Friday, 23rd January 2015

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 5:09 pm

George Eaton @georgeeaton · 1h 1 hour ago
Lib Dem spokesman says they will continue to push for inclusion "in all the TV debates" - "we must be able to defend our record".

George Eaton @georgeeaton · 2h 2 hours ago
Labour aide previously told me that Miliband-Cameron debate could become individual Q&A (as in 2005) if Cameron doesn't turn up.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 5:14 pm

yahyah wrote:

Clegg's local Lib Dems using Ashcroft's polling to bar chart Labour as contenders in Sheffield Hallam.

So, let me get this straight. This is the Party Leader's consitutuency, the Deputy Prime Minister. And the electionerring consists of: 'Don't let Labour win, anything, even voting for us, but that.'

Self-awareness is at an all-time low in Politics.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 5:15 pm

Debates plan disadvantages the Liberal Democrats
http://www.libdemvoice.org/debates-plan ... 44324.html

I just can't see a public outcry about the 'disadvantaged' Lib Dems on the scale of the Greens exclusion though ... will anyone other than the remaining few Cleggites really care?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 5:15 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
‘Failing Grayling’ could cost the Tories hundreds of thousands of votes
http://leftfootforward.org/2015/01/fail ... -of-votes/
A must read. It's not just Jerry Hayes and Lord Pannick who are laying into Grayling - this is a wince a sentence article.
... 82 per cent of people in the legal sector say they would be more likely to vote Conservative in the general election if Justice secretary Chris Grayling was replaced.

The poll was conducted by new social networking site http://www.mootis.co.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which focuses on the legal services sector. Many of the 350,000 people working in this sector are traditional Tory voters, a fact which is sure to send warning signals to David Cameron...
Grayling is the first Lord Chancellor in 440 years who is not a trained lawyer. Mootis Chairman Bill Braithwaite QC said that it was clear that the vast majority of legal sector workers ‘are fed up of Grayling and are prepared to turn their back on the Conservatives if he remains as Justice secretary’.

Hilary Meredith, CEO of Hilary Meredith Solicitors Ltd in London and Wilmslow said:

“It is time for failing Grayling to go. He is the most inept Justice secretary in living memory. The vast majority of lawyers would accept that cuts needed to be made to the legal aid bill but the ham-fisted way in which he has gone about his business has made a mockery of our legal system.”

“Our courts have received such drastic funding cuts you can no longer attend in person anywhere in the country to actually speak to anyone. They are also saying they don’t have enough people to answer the phones – this is what access to justice looks like in 2015...

Ouch!

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 5:16 pm

mbc1955 wrote:
yahyah wrote:

Clegg's local Lib Dems using Ashcroft's polling to bar chart Labour as contenders in Sheffield Hallam.
So, let me get this straight. This is the Party Leader's consitutuency, the Deputy Prime Minister. And the electionerring consists of: 'Don't let Labour win, anything, even voting for us, but that.'

Self-awareness is at an all-time low in Politics.

And as others have pointed out ... they are using blue so initially people thought it was from the Conservatives ... it's a corker again.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 5:34 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
ephemerid wrote:Seeing Clearly - good news at long last.

You'll be in my thoughts and meditations, and I hope all goes well.

Small thing - much as I'd love Universal Credit to implode in a dramatically disastrous fashion, I fear for the people who will suffer if that happens.
A resounding smack in the chops for the hideous IDS is something to be devoutly wished for - but a collapse of UC will leave many people with no support at all until something is put in its place or the old system restored for those currently under the UC cosh.

IDS has made such a mess of it all, so many people are suffering, that I would personally love to see all his schemes fall apart even more than they are already - but the human cost is very high, and that is a constant worry for me.
Genuine question. Do you think it's why Labour are being over cautious?

No.

Labour, ie.Reeves, have said they will audit what's gone on and attempt to "rescue" UC if possible; their policy is that they agree with UC "in principle", and would like to see it work. That's what they say in public - whether they believe it privately is another issue.

Nothing that has come from Labour on the benefits payment systems is particularly positive. Whilst they will abolish the bedroom tax and have a plan for a Jobs Guarantee for young people, there really isn't much else to be positive about.

