FlyTheNest

Morning all.

Good-morning, everyone

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ts#history" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Guidance
School census autumn 2017 to summer 2018: school summary reports

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... trade-deal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The civil service prides itself on being able to deliver the crazy and impossible, if ministers so ordain. It even managed to introduce a poll tax for Margaret Thatcher, and to somehow keep it going for three years in the face of riots. But it’s increasingly clear that Brexit may be an impossibility too far, even for Whitehall’s brightest and best.

When you read stuff like this, it really rings true. The gap between what Ministers say and the reality is so huge, you think it simply won't happen. And then you remember Universal Credit. Labour looked into the single, means tested benefit and were advised it couldn't realistically be done, so didn't. But the Tories weren't going to let a little thing like reality get in the way. Besides, for them, UC wasn't about increased efficiency or monetary savings, those were just the excuses, the 'acceptable' reasons for what, at the end of the day, was pure, twisted ideology of the most delusional order. So when people (well, adam, anyway ) talk of letting the Tories muck it up as a means of getting Brexit out of the UK's system, I get what they're saying and try to be philosophical but then I remember UC. I remember that it's completely and utterly mucked up as much as any government policy has ever been mucked up in the history of mucked up policies and yet, not only is it still going, but it is rolling out apace as we speak, spreading yet more misery and destitution in its wake. And when I think of Tory Brexit that's what I see. Complete disaster by the terms of stated aims, but the disaster continually and persistently denied because whatever spiv culture, rentier hell is the true aim is bit by bit being accomplished not only right under an unsuspecting public's noses, but with their enthusiastic, tabloid-driven approval.

Sorry for the depressing rant but, you know, Tory government - how could it be any other way?

https://labourlist.org/2017/08/tuc-it-i ... ervention/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



TUC: It is government choices, not the single market, that are limiting British control over our own industries

Willow904 wrote:https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... trade-deal

The civil service prides itself on being able to deliver the crazy and impossible, if ministers so ordain. It even managed to introduce a poll tax for Margaret Thatcher, and to somehow keep it going for three years in the face of riots. But it’s increasingly clear that Brexit may be an impossibility too far, even for Whitehall’s brightest and best.

When you read stuff like this, it really rings true. The gap between what Ministers say and the reality is so huge, you think it simply won't happen. And then you remember Universal Credit. Labour looked into the single, means tested benefit and were advised it couldn't realistically be done, so didn't. But the Tories weren't going to let a little thing like reality get in the way. Besides, for them, UC wasn't about increased efficiency or monetary savings, those were just the excuses, the 'acceptable' reasons for what, at the end of the day, was pure, twisted ideology of the most delusional order. So when people (well, adam, anyway ) talk of letting the Tories muck it up as a means of getting Brexit out of the UK's system, I get what they're saying and try to be philosophical but then I remember UC. I remember that it's completely and utterly mucked up as much as any government policy has ever been mucked up in the history of mucked up policies and yet, not only is it still going, but it is rolling out apace as we speak, spreading yet more misery and destitution in its wake. And when I think of Tory Brexit that's what I see. Complete disaster by the terms of stated aims, but the disaster continually and persistently denied because whatever spiv culture, rentier hell is the true aim is bit by bit being accomplished not only right under an unsuspecting public's noses, but with their enthusiastic, tabloid-driven approval.

Sorry for the depressing rant but, you know, Tory government - how could it be any other way?

A recruitment consultant tells me that, lacking trade negotiators, Dit is instead putting generalist civil servants – including young fast-stream graduates – through short courses in negotiation techniques: hardly a substitute.

Possibly the equivalent of entering a team of seven year olds with stabilisers into an Olympic cycling event.

[youtube]wHnvwf0VJkE[/youtube]

The new Department for International Trade (Dit), is...having to build up its negotiating capacity from scratch. Parliamentary answers...this week reveal the government has already spent more than £1.15m on headhunters and recruitment consultants.

- Britain couldn’t leave the single market if it tried

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

Hey! Rhymes with TRIT

innit

Morning all.

