FlyTheNest

Just occasionally, I really like Nicky Morgan

Referring to the redaction of the leaked impact document

The document can hardly undermine the government’s negotiating position if it does not consider the government’s desired outcome

Another interesting point from my Twitter "debates", of course in the upcoming council elections EU citizens who are resident here will be able to vote.

I think the council elections will be chaotic and interesting. I wonder if that campaign will be when we see Labour start to shift and more explicitly oppose the government on Brexit.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Got a bit embroiled on Twitter this afternoon.

But amidst the shouting, someone did point me at this very well written thread about the Labour Brexit strategy

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

Proposition 4 is not plausible. unless Starmer is a much bigger idiot than I am prepared to accept.

SpinningHugo wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Got a bit embroiled on Twitter this afternoon.

But amidst the shouting, someone did point me at this very well written thread about the Labour Brexit strategy

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

Proposition 4 is not plausible. unless Starmer is a much bigger idiot than I am prepared to accept.

well go and tell the person who wrote it that instead of saying it on here - you can then debate with the proposer

You come and here and slag everyone else's view but you make no coherent and useful argument yourself - all you see from you is crap!

see you have been quiet on Crapita today......

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Got a bit embroiled on Twitter this afternoon.

But amidst the shouting, someone did point me at this very well written thread about the Labour Brexit strategy

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

"Labour are building a type of argument where you accept your opponent's premise and follow it to it's logical conclusion, in the process showing it up to be flawed. Key in the six tests is trying to achieve "exact same" benefits of SM & CU to what we have now but outside of membership. This is impossible, as we all know, but it is taken directly from a promise by D Davis."

Yes, I've often noted the 'exact same' implication of Labour's position. I take it to mean just what the author is suggesting.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Just occasionally, I really like Nicky Morgan

Referring to the redaction of the leaked impact document

The document can hardly undermine the government’s negotiating position if it does not consider the government’s desired outcome

I wonder if she was reprimanded for saying that

"Brexiters don’t mind freedom of movement – as long as you’re rich enough to pay for it" article
Many comments are absolutely hateful

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/public-lead ... vatisation

Capita marks the beginning of the end for public service contracting
David Walker

So what was Carillion? Surely this is at least the end of the beginning of the end.

Rather a good joke at the start of this, and I agree about the NEC intervention

https://capx.co/abuse-of-haringeys-lead ... ic-menace/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No real view on the details of the Haringey scheme though as I haven't looked at it carefully enough.

The idea that sourcing out of goods and services *could* come to an end is daft.

SpinningHugo wrote:Rather a good joke at the start of this, and I agree about the NEC intervention

https://capx.co/abuse-of-haringeys-lead ... ic-menace/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No real view on the details of the Haringey scheme though as I haven't looked at it carefully enough.

The idea that sourcing out of goods and services *could* come to an end is daft.

If you are basing your views on what this arsehole writes then no wonder you are so misguided - it is quite clear from the article that he has as much clue as you as to what this scheme was about but that didn't stop him from basing an article on his lack of knowledge

And, yes, there are definitely some types of outsourcing to these huge 'service' companies based on low margins, undercutting of wages and generally poor service - run by people who pay out cash whilst starving the pension fund and suppliers - that should a solely come to an end

You, not doubt, will now make some inane comment about builders or whatever to show the weakness of your argument

Talking of which...

The Haringey row is about so much more than Labour in-fighting

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... -in-fighti

Criticism of the project hasn't just come from Momentum, as some journalists and politicians would like people to believe. It has come from residents, local Labour MPs David Lammy and Catherine West, and even the council's own scrutiny committee, which described the project as carrying "significant risks".

In a letter to Kober in July 2017, David Lammy wrote:

"The council under your leadership has failed to carry the community with it and has appeared out of touch and high-handed."

But...but...Momentum!

I read this last week and just found it again about outsourcing. Don't agree with some of it but makes some interesting points.

