Monday 9th February 2015

Post by **refitman** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 7:16 am

Morning all.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 7:18 am

Morning.

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 7:24 am

Morning!

A brief glance at scrolling news bar and all there is are 4 letter words for me.

HSBC. TORY. BALLS. SICK. F**K.

Edited to clarify that BALLS refers to TORY calling Ed Balls to account for what he knew about HSBC as CIty MInister at the time.

Can the Labour Party recover?

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 8:09 am

Morning all...happy Monday everyone (sorry - can't help feeling upbeat having found these reports from 'down under')

RUPERT MURDOCH'S GRIP on newspapers is collapsing. Described as the most powerful owner of news in the English speaking world, his shareholders are building a revolt against the use of his personal power over their investments in his company.

https://independentaustralia.net/busine ... -grip,7350

For at least another year, the company will be subject to a continuing series of revelations as the new investigation team, Operation Weeting, sorts through thousands of pages of evidence of the company's corrupt practices. The Murdoch saga has begun a whole new chapter in its history. But panic in the family has reached a point where a professional counsellor has been hired to keep order at family meetings.

https://independentaustralia.net/busine ... winds,7261

We have a proud freedom of the press, unwritten and unspoken. And we have a Murdoch press that exploits that freedom by telling lies, and in Britain engages in raw criminality and bribery and fear. There are regulations which affect television and radio, but no regulation of our press. Rupert Murdoch began to abuse the freedom of the press as no one before him had ever done.

https://independentaustralia.net/busine ... media,7238

Now Abbott's name will appear in Australia's history as the leader who could not lead; a man who is untrustworthy, unreliable and dishonest; who shamed himself and the country he should never have been allowed to lead because he was totally unqualified by birth and by incompetence.

https://independentaustralia.net/politi ... -line,7334

The last one had me reeling as though I'd arrived in some alternative universe - could've sworn it was written to describe Empty Dave - and I'm well aware it's not 'earth-shattering' and that IndependentAustralia is a small online news agency....but...every little helps (now where've I heard that before?) - all these reports are from 2015, so new 'news'...I continue to live in Hope (just north of Peterborough)

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 8:13 am

Happy Birthday to Paul Flynn MP, 80 years young today.

: E5NYoc8b_400x400.jpeg (20.03 KiB) Viewed 16513 times

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 8:14 am

Judging by his voting record this is rather appropriate
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn ... se=commons" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youtube]G_SXJ18EkNw[/youtube]

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 9:07 am

Morning all.
This is why Reeves should be treasury based. Short, precise and on the money (no pun intended

).
Politics Live - Campaign countdown - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-31155200" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 9:10 am

Toby Latimer wrote:Happy Birthday to Paul Flynn MP, 80 years young today.

E5NYoc8b_400x400.jpeg

Wish there were far more MPs like him. His blog helped to keep me sane when we were going through dark times with the badger cull looming here. Hope there are many more birthdays for him to celebrate.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 9:14 am

Morning all.

I see David Gauke's taking after his boss's tactics of pointing the finger at Ed balls for anything that happened.

Never mind the fact that Balls was in Education by June 2007....wait...of course...he controlled the Treasury from there too. And HSBC!

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 9:17 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

I see David Gauke's taking after his boss's tactics of pointing the finger at Ed balls for anything that happened.

Never mind the fact that Balls was in Education by June 2007....wait...of course...he controlled the Treasury from there too. And HSBC!

Just makes them look silly I reckon

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 9:27 am

Duncan Hothersall ‏@dhothersall 13m13 minutes ago
Interesting. @davidtorrance in the Herald predicts a Tory/SNP coalition. http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/co ... .118014653" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

... If, for example, the Nationalists take 40 seats in Scotland, then Ed Miliband will need to gain 88 constituencies in England.

That simply isn't going to happen, indeed no one I've spoken to recently (including Labour people) believe anyone other than the Conservatives will emerge as the largest party in terms of MPs. This means that the recent focus of most commentary, a Labour/SNP deal (formal or informal) is a bit of a red herring. Only very rarely has a party with fewer seats than its main rival formed a government, i.e. in 1923 and February 1974.

