Wednesday 15th October 2014

Post by **refitman** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 7:30 am

Morning all. Labour lead at 4 points on Yougov:

Latest YouGov / The Sun results 14th Oct -

Con 30%, (-1)
Lab 34%, (no change)
LD 8%, (+1)
UKIP 18%; (+1)

APP -25 (-3)

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 7:36 am

PMQs today?

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 7:56 am

Morning! And thanks for stopping that Post Review thingy

Shocking levels of child poverty are being reported (and apols if this has already been posted):
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014 ... t-research

Post by **refitman** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 7:57 am

frightful_oik wrote:PMQs today?

It's on the Commons schedule.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 7:58 am

frightful_oik wrote:PMQs today?

Yep. Plus, Tristram Hunt and McVile on DP...

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 8:11 am

In my experience, lots of working class Eastern Europeans tend to smoke. So if we take the proposal for banning smoking in public spaces, won't this work as a further disincentive to any erstwhile immigrants. Square that circle, Farage!

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 8:38 am

DonutHingeParty wrote:In my experience, lots of working class Eastern Europeans tend to smoke. So if we take the proposal for banning smoking in public spaces, won't this work as a further disincentive to any erstwhile immigrants. Square that circle, Farage!

Genius - they don't like it up em (especially not Kippers).

From the Telegraph - this shows the insanity of Dave cutting taxes (or rather promising to cut taxes). If you ignore the half hearted plug for the Tax Payers alliance at the end it is informative.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... owing.html

Post by **refitman** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 8:54 am

Tee hee. John Lydon has taken a swipe at the Guardian golden boy:

As I was interviewing him for a Guardian video, he gave that famous Johnny Rotten glare. “The likes of Russell Brand coming along and saying something so damn ignorant is just spoonfeeding it to them” – them, the powerful. “A hundred years ago who could vote here? To have that so easily, so flippantly ignored in that lazy-arsed way, in that ‘I take drugs and tell not very funny jokes’ way, it’s very poor. You have to vote, you have to make a change. You’re given lousy options, yes, but better than nothing at all.”

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

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 9:12 am

Morning.
Apologies is anyone's posted this, haven't had time to read all last night's posts yet.

'Workers 'could be forced to pay £5 a week' to get benefits'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 94571.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The headline is a little misleading but the gist of the piece is that workers on more than 20 hours a week could be forced to pay more than £5 a week into a “compulsory collective insurance scheme”,
It would be run by private-sector providers but guaranteed by the tax payer.

Also, that higher earners could build up a pot and claim back the money later in life.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 9:18 am

Should we be worried [as well as other issues such as handing more to the private sector] by this about the proposed scheme [said to under consideration by Downing St]:

''To head off claims of a back-door tax rise, the Government would offset the £5-a-week payments by reducing workers’ national insurance contributions.''

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 9:24 am

Morning.

Minister against the Disabled appearing before the W and P Select Commitee this morning ,for those interested.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/commi ... rk-harper/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 9:28 am

This really is the most pathetic, self-fulfilling piece Little Nicky has yet produced

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29626494" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Ed Miliband facing sustained glare of scrutiny"

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 9:28 am

Lib Dem Voice piece on 'Labour’s proven capacity for nastiness'

http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-four ... 42925.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 9:32 am

yahyah wrote:Morning.
Apologies is anyone's posted this, haven't had time to read all last night's posts yet.

'Workers 'could be forced to pay £5 a week' to get benefits'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 94571.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The headline is a little misleading but the gist of the piece is that workers on more than 20 hours a week could be forced to pay more than £5 a week into a “compulsory collective insurance scheme”,
It would be run by private-sector providers but guaranteed by the tax payer.

Also, that higher earners could build up a pot and claim back the money later in life.

Morning. This seems like a good idea - surprised nobodiy's thought of it before. We could roll it out nationwide and call it ... oooh, I don't know - how about National Insurance?

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 9:32 am

yahyah wrote:Should we be worried [as well as other issues such as handing more to the private sector] by this about the proposed scheme [said to under consideration by Downing St]:

''To head off claims of a back-door tax rise, the Government would offset the £5-a-week payments by reducing workers’ national insurance contributions.''

Is there anything that they don't want to privatise?

Morning all btw

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 9:33 am

If anyone fancies watching Nicky Morgan answering questions about extremism in schools given yesterday's letter from Wilshaw and the still-bad Ofsted reports...

