Monday 9th February 2015

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 6:30 pm

A very succinct and damning summing up of HSBCs little drug cartel pecadilloes from BTL in the Guardian. This was what I was remembering from a couple of years ago. There was a bit about it in the papers, but not as much as there should have been.

StinkEye71 TristanJakobHoff

Wrong. They knew exactly what they were doing. They got away with it because they were deemed by US authorities to effectively be not only 'too big to fail', but also 'too big to jail'.

From that report (my bold for emphasis):

The bank processed cash for Mexico's Sinaloa cartel, regarded as the most powerful and deadly drug gang in the world, among others. At least $881m in drug trafficking money was laundered throughout HSBC accounts. In order to handle the "staggering amounts of cash", the bank even widened the windows at some branches to allow tellers to accept larger boxes of money.

Also...

the bank "severely understaffed" its compliance department and failed to implement an anti-money laundering programme despite evidence of serious risks. A complex scheme known as the black market peso exchange (BMPE) was used to launder the cash.

The Sinaloa cartel are reported as being the world's most powerful drug trafficking, money laundering, and organized crime syndicate. Reported estimates of the number of people murdered in the Mexican drug war range between 60,000 and twice that. And, yes, I know it's unlikely that many (if any) of these murders were carried out by people directly employed by HSBC. It's fairly clear that HSBC knew who they were doing business with, and what their business was (and involved). Bottom line = at best they knowingly facilitated the criminal activities of the largest group of murderous gangsters in the world.
Oh, and also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that HSBC was also found, by US lawmakers, to have (from the second report link above)...

...moved money from Iran, Syria and other countries on US sanctions lists, and helped a Saudi bank linked to al-Qaida to shift money to the US.

So, facilitating terrorism, in other words.

But, yeah, I'm sure they knew nothing about any of that.

Reply Report

StinkEye71 TristanJakobHoff 6h ago

10
11
Because the Mexican scandal was more of a case of "having been friends on Facebook with someone who was robbing a local bank and you're not having done enough to make sure all your friends weren't bank robbers".

That'll be why David Bagley, HSBC's head of compliance since 2002, resigned in front of the permanent subcommittee of investigations then? For reasons no more (or less, I guess) sinister than having some dodgy facebook friends? What pungent bullshit.

Read this.
From that link...

A report compiled for the committee detailed how HSBC's subsidiaries transported billions of dollars of cash in armoured vehicles, cleared suspicious travellers' cheques worth billions, and allowed Mexican drug lords buy to planes with money laundered through Cayman Islands accounts.

Also, this (again)

the bank "severely understaffed" its compliance department and failed to implement an anti-money laundering programme despite evidence of serious risks. A complex scheme known as the black market peso exchange (BMPE) was used to launder the cash.

Hmm, that BMPE certainly sounds legit to me. You?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 6:35 pm

ephemerid wrote:On the self-employed - they will suffer if they claim Universal Credit.

All means-tested benefits have an income "ceiling", ie. if you have a certain income or a certain level of savings you cannot claim benefit.

What none of the current/older means-tested benefits have is an income "floor" - UC for self-employed people has an income floor.

Claimants must prove that their self-employment is "organised, developed, and carried out regularly in expectation of profit"; and "It must be your main form of employment". If you cannot demonstrate all this, you will have to look for other work. While working at your self-employment.

The guidance says this - "Universal Credit includes a 'minimum income floor' if you are gainfully self-employed. This is an assumed level of earnings that DWP will use to calculate your payment if your earnings are BELOW that level" and "The level will be set at an amount consistent with the work and earnings expectations of others in similar circumstances".
Then it says - "If there are no limitations on the number of hours you can work, the minimum income floor is likely to be the equivalent of you working 35 hours a week at the National minimum Wage for your age group" and "Your UC payment will reflect this assumed level of earnings and so will be less than you would receive if you were unemployed or only working a few hours a week".

