Saturday 25th & Sunday 26th October 2014

[AngryAsWell]

Hadn't seen Labour's Lyons Report on housebuilding.

Seems to have got a decent reception. Obvious problem that council's cap on borrowing won't be lifted, per Ed Balls, whose point I can see. But it's a mistake.

Council's do things different these days ...

Simultaneously, the council has set up a partnership with the Homes and Communities Agency, known as Manchester Place, which will aim to entice investment, assemble land and look for landowners to bring forward plots at identified ‘investment action areas’. This could also mean using compulsory purchase powers.

http://www.socialhousing.co.uk/manchest ... 06.article" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...and

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... st-7702971" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AngryAsWell]

The Lyons Housing Review - full doc
http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/e ... view_2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ErnstRemarx]

Hi all, still reading and lurking. My new job is challenging beyond belief - I have one more week with the incumbent manager who's going on a round the world trek - and then I'm on my own...

The number of subjects that I have to make sure I know: Active Directory, pivot tables, various import/export routines, cloud based email spam software and a Progress based ERP system (amongst the highlights) is absolutely terrifying. At the moment I'm reconsidering atheism on the basis that even vague promises of help from the supernatural might be handy.

Thanks to everyone who keeps posting. You're all stars. Keep kicking your local CLP (where appropriate). If enough of us get stuck Labour will change, as it will have to. I bet UKIP's recent rah-rahing and successes have turned the tables on the Blairites. No point tacking further rightwards, so where to go..? Answers on a postcard please.

Hello Ernst. Good to hear from you. Alive and definitely kicking here.

What is this extremely complicated / techy sounding job?

I'm the new IT/sysems manager for a firm in Oldham. The incumbent has been there 10 years and built the whole thing from scratch. I've had last week and this one coming to learn the whole dame set up. Scared much? Er, yeah, lots. Please send your good vibes in my direction. I'm trying not to run out screaming in panic, but everything new I'm shown really is both new and panic worthy.

Still, nice challenge as long as (a) I don't manifest abject panic and betray abject inability, and, (b) they don't figure out I don't know what the fuck I'm doing...

[ErnstRemarx]

Hi all, still reading and lurking. My new job is challenging beyond belief - I have one more week with the incumbent manager who's going on a round the world trek - and then I'm on my own...

The number of subjects that I have to make sure I know: Active Directory, pivot tables, various import/export routines, cloud based email spam software and a Progress based ERP system (amongst the highlights) is absolutely terrifying. At the moment I'm reconsidering atheism on the basis that even vague promises of help from the supernatural might be handy.

I used to hate pivot tables but since Excel 2010 came out they've been a doddle.

The theory's fine, when you see examples with about 3-4 columns and a couple of rows. Multiply up a dozen or more times in all directions with regard to ERP file downloads whose purpose is still vague to you and you get the idea. I've worked on ERP systems for years, but this is so niche as to defy instant understanding.

It's the network that scares me most. And all the rest of it, that's scary shit too. Oh well, best foot forward and pray I can learn enough before the current manager disappears...

[HindleA]

@ErnstRemarx


Sending good vibes.

[ErnstRemarx]

Now to make myself really unpopular!
In a proper football match it was a superb game and the best Manchester United performance for a since the end of season 2012-2013.
I'll duck now!

Hey, don't go.

I agree it was the best we've played this season & the point feels like a win, such was my belief that we were going to get dicked 4-0 !

City away next - gulp

I'd been out door knocking so caught most of the first half before coming home. United looked much better than I've seen them for a while (and Chelski looked a bit ragged to be honest), but I had the impression that neither side were looking that good.

I know that City were beaten yesterday, but I get the feeling they'l knock the shit out of the rags over at the Etihad. Chelsea's midfield is so-so and there's only really Drogba upfront. City are a different proposition in that respect, and even given the parlous Chelsea defence today - how they didn't concede in the 1st half, I don't know - City's defence will be somewhat harder to crack, assuming Kompany's not away with the fairies.

United's main weakness is, as it has been for ages, a horribly porous defence. Against the limited output from Chelsea, they managed to contain it. If City are anything like on form, the end result could be very unpleasant for United fans. We shall see. I might even watch the whole match.