The collapse of Carillion is not an argument to end outsourcing

https://www.ft.com/content/3ef53b22-fc4 ... 2cbba03425

The Carillion episode points first to management failures. The board failed to manage liabilities after acquisitions and kept paying dividends as cash flow evaporated. There are also questions about government supervision. But it also sheds light on the other side of the story — that the government has got extremely good at driving down margins, to the benefit of the taxpayer. Too good, many in the sector now say.

Years ago, this was far from true. Officials were too often outclassed by companies who threw their best lawyers at the deals. But ministers became shrewder and the civil service’s “commercial profession” much more skilled. In cases where government is the only buyer for those services, it has used that power to effect. “This is a pretty painful business now and it’s barely worth staying in some parts of it — if at all,” said an executive of one big contractor recently.

RogerOThornhill wrote:Talking of which...

The Haringey row is about so much more than Labour in-fighting

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... -in-fighti

Criticism of the project hasn't just come from Momentum, as some journalists and politicians would like people to believe. It has come from residents, local Labour MPs David Lammy and Catherine West, and even the council's own scrutiny committee, which described the project as carrying "significant risks".

In a letter to Kober in July 2017, David Lammy wrote:

"The council under your leadership has failed to carry the community with it and has appeared out of touch and high-handed."

But...but...Momentum!

It is clear from the article - he has no idea what the scheme was about - it was just a polemic and lacking any depth at all

Anyone reading it can see that, apart from, apparently, our eminent lawyer friend

RogerOThornhill wrote:I read this last week and just found it again about outsourcing. Don't agree with some of it but makes some interesting points.

The collapse of Carillion is not an argument to end outsourcing

https://www.ft.com/content/3ef53b22-fc4 ... 2cbba03425

The Carillion episode points first to management failures. The board failed to manage liabilities after acquisitions and kept paying dividends as cash flow evaporated. There are also questions about government supervision. But it also sheds light on the other side of the story — that the government has got extremely good at driving down margins, to the benefit of the taxpayer. Too good, many in the sector now say.

Years ago, this was far from true. Officials were too often outclassed by companies who threw their best lawyers at the deals. But ministers became shrewder and the civil service’s “commercial profession” much more skilled. In cases where government is the only buyer for those services, it has used that power to effect. “This is a pretty painful business now and it’s barely worth staying in some parts of it — if at all,” said an executive of one big contractor recently.

The focus on cost and not on quality is one of the many issues with this type of outsourcing - of course, the Government has power as the companies are now dependent on them for their income. They do not have any in-house competence either for much of what they do and either just act as a contracting body for others or take over the providers but, as it seems today, don't bother much about how that works as part of a larger organisation. The bosses though have still trousered large amounts of money though so it has been lucrative for them - and they just walk into another job when it all goes tits up

The gist of the article seems to suggest the whole thing is out of control. I would like to see quality services and have no desire to see people losing their jobs due to the incompetence of the Government and these service companies

Public sector is about quality service at the lowest cost not just low cost - we never know what the measures used are and the penalties that can be laid due to commercial confidence

My example is of an outsourced department KPI is that all cases are closed after 3 days. What they do is close every case after 3 days whether it is finished or not. You then raise a new case and go round that circle ad infinitum - feedback tends to be ignored

Blimey, Parliament has done something sensible.

MPs have voted to press ahead with the renovation of parliament and to move out of the building properly while the work takes place. That means, at some point in the next decade, MPs will be sitting in a new chamber for several years, probably in Richmond House on Whitehall. Under the motion passed tonight, by a majority of 16 on the crucial vote (the Meg Hillier amendment), parliament will set up a delivery authority to oversee the £3.5bn renovation and there will be “full and timely decant”, with MPs and peers moving out while the work takes place.

Really sensible would be not moving back in, of course.

gilsey wrote:Blimey, Parliament has done something sensible.

MPs have voted to press ahead with the renovation of parliament and to move out of the building properly while the work takes place. That means, at some point in the next decade, MPs will be sitting in a new chamber for several years, probably in Richmond House on Whitehall. Under the motion passed tonight, by a majority of 16 on the crucial vote (the Meg Hillier amendment), parliament will set up a delivery authority to oversee the £3.5bn renovation and there will be “full and timely decant”, with MPs and peers moving out while the work takes place.