There are hundreds of thousands of people who are self-employed but not earning enough to live on. That's why they claim in-work benefits like Working and Child Tax Credits and Housing Benefit/LHA. This amounts to tens of billions annually.
As Universal Credit combines the existing in-work benefits, any UC claim will include current provision as above - but under UC, few self-employed people will be able to claim them as they do now, ie. calculated on what they actually earn.
They will be required to prove that their work is earning sufficient to be considered adequate, and if it isn't, any claim they make will be subject to all the usual jobsearch conditions plus they might have to stop trading as a business.

I've been trying to work out how this works using the various online benefit calculators - and I can't. It seems that the income floor isn't accounted for in these online tools (which are usually brilliant).
You can do calculations based on incomes, but they all assume that the calculation starts from zero, when for self-employed people it will start from whatever the DWP decides the minimum income floor is.

I thought I understood all this, but I am flummoxed by the minimum income floor. If the guidance is correct, my assumption is that DWP will assume that your earnings are already £225PW (even if they're not) BEFORE they start the calculations.
If that's right, then very few people who are currently self-employed and surviving on in-work benefits will get much UC - and if they don't earn "enough" (whatever the clerk deems is enough) they will have to cease trading and look for work.
If all that is correct, then the unemployment figures will go through the roof when all the people doing bits and bobs on tax credits have to stop; or they'll just get nothing and poverty will get worse. It makes no sense to me.

If anyone knows more or different, please post it here! Thanks.

At the moment I read Job centres are pushing people into self employment...I wonder how that's going to work out?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 6:40 pm

Lonewolfie wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
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.
I thought it was earlier than that - I've tried to find (unsuccessfully) some sort of reference - IIRC, Gerald Kaufman had a piece in his biography about Uncle Rupe being humiliated by some toffs in a debate at Oxford University, where he vowed to get his own back....on the elite....this from someone who inherited a newspaper and attended Oxford...the Print Unions, I believe(TM), was an opportunity to join the Grantham Witch in viciously attacking worker representation to drive divisions deep into the heart of the Post-War consensus (and line his own pockets, natch) - something he continued through the miners strike and onwards. I'm not so sure about the States either - there was a meeting at the Whitehouse with Ray-Guns, Uncle Rupe and Thatchers 'money-man', Goldsmith, where the presentation focused on a 'successor generation' - putting him at the heart of the US elite - and we are enduring that generation of no-mark incompetence now - I'm also fairly sure, given Rupes propensity for underhand sh*ttiness and the Roger Ailes/Fox 'Brain Room' most politicians (anywhere, really) would understand how foolhardy it would be to go 'against the grain'.

WRT families - it looks to me as though the more they try to keep everything together, the more it falls apart (once again, I live in...you know the rest!)

I read a lot. Unfortunately I rarely remember where or when. Just odd snippets lodge in my brain...I'm pretty sure it was something to do with Maggie's lot. Offered his services? Brushed aside? Something like that.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 6:41 pm

pk1 wrote:
diGriz wrote:
pk1 wrote:I asked Patrick Wintour for a link to the statement issued by Stefano Pessina in which he rowed back from comments made on the Telegraph splash. PW said it was by email & then forwarded it to me:
You might want to edit out those email addresses.
Whoops ! Thanks, done

PK - I see one still in there - right at the top.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 7:07 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
At the moment I read Job centres are pushing people into self employment...I wonder how that's going to work out?

Yes, they are. People can get the Enterprise Allowance and other bits and bobs - as HB/LHA is administered locally and separately, it's means-tested as normal; if the self-employment makes more than £80 a week, the claimant is better off if they do this.

But - if the calculations I've made are right - people like that will not be able to claim as much on UC and/or will have to wind up their business if it doesn't pay a lot more. The income floor is what you'd earn doing 35 Hours at NMW - or, it's what the adviser deems reasonable for the sort of work you're doing. Obviously, the floor for a supply teacher would be different from a window-cleaner, say.

People on very low self-employed wages are going to have to stop working unless they can find more or better work; that will cost a lot more if they end up on full UC as unemployed. UC might actually cause unemployment to rise.

Then there's all the sanctions - they will apply to all who claim any UC.

