Forum rules Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.
Did anyone else hear Fasil Islam (sp) say to the young man who asked the badger question
"no, (as in no, you can't ask a supplemental question) followed by.....
"You were supposed to be asking about housing"
There was I thinking the questions were not filtered...
So was that the sum total of Cameron's speech - 'protecting school funding' which turned out not to protect it from rising NI/pension costs; and forcibly converting loads more schools which seems to be not possible anyway (if Dominic Cummings is to be believed)?
No wonder the DT relegated it to "Other news headlines". Not much there for a manifesto - they seem to be struggling to come up with anything new.
Don't worry, there'll be "discipline", "failing teachers", "school sports" and "health and safety" along in a bit.
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Not feasible in the short term?
What exactly happens to change that?
If you prioritise the conservation of the environment then there is a logical progression to a 'post-growth' economy.
I know there are people here who think that's bollocks, I'm not arguing the toss about that.
The change is not a return to prosperity but a recognition that economic growth is over and that a different model is needed. What economic wealth there was, would have to be shared more evenly.
That's certainly not going to happen in my lifetime but who knows?
It was the French social philosopher Andre Gorz who saw the logical flaws in that. People would resist the commercialisation of human life, he predicted. Gorz saw the basic income not as a solution to welfare costs, nor as a way to undermine cheap labour, but as a transitional subsidy towards a low- or zero-work society. It should, he wrote, enable us to “refuse work”; it would represent “the pooling of socially produced wealth”.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 1h1 hour ago
A CON lead of just 4% in England could mean 45+ seat losses on a uniform swing. Tories need to be much closer to the 11.4% lead of 2010
So was that the sum total of Cameron's speech - 'protecting school funding' which turned out not to protect it from rising NI/pension costs; and forcibly converting loads more schools which seems to be not possible anyway (if Dominic Cummings is to be believed)?
No wonder the DT relegated it to "Other news headlines". Not much there for a manifesto - they seem to be struggling to come up with anything new.
Don't worry, there'll be "discipline", "failing teachers", "school sports" and "health and safety" along in a bit.
Did anyone spot the "One in three children could not read on leaving primary school" quote - or did I mishear it?
AngryAsWell wrote:
Did anyone else hear Fasil Islam (sp) say to the young man who asked the badger question
"no, (as in no, you can't ask a supplemental question) followed by.....
"You were supposed to be asking about housing"
There was I thinking the questions were not filtered...
Yes, he did say that. They had clearly organised the questions as they do on QT. Had Dave seen them though?
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Not feasible in the short term?
What exactly happens to change that?
If you prioritise the conservation of the environment then there is a logical progression to a 'post-growth' economy.
I know there are people here who think that's bollocks, I'm not arguing the toss about that.
The change is not a return to prosperity but a recognition that economic growth is over and that a different model is needed. What economic wealth there was, would have to be shared more evenly.
That's certainly not going to happen in my lifetime but who knows?
It was the French social philosopher Andre Gorz who saw the logical flaws in that. People would resist the commercialisation of human life, he predicted. Gorz saw the basic income not as a solution to welfare costs, nor as a way to undermine cheap labour, but as a transitional subsidy towards a low- or zero-work society. It should, he wrote, enable us to “refuse work”; it would represent “the pooling of socially produced wealth”.
I saw the Mason thing. I didn't see where these tens of billions of health spending is supposed to come from. Adult social care? My dad had an op (that went really well) in December. I venture there are a fair few home help hours just in that op.
AngryAsWell wrote:
Did anyone else hear Fasil Islam (sp) say to the young man who asked the badger question
"no, (as in no, you can't ask a supplemental question) followed by.....
"You were supposed to be asking about housing"
There was I thinking the questions were not filtered...
Yes, he did say that. They had clearly organised the questions as they do on QT. Had Dave seen them though?
Judging by the quality of his answers, I'd guess not.
Faisal was out of line on that one. Cameron had ducked the previous question, and that young man obviously felt that strongly; it was typical of Cameron that he took a question about general Tory profligacy and tried to laugh it off by focussing on the badgers, which he obviously considered trivial (but you could see his questioner didn't). The Tories lost the youth vote today, which is why it is vital to get that vote out on May 7th.
