FlyTheNest

Morning all.

http://www.compassonline.org.uk/publica ... asibility/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Deleted.

Was going to start the thread myself today but couldn't resist the chance of another choose-a-day.

Sadly didn't happen

So much fuss about the fact that Bercow drew on a rule from 1604. When something is so patently common sense as this, of course the rule would stay there unchanged!

HindleA wrote:http://www.compassonline.org.uk/publica ... asibility/

Universal income fundamentally fails to address inequality. Almost obviously so. The problem with doling out cash is maintaining its worth. It's my observation that if you give poor people money, rich people will find a way to take it away from them. High rents, embezzled pensions. It would probably start out ok, but as we found with tax credits, unless you tackle the basic imbalance of power behind our inequality, it is unlikely to keep working. And if it replaces society's basic responsibility to ensure everyone is fed, housed and clothed, it could be downright disastrous.

Mike O'Gradyday.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Was going to start the thread myself today but couldn't resist the chance of another choose-a-day.

Sadly didn't happen

I autofilled, then remembered to correct.

I see the press have mostly fallen in line with No 10 trying to claim a "constitutional crisis" - one of which of course was of their own making. I was shocked.

I do like this comment from yesterday "Yeah he's right but I's still going to have a snide dig anyway".

Tim Stanley
‏
Verified account

@timothy_stanley
Follow Follow @timothy_stanley
More Tim Stanley Retweeted Tim Stanley
I said last week that John Bercow would stop May bringing back her deal unaltered - cos he can & constitutionally is obliged to.
If any other Speaker did this it would be uncontroversial. But because Bercow spent the last 10 years being biased, his motives will be questioned.

Only questioned by people who confuse Parliament with Government.

@Willow,where I slightly disagree with.you,but it is specific,so perhaps not.By far the best way to attend to the extra costs of sickness/disability is to "dish out money" in the form of a budget.Actually a very Tory idea ie people are the best as to how to use rather than the State eg.Of course ,as ever the DWP and actual Tory enaction in social security terms evidences the complete opposite.

Anyway, I have to disappear for the morning - Governing Body meeting in a bit...my last one as Chair after 15 years. Handing over to someone else and retiring to the backbenches...

Autofilling myself with bars of chocolate;excuse being (as if I need one)continued weight loss,I am almost see-through(slight exshhetstion)

HindleA wrote:@Willow,where I slightly disagree with.you,but it is specific,so perhaps not.By far the best way to attend to the extra costs of sickness/disability is to "dish out money" in the form of a budget.Actually a very Tory idea ie people are the best as to how to use rather than the State eg.Of course ,as ever the DWP and actual Tory enaction in social security terms evidences the complete opposite.

No, that's not a disagreement at all, it's exactly what I mean. Specific money to specific people to address specific things seeks to reduce inequality. The effects might not always be straightforward, as we saw with tax credits, but I still think the fundamental principle is right. Universal basic income is attractive because it's simple, but money isn't simple, it's complex. It's value can vary, it's vulnerable to inflation. Different people can end up paying different amounts for the same thing, depending on age or where they live. This is what I mean by saying doling out money to everyone may not solve as many problems as people expect.

Your point,of excuse of State neglect, is apposiite,as evidenced by the misuse of DLA/PIP in pretence of protection whilst systematic removal pertaining to the same people.

As was always the danger.

Willow904 wrote:

HindleA wrote:@Willow,where I slightly disagree with.you,but it is specific,so perhaps not.By far the best way to attend to the extra costs of sickness/disability is to "dish out money" in the form of a budget.Actually a very Tory idea ie people are the best as to how to use rather than the State eg.Of course ,as ever the DWP and actual Tory enaction in social security terms evidences the complete opposite.

No, that's not a disagreement at all, it's exactly what I mean. Specific money to specific people to address specific things seeks to reduce inequality. The effects might not always be straightforward, as we saw with tax credits, but I still think the fundamental principle is right. Universal basic income is attractive because it's simple, but money isn't simple, it's complex. It's value can vary, it's vulnerable to inflation. Different people can end up paying different amounts for the same thing, depending on age or where they live. This is what I mean by saying doling out money to everyone may not solve as many problems as people expect.

Interesting discussion and very relevant to Corbyn's stewardship of Labour.

It's unsurprising that simple ideas can attract a good deal of attention, passion and votes and that's a good thing if the fundamental principles are just.

