FlyTheNest

diGriz wrote:

ErnstRemarx wrote:That article in the Torygraph about Twitter is indeed risible, and I was delighted to see the DT getting an absolute shoeing BTL as parochial, small minded, out of touch (where've I heard that before?) and producing badly researched, badly written tosh to suit the Barclay brothers (and nobody else, I'd wager).

The BTL comments nail it so well that it almost justifies the pile of shit ATL to vocalise all the reasons why the Tories need binning, why Cameron is a truly shit PM and how people are suffering out there because of his and George's fetish for austerity and pain. In George's case, his fetishes apparently run somewhat further, but I'll let Ms. Rowe deal with that....

The media know folk aren't happy with them but they really are pushing the limits of what they can get away with. And they do seem to really fear social media. Twitter is an incredibly powerful tool.

Mike Smithson retweeted
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft · 35m 35 minutes ago
Released tomorrow polling in Doncaster North showing UKIP 2nd so if Tories tactically vote for UKIP Miliband loses #votetorygetlabour!

I have a dream: that white van man and black cab man can live together in harmony
http://tompride.wordpress.com/

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Mike Smithson retweeted
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft · 35m 35 minutes ago
Released tomorrow polling in Doncaster North showing UKIP 2nd so if Tories tactically vote for UKIP Miliband loses #votetorygetlabour!

Operation Disabled Vote: Millions who suffer from disability have power to change politics
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/op ... ho-4694652

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Mike Smithson retweeted
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft · 35m 35 minutes ago
Released tomorrow polling in Doncaster North showing UKIP 2nd so if Tories tactically vote for UKIP Miliband loses #votetorygetlabour!

As I've Tweeted on our behalf, that assumes that all Tory tactical voting would go to UKIP.

In fact there have been lots of anecdotal reports of Tory voters switching to Labour to stop UKIP. Much as I detest the Tories, it's not fair to assume that their voters are all rabid right wingers. Which is Cameron's problem of course.

Spacedone wrote:

diGriz wrote:

ErnstRemarx wrote:That article in the Torygraph about Twitter is indeed risible, and I was delighted to see the DT getting an absolute shoeing BTL as parochial, small minded, out of touch (where've I heard that before?) and producing badly researched, badly written tosh to suit the Barclay brothers (and nobody else, I'd wager).

The BTL comments nail it so well that it almost justifies the pile of shit ATL to vocalise all the reasons why the Tories need binning, why Cameron is a truly shit PM and how people are suffering out there because of his and George's fetish for austerity and pain. In George's case, his fetishes apparently run somewhat further, but I'll let Ms. Rowe deal with that....

The media know folk aren't happy with them but they really are pushing the limits of what they can get away with. And they do seem to really fear social media. Twitter is an incredibly powerful tool.

We've had the 4 days of trying to ignore us and hope we'll go away. Now it looks like the media are on to the dismissive stage where they'll be taking a few of the more obviously offensive tweets and trying to paint the whole thing as if those few tweets are representative.

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Mike Smithson retweeted
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft · 35m 35 minutes ago
Released tomorrow polling in Doncaster North showing UKIP 2nd so if Tories tactically vote for UKIP Miliband loses #votetorygetlabour!

diGriz wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Mike Smithson retweeted
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft · 35m 35 minutes ago
Released tomorrow polling in Doncaster North showing UKIP 2nd so if Tories tactically vote for UKIP Miliband loses #votetorygetlabour!

But is that not true of any vote anywhere in the country? If all Labour voters voted UKIP in Cameron's constituency surely the Cameron would lose.

rebeccariots2 wrote:

I have a dream: that white van man and black cab man can live together in harmony
http://tompride.wordpress.com/

ephemerid wrote:That nice Mr.Dilnot's been writing his letters again, love him.

Full Fact asked the UKSA to clarify how certain types of expenditure should be presented to the public. Sir Andrew wrote back, describing how the original Osborne plan in 2012 to send letters about how their tax was spent included a more detailed breakdown of categories.

