Saturday 11th and Sunday 12th October 2014

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 8:14 pm

diGriz wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Bloody hell.

Poll reported by G shock.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... s-election

But still BNfEM
Despite giving Labour a 7pt lead, more people now expect the Conservatives to win the next election than Labour

Yes, because of the media narrative you helped create and people believe the media.

How long before a certain poster finds this story and starts on about "screeching lefties"?

I give it about 10 minutes...and then another 5 before his groupie turns up.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 8:18 pm

Hi all I've been out all day so just catching up.
About that Retrospective Bill, I too was livid at the time and wrote to EdM and my Local MP and threatened to leave Labour.
But the arguments about bill were not as straight forward as they seemed, and no matter what Labour did or did not do it would have passed anyway. Byrne, by not voting against it, secured 2 vital concessions from IDS, I remembered that but not what they were so I went to check it out, and turned up LB's piece on Labour List written at the time.

And here’s the choice I faced in the Commons. Do I do everything to foul up the timetable of the bill, safe in the knowledge that because we lack a majority, the Tories and Lib Dems would ultimately win any vote they liked, whenever they liked? At best this might have delayed the Bill a week or two. Or, do I let the Bill go through before Easter in return for two critical concessions which Labour MP’s actually can actually use in practice to help people over the next two years?

First, we had to make sure that people hit by sanctions have an iron-clad right of appeal against a sanction decision. That’s the right we’ve now ensured is written onto the face of the Bill; it’s the right to appeal on ‘good cause’ (for example, refusing to take a pointless course which is inappropriate) within a 13 month timetable

Second, there’s something else. I’ve heard too many stories – not least from my own constituents – about people being wrongly sanctioned. And that’s why I insisted – and won – an independent review of the sanctions regime with an urgent report to Parliament. We need to use this to ruthlessly expose bad behaviour. It is actually one of the practical things we can do to make a difference over the next year.

(I think IDS actually reneged on this second, or watered it down to be ineffective, but at the time Bryne did not know that)

In retrospect and reading what happened with a cool head, and taking the time to understand what a cock up IDS had made (that meant all right to appeal would be taken away) I think (now) Bryne got the best deal possible. Here's the link - I'd be interested in what others think after rereading the situation "cold" as it were.

http://labourlist.org/2013/03/the-jobse ... ight-call/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 8:19 pm

So, let us revisit that YouGov article in January (9 months ago).

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/01/27/how ... -election/

Does anybody think Dave has made any progress, he has 6 months to go. All feels a bit December 44 for Dave.

51A · Post by **51A** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 8:37 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Hi all I've been out all day so just catching up.
About that Retrospective Bill, I too was livid at the time and wrote to EdM and my Local MP and threatened to leave Labour.
But the arguments about bill were not as straight forward as they seemed, and no matter what Labour did or did not do it would have passed anyway. Byrne, by not voting against it, secured 2 vital concessions from IDS, I remembered that but not what they were so I went to check it out, and turned up LB's piece on Labour List written at the time.
And here’s the choice I faced in the Commons. Do I do everything to foul up the timetable of the bill, safe in the knowledge that because we lack a majority, the Tories and Lib Dems would ultimately win any vote they liked, whenever they liked? At best this might have delayed the Bill a week or two. Or, do I let the Bill go through before Easter in return for two critical concessions which Labour MP’s actually can actually use in practice to help people over the next two years?

First, we had to make sure that people hit by sanctions have an iron-clad right of appeal against a sanction decision. That’s the right we’ve now ensured is written onto the face of the Bill; it’s the right to appeal on ‘good cause’ (for example, refusing to take a pointless course which is inappropriate) within a 13 month timetable

Second, there’s something else. I’ve heard too many stories – not least from my own constituents – about people being wrongly sanctioned. And that’s why I insisted – and won – an independent review of the sanctions regime with an urgent report to Parliament. We need to use this to ruthlessly expose bad behaviour. It is actually one of the practical things we can do to make a difference over the next year.
(I think IDS actually reneged on this second, or watered it down to be ineffective, but at the time Bryne did not know that)

In retrospect and reading what happened with a cool head, and taking the time to understand what a cock up IDS had made (that meant all right to appeal would be taken away) I think (now) Bryne got the best deal possible. Here's the link - I'd be interested in what others think after rereading the situation "cold" as it were.

