Saturday 28th Feb & Sunday 1st March 2015

Post by **refitman** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 8:05 am

Morning all.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 8:53 am

Morning all. Just off shopping so will miss the UKIP education bit so will have to see how it compares to what Nuttall said a few months back.

No manifesto still?

If the unravelling of how much they will save from the development aid budget from £11bn to £9bn inside a few hours is anything to go by, it should be just as poor as the last one. Albeit shorter. Much shorter.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 8:58 am

I see this is later...

Freedom or Tyranny? Magna Carta and the EAW
Christopher Gill
Hon President, The Freedom Association

Trying to persuade people that you're not simply the lunatic fringe of the Tory Party isn't helped by having speakers like a Tory MP from 1987-2001...

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 9:00 am

My last day as a licence fee payer today! How do the BBC intend to mark this momentous occasion? Well there's hour after hour of egg-chasing followed by a crap singing competition, a cheap hospital soap and then loads more over-punditted sport. What have I done?!

Post by **refitman** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 9:03 am

frightful_oik wrote:My last day as a licence fee payer today! How do the BBC intend to mark this momentous occasion? Well there's hour after hour of egg-chasing followed by a crap singing competition, a cheap hospital soap and then loads more over-punditted sport. What have I done?!

Nowt wrong with egg-chasing!

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 9:10 am

refitman wrote:
frightful_oik wrote:My last day as a licence fee payer today! How do the BBC intend to mark this momentous occasion? Well there's hour after hour of egg-chasing followed by a crap singing competition, a cheap hospital soap and then loads more over-punditted sport. What have I done?!
Nowt wrong with egg-chasing!

Absolutely. But if, like me, it's not your cup of tea, 6 hours of it is a bit overkill. Remember I'm from Derbyshire where there are no rugby or cricket supporters, or indeed teams, to the best of my knowledge.

55DegreesNorth · Post by **55DegreesNorth** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 9:10 am

Morning folks,
Looks like being a nice bright day up here. I'm off to join the counter demo against Pegida in a moment & looking forward to hearing Chi Unwara - I rather like her (and she's an engineer). Not too sure about Gorgeous George, although he might be entertaining. Look out for me on the telly, I'll have a black and white scarf.

Spacedone · Post by **Spacedone** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 9:13 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:I see this is later...

Freedom or Tyranny? Magna Carta and the EAW
Christopher Gill
Hon President, The Freedom Association
Trying to persuade people that you're not simply the lunatic fringe of the Tory Party isn't helped by having speakers like a Tory MP from 1987-2001...

You can see why they called themselves something stirring like The Freedom Association because honest names like the Libertarian Onanists Society doesn't sound so great.

WelshIan · Post by **WelshIan** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 9:13 am

refitman wrote:
frightful_oik wrote:My last day as a licence fee payer today! How do the BBC intend to mark this momentous occasion? Well there's hour after hour of egg-chasing followed by a crap singing competition, a cheap hospital soap and then loads more over-punditted sport. What have I done?!
Nowt wrong with egg-chasing!

Today is the first time in about 20 years that I am seriously considering not watching Wales play in the 6 Nations. Gatland has finally destroyed my anticipation and enjoyment at watching Wales play.

England are a far better team to watch. I can't believe I've said that!

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 10:17 am

frightful_oik wrote:
refitman wrote:
frightful_oik wrote:My last day as a licence fee payer today! How do the BBC intend to mark this momentous occasion? Well there's hour after hour of egg-chasing followed by a crap singing competition, a cheap hospital soap and then loads more over-punditted sport. What have I done?!
Nowt wrong with egg-chasing!
Absolutely. But if, like me, it's not your cup of tea, 6 hours of it is a bit overkill. Remember I'm from Derbyshire where there are no rugby or cricket supporters, or indeed teams, to the best of my knowledge.