They have said - nothing on the new council tax charges brought in last year; nothing on the fines brought in for errors made on claims (irrespective of who makes the error); nothing on increased jobsearch conditionality for WRAG ESA claimants, lone parents, carers; nothing on uprating in line with inflation; nothing on restoring the presumption of NI conts for sick children.

All that Reeves and Green have said about the WCA is that they will "reform" it. This will apparently involve "disabled" people (DON'T START ME) getting a statement from their Maximus moron describing what work they can do. Even if they, er, can't.
They also intend to continue with the Work Programme and have said very little about workfare, which they seem to approve of.

Whilst many Labour MPs have done some sterling work against the bedroom tax and excessive sanctions, especially in debates, there is very little in terms of policy for people like me to be positive about.
Universal Credit, if salvageable, will be tidied up and brought in just as ESA was, and New Deal, and the other stuff Labour started; and everything else will probably stay pretty much the same.

They're not being cautious, OhSo. They're being silent.

I hope that if they get into office with a majority, they will actually listen to what people are telling them. People like me, DPAC, Black Triangle, the Spartacus people, Nick at ilegal, Simon Duffy, Brian Wernham, and the other campaigners and activists - all of whom are knowledgeable and understand the system and what should happen to it better than Reeves or Green ever could.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 5:35 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
mbc1955 wrote:
yahyah wrote:

Clegg's local Lib Dems using Ashcroft's polling to bar chart Labour as contenders in Sheffield Hallam.
So, let me get this straight. This is the Party Leader's consitutuency, the Deputy Prime Minister. And the electionerring consists of: 'Don't let Labour win, anything, even voting for us, but that.'

Self-awareness is at an all-time low in Politics.
And as others have pointed out ... they are using blue so initially people thought it was from the Conservatives ... it's a corker again.

But hang on a minute, that is the leaflet I would be posting as the Labour candidate to every Green voter in the constituency. Plus how many of those lib Dems were Labour voting to keep the Tories out? Normally that leaflet would say Labour cannot win here.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 5:37 pm

Western Mail polled for the most influential Welsh politicians of all time.

Nye Bevan topped the poll.
Lloyd George second, Keir Hardie third. [Embarrassed to admit I thought Hardie was a Scot.]

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... ns-8501067" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

diGriz · Post by **diGriz** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 5:37 pm

Just got in but haven't caught up yet, Schapps/Green on LBC squirming when asked if Ed was photoshopped to look chunkier. (I seriously suspect he knew and was responsible) Of course despite signing off on it he had no clue.

Sorry if mentioned, give me 20 mins to catch up.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 5:46 pm

Hanging tough on the question of debates is paying off for Cameron
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetory ... meron.html

... the Downing Street response was cleverer than a simple “No”. They decided to hedge against the risks of eventually being compelled to get involved, by using the time spent refusing to create some downsides for Miliband, too.

The argument for including the Greens is a valid one, as we have repeatedly argued here on ConHome – they qualify on all sorts of measures for the same level of coverage as UKIP (or the Lib Dems). But it is also proving helpful to Cameron’s cause – even before a single debating podium has been erected, the free publicity for the Green Party drummed up by the row has eaten into Labour’s share of the polls.

The gruelling process of hanging tough has paid off better than Tory strategists could have expected – not only have the polls shifted somewhat as the Left splits, but the broadcasters have now suggested a 7-7-2 format. This would see the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP, Green, SNP and Plaid Cymru leaders all take part in the first two debates, followed by one Miliband/Cameron head-to-head.

This would be even more harmful to Labour’s prospects. Sure, Cameron will still be at risk from a Farage barrage from his right, but Miliband will be making the same arguments as at least three other competitors – Natalie Bennett, Nicola Sturgeon and Leanne Wood. The only way his space could be more squeezed would be if Russell Brand was allowed to take part...

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 5:51 pm

Pete Garrard ‏@LiverpoolPeteG 6 hrs6 hours ago Nerja, Andalucía
Lab lead polls:

Opinium 5
AshcNHS 4
Populus 4
ICM 3
Survation 3
YouGov 2
Ipsos-M 1
ComRes 1
TNS 0
AshcNat -1

Avg 2.2% Lab maj 10-20 MP's

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 5:56 pm

ephemerid wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
ephemerid wrote:Seeing Clearly - good news at long last.

You'll be in my thoughts and meditations, and I hope all goes well.