Miliband looking weird has become a cultural meme, which means that when he does appear in a debate, he will surprise voters by coming across far better than they’d expected.
Oh I wonder how they got that impression? Now let me see...ooh...hard one this...er...
If I'm not here, then I'll be in the library. Or the other library.
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
I saw the Mason thing. I didn't see where these tens of billions of health spending is supposed to come from. Adult social care? My dad had an op (that went really well) in December. I venture there are a fair few home help hours just in that op.
I thought it was a bit wild too. But you'd think there would be some healthcare savings, more people being cared for by relatives, less workplace stress, fewer road accidents possibly. More time to cook, even.
Having watched some of the AskTheLeaders thing, I think Miliband and Bennett did best; Clegg (really) next; Cameron was utter crap.
It was pretty obvious that some of the questioners were deeply unimpressed.
The biggest loser, of course, is Farage - this has to be the first time ever that his "work" in Europe takes precedence over an opportunity to get his mug all over the telly. Some of the young people asked about this agreed.
My opinion on this is that OGRFG has had a couple of outings over the past few days that he has not been able to control or stage-manage, and as a result he is on camera looking as though he is floundering and completely incapable of thinking on his feet.
His answers come across as not genuine, and his arrogance shows. No wonder he won't commit to the TV debates. Unless he has a tame audience (like the JCB workers whose boss funds the Tories) he is absolutely useless. I think he knows it, too.
On another topic entirely.......DWP.
The evidence supplied to the Work and Pensions Select Committee by PCS has been published (in various places) with various letters etc. (names redacted, but the PCS and SC have seen the originals) which prove that targets really do exist. Lots of them.
We already know that there are targets for sanctions on jobseekers; there is now proof that there are targets to get people on ESA and lone parents on IS into work experience, 35-hour jobsearch conditionality, schemes and programmes, irrespective of their circumstances.
On sanctions, there is a magic target of 80%. JC advisers are under pressure to send as many referrals as possible to Decision Makers; these are frequently inappropriate, and as a result DMs were not disallowing benefits (correctly).
Now they have been instructed that there is an "expectation" that 80% of all referrals will result in a sanction/disallowance, or "adverse decision" as they put it; again, irrespective of whether those referrals are appropriate.
There is another magic target of 80% for the DMs which refer to all sanction referrals and any decisions on ESA; all requests for Mandatory Consideration of Review, whatever the circumstances, are now expected to fail at the rate of 80%.
So an ESA claimant may ask for a MCR, and the DM is much more likely than not to refuse benefit. MCRs should be done within 10 days of receipt, so people will be taken off benefits very quickly.
First, we already know that one million referrals for a sanction on JSA and ESA or IS claimants were sent for a decision in the past year; DMs imposed a sanction on about half of them. Now that they have to meet this 80% target, it means that 800,000 people will have benefit stopped for a minimum of 4 weeks. That's 300,000 more, assuming the rate of 1M PA stays the same; the fact is it's likely to rise.
Second, we know that there are still 700,000 people waiting for their first WCA; Maximus starts its' contract in March, and we have no idea what they will be like in comparison to Atos. I am assuming that they will attempt to clear the backlog by doing more "paper" assessments; but as we are not allowed to know what their targets are, it's reasonable to assume they will find a similar number capable of work.
As the introduction of the MCR has reduced appeals significantly, it's obvious that IDS wants to put people off appealing a decision; now that we know there is a target to fail 80% of these MCRs, more ESA claimants will end up losing benefits as even if they go on to appeal they are not paid any ESA at all during the MCR and while they wait for a Tribunal hearing.
More than three-quarters of the JSA claimant count will get at least one sanction in a year; 80% of them will lose benefit. If they get more than one, the same likelihood applies. If they get a third in a year, they may well be out of benefit altogether for 3 years; even if they get low-level sanctions, they get no benefit for at least 4 weeks, plus another week's wait if they close their claim and sign on again later.
Less than a third of the ESA claimant count (once they've finally had their first WCA) get Support Group first time; the rest are all subject to the WRAG or JSA jobsearch conditions even if they ask for a MCR or go on to appeal - and thus the sanctions regime.