It is a lot of money but the building is really iconic and striking - what would the alternative have been? Knock it down or let it crumble away

Perhaps it would have been a good metaphor though

howsillyofme1 wrote:

gilsey wrote:Blimey, Parliament has done something sensible.

MPs have voted to press ahead with the renovation of parliament and to move out of the building properly while the work takes place. That means, at some point in the next decade, MPs will be sitting in a new chamber for several years, probably in Richmond House on Whitehall. Under the motion passed tonight, by a majority of 16 on the crucial vote (the Meg Hillier amendment), parliament will set up a delivery authority to oversee the £3.5bn renovation and there will be “full and timely decant”, with MPs and peers moving out while the work takes place.

It is a lot of money but the building is really iconic and striking - what would the alternative have been? Knock it down or let it crumble away

Perhaps it would have been a good metaphor though

The parts that have architectural or historical merit would be restored and it would be a tourist attraction, I didn't mean it should be demolished.

The building and its occupants are compromised by its nature and still will be after restoration.

the Brexit billionaire buying EU citizenship article
I think a few commentators were purchased, their posts psychologically manipulative, intentionally disruptive, abusive but superficially nuanced. Their comment histories new and names not matching current usernames. I've not investigated this much before tonight. I did it because the posts were strange.

The parts that have architectural or historical merit would be restored and it would be a tourist attraction, I didn't mean it should be demolished.

The building and its occupants are compromised by its nature and still will be after restoration

sorry gilsey...my question was rhetorical- I never intended for you to think that is what i meant (although reading back I see why)

I agree that it doesn't necessary have to be the Parliament once renovated though

Have we had this?
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2018 ... ainlyMacro+(mainly+macro" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)
tl;dr

No sane government or parliament will allow an outcome that makes people on average 8% worse off. That is why we have to make a deal with the EU, and the only deal the EU will allow is one that prevents a hard Irish border. That means staying in the Customs Union and much, possibly all, of the Single Market. Brexit will end with the UK becoming what Rees-Mogg describes as a vassal state. It will not be the fantasy people voted for, nor the fantasy the Brexiters had in mind.

When reality bites, almost no one who voted Leave will be happy with the result. So should Remainers stay quiet and just wait for this disappointment to sink in, just for the sake of a particularly partial concept of democracy? To allow peoples lives to be impoverished and their opportunities to be diminished because of a referendum based on lies? There are democratic ways out of this fantasy turned nightmare, and we should take them.

gilsey wrote:Have we had this?
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2018 ... ainlyMacro+(mainly+macro" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)
tl;dr

No sane government or parliament will allow an outcome that makes people on average 8% worse off. That is why we have to make a deal with the EU, and the only deal the EU will allow is one that prevents a hard Irish border. That means staying in the Customs Union and much, possibly all, of the Single Market. Brexit will end with the UK becoming what Rees-Mogg describes as a vassal state. It will not be the fantasy people voted for, nor the fantasy the Brexiters had in mind.

When reality bites, almost no one who voted Leave will be happy with the result. So should Remainers stay quiet and just wait for this disappointment to sink in, just for the sake of a particularly partial concept of democracy? To allow peoples lives to be impoverished and their opportunities to be diminished because of a referendum based on lies? There are democratic ways out of this fantasy turned nightmare, and we should take them.

He's obviously right. Labour should just come out in favour of permanent membership of the custom's union now as we won't be leaving it anyway. Starmer clearly thinks that if you follow him on twitter.

FFS, this government is so awful

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/201 ... ce=Twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The problem with outsourcing to "get cost down" is that it drains money out of the economy. If your wage is cut, the local shops suffer and eventually close, local housing become expensive, via by-to-let landlords buying up local property and drives people away from their traditional family "home" location. In turn families become isolated and there is no one to look after the elderly of the family. Causing additional cost to Local Authorities in care plans, with money the don't have. Leading to more "outsourcing" this time in the care sector.
Followed by - ditto the above.
Far more economical to pay the higher wage in the first place.
Unless the whole intent is a small state.
Which of cause it is.

Goodnight, everyone
love,
cJA