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Playe ... ngId=16059" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 9:34 am

yahyah wrote:Should we be worried [as well as other issues such as handing more to the private sector] by this about the proposed scheme [said to under consideration by Downing St]:

''To head off claims of a back-door tax rise, the Government would offset the £5-a-week payments by reducing workers’ national insurance contributions.''

Apologies yahyah - didn't see your follow up post before I jumped in with both feet

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 9:38 am

danesclose wrote:
yahyah wrote:Should we be worried [as well as other issues such as handing more to the private sector] by this about the proposed scheme [said to under consideration by Downing St]:

''To head off claims of a back-door tax rise, the Government would offset the £5-a-week payments by reducing workers’ national insurance contributions.''
Apologies yahyah - didn't see your follow up post before I jumped in with both feet

Don't apologise danesclose.

Was just musing to myself, if there is less in the public funds pot that will have an effect on government finances, and the Tory [want to add b******s after the word] will have opened the flood gates to fully privatised benefits, from payment to provision.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 9:40 am

Morning all...apologies but I'm going back to yesterday again

(and apologies now I've seen how much I've written)

This is my last bit about Owen Jones - my position is that he was one of the few (possibly the only) commentators allowed on the national media bandwagon that was actually telling the truth about austerity - I couldn't care less whether he was Labour, Green...or even one of the other parties (although, of course, it's against your future career prospects if you disagree with the banking consensus that all banking debt should be socialised - so not likely to be from any other party). That fire and passion seems to have waned - as I said to OBM, I sincerely hope it's my sensitivity to nuance and not a 'turning' to the Rustybodger view. I say again - I couldn't care less whether he's 'Labour' or not...my concern is now as it always has been - the effect policies have on day to day life and having someone, anyone, sticking it to the MSM and telling the truth.

Temulkar wrote:
If Labour offered a genuine socialist alternative rather than tory lite,(I know you tribalists wont like that but to the rest of the left that is all you are)I would happily work with/for them. If Labour adopted a pro environment stance rather than kowtowing to vested interests, I would tear up my Green membership.

...again Tem, where does the backing of GM crops and all the attendant planet-raping differ from 'kowtowing to vested interests'?

Mind you - the Greens don't actually seem to be all that supportive of GM...

FA710 Genetic engineering will not solve the problems created by industrialised agriculture and it may add to them. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) tend to secure large profits for a few multinational companies, rather than making farming easier or more efficient.

...and...

FA720 The Green Party supports a moratorium on the use of GMOs in all agricultural systems including production of human food and animal feed and on importation of GM food or feed. (See AR413, CC254, EU489 and ST364)

FA721 We define GM food as any:

(a) that is genetically modified or includes ingredients from genetically modified crops; or

(b) that is from genetically modified animals; or

(c) that is from animals that have been fed genetically modified feed.

So long as any such food is available in this country, it must be labelled as containing genetically modified ingredients or coming from genetically modified sources.

FA722 The Green Party will establish and uphold the rights of consumers, farmers and local authorities to choose GM-free food and to establish GM-free zones. We will legislate for a strict liability regime which makes biotech (GM seed) companies and GM food producers fully liable for any losses through contamination or harm caused to the environment or human health. (See ST364)

FA723 We will apply the precautionary principle and place strict conditions on research using genetic engineering to ensure that GMOs do not escape, pollinate other plants or cause other damage. (See ST363)

from here - http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/fa.html -

...which makes me a lot happier

Still no constituency party or candidate however...so I'd best move house so that I can vote for them. (Sorry - couldn't resist that!)

...and some links to various ongoing themes...

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liv ... ng-7934674

JFT96

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014 ... CMP=twt_gu

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... es-bolivia

...and on the 'drip drip drip' theme - when I saw this/these...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ation.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29610725

...I thought they were connected to this...