What all this amounts to is a deliberate and systematic removal of benefits from claimants by one means or another. It seems that if any claimant argues about a decision or a sanction, even if their case is reconsidered, the DMs are now required to find the vast majority not entitled.
This is a national disgrace.
"Poverty is the worst form of violence" - Mahatma Gandhi
Labour's latest attempts to win over floating voters capsized this morning after their shadow education secretary told one inquisitive parent to "stop moaning" and "do some work".
ohsocynical wrote:Oooh Looks as if Cameron's appearing later. I'll be out
Yes - just seen that. I'll have to eat my words then ... straightaway.
Sky News has just announced that David Cameron will be taking part in its Ask the Leaders event.
We won't be able to see it ... someone will have to give us the 'highlights' here.
The security line they were trotting out is utter BS. Ed was originally supposed to be on at 2, they've had to reshuffle the schedule as CCHQ finally realised that Cameron could not duck this one without looking like the chicken he is. But part of the problem he faces is that while Bennett was less than impressive Ed has just played an absolute blinder and Clegg, while irrelevant, will undoubtedly put in a good performance; so OGRFPG will simply come across as the shiny & soulless sociopath he undoubtedly is - Ed answered & engaged, Dave will pontificate. Should be fun.
Ok, have to ask and appear ignorant but what does 'OGRFPG' stand for.
The closest I can manage is Our Great Red Faced Pig God but that's incredibly insulting to bovine deities.
ephemerid wrote:Having watched some of the AskTheLeaders thing, I think Miliband and Bennett did best; Clegg (really) next; Cameron was utter crap.
It was pretty obvious that some of the questioners were deeply unimpressed.
The biggest loser, of course, is Farage - this has to be the first time ever that his "work" in Europe takes precedence over an opportunity to get his mug all over the telly. Some of the young people asked about this agreed.
My opinion on this is that OGRFG has had a couple of outings over the past few days that he has not been able to control or stage-manage, and as a result he is on camera looking as though he is floundering and completely incapable of thinking on his feet.
His answers come across as not genuine, and his arrogance shows. No wonder he won't commit to the TV debates. Unless he has a tame audience (like the JCB workers whose boss funds the Tories) he is absolutely useless. I think he knows it, too.
On another topic entirely.......DWP.
The evidence supplied to the Work and Pensions Select Committee by PCS has been published (in various places) with various letters etc. (names redacted, but the PCS and SC have seen the originals) which prove that targets really do exist. Lots of them.
We already know that there are targets for sanctions on jobseekers; there is now proof that there are targets to get people on ESA and lone parents on IS into work experience, 35-hour jobsearch conditionality, schemes and programmes, irrespective of their circumstances.
On sanctions, there is a magic target of 80%. JC advisers are under pressure to send as many referrals as possible to Decision Makers; these are frequently inappropriate, and as a result DMs were not disallowing benefits (correctly).
Now they have been instructed that there is an "expectation" that 80% of all referrals will result in a sanction/disallowance, or "adverse decision" as they put it; again, irrespective of whether those referrals are appropriate.
There is another magic target of 80% for the DMs which refer to all sanction referrals and any decisions on ESA; all requests for Mandatory Consideration of Review, whatever the circumstances, are now expected to fail at the rate of 80%.
So an ESA claimant may ask for a MCR, and the DM is much more likely than not to refuse benefit. MCRs should be done within 10 days of receipt, so people will be taken off benefits very quickly.
First, we already know that one million referrals for a sanction on JSA and ESA or IS claimants were sent for a decision in the past year; DMs imposed a sanction on about half of them. Now that they have to meet this 80% target, it means that 800,000 people will have benefit stopped for a minimum of 4 weeks. That's 300,000 more, assuming the rate of 1M PA stays the same; the fact is it's likely to rise.
Second, we know that there are still 700,000 people waiting for their first WCA; Maximus starts its' contract in March, and we have no idea what they will be like in comparison to Atos. I am assuming that they will attempt to clear the backlog by doing more "paper" assessments; but as we are not allowed to know what their targets are, it's reasonable to assume they will find a similar number capable of work.
As the introduction of the MCR has reduced appeals significantly, it's obvious that IDS wants to put people off appealing a decision; now that we know there is a target to fail 80% of these MCRs, more ESA claimants will end up losing benefits as even if they go on to appeal they are not paid any ESA at all during the MCR and while they wait for a Tribunal hearing.