[LadyCentauria]

Had a delicious Sunday roast dinner, now sat on the sofa in front of the fire watching Quatermass [[Sp?] and the Pit. Or at least that's what Mr Ohso said it was called.

Hate the darker days, but sometimes there are compensations.

Yes, there are - I agree with that. For one thing it allows me to indulge and imagine indulging in all kinds of 'heartier' meals. I've been sitting here pondering what I can conjure up for tonight that justifies me making onion gravy .... just got that craving.

It's my birthday today but I'm not letting Mr Riots near the kitchen. His latest culinary episode - 2 nights ago - left the kitchen and me feeling rather battered. He was late to start ... a typical and usually ominous sign. Then - already quite hungry - I heard a series of expletives which got louder and louder. I put my head into the kitchen - 'the f****ing bottled gas has run out' was snarled at me. I withdrew. (The bottled gas lasts for years - so, yes, a pretty bad catch on the rare night he cooks.) A short while later more expletives and serious bashing sounds. I ventured into the kitchen doorway. He was kicking at the vent system on the Rayburn, slamming down the hotplate lids and hissed at me 'f****ing Rayburn, why does it always take so long to rev up'. I suggested it might be quicker to use our camping hotplate (proved invaluable on anti cull duties ...). Incoherent hiss - something along the lines of - yes, I'm not daft, I can work that out for myself thank you, I'm doing it my way and won't be opting for that now unless it's an absolute last resort ...

Shortly afterwards I heard the flick, flick of the camping hotplate being lit.

I would have eaten virtually anything - and said not a word about it - by the time it was delivered. And I did.

Happy Birthday

[Tubby Isaacs]

Hadn't seen Labour's Lyons Report on housebuilding.

Seems to have got a decent reception. Obvious problem that council's cap on borrowing won't be lifted, per Ed Balls, whose point I can see. But it's a mistake.

Council's do things different these days ...

Simultaneously, the council has set up a partnership with the Homes and Communities Agency, known as Manchester Place, which will aim to entice investment, assemble land and look for landowners to bring forward plots at identified ‘investment action areas’. This could also mean using compulsory purchase powers.

http://www.socialhousing.co.uk/manchest ... 06.article" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...and

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... st-7702971" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you. But wouldn't it be improved by raising the borrowing cap? Make it dependent on good audits, if you like.

Also, can you find any comprehensive figures for social homes built under Labour before? For good or ill, housing associations rather than councils did it. Quite a lot were built within a hundred yards of my house (albeit some replacing an awful run down block).

[AngryAsWell]

Hadn't seen Labour's Lyons Report on housebuilding.

Seems to have got a decent reception. Obvious problem that council's cap on borrowing won't be lifted, per Ed Balls, whose point I can see. But it's a mistake.

Council's do things different these days ...

Simultaneously, the council has set up a partnership with the Homes and Communities Agency, known as Manchester Place, which will aim to entice investment, assemble land and look for landowners to bring forward plots at identified ‘investment action areas’. This could also mean using compulsory purchase powers.

http://www.socialhousing.co.uk/manchest ... 06.article" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...and

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... st-7702971" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you. But wouldn't it be improved by raising the borrowing cap? Make it dependent on good audits, if you like.

Also, can you find any comprehensive figures for social homes built under Labour before? For good or ill, housing associations rather than councils did it. Quite a lot were built within a hundred yards of my house (albeit some replacing an awful run down block).

On a quick look I found this
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/labours ... ecord-1455" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The plans Manchester have don't involve the council's borrowing (apart from a little from council pensions that will make a good investment, so I've read) they are entering partnerships where they provide the land and (various) builders do the building. The builders can sell "their" houses whilst the council retain "their" ones to rent.
Its more complicated than that (!) but that's the jist of it - I think... Maybe Ernst might know more?
I'll see if I can find the original article I read about it.

[AngryAsWell]

Council's do things different these days ...
http://www.socialhousing.co.uk/manchest ... 06.article" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...and

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... st-7702971" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you. But wouldn't it be improved by raising the borrowing cap? Make it dependent on good audits, if you like.