I must have imagined Derbyshire CCC, then

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 10:18 am

Great piece of free publicity for the local theatre at the expense of UKIP.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/ukip-c ... -1-3703905

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 11:03 am

The comments btl from right-wingers on this Guardian article are hilarious. For a start they seem to think changes to pension savings rules affect pensioners. They also can't get their head around the fact that those wealthy parents who benefit from lower fees for their kids are contributing via lower pension savings tax relief and if their kids get good jobs they'll also contribute to their cheaper education by less pension tax relief for themselves. Meanwhile those from low income families get a higher maintenance grant which they're trying to argue is insignificant (try telling that to a poor student, I think they'd disagree). They're also claiming that the current system which is opening a yawning funding gap for the future is working, even though loading future generations with debt is supposed to be the main thing Osborne is desperate to avoid! But what about students from middle income families, they cry, they'll pay the same! The same as the party they support seems to think is fair and they're saying it's a travesty! They really are tying themselves in knots. I think they expected to find it easy to rubbish Labour's tuition fees reduction but all their arguments are falling apart. Meanwhile, despite the BBC trawling the country for Tory students willing to say paying less fees is a terrible idea, I suspect the reality is rather different, especially among parents of children not yet at university.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... t-48194661

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 11:18 am

Just finished catching up, having finally read all of the FTN links for the last few days.

Here's a link to RichardBlogger's take on the Manchester thing where, as usual, he has forensically researched what information is available and drawn some conclusions.

http://nhsvault.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/ ... f-nhs.html

I don't see much hope of the suggestions in his last paragraph happening though.

Me? I'm beyond disgust and rage at so-called Labour people who have given the opportunity to Cameron to say the following:

The Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is an important breakthrough. It has been made possible by our reforms. It will help to bring the NHS and social care together. The shadow Health Secretary, who presumably knew absolutely nothing about this, does not understand that eight Labour authorities in Greater Manchester have been talking to us and working with us about how to make this a reality. What a contrast: people working together to improve the NHS, instead of trying to weaponise it across the Dispatch Box.

These so-called Labour people, IMHO, have shit all over the activists (which includes me) and NHS people who have been fighting against the un-mandated, top-down re-organisation which only had one purpose - nothing to do with benefiting patients, and I hope that, for giving me, other activists, Burnham and Labour a kicking like this, they all rot in some nasty way somewhere unpleasant. Please excuse my hatred this morning. I do get over these phases quite quickly.

Can anyone tell me please if, in due course, I am taken ill whilst temporarily passing through the Manchester area how will I be attended to? I can't figure it out.

rearofthestore · Post by **rearofthestore** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 11:36 am

giselle97 wrote:Just finished catching up, having finally read all of the FTN links for the last few days.

Here's a link to RichardBlogger's take on the Manchester thing where, as usual, he has forensically researched what information is available and drawn some conclusions.

http://nhsvault.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/ ... f-nhs.html

I don't see much hope of the suggestions in his last paragraph happening though.

Me? I'm beyond disgust and rage at so-called Labour people who have given the opportunity to Cameron to say the following:

The Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is an important breakthrough. It has been made possible by our reforms. It will help to bring the NHS and social care together. The shadow Health Secretary, who presumably knew absolutely nothing about this, does not understand that eight Labour authorities in Greater Manchester have been talking to us and working with us about how to make this a reality. What a contrast: people working together to improve the NHS, instead of trying to weaponise it across the Dispatch Box.
These so-called Labour people, IMHO, have shit all over the activists (which includes me) and NHS people who have been fighting against the un-mandated, top-down re-organisation which only had one purpose - nothing to do with benefiting patients, and I hope that, for giving me, other activists, Burnham and Labour a kicking like this, they all rot in some nasty way somewhere unpleasant. Please excuse my hatred this morning. I do get over these phases quite quickly.

Can anyone tell me please if, in due course, I am taken ill whilst temporarily passing through the Manchester area how will I be attended to? I can't figure it out.