More than three-quarters of the JSA claimant count will get at least one sanction in a year; 80% of them will lose benefit. If they get more than one, the same likelihood applies. If they get a third in a year, they may well be out of benefit altogether for 3 years; even if they get low-level sanctions, they get no benefit for at least 4 weeks, plus another week's wait if they close their claim and sign on again later.
Less than a third of the ESA claimant count (once they've finally had their first WCA) get Support Group first time; the rest are all subject to the WRAG or JSA jobsearch conditions even if they ask for a MCR or go on to appeal - and thus the sanctions regime.
What all this amounts to is a deliberate and systematic removal of benefits from claimants by one means or another. It seems that if any claimant argues about a decision or a sanction, even if their case is reconsidered, the DMs are now required to find the vast majority not entitled.
This is a national disgrace.
It is horrifying and a national disgrace. No fairness in that system whatsoever!
This time, I'm gonna be stronger I'm not giving in...
Apologies, it's not on topic but this news has me staggered
As measles cases spread to 14 states, Obama encouraged parents to seek vaccinations for their children in an interview with NBC News scheduled to air on Monday.
A record 644 measles cases were reported in the US in 2014, the most since it was declared eliminated in 2000.
We've got scurvy & rickets making a come back in the UK.
Measles raiding the US - there's only fifty of them - fourteen US states measles spread.
That means anyone without immunisation or an isolation chamber is up a tree.
How the hell are fourteen different US states having that level contagion from a disease not prevalent in the US since the turn of the twenty-first century?
These are two 'first world' nations
I point this out because it's an indicator, a warning light flashing - an indication of degraded standards of living.
Andy Slaughter MP retweeted
Catherine Baksi @legalhackette 2h2 hours ago
Munby orders Capita to pay £16,000 following 'lamentable' 'serial failure' to provide interpreters in adoption case: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/ ... capita.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Read the attached judgement in utter shock ... it lays bare the appalling shambles and injustice the outsourcing of the court interpreters service has resulted in. You need to read on a bit to understand just how badly Capita / ALS failed in this one instance. The judge's disgust is there in every paragraph.
This government is so destructive ..... they don't give a shit who suffers because of their actions.
Labour's latest attempts to win over floating voters capsized this morning after their shadow education secretary told one inquisitive parent to "stop moaning" and "do some work".
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Yes - just seen that. I'll have to eat my words then ... straightaway.
We won't be able to see it ... someone will have to give us the 'highlights' here.
The security line they were trotting out is utter BS. Ed was originally supposed to be on at 2, they've had to reshuffle the schedule as CCHQ finally realised that Cameron could not duck this one without looking like the chicken he is. But part of the problem he faces is that while Bennett was less than impressive Ed has just played an absolute blinder and Clegg, while irrelevant, will undoubtedly put in a good performance; so OGRFPG will simply come across as the shiny & soulless sociopath he undoubtedly is - Ed answered & engaged, Dave will pontificate. Should be fun.
Ok, have to ask and appear ignorant but what does 'OGRFPG' stand for.
The closest I can manage is Our Great Red Faced Pig God but that's incredibly insulting to bovine deities.
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Yes - just seen that. I'll have to eat my words then ... straightaway.
We won't be able to see it ... someone will have to give us the 'highlights' here.
The security line they were trotting out is utter BS. Ed was originally supposed to be on at 2, they've had to reshuffle the schedule as CCHQ finally realised that Cameron could not duck this one without looking like the chicken he is. But part of the problem he faces is that while Bennett was less than impressive Ed has just played an absolute blinder and Clegg, while irrelevant, will undoubtedly put in a good performance; so OGRFPG will simply come across as the shiny & soulless sociopath he undoubtedly is - Ed answered & engaged, Dave will pontificate. Should be fun.
Ok, have to ask and appear ignorant but what does 'OGRFPG' stand for.
The closest I can manage is Our Great Red Faced Pig God but that's incredibly insulting to bovine deities.
ephemerid wrote:The evidence supplied to the Work and Pensions Select Committee by PCS has been published (in various places) with various letters etc. (names redacted, but the PCS and SC have seen the originals) which prove that targets really do exist. Lots of them.