It's real mess.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 7:14 pm

: HSBC Swiss Roll.jpg (25.89 KiB) Viewed 11532 times

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 7:19 pm

Jim Pickard ‏@PickardJE 13m13 minutes ago
Richard Caring was one of those who attacked Miliband last week: read how be removed £2m in cash from HSBC in one day http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... withdrawal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;?

Blow me down .... this story features yet another Green .... Sir Phillip Green this time, Top Shop billionaire.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 7:20 pm

Kevin Maguire ‏@Kevin_Maguire 4m4 minutes ago
Quick, HMRC. Get down NOW to London's Grosvenor Hotel. Wealthy tax avoiders are holding a secret meeting - the Tory Ball

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 7:21 pm

Nice!

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... le-8608878" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 7:26 pm

@Ephemerid

Have you seen this?

One of the most significant outcomes of the Stormont House Agreement was an agreement to extend to Northern Ireland the reforms to the welfare system that have been introduced in Great Britain.

http://sluggerotoole.com/2015/02/08/cou ... re-reform/

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 7:27 pm

Am looking forward to when non-mat/paternal types with an interest in taking some time to do something fulfilling might at some point get statutory paid leave to do so.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 7:29 pm

citizenJA wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I don't know whether HSBC is being used to cover this up, but in any case for our "welfare" experts there a veritable gold mine of data published today

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... ables-2014" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We noted the other day IDS's mealy mouthed speech where he tried to cover up the fact that, despite everything, the amount spent on benefits continues to increase.

Here are the out-turns and forecasts, total in bold
How do current government expect to survive this? It's all there, the Housing Benefits being paid to private landlords, I've just downloaded & scanned a few of the tables from that page currently posted for public consumption today...all of this is an absolute contradiction to millions of jobs created...all of it is black & white along with ONS government tax receipt data...

It's very interesting isn't it? Here's the Housing Benefit figures by year (in £millions)

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 7:29 pm

And another quite hertening story - Manc justice at its best.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... il-8607699" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 7:31 pm

chi onwurah ‏@ChiOnwurah 26s26 seconds ago
My constituent @Finlome has been asked to speak on #CSAinquiry Home Office Cttee but not given funds to get there: " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

That can't be right, surely? They'll get us to pay for Duncan Smith's underpants and wet wipes but not fund someone's expenses for something as important as this.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 7:34 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:Am looking forward to when non-mat/paternal types with an interest in taking some time to do something fulfilling might at some point get statutory paid leave to do so.

That would be quite nice - a sabbatical for an interest without having to jeopardise your job. In the case of myself and MsRemarx, she took 3 months off on full pay as it's the Co-Op's policy to allow adopters to get properly started. They actually appreciate that family life is important. Those 3 months were a godsend to us, allowing us to get to know each other before MsRemarx had to go back to work. We still had council stuff to do, but that was easy compared to juggling home life and work.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 7:43 pm

HSBC's clients linked to dictators, arms dealers and tax dodgers

Secret documents reveal that global banking giant HSBC profited from doing business with arms dealers who channeled mortar bombs to child soldiers in Africa, bag men for Third World dictators, traffickers in blood diamonds and other international outlaws.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/02/ ... ax-dodgers

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 7:56 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
HSBC's clients linked to dictators, arms dealers and tax dodgers

Secret documents reveal that global banking giant HSBC profited from doing business with arms dealers who channeled mortar bombs to child soldiers in Africa, bag men for Third World dictators, traffickers in blood diamonds and other international outlaws.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/02/ ... ax-dodgers

Is that what the Tories mean by "wealth creators"?

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 7:58 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:
pk1 wrote:
diGriz wrote: You might want to edit out those email addresses.
Whoops ! Thanks, done
PK - I see one still in there - right at the top.

Can't see one. I can see the woman's name but not the full email address.....

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 8:04 pm

pk1 wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:
pk1 wrote: Whoops ! Thanks, done
PK - I see one still in there - right at the top.
Can't see one. I can see the woman's name but not the full email address.....

Sorry false alarm! (Pavlovian response to <name.surname>)

As you were.