You are so right.
I live in Glossop which is in Derbyshire but to all intents and purposes is in Greater Manchester. Transport links are into Manchester, people shop in Manchester etc. The CCG is a combined one

NHS Tameside and Glossop Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)We are a membership organisation, led by all 128 local GPs from our 43 GP practices, across the five areas of Ashton, Hyde, Stalybridge Denton and Glossop.

So with these changes are we likely to be disadvantaged? My wife for example is a patient at the Christie in Manchester (although now in remission and only checked ever 6 months), I (last week) had a hernia repair at MRI. If we follow the thinking our nearest hospitals for this sort of work will be in Chesterfield or Derby. At least 2 hours by public transport.
Now I assume that some sort of local charging arrangement will be put in place but this is not a joined up way of doing things.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 11:41 am

Willow904 wrote:The comments btl from right-wingers on this Guardian article are hilarious. For a start they seem to think changes to pension savings rules affect pensioners. They also can't get their head around the fact that those wealthy parents who benefit from lower fees for their kids are contributing via lower pension savings tax relief and if their kids get good jobs they'll also contribute to their cheaper education by less pension tax relief for themselves. Meanwhile those from low income families get a higher maintenance grant which they're trying to argue is insignificant (try telling that to a poor student, I think they'd disagree). They're also claiming that the current system which is opening a yawning funding gap for the future is working, even though loading future generations with debt is supposed to be the main thing Osborne is desperate to avoid! But what about students from middle income families, they cry, they'll pay the same! The same as the party they support seems to think is fair and they're saying it's a travesty! They really are tying themselves in knots. I think they expected to find it easy to rubbish Labour's tuition fees reduction but all their arguments are falling apart. Meanwhile, despite the BBC trawling the country for Tory students willing to say paying less fees is a terrible idea, I suspect the reality is rather different, especially among parents of children not yet at university.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... t-48194661

Have a look over at LibDemVoice - there is no fewer than 6 - yes 6 - separate articles on tuition fees ! I suppose that's 6 better than Newsnight managed though....

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 11:46 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
giselle97 wrote:Just finished catching up, having finally read all of the FTN links for the last few days.

Here's a link to RichardBlogger's take on the Manchester thing where, as usual, he has forensically researched what information is available and drawn some conclusions.

http://nhsvault.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/ ... f-nhs.html

I don't see much hope of the suggestions in his last paragraph happening though.

Me? I'm beyond disgust and rage at so-called Labour people who have given the opportunity to Cameron to say the following:

The Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is an important breakthrough. It has been made possible by our reforms. It will help to bring the NHS and social care together. The shadow Health Secretary, who presumably knew absolutely nothing about this, does not understand that eight Labour authorities in Greater Manchester have been talking to us and working with us about how to make this a reality. What a contrast: people working together to improve the NHS, instead of trying to weaponise it across the Dispatch Box.
These so-called Labour people, IMHO, have shit all over the activists (which includes me) and NHS people who have been fighting against the un-mandated, top-down re-organisation which only had one purpose - nothing to do with benefiting patients, and I hope that, for giving me, other activists, Burnham and Labour a kicking like this, they all rot in some nasty way somewhere unpleasant. Please excuse my hatred this morning. I do get over these phases quite quickly.

Can anyone tell me please if, in due course, I am taken ill whilst temporarily passing through the Manchester area how will I be attended to? I can't figure it out.
I frankly can't work out where this came from or why the Tories cooked it up, and why now, but I agree it stinks.

The only benefit is that it can't possibly make any progress until after the general election, so if Labour gets into power they will legitimately be able to suspend it as part of a wider review of what's happening with the health service.

That said, given the way the polls are, especially in Scotland, I don't have any great confidence that Labour will be in government in any form after the GE.

If you accept the inevitability of a Labour SNP coalition, then the polls in Scotland are just fine, because the Tories and Libs are doing terribly!