The question a lot of us have for Corbyn, which can't be answered yet, is whether he has what it takes to navigate the complexities of the real world that you describe. In the event, I imagine he would try to deal with it by appointing good, knowledgeable people to the key roles, like he has with Starmer and Brexit.

For the love of Ada though,we have to be clear as exactly what principles and exactly what we mean by them.

Obviously biased,because the.much maligned system "worked" for us(eventually),it was the DWP.itself that was the pain,I vote remain with reform.

Good-morning, everyone

HindleA wrote:For the love of Ada though,we have to be clear as exactly what principles and exactly what we mean by them.

I agree.

I think that's why Corbyn has had more success than expected. People are ready to explore again what it is important after many years of essentially pragmatic, technocratic government.

Sadly folk forgot (wilfully in some cases!) why the system that worked for you was there in the first place.

And thought they could and should save money.

*edited to say is that how you spell wilfully?

**edited again to say yes but my auto-correct doesn't like it because it's on US settings

Yes. But - what the 'ell?

Edited to add - I've just read your edit!

Chasing stuff up to have a go at a local press article I stumbled upon this beauty by Owen Patterson - who is now saying ..

having lost the referendum, remainers then redefined the choice as between 'hard' or 'soft' Brexit – in reality between real departure and leaving in name only.

Back in 2014, when he was campaigning for a promise for a referendum, in a speech entitled An Optimistic Vision of a Post-EU United Kingdom on his website, he said...

"We should grasp the opportunity to leave the current political arrangements and negotiate a new settlement, while keeping our vital position in the single market. This will give us huge economic advantages and re-establish our position as a leading player, in our own right, on the world stage. {snip} So we can leave the political project and enter into a truly economic project with Europe via the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the EEA. We would still enjoy the trading benefits of the EU, without the huge cost of the political baggage {snip} ...our participation in the Single Market is fundamental to protecting the UK's economic position. This brings us to the only realistic option, which is to stay within the EEA agreement. The EEA is tailor made for this purpose and can be adopted by joining EFTA first. This becomes the "Norway option"

Good morfternoon.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:So much fuss about the fact that Bercow drew on a rule from 1604. When something is so patently common sense as this, of course the rule would stay there unchanged!

Yeah, the Speaker's intervention yesterday doesn't justify the brouhaha splattering headlines. There's no question the UK is having a constitutional crisis but that started in late June 2016.

Michael Roth, Germany’s Europe minister, indicated that Berlin is getting fed up with British indecision. Asked about Brexit, he told reporters:

The clock is ticking and time is running out.

[We are] really exhausted by these negotiations. And I expect clear and precise proposals [from] the British government why such an extension is necessary.

It is not just a game. It is an extremely serious situation, not just for the people in the United Kingdom, but for the people in the European Union.

For my government, the key priority is to prevent a no-deal Brexit ...

I don’t have any appetite for substance-less, very abstract discussions and negotiations on the Brexit. Please deliver, dear friends in London, please deliver. The clock is ticking.

We can all get behind that.

Tory government is the reason we can't have nice things.

RogerOThornhill wrote:I see the press have mostly fallen in line with No 10 trying to claim a "constitutional crisis" - one of which of course was of their own making. I was shocked.

I do like this comment from yesterday "Yeah he's right but I's still going to have a snide dig anyway".

Tim Stanley
‏
Verified account

@timothy_stanley
Follow Follow @timothy_stanley
More Tim Stanley Retweeted Tim Stanley
I said last week that John Bercow would stop May bringing back her deal unaltered - cos he can & constitutionally is obliged to.
If any other Speaker did this it would be uncontroversial. But because Bercow spent the last 10 years being biased, his motives will be questioned.

Only questioned by people who confuse Parliament with Government.

Chief among whom appear to be the BBC's political "journalists"

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

citizenJA wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:So much fuss about the fact that Bercow drew on a rule from 1604. When something is so patently common sense as this, of course the rule would stay there unchanged!

Yeah, the Speaker's intervention yesterday doesn't justify the brouhaha splattering headlines. There's no question the UK is having a constitutional crisis but that started in late June 2016.

It started well before then, in truth.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... ommodation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

citizenJA wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:So much fuss about the fact that Bercow drew on a rule from 1604. When something is so patently common sense as this, of course the rule would stay there unchanged!

Yeah, the Speaker's intervention yesterday doesn't justify the brouhaha splattering headlines. There's no question the UK is having a constitutional crisis but that started in late June 2016.

It started well before then, in truth.