http://labourlist.org/2013/03/the-jobse ... ight-call/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But it has to happen NOW! People are being sanctioned and not being told how to appeal. I do CAB, I see them coming in. But we have a CAB pretty close to a Jobcentre, many towns don't. The tories' behaviour really should be made illegal. There are, of course, some people who don't want to work but the majority of people do. Sometimes the first people know about getting a sanction is when the money is not in the bank. They should be told when they sign, not 3 days later. And unless you are old, really ill or have a real lot of kids, life on benefits is not the walk in the park they try to portray it as. I don't have a great deal of good to say about Nick Clegg and the LibDems but the bit about poor-bashing actually made me cry, because someone finally noticed it's happening. As for Foodbanks, flipping great, love them to bits, support them with all my heart. But they can't turn the leccy and gas on. If you are poor and benefit reliant the chances are you'll be on pre-payment meters for fuel. What happens now that the winter's setting in if you're on a pre-payment meter?

diGriz · Post by **diGriz** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 8:44 pm

Not sure if it's the media saturation but I seem to be seeing Farage everywhere this week.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 8:49 pm

51A wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Hi all I've been out all day so just catching up.
About that Retrospective Bill, I too was livid at the time and wrote to EdM and my Local MP and threatened to leave Labour.
But the arguments about bill were not as straight forward as they seemed, and no matter what Labour did or did not do it would have passed anyway. Byrne, by not voting against it, secured 2 vital concessions from IDS, I remembered that but not what they were so I went to check it out, and turned up LB's piece on Labour List written at the time.
And here’s the choice I faced in the Commons. Do I do everything to foul up the timetable of the bill, safe in the knowledge that because we lack a majority, the Tories and Lib Dems would ultimately win any vote they liked, whenever they liked? At best this might have delayed the Bill a week or two. Or, do I let the Bill go through before Easter in return for two critical concessions which Labour MP’s actually can actually use in practice to help people over the next two years?

First, we had to make sure that people hit by sanctions have an iron-clad right of appeal against a sanction decision. That’s the right we’ve now ensured is written onto the face of the Bill; it’s the right to appeal on ‘good cause’ (for example, refusing to take a pointless course which is inappropriate) within a 13 month timetable

Second, there’s something else. I’ve heard too many stories – not least from my own constituents – about people being wrongly sanctioned. And that’s why I insisted – and won – an independent review of the sanctions regime with an urgent report to Parliament. We need to use this to ruthlessly expose bad behaviour. It is actually one of the practical things we can do to make a difference over the next year.
(I think IDS actually reneged on this second, or watered it down to be ineffective, but at the time Bryne did not know that)

In retrospect and reading what happened with a cool head, and taking the time to understand what a cock up IDS had made (that meant all right to appeal would be taken away) I think (now) Bryne got the best deal possible. Here's the link - I'd be interested in what others think after rereading the situation "cold" as it were.

http://labourlist.org/2013/03/the-jobse ... ight-call/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But it has to happen NOW! People are being sanctioned and not being told how to appeal. I do CAB, I see them coming in. But we have a CAB pretty close to a Jobcentre, many towns don't. The tories' behaviour really should be made illegal. There are, of course, some people who don't want to work but the majority of people do. Sometimes the first people know about getting a sanction is when the money is not in the bank. They should be told when they sign, not 3 days later. And unless you are old, really ill or have a real lot of kids, life on benefits is not the walk in the park they try to portray it as. I don't have a great deal of good to say about Nick Clegg and the LibDems but the bit about poor-bashing actually made me cry, because someone finally noticed it's happening. As for Foodbanks, flipping great, love them to bits, support them with all my heart. But they can't turn the leccy and gas on. If you are poor and benefit reliant the chances are you'll be on pre-payment meters for fuel. What happens now that the winter's setting in if you're on a pre-payment meter?

There was talk earlier about reasons why people - for want of a better word - "fell out" with Labour. My post above is taking a look back in time at what happened over the retrospective bill, one of the reasons given for disillusionment with Labour.
Its not a comment on today's situation's.
I need no convincing that things need to change, and change quickly.

diGriz · Post by **diGriz** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 8:53 pm

Spot the difference.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 8:55 pm

David Cameron’s election guru faces new attack over tobacco lobbying

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 9:00 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:So, let us revisit that YouGov article in January (9 months ago).

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/01/27/how ... -election/

Does anybody think Dave has made any progress, he has 6 months to go. All feels a bit December 44 for Dave.