Which is why, as Iain Macwhirter wrote in yesterday's Sunday Herald, the SNP's decision to rule out unequivocally any deal with the Conservatives makes little sense. If the Nationalists genuinely want to maximise their influence in a "balanced" Parliament and hold, as Alex Salmond puts it, Unionist "feet to the fire", then such a stance reduces rather than increases their chances of doing so.

I can't help feeling, however, that this "no deal with the Tories" line is just that, a pre-election position the SNP feels it has to hold. Speaking to the Observer in December Mr Salmond was more pragmatic, saying that the SNP would look to squeeze concessions from a minority Conservative government on an issue-by-issue basis, for example securing Scotland an opt out should the rest of the UK choose to leave the European Union...

The article goes on to set out what happened in similar conditions in 1974 ... the SNP did deals with the Tories ... and current views from some in Whitehall re dealing with Sturgeon in the future.

Can't help feeling that a Tory government would probably suit the SNP agenda very well.

Post by **refitman** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 9:29 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

I see David Gauke's taking after his boss's tactics of pointing the finger at Ed balls for anything that happened.

Never mind the fact that Balls was in Education by June 2007....wait...of course...he controlled the Treasury from there too. And HSBC!
Just makes them look silly I reckon

I'm sure I saw something, somewhere, with the Tories moaning about lack of regulation in the banking sector.

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 9:32 am

There's a fabulous e-mail from Roy Lilley arrived in my InBox just now. So much to agree with. About the NHS for England and Chris Ham of King's Fund Coalition Report. The best summary of what happened I think.

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com ... 2b2b5261ac

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 9:36 am

Adam Bienkov ‏@AdamBienkov 19m19 minutes ago
Comres: Big business prioritise profits over ethics. Agree: 78%, Disagree: 10%. Next govt should improve big biz ethics. Agree: 72% dis: 12%

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 9:38 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

I see David Gauke's taking after his boss's tactics of pointing the finger at Ed balls for anything that happened.

Never mind the fact that Balls was in Education by June 2007....wait...of course...he controlled the Treasury from there too. And HSBC!
Just makes them look silly I reckon

A normal and aware person would think that but this propaganda is being spread everywhere by the liars in control and being swallowed. I just can't see how Labour can counteract this propaganda when the MSM is all aiding it.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 9:47 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Duncan Hothersall ‏@dhothersall 13m13 minutes ago
Interesting. @davidtorrance in the Herald predicts a Tory/SNP coalition. http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/co ... .118014653" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

... If, for example, the Nationalists take 40 seats in Scotland, then Ed Miliband will need to gain 88 constituencies in England.

That simply isn't going to happen, indeed no one I've spoken to recently (including Labour people) believe anyone other than the Conservatives will emerge as the largest party in terms of MPs. This means that the recent focus of most commentary, a Labour/SNP deal (formal or informal) is a bit of a red herring. Only very rarely has a party with fewer seats than its main rival formed a government, i.e. in 1923 and February 1974.

Which is why, as Iain Macwhirter wrote in yesterday's Sunday Herald, the SNP's decision to rule out unequivocally any deal with the Conservatives makes little sense. If the Nationalists genuinely want to maximise their influence in a "balanced" Parliament and hold, as Alex Salmond puts it, Unionist "feet to the fire", then such a stance reduces rather than increases their chances of doing so.

I can't help feeling, however, that this "no deal with the Tories" line is just that, a pre-election position the SNP feels it has to hold. Speaking to the Observer in December Mr Salmond was more pragmatic, saying that the SNP would look to squeeze concessions from a minority Conservative government on an issue-by-issue basis, for example securing Scotland an opt out should the rest of the UK choose to leave the European Union...

The article goes on to set out what happened in similar conditions in 1974 ... the SNP did deals with the Tories ... and current views from some in Whitehall re dealing with Sturgeon in the future.

Can't help feeling that a Tory government would probably suit the SNP agenda very well.

Good morning to you all

Just to follow on from this - the idea that the SNP being criticised for ruling out a deal with the Tories just exemplifies the problem looking at it from a politicians tactical view and forgets that important person - the voter!