You're right of course. I was zeroing in on an exceptional example of ongoing democratic representation failure

HindleA wrote:https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... -be-learnt

An example of a horseshit private company good at nothing but procuring public service contracts
Private sector companies like Interserve and Carillion are failures on 'the market's' own terms but procurement awards to opaque entities isn't halted

citizenJA wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

citizenJA wrote:Yeah, the Speaker's intervention yesterday doesn't justify the brouhaha splattering headlines. There's no question the UK is having a constitutional crisis but that started in late June 2016.

It started well before then, in truth.

You're right of course. I was zeroing in on an exceptional example of ongoing democratic representation failure

I know you don't think like this, but there is a section of anti-Brexit opinion that genuinely seems to think everything was just fine and dandy until June 23 2016 - and that vote just arrived from nowhere and for absolutely no reason (ah yes, apart from "Russian bots" of course)

Just musing on John Bercow -

Wasn't the Government all in favour of Precedent back in January (when the Speaker ignored it and allowed Dominic Grieve's amendment)? It could be argued that he's (JB) now come round to the Government's way of thinking - so what are they moaning about?

As for his latest ruling being pre-emptive (or whatever word his critics are using) - would more delay and hold-ups have been preferable? If he'd waited for the Motion to come forward again, and then ruled against it, he could well have faced lots of, "You could have told us earlier. You've wasted valuable time."

The only problem the UK had with the EU before 2016 was our tabloid press and the drip, drip of anti-EU propaganda used first of all to attack the Labour government and then later to scapegoat blame for the consequences of Tory austerity.

We live in a world dominated by capitalism and three big spheres of economic influence - China, USA and the EU. This may not be the way many people would like things to be, but it's objective reality. Membership of the EU is membership of one of those spheres. And we had gilt-edged membership with huge influence and generous opt-outs. That our political leaders regularly used our influence for the benefit of their rich backers, vetoing financial transaction taxes and attempts to prevent Chinese steel dumping for instance, is not the EU's fault. And anyone concerned about the treatment of Greece should remember that it was Greek leaders who diddled their accounts on joining the Euro, along with turning a blind eye to tax dodging over many years, that got them into the mess in the first place. The EU is simply the sum of its parts. By removing the extremely right-wing, US arse-licking, billionaire pandering British element, it will probably improve enormously for everyone else - and yet, even so, there is a remarkably good chance they will do what they can to help us out of this hole we have dug ourselves, because they really aren't the bad guys, whatever the Mail says.

Willow904 wrote:The only problem the UK had with the EU before 2016 was our tabloid press and the drip, drip of anti-EU propaganda used first of all to attack the Labour government and then later to scapegoat blame for the consequences of Tory austerity.

We live in a world dominated by capitalism and three big spheres of economic influence - China, USA and the EU. This may not be the way many people would like things to be, but it's objective reality. Membership of the EU is membership of one of those spheres. And we had gilt-edged membership with huge influence and generous opt-outs. That our political leaders regularly used our influence for the benefit of their rich backers, vetoing financial transaction taxes and attempts to prevent Chinese steel dumping for instance, is not the EU's fault. And anyone concerned about the treatment of Greece should remember that it was Greek leaders who diddled their accounts on joining the Euro, along with turning a blind eye to tax dodging over many years, that got them into the mess in the first place. The EU is simply the sum of its parts. By removing the extremely right-wing, US arse-licking, billionaire pandering British element, it will probably improve enormously for everyone else - and yet, even so, there is a remarkably good chance they will do what they can to help us out of this hole we have dug ourselves, because they really aren't the bad guys, whatever the Mail says.

I agree with much of this sentiment. Liberalising press controls was a tremendously bad idea.

But I also agree with Corbyn that the EU rates about 7/10.

Surely there are many things that could have been done much better. You are right that the EU is the sum of its parts and arguably the most important part in the decade leading up to the Referendum was Merkel and those who voted for her. While I admire the pragmatism and common sense of that administration, it's always felt (and doesn't pretend to be anything but) rather conservative.