This is from a few weeks ago but I've only just discovered it and don't believe it was mentioned here? Klein interviewing Corbyn.

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/13/vid ... d-we-want/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The point is, they can get away with UC - however much of a fiasco it has been, and it has - because it doesn't affect most people.

Brexit turning out a disaster, on the other hand........

Hi. This is outstanding work:

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

My belief, of course, is that this is quite deliberate on the part of certain people at the BBC.

I can remember when Marr was a very good print journalist. Only he can explain why he decided to become an at best mediocre TV hack instead.

https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/m ... ne-studies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... our-market" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Open consultation
Call for evidence and briefing note: EEA-workers in the UK labour market

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


Open consultation
Changes to the Child Support Agency case closure programme

AnatolyKasparov wrote:The point is, they can get away with UC - however much of a fiasco it has been, and it has - because it doesn't affect most people.

Brexit turning out a disaster, on the other hand........

We've all been affected by "austerity" - which has caused stagnating incomes and a classic lost decade - but still the Tories cling on.

If they do push through a hard Brexit, I'll certainly be hoping they get punished for it, but I'm not about to count on it. After all, "we" voted for it and they will milk that for all the cover they can get. That's why it's so important to them not to let any sense that the government had a choice over whether to leave -either the EU or the SM - to creep into the national dialogue. Leaving the SM has to be seen as an inevitable result of the referendum, rather than a choice, because if it's seen as a choice it could eventually come to be seen as a bad choice.

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


Electric cars are not the answer to air pollution, says top UK adviser
Prof Frank Kelly says fewer not cleaner vehicles are needed, plus more cycling and walking and better transit systems

I would add to the above that even if Tory Europhiles never actually manage to rebel, at least by voicing a dissenting opinion on whether to leave the single market, they at least keep alive the notion that Theresa May might not be making the right choice.

https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appea ... ut-324-aac" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


R(CJ) and SG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA): [2017] UKUT 324 (AAC

[youtube]L397TWLwrUU[/youtube]

Some have been more affected by austerity than others, though.

Well off triple-locked pensioners often haven't noticed that much adversely affecting them, and lots of them read (and believe) the papers......

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/24201" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


More on previous


Government's position on benefit appeals ruled unlawful


http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/cpag-win ... -tribunals" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Some have been more affected by austerity than others, though.

Well off triple-locked pensioners often haven't noticed that much adversely affecting them, and lots of them read (and believe) the papers......

Library closures, potholes, trolley waits in hospitals....there's no end to the way "well off triple-locked pensioners" have been affected by austerity, but they haven't exactly been marching in the streets poll tax style because, far from being unexpectedly imposed on them, they had been persuaded to vote for it. When you persuade people to accept Brexit, or accept a certain type of Brexit, you are, in effect, persuading them to accept the natural (and sometimes not so natural) consequences. I'm not saying the Tories will be successful in this, just that it seems an obvious thing to do, to play the "there is no alternative" / "will of the people" angle as much as feasibly possible. Because as the party which picked up the largest chunk of anti-immigration "leave" voters, strategically they have little choice. It's certainly not about democracy, principles or the best interests of the vast majority of the country that Theresa May is pursuing a hard Brexit outside the single market.

If they notice those things, many blame immigrants and "scroungers" for them. If austerity was a really big thing for them, they might actually think about it more.

#Danny Shaw

Only 744 spare prison places in England/Wales. Population up 123 in a week to 86,353. After trouble at the Mount, capacity now 87,097.

Squeeze on prison cells despite extra 364 spaces being made available in last few weeks. In 2015/6 there there were 2000-3000 spare places

http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2017/0 ... tory-peer/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


My disability abortion bill could halt Britain’s slide towards eugenics, says Tory peer



http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2017/0 ... tion-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Disabled women raise concerns over peer’s disability abortion bill

HindleA wrote:#Danny Shaw

Only 744 spare prison places in England/Wales. Population up 123 in a week to 86,353. After trouble at the Mount, capacity now 87,097.