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 8:12 pm

Shale Fracking. What's happening here?

: 2015-02-09_201052.jpg (84.63 KiB) Viewed 11473 times

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 8:13 pm

From 2013.

And this didn't get much publicity either!

Tax avoidance: UK effort to collect from assets hidden in Switzerland fails

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... CMP=twt_gu

I'm pretty sure Osborne included the money he was supposed to be getting to pad out other figures, but ended up not getting as much as he'd rashly promised.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 8:18 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I don't know whether HSBC is being used to cover this up, but in any case for our "welfare" experts there a veritable gold mine of data published today

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... ables-2014" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We noted the other day IDS's mealy mouthed speech where he tried to cover up the fact that, despite everything, the amount spent on benefits continues to increase.

Here are the out-turns and forecasts, total in bold
How do current government expect to survive this? It's all there, the Housing Benefits being paid to private landlords, I've just downloaded & scanned a few of the tables from that page currently posted for public consumption today...all of this is an absolute contradiction to millions of jobs created...all of it is black & white along with ONS government tax receipt data...
It's very interesting isn't it? Here's the Housing Benefit figures by year (in £millions)

Housing benefit was relatively stable from 1996-1997 until 2008-2009 - a period of about 12 years. In half that time, about 6 years, housing benefit expenditure more than doubled.

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 8:18 pm

I can't explain why but I've never "taken" to Jack Straw (that's my shorthand for "I can't stand him, the pompous pr..k and the sooner he retires from politics and travels to some foreign country, the better".
But I also can't stand Norman (LibDem) Baker so this time .....

: 2015-02-09_201438.jpg (76.56 KiB) Viewed 11473 times

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 8:19 pm

Patrick Wintour ‏@patrickwintour 26m26 minutes ago
New DWP numbers show in 2013/2014, 18 %, or 568,430, were sanctioned out of the total 3,097,630 claiming JSA. A record & not a hard core.

What do you think he means by that last bit in bold?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 8:20 pm

giselle97 wrote:Shale Fracking. What's happening here?
2015-02-09_201052.jpg

I've no idea but that peer can't just decide to change legislation. Right?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 8:21 pm

giselle97 wrote:Shale Fracking. What's happening here?
2015-02-09_201052.jpg

Incredible.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 8:34 pm

ephemerid wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
At the moment I read Job centres are pushing people into self employment...I wonder how that's going to work out?

Yes, they are. People can get the Enterprise Allowance and other bits and bobs - as HB/LHA is administered locally and separately, it's means-tested as normal; if the self-employment makes more than £80 a week, the claimant is better off if they do this.

But - if the calculations I've made are right - people like that will not be able to claim as much on UC and/or will have to wind up their business if it doesn't pay a lot more. The income floor is what you'd earn doing 35 Hours at NMW - or, it's what the adviser deems reasonable for the sort of work you're doing. Obviously, the floor for a supply teacher would be different from a window-cleaner, say.

People on very low self-employed wages are going to have to stop working unless they can find more or better work; that will cost a lot more if they end up on full UC as unemployed. UC might actually cause unemployment to rise.

Then there's all the sanctions - they will apply to all who claim any UC.

It's real mess.

..and right on cue
"Junior DWP staffer tells IDS truth about Universal Credit to his face"
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2015/02/o ... -his-face/#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 8:35 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Patrick Wintour ‏@patrickwintour 26m26 minutes ago
New DWP numbers show in 2013/2014, 18 %, or 568,430, were sanctioned out of the total 3,097,630 claiming JSA. A record & not a hard core.
What do you think he means by that last bit in bold?

I read it as him saying that, despite IDS/DWP claims that it is dedicated scroungers who are screwing the system, those figures paint a very different picture; I refer you back to my earlier comment about Nick Robinson and piles of hooey.

Bearing in mind that I consider Wintour to be a waste of oxygen, so I am unlikely to give him the benefit of the doubt, I'm prepared to take that one on face value; if even the likes of Wintour and Robinson are calling "bullshit" on their figures the Government knows they are losing the argument.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 8:56 pm

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB Feb 7
Why’s the Westminster bubble ignoring the Tory near collapse in England? http://bit.ly/16TLqlC" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 9:12 pm

Well, that didn't look good for Stephen Green.