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 11:52 am

pk1 wrote:
Willow904 wrote:The comments btl from right-wingers on this Guardian article are hilarious. For a start they seem to think changes to pension savings rules affect pensioners. They also can't get their head around the fact that those wealthy parents who benefit from lower fees for their kids are contributing via lower pension savings tax relief and if their kids get good jobs they'll also contribute to their cheaper education by less pension tax relief for themselves. Meanwhile those from low income families get a higher maintenance grant which they're trying to argue is insignificant (try telling that to a poor student, I think they'd disagree). They're also claiming that the current system which is opening a yawning funding gap for the future is working, even though loading future generations with debt is supposed to be the main thing Osborne is desperate to avoid! But what about students from middle income families, they cry, they'll pay the same! The same as the party they support seems to think is fair and they're saying it's a travesty! They really are tying themselves in knots. I think they expected to find it easy to rubbish Labour's tuition fees reduction but all their arguments are falling apart. Meanwhile, despite the BBC trawling the country for Tory students willing to say paying less fees is a terrible idea, I suspect the reality is rather different, especially among parents of children not yet at university.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... t-48194661
Have a look over at LibDemVoice - there is no fewer than 6 - yes 6 - separate articles on tuition fees ! I suppose that's 6 better than Newsnight managed though....

Thanks to PK1 and BRAVO THERE Willow904!

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 11:57 am

I'm sorry Paul, but a coalition with SNP blackmailing - yes, blackmailing! - Ed Miliband and Labour is not what I want, thank you. SNP want one thing and one thing only. EM would spend all of the time in defence of manoeuvres from SNP for their one aim instead of running the country - the COUNTRY! The United Kingdom.

Unless, of course, the preferred route for some people is that Westminster becomes the ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. Bloody hell!

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 12:02 pm

Eric_WLothian wrote:Great piece of free publicity for the local theatre at the expense of UKIP.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/ukip-c ... -1-3703905

If you can get Channel 4 on demand, or the Channel4 News App, they had a beautiful clip of it on last night's Channel 4 News!

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 12:14 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
giselle97 wrote:Just finished catching up, having finally read all of the FTN links for the last few days.

Here's a link to RichardBlogger's take on the Manchester thing where, as usual, he has forensically researched what information is available and drawn some conclusions.

http://nhsvault.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/ ... f-nhs.html

I don't see much hope of the suggestions in his last paragraph happening though.

Me? I'm beyond disgust and rage at so-called Labour people who have given the opportunity to Cameron to say the following:

The Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is an important breakthrough. It has been made possible by our reforms. It will help to bring the NHS and social care together. The shadow Health Secretary, who presumably knew absolutely nothing about this, does not understand that eight Labour authorities in Greater Manchester have been talking to us and working with us about how to make this a reality. What a contrast: people working together to improve the NHS, instead of trying to weaponise it across the Dispatch Box.
These so-called Labour people, IMHO, have shit all over the activists (which includes me) and NHS people who have been fighting against the un-mandated, top-down re-organisation which only had one purpose - nothing to do with benefiting patients, and I hope that, for giving me, other activists, Burnham and Labour a kicking like this, they all rot in some nasty way somewhere unpleasant. Please excuse my hatred this morning. I do get over these phases quite quickly.

Can anyone tell me please if, in due course, I am taken ill whilst temporarily passing through the Manchester area how will I be attended to? I can't figure it out.
I frankly can't work out where this came from or why the Tories cooked it up, and why now, but I agree it stinks.

The only benefit is that it can't possibly make any progress until after the general election, so if Labour gets into power they will legitimately be able to suspend it as part of a wider review of what's happening with the health service.

That said, given the way the polls are, especially in Scotland, I don't have any great confidence that Labour will be in government in any form after the GE.

We are about to enter March, and the much anticipated "crossover" is still awaited.

Crosby briefed hacks off the record late last year that the Tories would be storming ahead by now - and we need to remember that it is almost unknown in this country for governing parties to *increase* their support during the actual election campaign.

It looks like the broadcasters are calling Dave's bluff over the debates as well - either turn up or be "empty chaired".

As things stand right now, the Tories are in trouble

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 12:18 pm

giselle97 wrote:Just finished catching up, having finally read all of the FTN links for the last few days.

