever the outcome of us leaving the EU, it will probably get revised/replaced in the future.
The reason for it's existence was to formalize a procedure for leaving the EU, to show that further integration wasn't a one-way process, but the way it's working in practice is just reinforcing the 'hotel California' narrative.
possible changes would be,
Triggering of Article 50 should only be accepted if a country can show that it has a plan & has worked out cost/benefits of possible options & (probably) presented it to it's population.
The procedure needs to be designed to be multistage, so problems such as eu citizens rights are established before the main process begins.
The 2 year time limit needs revising, there shouldn't be a possibility of leaving without an agreement & maybe something like moving to a Norway type position should be the default.
It should be implicit that by leaving the EU a country will be worse off (because otherwise, what's it's point), so it's wrong (if understandable) that countries would need to make things worse, but that seems to be being threatened in some places.
The Government's approach to article50 has been disastrous & made matters worse, but If we did decide to try & revoke article 50 then part of the argument for doing so could be that although it's been costly to the EU, it has demonstrated that the process is deeply flawed & needs revisiting.

[howsillyofme1]

Willow

I am not sure if you were referring to me when you said that

The reason I get frustrated is several people here say they think staying in the single market is preferable (given the poor options) but then go to great lengths to explain why we can't.

My view is the opposite from this as I do not see the Single Market as a monolithic beast and I think there are some options for negotiations as long as they do not infringe on the four freedoms - I have always argues that the FoM one especially is not well understood in the UK and part of our reason for not being able to comply is that we have poorly implemented immigration management over the years

I can tell you from a country that has FoM, it is not carte blanche to come and go as you please or live off the state.....as is often the case, the problem lies at home rather than with the EU

My argument is also that the EEA agreement is not fit for purpose for us and whatever we have will be a bespoke one that is negotiated with the EU

[PorFavor]

Good morfternoon.

Donald Trump's musing on Scottish independence -

“What would they do with the British Open if they ever got out? They’d no longer have the British Open.” (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... trade-deal

[Willow904]

I am playing devil's advocate a little here, and I know that Paul in particular would point out that we don't know what might be possible, but the problem with the argument that we can leave the EU but stay in the single market is that the starting point of everybody else in the EU is that staying in the single market means freedom of movement, and however shit I know it is I don't believe that people voted to get out of the EU in order to protect freedom of movement. I know that lots of different people had lots of different ideas of what they were voting for and I know that the leave campaign were irredeemably full of shit, and I know that that we might be able to explore various derogations from a simple 'open borders' policy, but you will struggle to convince me either that this is what people voted for or that the EU are minded to be helpful to us in this regard. It might have been different if we'd taken the time to spell out what different consequences there might be from different outcomes but we didn't.

What you are saying undoubtedly applies to an indeterminate number of leave voters, but by no means all and when trying to build a consensus, bowing to the views of part of 52% of referendum voters is going to leave a majority of the overall population unrepresented. Lots of people are currently being polled as saying they would put staying in the single market before curbing immigration. There is no need for playing devil's advocate. We already have the Tories representing the views of hard Brexit voters. There is no reason why other people can't argue for soft Brexit. To my mind there is more chance of convincing a majority of the population to back a soft Brexit than there is convincing a majority to back a hard Brexit. This is based on the observation that to date the only arguments I've heard for pursuing a hard Brexit is yours above - that this is perceived/guessed/insinuated as what people voted for. For me that's not good enough. There is no evidence. The referendum asked only about the EU and nothing else - not the single market, not immigration, not the ECJ. The case to leave the single market has not been made. To assume it's what people want when we haven't even had the debate seems to me to be lacking in democratic spirit. We're not being persuaded into hard Brexit with well thought through argument, we're being railroaded into it with a familiar brand of right-wing fatalism, a exhortation to take our medicine because "there is no alternative".