Could have been worse too- they might have mentioned Libor swindles...

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 9:29 pm

Stimulating housing supply - Government initiatives - Commons Library Standard Note
Published 09 December 2014 | Standard notes SN06416

The Government has not set targets for increasing housing supply while the Labour Party has committed to building 200,000 homes a year by 2020. Reviews into housing supply include Government commissioned work led by Natalie Elphicke into the role that local authorities could play in increasing the supply of housing.

The Labour Party commissioned Sir Michael Lyons to conduct a housing review tasked with drawing up “a road map that will set out the changes to housing and planning policies and practice that are required to deliver the new homes and communities we need.” The Lyons Housing Review was published in October 2014.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... nitiatives

Building the new private rented sector: issues and prospects (England) - Commons Library Standard Note
Published 02 February 2015 | Standard notes SN07094

The Coalition Government has emphasised the importance of increasing institutional investment into the PRS to fund large-scale, professionally managed developments. The Government accepted a number of its recommendations...included a £200m Build to Rent fund (later increased to £1bn), a £3.5bn PRS housing guarantee and the establishment of a PRS taskforce to attract investment and share information on best practice.

Institutional PRS investors have called for additional measures to increase the attractiveness of investing in the sector. These range from reducing the requirements to provide affordable housing requirements in planning obligations, improving access to and affordability of land and a stable regulatory framework within which to operate.

Despite the Government’s focus on institutional investment, the majority of PRS properties in England are currently built, acquired and managed by individual, buy-to-let landlords. This note sets out the Government’s response to policy proposals from smaller landlords to help them boost the national supply of private rented housing, such as reform of Capital Gains Tax and Value Added Tax.

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-paper ... ts-england

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 9:31 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB Feb 7
Why’s the Westminster bubble ignoring the Tory near collapse in England? http://bit.ly/16TLqlC" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...they don't believe it...they don't accept that...

edited to caution everyone to make sure to click 'tonight's data' in order to see the Labour lead. Damned terrifying otherwise.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 9:38 pm

On UNS this would give LAB enough seats to offset likely Scottish losses and be very close to a majority.

Hallelujah

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index. ... ost-seats/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 10:10 pm

Oh dear, that feel-good factor not coming through for you then?

Nick SuttonVerified account
‏@suttonnick
Tuesday's Telegraph front page:
Give staff a pay rise, Cameron tells bosses

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

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 10:12 pm

Labour gets £250,000 General Election boost from green energy firm as Tory 'anti-business' jibes are exposed

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/la ... on-5135302" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 10:22 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Oh dear, that feel-good factor not coming through for you then?

Nick SuttonVerified account
‏@suttonnick
Tuesday's Telegraph front page:
Give staff a pay rise, Cameron tells bosses

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

That's some cheek given he and Osborne are insisting the nurses and healthcare workers can't even have the 1% rise the supposedly binding pay award body said they should get.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 10:25 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Oh dear, that feel-good factor not coming through for you then?

Nick SuttonVerified account
‏@suttonnick
Tuesday's Telegraph front page:
Give staff a pay rise, Cameron tells bosses

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

CallMe, you're a cowardly cake-eater. I'm so sorry for his children.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 10:31 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:Oh dear, that feel-good factor not coming through for you then?

Nick SuttonVerified account
‏@suttonnick
Tuesday's Telegraph front page:
Give staff a pay rise, Cameron tells bosses

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That's some cheek given he and Osborne are insisting the nurses and healthcare workers can't even have the 1% rise the supposedly binding pay award body said they should get.

Not sure they can rely on Cameron's airy fairy statements to gain votes now. And even my Conservative MP is against the latest deal for rich pensioners. He Tweeted it.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 10:32 pm

citizenJA wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:Oh dear, that feel-good factor not coming through for you then?

Nick SuttonVerified account
‏@suttonnick
Tuesday's Telegraph front page:
Give staff a pay rise, Cameron tells bosses

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
CallMe, you're a cowardly cake-eater. I'm so sorry for his children.