Laura Kuenssberg
‏@bbclaurak
55 minutes ago

1. Cabinet sources say PM is writing letter to EU today asking for extension - frustration that she is going to ask for end date of June 30th, with proviso of up delay of up to 2 years

2. One source says there was no agreement in the room, another source furious that it seems PM avoiding making an actual decision again about the option she would like to take but wants option of short delay to try to find way of having another go with her deal

3. Leadsom said to 'tear into' colleauges, saying 'this is now a Remain Cabinet, not a Brexit Cabinet' - and argued for leaving without a final deal at end of June

4. Fear lack of decision and general anger might push govt into another confidence vote situation next week and some tories might be so angry they vote against govt or abstain - 'it's last days of Rome' says one insider

5. No 10 said earlier there was a 90 minute discussion at Cabinet, Prime Minister does not want a long delay, and will write to EU leaders before Thursday summit, but we'll have to wait for details

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

Willow904 wrote:The only problem the UK had with the EU before 2016 was our tabloid press and the drip, drip of anti-EU propaganda used first of all to attack the Labour government and then later to scapegoat blame for the consequences of Tory austerity.

We live in a world dominated by capitalism and three big spheres of economic influence - China, USA and the EU. This may not be the way many people would like things to be, but it's objective reality. Membership of the EU is membership of one of those spheres. And we had gilt-edged membership with huge influence and generous opt-outs. That our political leaders regularly used our influence for the benefit of their rich backers, vetoing financial transaction taxes and attempts to prevent Chinese steel dumping for instance, is not the EU's fault. And anyone concerned about the treatment of Greece should remember that it was Greek leaders who diddled their accounts on joining the Euro, along with turning a blind eye to tax dodging over many years, that got them into the mess in the first place. The EU is simply the sum of its parts. By removing the extremely right-wing, US arse-licking, billionaire pandering British element, it will probably improve enormously for everyone else - and yet, even so, there is a remarkably good chance they will do what they can to help us out of this hole we have dug ourselves, because they really aren't the bad guys, whatever the Mail says.

I agree with much of this sentiment. Liberalising press controls was a tremendously bad idea.

But I also agree with Corbyn that the EU rates about 7/10.

Surely there are many things that could have been done much better. You are right that the EU is the sum of its parts and arguably the most important part in the decade leading up to the Referendum was Merkel and those who voted for her. While I admire the pragmatism and common sense of that administration, it's always felt (and doesn't pretend to be anything but) rather conservative.

My point wasn't really about whether things could have been done better (or worse) but that, as one of three major political players withing the EU, any successes or failures of the EU were our successes and failures, as much as anyone else's.

Willow904 wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

Willow904 wrote:The only problem the UK had with the EU before 2016 was our tabloid press and the drip, drip of anti-EU propaganda used first of all to attack the Labour government and then later to scapegoat blame for the consequences of Tory austerity.

We live in a world dominated by capitalism and three big spheres of economic influence - China, USA and the EU. This may not be the way many people would like things to be, but it's objective reality. Membership of the EU is membership of one of those spheres. And we had gilt-edged membership with huge influence and generous opt-outs. That our political leaders regularly used our influence for the benefit of their rich backers, vetoing financial transaction taxes and attempts to prevent Chinese steel dumping for instance, is not the EU's fault. And anyone concerned about the treatment of Greece should remember that it was Greek leaders who diddled their accounts on joining the Euro, along with turning a blind eye to tax dodging over many years, that got them into the mess in the first place. The EU is simply the sum of its parts. By removing the extremely right-wing, US arse-licking, billionaire pandering British element, it will probably improve enormously for everyone else - and yet, even so, there is a remarkably good chance they will do what they can to help us out of this hole we have dug ourselves, because they really aren't the bad guys, whatever the Mail says.

I agree with much of this sentiment. Liberalising press controls was a tremendously bad idea.

But I also agree with Corbyn that the EU rates about 7/10.

Surely there are many things that could have been done much better. You are right that the EU is the sum of its parts and arguably the most important part in the decade leading up to the Referendum was Merkel and those who voted for her. While I admire the pragmatism and common sense of that administration, it's always felt (and doesn't pretend to be anything but) rather conservative.

My point wasn't about whether things cold have been done better (or worse) but that, as one of three major political players withing the EU, any successes or failures of the EU were our successes and failures, as much as anyone else.

Yes completely agree. And as we all know we really did have influence and did shape the EU.

And then pretended we didn't to please Murdoch, essentially.

https://socialcarefuture.blog/2019/03/1 ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"It’s now more than a quarter of a century since disability activists noted the tendency of ‘care’ to diminish the recipients by positioning them as dependent. Unhelpful cultural norms around work, illness, ageing and autonomy are all a part of the problem. Our ideas of social care are deeply embedded in an economic and political culture that is leading to widening inequalities, which are in turn increasing the very risks that welfare services were created to mitigate. A better future for social care must also be congruent with wider social changes focussing on reducing inequality and valuing lives more widely than their income-generating potential"

PhilWilsonMP
‏@MPphilwilson

I was asked to go on @BBCNewsnight then told at the last minute I wasn’t required. Not true to say there was no @UKLabour voice available

@HA great post*

@me Phil Wilson of Kyle-Wilson fame?