The Lib Dems thought that their love-in with the Tories would be okay because it showed them as being 'mature politicians' - what they forgot that a lot of their voters were virulently anti-Tory, more so than pro anyone else. Those voters went and will not come back in a hurry!

The SNP have taken the vast majority of their votes from the Labour Party if the polls are correct. Even the sniff that they would do a deal with the Tories would cause them a lot of issues and their response to the idea is based on knowing that.

The only way a Tory coalition would make sense for the SNP would be a referendum in the next Parliament that they win. If they don't get one, or they lost then and the result is 5 more years of this bunch of lunatics then I could see the SNP getting a nasty backdraft from the Scottish voters, setting them back a generation.

I think Sturgeon is far too smart to be seduced by any idea of a Tory Coalition - a Labour one would probably make more sense as it would not cause them any problems in Scotland, and would annoy the English! She is also more left-wing than Salmond and probably hates the Tories as much as we do.

It is a bit more complex when you get in the details but I can see no benefit for the SNP as a party from propping up Tories in Westminster

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 10:06 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Duncan Hothersall ‏@dhothersall 13m13 minutes ago
Interesting. @davidtorrance in the Herald predicts a Tory/SNP coalition. http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/co ... .118014653" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

... If, for example, the Nationalists take 40 seats in Scotland, then Ed Miliband will need to gain 88 constituencies in England.

That simply isn't going to happen, indeed no one I've spoken to recently (including Labour people) believe anyone other than the Conservatives will emerge as the largest party in terms of MPs. This means that the recent focus of most commentary, a Labour/SNP deal (formal or informal) is a bit of a red herring. Only very rarely has a party with fewer seats than its main rival formed a government, i.e. in 1923 and February 1974.

Which is why, as Iain Macwhirter wrote in yesterday's Sunday Herald, the SNP's decision to rule out unequivocally any deal with the Conservatives makes little sense. If the Nationalists genuinely want to maximise their influence in a "balanced" Parliament and hold, as Alex Salmond puts it, Unionist "feet to the fire", then such a stance reduces rather than increases their chances of doing so.

I can't help feeling, however, that this "no deal with the Tories" line is just that, a pre-election position the SNP feels it has to hold. Speaking to the Observer in December Mr Salmond was more pragmatic, saying that the SNP would look to squeeze concessions from a minority Conservative government on an issue-by-issue basis, for example securing Scotland an opt out should the rest of the UK choose to leave the European Union...

The article goes on to set out what happened in similar conditions in 1974 ... the SNP did deals with the Tories ... and current views from some in Whitehall re dealing with Sturgeon in the future.

Can't help feeling that a Tory government would probably suit the SNP agenda very well.

Good morning to you all

Just to follow on from this - the idea that the SNP being criticised for ruling out a deal with the Tories just exemplifies the problem looking at it from a politicians tactical view and forgets that important person - the voter!

The Lib Dems thought that their love-in with the Tories would be okay because it showed them as being 'mature politicians' - what they forgot that a lot of their voters were virulently anti-Tory, more so than pro anyone else. Those voters went and will not come back in a hurry!

The SNP have taken the vast majority of their votes from the Labour Party if the polls are correct. Even the sniff that they would do a deal with the Tories would cause them a lot of issues and their response to the idea is based on knowing that.

The only way a Tory coalition would make sense for the SNP would be a referendum in the next Parliament that they win. If they don't get one, or they lost then and the result is 5 more years of this bunch of lunatics then I could see the SNP getting a nasty backdraft from the Scottish voters, setting them back a generation.

I think Sturgeon is far too smart to be seduced by any idea of a Tory Coalition - a Labour one would probably make more sense as it would not cause them any problems in Scotland, and would annoy the English! She is also more left-wing than Salmond and probably hates the Tories as much as we do.

It is a bit more complex when you get in the details but I can see no benefit for the SNP as a party from propping up Tories in Westminster

I agree with you on just about all of that. Just to be clear the article in full doesn't say a Tory/SNP coalition is on the cards - it suggests a lot more back room dealing will go on. The point I was trying to make - not very well - with my last sentence is that the Tories getting back in to power will probably further the SNP's cause in Scotland ... and make bargainings over referenda - Europe and Scottish Independence - more likely. So I can see how it could suit them.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 10:09 am

giselle97 wrote: A normal and aware person would think that but this propaganda is being spread everywhere by the liars in control and being swallowed. I just can't see how Labour can counteract this propaganda when the MSM is all aiding it.