Small thing - much as I'd love Universal Credit to implode in a dramatically disastrous fashion, I fear for the people who will suffer if that happens.
A resounding smack in the chops for the hideous IDS is something to be devoutly wished for - but a collapse of UC will leave many people with no support at all until something is put in its place or the old system restored for those currently under the UC cosh.

IDS has made such a mess of it all, so many people are suffering, that I would personally love to see all his schemes fall apart even more than they are already - but the human cost is very high, and that is a constant worry for me.
Genuine question. Do you think it's why Labour are being over cautious?

No.

Labour, ie.Reeves, have said they will audit what's gone on and attempt to "rescue" UC if possible; their policy is that they agree with UC "in principle", and would like to see it work. That's what they say in public - whether they believe it privately is another issue.

Nothing that has come from Labour on the benefits payment systems is particularly positive. Whilst they will abolish the bedroom tax and have a plan for a Jobs Guarantee for young people, there really isn't much else to be positive about.

They have said - nothing on the new council tax charges brought in last year; nothing on the fines brought in for errors made on claims (irrespective of who makes the error); nothing on increased jobsearch conditionality for WRAG ESA claimants, lone parents, carers; nothing on uprating in line with inflation; nothing on restoring the presumption of NI conts for sick children.

All that Reeves and Green have said about the WCA is that they will "reform" it. This will apparently involve "disabled" people (DON'T START ME) getting a statement from their Maximus moron describing what work they can do. Even if they, er, can't.
They also intend to continue with the Work Programme and have said very little about workfare, which they seem to approve of.

Whilst many Labour MPs have done some sterling work against the bedroom tax and excessive sanctions, especially in debates, there is very little in terms of policy for people like me to be positive about.
Universal Credit, if salvageable, will be tidied up and brought in just as ESA was, and New Deal, and the other stuff Labour started; and everything else will probably stay pretty much the same.

They're not being cautious, OhSo. They're being silent.

I hope that if they get into office with a majority, they will actually listen to what people are telling them. People like me, DPAC, Black Triangle, the Spartacus people, Nick at ilegal, Simon Duffy, Brian Wernham, and the other campaigners and activists - all of whom are knowledgeable and understand the system and what should happen to it better than Reeves or Green ever could.

Reeves Tweeted congratulations for the drop in unemployment the other day...I [replied] said: Goodness. She didn't believe the DWP figures did she?

Worrying. I'm just hoping it's a strategy to keep Labour voters who have also been screaming about 'scroungers' [and there are a lot of them] on board.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 5:57 pm

@yahyah

He was but represented a Welsh Constituency for some years

note number eg. 50,John Redwood

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 5:59 pm

yahyah wrote:Western Mail polled for the most influential Welsh politicians of all time.

Nye Bevan topped the poll.
Lloyd George second, Keir Hardie third. [Embarrassed to admit I thought Hardie was a Scot.]

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... ns-8501067" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm certain that he was a Scot. Or should I be embarrassed, too?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 6:00 pm

“Green surge”? Not in Brighton and Hove – it’s a meltdown
https://warrenmorgan.wordpress.com/2015 ... -meltdown/

Written by the leader of the Labour group on Brighton council.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 6:08 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
“Green surge”? Not in Brighton and Hove – it’s a meltdown
https://warrenmorgan.wordpress.com/2015 ... -meltdown/
Written by the leader of the Labour group on Brighton council.

Sounds as if it's all gone horribly wrong. I guess it's not as easy as it sounds.

I believe politicians are born, not made.

I know I wouldn't be up to the job.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 6:12 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
“Green surge”? Not in Brighton and Hove – it’s a meltdown
https://warrenmorgan.wordpress.com/2015 ... -meltdown/
Written by the leader of the Labour group on Brighton council.
Sounds as if it's all gone horribly wrong. I guess it's not as easy as it sounds.

I believe politicians are born, not made.

I know I wouldn't be up to the job.

Brighton is what we call in the trade a clusterfuck.