The letters sent out are not like that, as we know. There were a few criticisms in Dilnot's response - which was copied to David Gauke.
Story in the Indy.

Poor old Gidiot. Ticked off by the IFS, and now the UKSA. Not going well, is it?

letsskiptotheleft wrote:http://labourlist.org/2014/11/labour-wi ... of-london/

Labour would ask all departments to draw up plans to move some civil service jobs out of London, makes sense, if you really want to be brave Ed move parliament too, yeah I know, way too big an ask.

rebeccariots2 wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:

As I've Tweeted on our behalf, that assumes that all Tory tactical voting would go to UKIP.

In fact there have been lots of anecdotal reports of Tory voters switching to Labour to stop UKIP. Much as I detest the Tories, it's not fair to assume that their voters are all rabid right wingers. Which is Cameron's problem of course.

Yes, there must be some who still want to hug huskies, stop fracking underneath their homes, their loved ones from being stitched up by ATOS and keep the NHS public. I certainly hope so anyway.

Tizme1 wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote: As I've Tweeted on our behalf, that assumes that all Tory tactical voting would go to UKIP.

In fact there have been lots of anecdotal reports of Tory voters switching to Labour to stop UKIP. Much as I detest the Tories, it's not fair to assume that their voters are all rabid right wingers. Which is Cameron's problem of course.

Yes, there must be some who still want to hug huskies, stop fracking underneath their homes, their loved ones from being stitched up by ATOS and keep the NHS public. I certainly hope so anyway.

There are indeed. Some Tories have come over to the Greens - a fact I find a bit disconcerting. What will they make of our 'social polices'?

I have lived here for the best part of 30 years and its always been a marginal seat. I'm used to calculating how the tactical vote will go. But I'm finding it really hard to work out all the permutations now just in Watford, let alone anywhere else. Still, the news on the marginal seats is looking promising for anyone who wants to see the back of this government.

ephemerid wrote:I am actually quite concerned about the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I've just seen a video of him at PMQs today, and he looks absolutely dreadful.

I can't work out if he looks ill or drugged. Which are pretty much the same sort of thing, really, in effect.

Much as I dislike him, my professional eye was drawn to him today as he really looked awful - and much as I dislike him, I hope he's not ill.
He's lost a scary amount of weight, too.

If he's been playing with the Bolivian marching powder again then I'm considerably less sympathetic.

Rebecca wrote:

Tizme1 wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote: Yes, there must be some who still want to hug huskies, stop fracking underneath their homes, their loved ones from being stitched up by ATOS and keep the NHS public. I certainly hope so anyway.

There are indeed. Some Tories have come over to the Greens - a fact I find a bit disconcerting. What will they make of our 'social polices'?

I have lived here for the best part of 30 years and its always been a marginal seat. I'm used to calculating how the tactical vote will go. But I'm finding it really hard to work out all the permutations now just in Watford, let alone anywhere else. Still, the news on the marginal seats is looking promising for anyone who wants to see the back of this government.

Not sure why you find converting tories disconcerting,as they are either in agreement with Green social policies or not interested enough to find out.
Is there a particular type of voter preferred?

ephemerid wrote:That nice Mr.Dilnot's been writing his letters again, love him.

Full Fact asked the UKSA to clarify how certain types of expenditure should be presented to the public. Sir Andrew wrote back, describing how the original Osborne plan in 2012 to send letters about how their tax was spent included a more detailed breakdown of categories.

The letters sent out are not like that, as we know. There were a few criticisms in Dilnot's response - which was copied to David Gauke.
Story in the Indy.

Poor old Gidiot. Ticked off by the IFS, and now the UKSA. Not going well, is it?

citizenJA wrote:Most of us have far more in common with each other than we have differences.