That's where our voices on social media can make a difference though. Nobody can shut us up or drown us out over there.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 10:12 am

That simply isn't going to happen, indeed no one I've spoken to recently (including Labour people) believe anyone other than the Conservatives will emerge as the largest party in terms of MPs.

Hmmm, maybe try talking to more people than DFH & Ren-tool ?? #justathought

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 10:28 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
The article goes on to set out what happened in similar conditions in 1974 ... the SNP did deals with the Tories ... and current views from some in Whitehall re dealing with Sturgeon in the future.

Can't help feeling that a Tory government would probably suit the SNP agenda very well.

Good morning to you all

Just to follow on from this - the idea that the SNP being criticised for ruling out a deal with the Tories just exemplifies the problem looking at it from a politicians tactical view and forgets that important person - the voter!

The Lib Dems thought that their love-in with the Tories would be okay because it showed them as being 'mature politicians' - what they forgot that a lot of their voters were virulently anti-Tory, more so than pro anyone else. Those voters went and will not come back in a hurry!

The SNP have taken the vast majority of their votes from the Labour Party if the polls are correct. Even the sniff that they would do a deal with the Tories would cause them a lot of issues and their response to the idea is based on knowing that.

The only way a Tory coalition would make sense for the SNP would be a referendum in the next Parliament that they win. If they don't get one, or they lost then and the result is 5 more years of this bunch of lunatics then I could see the SNP getting a nasty backdraft from the Scottish voters, setting them back a generation.

I think Sturgeon is far too smart to be seduced by any idea of a Tory Coalition - a Labour one would probably make more sense as it would not cause them any problems in Scotland, and would annoy the English! She is also more left-wing than Salmond and probably hates the Tories as much as we do.

It is a bit more complex when you get in the details but I can see no benefit for the SNP as a party from propping up Tories in Westminster
I agree with you on just about all of that. Just to be clear the article in full doesn't say a Tory/SNP coalition is on the cards - it suggests a lot more back room dealing will go on. The point I was trying to make - not very well - with my last sentence is that the Tories getting back in to power will probably further the SNP's cause in Scotland ... and make bargainings over referenda - Europe and Scottish Independence - more likely. So I can see how it could suit them.

I have absolutely no doubt the SNP will exploit any opportunities arising from the 2015 GE but the article does say

"Which is why, as Iain Macwhirter wrote in yesterday's Sunday Herald, the SNP's decision to rule out unequivocally any deal with the Conservatives makes little sense"

This is an absolute no starter with Sturgeon in charge - there will be no deal that can seen to be a deal to the Scot's voters and I can guarantee Labour will be watching like hawks for any indication there is one. Salmond may be more 'pragmatic' but if I predict some issues for the SNP themselves if they end up with a load of SNP MPs in Westminster (including Salmond) and the leadership at Holyrood. I cannot imagine the quality of MPs is going to be great seeing the best will be in Edinburgh

Personally, I think we are seeing the high water mark of the SNP and it will be very tricky to manage it from hereon in - Sturgeon is a bright politician though, I would have her in a Labour cabinet, and could manage her way through it as long as Mr S behaves himself

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 10:30 am

See the Scum are rehashing last years bilge about Labour MPs & employing people on zero hours contracts. Here's is the letter from IPSA to Eoin Clarke on that very subject:

LabourList covered it too:

http://labourlist.org/2014/05/labour-mp ... contracts/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 10:32 am

pk1 wrote:
That simply isn't going to happen, indeed no one I've spoken to recently (including Labour people) believe anyone other than the Conservatives will emerge as the largest party in terms of MPs.
Hmmm, maybe try talking to more people than DFH & Ren-tool ?? #justathought

Indeed, that statement screams "I've only talked to people who I know will agree with me" at best - bull***t at worst.

Mike Smithson came out with another interesting factoid yesterday - with the sole exception of 2005, the betting markets have overstated the Tories at *every* recent election.