Squeeze on prison cells despite extra 364 spaces being made available in last few weeks. In 2015/6 there there were 2000-3000 spare places

christ this is awful
inadequately incarcerated felons

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosebuchanan/t ... ixyaNBZB6x" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov wrote:If they notice those things, many blame immigrants and "scroungers" for them. If austerity was a really big thing for them, they might actually think about it more.

I'm certainly intrigued as to what the new bogeyman will be once we leave the EU and can't blame it for all our woes anymore. I still think pensioners understand library closures are a direct consequence of the austerity they've been convinced is necessary, though.

Nice day here,bright sunshine.Various colourful arrangements in the garden,I think they are called flowers.I know some are roses due to thorn injuries in various parts of my anatomy in my encounter with them whilst avoiding strangling myself with a lawn mower cord.

Re the discussion Willow and I have been having, the latest long read in the Graun is certainly interesting (even if I might quibble with a few things)

It is certainly right to pick up the negative effect Balls and his camp followers had on Labour policy before the 2015 GE.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Re the discussion Willow and I have been having, the latest long read in the Graun is certainly interesting (even if I might quibble with a few things)

It is certainly right to pick up the negative effect Balls and his camp followers had on Labour policy before the 2015 GE.

Negative in the sense of being wrong? Or are we talking about the game playing side of politics?

Labour's 2015 manifesto was less regressive than its more rightwing 2017 version.

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Re the discussion Willow and I have been having, the latest long read in the Graun is certainly interesting (even if I might quibble with a few things)

It is certainly right to pick up the negative effect Balls and his camp followers had on Labour policy before the 2015 GE.

Negative in the sense of being wrong? Or are we talking about the game playing side of politics?

Labour's 2015 manifesto was less regressive than its more rightwing 2017 version.

You do realise that the IFS study that supposedly "proved" this has been pretty much discredited, right?

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Re the discussion Willow and I have been having, the latest long read in the Graun is certainly interesting (even if I might quibble with a few things)

It is certainly right to pick up the negative effect Balls and his camp followers had on Labour policy before the 2015 GE.

Negative in the sense of being wrong? Or are we talking about the game playing side of politics?

Labour's 2015 manifesto was less regressive than its more rightwing 2017 version.

You do realise that the IFS study that supposedly "proved" this has been pretty much discredited, right?

No, I don't. Please do link to these credible sources discrediting this. If, for example, you're going to point me at any piece saying they ignore the growth that would come from any fiscal loosening, I'd love you to explain how that has anything whatsoever to do with it being regressive. Or indeed point me at anything the IFS ever said about fiscal loosening not leading to higher growth.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Re the discussion Willow and I have been having, the latest long read in the Graun is certainly interesting (even if I might quibble with a few things)

It is certainly right to pick up the negative effect Balls and his camp followers had on Labour policy before the 2015 GE.

?

The IFS don't do macro properly, but theyre solid on distribution. It was to the right of the Lib Dems and shouldn't have been.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Re the discussion Willow and I have been having, the latest long read in the Graun is certainly interesting (even if I might quibble with a few things)

It is certainly right to pick up the negative effect Balls and his camp followers had on Labour policy before the 2015 GE.

I presume you are referring to this:

At that year’s general election, after an internal struggle that Cruddas and Miliband lost, Labour presented a manifesto that emphasised cutting the national deficit in language little different from that used by the Tories. The manifesto only criticised the deregulated capitalism that had effectively created that deficit in the first place in coded terms: “We will build an economy that works for working people,” it promised blandly.

In which case, yes, this is exactly it. In a functioning democracy, the opposition should challenge government orthodoxies, not re-enforce them. We seem to have drifted a long way from the idea of "choice" and that democracy should be about debating the pros and cons of dominant ideas, not about the ability or not of an individual or party to deliver an uncontested policy.