Here's a link to RichardBlogger's take on the Manchester thing where, as usual, he has forensically researched what information is available and drawn some conclusions.

http://nhsvault.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/ ... f-nhs.html

I don't see much hope of the suggestions in his last paragraph happening though.

Me? I'm beyond disgust and rage at so-called Labour people who have given the opportunity to Cameron to say the following:

The Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is an important breakthrough. It has been made possible by our reforms. It will help to bring the NHS and social care together. The shadow Health Secretary, who presumably knew absolutely nothing about this, does not understand that eight Labour authorities in Greater Manchester have been talking to us and working with us about how to make this a reality. What a contrast: people working together to improve the NHS, instead of trying to weaponise it across the Dispatch Box.
These so-called Labour people, IMHO, have shit all over the activists (which includes me) and NHS people who have been fighting against the un-mandated, top-down re-organisation which only had one purpose - nothing to do with benefiting patients, and I hope that, for giving me, other activists, Burnham and Labour a kicking like this, they all rot in some nasty way somewhere unpleasant. Please excuse my hatred this morning. I do get over these phases quite quickly.

Can anyone tell me please if, in due course, I am taken ill whilst temporarily passing through the Manchester area how will I be attended to? I can't figure it out.

Thanks for the link. When this first broke it was hard to find much on it beyond headlines but that's two articles I've read now that suggest the whole thing is constitutionally a bit suspect. Now parliamentary Labour know about it they need the Labour councils involved to pull back a bit. A volte face is doable if they say the detail is putting them off. They just wanted to integrate health and social care, didn't realise Osborne's plans meant dismantling the NHS etc. If they insist on supporting it I think they should be expelled from the Labour party. I really am that angry about it. Devolution needs to be consistent and needs to happen for all regions of England at the same time or else you end up with thrown together deals like this where influential and wealthy areas make power grabs that shit on the rest of us. I really am dreading what will happen if the Tories get another 5 years. It's not just the ideology but Osborne's policies for wrongfooting the opposition, ill thought through bollocks purely to give Cameron a nifty one liner in PMQs. It's so juvenile and so damaging.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 12:20 pm

giselle97 wrote:I'm sorry Paul, but a coalition with SNP blackmailing - yes, blackmailing! - Ed Miliband and Labour is not what I want, thank you. SNP want one thing and one thing only. EM would spend all of the time in defence of manoeuvres from SNP for their one aim instead of running the country - the COUNTRY! The United Kingdom.

Unless, of course, the preferred route for some people is that Westminster becomes the ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. Bloody hell!

Hi Giselle

I understand what you say.

BUT look at Electoral Calculus's most recent prediction (admittedly based on the polls we know must be shaky at best).

If this is the outcome on 7 May Labour and the SNP can consign the Coalition parties to the dustbin. Despite all the reservations I have about the separatist movement, I'm learning to live with this idea because it's likely and I think it will be OK. Miliband will never allow independence as a condition of coalition.

Sure I still want a Labour majority, but it's my way to live with what's probable and think about getting the best from that. If I'm right, we should stop worrying about Scotland because they aren't going to elect Coalition MPs.

daydreamer · Post by **daydreamer** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 12:21 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
giselle97 wrote:Just finished catching up, having finally read all of the FTN links for the last few days.

Here's a link to RichardBlogger's take on the Manchester thing where, as usual, he has forensically researched what information is available and drawn some conclusions.

http://nhsvault.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/ ... f-nhs.html

I don't see much hope of the suggestions in his last paragraph happening though.