He doesn't seem to have read or heeded any warnings, just mouthed platitudes and blundered along as usual.
He's totally out of his depth.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 9:18 pm

Miliband article in the Observer

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

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 9:47 pm

with reforms to ensure those who come here speak English

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

Sorry but he lost me here. Sounds a lot like assimilation. And of course there isn't a single Brit living abroad who doesn't speak their local language.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 9:52 pm

Still I like that he's not cowtowing to the UKIP "narrative".

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 10:02 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:
with reforms to ensure those who come here speak English

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sorry but he lost me here. Sounds a lot like assimilation. And of course there isn't a single Brit living abroad who doesn't speak their local language.

Think of it like this
On a recent trip to casualty the EU doctor spoke very little English (or perhaps he did but was to tired to use it) he "spoke" to the nurse using sign language to establish if food and drink had been taken recently and enquired about movement range in the damaged joint by something akin to mime. He was a great doctor, a nice man and we laughed a lot. But if the injury had been life threatening, I would have been distraught at the lack of communication ability.
I doubt if there is a single Brit living abroad, and working in public service, who does not speak the local language at least to an understandable level.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 10:05 pm

But Miliband doesn't say "with reforms to ensure those who come here to work in the public service speak English". Surely that's just a basic recruitment issue.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 10:06 pm

There's just no need for it. He was doing fine up until then.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 10:15 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:But Miliband doesn't say "with reforms to ensure those who come here to work in the public service speak English". Surely that's just a basic recruitment issue.

We will ensure migrants better integrate into British society by making sure more migrants learn English. With Labour, anyone working in a public sector job coming face-to-face with the public will be required to speak English.

http://www.labour.org.uk/issues/detail/immigration" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not sure why a person looking to live here should not be expected to learn the language of the country they wish to live in, to me its a no brainer.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 10:18 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
Not sure why a person looking to live here should not be expected to learn the language of the country they wish to live in, to me its a no brainer.

But if they don't want to, and they don't need to should they be forced to? I don't think so.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 10:26 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Couple of HS2 development- to the plans, still a distinct possibility it won't happen at all. I support it but no reason the start can't be put back a couple of years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 60087.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Crewe to be a major interchange station- as it already is for conventional rail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crewe_railway_station" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bit hard on Stoke though that wanted a station too.

Not so sure about this though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29538362" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

East Midlands station being moved from Toton where the Nottingham Tram would meet it to somewhere called Breaston, where it won't meet any public transport.

One of the reasons the costs rise to big schemes is that all sorts of other schemes get momentum and the big scheme gets expanded. Its better to spend more and bring benefits to more places. Sheffield should get a city centre station, even if headline cost of scheme goes up. (Now it has an out of town station).

Toton currently has little public transport either. The tram line to Beeston is currently being built. I haven't seen any planning to extend it. If they move the station 3km west, the line might pass through my village!

Breaston is a pleasant and quiet village, probably more Tory than mine. It's in the Erewash constituency which is very marginal.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 10:29 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
Not sure why a person looking to live here should not be expected to learn the language of the country they wish to live in, to me its a no brainer.
But if they don't want to, and they don't need to should they be forced to? I don't think so.

Sorry, but if they want to work in public services then yes they do.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 10:31 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:
with reforms to ensure those who come here speak English

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sorry but he lost me here. Sounds a lot like assimilation. And of course there isn't a single Brit living abroad who doesn't speak their local language.
Think of it like this
On a recent trip to casualty the EU doctor spoke very little English (or perhaps he did but was to tired to use it) he "spoke" to the nurse using sign language to establish if food and drink had been taken recently and enquired about movement range in the damaged joint by something akin to mime. He was a great doctor, a nice man and we laughed a lot. But if the injury had been life threatening, I would have been distraught at the lack of communication ability.
I doubt if there is a single Brit living abroad, and working in public service, who does not speak the local language at least to an understandable level.

Sounds a bit like the person I spoke to when I dialled 111 a couple of days ago...English not so good. If I'd been panicking or in distress, there would have been communication problems.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 10:36 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
Not sure why a person looking to live here should not be expected to learn the language of the country they wish to live in, to me its a no brainer.
But if they don't want to, and they don't need to should they be forced to? I don't think so.
Sorry, but if they want to work in public services then yes they do.

Yes but then they need to (by my definitin). Miliband, in this piece says:

I will not cede the issue of immigration to those offering fear or falsehood. So I will continue to chart a new way forward, combining stronger border controls and laws to stop the exploitation that has undermined wages of local workers, with reforms to ensure those who come here speak English and earn the right to any benefit entitlements. Such measures are part of a compelling and credible plan for Britain’s future that will restore the values people believe in – contribution, responsibility, fairness – to the way our country is run.

