FlyTheNest

Morning

I'm somewhat shocked by the news that Debbie Abrahams has temporarily stepped down while claims of bullying between her office and Corbyn's are investigated.

I sensed tension at the GE and having to waffle about the non mention of ending the freeze etc,and mentioned it at the time,she claims the last ten months which was about then.

: “I refute the allegations that have been made against me in the strongest possible terms. I will fight this spurious claim and do not rule out taking legal action. I have had no details about the complaint, who it is from, the process or timescales. I have not agreed to stand aside.

“My treatment by certain individuals in the leader’s office over the last 10 months has been aggressive, intimidating and wholly unprofessional. My treatment in the last week has shown a bullying culture of the worst kind. As such I am making a formal complaint to both the Labour party and parliamentary authorities.”

(I waited to comply with my self imposed ban)

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I'm somewhat shocked by the news that Debbie Abrahams has temporarily stepped down while claims of bullying between her office and Corbyn's are investigated.

Me too Paul, she always seems passionate about her job in opposing the wrongs of the DWP. After Reeves, Byrne and Owen Smith she was a much needed breath of fresh air. Now we have IDS clone Esther McVey running the shop, and Hammond about to make more cuts this has come at a very bad time. I sense things are going to get a whole lot worse for us in need of help.

Far better,but as I boringly reiterate the actual policy changes are welcome but minimal/in abeyance.

She didn't step down,obviously trying to get rid of her.

IMHO

HindleA wrote:I sensed tension at the GE and having to waffle about the non mention of ending the freeze etc,and mentioned it at the time,she claims the last ten months which was about then.

I was surprised the media didn't make more of a fuss when Osborne broke the long-standing link between benefits and inflation, let alone Labour. An amount that is supposed to be the bare minimum someone needs to live on which is frozen below the rate of inflation rapidly becomes less than the bare minimum. If she was unhappy about not having a stronger response to the benefit cuts, then I'd be truly sorry to see her go.

My personal reading.

It really shouldn't be debatable.They effectively reduced income beneath "what the law' allows in a purposefully targeted way by other means,as well of course.

Bribing councils in the process.

He screamed "5.3",rare indeed was it mentioned that it was a double hit for many of those it was "in fairness to".

'Refute' - to disprove with evidence to the satisfaction of others. Not a word to throw around in the early stages of denial unless you are indeed refuting.

Exponentially,given method of calculation (ie.the lowest incomed "exempted" loss in real terms) and situation (zero options)it is evil.IMHO.

I caught up with an edition of The Mash Report from a few weeks ago at the weekend that included this - a wordcloud made from responses of British Election Study research into why people voted as they did in the referendum. This is the one from leave voters.

That's not a word cloud, that's a close up image of Nigel Farage's eye

The remain one is here.

Willow904 wrote:

HindleA wrote:I sensed tension at the GE and having to waffle about the non mention of ending the freeze etc,and mentioned it at the time,she claims the last ten months which was about then.

I was surprised the media didn't make more of a fuss when Osborne broke the long-standing link between benefits and inflation, let alone Labour. An amount that is supposed to be the bare minimum someone needs to live on which is frozen below the rate of inflation rapidly becomes less than the bare minimum. If she was unhappy about not having a stronger response to the benefit cuts, then I'd be truly sorry to see her go.

Were you? The media acceptance of such things is the main reason we're in this mess.

As for Labour's failure to mention the benefits freeze in their manifesto, I just took it for granted that they'd do something about it if they won.
It's a bit of a stretch for me to see any reason why they wouldn't.

gilsey wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

HindleA wrote:I sensed tension at the GE and having to waffle about the non mention of ending the freeze etc,and mentioned it at the time,she claims the last ten months which was about then.

I was surprised the media didn't make more of a fuss when Osborne broke the long-standing link between benefits and inflation, let alone Labour. An amount that is supposed to be the bare minimum someone needs to live on which is frozen below the rate of inflation rapidly becomes less than the bare minimum. If she was unhappy about not having a stronger response to the benefit cuts, then I'd be truly sorry to see her go.

Were you? The media acceptance of such things is the main reason we're in this mess.

As for Labour's failure to mention the benefits freeze in their manifesto, I just took it for granted that they'd do something about it if they won.
It's a bit of a stretch for me to see any reason why they wouldn't.

I try not to assume anything.

To forget to put a reversal of such a symbolic assault on social democratic values in a manifesto may not be the same as not intending to do anything about it, but it does say something about priorities and communication. People who were and are suffering from these extremely damaging cuts kind of deserved something concrete in print, if it was indeed Labour's intention to return benefits to previous levels.

Edited to change "never" to "try not to". I undoubtedly do assume things all the time but I don't think it's a good policy to do so.

I find those word clouds pretty depressing, both of them actually. My support for the EU has always been about peace, co-operation, broadening cultural experiences, breaking down barriers between people etc. Not much of that in the remain one, but perhaps people feel soppy mentioning such things.

"human" and "rights" are more encouraging than "people" and "control", though.