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 10:57 am

Where are voluntary services heading and what can be done to stop this?

The fortunes of voluntary services now hang on the coat tails of privatisation, the shrinking of collective responsibility for social protection and the future for public services. The future is looking bleak

http://www.independentaction.net/2015/0 ... _term=here

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 10:57 am

When Nick Robinson is questioning the Blame Balls strategy you know ToryTreasury have a problem.

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 11:01 am

Some news from 4 February 2015 on TTIP:

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/trade- ... sds-311823

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 11:12 am

giselle97 wrote:Some news from 4 February 2015 on TTIP:

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/trade- ... sds-311823

This seems to be the direction the EU is moving on TTIP. I believe the negotiations on ISDS have been suspended, as it is looking less and less likely TTIP will get voted through by the EU parliament with ISDS in. How the Americans feel about this is unclear. Earlier attempts at an EU/US trade deal have come to nothing in the past. An opportunity to push one through with many EU countries voting in right-wing governments, and Eurozone troubles providing a handy distraction, rather depended on an element of speed. I think the results of last year's EU elections has changed the composition of the EU parliament, giving more clout to the socialists and democrats bloc, to a degree that makes TTIP much harder to push through in a form that would be agreeable to the US.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 11:18 am

Hello Campers!

As we all know, thanks to OGRFG and Gidiot, we have recovered from The Great Recession caused by Labour.

As we are all doing so fantastically well, here are some numbers to prove it.

Unemployed - 1,958,000
ZHCs - 1,400,000
New PT jobs - 1,319,000
New Temp jobs - 575,000
Pay below NMW - 250,000
Workfare/training - 120,000
JSA sanctions since 2010 - 3M-plus

This is why private landlords have benefited from the one billion a year increase in the HB/LHA spend since 2010.
This is why our tax/NI take is so low, and social security spending is so high despite so many being denied help.
This is why there is no recovery for anyone at the lower end of the income distribution.
This is why children living in poverty has risen to more than 3 million.
This is why we have 750,000 18-24's out of work and/or training.

Bedroom tax- 1,500 larger homes standing empty and LAs left with a £20 Million rent deficit.
ESA/WCAs - 4.8 Million WCAs, same number claiming now as in 2010.
ESA/IB - 1.5 Million judged fit for work, 27.000/0.5% actually found work.
ESA - 700,000 still waiting for their first WCA.

And the worst of all - PIP claimants who are terminally ill were not re-assessed from April 2013 to January 2014.
Since January 2014, exactly 100 claims per month from dying people have been re-assessed. 100, no more, no less.
30% of Macmillan benefits advisers know of someone who died waiting for their first PIP assessment.
Of a total of 592,900 registrations for PIP, 76,300 have already had a re-assessment while 280,000 wait for their first.

This is recovery. This is the long term economic plan. This is what we will get much more of if the Tories get into office again.

Tonibel · Post by **Tonibel** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 11:20 am

StephenDolan wrote:Morning all.
This is why Reeves should be treasury based. Short, precise and on the money (no pun intended ).
Politics Live - Campaign countdown - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-31155200" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'd like to see Alan Johnson have a go at DWP. At least he's got some personal experience.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 11:22 am

StephenDolan wrote:When Nick Robinson is questioning the Blame Balls strategy you know ToryTreasury have a problem.

Any hints as to what Robinson has said would be useful for those of us not listening to TV or radio.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 11:26 am

howsillyofme1 wrote: Personally, I think we are seeing the high water mark of the SNP and it will be very tricky to manage it from hereon in - Sturgeon is a bright politician though, I would have her in a Labour cabinet, and could manage her way through it as long as Mr S behaves himself

I think any party entering into an agreement with the SNP will have to watch its back. Any idea that they would roll over like the LibDems is just wishful thinking. The SNP are, and will undoubtedly remain, a one-policy party with the single aim of breaking up the UK. Whether they are left or right wing is, I think, largely irrelevant (although Sturgeon is probably further left than Salmond). However, Sturgeon will not be in Westminster and I don't see her having any control over Salmond, should he be elected.

