Saturday 10th & Sunday 11th January 2015

[StephenDolan]

Morning all.

Wind is still whipping past, trees abending here.

Blair gets the New Republic treatment. Look away now DFH and rentoul.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1206 ... utocracies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

' Questions about the former prime minister’s involvement in Kazakhstan flared again recently. A 2012 letter from Blair to Nazarbayev surfaced in August, in which Blair offered recommendations on how the Kazakhstani president should address the 2011 Zhanaozen massacre, which saw at least 14 unarmed protesters die at the hands of government forces. Instead of centering on the Zhanaozen events—i.e., recommending Nazarbayev push for an international investigation, or take some form of public responsibility—Blair advised the autocrat to remind the audience that the deaths, “tragic though they were, should not obscure the enormous progress” in Kazakhstan. Blair included about 500 words of recommended text for Nazarbayev’s upcoming speech—effectively becoming the speechwriter for an aging despot whose regime had just slaughtered its citizens. '

[frightful_oik]

Tories planning to change rules for strike ballots if re-elected. What will Labour's response be?

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Tories planning to change rules for strike ballots if re-elected. What will Labour's response be?

Ignore.

How many people actually woke up this morning thinking the main problem they have is too many strikes?

[howsillyofme1]

Good morning all

See Murdoch manages to be supremely useless again.....this is what I find really offensive, the fact he is allowed to have any input into our public life

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Spacedone]

Tories planning to change rules for strike ballots if re-elected. What will Labour's response be?

Ignore.

How many people actually woke up this morning thinking the main problem they have is too many strikes?

This would be another one of George Osborne's infamous 'traps' where they try and get Labour to support strike action so they can go "AHA! Labour only help their evil Union paymasters!"

As you say, Labour should just ignore it because as a policy it's not going to win them any votes they didn't already have.

[Spacedone]

It's behind a paywall but the headline says it all.

Coalition using public money for advert blitz
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/poli ... 319271.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Public money is being used to fund a multimillion pound, pre-election advertising campaign that thrusts key Conservative and Liberal Democrat policies on to prime time television.

The government is running newspaper and television campaigns at present to promote the Help to Buy scheme, healthy school meals, and advances in the health service.

So basically they're spending a ton of money to promote things they've never bothered to promote before right before the General Election. What's the point of all those donors if they're forcing us to pay for their propaganda anyway?

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Good morning all

See Murdoch manages to be supremely useless again.....this is what I find really offensive, the fact he is allowed to have any input into our public life

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Adam Hills has put it so well.

Adam Hills @adamhillscomedy
· 1h 1 hour ago
Oh good, Rupert Murdoch has waded into the Charlie Hebdo debate. I was wondering what an outdated, bigoted, sociopath might make of it all.

Morning all.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Tories planning to change rules for strike ballots if re-elected. What will Labour's response be?

Ignore.

How many people actually woke up this morning thinking the main problem they have is too many strikes?

This would be another one of George Osborne's infamous 'traps' where they try and get Labour to support strike action so they can go "AHA! Labour only help their evil Union paymasters!"

As you say, Labour should just ignore it because as a policy it's not going to win them any votes they didn't already have.

But.....but, Osborne is a political genius you know

[ephemerid]

The battle to abolish the WCA moves on - and now the enemy is Maximus.

Maximus will begin its administration of the WCA in a few months' time, and demonstrations are already planned. See DNS, johnnyvoid, etc.
We already know that Maximus is being paid £100 Million more a year than Atos were; we do not know if there is a deal to clear the 700,000 backlog of claimants still waiting for their first WCA; we know Atos is still involved as it will be supplying the IT.

Maximus is a massive corporation, and is using its money/expertise to prepare itself for the WCA contract. It has learned from what happened to Atos, and it is now in the process of appointing various people to bolster its claim that it is a company that cares - whilst simultaneously hiring many people who have close associations with Unum, Atos, and DWP itself.
It appears to me that Maximus is deliberately and cynically putting trusted and well-known people in positions which they hope will reassure claimants, whilst quietly keeping on board most of the people behind the ESA/WCA and Atos debacles.

1. Professor Mike O'Donnell.
Chief medical officer, Unum Provident, 2000 to 2011.
Chief medical officer, Atos Healthcare, March 2011 to 2014
Medical Director, Health Management Limited, subsidiary of Maximus.
Professor O'Donnell was part of the advisory team which worked with Peter Lilley and James Purnell on the plans for ESA and the WCA.
He removed his work history from his LinkedIn profile when he was appointed to HML. DWP denies he has any involvement in the WCA contract.
Maximus have not commented - but others have.
John McArdle of DPAC - "The same corporate individuals and organisations that drove welfare reform back to before 1997 are the same ones that are in control of it today. It's the same people, the same henchmen"
Tom Greatrex, MP - "Government says Atos is leaving and there will be a new start.....but the processes and individuals are going to be pretty much the same. It suggests to me they are not being fully open"
Sue Marsh, blogger/campaigner - "It's as though the DWP actively searched for the worst provider they could find".