Willow904 wrote: To forget to put a reversal of such a symbolic assault on social democratic values in a manifesto may not be the same as not intending to do anything about it, but it does say something about priorities and communication.

How do we know they forgot?
I would have liked to see it there, but it would have been a stick for the press to beat them with and they chose to fight the battle on education.
Was it Rachel Reeves who said 'we're not the party of people on benefits', it sounds bloody awful put like that but I can just about see what she meant.
It seems bizarre to suggest that a Corbyn govt might be less supportive of the disadvantaged than New Labour was.

Hindle agrees with you I think, we can agree to differ on this one.

Good discussion on Daily Politics at the moment about "dirty money" and what the UK should be doing to restrict it coming into our country. Margaret Hodge was very informative. I wasn't aware of Scottish Limited Partnerships and their use to avoid tax and hide money before. Apparently Cameron promised to get rid of them but May is still putting it off.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016 ... rtnership/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Last year's Labour manifesto was, of course, a compromise. It certainly wasn't exactly what Corbyn/McDonnell would have produced left to themselves.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Last year's Labour manifesto was, of course, a compromise. It certainly wasn't exactly what Corbyn/McDonnell would have produced left to themselves.

Then the result was someone else's success/failure to win, presumably.

As SH used to like telling me (when it suited, anyway) Corbyn was/is still the leader.

I think people are blinded by personnel,labels self applied or given.I try and ignore such things and lambast appropriately.Appearing more "oppositional" is easy.I make no assumptions and there isn't such an easy fit along a continuum ,many on the left,as we saw with the social care debate question current arrangement for home owners.

And with respect I prefer in circumstances/circumstantial change that can happen to anybody.

gilsey wrote:I find those word clouds pretty depressing, both of them actually. My support for the EU has always been about peace, co-operation, broadening cultural experiences, breaking down barriers between people etc. Not much of that in the remain one, but perhaps people feel soppy mentioning such things.

My first impression too but then I looked at the Remain word cloud some more. It's good enough. The Leave word cloud contains a lot of fear. Worse, leaving the EU won't alleviate any of it.

Good-afternoon, everyone

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I'm somewhat shocked by the news that Debbie Abrahams has temporarily stepped down while claims of bullying between her office and Corbyn's are investigated.

I am too.

Mike Smithson
‏

@MSmithsonPB
2h2 hours ago
More
Latest Survation poll finds huge gender gap. CON has 3% lead amongst men but with women LAB is 18% ahead

IE. neither begging bowl nor martyr, citizen.

HindleA wrote:And with respect I prefer in circumstances/circumstantial change that can happen to anybody.

Sorry A.
Those disadvantaged by circumstances which could happen to anyone.

No need to apologise,I'm a pain in the arse.

I know my strengths.

Not sure if that should be plural.

Votes for Women(only)

HindleA wrote:Not sure if that should be plural.

Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment) Regulations
Published Monday, March 12, 2018

The Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment) Regulations SI 2018/120 were laid on 1 February, and are to come into force from 6 April 2018. The regulations would make three changes to National Insurance contributions (NICs)

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ ... y/CBP-8250" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I find keeping up with the deluge of information challenging. Not all reports are important, others tremendously so.

As far as Abrahams is concerned, I never minded her but social security isn't her "specialist" area - and at times it showed.

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


Patient safety getting worse, say two-thirds of NHS doctors


The value of NHS hospitals treating private patients has been questioned in a separate report, which reveals that, far from generating extra cash, several hospitals have lost millions of pounds.

According to thinktank the Centre for Health and the Public Interest, private treatment was expected to become a significant source of income for NHS hospital trusts after the 2012 Health and Social Care Act.

But nine hospital trusts have lost money, in one case £18m over six years, and others have racked up bad debts from non-payment running into millions.

https://chpi.org.uk/papers/reports/nhs- ... ient-care/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/free-sch ... verty-trap" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The free school meals poverty trap

HindleA wrote:http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/free-sch ... verty-trap


The free school meals poverty trap

There's always been the problem with a cliff edge. Not just free school meals, but dental care and prescriptions similar issue.

FWIW the free prescriptions cut off is £15,276 for people receiving child tax credits, nearly double what is being proposed for free school meals (although there is no published information I could find on the equivalent cut off for prescriptions for Universal Credit, which appears to be a bit of a mystery). Also am struggling to find a free school meals cut off for non-UC. It's almost as though they don't want people comparing and contrasting.

You'd think free school meals would be available up to at least the level of a full time minimum wage.

Anybody there.......?

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

[youtube]7VPAC4C9gmo[/youtube]

The old skippers we knew thought nothing about sailing 200 tons of barge single-handed , they were so well evolved to be labour-saving . Full crew was often a man and a boy . Bloody hard work tho

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Anybody there.......?

Aye

More light relief, on white collar crime or even near treason --

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

Trump was boasting about not having money, just debts !

Kushner's lucky number 666 Fifth Avenue $1.4BN repayment due 2019 ...