No mention of public services. So am not sure why you have now mentioned that three times. Unless you are Ed Miliband.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 10:38 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote: Sorry but he lost me here. Sounds a lot like assimilation. And of course there isn't a single Brit living abroad who doesn't speak their local language.
Think of it like this
On a recent trip to casualty the EU doctor spoke very little English (or perhaps he did but was to tired to use it) he "spoke" to the nurse using sign language to establish if food and drink had been taken recently and enquired about movement range in the damaged joint by something akin to mime. He was a great doctor, a nice man and we laughed a lot. But if the injury had been life threatening, I would have been distraught at the lack of communication ability.
I doubt if there is a single Brit living abroad, and working in public service, who does not speak the local language at least to an understandable level.
Sounds a bit like the person I spoke to when I dialled 111 a couple of days ago...English not so good. If I'd been panicking or in distress, there would have been communication problems.

Probably outsourced to the other side of the planet!

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 10:43 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
Not sure why a person looking to live here should not be expected to learn the language of the country they wish to live in, to me its a no brainer.
But if they don't want to, and they don't need to should they be forced to? I don't think so.

Anybody working in the UK should be required to speak and write English to an acceptable basic level. If they work in professional roles in public service they should be able to speak and write as well as a UK professional. ( Doctors will clearly not be expected to write legibly).

Part of this is necessity, part is to make it very difficult to recruit unskilled labour from outside the UK.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 10:48 pm

There is a difference between needing a particular language to do a particular job and needing a language simply to live in a country. One is a recruitment issue, the other is a policy issue. I have no problem with the former; I have a problem with the latter. I'm not saying it's ideal, not to speak the language, I'm just saying it's authoritarian to dictate it as a basic policy.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 10:50 pm

Good grief, I've just seen this again...

What did Liam Byrne write- There's no money left?

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 10:51 pm

Jeez - why is everyone suddenly going on about working in public services? The piece I linked to does not mention public services in this respect.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 10:51 pm

For those of you interested in what it's like to be out in the badger cull zones ... this is rather lovely.

Glos Badger Office @glos_badger · 5h 5 hours ago
A lovely report from a first time patroller.

Anyone and everyone has a part to play in the cull zone....
https://www.facebook.com/Glosbadgeroffi ... 3766092119

She's right - it is very organised and effective - and the range of people involved (anti-cull that is) is amazing. Glad to know Nirvana are playing a useful role.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 10:55 pm

Anybody working in the UK should be required to speak and write English to an acceptable basic level.

Say they're a tour guide in London doing tours exclusively for Japanese visitors which they can do without ever having to speak English. Do they, necessarily, need to speak and write in English to "an acceptable basic level?"

Post by **refitman** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 11:04 pm

I see Lynton's in the doo-doo again:

David Cameron’s election guru faces new attack over tobacco lobbying
Lynton Crosby’s firm tried to discover government stance on cigarette packaging
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -packaging" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The lobbying firm run by David Cameron’s election guru, Lynton Crosby, is under fire for seeking to obtain internal government opinions about tobacco policy.

Mark Fullbrook, co-founder of Crosby Textor Fullbrook (CTF), which represents tobacco giant Philip Morris, asked Tory grandee Sir Robert Atkins to track down comments issued by the government relating to Ireland’s plans for the introduction of plain packaging for cigarettes. Atkins, an MEP and former government minister, was MP for South Ribble in Yorkshire, a seat now represented by Fullbrook’s wife, Lorraine.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 11:06 pm

Thank you RS. And for the general record, my own view would be that if they were going to work in public services then THEY WOULD NEED TO!

Sorry. Just got a bit frustrated with that recurring theme there given that it didn't relate to what I'd read. Am now recovered. Apologies to all.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 11:07 pm

Jim Pickard ‏@PickardJE 2h2 hours ago
Labour next week to announce "Lyons" plan to build more housing: including relaxing borrowing limits for the most prudent councils.

Be interesting to see what the measure is for being 'most prudent'. Hope it matches up with areas in most need of housing.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 11:10 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:Jeez - why is everyone suddenly going on about working in public services? The piece I linked to does not mention public services in this respect.