2. Dr.Bill Gunnyeon.
Dr.Gunnyeon has worked for - Capita Health Solutions and various other private health companies.
Now employed by Maximus, after 9 years at DWP, Dr.Gunnyeon took over from Mansel Aylward as the Chief Medical Officer of DWP.
(Mansel Aylward championed the bio/psych/social model as early as 1994; brought Unum and Professor Mike O'Donnell in to discuss welfare reform when Lilley was in charge at DWP; and after leaving DWP became the Director of the Centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research at Cardiff University - which is funded by Unum)
Dr.Gunnyeon is the "brains" behind the "Fit Note", and the new government Health and Work Service - which involves staff from Health Management Limited (a subsidiary of Maximus) phoning sick employees with questions on their fitness for work, with the ability to recommend a return to work irrespective of what the employees' own doctors have certified.
Dr.Gunnyeon has denied that there is any conflict of interest or breach of the Civil Service Code due to his appointment with Maximus to advise on the WCA so soon after his resignation from DWP.

3. Sue Marsh.
I've said a lot about this already - however, it has been said on other blogs that Sue actually asked Maximus about a job. I have no idea if this is true; but I do know that she was asked to take this role and it was not advertised.
Whilst she may well bring some credibility to Maximus in the short term, I remain of the view that she has done her espoused cause a disservice and has lost a lot of credibility among the disabled community.

So -
Maximus has not only taken over all the assessment centres, administration, and "Health Care Professionals" employed previously by Atos, it has also appointed ex-Atos and ex-Unum senior executives, and all its IT will still be run by Atos.
Maximus has taken some criticism for appointing O'Donnell; but it has left it to DWP to offer the explanation that in fact he is leading HML and will have nothing to do with the WCA contract. Not many people actually believe this.
Maximus are probably using the appointment of Gunnyeon to have recent insider knowledge of both DWP and the WCA; but both he and DWP have denied any conflict of interest or breaches of the Civil Service Code.
Maximus have appointed these people, and kept all the Atos staff, because they really are no different - apart from the size and scope of their corporation, and their appalling history in the United States.

Maximus have now got people in place who have already been involved in ESA and the WCA since it's inception; Maximus or its subsidiaries now have various DWP contracts which involve policing the benefits of both working people and non-working people; Maximus has various Work Programme contracts; Maximus do not have the PIP contract (yet) but employs people on the other DWP contracts who have links with both Atos and Capita who do hold the PIP contracts; and they have (cynically, in my opinion) appointed a hitherto well-respected and much-loved campaigner in a role which is cosmetic at best and not likely to influence any change in the nature and purpose of the WCA.

The contracting of this company will make no difference to what form the WCA takes. Maximus now has the power to decide when people go back to work if they are employed; if they fail to do so, it has the power to influence whether they have entitlement to ESA; whether entitled or not, this company may also have the power to put such people into mandatory unpaid work.
Judging by their record in the US, they are every bit as rogue and rapacious as Unum - and as they are now paying senior people who have well known links to Unum, their takeover of Atos infrastructure for the WCA gives them further links to Unum, so we can expect that they will have exactly the same attitude and ethos as Unum.

I am deeply unimpressed, and though some people have taken the view that Maximus should be given a chance to prove they are different, I have zero expectation that they will be. They are being paid to do the bidding of DWP, which has been influenced by Unum and its' warped ideas for many years. A few cosmetic appointments in a vain attempt to reassure simply don't cut it.

So the battle begins again, with a new adversary.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Martin Rowson's latest.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TheGrimSqueaker]

I am deeply unimpressed, and though some people have taken the view that Maximus should be given a chance to prove they are different, I have zero expectation that they will be. They are being paid to do the bidding of DWP, which has been influenced by Unum and its' warped ideas for many years. A few cosmetic appointments in a vain attempt to reassure simply don't cut it.

So the battle begins again, with a new adversary.

No, they shouldn't be given the chance to prove they are different because, quite frankly, whether they are or not is irrelevant; the central point, on which you and I are in complete agreement, is that they shouldn't exist at all, there should be no need for a company to be administering the WCA because it is an absolute monstrosity of a policy.

Hand on heart, I'd love to see what you suggest done, scrapping all the current policy and reverting to IB, something which worked; but we both know it won't happen under this Government, and I'm still unsure as to what will happen under the next. So I have some sympathy with Sue Marsh's stated position, that she is doing this to ameliorate things now, not as and end in itself but as a step toward something better down the road; but maybe that is garbage, maybe all the accusations being bandied around - about her selling out, betraying the cause, taking the thirty pieces of silver, being a class traitor - are true, in which case I will be deeply saddened, even more than I am already. But as I said to you yesterday, I'm not living this day by day, so I'm probably not in a position to judge.

There needs to be a complete change of culture at the DWP after (what I fervently hope will be) Labour's victory in May; it is inevitable to an extent because those DWP mandarins who have been collaborated (and there is no other word that applies) with the Tories in their demonisation of claimants of all stripes will have to be removed, no question. A lot hangs on the events of May 7th, for so many of us.

[adam]

Martin Rowson's latest.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And this is a whole page piece in the comment section of today's guardian by Joe Sacco which I liked a lot...

On Satire – a response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks

[adam]

Tories planning to change rules for strike ballots if re-elected. What will Labour's response be?

Ignore.

How many people actually woke up this morning thinking the main problem they have is too many strikes?

This is the party who polled 36.1% of a turnout of 65.1%, which is 23.5% of the registered electorate.

[ephemerid]

I am deeply unimpressed, and though some people have taken the view that Maximus should be given a chance to prove they are different, I have zero expectation that they will be. They are being paid to do the bidding of DWP, which has been influenced by Unum and its' warped ideas for many years. A few cosmetic appointments in a vain attempt to reassure simply don't cut it.

So the battle begins again, with a new adversary.