Ludwig Wittgenstein and the Tractatus of talkative Geordies

“Geordies like to talk … allow at least 10 minutes just to buy a newspaper,” advises Harry Pearson (The UK’s best city: in praise of Newcastle upon Tyne, theguardian.com, 22 November). Wittgenstein worked as a lab assistant in Newcastle’s Royal Victoria Infirmary during the war. His Jesmond landlady said he was chatty in the morning, to the annoyance of the other lodgers, but morose in the evenings. From the poem “Geordie Henderson replies to the biographer of Ludwig Wittgenstein” (Mugs Rite, Bay Press, 1996), by the recently late poet, eccentric and bibliophile Mike Wilkin: “Div aa knaa oot more / aboot him? Fella, arl else / aa remember, is that / the only gala time / aa got im near a pint, / knaaing he was a Delphi / Oracle, aa askt him / if the Magpies would ever / climb back to the Shangri-La / of Division One. And he wrote / doon arl magisterially / on a raggy beer mat / (which is clagged-up / in wor netty yet!) / “Whereof one cannot spowt / Thereof one must say nowt.”
Joan Hewitt (@TurkishBathsNCL)
Tynemouth

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

citizenJA wrote:Most of us have far more in common with each other than we have differences.

Yes, but arguably at a DNA level that is also true of us and cabbage.

citizenJA wrote:

ephemerid wrote:I am actually quite concerned about the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I've just seen a video of him at PMQs today, and he looks absolutely dreadful.

I can't work out if he looks ill or drugged. Which are pretty much the same sort of thing, really, in effect.

Much as I dislike him, my professional eye was drawn to him today as he really looked awful - and much as I dislike him, I hope he's not ill.
He's lost a scary amount of weight, too.

If he's been playing with the Bolivian marching powder again then I'm considerably less sympathetic.

I felt the same way, Ephemerid when I had a look at him. He's breaking himself, I think.

Theresa May accused of personally delaying critical reports on immigration
Chief inspector of borders and immigration claims his role is being compromised as the home secretary sits on findings

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

citizenJA wrote:Most of us have far more in common with each other than we have differences.

Yes, but arguably at a DNA level that is also true of us and cabbage.

Tizme1 wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:@Tizme
You asked for help with a Labour policy on young unemployed. I tried to help you by explaining that JSA was not just being taken away but would be replaced by a Youth Allowance, with conditions, and a brief explanation as to why that was better than JSA (being able to go back to collage without financial penalty)
You then turned the argument into adult unemployed, people who have worked for 7 years and 40k plus earnings not being enough to support a child for an extra couple of years whilst they get on their feet. You ended by saying
"I don't think you answered why a uni student should get into 30k+ debt while their peer/sibling was paid to continue studying. Nor did you answer at what age an individual becomes a citizen in their own right."
No I didn't, because I was answering the question you originally asked, not a subset of "what if's".
The 40K (or 44K not sure which) parents earnings is on a sliding scale, which has been based on the current University Maintenance Grant
"Full-time students are also eligible for grants to help with living costs, which you do not have to repay. If your household/parents’ income is less than £25,000, you will be eligible for a full Maintenance Grant of £3,354 a year. If your household/parents’ income is £25,000-£42,611, you will be eligible for a partial grant (i.e. a lesser amount). Maintenance Grants are not available to part-time students. - See more at: http://www.offa.org.uk/students/frequen ... 38Z7W.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; "
The proposed Youth Allowance, which is basically to encourage kids to study rather than hang out on JSA, is the equivalent of the maintenance grant a student (who's parents earn less than 40k) can apply for - on a sliding scale - and is actually putting young unemployed on a par with uni students, in that they too can study to improve their futures.
University Fees are a different subject.
"I" (that's me personally) think for education/benefits purposes we should be at least be partially responsible for our children for as long as they need our help, and I don't see a cut off time when a birthday changes that. Whilst I appreciate the middle class on 40k plus per year might feel squeezed, somehow I can't seem to work up the same level of sympathy for them as I do for those forced to use food banks. As I said if they can't help out their own child for an extra couple of years then maybe they should think of selling the second car or miss a few catch a film and meal evening out's.

I am not a Labour spokes person, I was simply attempting to help you with a question you had, and would have been more than happy to leave this at the point I stated last night which was "I think we will have to agree to differ on this one".