We already know that there are targets for sanctions on jobseekers; there is now proof that there are targets to get people on ESA and lone parents on IS into work experience, 35-hour jobsearch conditionality, schemes and programmes, irrespective of their circumstances.
On sanctions, there is a magic target of 80%. JC advisers are under pressure to send as many referrals as possible to Decision Makers; these are frequently inappropriate, and as a result DMs were not disallowing benefits (correctly).
Now they have been instructed that there is an "expectation" that 80% of all referrals will result in a sanction/disallowance, or "adverse decision" as they put it; again, irrespective of whether those referrals are appropriate.
There is another magic target of 80% for the DMs which refer to all sanction referrals and any decisions on ESA; all requests for Mandatory Consideration of Review, whatever the circumstances, are now expected to fail at the rate of 80%.
So an ESA claimant may ask for a MCR, and the DM is much more likely than not to refuse benefit. MCRs should be done within 10 days of receipt, so people will be taken off benefits very quickly.
First, we already know that one million referrals for a sanction on JSA and ESA or IS claimants were sent for a decision in the past year; DMs imposed a sanction on about half of them. Now that they have to meet this 80% target, it means that 800,000 people will have benefit stopped for a minimum of 4 weeks. That's 300,000 more, assuming the rate of 1M PA stays the same; the fact is it's likely to rise.
Second, we know that there are still 700,000 people waiting for their first WCA; Maximus starts its' contract in March, and we have no idea what they will be like in comparison to Atos. I am assuming that they will attempt to clear the backlog by doing more "paper" assessments; but as we are not allowed to know what their targets are, it's reasonable to assume they will find a similar number capable of work.
As the introduction of the MCR has reduced appeals significantly, it's obvious that IDS wants to put people off appealing a decision; now that we know there is a target to fail 80% of these MCRs, more ESA claimants will end up losing benefits as even if they go on to appeal they are not paid any ESA at all during the MCR and while they wait for a Tribunal hearing.
More than three-quarters of the JSA claimant count will get at least one sanction in a year; 80% of them will lose benefit. If they get more than one, the same likelihood applies. If they get a third in a year, they may well be out of benefit altogether for 3 years; even if they get low-level sanctions, they get no benefit for at least 4 weeks, plus another week's wait if they close their claim and sign on again later.
Less than a third of the ESA claimant count (once they've finally had their first WCA) get Support Group first time; the rest are all subject to the WRAG or JSA jobsearch conditions even if they ask for a MCR or go on to appeal - and thus the sanctions regime.
What all this amounts to is a deliberate and systematic removal of benefits from claimants by one means or another. It seems that if any claimant argues about a decision or a sanction, even if their case is reconsidered, the DMs are now required to find the vast majority not entitled.
This is a national disgrace.
Genuinely, I hope the day comes when we can see Iain Duncan Smith pay for his crimes .... and they are crimes. And you know I still entertain the hope that Labour prove more radical in this area that Reeves seems to be saying at present.
I'm not saying that you should take Labour's words on its own policies as the gospel truth - it's a political party, after all. I'm not saying that they've laid a six-pack of golden eggs that will fix everything that's wrong with this country. What I do think is that, whenever you hear someone on the news attacking Labour policy, you should stop and ask, 'Who are you and why don't you agree with Labour?' More often than not at the moment, the answer you'll get is, 'I'm an extremely wealthy individual and I don't want to see my wallet getting lighter.'
In an interview with the Guardian, Zimmermann suggested that any such proposals would be unworkable, given the reliance on encryption by a range of online businesses in 2015.
“It’s absurd. We fought the crypto wars in the 1990s, and that matter has been settled. End-to-end encryption is everywhere now: in browsers, online banking. If you have strong encryption between your web browser and your bank, you can’t have a man-in-the-middle from the government wiretapping that,” he said.
Zimmermann noted a shift in cultural beliefs since the 1990s, when people using strong encryption technology would often have to defend themselves from accusations of being terrorists or drug dealers.
“Now, if you aren’t using strong encryption, you have to justify it,” he said. “You’re a doctor? Whaddya mean you’re not encrypting your patient records? Or you left your company laptop in a taxi with 2,000 customer names on it? You better hope that data is encrypted, or you’re in trouble.”