Also, can you find any comprehensive figures for social homes built under Labour before? For good or ill, housing associations rather than councils did it. Quite a lot were built within a hundred yards of my house (albeit some replacing an awful run down block).

On a quick look I found this
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/labours ... ecord-1455" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The plans Manchester have don't involve the council's borrowing (apart from a little from council pensions that will make a good investment, so I've read) they are entering partnerships where they provide the land and (various) builders do the building. The builders can sell "their" houses whilst the council retain "their" ones to rent.
Its more complicated than that (!) but that's the jist of it - I think... Maybe Ernst might know more?
I'll see if I can find the original article I read about it.

This might help
"Matrix Homes is an exciting new development company formed as a partnership between Manchester City Council (MCC), Greater Manchester Pension Fund (GMPF) and the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), collaborating on this first of a kind project to boost home building in the city.
The development model uses available land owned by Manchester City Council, including a site offered by the HCA, while an investor – in this case the Greater Manchester Pension Fund – finances the build. The aim is to stimulate home building, while reducing the usual risks associated with a development – minimising the overheads for a contractor, who will also have no sales risk. "

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/news/artic ... manchester" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...and
£47m funding to bring hundreds of affordable homes to Manchester
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/news/artic ... manchester" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tubby Isaacs]

Jesus, this man is an arsehole.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... 68#rlabs=6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So what we’re seeing across Manchester are serious rapists being charged with taxi offences or being hassled for selling the wrong cigarettes from their newsagent.

Just think about that for a second. Imagine the courage it must take a teenage rape victim to go to the police and relive their ordeal in order to get police to intervene and bring rapists to justice.

Imagine once they’ve been interviewed, gone through every graphic detail and clung to the single hope that officers will act on their information. Months pass and then, finally, they get a phone call. ‘Ms Jones? It’s Greater Manchester Police here.

'We’ve got your rapist. You’ll be pleased to hear we’ve taken his taxi licence.’


Sir Peter is sending out a dreadful message and effectively admitting that the rapists have won. Not only that, he’s compromising the safety of young people, demeaning serious crimes and emboldening rapists.

Child abuse is getting worse under Sir Peter’s watch and it’s becoming clearer every week that he’s not up to the job.

The Police's most serious historic mistake was not taking the complainant seriously. In this scenario, they are doing that but don't think the evidence is strong enough in the meantime. They're throwing the book at them on what they can prove.

If you're so sure child abuse is getting worse, go and share the evidence with him. I'm guessing you haven't and won't.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Sarah Champion also represents an area where police haven't been very successful at prosecuting grooming offences. Can you imagine her writing this drivel?

[frightful_oik]

Pah! All this talk about a rubbish match between two rubbish teams. Bet you didn't have this in your game today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH4sh6itVFw
Magic!

[ErnstRemarx]

Council's do things different these days ...
http://www.socialhousing.co.uk/manchest ... 06.article" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...and

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... st-7702971" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you. But wouldn't it be improved by raising the borrowing cap? Make it dependent on good audits, if you like.

Also, can you find any comprehensive figures for social homes built under Labour before? For good or ill, housing associations rather than councils did it. Quite a lot were built within a hundred yards of my house (albeit some replacing an awful run down block).

On a quick look I found this
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/labours ... ecord-1455" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The plans Manchester have don't involve the council's borrowing (apart from a little from council pensions that will make a good investment, so I've read) they are entering partnerships where they provide the land and (various) builders do the building. The builders can sell "their" houses whilst the council retain "their" ones to rent.
Its more complicated than that (!) but that's the jist of it - I think... Maybe Ernst might know more?
I'll see if I can find the original article I read about it.

It's an interesting heads up - and one that should have alarm bells sounding at Labour party HQ. We aren't building enough homes, full stop. Fact. I [ersonally find it shameful that nobody in the party hierarchy is putting this forward as an absolutle must do.

If we build, we employ people; if we employ, we start circulating money; if houses are the output, rents are the subsequent input. I don't understand why the party isn't screaming (collectively) for a massive state run house building scheme. If the private sector wishes to participate (before rental income declines) then that's up to them, but it should be made clear that this is social engineeringo for the poorest and those who are most disadvantaged.