Me? I'm beyond disgust and rage at so-called Labour people who have given the opportunity to Cameron to say the following:

The Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is an important breakthrough. It has been made possible by our reforms. It will help to bring the NHS and social care together. The shadow Health Secretary, who presumably knew absolutely nothing about this, does not understand that eight Labour authorities in Greater Manchester have been talking to us and working with us about how to make this a reality. What a contrast: people working together to improve the NHS, instead of trying to weaponise it across the Dispatch Box.
These so-called Labour people, IMHO, have shit all over the activists (which includes me) and NHS people who have been fighting against the un-mandated, top-down re-organisation which only had one purpose - nothing to do with benefiting patients, and I hope that, for giving me, other activists, Burnham and Labour a kicking like this, they all rot in some nasty way somewhere unpleasant. Please excuse my hatred this morning. I do get over these phases quite quickly.

Can anyone tell me please if, in due course, I am taken ill whilst temporarily passing through the Manchester area how will I be attended to? I can't figure it out.
I frankly can't work out where this came from or why the Tories cooked it up, and why now, but I agree it stinks.

The only benefit is that it can't possibly make any progress until after the general election, so if Labour gets into power they will legitimately be able to suspend it as part of a wider review of what's happening with the health service.

That said, given the way the polls are, especially in Scotland, I don't have any great confidence that Labour will be in government in any form after the GE.

(My bold).

Nooo! Don't say that

Though, unfortunately, I think I agree with you.

Afternoon all.

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 12:24 pm

rearofthestore wrote:
giselle97 wrote: - Giselle blanked to save space
You are so right.

I live in Glossop which is in Derbyshire but to all intents and purposes is in Greater Manchester. Transport links are into Manchester, people shop in Manchester etc. The CCG is a combined one
NHS Tameside and Glossop Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)We are a membership organisation, led by all 128 local GPs from our 43 GP practices, across the five areas of Ashton, Hyde, Stalybridge Denton and Glossop.
So with these changes are we likely to be disadvantaged? My wife for example is a patient at the Christie in Manchester (although now in remission and only checked ever 6 months), I (last week) had a hernia repair at MRI. If we follow the thinking our nearest hospitals for this sort of work will be in Chesterfield or Derby. At least 2 hours by public transport.
Now I assume that some sort of local charging arrangement will be put in place but this is not a joined up way of doing things.

There's something I was already following - "Healthier Together" - but I was following it for the info on Hospital, A&E and other closures which are also included in this article - but the bulk of my saves are on my desktop without monitor. This article gives more info from way back in January 2013.

Greater Manchester has to make £1.3 billion worth of cuts to its NHS budget by 2015. The claim that Healthier Together is not a cost savings exercise is belied in its own documents. Its main paper, “The Greater Manchester Case for Change”, describes the current level of expenditure on health and social care as “unsustainable” and positions itself squarely within the framework of the cuts to NHS and local government budgets.

“Our current models of public services are not fit for the coming challenge of delivering growth, particularly given the scale of planned reductions in public spending,” the paper states. “We need a transformational reduction in demand and dependency, with people and places becoming more resilient and self-reliant.”

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/01 ... c-j04.html

(P.S. good to hear your wife is in remission and hope you are on the mend).

daydreamer · Post by **daydreamer** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 12:26 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
giselle97 wrote:Just finished catching up, having finally read all of the FTN links for the last few days.

Here's a link to RichardBlogger's take on the Manchester thing where, as usual, he has forensically researched what information is available and drawn some conclusions.

http://nhsvault.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/ ... f-nhs.html

I don't see much hope of the suggestions in his last paragraph happening though.

Me? I'm beyond disgust and rage at so-called Labour people who have given the opportunity to Cameron to say the following:
These so-called Labour people, IMHO, have shit all over the activists (which includes me) and NHS people who have been fighting against the un-mandated, top-down re-organisation which only had one purpose - nothing to do with benefiting patients, and I hope that, for giving me, other activists, Burnham and Labour a kicking like this, they all rot in some nasty way somewhere unpleasant. Please excuse my hatred this morning. I do get over these phases quite quickly.

Can anyone tell me please if, in due course, I am taken ill whilst temporarily passing through the Manchester area how will I be attended to? I can't figure it out.
I frankly can't work out where this came from or why the Tories cooked it up, and why now, but I agree it stinks.