No, they shouldn't be given the chance to prove they are different because, quite frankly, whether they are or not is irrelevant; the central point, on which you and I are in complete agreement, is that they shouldn't exist at all, there should be no need for a company to be administering the WCA because it is an absolute monstrosity of a policy.

Hand on heart, I'd love to see what you suggest done, scrapping all the current policy and reverting to IB, something which worked; but we both know it won't happen under this Government, and I'm still unsure as to what will happen under the next. So I have some sympathy with Sue Marsh's stated position, that she is doing this to ameliorate things now, not as and end in itself but as a step toward something better down the road; but maybe that is garbage, maybe all the accusations being bandied around - about her selling out, betraying the cause, taking the thirty pieces of silver, being a class traitor - are true, in which case I will be deeply saddened, even more than I am already. But as I said to you yesterday, I'm not living this day by day, so I'm probably not in a position to judge.

There needs to be a complete change of culture at the DWP after (what I fervently hope will be) Labour's victory in May; it is inevitable to an extent because those DWP mandarins who have been collaborated (and there is no other word that applies) with the Tories in their demonisation of claimants of all stripes will have to be removed, no question. A lot hangs on the events of May 7th, for so many of us.

Whilst I agree that some of the insults thrown at Sue Marsh are not necessary, I can understand why people feel so betrayed.

What matters is moving on to deal with what is happening now - and as I've said many times, it would be a relatively simple matter to restore IB as the payment systems are still live. Labour, if in office in May, could do this as I doubt the old IB caseload will have been cleared by then - as many claimants have had no assessments anyway (700,000 of them) testing could be suspended temporarily.

Give the sick a rest; pay IB as before; then thrash out what form sickness benefits and the testing for them should take in future.
This really does need doing - now that we have a whole new cohort of older people (like me) having to wait for several years more than expected (in my case, 10 years more), some with significant health issues, there needs to be a fairer testing system.
There also needs to be acknowledgement that continuous repeated re-assessments are not only costing a ridiculous amount of money, very few older IB/ESA claimants are going to find work which pays enough to live on, and the more older people chase the few jobs available, the less chances there are for young people to find decent work and make their start in life.

I am currently Tweeting the Labour front bench and as many sympathetic Labour MPs as I can think of - I'll follow up with emails.

If those of you who Tweet agree with me, I'd be grateful for a bit of support.

[mikems]

Good luck with the Labour people Ephemerid. There really does need to be a change of direction, especially with the idea that work, any work, is some sort of universal panacea for disability and illness. All we need is a bit of chivvying, pull our socks up etc, get down to Tesco and fill those shelves!

During my period in the Work Programme I tried to get my useless provider to put me in touch with other people in a similar situation and with similar interests so that we could work together, perhaps forming cooperatives. Got nowhere with that. Didn't understand what I was talking about. Tomorrow's People - utterly useless and pointless waste of money, space and thousands of people's time.

Get us in touch with each other locally and coordinate our skills and abilities so that we can contribute in an effective and useful way. That's what I think anyway.

[Toby Latimer]

I am deeply unimpressed, and though some people have taken the view that Maximus should be given a chance to prove they are different, I have zero expectation that they will be. They are being paid to do the bidding of DWP, which has been influenced by Unum and its' warped ideas for many years. A few cosmetic appointments in a vain attempt to reassure simply don't cut it.

So the battle begins again, with a new adversary.

No, they shouldn't be given the chance to prove they are different because, quite frankly, whether they are or not is irrelevant; the central point, on which you and I are in complete agreement, is that they shouldn't exist at all, there should be no need for a company to be administering the WCA because it is an absolute monstrosity of a policy.

Hand on heart, I'd love to see what you suggest done, scrapping all the current policy and reverting to IB, something which worked; but we both know it won't happen under this Government, and I'm still unsure as to what will happen under the next. So I have some sympathy with Sue Marsh's stated position, that she is doing this to ameliorate things now, not as and end in itself but as a step toward something better down the road; but maybe that is garbage, maybe all the accusations being bandied around - about her selling out, betraying the cause, taking the thirty pieces of silver, being a class traitor - are true, in which case I will be deeply saddened, even more than I am already. But as I said to you yesterday, I'm not living this day by day, so I'm probably not in a position to judge.

There needs to be a complete change of culture at the DWP after (what I fervently hope will be) Labour's victory in May; it is inevitable to an extent because those DWP mandarins who have been collaborated (and there is no other word that applies) with the Tories in their demonisation of claimants of all stripes will have to be removed, no question. A lot hangs on the events of May 7th, for so many of us.

Whilst I agree that some of the insults thrown at Sue Marsh are not necessary, I can understand why people feel so betrayed.

What matters is moving on to deal with what is happening now - and as I've said many times, it would be a relatively simple matter to restore IB as the payment systems are still live. Labour, if in office in May, could do this as I doubt the old IB caseload will have been cleared by then - as many claimants have had no assessments anyway (700,000 of them) testing could be suspended temporarily.

Give the sick a rest; pay IB as before; then thrash out what form sickness benefits and the testing for them should take in future.
This really does need doing - now that we have a whole new cohort of older people (like me) having to wait for several years more than expected (in my case, 10 years more), some with significant health issues, there needs to be a fairer testing system.
There also needs to be acknowledgement that continuous repeated re-assessments are not only costing a ridiculous amount of money, very few older IB/ESA claimants are going to find work which pays enough to live on, and the more older people chase the few jobs available, the less chances there are for young people to find decent work and make their start in life.

I am currently Tweeting the Labour front bench and as many sympathetic Labour MPs as I can think of - I'll follow up with emails.