Want to see the 'rising tide' in reverse? Build shedloads of housing, bulk out tax income and what the economy grow. It's so fuckng obvious that I don't understand what the party leadership have against it. It's win-win all the way. Ah well, I am but a Labour councillor...

[Tubby Isaacs]

On a quick look I found this
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/labours ... ecord-1455" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The plans Manchester have don't involve the council's borrowing (apart from a little from council pensions that will make a good investment, so I've read) they are entering partnerships where they provide the land and (various) builders do the building. The builders can sell "their" houses whilst the council retain "their" ones to rent.
Its more complicated than that (!) but that's the jist of it - I think... Maybe Ernst might know more?
I'll see if I can find the original article I read about it.[/quote]

Thank you. Those are quite poor overall figures. Though if I were them I'd be a bit cynical about building homes that the other lot would just come along and sell, and bank the proceeds. And of course local government control makes a difference, which Labour progressively lost loads of.

But clearly there was more to it than that, just not a high enough priority for them.

Aren't the privately rented houses in that scheme aimed at professionals? Which doesn't mean they won't be reasonably affordable of course, unlike the nonsense of what passes for that in London.

[AngryAsWell]

Thank you. But wouldn't it be improved by raising the borrowing cap? Make it dependent on good audits, if you like.

Also, can you find any comprehensive figures for social homes built under Labour before? For good or ill, housing associations rather than councils did it. Quite a lot were built within a hundred yards of my house (albeit some replacing an awful run down block).

On a quick look I found this
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/labours ... ecord-1455" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The plans Manchester have don't involve the council's borrowing (apart from a little from council pensions that will make a good investment, so I've read) they are entering partnerships where they provide the land and (various) builders do the building. The builders can sell "their" houses whilst the council retain "their" ones to rent.
Its more complicated than that (!) but that's the jist of it - I think... Maybe Ernst might know more?
I'll see if I can find the original article I read about it.

It's an interesting heads up - and one that should have alarm bells sounding at Labour party HQ. We aren't building enough homes, full stop. Fact. I [ersonally find it shameful that nobody in the party hierarchy is putting this forward as an absolutle must do.

If we build, we employ people; if we employ, we start circulating money; if houses are the output, rents are the subsequent input. I don't understand why the party isn't screaming (collectively) for a massive state run house building scheme. If the private sector wishes to participate (before rental income declines) then that's up to them, but it should be made clear that this is social engineeringo for the poorest and those who are most disadvantaged.

Want to see the 'rising tide' in reverse? Build shedloads of housing, bulk out tax income and what the economy grow. It's so fuckng obvious that I don't understand what the party leadership have against it. It's win-win all the way. Ah well, I am but a Labour councillor...

Sorry Ernst but this is all about building houses, and Manchester is a Labour council still ?
This was the announcement in 2012
Published date : 27 September 2012
A plan to boost home building in Manchester – the first initiative of its kind in the country – has been agreed this week that will make new homes more affordable for Manchester residents.
https://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/n ... manchester" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
They are funding them from their own pension funds instead of borrowing, the houses get built and the council gets a long term return on the investment.
Labour have said they will build houses. Its on the web site.

[Tubby Isaacs]

It's an interesting heads up - and one that should have alarm bells sounding at Labour party HQ. We aren't building enough homes, full stop. Fact. I [ersonally find it shameful that nobody in the party hierarchy is putting this forward as an absolutle must do.

If we build, we employ people; if we employ, we start circulating money; if houses are the output, rents are the subsequent input. I don't understand why the party isn't screaming (collectively) for a massive state run house building scheme. If the private sector wishes to participate (before rental income declines) then that's up to them, but it should be made clear that this is social engineeringo for the poorest and those who are most disadvantaged.

Want to see the 'rising tide' in reverse? Build shedloads of housing, bulk out tax income and what the economy grow. It's so fuckng obvious that I don't understand what the party leadership have against it. It's win-win all the way. Ah well, I am but a Labour councillor...

Well one reason which would be in my mind is that you'd be building it, running up the debt, getting the shit, and the other lot would come along and sell it and use it for tax cuts.