It should cost Lucas her seat, particularly for demanding they vote down their own budget. However all the evidence is she will escape the consequences and get an increased majority.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 6:15 pm

Ed Miliband criticises football clubs for not paying living wage

The Labour leader condemns football clubs which pay stars six-figure sums but don’t pay staff the living wage

He said the living wage was “needed for people doing some of the hardest jobs in our country to have dignity when they go home from work” and that “firms that can afford to pay multi-million pound salaries at the top need to explain why they will not pay the living wage to those at the bottom.” (Guardian)

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... g-living-w

He also had a go at bankers and - well - greedy sharks in general.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 6:18 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Have just seen Tony Blair's tweet on the passing of this repellent despot - the only possible response is

Verdicts vary on his time in office, and that will remain the case - but there will be virtual unanimity that his behaviour since 2007 demeaned both himself and the PMship once held. Even his usual media apologists mostly maintain an embarrassed silence about it, revealingly.
When I think of what he and his government achieved in Northern Ireland... only for it to come to this. The bizarre thing is that Blair genuinely seemed to be convinced of the need to get rid of Saddam Hussein, only to align himself with other despots in the region without any qualms at all. He said Mubarrak was a force for good, for heaven's sake! Was it only ever about geopolitics, balance of power, narrow national interest?

Edit: Just seen the tweet. Not quite Thatcher and Pinochet, yet, but heading in that direction.

Jesus it has come to this.

I agree with Mensch.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 98709.html

Let's be clear - The Queen regards royalty as important, she doesn't give a shit about how many plebs they have killed.

Why will the UK wake up to this and kick her to the curb.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 6:27 pm

Looking for something I posted on the other site and came across this.

Posted by @refitman
Aug 23 2013.

I think it's worth posting Caroline Lucas's recent letter to the Guardian:
Quote:
I've been reading with interest the recent correspondence on these pages about the kind of Labour party people would like to vote for. As I read through the list of John Walton's initial policy proposals (Suggestions for a Labour manifesto, 14 August), it struck me that they all sounded very familiar. And that's for the very good reason that, almost without exception, they are long-standing Green party policies. Whether it's repealing the coalition's disastrous NHS legislation, bringing rail back into public ownership (the subject of my current private member's bill), abandoning PFI and ending the privatising of public services, or scrapping Trident and ending fracking, these are all policies the Greens have long espoused.

Although imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, I can't help thinking that the best way to see these policies realised would be for the people who support them to vote for the party that is already signed up to them.

Over a million people voted for the Green party in the last European elections (the last time the UK had a nationwide vote under a proportional system), and a recent YouGov poll for the Electoral Reform Society put us at 12%, ahead of the Lib Dems, and on course to win four more seats at the Euro elections next year, taking our tally to six.

We don't need a new radical and progressive political party: we need a fairer electoral system to allow the one we've got, the Green party, to break through in the general election, and give louder voice to these views. Under proportional representation, there would be no need for "splits on the left", as some of your correspondents feared – progressive parties could work together in the best interests of everyone who wants to see a socially just and environmentally sustainable future.
Caroline Lucas MP
Green, Brighton Pavilion

A Green home for unhappy Labour voters
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... our-voters" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 6:34 pm

''we need a fairer electoral system to allow the one we've got, the Green party, to break through in the general election''.
All very well, can see why Lucas wants to grab more seats but a new fairer system also potentially allows fringe ultra right wing parties to come to the fore.
Be careful for what you wish for. Don't think we couldn't end up with a British New Dawn gaining seats.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 6:38 pm

yahyah wrote:''we need a fairer electoral system to allow the one we've got, the Green party, to break through in the general election''.
All very well, can see why Lucas wants to grab more seats but a new fairer system also potentially allows fringe ultra right wing parties to come to the fore.
Be careful for what you wish for. Don't think we couldn't end up with a British New Dawn gaining seats.

Lucas can bite my shiny metal ass, I understand her position, but let's not pretend it is anything other than self interest.

Lots of people assume PR would be fairer, I am less convinced. The people vote but the politicians decide the government. It can actually be an impediment to change.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 6:40 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
yahyah wrote:''we need a fairer electoral system to allow the one we've got, the Green party, to break through in the general election''.
All very well, can see why Lucas wants to grab more seats but a new fairer system also potentially allows fringe ultra right wing parties to come to the fore.
Be careful for what you wish for. Don't think we couldn't end up with a British New Dawn gaining seats.
Lucas can bite my shiny metal ass, I understand her position, but let's not pretend it is anything other than self interest.