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/trial-six ... rown-court

...but no - it's another (different) trial

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 9:42 am

Ahaa - now I understand what all the talk of preview etc was about...so if my last (far too long a) post has crossed anyone elses' comments, apologies

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 9:56 am

refitman wrote:Tee hee. John Lydon has taken a swipe at the Guardian golden boy:
As I was interviewing him for a Guardian video, he gave that famous Johnny Rotten glare. “The likes of Russell Brand coming along and saying something so damn ignorant is just spoonfeeding it to them” – them, the powerful. “A hundred years ago who could vote here? To have that so easily, so flippantly ignored in that lazy-arsed way, in that ‘I take drugs and tell not very funny jokes’ way, it’s very poor. You have to vote, you have to make a change. You’re given lousy options, yes, but better than nothing at all.”
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ution-vote" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Big fan of JL - completely changed my view of the world in 1976/7 - but...it's the same position as everyone else...'if you don't vote you can't comment/by voting you can effect change'...how, exactly? I've outlined above just one of the anomalies wrt voting in the UK - as I've also said, if Brand had logically progressed his point it would have made a lot more sense - but to condemn him without bothering to see both sides is, in my opinion, quite poor.

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 10:05 am

Separated at birth:

Douglas Carswell

Jonathan King

Are they related; we should be told

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 10:17 am

Marvellous.

There was a specific meeting in 2010 that is being talked about here.

Asked by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the statement by Lord Nash on 9 June (HL Deb, col 167), whether the investigation by the Permanent Secretary of the Department for Education into the handling of the Trojan horse allegations in 2010 will be made public; and what is the timeframe for the report.[HL282]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con): The Secretary of State has asked the Permanent Secretary to conduct an internal review into how the Department for Education dealt with warnings in Birmingham since the formation of this Government in 2010, and before. The Permanent Secretary intends to present his findings to the Secretary of State later in the summer.

And Morgan has just said in committee that the PermSec was asked to look back over 20 years of papers...and guess what?

No answer as yet.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 10:41 am

Morgan just tried to claim that schools in academy trusts were autonomous bodies...and got slapped down by Graham Stuart who said that they weren't remotely autonomous but under direct control of the trusts.

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 10:46 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morgan just tried to claim that schools in academy trusts were autonomous bodies...and got slapped down by Graham Stuart who said that they weren't remotely autonomous but under direct control of the trusts.

So Quasi Autonomous Non Governmental Organisations, then. How's that bonfire going? I've got an idea for a Guy(deon) you can throw on it.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 10:52 am

DonutHingeParty wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:Morgan just tried to claim that schools in academy trusts were autonomous bodies...and got slapped down by Graham Stuart who said that they weren't remotely autonomous but under direct control of the trusts.

So Quasi Autonomous Non Governmental Organisations, then. How's that bonfire going? I've got an idea for a Guy(deon) you can throw on it.

She's really struggling on the oversight of academies - and got the admission arrangements wrong - and even said that she has people in the DfE answering parental complaints!

Utterly mad.

Post by **refitman** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 10:59 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
Lonewolfie wrote:
refitman wrote:Tee hee. John Lydon has taken a swipe at the Guardian golden boy: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ution-vote" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Big fan of JL - completely changed my view of the world in 1976/7 - but...it's the same position as everyone else...'if you don't vote you can't comment/by voting you can effect change'...how, exactly? I've outlined above just one of the anomalies wrt voting in the UK - as I've also said, if Brand had logically progressed his point it would have made a lot more sense - but to condemn him without bothering to see both sides is, in my opinion, quite poor.
IMO Brand's view is that by voting you are complicit in there only being lousy options, amd the only way to effect real change is by revolution. I think in many ways he's right. Even then, though, revolutions tend to get betrayed and taken over by the same sorts of people the revolution was originally against. And now we have global financial markets that can punish any nation that doesn't dance to their tune (which, as an aside, is one reason I feel a Green government would ultimately be as disappointing as the last Labour government - limited room to manoeuvre) so any revolutionary government would quickly find itself running out of money and faced with a choice of hanging on to their principles to the ruin of the country or selling out.

So basically little will ever change.

Personally, I think you should always visit the ballot box, even if it is to spoil your slip (as I did with the PCC elections).

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 11:00 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
Lonewolfie wrote:
refitman wrote:Tee hee. John Lydon has taken a swipe at the Guardian golden boy: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ution-vote" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Big fan of JL - completely changed my view of the world in 1976/7 - but...it's the same position as everyone else...'if you don't vote you can't comment/by voting you can effect change'...how, exactly? I've outlined above just one of the anomalies wrt voting in the UK - as I've also said, if Brand had logically progressed his point it would have made a lot more sense - but to condemn him without bothering to see both sides is, in my opinion, quite poor.
IMO Brand's view is that by voting you are complicit in there only being lousy options, amd the only way to effect real change is by revolution. I think in many ways he's right. Even then, though, revolutions tend to get betrayed and taken over by the same sorts of people the revolution was originally against. And now we have global financial markets that can punish any nation that doesn't dance to their tune (which, as an aside, is one reason I feel a Green government would ultimately be as disappointing as the last Labour government - limited room to manoeuvre) so any revolutionary government would quickly find itself running out of money and faced with a choice of hanging on to their principles to the ruin of the country or selling out.