It's a massive advantage the right has in budget terms. Probably gets the vote of the person who buys the house at a discount too, as happened with lots in the 80s and early 90s.

And the media will talk about improving the public finances. Even when selling something at a discount.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Looking at that Fullfact link. Amazing Hunt didn't mention how his pals would boost Right To Buy and cut the housing grant, isn't it?

[AngryAsWell]

On a quick look I found this
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/labours ... ecord-1455" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The plans Manchester have don't involve the council's borrowing (apart from a little from council pensions that will make a good investment, so I've read) they are entering partnerships where they provide the land and (various) builders do the building. The builders can sell "their" houses whilst the council retain "their" ones to rent.
Its more complicated than that (!) but that's the jist of it - I think... Maybe Ernst might know more?
I'll see if I can find the original article I read about it.

Thank you. Those are quite poor overall figures. Though if I were them I'd be a bit cynical about building homes that the other lot would just come along and sell, and bank the proceeds. And of course local government control makes a difference, which Labour progressively lost loads of.

But clearly there was more to it than that, just not a high enough priority for them.

Aren't the privately rented houses in that scheme aimed at professionals? Which doesn't mean they won't be reasonably affordable of course, unlike the nonsense of what passes for that in London.[/quote]

(quotes gone funny, so editing)
Those that are sold will be sold 20% under market price (I've just read somewhere), others will be retained for social rent - bringing mixed communities back. Manchester are pretty canny, If they are investing from the pensions arm those "loan" houses will belong to the pensions fund, not the council, and so any incoming council will not be able to touch them, let alone sell them.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Hi all, still reading and lurking. My new job is challenging beyond belief - I have one more week with the incumbent manager who's going on a round the world trek - and then I'm on my own...

The number of subjects that I have to make sure I know: Active Directory, pivot tables, various import/export routines, cloud based email spam software and a Progress based ERP system (amongst the highlights) is absolutely terrifying. At the moment I'm reconsidering atheism on the basis that even vague promises of help from the supernatural might be handy.

I used to hate pivot tables but since Excel 2010 came out they've been a doddle.

The theory's fine, when you see examples with about 3-4 columns and a couple of rows. Multiply up a dozen or more times in all directions with regard to ERP file downloads whose purpose is still vague to you and you get the idea. I've worked on ERP systems for years, but this is so niche as to defy instant understanding.

It's the network that scares me most. And all the rest of it, that's scary shit too. Oh well, best foot forward and pray I can learn enough before the current manager disappears...

The network will be simple, it always is in cloudy LAN type environments. It will also just work (until it doesn't).

Remember the Cisco website is your friend. Search for just about anything there will be a paper on it.

[AngryAsWell]

A Labour government will get 200,000 homes built a year by 2020
http://www.labour.org.uk/issues/detail/house-building" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A Labour government will support renters with longer-term tenancies and banning rip-off letting fees

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

[Spacedone]

Another of those Westminster never done a proper job in their life sorts selected.

http://www.harryharpham.com/about_me" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ex striking miner (and in Nottinghamshire) and Deputy Leader of Sheffield Council.

It's my constituency and Harpham doesn't really inspire me to be honest. But then again my opinion is probably being clouded because he had the unfortunate task of presiding over the death of the public service I used to work for when the Coalition took practically all the funding away. Not his fault but it still leaves a negative feeling.

Owen Jones apparently likes him though.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Hadn't seen this, hidden away in the Fallon story.

Ukip will seek to capitalise on a surge in support by targeting 100 seats at the general election, it emerged. Paul Sykes, the party’s biggest donor, has indicated he will hand over another £1.5m to help widen its ambitions.

If that's indeed extra money, it could make a difference.

And Paul Sykes? Surely not the same one who gave the Tories a load of money before?

UKIPCon

[giselle97]

Happy Birthday RebeccaRiots2. Commiserations on doing tax return prep though!

I read this comment by Whetherby Pond 23/10 on a G article and he/she got what I was thinking about Clegg - who I hold responsible for raising the vile snakes from the pit.

Clegg, the disgusting little man who pimped out his Party to the Conservatives, and now faces annihilation at the polls in May. I hope UKIP'S midwife chokes on his Chardonnay come election time.