Lots of people assume PR would be fairer, I am less convinced. The people vote but the politicians decide the government. It can actually be an impediment to change.

She'd only bite your ass if it's organic and free range TE.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 6:41 pm

yahyah wrote:Western Mail polled for the most influential Welsh politicians of all time.

Nye Bevan topped the poll.
Lloyd George second, Keir Hardie third. [Embarrassed to admit I thought Hardie was a Scot.]

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... ns-8501067" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kier Hardie WAS a Scot.

He's on the list because he was MP for Merthyr Tydfil.

)

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 6:48 pm

ohsocynical wrote:

Reeves Tweeted congratulations for the drop in unemployment the other day...I [replied] said: Goodness. She didn't believe the DWP figures did she?

Worrying. I'm just hoping it's a strategy to keep Labour voters who have also been screaming about 'scroungers' [and there are a lot of them] on board.

Reeves is an idiot.

58,000 more people in work. In a month.
66,000 more people "economically inactive", ie. not working and not claiming benefit.

That's 8,000 more people in a month disappearing from any measure of anything.
No work, no benefits, no nothing.

Unpersons.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 6:50 pm

As I read through the list of John Walton's initial policy proposals (Suggestions for a Labour manifesto, 14 August), it struck me that they all sounded very familiar. And that's for the very good reason that, almost without exception, they are long-standing Green party policies. Whether it's repealing the coalition's disastrous NHS legislation, bringing rail back into public ownership (the subject of my current private member's bill), abandoning PFI and ending the privatising of public services, or scrapping Trident and ending fracking, these are all policies the Greens have long espoused.

I read the above paragraph and immediately thought it goes two ways.
If Labour and Green policies are so similar then why not support Labour in May when it's on such a knife edge? I don't think there's any doubt a Labour win would at least prepare the ground for many of the Greens aims?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 6:53 pm

ephemerid wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:

Reeves Tweeted congratulations for the drop in unemployment the other day...I [replied] said: Goodness. She didn't believe the DWP figures did she?

Worrying. I'm just hoping it's a strategy to keep Labour voters who have also been screaming about 'scroungers' [and there are a lot of them] on board.
Reeves is an idiot.

58,000 more people in work. In a month.

That's 8,000 more people in a month disappearing from any measure of anything.
No work, no benefits, no nothing.

Unpersons.

Yes. I was taken aback because that day Twitter was seething with facts and figures that showed DWPs claims was a load of cobblers.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 6:56 pm

yahyah wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
yahyah wrote:''we need a fairer electoral system to allow the one we've got, the Green party, to break through in the general election''.
All very well, can see why Lucas wants to grab more seats but a new fairer system also potentially allows fringe ultra right wing parties to come to the fore.
Be careful for what you wish for. Don't think we couldn't end up with a British New Dawn gaining seats.
Lucas can bite my shiny metal ass, I understand her position, but let's not pretend it is anything other than self interest.

Lots of people assume PR would be fairer, I am less convinced. The people vote but the politicians decide the government. It can actually be an impediment to change.

She'd only bite your ass if it's organic and free range TE.

Was that Aug 2013 posting before or after the AV referendum? I can't remember. If after, then what's done is done, and you have to work with what you've got.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 6:57 pm

Goodnight, everyone.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 7:02 pm

PorFavor wrote:Goodnight, everyone.

Night PF.

I have missed saying that to you (small sickly violin playing as I write).

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 7:02 pm

I'm pretty sure Lloyd-George was English. Manchester or some such.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 7:05 pm

diGriz wrote:Just got in but haven't caught up yet, Schapps/Green on LBC squirming when asked if Ed was photoshopped to look chunkier. (I seriously suspect he knew and was responsible) Of course despite signing off on it he had no clue.

Sorry if mentioned, give me 20 mins to catch up.

I've been here on & off all day & still needed Mr. Citizen to show me the photo-shopped effort from the Tory party chairman. How embarrassing for Grant.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 7:06 pm

ephemerid wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:

Reeves Tweeted congratulations for the drop in unemployment the other day...I [replied] said: Goodness. She didn't believe the DWP figures did she?

Worrying. I'm just hoping it's a strategy to keep Labour voters who have also been screaming about 'scroungers' [and there are a lot of them] on board.