Me too. Poor little sods are terrified every time he suggests a pub lunch!

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 10:36 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:Oh dear, that feel-good factor not coming through for you then?

Nick SuttonVerified account
‏@suttonnick
Tuesday's Telegraph front page:
Give staff a pay rise, Cameron tells bosses

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That's some cheek given he and Osborne are insisting the nurses and healthcare workers can't even have the 1% rise the supposedly binding pay award body said they should get.
Not sure they can rely on Cameron's airy fairy statements to gain votes now. And even my Conservative MP is against the latest deal for rich pensioners. He Tweeted it.

Yes - he called it 'intergenerational theft' - and he's right - all power to him for that (one thing). And that is not me blaming any pensioner who is going to take up the opportunity to get one of the better interest rated bonds - why wouldn't they. But it's shameless vote buying and very unfair ... typical Tory tactics.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 10:42 pm

There are very serious questions for George Osborne and David Cameron to answer today - Ed Balls

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1105334 ... for-george

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 10:51 pm

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 7m 7 minutes ago
l'm beginning to wonder whether we could end up with a CON LAB coalition in order to block the SNP.

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 13m 13 minutes ago
Coming overnight new Scottish poll from TNS. In past month SNP leads have reached 28% - what will. TNS have?

Not helpful Mike ... that top comment not helpful at all.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 10:51 pm

Dr Éoin Clarke ‏@LabourEoin · 1 hr1 hour ago
Dude just featured in Panorama Tax Dodging Show last week warned he might emigrate to France if Ed Miliband became PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... ister.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 10:53 pm

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 22 mins22 minutes ago
The first YouGov poll of the week has
CON 34
LAB 33
LD 7
UKIP 14
GRN 7

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 11:01 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 22 mins22 minutes ago
The first YouGov poll of the week has
CON 34
LAB 33
LD 7
UKIP 14
GRN 7

I quite simply don't believe them. Something is not right, not sure what but that is no reflection of what I hear, and I live in a tory pocket of our Labour constituency.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 11:02 pm

Joan Bakewell
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... l-war.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With his bung to pensioners, George Osborne is stoking intergenerational war
The Chancellor's £7.5 billion gift to older voters feels like a deliberate insult to young people - and to older ones who still struggle to get by without savings

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 11:03 pm

Joan Bakewell
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... l-war.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With his bung to pensioners, George Osborne is stoking intergenerational war
The Chancellor's £7.5 billion gift to older voters feels like a deliberate insult to young people - and to older ones who still struggle to get by without savings

With an ageing population, we need to strengthen the relationship between young and old rather than divide them. The old depend on the young to be compassionate and caring: the young depend on the old to be supportive and understanding. Selective favours such as this bond sale to rich pensioners do nothing for anyone’s sense of well-being.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 11:07 pm

Tory Black & White Ball auctions a night in Annabel’s – for £110,000

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... or-110000/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 11:16 pm

The first HindlePoll of the week has:

Lab 60%
UKip 10 %
Green 20%
Don't know/what/baby noises 10%
Tory 0%

The survey was carried on in the afternoon of 9/2/2015 by asking every third person met on a walk,regardless of age (20)

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 09 Feb, 2015 11:18 pm

I was wondering what had happened to the Black/Darzi report on mortality stats and lo and behold...

Doctors' inquiry dismisses 'unreliable' claims over NHS death rates

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... eath-rates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An inquiry by leading doctors has rejected the controversial claims that death rates in NHS hospitals are far higher than those in the United States.

A report by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has dismissed high-profile claims, made in 2013 by Prof Brian Jarman, that 45% more patients die in England because of weaknesses in NHS care, including poorer out-of-hours GP services, long waiting lists and bed shortages.

The inquiry was commissioned by Prof Bruce Keogh, NHS England’s medical director, after Jarman said hospital standardised mortality ratio (HMSR) data comparing death rates in both countries had produced that conclusion and left him “quite frankly shocked”.

And about bloody time too.