I'm with Lost Soul. I'm going to keep making the arguments against hard Brexit until we're out of the single market and it's over. The people who want to leave the single market are quite capable of making the TINA arguments for themselves. We don't have to help them. The reason I get frustrated is several people here say they think staying in the single market is preferable (given the poor options) but then go to great lengths to explain why we can't. It might be difficult, it might be politically awkward, but it is perfectly possible, but to have a chance of staying in we have to try. And I know the Tories are in charge, but they are by no means in agreement on leaving the single market. The more arguments for not leaving the single market, the more the public are persuaded against the hard Brexit option, the harder it will be for Theresa May to deliver her plan. Given it's the Tories who have more voters who support curbing immigration, Labour have much to gain and little to lose by trying to build a consensus for soft Brexit. I'm not saying there's any certainty people can be persuaded to accept freedom of movement, just pointing out that if Labour go along with the Tory narrative that immigration curbs have to be achieved in order to fulfil the referendum, we are actively encouraging people away from accepting a soft Brexit option and I really can't understand why anyone who favours the soft Brexit option would want to do that.

Having a binary referendum on a question that splits the country is meant to leave half the country unrepresented.

Part of my response comes from the fact that I don't favour a 'soft' response, I bloody-mindedly favour not leaving, and when you're faced with a choice between two options and you want neither of them then the right thing to do is to reject them both. I honestly think the best chance we have of getting through this is by taking the country to the brink and letting them see what will follow. Given that I'm all but sure that the government's plan is to rush us over the brink I think this is what might happen.

Yes, what do I know, but I don't believe the conservatives will risk breaking themselves apart, and so risk an election and a further loss of seats and even the possibility of a labour government, on any question, even this one. Whoever there is on the government back benches who is unhappy with this has done nothing at all about it in the lobbies so far, other then Clarke, and I think is very very unlikely to. They will see this through.

They have created all sorts of problems for themselves - even some ridiculous apparent red line about the ECJ which as much as anything they've done by conflating in the public's mind the ECJ and the ECHR. Back to Euratom as an example, but why do we think we can have all of the benefits of membership of a transnational organisation without accepting the transnational regulation and oversight that comes with it? But the public (big generalisation but you know what I mean) don't know or understand this at all and it's difficult to see how the government can backtrack on their own bullshit and now say 'no, that's not what we meant'.

I don't want to leave the EU either but the time to fight leaving was before we left. I'm not saying it's impossible for us to change our minds, but having given notice to leave it is no longer solely in our hands. It's with the EU and it's with legal rulings, so it's not something we can just say let's do that then. I would definitely like to know whether Theresa May thinks she can just change her mind. If she does, I'd like to understand on what basis, because it doesn't seem clear cut to me. Even if she fails to get her repeal bill through, the Treaties could nonetheless cease to apply come March 2019 (and then we'll be in serious trouble). Which is why, of all the options, trying to steer towards the "soft" half in, half out option to me seems the best bet and certainly doesn't reduce the likelihood of eventually staying in the EU. Many of the arguments for accepting freedom of movement in return for staying in the single market equally apply to the EU so are well worth making, even if you prefer to fight for remain over a soft exit.

As for no Tory MPs being willing to fight to remain in the single market (as opposed to fighting to remain in the EU) I don't think that's really been tested yet. What is certain is that the whole of Labour and the rest of the opposition will need to be united in doing so or such a Tory rebellion would be pointless. It is also possible that pressure from business, the City and the general public (and thus the Tory MPs that represent them) could persuade a change of heart from the centre. So in many ways it's hard to see where all this is headed, but the one thing I really don't think would be a good idea is to get carried away with the idea that we can have a little bit of reality outside the EU and SM and learn a few lessons and decide to go back in. My instinct is telling me that a hard Brexit would be virtually impossible to come back from. Breaking things is easy. Putting them back together, that's difficult and this country hasn't shown an ability to grapple with anything that difficult for a really long time. So yes, I'm advocating damage limitation, which is not ideal, but I think it's better than going along with the flow in the vague hope Brexit won't happen, because I think it most likely will.

[Willow904]

Willow

I am not sure if you were referring to me when you said that

The reason I get frustrated is several people here say they think staying in the single market is preferable (given the poor options) but then go to great lengths to explain why we can't.