Reeves is an idiot.

58,000 more people in work. In a month.
66,000 more people "economically inactive", ie. not working and not claiming benefit.

That's 8,000 more people in a month disappearing from any measure of anything.
No work, no benefits, no nothing.

Unpersons.

Meant to say - there are many people just dropping out of view.

1.9 Million adverse decisions (ie. sanction referrals resulting in a disallowance of benefit) made since 2011.
400,000 people from that 1.9 Million found work according to DWP - we do not know what work, or how long it lasted for.

The remaining 1.6 Million did not find work. For varying periods, 4 weeks minimum, they got no benefit either.

Reeves should not be congratulating the government on this nonsense - she should be talking, no, shouting, about the missing people.

The people who get no money for weeks on end and just give up - if I was sanctioned for the average length of time, 3 months, would I bother carrying on? Bearing in mind every single day I'd be at risk of another sanction, and a third would mean no benefits for 3 years?
No. I'd bugger off for good - because if I did go back I would still have to serve out the sanction from the date of the new claim.

That's what she should be doing. And that's just sanctions, and there will more of them if the UC she says she hopes to rescue comes in and they will apply to working people and carers too.

She is useless.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 7:07 pm

James O'Brien retweeted
Tom Swarbrick @TomsonSwarb · 7h 7 hours ago
Michael Mansfield QC tells @mrjamesob he doesn't think a chair for the #CSAinquiry will be found before the General Election @LBC

Despair. What the hell is going on that they can't sort out the basics?

James O'Brien retweeted
LBC @LBC · 7h 7 hours ago
LISTEN: Michael Mansfield QC says child abuse inquiry "too hot to handle" for government http://l-bc.co/KB2drX" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 7:08 pm

PorFavor wrote:Goodnight, everyone.

Night PF

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 7:13 pm

yahyah wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
yahyah wrote:''we need a fairer electoral system to allow the one we've got, the Green party, to break through in the general election''.
All very well, can see why Lucas wants to grab more seats but a new fairer system also potentially allows fringe ultra right wing parties to come to the fore.
Be careful for what you wish for. Don't think we couldn't end up with a British New Dawn gaining seats.
Lucas can bite my shiny metal ass, I understand her position, but let's not pretend it is anything other than self interest.

Lots of people assume PR would be fairer, I am less convinced. The people vote but the politicians decide the government. It can actually be an impediment to change.

She'd only bite your ass if it's organic and free range TE.

Cultural reference, if you don't know Futurama you have seriously missed out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PNGq7tDWMQ&sns=em

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 7:16 pm

ephemerid wrote:
ephemerid wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:

Reeves Tweeted congratulations for the drop in unemployment the other day...I [replied] said: Goodness. She didn't believe the DWP figures did she?

Worrying. I'm just hoping it's a strategy to keep Labour voters who have also been screaming about 'scroungers' [and there are a lot of them] on board.

Reeves is an idiot.

58,000 more people in work. In a month.
66,000 more people "economically inactive", ie. not working and not claiming benefit.

That's 8,000 more people in a month disappearing from any measure of anything.
No work, no benefits, no nothing.

Unpersons.

Meant to say - there are many people just dropping out of view.

1.9 Million adverse decisions (ie. sanction referrals resulting in a disallowance of benefit) made since 2011.
400,000 people from that 1.9 Million found work according to DWP - we do not know what work, or how long it lasted for.

The remaining 1.6 Million did not find work. For varying periods, 4 weeks minimum, they got no benefit either.

Reeves should not be congratulating the government on this nonsense - she should be talking, no, shouting, about the missing people.

The people who get no money for weeks on end and just give up - if I was sanctioned for the average length of time, 3 months, would I bother carrying on? Bearing in mind every single day I'd be at risk of another sanction, and a third would mean no benefits for 3 years?
No. I'd bugger off for good - because if I did go back I would still have to serve out the sanction from the date of the new claim.

That's what she should be doing. And that's just sanctions, and there will more of them if the UC she says she hopes to rescue comes in and they will apply to working people and carers too.

She is useless.

Today’s fall in overall unemployment is welcome, but wages remain sluggish and working people are £1,600 a year worse off since 2010 - Reeves

Rachel Reeves MP, Labour’s Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, responding to today’s Labour Market Statistics, said:

“Today’s fall in overall unemployment is welcome, but wages remain sluggish and working people are £1,600 a year worse off since 2010.