I linked to the Labour policy on immigration here
http://www.labour.org.uk/issues/detail/immigration" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In it the official policy is
We will ensure migrants better integrate into British society by making sure more migrants learn English. With Labour, anyone working in a public sector job coming face-to-face with the public will be required to speak English.
I agree with that and don't see it as divisive or overly demanding.
It could be the editor cut Ed bit in the paper, or it could be Ed doesn't feel he need to repeat things over and over, I don't know, but the official policy is as above.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 11:14 pm

Well there's my point. Integration. It's authoritarian. There are more than 300 languages spoken in London - that's "British society". We're multicultural and multilingual. Some jobs - high or low level - may not need English as a basic requirement.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 11:16 pm

Night all

time

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 11:16 pm

Night.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 11:31 pm

frightful_oik wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Couple of HS2 development- to the plans, still a distinct possibility it won't happen at all. I support it but no reason the start can't be put back a couple of years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 60087.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Crewe to be a major interchange station- as it already is for conventional rail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crewe_railway_station" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bit hard on Stoke though that wanted a station too.

Not so sure about this though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29538362" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

East Midlands station being moved from Toton where the Nottingham Tram would meet it to somewhere called Breaston, where it won't meet any public transport.

One of the reasons the costs rise to big schemes is that all sorts of other schemes get momentum and the big scheme gets expanded. Its better to spend more and bring benefits to more places. Sheffield should get a city centre station, even if headline cost of scheme goes up. (Now it has an out of town station).
Toton currently has little public transport either. The tram line to Beeston is currently being built. I haven't seen any planning to extend it. If they move the station 3km west, the line might pass through my village! Breaston is a pleasant and quiet village, probably more Tory than mine. It's in the Erewash constituency which is very marginal.

Interesting. How's the connection to Derby from Toton going to be?

And a bit odd to go under a fairly large (and expandable, one presumes) airport without stopping.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 11:34 pm

My last word on this:

With Labour, anyone working in a public sector job coming face-to-face with the public will be required to speak English.

Is perfectly reasonable and I have no issue with it.

But that is not what the piece says, and thus his message as it stands in the Observer piece is problematic.

On integration - it has become a tainted word used by those who can't deal with multiculturalism. Thus I would like Labour to avoid using it in this particular context.

Will shut up now. Promise.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 11:35 pm

I see no-one's yet put a stations within 4 miles of East Midlands Airport...

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 11:43 pm

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/10/6-m ... next-year/

Wearable device penetration will more than double

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 11:50 pm

For some reason, just thought of Diane Abbott.

Those dreadful Hackney schools she had to avoid.

http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2014/02/10/ ... ing-grade/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Across the borough, 61.2 per cent of pupils achieved five or more A*-C GCSE grades including in English and maths. This is a slight increase from 2012 in a decade of steadily-climbing results locally and beats the national average of 60.6 per cent.

Nearly 50 per cent of pupils who receive free school meals achieved the national headline measure – five or more A*-C grades including English and maths – compared to 38.1 per cent nationally.

And without abusing equivalents too. A very good performance.

To be fair, she made the decision in 2003, when it wasn't so rosy. But she could easily have spoken to Estelle Morris, who was launching London Challenge, or Sir Tim Brighouse who was leading it, or the Learning Trust who took over from the struggling Hackney LEA. I'd have thought her no-confidence vote in them and the schools involved would have gone down badly. By 2008 when he would have taken his GCSEs, things were already quite a bit improved.

If she hasn't apologised to all of them, she should do.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 11:55 pm

refitman wrote:I see Lynton's in the doo-doo again:
David Cameron’s election guru faces new attack over tobacco lobbying
Lynton Crosby’s firm tried to discover government stance on cigarette packaging
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -packaging" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The lobbying firm run by David Cameron’s election guru, Lynton Crosby, is under fire for seeking to obtain internal government opinions about tobacco policy.

Mark Fullbrook, co-founder of Crosby Textor Fullbrook (CTF), which represents tobacco giant Philip Morris, asked Tory grandee Sir Robert Atkins to track down comments issued by the government relating to Ireland’s plans for the introduction of plain packaging for cigarettes. Atkins, an MEP and former government minister, was MP for South Ribble in Yorkshire, a seat now represented by Fullbrook’s wife, Lorraine.

Interesting. Crosby sounds like he was actually OK here- if things were really bent, he'd just ask Hunt or Jane Ellison. Maybe he did and they didn't tell him.

But it's bad Crosby's business partner is as dodgy as this. Public statement needed from Crosby, surely.