So basically little will ever change.

The 'running out of money' isn't strictly true though - if the public control the means of production (of money) it would/could be spent in more productive ways (see Evo Morales and a 43% drop in absolute poverty - and, of course, the regulated, controlled capitalism that was in place from 1945 to 1979). I believe(TM) in re-evolution, rather than revolution - as you rightly say, there is no practical possibility of revolution...and anyway, they've taken us quite a long way down the road to a police state over the last 35 years...so surely, the only option is for the change to occur from the inside (of the political system)...and we're back to Miliband again.

The point about the 'global financial markets' is correct atm - but in the real world, how can anyone with an ounce of humanity believe(TM) that the sequence of 000s on a computer screen is more important than human (or animal) life and the guardianship of the planet? Not even the high priest of the Ultra-Neo-Conmen, Mark Carney, believes it any more - he's (along with Lagarde, the World Bank, IMF etc) working on 'new' theories about how they can now get to 'inclusive' capitalism...so they haven't got a clue and are hoping someone will come up with a way of saving the world as they know it. (I'm still trying to get my head around how it is that these supposedly erudite and intelligent people haven't understood the oxymoron of 'inclusive capitalism'

)

As ever, I live in hope, just north of Peterborough.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 11:00 am

Morgan's struggling on Ofsted not being allowed to inspect the academy trust themselves rather than just the schools.

So...Ofsted inspect LAs but not the chains.

It's a nonsense and Stuart's doing well in pointing this out.

Post by **refitman** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 11:00 am

So, Nicola Sturgeon "the Scottish leader no-one voted for"?

(see Brown, G)

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 11:16 am

Peter Oborne giving the government a kicking and William Hague's ''disgusting little committee'' you have to hand it to him, when he's good, he's very good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... t-14102014" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

''There's a particularly grubby individual called Oliver, Craig Oliver''

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 11:16 am

Can I just point out revolutions kill large numbers of people. Anybody who argues for one (when they aren't engaged in hyperbole) should be taken out and shot - to save time.

Policy should be directed at reforming the system to avoid a revolution breaking out.

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 11:22 am

Much disgust with Nick Robinson this morning. Heywood was actually an improvement for Labour.

If we weight the turnout against the last election, Labour's numbers actually increased. What seems to have happened is that most of the 10.5K disillusioned Liberal Democrats just decided to stay at home and read their copies of Russel Brand's book, whereas UKIP managed to wring a whopping 45% out of the Tories and 3K off the BNP whilst (and reluctantly I have to admit this is impressive) mobilising an estimated 5K of people who didn't vote in 2010. Remember even at the height of Tonymania in 1997, when UKIP was little more than a twinkle in Jimmy Goldsmith's eye, the Conservatives still managed to get 12K votes on a 68.4% turnout.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 11:27 am

Peter Allen on 5live has just stopped a tory in mid ramble who used "Labour's Mess" with :

"Oh come on don't lets have that one again - there was a world wide crash you know."

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 11:28 am

Jason Groves in the Daily Mail says the Carr report, being published today, will show that trade unions are using Facebook bullying, violence, inflatable rats and even IRA-style dirty protests to intimidate employers and strike-breakers.

Not . . Not the inflatable rat! Call in the UN!

And I'd be pretty surprised if any trade union sanctioned in any way the smearing of excrement as a legitimate protest.

What he's probably saying is that individuals who happen to be in a trade union have for some reason pooped somewhere they shouldn't, but I don't see that as any more the fault of the union than some of the behaviour associated with individuals involved with a) Scottish Independence or b) UKIP.

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 11:28 am

Velvet Revolution? Orange Revolution? Rose Revolution?

Dance Dance Revolution?

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 11:33 am

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home ... 1413365382" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tata Steel putting several plants and workshops up for sale, especially disappointing as no doubt these are well paid jobs, not that it matters to the ******* in charge, there's never been so many employed they cry, aye, unfortunately more and more are on short hours and low wages, brilliant eh?