“The Tory cost-of-living crisis and the Tory low-wage economy has left millions of people who do the right thing, work and contribute struggling to make ends meet and pay the bills. And David Cameron and George Osborne’s failure to tackle low pay is making it far harder to get the deficit down with income tax receipts across the Parliament £70 billion lower than forecast in 2010.

“A Labour government will tackle the Tory cost-of-living crisis and the Tory low-wage economy by raising the National Minimum Wage to £8 an hour, ensuring more people are paid a Living Wage, getting more homes built and extending free childcare provision. We will get the next generation into work by boosting apprenticeships.

“Tackling low pay is part of our tough, but balanced plan to get the deficit down and earn our way to higher living standards for all, not just a few at the top.

“Today’s figures also show a worrying rise in youth unemployment - the government should bring in a compulsory jobs guarantee to get young people into work.”

JANUARY 21, 2015 (10:12 AM)

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1087249 ... is-welcome

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 7:17 pm

: Words Fail Me Simon Danczuk Again.jpg (40.95 KiB) Viewed 8915 times

WTF is the matter with this man? I applaud him for all his work on supporting the child abuse survivors ... but everything else about him. Nah thanks.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 7:18 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
As I read through the list of John Walton's initial policy proposals (Suggestions for a Labour manifesto, 14 August), it struck me that they all sounded very familiar. And that's for the very good reason that, almost without exception, they are long-standing Green party policies. Whether it's repealing the coalition's disastrous NHS legislation, bringing rail back into public ownership (the subject of my current private member's bill), abandoning PFI and ending the privatising of public services, or scrapping Trident and ending fracking, these are all policies the Greens have long espoused.
I read the above paragraph and immediately thought it goes two ways.
If Labour and Green policies are so similar then why not support Labour in May when it's on such a knife edge? I don't think there's any doubt a Labour win would at least prepare the ground for many of the Greens aims?
True, and a fair point. But what strikes me is that repealing the NHS legislation has been Labour policy almost from day one of the bill, bringing rail back into public ownership, at least in part, has been mooted in Labour circles for ages too. It would be unfair to paint all these as Green policies that Labour has seen and nicked. If that's the point that's being made and I'm not being oversensitive of course.

But you're right, it shows greater similarity of thinking between at least part of Labour and the Greens than is often credited.

In an ideal world if an idea is good, workable and will benefit a lot of people, it shouldn't matter whose idea it is, as long as its carried out.

I don't think we're quite there yet.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 7:18 pm

Today’s fall in overall unemployment is welcome...

That's how Reeves' report on the employment figures shows up in the text leader on my e-mail in box & how it's truncated in searches.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 7:25 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Words Fail Me Simon Danczuk Again.jpg
WTF is the matter with this man? I applaud him for all his work on supporting the child abuse survivors ... but everything else about him. Nah thanks.
Is this f$%^%$ serious???

I think he thinks it's funny .... he's just obsessed with himself. Completely in love with himself.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 7:25 pm

citizenJA wrote:
Today’s fall in overall unemployment is welcome...
That's how Reeves' report on the employment figures shows up in the text leader on my e-mail in box & how it's truncated in searches.

And what does she choose to drone on about?

Labourcostoflivingjobsguaranteehardworkingfamilieslosing£1600ayearyaddayaddayadda.

Well done, Rachel, have a biscuit.

I'm done with this for now. You may all breathe a sigh of relief.

I am now drooling over the one, the only......on Sport Wales.....David Ginola. (Swoons)

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 7:30 pm

ephemerid wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
Today’s fall in overall unemployment is welcome...
That's how Reeves' report on the employment figures shows up in the text leader on my e-mail in box & how it's truncated in searches.

And what does she choose to drone on about?

Labourcostoflivingjobsguaranteehardworkingfamilieslosing£1600ayearyaddayaddayadda.

Well done, Rachel, have a biscuit.

I'm done with this for now. You may all breathe a sigh of relief.

I am now drooling over the one, the only......on Sport Wales.....David Ginola. (Swoons)

How to go grey to the power of oooommmpppphhhhhh eh Ephie!