My view is the opposite from this as I do not see the Single Market as a monolithic beast and I think there are some options for negotiations as long as they do not infringe on the four freedoms - I have always argues that the FoM one especially is not well understood in the UK and part of our reason for not being able to comply is that we have poorly implemented immigration management over the years

I can tell you from a country that has FoM, it is not carte blanche to come and go as you please or live off the state.....as is often the case, the problem lies at home rather than with the EU

My argument is also that the EEA agreement is not fit for purpose for us and whatever we have will be a bespoke one that is negotiated with the EU

I wasn't referring to you particularly, just some responses I get sometimes to my argument that Labour aren't helping to build a consensus towards accepting those compromises, such as freedom of movement which could (as you say) be presented and operated better, when they suggest continued freedom of movement would be going against the referendum result as Corbyn clearly indicated on Marr the other day. Although others in Labour have suggested staying in the single market remains on the table, Corbyn has not as far as I'm aware and I find that disappointing and support for his stance by those who say they oppose hard Brexit unfathomable. I don't believe you were one of the ones who defended his arguments. Indeed, half the time I'm unclear as to why you think I'm in disagreement with you. I spelled out pretty clearly that any bespoke deal with the SM worth having will involve accepting the four freedoms including freedom of movement and that's what I would like to see Labour building a consensus for. Whether you call that "membership" or not is really not important, the bits you have to persuade the British electorate to accept in order to get the main benefits remain the same.

[HindleA]

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

Playing ball: how new partnerships could be the future of joined-up care
Accountable care systems are being talked up as the new way of keeping older people out of hospital. Or are they just privatisation by the back door?

[HindleA]

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1637128 ... -a-toll-on" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seven years of Tory inaction has taken a toll on the social care sector - Keeley

[HindleA]

http://www.lgo.org.uk/information-centr ... -care-bill" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Hackney council takes too long to pay woman’s care bill

"Hackney’s delay in assessing this woman’s needs left a family with the uncertainty of not knowing whether the council would foot the bill for her care. It should not have taken both a solicitor’s letter and my investigation for the council to recognise its duties towards her.
“It is imperative that people in need are assessed in a timely fashion. And if there are any doubts about that person’s residency, it should be referred to the Secretary of State to decide.
“Hackney council has agreed to my recommendations and I hope other councils will learn from this complaint and ensure staff are aware of their proper duties when assessing care needs.”

"The elderly woman, who had dementia, was told she could not return home after a stay in hospital in early 2014. Instead, her daughter said she could live in Hackney with her with the help of daily visits from carers.
Some months later, struggling with her caring commitments and her own ill health, the daughter placed her mother in a care home in a different borough, for what she believed was a period of respite.
When she asked London Borough of Hackney to reassess her mother’s care needs, she was told to speak to the borough in which her mother was now living. This second borough told the family the woman was still resident in Hackney. Some 10 months after the request was first made, Hackney carried out an assessment and found  the mother needed significant help with aspects of her life including food and nutrition, toileting, dressing and staying safe.
Hackney council agreed to fund the mother’s placement from October 2015, but this still left a significant sum of unpaid care home fees.  The family complained to the council via a solicitor. When they were not happy with the council’s response, they complained to the Ombudsman."

[HindleA]

Information commissioner calls on landlords to publish fire risk assessments

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/in ... ents-51713" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A recent Inside Housing investigation into tower block fire risk assessments uncovered fire safety issues across 436 tower blocks owned by 36 councils and ALMOs and seven housing associations.
However, a substantial number of landlords refused to share their assessments even when they were sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
In response to a letter from Sian Berry, Green Party London Assembly member, information commissioner Elizabeth Denham said: “I will write to representative organisations of local government and other public authorities to make clear my belief that information should be proactively released where possible.”

[howsillyofme1]

The difference between my views, as an individual, and the Labour Party is that they have to think of the overall situation which is made up of people who, in the main, have not spent the time and the effort to look up the details

I am of the view that the SM is an internal EU mechanism that controls all aspects of movement of people/trade and goods within the EU, so if you are a country that is outside the EU then you are not part of the internal mechanism but may be permitted to participate in certain aspects depending upon negotiation - as far as I can tell no country outside the EU is fully integrated into the EU internal market. In that respect Corbyn's words are fine with me and it could be a smart politics......whether it is or not we will have to wait and see . I know it is semantics but exact wording is important in these things - and it also allows for flexibility

Again, I will try to exemplify what I mean. There are a lot of people who are calling for EEA terms but that means no CU, no market in fisheries and agriculture and all are also members of Schengen.......I for one see that as being sub-optimal for the UK

I, and always will, maintain that the moment to come off the fence is when we actually see what are concrete results of the negotiations - it is at that time I will also expect those Tory Remainers to also show their cards as well

[Willow904]

Re: social care.