On Monday I asked about a particular Labour policy due to a blog I had read. You gave a very helpful response. As did a couple of other posters. My response was effectively 'oh good I'm glad I hadn't totally misremembered or indeed missed an important announcement all together'.

Tuesday morning yahyah asked whether I would be contacting the author of the blog to correct them. I said I hadn't book marked it but would be trying to find it again to double check exactly what had been written and if the author had said that Labour planned to remove all benefits for under 25's I would correct them, but if they had merely said Labour were proposing stopping JSA for under 25's then that was true. I also explained why, I didn't agree with that as a policy.

You then joined the conversation. You gave your point of view. I responded with mine.

Most parents continue to help their children pretty much as long as their alive. You keep on about helping out their 'child'. I was talking about how it could be difficult if they have more than one child. You sneeringly say they could sell the second car despite the fact I gave a very clear set of circumstances that did not involve a second car.

My own income is closer to those needing the food bank than it is to 40K a year. However, I don't think policy should only be decided on the basis of those who are absolutely the worst off or that sympathy and empathy should be reserved for the worst cases only. If you had a boil on your bum, it wouldn't hurt any less if I told you I had a broken arm.

My fundamental objection is this policy is saying young people between 18 and 25 are not full adults. Despite of course them being 'full adults' when it comes to paying taxes if they are in work.

We may indeed have to agree to differ but that doesn't mean I can't state my point of view. Especially when it wasn't me who raised the subject again.

AngryAsWell wrote:

Tizme1 wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:@Tizme
You asked for help with a Labour policy on young unemployed. I tried to help you by explaining that JSA was not just being taken away but would be replaced by a Youth Allowance, with conditions, and a brief explanation as to why that was better than JSA (being able to go back to collage without financial penalty)
You then turned the argument into adult unemployed, people who have worked for 7 years and 40k plus earnings not being enough to support a child for an extra couple of years whilst they get on their feet. You ended by saying
"I don't think you answered why a uni student should get into 30k+ debt while their peer/sibling was paid to continue studying. Nor did you answer at what age an individual becomes a citizen in their own right."
No I didn't, because I was answering the question you originally asked, not a subset of "what if's".
The 40K (or 44K not sure which) parents earnings is on a sliding scale, which has been based on the current University Maintenance Grant
"Full-time students are also eligible for grants to help with living costs, which you do not have to repay. If your household/parents’ income is less than £25,000, you will be eligible for a full Maintenance Grant of £3,354 a year. If your household/parents’ income is £25,000-£42,611, you will be eligible for a partial grant (i.e. a lesser amount). Maintenance Grants are not available to part-time students. - See more at: http://www.offa.org.uk/students/frequen ... 38Z7W.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; "
The proposed Youth Allowance, which is basically to encourage kids to study rather than hang out on JSA, is the equivalent of the maintenance grant a student (who's parents earn less than 40k) can apply for - on a sliding scale - and is actually putting young unemployed on a par with uni students, in that they too can study to improve their futures.
University Fees are a different subject.
"I" (that's me personally) think for education/benefits purposes we should be at least be partially responsible for our children for as long as they need our help, and I don't see a cut off time when a birthday changes that. Whilst I appreciate the middle class on 40k plus per year might feel squeezed, somehow I can't seem to work up the same level of sympathy for them as I do for those forced to use food banks. As I said if they can't help out their own child for an extra couple of years then maybe they should think of selling the second car or miss a few catch a film and meal evening out's.

I am not a Labour spokes person, I was simply attempting to help you with a question you had, and would have been more than happy to leave this at the point I stated last night which was "I think we will have to agree to differ on this one".

On Monday I asked about a particular Labour policy due to a blog I had read. You gave a very helpful response. As did a couple of other posters. My response was effectively 'oh good I'm glad I hadn't totally misremembered or indeed missed an important announcement all together'.

Tuesday morning yahyah asked whether I would be contacting the author of the blog to correct them. I said I hadn't book marked it but would be trying to find it again to double check exactly what had been written and if the author had said that Labour planned to remove all benefits for under 25's I would correct them, but if they had merely said Labour were proposing stopping JSA for under 25's then that was true. I also explained why, I didn't agree with that as a policy.