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 7:32 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
yahyah wrote:''we need a fairer electoral system to allow the one we've got, the Green party, to break through in the general election''.
All very well, can see why Lucas wants to grab more seats but a new fairer system also potentially allows fringe ultra right wing parties to come to the fore.
Be careful for what you wish for. Don't think we couldn't end up with a British New Dawn gaining seats.
Lucas can bite my shiny metal ass, I understand her position, but let's not pretend it is anything other than self interest.

Lots of people assume PR would be fairer, I am less convinced. The people vote but the politicians decide the government. It can actually be an impediment to change.
It's fairer because whatever happens you have a government made up of parties that more than half the electorate have voted for, as opposed to the UK where a party with the support of only a third of the electorate can make huge changes to the fabric of society.

It's all about how you implement PR. At least with a PR-based parliament, the parties know they have a strong likelihood of being in coalition and act accordingly, so their voters can have a good idea of who they would and wouldn't go into coalition with, what policies would be their coalition redlines etc.

The killer for me though is that we have an increasing certainty of ending up with coalition governments in a system that just wasn't designed for it and an electorate that broadly isn't prepared for it. How crazy is it that tiny parties standing in a handful of seats have to act like they're going to form a government? How crazy is it that a party can technically come second nationally and not be represented at all? FPTP worked when the vast majority of the electorate was red or blue, but that just isn't the case any more and there's no point wishing it could be. Moreover, while we have FPTP, we can get situations like the one in the last parliament where one party can effectively try to gerrymander the whole system in its own favour in perpetuity.

I'm afraid I don't buy the argument that PR is bad because it would let far right parties in. Democracy should be about trusting the electorate. I don't believe in disenfranchising people for being stupid or evil. It just means the rest of us need to fight harder for enlightened attitudes.

The problem with PR is simply you get no say in who forms the government. I have a problem at the moment because it would give us a Tory Kip government. You also get a disproportionate impact of smaller parties and you never ever get a government that has to stick to a manifesto, they all trade it off.

We have a Tory government today because Clegg switched sides post election, and indeed in normal times it would mean we vote Tory/Labour whoever and then Nick Clegg decides who will be in government.

Our system is fairly crap, PR would be different, but I am unconvinced it would be less crap. It certainly makes radical change impossible and creates a stuck political orthodoxy. BNP MPs would be a certainty, on the plus side there might be zero Lib Dem MPs under PR.

Edited to add, on current polling Labour/Tory blocks are so close it simply comes down to which group of 80 Kippers, 50 Greens, 40 SNP and 30 Lib Dems decides to join which block.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 7:33 pm

stephen jones ‏@bassmadman 20 mins20 minutes ago
.@MSmithsonPB: LAB moves to 4% lead with Populus online
LAB 36=
CON 32-3
UKIP 13=
LD 9+1
GRN 6+2

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 7:35 pm

Good evening, all! I'm about to start reading today's posts from the beginning. x

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 7:37 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Words Fail Me Simon Danczuk Again.jpg
WTF is the matter with this man? I applaud him for all his work on supporting the child abuse survivors ... but everything else about him. Nah thanks.
Is this f$%^%$ serious???

I'm wondering if his work on child abuse was as much about it being high profile and he'd get the coverage...Hope I'm wrong, but I'm very cynical these days.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 7:38 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Words Fail Me Simon Danczuk Again.jpg
WTF is the matter with this man? I applaud him for all his work on supporting the child abuse survivors ... but everything else about him. Nah thanks.
Is this f$%^%$ serious???
I'm wondering if his work on child abuse was as much about it being high profile and he'd get the coverage...Hope I'm wrong, but I'm very cynical these days.

He makes it very hard to trust him, that's for sure.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 7:41 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Words Fail Me Simon Danczuk Again.jpg
WTF is the matter with this man? I applaud him for all his work on supporting the child abuse survivors ... but everything else about him. Nah thanks.
Is this f$%^%$ serious???
I'm wondering if his work on child abuse was as much about it being high profile and he'd get the coverage...Hope I'm wrong, but I'm very cynical these days.

I assume he is taking the piss.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 23 Jan, 2015 7:42 pm

Martin Rowson @MartinRowson · 1h 1 hour ago
Just filed tomorrow's Graun cartoon. Those Saudis - they can take a joke, can't they? Course they can!