I'm not even sure of her being too bright after seeing this (referring to the police helicopter crash in Glasgow):

In a scathing letter to the Prime Minister, Nicola Sturgeon criticised the amount of time the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) was taking with its investigation and condemned their refusal to pass information and early findings to the Crown Office in Scotland.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/ ... -1-3684137

Using a tragedy to pick a fight with Cameron about something he has no control over is imo stooping lower than low ...but of course the independent (and well respected) AAIB is based in England.

(Edited to correct punctuation & grammar).

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 11:27 am

pk1 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:When Nick Robinson is questioning the Blame Balls strategy you know ToryTreasury have a problem.
Any hints as to what Robinson has said would be useful for those of us not listening to TV or radio.

The question for ToryTreasury
- did HMRC / treasury know re HSBC's tax evasion advice BEFORE Green was made peer? How could Balls have known before 2007?
What's new in HSBC story is bank aided and abetted tax evasion. Content known by taxman in 2010.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 11:30 am

pk1 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:When Nick Robinson is questioning the Blame Balls strategy you know ToryTreasury have a problem.
Any hints as to what Robinson has said would be useful for those of us not listening to TV or radio.

Simplistically (at least this is what I gleaned from his Twitter feed) he is questioning the Treasury line that Ed Balls knew about this as Treasury Minister in 2007 yet, apparently, nobody in the Treasury knew about it in 2010. Associated bits about when info emerged later, and the dodginess of this vis a vis Minsterial appointments made & peerages given, but pretty much he is saying this is a heap of steaming hooey.

Oh, and there is one person on his timeline screaming about how all of Robinson's comments today are further proof of his blatant bias toward Labour - don't know what that guy is smoking, but I want some!!

Morning all.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 11:34 am

[quote="ephemerid"]

And the worst of all - PIP claimants who are terminally ill were not re-assessed from April 2013 to January 2014.
Since January 2014, exactly 100 claims per month from dying people have been re-assessed. 100, no more, no less.

Does anyone think, as I do, that there is something very odd about this?

To claim PIP under the special rules for terminally ill people, claimants must provide evidence that their death is anticipated within 6 months of the date of their claim. This "fast-tracks" the claim (although in practice that doesn't always work)
I am assuming that should a claimant have the nerve to live longer than their doctors expected, they might be asked to provide evidence that they were still engaged in the process of dying. I would not expect them to need a re-assessment.

So of all the people who claimed under special rules when PIP started in April 2013, nobody was reassessed from then to Jan 2014.
Then all of a sudden, exactly 100 people every month get reassessed; a very precise figure and highly suspicious IMHO.

What are the chances of exactly 100 terminally ill people every month actually needing a reassessment? Why not 10? Why not 75?
I suspect that DWP is doing some sort of data collection on these claims, presumably in order to establish what sort of percentage of special rules claimants actually die when they are supposed to.

That leaves me wondering what DWP would do should they come to the conclusion that terminally ill people aren't dying quickly enough.
Maybe they want to change the rules so that you will only be fast-tracked if you are going to die next week.

It's very strange.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 11:44 am

giselle97 wrote:Some news from 4 February 2015 on TTIP:

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/trade- ... sds-311823

The EU Social Democrat Group have long said ISDS is unacceptable, this is from June.

"In an interview with IBTimes UK, Murray also said there is "no case" for including investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) instruments in the free trade agreement between the EU and US.
If included in TTIP, ISDS would allow multinationals to take legal proceedings against EU governments for loss of profits due to public policy decisions.
Asked whether Labour support was dependent on both these items being excluded, Murray replied: "That's certainly the position of the Social Democrat members of the European Parliament, and Labour is part of that. They're very much of the view that the general utilities reservation [which would exempt public services] and ISDS are the red lines for them – and for us as well."
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ttip-labour-wi ... ds-1453082" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 11:55 am

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

Back from 2 weeks paternity leave today. Have to admit, wouldn't have said no to another two weeks...