In the global race we are winning all over the shop, mostly the race to the bottom of the pile.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 11:35 am

DonutHingeParty wrote:
Jason Groves in the Daily Mail says the Carr report, being published today, will show that trade unions are using Facebook bullying, violence, inflatable rats and even IRA-style dirty protests to intimidate employers and strike-breakers.
Not . . Not the inflatable rat! Call in the UN!

And I'd be pretty surprised if any trade union sanctioned in any way the smearing of excrement as a legitimate protest.

What he's probably saying is that individuals who happen to be in a trade union have for some reason pooped somewhere they shouldn't, but I don't see that as any more the fault of the union than some of the behaviour associated with individuals involved with a) Scottish Independence or b) UKIP.

Did anyone keep a link to that video made by some indy online company, that covered Grangmouth, and proved the BBC had shown parts of one of their video of a different strike as though it was protest at Grangmouth? I lost it when I got the new computer

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 11:39 am

Kinnock compares Osborne to Goebbels, well both were masters of spinning a yarn, or downright lies.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 95636.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 11:41 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:This really is the most pathetic, self-fulfilling piece Little Nicky has yet produced

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29626494" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Ed Miliband facing sustained glare of scrutiny"

At first I thought "Little Nicky" was Mr Beale over at the other place - are the polls currently "stuck" again, btw?

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 11:41 am

AngryAsWell wrote:Peter Allen on 5live has just stopped a tory in mid ramble who used "Labour's Mess" with :

"Oh come on don't lets have that one again - there was a world wide crash you know."

Maybe somebody pointed out he was looking like a Tory stooge. If you are going to be a grumpy old man you have to be so without fear, favour or philosophy.

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 11:41 am

Ah, good old British values, which must be promoted at any costs.

Er, do we have an idea of what they are yet?

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 11:43 am

A month ago Sol Campbell was scribbling furiously about the injustices of the mansion tax, so what does the poor dab go and do, he's put his mansion up for sale, for the sum of £25 million quid!

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10 ... _hp_ref=tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I reckon a whip round is in order?

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 12:18 pm

"An easy Cameron win"

I dunno; I liked Miliband's bit about "I lost a couple of paragraphs of my speech; he lost two MPs [Three if you count Brooks Newmark]"

Post by **adam** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 12:20 pm

DonutHingeParty wrote:"An easy Cameron win"

I dunno; I liked Miliband's bit about "I lost a couple of paragraphs of my speech; he lost two MPs [Three if you count Brooks Newmark]"

Cameron says that is not his view, or the government’s view. He does not need lectures from anyone about looking after disabled people.

What a sickening shit.

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 12:23 pm

And having looked at Freud's interview, I can see some sympathy with what he said; people who want to work and earn their own money, but for whom no amount of support can ever make them competitive with an able bodied person. As they already get an allowance for being unable to hold full time work, it should be possible to "top it up" meaning that they don't lose benefit, and are able to secure a small amount of work.

Unfortunately Cameron wasn't briefed and basically just cut Freud loose to avoid getting into a stand up fight.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 12:24 pm

DonutHingeParty wrote:"An easy Cameron win"

I dunno; I liked Miliband's bit about "I lost a couple of paragraphs of my speech; he lost two MPs [Three if you count Brooks Newmark]"

Yes, that was a good line. Not a PMQs that will live long in the memory, though.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 12:44 pm

From btl AS

outoftouch2010 2m ago
McVey just said they had spent £50 billion a year on the disabled. Hm! Any thoughts

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 12:53 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:From btl AS

outoftouch2010 2m ago
McVey just said they had spent £50 billion a year on the disabled. Hm! Any thoughts

They endlessly repeat this,I have linked previously as to how they come up with this figure.It includes ESA,as,an example which conveniently becomes,not a disability benefit for other propaganda purposes.Two points I would make ,one it is vast cost saving,considering what it covers,and of course totally and utterly irrelevant if a large swathe of people are not receiving eligible allowances in a timely fashion,if at all and their incomes and associated support is being systematically reduced.

JackPranker · Post by **JackPranker** » Wed 15 Oct, 2014 12:54 pm

Getting waaaaaaaay too tribal in here. May I remind folks in here that the election is not about Labour beating the coalition government, it's about installing a government that represents the electorate. Labour may be better suited to do that (to my mind, anyway) but they also need to be held to account as there are plenty within the ranks of the shadow cabinet that would best be consigned to the Bart Simpson blackboard.