Is it just me or are the Tories using the clear need for extensive reform of our social care system going forward as cover for present day underfunding and neglect?

The above story shows the necessary care was available for the person in question and that the problems in the case arose more as a consequence of inadequate resources available to implement the current system, than from the nature of the system itself. Lack of promptness in needs assessments is a resource problem (not enough assessors, not enough money to pay for assessors) rather than a structural one.

I just wonder, with all the demands for change, if pressure on the government to fund and run our current system properly is quite as strong as it could be.

[Willow904]

The difference between my views, as an individual, and the Labour Party is that they have to think of the overall situation which is made up of people who, in the main, have not spent the time and the effort to look up the details

I am of the view that the SM is an internal EU mechanism that controls all aspects of movement of people/trade and goods within the EU, so if you are a country that is outside the EU then you are not part of the internal mechanism but may be permitted to participate in certain aspects depending upon negotiation - as far as I can tell no country outside the EU is fully integrated into the EU internal market. In that respect Corbyn's words are fine with me and it could be a smart politics......whether it is or not we will have to wait and see . I know it is semantics but exact wording is important in these things - and it also allows for flexibility

Again, I will try to exemplify what I mean. There are a lot of people who are calling for EEA terms but that means no CU, no market in fisheries and agriculture and all are also members of Schengen.......I for one see that as being sub-optimal for the UK

I, and always will, maintain that the moment to come off the fence is when we actually see what are concrete results of the negotiations - it is at that time I will also expect those Tory Remainers to also show their cards as well

By taking acceptance of freedom of movement off the table, I felt Corbyn had actually come off the fence. McDonnell's later statement seems to reverse that, which is positive, but reiterating leave mantras such as free movement of people reduces wages and to fulfil the referendum we have to leave the single market will only make supporting anything less than a full hard Brexit at a later date politically more difficult not less.

[tinybgoat]

The difference between my views, as an individual, and the Labour Party is that they have to think of the overall situation which is made up of people who, in the main, have not spent the time and the effort to look up the details

I am of the view that the SM is an internal EU mechanism that controls all aspects of movement of people/trade and goods within the EU, so if you are a country that is outside the EU then you are not part of the internal mechanism but may be permitted to participate in certain aspects depending upon negotiation - as far as I can tell no country outside the EU is fully integrated into the EU internal market. In that respect Corbyn's words are fine with me and it could be a smart politics......whether it is or not we will have to wait and see . I know it is semantics but exact wording is important in these things - and it also allows for flexibility

Again, I will try to exemplify what I mean. There are a lot of people who are calling for EEA terms but that means no CU, no market in fisheries and agriculture and all are also members of Schengen.......I for one see that as being sub-optimal for the UK

I, and always will, maintain that the moment to come off the fence is when we actually see what are concrete results of the negotiations - it is at that time I will also expect those Tory Remainers to also show their cards as well

Agreed, one worry is that because of time limitations for negotiations, and by excluding certain options, not all possibilities will be considered.
The country needs & deserves to have a proper debate, before it's 'come off the fence' time, otherwise we'll end up with either side wanting another refererendum in the future (although they're likely to want this anyway)
Not sure that the interim or soft brexit 'Norway model' provide this at the moment, as could still end up with hard brexit or seething Brexiteers & a sub optimal arrangement. Could still end up the least worst option though.

[gilsey]

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/ ... CMP=twt_gu

A million women £32 a week worse off thanks to pension age changes


They do like their £30'ish p.w. policy targeted reductions.

It's a bit hard to see how increasing our pension age by 4 years, in my case, with 20 years notice, and then another 18 months with 7 years notice, wouldn't make us worse off?

In toryland of course there's jobs for everyone, including older women, and if you believe that you'll believe anything.

[HindleA]

They have and are also continuing to systematically make /making it harder to self care/have care in own home,ripping up any evidenced cost saving/introduced accounting for circumstances,not to say any decades of contributions effect under the fairness and misrepresentation of People Act continually passing scrutiny by.Incredibly dim willfull neglect or intentional or some combination.

[gilsey]

A shocking report into fire safety behind bars
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... ty-failure" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I contacted Peter Clarke, the chief inspector of prisons, and asked him whether the Inspectorate had taken any action to inspect for fire safety in light of Grenfell. He replied saying that fire safety in prisons was not his bag - it's the responsibility of an independent inspectorate known as the Crown Properties Fire Inspection Group (CPFIG), based in the Home Office.