I'm with those.who would make a big noise and also resign if Ed Miliband is stabbed in the back. And yes, Ed Balls should be moved preferably out of the country - Timbuktu would be OK with me.

And Caroline Lucas can go there as well after her shifty and uncalled for words this am.

[giselle97]

I love constructing Pivot Tables Ernst - made money out of doing them too - when it wasn't a doddle!

[Tubby Isaacs]

Happy Birthday Rebecca!

[giselle97]

@refiitman Happy new home. I could have helped out with "stuff" for you had I known. So much I've disposed of as exercise in "clearing out" but I still have unknown stuff in storage. Have rental coming up at beginning of December which is worth waiting for to give me breathing space whilst I decide where to buy - having real trouble finding something smaller!

Heh, who knows but it may be time to get out of UK come May!

[rebeccariots2]

Tim Montgomerie @montie · 36m 36 minutes ago
So good. No paywall for @mortenmorland's cartoon on Cameron's Thatcher moment http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/a ... .ece#tab-4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

[LadyCentauria]

In celebration of the Centre for Social Justice
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetory ... stice.html

... IDS’s elevation is, in many ways, the CSJ’s. From the Universal Credit to tackling modern slavery to measuring “social value”, their work now inflects whole sections of the Government’s policy agenda. And, increasingly, it’s former CSJ staff who are called on to implement it. There’s a case that they have been the most influential think-tank of this Parliament. They are certainly the most necessary: a corrective to the persistent idea that the Tories are a party of, for and by the rich.

What next? One challenge that the CSJ might face in 2015 is a change of government. They will surely influence any Tory Party that emerges from the next election, but could they do the same for a Labour administration too? Their work is non-partisan, and much of emerges from their conversations with those in the charitable sector, so it should retain its potency. But the question remains whether Miliband & Co. will be able to see beyond the associations with IDS.

A second challenge is that of implementation. The CSJ cannot be blamed for Universal Credit’s difficult progress through Whitehall’s computer systems. No siree, that’s government’s fault. But there may be something in the idea of think-tanks working more closely with civil servants, or former civil servants, as they develop their ideas. The Dynamic Benefits report could barely have been more detailed, so I only mean this as a general point. It’s just that think-tanks do want to have their polices put into practice...

Worth reading as a bit of insight into how others perceive their actions and consequences ... might have equally graced Lib Dem Voice.

Read that as ...their work now infects whole sections of.... I cannot even begin with the rest of it...

[rebeccariots2]

In celebration of the Centre for Social Justice
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetory ... stice.html

... IDS’s elevation is, in many ways, the CSJ’s. From the Universal Credit to tackling modern slavery to measuring “social value”, their work now inflects whole sections of the Government’s policy agenda. And, increasingly, it’s former CSJ staff who are called on to implement it. There’s a case that they have been the most influential think-tank of this Parliament. They are certainly the most necessary: a corrective to the persistent idea that the Tories are a party of, for and by the rich.

What next? One challenge that the CSJ might face in 2015 is a change of government. They will surely influence any Tory Party that emerges from the next election, but could they do the same for a Labour administration too? Their work is non-partisan, and much of emerges from their conversations with those in the charitable sector, so it should retain its potency. But the question remains whether Miliband & Co. will be able to see beyond the associations with IDS.

A second challenge is that of implementation. The CSJ cannot be blamed for Universal Credit’s difficult progress through Whitehall’s computer systems. No siree, that’s government’s fault. But there may be something in the idea of think-tanks working more closely with civil servants, or former civil servants, as they develop their ideas. The Dynamic Benefits report could barely have been more detailed, so I only mean this as a general point. It’s just that think-tanks do want to have their polices put into practice...

Worth reading as a bit of insight into how others perceive their actions and consequences ... might have equally graced Lib Dem Voice.

Read that as ...their work now infects whole sections of.... I cannot even begin with the rest of it...

Yes - it's a strange choice of word. I had to look twice. The whole thing is what I call a 'baggy' read.

[rebeccariots2]

I've just read Boris Johnson's Torygraph piece on Russell Brand and how he is showing up Labour;s failure to ignite the support of the left .... I wish I hadn't.