Times journo that wouldn't be complaining about Labour's paternity policy then.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 12:02 pm

Eric_WLothian wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote: Personally, I think we are seeing the high water mark of the SNP and it will be very tricky to manage it from hereon in - Sturgeon is a bright politician though, I would have her in a Labour cabinet, and could manage her way through it as long as Mr S behaves himself
I think any party entering into an agreement with the SNP will have to watch its back. Any idea that they would roll over like the LibDems is just wishful thinking. The SNP are, and will undoubtedly remain, a one-policy party with the single aim of breaking up the UK. Whether they are left or right wing is, I think, largely irrelevant (although Sturgeon is probably further left than Salmond). However, Sturgeon will not be in Westminster and I don't see her having any control over Salmond, should he be elected.

I'm not even sure of her being too bright after seeing this (referring to the police helicopter crash in Glasgow):

In a scathing letter to the Prime Minister, Nicola Sturgeon criticised the amount of time the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) was taking with its investigation and condemned their refusal to pass information and early findings to the Crown Office in Scotland.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/ ... -1-3684137

Using a tragedy to pick a fight with Cameron about something he has no control over is imo stooping lower than low ...but of course the independent (and well respected) AAIB is based in England.

(Edited to correct punctuation & grammar).

I bow to your knowledge of current Scotland....I last lived there almost a decade ago

I have no sympathy for Cameron as he is a past master at this sort of 'political trick' but two wrongs don't make a right

If you read y article I do not say whether the SNP are themselves right or left wing (they are a mixture from my own experience) but their new voters will almost certainly be from the left. There has been much less a shift in the Tory vote than the others. I make the point that any attempt to support the Tories will be seen very badly from these voters and Labour would be watching like a hawk for any sign of a deal

As I also said the SNP are going to find it very difficult to manage a split party and I can only see it going downhill from here, especially if, as you say, Sturgeon is not the politician I give her credit for being

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 12:02 pm

Chancellor Jeoffrey, you & your miserable party are in the shit. Enjoy. It's been a waste of five years for regular people, you Tory

Commenting on reports HSBC ‘helped clients dodge millions in tax’, shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury Cathy Jamieson MP said:

"HMRC were made fully aware of these practices back in 2010. There are serious questions for the Chancellor to answer about why just one person out of over a thousand have been prosecuted in five years. And why the Government’s Swiss tax deal has been such an embarrassing flop, raising a fraction of the amounts initially boasted of by ministers.”

"Tax avoidance and evasion harms every taxpayer in Britain, and undermines public services like the NHS.

“The Chancellor also needs to urgently explain how the then chairman of HSBC, Stephen Green, could have been appointed a Conservative peer and a Minister by David Cameron just eight months after the Government was made aware of these activities taking place on his watch at HSBC.

"Once again the Tories have been exposed as unable and unwilling to take real action on tax avoidance – little wonder that under them the tax gap has risen year on year."

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1104868 ... ents-dodge

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 12:03 pm

Good-afternoon.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 12:04 pm

Deleted.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 12:18 pm

Patrick Wintour
‏@patrickwintour

Labour has asked Treasury to make a Commons statement with regard to HSBC. George Osborne on way to Turkey for G20 meeting.

https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/stat ... 4819341312

http://www.theguardian.com/news/live/20 ... a0fc1035e5

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 12:25 pm

Wolf Hall the BBC production of Hillary Mantel's books.

Last night, CitizenPMJR & I watched episodes 2 & 3.

The scene
Cromwell confronts Lord Percy; the lord drinking himself into a stupor in a whorehouse
Cromwell tells Percy where power resides.
In Antwerp.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 12:27 pm

House of Commons @HouseofCommons · 5m 5 minutes ago
At 3.30pm there will be an Urgent Question from @ShabanaMahmood on tax avoidance by HSBC. More details to follow. No statements today.

https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/stat ... 6648875008

http://www.theguardian.com/news/live/20 ... 959b485b14

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 12:29 pm

From the G link above the following

"There is no word yet on which Treasury minister will issue a statement, with chancellor George Osborne out of the country."

You have a real problem on your hands, Jeff.