If those of you who Tweet agree with me, I'd be grateful for a bit of support.

I'll be retweeting your messages to MPs all day ephie. Regarding Sue,one thing i didn't pick up on until later yesterday (after initially giving her the benefit of doubt) is that she has moved straight out of the support group into full time work and in doing so *could* have made it more difficult for other people who should remain in support group in any future appeals, especially anyone with crohn's . It may also put into question one of my biggest bugbears - that of the revolving door of re-assessments of people with ongoing progressive illnesses or disabilities, it has often been said that people with no chance of improvement or will definitely get worse with their condition should be left alone instead of the constant harassment favoured by McVey ("people get better!")
They could use Sue as a perfect example as to why re appraisals are necessary, which of course also means more filthy lucre for the company charging for that service and a waste of time for the applicant.
Now that i have slept on it, i'm not really impressed to say the least. She might be gambling on Reeves being in charge of the department in a few weeks, and possibly having someone she can work with. It's a heck of a gamble though.

[HindleA]

Co-opting/isolating a pragmatist is an oft repeated tactic.
"Right"decision for whom and for what purpose?
Life is a series of compromises.
Dangerous to put ourselves or others on a pedestal
And then overreact on inevitable perceived failings.
We all have tipping points where principles meet reality
Disappointment in people is in reality disappointment in ourselves.
No one perspective,no one motivation.
Afternoon.

[citizenJA]

Tories planning to change rules for strike ballots if re-elected. What will Labour's response be?

Ignore.

How many people actually woke up this morning thinking the main problem they have is too many strikes?

This is the party who polled 36.1% of a turnout of 65.1%, which is 23.5% of the registered electorate.

First I'd like to say good-afternoon to my friends here.

Second, I apologise for posting so much quoted text below. A better writer would know how to parse the text without tampering with the information presented & make the point with brevity. Please bear with me as I practise becoming a better communicator, a better writer.

The ONS is an organisation I've every reason to respect. The ONS almost certainly don't lie. It's only sometimes I think the gist of their reports are poorly worded & potentially misleading. For this reason, I love data from the ONS. This is the latest electoral data output from the ONS - it's release date is May 2014.

Electoral statistics are used by Boundary Commissions, the Electoral Commission, and central government to help with the improvement of electoral policies and for statutory reviews of parliamentary constituency boundaries.

(my emphasis)
Do these organisations conduct their own information gathering? Do these organisations rely on ONS data collection alone? I haven't checked each group's source data yet.

The total number of UK parliamentary electors in 2013 was 46,139,900, a fall of 0.5% from 2012.

The total number of UK local government electors in 2013 was 47,691,800, a fall of 0.1% from 2012.

Between 2012 and 2013, the number of both parliamentary and local government electors declined in both England and Northern Ireland, while the number of parliamentary electors declined in Wales. In Scotland, the number of both parliamentary and local government electors grew by approximately the same percentage as seen between 2011 and 2012.

The number of parliamentary electors has declined in all regions of England between 2012 and 2013. The largest decrease (-1.7%) was in the West Midlands.

Between 2012 and 2013, the number of local government electors has declined in five of the nine English regions. The other four have recorded growth, but less than that experienced between 2011 and 2012.

In England, a factor in the decline in the number of both parliamentary and local government electors recorded between 2012 and 2013 is likely to be changes in administrative practices for including people who have failed to complete the annual voter registration form on the electoral register (known as ‘carried forward’ electors). It is also possible that administrative differences between local authority areas are contributing to the recorded regional variation.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pop-estim ... stics.html

(my bold)
Scarier than hell. The primary beneficiary of a drop in the number of people able to vote in this country are Tories. Many people thinking they're able to vote may not be properly registered. Voter apathy is intentionally cultivated. I've written about this before.

AnatolyKasparov gave me more information regarding voting registration issues, if I remember correctly. I know I'm not the first or only person to have realised the implications of a population unaware their voting rights are compromised by changes.

[Spacedone]

Tories planning to change rules for strike ballots if re-elected. What will Labour's response be?

Ignore.

How many people actually woke up this morning thinking the main problem they have is too many strikes?

This is the party who polled 36.1% of a turnout of 65.1%, which is 23.5% of the registered electorate.

Have we tweeted that?

[Tubby Isaacs]

It's behind a paywall but the headline says it all.

Coalition using public money for advert blitz
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/poli ... 319271.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Public money is being used to fund a multimillion pound, pre-election advertising campaign that thrusts key Conservative and Liberal Democrat policies on to prime time television.

The government is running newspaper and television campaigns at present to promote the Help to Buy scheme, healthy school meals, and advances in the health service.

So basically they're spending a ton of money to promote things they've never bothered to promote before right before the General Election. What's the point of all those donors if they're forcing us to pay for their propaganda anyway?

How strange.

They made a big song and dance about "government promoting itself" when they came in, and cut a load of it. Of course, the government needs to advertise, so that people know their rights and get their kids innoculated etc.

Amazing that they should do a load of government advertising before the election....

[HindleA]

@TubbyIsaacs

"Charlie Says:Wan##rs"

[Tubby Isaacs]

[Tubby Isaacs]

Ignore.

How many people actually woke up this morning thinking the main problem they have is too many strikes?

This is the party who polled 36.1% of a turnout of 65.1%, which is 23.5% of the registered electorate.

Have we tweeted that?

This is aimed at London, where you might be affected by public transport strikes a couple of times a year. Hence the Transport Secretary has been put up.