I searched online for CPFIG prison fire inspection reports. There were none.

When I contacted them, a spokesman told me: "Due to regulations we work within we are not allowed to publish our reports online."

[adam]

I am aware that my view of these things tends to be based on an attitude of 'so this is it, we're all going to die' that I don't expect others to share

[gilsey]

Re: social care.

Is it just me or are the Tories using the clear need for extensive reform of our social care system going forward as cover for present day underfunding and neglect?

The above story shows the necessary care was available for the person in question and that the problems in the case arose more as a consequence of inadequate resources available to implement the current system, than from the nature of the system itself. Lack of promptness in needs assessments is a resource problem (not enough assessors, not enough money to pay for assessors) rather than a structural one.

I just wonder, with all the demands for change, if pressure on the government to fund and run our current system properly is quite as strong as it could be.

I hadn't looked at it that way but I'm sure you're right.
As I think you said about the NHS, fund it properly and then tweak it on an ongoing basis to achieve the best possible system, same applies to social care.
See also this article, if you haven't already.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... vatisation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Over my life I've come to hate that word 'reform'.

[gilsey]

I am aware that my view of these things tends to be based on an attitude of 'so this is it, we're all going to die' that I don't expect others to share

You're a glass-half-empty sort of person?
Me too.

[AnatolyKasparov]

I am aware that my view of these things tends to be based on an attitude of 'so this is it, we're all going to die' that I don't expect others to share

You're a glass-half-empty sort of person?
Me too.

Despite being often characterised on here as an optimist, so am I in many ways. An optimistic realist, perhaps

[howsillyofme1]

I must admit some of the uttering from the Labour leadership have been unhelpful and often contradicted within days but that is how it is when everyone is split from party, members, country and constituents - I am prepared to give them leeway at the moment

There is no easy option outside the EU and we all have to hope that at some point someone will see sense and we can go back to how it was.....that is unlikely though and, if there has to be a future outside the EU, I am certain that this future is better under a Labour Government than a Tory one - in fact the negotiations will be better if Labour, under Starmer, were in charge

[HindleA]

"optilist"

[HindleA]

I'm a thimble full person

[HindleA]

And if you think I'm sharing it

[Willow904]

Re: social care.

Is it just me or are the Tories using the clear need for extensive reform of our social care system going forward as cover for present day underfunding and neglect?

The above story shows the necessary care was available for the person in question and that the problems in the case arose more as a consequence of inadequate resources available to implement the current system, than from the nature of the system itself. Lack of promptness in needs assessments is a resource problem (not enough assessors, not enough money to pay for assessors) rather than a structural one.

I just wonder, with all the demands for change, if pressure on the government to fund and run our current system properly is quite as strong as it could be.

I hadn't looked at it that way but I'm sure you're right.
As I think you said about the NHS, fund it properly and then tweak it on an ongoing basis to achieve the best possible system, same applies to social care.
See also this article, if you haven't already.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... vatisation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Over my life I've come to hate that word 'reform'.

The word "reform" has certainly been much abused over the years!

Mostly the costs of large-scale change, both financially and culturally are often over-looked/deliberately ignored. "Reform" tends to be sold in comparison with the status quo - "we can't continue as we are" - as opposed to in comparison with incremental change - "let's build on the best of what we've already got".

We usually have something worth building on. A greater focus on improving outcomes rather than completely changing delivery structures would be much appreciated.

[adam]

There's no glass.

[Willow904]

Not only is there a glass, it's still a pint glass. Because it's really, really important to drink Dutch lager by the pint, not some sissy decimal measure.

Pretty much sums up the UK's relationship with the rest of the EU right there.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Are pints not a continental thing, then? Genuine question.

[gilsey]

I should be able to answer that but I don't think I can.
More often bottled than you get here.
'Pression' we usually ask for small or large! Have occasionally idled away the time wondering what the measure was but I can't remember the answer. Small is third of a litre maybe.

hsom will know.

[Willow904]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/76055/ ... itish-pint" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SAVED: The good old British pint

THE British pint, mile and ounce were saved yesterday as Brussels finally quit trying to kill them off.

It's in the Express, so it must be true. The EU tried to get rid of the British pint, but don't worry, we showed 'em!