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 12:33 pm

Ed Miliband on ITV's This Morning video here ;
http://www.itv.com/thismorning/hot-topi ... -questions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

: ScreenShot00202.jpg (60.03 KiB) Viewed 16142 times

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 12:33 pm

Willow904 wrote:
giselle97 wrote:Some news from 4 February 2015 on TTIP:

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/trade- ... sds-311823
This seems to be the direction the EU is moving on TTIP. I believe the negotiations on ISDS have been suspended, as it is looking less and less likely TTIP will get voted through by the EU parliament with ISDS in. How the Americans feel about this is unclear. Earlier attempts at an EU/US trade deal have come to nothing in the past. An opportunity to push one through with many EU countries voting in right-wing governments, and Eurozone troubles providing a handy distraction, rather depended on an element of speed. I think the results of last year's EU elections has changed the composition of the EU parliament, giving more clout to the socialists and democrats bloc, to a degree that makes TTIP much harder to push through in a form that would be agreeable to the US.

Good!

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 12:40 pm

EDITED to delete as Stephen had answered PK1's question about what Robinson had "said". Reminder too Giselle - read all before posting!

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 12:52 pm

Invasion of Tory trolls at the other place today

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 1:00 pm

Asked on Sky News whether Balls should explain what he knew about the Swiss accounts, Clegg said: “I think it would be great if Ed Balls, or indeed [Labour leader] Ed Miliband, for once were just to get up and admit that they let the banks run riot on their watch.

“Ed Balls went on a prawn cocktail charm offensive to suck up to the banks and they now have the brass neck to somehow constantly accuse this government of not doing enough when we’ve done considerably more to straighten out the banks than Labour ever did.”

A source close to Balls said: “The information was first given to the government in 2010, so of course he was not aware of it. This is transparent and desperate stuff by the Tories to distract attention from this government’s appointment of the chairman of HSBC as a Tory minister eight months after they were given this information and the fact just one of 1,100 individuals has since been prosecuted.”

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... hsbc-files

Did someone mention a brass nick.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 1:01 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Invasion of Tory trolls at the other place today

It's one way Tories spend other peoples' money.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 1:05 pm

Lonewolfie wrote:Morning all...happy Monday everyone (sorry - can't help feeling upbeat having found these reports from 'down under')

RUPERT MURDOCH'S GRIP on newspapers is collapsing. Described as the most powerful owner of news in the English speaking world, his shareholders are building a revolt against the use of his personal power over their investments in his company.

https://independentaustralia.net/busine ... -grip,7350

For at least another year, the company will be subject to a continuing series of revelations as the new investigation team, Operation Weeting, sorts through thousands of pages of evidence of the company's corrupt practices. The Murdoch saga has begun a whole new chapter in its history. But panic in the family has reached a point where a professional counsellor has been hired to keep order at family meetings.

https://independentaustralia.net/busine ... winds,7261

We have a proud freedom of the press, unwritten and unspoken. And we have a Murdoch press that exploits that freedom by telling lies, and in Britain engages in raw criminality and bribery and fear. There are regulations which affect television and radio, but no regulation of our press. Rupert Murdoch began to abuse the freedom of the press as no one before him had ever done.

https://independentaustralia.net/busine ... media,7238

Now Abbott's name will appear in Australia's history as the leader who could not lead; a man who is untrustworthy, unreliable and dishonest; who shamed himself and the country he should never have been allowed to lead because he was totally unqualified by birth and by incompetence.

https://independentaustralia.net/politi ... -line,7334

The last one had me reeling as though I'd arrived in some alternative universe - could've sworn it was written to describe Empty Dave - and I'm well aware it's not 'earth-shattering' and that IndependentAustralia is a small online news agency....but...every little helps (now where've I heard that before?) - all these reports are from 2015, so new 'news'...I continue to live in Hope (just north of Peterborough)

I read a while back that when Murdoch first came over here, he was humiliated by Thatchers government, so I can understand him wanting control of them. Then he helped her break the print unions. It must give him the greatest satisfaction to gain control over those who looked down their noses at him and still would if he had less money.

In the States he is competing with a powerful level of right wing string pullers who with George Bush, honed getting dumb politicians elected to a fine art. He seems to have wiggled his way out of prosecution which is easily done over there if you have the right contacts.

If you want to control the head man they must be weak, thick as two short planks, and malleable which inevitably means they're quickly found out.

I wonder if his judgement goes haywire when he's around 'old' powerful families? It happens.