The Tories have got lots of problems in London. Not just because non-white people, even well off ones, don't like them, but because lots of them bang on about stuff that lots of people don't care about ("Europe" and "the gays"). Cameron saw these as a problem ages ago, but doesn't seem to have got much of a boost in London.

This might win them a few votes, but I expect where they need them (eg to hold on to Enfield North), the public don't use public transport all that much. Angie Bray's marginal seat is further in, and she might get a boost from it, I suppose. In other seats where they'd hope to be competitive (like Hammersmith), they're probably much too far behind.

[rebeccariots2]

Comedy blog post of the weekend comes from Lib Dem Voice:

Ruwan Kodikara becomes Nick Clegg’s “Head of Media and Brand”
http://www.libdemvoice.org/ruwan-kodika ... 44143.html

Simon Shaw 10th Jan '15 - 11:04am
Sounds as if somebody thinks “W1A” is a documentary rather than a satire.

Peter Chegwyn 10th Jan '15 - 11:48am
We should wish him well in attempting to sell ‘Brand Clegg’ to the masses. He’s got under 17 weeks to do it.

paul barker 10th Jan '15 - 12:34pm
Brand actually has a real meaning- a concentrated image of a person or thing that lots of people can quickly grasp. Succsessful Brands are worth a fortune in any area of life. So far The Libdem Brand is only half-formed in the Publics mind.

I'd say it's fully formed - to the point of no return. And anyway he's taking this subject far too seriously, isn't he?

[Tubby Isaacs]

http://www.durhamtimes.co.uk/news/11713 ... _contract/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Free school pantomime.

Headteacher insists he's still in charge, while job advertised in TES.

Dominic Cummings has had some involvement in this school.

[citizenJA]

Membership of UK political parties
Standard Note: SN/SG/5125
16 December 2014
Richard Keen

The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 requires that all registered
political parties submit their annual financial statements to the Electoral Commission.

Labour membership income has been substantially larger than that received by other parties
over most of this period. Labour received £5.1 million in 2013, compared with less than
£1 million for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=uk

Greater commonality

[yahyah]

Membership of UK political parties
Standard Note: SN/SG/5125
16 December 2014
Richard Keen

The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 requires that all registered
political parties submit their annual financial statements to the Electoral Commission.

Labour membership income has been substantially larger than that received by other parties
over most of this period. Labour received £5.1 million in 2013, compared with less than
£1 million for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=uk

Greater commonality

Or maybe Labour are better at getting the begging letters out !
We got two yesterday.

My husband's asked him to 'please donate £25 so we can recruit Assistant Organisers in Welsh key seats.'' Mine said ''please donate £53 so we can recruit Assistant Organisers in Welsh key seats''.
Wonder why they expect me to stump up more ?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Comedy blog post of the weekend comes from Lib Dem Voice:

Ruwan Kodikara becomes Nick Clegg’s “Head of Media and Brand”
http://www.libdemvoice.org/ruwan-kodika ... 44143.html

Simon Shaw 10th Jan '15 - 11:04am
Sounds as if somebody thinks “W1A” is a documentary rather than a satire.

Peter Chegwyn 10th Jan '15 - 11:48am
We should wish him well in attempting to sell ‘Brand Clegg’ to the masses. He’s got under 17 weeks to do it.

paul barker 10th Jan '15 - 12:34pm
Brand actually has a real meaning- a concentrated image of a person or thing that lots of people can quickly grasp. Succsessful Brands are worth a fortune in any area of life. So far The Libdem Brand is only half-formed in the Publics mind.

I'd say it's fully formed - to the point of no return. And anyway he's taking this subject far too seriously, isn't he?

Unusual for me to agree with Simon Shaw.

I'm surprised that this new bloke isn't Ian Fletcher. Or Ian Faith for that matter.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Ah, I see the previous jobholder is now writing speeches for Clegg- presumably on the taxpayer.

[ohsocynical]

Comedy blog post of the weekend comes from Lib Dem Voice:

Ruwan Kodikara becomes Nick Clegg’s “Head of Media and Brand”
http://www.libdemvoice.org/ruwan-kodika ... 44143.html

Simon Shaw 10th Jan '15 - 11:04am
Sounds as if somebody thinks “W1A” is a documentary rather than a satire.

Peter Chegwyn 10th Jan '15 - 11:48am
We should wish him well in attempting to sell ‘Brand Clegg’ to the masses. He’s got under 17 weeks to do it.

paul barker 10th Jan '15 - 12:34pm
Brand actually has a real meaning- a concentrated image of a person or thing that lots of people can quickly grasp. Succsessful Brands are worth a fortune in any area of life. So far The Libdem Brand is only half-formed in the Publics mind.

I'd say it's fully formed - to the point of no return. And anyway he's taking this subject far too seriously, isn't he?

I'd say opinion is fully formed...A bunch of no hope, lying,

[citizenJA]

Membership of UK political parties
Standard Note: SN/SG/5125
16 December 2014
Richard Keen

The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 requires that all registered
political parties submit their annual financial statements to the Electoral Commission.

Labour membership income has been substantially larger than that received by other parties
over most of this period. Labour received £5.1 million in 2013, compared with less than
£1 million for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=uk

Greater commonality

Or maybe Labour are better at getting the begging letters out !
We got two yesterday.

My husband's asked him to 'please donate £25 so we can recruit Assistant Organisers in Welsh key seats.'' Mine said ''please donate £53 so we can recruit Assistant Organisers in Welsh key seats''.
Wonder why they expect me to stump up more ?