You then joined the conversation. You gave your point of view. I responded with mine.

Most parents continue to help their children pretty much as long as their alive. You keep on about helping out their 'child'. I was talking about how it could be difficult if they have more than one child. You sneeringly say they could sell the second car despite the fact I gave a very clear set of circumstances that did not involve a second car.

My own income is closer to those needing the food bank than it is to 40K a year. However, I don't think policy should only be decided on the basis of those who are absolutely the worst off or that sympathy and empathy should be reserved for the worst cases only. If you had a boil on your bum, it wouldn't hurt any less if I told you I had a broken arm.

My fundamental objection is this policy is saying young people between 18 and 25 are not full adults. Despite of course them being 'full adults' when it comes to paying taxes if they are in work.

We may indeed have to agree to differ but that doesn't mean I can't state my point of view. Especially when it wasn't me who raised the subject again.

I was going to let this die but on re reading it seems I've misled you, for which I unreservedly apologise.
The Youth Allowance will be for 18 -21 year olds who do not have a basic level of education.
"The funding is reminiscent of the education maintenance allowance (EMA), introduced in September 2004 under the previous Labour government, which saw 16- to 18-year-olds in college or training receive up to £30 a week depending on their household incomes"
http://www.cypnow.co.uk/cyp/news/114492 ... -allowance" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"We will ensure that every jobseeker is assessed for basic English, maths and IT skills. Anyone lacking basic skills would be offered training to improve their chances of finding a job – training that they would be required to take up or lose benefits."
http://www.labour.org.uk/issues/detail/young-people" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The jobs guarantee scheme will be for 18 to 24 year old who has been claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance for more than a year, and for every adult aged 25 and over who has been claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance for more than two years.
• Labour will guarantee a real, paid, starter job to every 18 to 24 year old who has been claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance for more than a year, and for every adult aged 25 and over who has been claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance for more than two years. These would be jobs people would be required to take, or else risk losing their benefits. We’ll pay for this with a tax on bank bonuses and by restricting pension tax relief for the wealthiest.
(This is based around the Welsh jobs guarantee scheme)
http://www.labour.org.uk/issues/detail/young-people" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Additionally "proper" apprenticeships will be developed (with input from industry) for 16 to 19-year-olds, whilst they studying for the proposed Technical Baccalaureate
http://www.labour.org.uk/issues/detail/ ... rgotten-50" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Again, apologies for giving some wrong info on this, hope its clearer now.

citizenJA wrote:Most of us have far more in common with each other than we have differences.

Tizme1 wrote:

citizenJA wrote:Most of us have far more in common with each other than we have differences.

Very true.

Not sure this has been linked to but it cheered me up. Ed may not be the leader of my chosen party but I do have some admiration for him. If this article is correct then it gives me hope.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... -own-terms" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:boo

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 12m12 minutes ago
CON takes 1% lead with YouGov
CON 33 LAB 32 LD 6 UKP 16 GRN 7

adam wrote:I seem to have the proper poorly version of whatever Osbourne has given himself, I need some honey and lemon and I'm out of lemons. I'm not sure which of you is closest but if someone could pop round with a couple that would be lovely. *sniff*

adam wrote:I seem to have the proper poorly version of whatever Osbourne has given himself, I need some honey and lemon and I'm out of lemons. I'm not sure which of you is closest but if someone could pop round with a couple that would be lovely. *sniff*

adam wrote:I seem to have the proper poorly version of whatever Osbourne has given himself, I need some honey and lemon and I'm out of lemons. I'm not sure which of you is closest but if someone could pop round with a couple that would be lovely. *sniff*

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 85725.html

miliband-ally-lord-wood-leads-condemnation-of-daily-express-over-its-definition-of-hidden-migrants

AngryAsWell wrote:LabourLordsUK ‏@LabourLordsUK · 5 hrs5 hours ago
Even 4 Tory Peers joined with us to ban #paydayloans ads before 9pm watershed but 72 LibDems helped vote it down http://bit.ly/1hMQqLn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;