Is there no end to Cameron's ignorance? That's a rhetorical question by the way...
Last edited by RogerOThornhill on Mon 02 Feb, 2015 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If I'm not here, then I'll be in the library. Or the other library.
In an interview with the Guardian, Zimmermann suggested that any such proposals would be unworkable, given the reliance on encryption by a range of online businesses in 2015.
“It’s absurd. We fought the crypto wars in the 1990s, and that matter has been settled. End-to-end encryption is everywhere now: in browsers, online banking. If you have strong encryption between your web browser and your bank, you can’t have a man-in-the-middle from the government wiretapping that,” he said.
Zimmermann noted a shift in cultural beliefs since the 1990s, when people using strong encryption technology would often have to defend themselves from accusations of being terrorists or drug dealers.
“Now, if you aren’t using strong encryption, you have to justify it,” he said. “You’re a doctor? Whaddya mean you’re not encrypting your patient records? Or you left your company laptop in a taxi with 2,000 customer names on it? You better hope that data is encrypted, or you’re in trouble.”
Is there no end to Cameron's ignorance? That's a rhetorical question by the way...
Remember during "Ed Miliband's bad summer" a contrast was made by Cameron ranging across subjects like the internet.
He didn't know what he was talking about, but the energy and all was supposed to be better than Ed.
Tubby Isaacs wrote:I think a nice PMQ about the internet bollocks.
"Does the Prime Minister think he knows more about encryption than the experts?"
"You haven't apologised about your use of weaponising the NHS. Come on, apologise!"
If I'm not here, then I'll be in the library. Or the other library.
There's some very disparaging remarks about 16 and 17 year olds on Twitter right now (some of which Adam Boulton retweeted) simply because "they prefer Miliband over Cameron".
My favourite is the person who doesn't really do introspection who says that 16/17 year olds shouldn't have the vote because they don't pay attention to the detail but make their decisions based on looks... hmm which side is it that ignores policy detail and just repeatedly attacks a party leader for apparently looking 'weird' again?
I thought Cameron did very well.
Obvious that culling badgers are good for badgers
In replying to a question about HB for young people from a young person who had found it crucial in her advancement it was only right to ignore that and proffer the view of young people signing on and get given a house.
It was uphill from there.
Disappointed that although,suitably ronsealed there was no fishpointing.
Nia Griffith's may have been referring to this ?
Plaid spinning the same **** as the Greens about Labour http://vaughanwilliamsllanelli.blogspot.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
or it may be about an ex-Welsh Labour aide who is dissing the party, will not repeat some of the tweets, not sure if the allegations are his or from of the more rabid Plaid fans.
That blog post really is pants - a pile of pants. But I think it must be more specific than this and involve something to do with using constituents' experiences in some way given the tweet I originally saw from Nia Griffiths. What's the name of the ex-Welsh Labour aide?
Luke Ellis.
Google for Luke Ellis : Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe. Learn more
HindleA wrote:And of course the denial of votes to 16/17 on the basis of having a consistent age of maturity,by maintaining inconsistency.The man's a genius.
Rumour has it that he is being considered for the titular role in a remake of Eric Sykes' 1967 silent classic.
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Not feasible in the short term?
What exactly happens to change that?
One would presume when genuine prosperity returns, then it would be affordable. I believe, though (willing to be corrected) that the Green's policy on economics is for a zero growth economy? If that's the case, then not feasible in the short term becomes not feasible full stop.
Zero growth isn't really a policy but something we should be relaxed about. They have a point about growth not being the best measure of wellbeing, but the markets won't be relaxed about them being relaxed about it. There'll be a premium for borrowing for a start.
As you say, without growth, their programme (if affordable now) becomes less so, rather rapidly.
Nor read the 3rd page of posts, but this, to me, seems to snooker the policy. You need, it strikes me, a growing economy to support the policy (it's one I think is fundamentally sound), and in its absence then, as you say, it becomes untenable in the longer term.
Glad to see that Miliband scored a hit today where the other three leaders apparently didn't. Presumably those young people didn't find him that weird after all.
Labour's latest attempts to win over floating voters capsized this morning after their shadow education secretary told one inquisitive parent to "stop moaning" and "do some work".