I got my letter asking for funds for Assistant Organisers too. Comforting thought, Yahyah, at least Labour want to pay staff to do this & don't expect it for free. I'm not able to contribute much money to Labour. I may apply for the job though.

[citizenJA]

G articles below the line - outlandish commenting blaming Labour. Absolutely broken brain commentary. Straight up lies. No shame, no truth.

[ephemerid]

Good luck with the Labour people Ephemerid. There really does need to be a change of direction, especially with the idea that work, any work, is some sort of universal panacea for disability and illness. All we need is a bit of chivvying, pull our socks up etc, get down to Tesco and fill those shelves!

During my period in the Work Programme I tried to get my useless provider to put me in touch with other people in a similar situation and with similar interests so that we could work together, perhaps forming cooperatives. Got nowhere with that. Didn't understand what I was talking about. Tomorrow's People - utterly useless and pointless waste of money, space and thousands of people's time.

Get us in touch with each other locally and coordinate our skills and abilities so that we can contribute in an effective and useful way. That's what I think anyway.

Thanks - and I agree with your last line wholeheartedly.

The Labour people very rarely respond to Tweets or emails (notable exceptions, John McDonnell and Ian Lavery) and never to emails.
Which is very annoying.

Yet another reason why Sue Marsh going to work for the enemy is so annoying - she had quite a bit of influence with Labour politicians. Maybe she still will....

Still, we soldier on!

[Tubby Isaacs]

I've not commented on Sue Marsh yet.

It looks very near to the General Election, and even if she is exactly as she should be, it won't be difficult to them to keep her on board for that period. And if she bails out, they'll be able to say "sorry we lost her, but we had all this good stuff we agreed with her".

[ephemerid]

No, they shouldn't be given the chance to prove they are different because, quite frankly, whether they are or not is irrelevant; the central point, on which you and I are in complete agreement, is that they shouldn't exist at all, there should be no need for a company to be administering the WCA because it is an absolute monstrosity of a policy.

Hand on heart, I'd love to see what you suggest done, scrapping all the current policy and reverting to IB, something which worked; but we both know it won't happen under this Government, and I'm still unsure as to what will happen under the next. So I have some sympathy with Sue Marsh's stated position, that she is doing this to ameliorate things now, not as and end in itself but as a step toward something better down the road; but maybe that is garbage, maybe all the accusations being bandied around - about her selling out, betraying the cause, taking the thirty pieces of silver, being a class traitor - are true, in which case I will be deeply saddened, even more than I am already. But as I said to you yesterday, I'm not living this day by day, so I'm probably not in a position to judge.

There needs to be a complete change of culture at the DWP after (what I fervently hope will be) Labour's victory in May; it is inevitable to an extent because those DWP mandarins who have been collaborated (and there is no other word that applies) with the Tories in their demonisation of claimants of all stripes will have to be removed, no question. A lot hangs on the events of May 7th, for so many of us.

Whilst I agree that some of the insults thrown at Sue Marsh are not necessary, I can understand why people feel so betrayed.

What matters is moving on to deal with what is happening now - and as I've said many times, it would be a relatively simple matter to restore IB as the payment systems are still live. Labour, if in office in May, could do this as I doubt the old IB caseload will have been cleared by then - as many claimants have had no assessments anyway (700,000 of them) testing could be suspended temporarily.

Give the sick a rest; pay IB as before; then thrash out what form sickness benefits and the testing for them should take in future.
This really does need doing - now that we have a whole new cohort of older people (like me) having to wait for several years more than expected (in my case, 10 years more), some with significant health issues, there needs to be a fairer testing system.
There also needs to be acknowledgement that continuous repeated re-assessments are not only costing a ridiculous amount of money, very few older IB/ESA claimants are going to find work which pays enough to live on, and the more older people chase the few jobs available, the less chances there are for young people to find decent work and make their start in life.

I am currently Tweeting the Labour front bench and as many sympathetic Labour MPs as I can think of - I'll follow up with emails.

If those of you who Tweet agree with me, I'd be grateful for a bit of support.

I'll be retweeting your messages to MPs all day ephie. Regarding Sue,one thing i didn't pick up on until later yesterday (after initially giving her the benefit of doubt) is that she has moved straight out of the support group into full time work and in doing so *could* have made it more difficult for other people who should remain in support group in any future appeals, especially anyone with crohn's . It may also put into question one of my biggest bugbears - that of the revolving door of re-assessments of people with ongoing progressive illnesses or disabilities, it has often been said that people with no chance of improvement or will definitely get worse with their condition should be left alone instead of the constant harassment favoured by McVey ("people get better!")
They could use Sue as a perfect example as to why re appraisals are necessary, which of course also means more filthy lucre for the company charging for that service and a waste of time for the applicant.
Now that i have slept on it, i'm not really impressed to say the least. She might be gambling on Reeves being in charge of the department in a few weeks, and possibly having someone she can work with. It's a heck of a gamble though.

Thanks Toby.

Neither Reeves nor Green have demonstrated any intention to do anything more than some non-specific "reform" of the WCA.
They - like Sue herself recently - talk incessantly about helping the "disabled" back to work.

Their understanding of what is actually in the legislation and the guidance, and how it has been administered, is not impressive.
I'd be willing to bet they have no idea of what the LCWRA criteria are, or what regulations 29 and 35 are for - and they should know this stuff inside out if they want to be effective legislators, and help their constituents who need advice on grounds for appeal.