*edited to say now disappeared

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:PhilWilsonMP
‏@MPphilwilson

I was asked to go on @BBCNewsnight then told at the last minute I wasn’t required. Not true to say there was no @UKLabour voice available

Wasn't it claimed no one accepted an invite?

Presumably poor Phil Wilson is the "wrong" kind of Labour MP.

Willow904 wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:PhilWilsonMP
‏@MPphilwilson

I was asked to go on @BBCNewsnight then told at the last minute I wasn’t required. Not true to say there was no @UKLabour voice available

Wasn't it claimed no one accepted an invite?

Presumably poor Phil Wilson is the "wrong" kind of Labour MP.

Yes exactly and people who watched clearly recalling Maitlis saying Labour were invited and failed to provide a spokesperson

Jason Groves @JasonGroves1

Cabinet source: 'The only thing agreed this morning was that everyone hates Bercow'
83
1:50 PM - Mar 19, 2019 (Politics Live, Guardian)

Albeit probably a semi-humorous comment, it's typical of this Government that the only thing which can unite them is "hatred".

Carl Dinnen
✔
@carldinnen

Boris Johnson has just left a meeting with the Prime Minister and walked back to Parliament saying nothing whatsoever to @ChrisMasonBBC @faisalislam and myself.

Somethings afoot...

1:03 PM - Mar 19, 2019 (Politics Live, Guardian)

I'm out of ideas . . .

Three local council byelections last week:

Durham - Labour hold with 64% of the vote, down around 10% since 2017 but only a small drop compared with 2013 when they were opposed by just an Independent in this single member ward. LibDems up 20 points to almost 23%, this maybe reflects the difference between just fielding a paper candidate as was the case two years ago, and actually making some effort. The regionalist North East Party - which has some councillors not that far away on this unitary county authority - was little changed on last time, whilst the far right For Britain grouplet got less than 3%. One other point of interest is that this byelection saw no Tory candidate (though they stood and came a very distant runner up in the last election) with the exception of the "sui generis" City of London, this is the first GB vacancy they have not contested for over a year.

Croydon - Labour hold with approaching two thirds of the vote, a small drop on last year (the first election on the present boundaries) but since the second placed Tories were down 7 points this still meant a small swing to them overall - confirming the long term trend in this area; the main predecessor ward only went Labour for the first time in 1994 (and narrowly) but even in 2006 when the Tories took back control of the council Labour held on here fairly comfortably, and by 2014 they had made things totally safe. There were a variety of also-rans - top placed was the first of two Independent candidates with 7%, followed by the Greens (their share more than halved on a year ago) another Indy, the LibDems who scored 3% after sitting the last election out, and finally UKIP with less than 2%.

Southampton - Labour gain from Independent, but doing so with just 26% of the vote betrayed the extremely fragmented nature of this contest which can be explained by the recent electoral history of this ward. Going back to the 2002 all-outs, the LibDems won all 3 seats with Labour their main challengers and they held on until 2007 when Labour won a seat and then in 2008 the Tories won here for the first and only time in their landslide year locally. Labour look the last LibDem seat in 2010 and with the latter's collapse post-coalition seemed to have made themselves safe - until two councillors went Independent following a contentious local issue, they were re-elected by big margins in 2014 and 2015 and another Independent (as with the two incumbents, they were close to the left-wing group TUSC even if they didn't use the label) took the last Labour seat in 2016. There being no left wing "Independent" this time left something of a free for all, and the resulting scramble saw the Tories take second place with 20% - up a bit on last year - followed by the LibDems regaining some of their former strength with a double figure increase to 17%, then a Socialist Alternative candidate (maybe the nearest equivalent to the incumbents) on almost 15%. Then a candidate from Integrity Southampton (apparently some sort of UKIP splinter) on closely followed by a genuine Independent who increased their share from last year, then (official) UKIP with almost 5% and finally Greens who dropped slightly to 2%.

Six contests this week.

Thanks AK.

https://www.24housing.co.uk/news/govern ... t-to-rent/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Government gives no ground over racist right To Rent


Pto