There is balance in this, of course. The SNP sometimes go a little far in opposing for opposing sake, even policies they agree with. And the Tories regularly challenge Labour ideas, only to later present them as their own. And yet, this is surely how the idea of an opposition works within a democracy. To challenge that which the government prefers to present as inevitable and to keep alive the sense of choice that is necessary for an electorate to feel empowered to control their destiny. With extreme choices, there should come extreme responsibility, of course, which is why I have raised the lack of a detailed white paper prior to the EU referendum compared to that felt necessary in regards to the Scottish vote. Yet it is the way the EU referendum seems to have frozen debate about the UK's future to a single moment in time and the way this seems to have stifled the idea of challenge and choice that makes me uneasy. Perhaps it's the result of a policy that essentially cuts through party lines, but there is something of a bulldozer effect when everyone agrees too readily that "this must be so" or "that must be so" because of what essentially seems to be a reluctance to be truthful with the electorate about the starkness of their choices now available and the myriad drawbacks that haunt all of them.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:The point is, they can get away with UC - however much of a fiasco it has been, and it has - because it doesn't affect most people.

Brexit turning out a disaster, on the other hand........

Hi Anatoly, logged in in spite of my instinct to stay away, especially to gently dispute your statement on UC. If you mean it won't directly affect the majority of people, maybe you are right, but that most people won't be affected is a different matter, there is a quantitative difference between them. UC is deliberately designed to affect people in work, anyone on any kind of support that could be re-jigged to be seen as benefit. From the smallest of council tax/HB rebates for instance. And it takes away freedom to work few hours and ties tax and support into each other. We have seen nothing yet. Many of those supports will therefore sappear and shirinking incomes will be expected to cope with the extra outgoings. Not to mention how health and work will impact. This means millions more people avfected than any changes to the old system would have meant, and that the families of the affected will also be feeling the hit when it is fully rolled out. It is the single most intrusive government policy of modern times, and it is erratic beyond belief even at this stage when there are still some possibilities of escaping it left. Once rolled out there won't be any. Some of the biggest impacts will be on those who actually have a break in work, the waiting time without income is hugely unrealistic. There is not enough anslysis of UC available in the media, or its range. There are some fairly reliable blogs though, and even they only really discuss niche impacts. It is a policy in dire need of being challenged. In a couple of years it will likely be too late. One of the things IDS gifted to the nation

Tubby Isaacs wrote:The IFS don't do macro properly, but theyre solid on distribution. It was to the right of the Lib Dems and shouldn't have been.

What Osborne did, in cutting the link between benefit payments and inflation, was a major step in the dismantling of our social security system. It went mostly unremarked by the MSM at the time, to their undying shame. Re-instating that link really should be a Labour priority. Hopefully it'll be in the next manifesto.

Orange peels, an excellent way to mask the odour of fragrant neighbours

And Mr citizen plays his guitar...lovely

Forgive me for going off-topic
Good to read you, seeingclearly, I've missed your contributions and thank you for posting this evening

I like Ed Balls, have for a long while
He turned his love of music into something of a career change, I gather, after his electoral disappointment

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ ... rve/04/08/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Right to Buy: Whose interest does it serve?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 77421.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Sessions hints Department of Justice could force media to give up sources
More subpoenas could force journalists to give up anonymous sources

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1637972 ... ppropriate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Labour Press
It is a relief to know that a safe and appropriate place looks to have been found for Young Person X - Barbara Keeley

Barbara Keeley MP, Labour’s Shadow Mental Health Minister, commenting on NHS England’s announcement that an appropriate place has been found for Young Person X, said:

“It is a relief to know that a safe and appropriate place looks to have been found for Young Person X.

“This case must act as a wake-up call for the Government, who must now invest properly in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services so that we never find ourselves in this position again.”

[youtube]5E5nv3QnJ6Y[/youtube]

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


Martin Rowson on Donald Trump’s Russia links

http://www.careappointments.co.uk/care- ... led-people" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JOBCENTRE STAFF CRITICISED FOR 'ALARMING LACK OF CONFIDENCE' WITH DISABLED PEOPLE