The issue here and now is that that ESA could have been a good benefit had the WCA not been set up the way it was.
Labour is responsible for that - just because IDS has made it all much worse, Labour remains the architect of ESA.
And ESA is based on the assumption that ill people can and should work, or be given the support to do so, even if their own clinicians believe otherwise; and all of that comes from the pernicious influence of Unum, which goes back a very long way.

Even if the excesses of the Tory administration of DWP are accounted for, the facts are that ESA does not fulfil its basic premise, and is therefore not a good benefit for those who have to claim it. It is an experiment which has failed, and Labour need to admit that.
Of course, I don't think they will.
They can apologise for Iraq, they can admit mistakes on immigration, they can adjust and change their stance on all manner of issues if it is politically expedient to do so.
But they will not do anything about this, because it suits them to be seen to be tough on benefits and ESA is just part of that approach and they know it's popular with voters.

Much as I like Ed Miliband, and much as I am pro-Labour in nearly every other aspect of policy, I do not agree with them on this.
Whether it's Tweets, emails, submissions to consultations or policy initiatives, those of us who contact Labour with ideas or whatever are ignored - it's not just me this has happened to. They will NOT do anything about ESA and I think this will continue if they win office.

Re, Sue Marsh - I suspect that she will be chewed up and spat out by the corporate machine, and I suspect she will be brought into Labour's policy-making team or whatever in the fullness of time. After all, we now know she agrees with it all, don't we?

[TechnicalEphemera]

I've not commented on Sue Marsh yet.

It looks very near to the General Election, and even if she is exactly as she should be, it won't be difficult to them to keep her on board for that period. And if she bails out, they'll be able to say "sorry we lost her, but we had all this good stuff we agreed with her".

It is also a huge amount of money, very very hard to turn down I would suggest.

Maybe they are betting on a change of government and a change of regime.

The problem is under the current system even a company run by angels will inevitably end up being bastards.

[ephemerid]

Co-opting/isolating a pragmitist is an oft repeated tactic.
"Right"decision for whom and for what purpose?
Life is a series of compromises.
Dangerous to put ourselves or others on a pedestal
And then overreact on inevitable perceived failings.
We all have tipping points where principles meet reality
Disappointment in people is in reality disappointment in ourselves.
No one perspective,no one motivation.
Afternoon.

Afternoon, A.

I agree with some of that - but I don't agree that disappointment in others in disappointment in ourselves. Well, not always.

I admit to feeling considerable resentment because my expectations have been treated with something quite unexpected, and which goes against everything I have been led to believe - those expectations were developed and fostered, over a long period of time, by someone in whom I and others placed trust, based on who we thought that person was, for whom many raised money, and for whom some of us worked very hard.

I might have been willing to accept some justification for it had the language not changed so very quickly. Yes, I am disappointed.
But not with myself.

[rebeccariots2]

OK. Time for a little cheerer upper.

Been out on the wild (positively livid) streets of Cilgerran today - having conversations on behalf of Labour.

Never mind what anybody said or thought about voting (I'll maybe write something longer a bit later on that) the most important thing that happened was ....

A lady invited me in to her house to see a young hedgehog she'd taken in the day before - and there he was in his cosy cardboard box, all snug with hay - in a perfect little hedgehog ball. It made my day. And she wants to help out somehow.

[TechnicalEphemera]

OK. Time for a little cheerer upper.

Been out on the wild (positively livid) streets of Cilgerran today - having conversations on behalf of Labour.

Never mind what anybody said or thought about voting (I'll maybe write something longer a bit later on that) the most important thing that happened was ....

A lady invited me in to her house to see a young hedgehog she'd taken in the day before - and there he was in his cosy cardboard box, all snug with hay - in a perfect little hedgehog ball. It made my day. And she wants to help out somehow.

Aha you have found the hedgehog lady ( there is one in many towns). This time of year any hogs out and about need rescuing, and at any time of year this applies to hogs out in the day.

If you are lucky they just need worming and a ton of food, however since I cannot handle hedgehogs in my house that is the point I go looking for the local hog lady to take care of my new resident.

I have not yet encountered a hedgehog man, but they may exist.

[Toby Latimer]

Thanks Toby.

Neither Reeves nor Green have demonstrated any intention to do anything more than some non-specific "reform" of the WCA.
They - like Sue herself recently - talk incessantly about helping the "disabled" back to work.

Much as I like Ed Miliband, and much as I am pro-Labour in nearly every other aspect of policy, I do not agree with them on this.

(my bold)

This has always been my position too, although i must admit to going overboard with criticism in the past which veered on me appearing to be obsessively anti Labour.

It took a while for it to sink in, that it's impossible to lay the blame on Ed Miliband for the sins of Purnell, I know Cooper was involved and remains on the front bench but she safely out of harms way of social policy, & with the promise to scrap bedroom tax on day one, hopefully save the NHS and everything else that they are doing in this area is spot on.

There are voices within Lab who are vehemently against the WCA which in a way also relates to the bio-psycho mumbo jumbo model and have spoken out many times, ie John McDonnell, Glenda Jackson, Ian Lavery, et al - which is more than can be said for any other party (Tory) who have any realistic chance of forming government under this archaic first past the post system we are blessed with.

It should therefore be technically, at least possible to administer pressure on the front bench policy twonks to look again at the mistakes of the 2007/8 welfare reform bill, it's the only option we have really.

A couple more thoughts on Sue, I noticed a couple of posts elsewhere copied from her blog over the last couple of years

As regular readers will know, I've always been adamant that I can't take money for campaigning. I don't even have advertising on my blog.