As I always say, imagine this was Unite...

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sat 11 Oct, 2014 11:59 pm

I do enjoy a good spoonerism. Chap introducing the weather on telly, just now, said there will be a few shattered scours...

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 12:46 am

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy ... erson.html

Owen Paterson will say that the Government’s plan to slash carbon emissions and rely more heavily on wind farms and other renewable energy sources is fatally flawed.
He will argue that the 2008 Climate Change Act, which ties Britain into stringent targets to reduce the use of fossil fuels, should be suspended until other countries agree to take similar measures. If they refuse, the legislation should be scrapped altogether, he will say.

He also has a plan (I use the term loosely) to power British homes with dozens of small nuclear power stations. In addition,

He will argue this week that ministers should exercise a clause in the Act that allows them to suspend the law without another vote of MPs.

And guess where he will deliver this speech? No less an august bastion of science* than the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Who they? I hear you ask. Well, eminent scientist** Nigel Lawson's very own think-tank***.

*sarcasm, just in case you wondered.
** also sarcasm
*** not sarcasm – or is it?

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 6:07 am

Latest YouGov / Sunday Times results 10th Oct -
Con 32%,
Lab 34%,
LD 9%,
UKIP 16%;
APP -22

Remains uncomfortably close.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 7:57 am

Poor Brooks. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29585203" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I notice in the media coverage that it's the Mirror blamed for getting the ball rolling, not the Scum for the latest pics (that've actually resulted in his resignation).

Edit: if he's hanging on until May will that / should that shut down stories coming out now? Still an MP, same public interest defence?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 8:02 am

tinyclanger2 wrote:Latest YouGov / Sunday Times results 10th Oct -
Con 32%,
Lab 34%,
LD 9%,
UKIP 16%;
APP -22

Remains uncomfortably close.

Good morning to you all

Closer than I would like but I think after the Tory bounce after their conference and all the bs coming after the by-election at H&M Labour would take this

If you put yourself in Cameron's shoes; he made a tax announcement which will not come into effect until 2018 at the earliest so all he could hope for that the announcement itself turned the tide. It doesn't seem to have done.

He has lost an MP to UKIP and, despite his pals in the media trying to make Labour the focus, he still have another difficult one to overcome within the next month. There is also the morale effect this is having on Tories and I would guess a few defections cannot be counted out

Economic indicators are not going in the good direction

He is behind in the polls again

I have to ask myself where the good news for the Tories is coming from between now and the election?

The only thing I can see is Labour losing its nerve and this cannot be counted out with that Blairite cabal still running around trying to undermine Miliband - not much power left in reality but they have pals in the media who try to big up every comment as 'revolt'. The unknown impact of the Greens next year is also a potential problematic area. It is sad that we would see Labour and the Greens taking votes of each other - as was mentioned yesterday, a Green-Red would be an attractive prospect - shame we have FPTP

As for the LD, one shakes one's head. LDV, if it is an indicator, shows a party in complete denial - and one in which the libertarian right is in the ascendant - some of them are more extreme than the Tories!

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 8:23 am

HSoM wrote:It is sad that we would see Labour and the Greens taking votes of each other - as was mentioned yesterday, a Green-Red would be an attractive prospect - shame we have FPTP

Yes I would like to see the Greens and Labour collaborating to ensure a win at this stage.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 8:23 am

After the Miliband article we get the Toby Helm spin OP. The Guardian really are full of crap.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 8:56 am

Morning.
Very cold here, only 4 degrees C. when I just put the washing out.

Don't think anyone's posted the Survation for Mail on Sunday yet.

CON 31% =
LAB -31% -4
UKIP 25% +6
LD 8%=

Also saw Mike Smithson tweet 'Detailed data from Survation for Southern England has UKIP on 37.6%, four pts ahead of the Tories'

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sun 12 Oct, 2014 9:01 am

yahyah wrote:Morning.

Very cold here, only 4 degrees C. when I just put the washing out.

Don't think anyone's posted the Survation for Mail on Sunday yet.

CON 31% =
LAB -31% -4
UKIP 25% +6
LD 8%=

Also saw Mike Smithson tweet 'Detailed data from Survation for Southern England has UKIP on 37.6%, four pts ahead of the Tories '

I don't discount any poll but this one doesn't look very sensible - have all the Labour votes gone straight to UKIP or to the Tories who then leaked to UKIP - neither seem particularly sustainable if that is how it has worked. Expect a return to the mean in the next wee while