The moment I accept the offer of some well-meaning charity, union, politician or corporation, I would become fettered by them, compromised. They would have control over what I can say or do

I want to make it perfectly clear that I believe WCAs and indeed the entire ESA system is flawed and should be scrapped. This has always been my position and it remains my position today

Which makes it all the more puzzling why she is now being payed handsomely to deliver it under the guise of 'customer service' I'm beginning to think that after spending the last few months in hospital she may have been at a really low ebb, depressed even - I know how unstable i was after major surgery & someone at Maximus has taken advantage of her mental state, this is a well known tactic of how weird cult leaders manage to entice eminent people such as lawyers and doctors into their doctrine.

[ohsocynical]

OK. Time for a little cheerer upper.

Been out on the wild (positively livid) streets of Cilgerran today - having conversations on behalf of Labour.

Never mind what anybody said or thought about voting (I'll maybe write something longer a bit later on that) the most important thing that happened was ....

A lady invited me in to her house to see a young hedgehog she'd taken in the day before - and there he was in his cosy cardboard box, all snug with hay - in a perfect little hedgehog ball. It made my day. And she wants to help out somehow.

Aha you have found the hedgehog lady ( there is one in many towns). This time of year any hogs out and about need rescuing, and at any time of year this applies to hogs out in the day.

If you are lucky they just need worming and a ton of food, however since I cannot handle hedgehogs in my house that is the point I go looking for the local hog lady to take care of my new resident.

I have not yet encountered a hedgehog man, but they may exist.

St Tiggywinkles hedgehog hospital in Buckinghamshire I think, are very good for information on how to look after them. And if you're near enough, they'll take them in. They need to be kept very warm, and not allowed to hibernate. We had a big hedgehog population in our gardens although we were in a town. Mum used to put food out for them every night. One year when winter set in early dad would take his torch out and check on them. We'd bring the little ones in and weigh them. If under a certain weight, we'd take them to St Tiggywinkles.
One year we only found one that was underweight so I kept him in a roomy cat container in our kitchen. They don't half stink! I cleaned him out and feed him twice a day but one morning I overslept. When I went into the kitchen his eyes were shut and his paws and nose were poked through the mesh. He was just hanging there. I thought he was ill, but as soon as he heard the tin opener he went berserk. He was pissed because breakfast was late.
Every so often we'd let him wander around the kitchen and he'd let me handle him. He went from seriously underweight to huge in just a few months. We freed him at dusk in the spring. Hope he had a long and productive life.
My son has brought me the odd one that obviously needed help but we found a vet in Reading that takes them in.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I've not commented on Sue Marsh yet.

It looks very near to the General Election, and even if she is exactly as she should be, it won't be difficult to them to keep her on board for that period. And if she bails out, they'll be able to say "sorry we lost her, but we had all this good stuff we agreed with her".

It is also a huge amount of money, very very hard to turn down I would suggest.

Maybe they are betting on a change of government and a change of regime.

The problem is under the current system even a company run by angels will inevitably end up being bastards.

I think they're very much aiming past the election.

[HindleA]

@Ephemerhid


Point taken,should have qualified it .

[rebeccariots2]

GENERAL ELECTION PREDICTIONS 42: OXFORDSHIRE
http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2015/01/0 ... um=twitter

GENERAL ELECTION PREDICTIONS 43: HEREFORDSHIRE & WORCESTERSHIRE
http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2015/01/1 ... um=twitter
Worcester
Sitting MP: Robin Walker (Con)
Prediction: Conservative hold
This will be very very close. It’s 48th on Labour’s target list and a seat they need to win to form a majority. Local intelligence seems to be split but the majority of those in the know think Robin Walker will just pull through.

GENERAL ELECTION PREDICTIONS 44: SHROPSHIRE
http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2015/01/1 ... um=twitter

[TheGrimSqueaker]

....... one morning I overslept. When I went into the kitchen his eyes were shut and his paws and nose were poked through the mesh. He was just hanging there. I thought he was ill, but as soon as he heard the tin opener he went berserk. He was pissed because breakfast was late.

Tcch, typical bloke!

[ohsocynical]

Bloody Norah. It's Margaret Thatcher Day in the Falklands

[rebeccariots2]

GENERAL ELECTION PREDICTIONS 45: WARWICKSHIRE
http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2015/01/1 ... um=twitter

He has two Labour gains.
North Warwickshire
Sitting MP: Dan Byles (Con)
Prediction: Labour gain
Dan Byles is standing down, presumably because he saw the writing on the wall. Whatever chance the Tories had of retaining this most marginal of marginals probably disappeared with that decision.

Nuneaton
Sitting MP: Marcus Jones (Con)
Prediction: Labour gain
UKIP didn’t stand here last time. The result in 2015 might well depend on whose votes they take. And Marcus Jones will know that.

[ohsocynical]

....... one morning I overslept. When I went into the kitchen his eyes were shut and his paws and nose were poked through the mesh. He was just hanging there. I thought he was ill, but as soon as he heard the tin opener he went berserk. He was pissed because breakfast was late.

Tcch, typical bloke!

Bloke. Ah. Well. I never got that close a look.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Dale's probably right about Worcester, unless there's some local health catastrophe.

There's a big new hospital in Worcester with an inadequate car park, but it's a Labour era one.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Nearby, Gloucester and Cheltenham have A&E problems.

http://www.gloucestershireecho.co.uk/Cr ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;