The only benefit is that it can't possibly make any progress until after the general election, so if Labour gets into power they will legitimately be able to suspend it as part of a wider review of what's happening with the health service.

That said, given the way the polls are, especially in Scotland, I don't have any great confidence that Labour will be in government in any form after the GE.
If you accept the inevitability of a Labour SNP coalition, then the polls in Scotland are just fine, because the Tories and Libs are doing terribly!

Sorry to be tribal (and no doubt nasty), but I don't want a coalition with the SNP! They're neoliberal (it's a laugh they try to paint themselves as left wing), nationalist, and I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw you, Paul.

It might finish Labour for good a coalition with the SNP, as they'll certainly hold Labour to ransom. Sorry if this upset's our Scottish nesters, I certainly have no wish to do that

. These are just my feelings on the subject.

daydreamer · Post by **daydreamer** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 12:27 pm

giselle97 wrote:I'm sorry Paul, but a coalition with SNP blackmailing - yes, blackmailing! - Ed Miliband and Labour is not what I want, thank you. SNP want one thing and one thing only. EM would spend all of the time in defence of manoeuvres from SNP for their one aim instead of running the country - the COUNTRY! The United Kingdom.

Unless, of course, the preferred route for some people is that Westminster becomes the ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. Bloody hell!

Thanks giselle,

This a thousand times, and I don't care how tribal I come across.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 12:28 pm

daydreamer wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
giselle97 wrote:Just finished catching up, having finally read all of the FTN links for the last few days.

Here's a link to RichardBlogger's take on the Manchester thing where, as usual, he has forensically researched what information is available and drawn some conclusions.

http://nhsvault.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/ ... f-nhs.html

I don't see much hope of the suggestions in his last paragraph happening though.

Me? I'm beyond disgust and rage at so-called Labour people who have given the opportunity to Cameron to say the following:
These so-called Labour people, IMHO, have shit all over the activists (which includes me) and NHS people who have been fighting against the un-mandated, top-down re-organisation which only had one purpose - nothing to do with benefiting patients, and I hope that, for giving me, other activists, Burnham and Labour a kicking like this, they all rot in some nasty way somewhere unpleasant. Please excuse my hatred this morning. I do get over these phases quite quickly.

Can anyone tell me please if, in due course, I am taken ill whilst temporarily passing through the Manchester area how will I be attended to? I can't figure it out.
I frankly can't work out where this came from or why the Tories cooked it up, and why now, but I agree it stinks.

The only benefit is that it can't possibly make any progress until after the general election, so if Labour gets into power they will legitimately be able to suspend it as part of a wider review of what's happening with the health service.

That said, given the way the polls are, especially in Scotland, I don't have any great confidence that Labour will be in government in any form after the GE.

(My bold).

Nooo! Don't say that Though, unfortunately, I think I agree with you.

Afternoon all.

As above. Labour - SNP coalition looks a pretty likely outcome. Maybe that would be a good thing and allow the UK to sort out its crumbling constitution in a sensible way.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 12:30 pm

daydreamer wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: I frankly can't work out where this came from or why the Tories cooked it up, and why now, but I agree it stinks.

The only benefit is that it can't possibly make any progress until after the general election, so if Labour gets into power they will legitimately be able to suspend it as part of a wider review of what's happening with the health service.

That said, given the way the polls are, especially in Scotland, I don't have any great confidence that Labour will be in government in any form after the GE.
If you accept the inevitability of a Labour SNP coalition, then the polls in Scotland are just fine, because the Tories and Libs are doing terribly!
Sorry to be tribal (and no doubt nasty), but I don't want a coalition with the SNP! They're neoliberal (it's a laugh they try to paint themselves as left wing), nationalist, and I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw you, Paul.

It might finish Labour for good a coalition with the SNP, as they'll certainly hold Labour to ransom. Sorry if this upset's our Scottish nesters, I certainly have no wish to do that . These are just my feelings on the subject.

I just don't see a sensible alternative if that's the electoral outcome.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 12:33 pm

giselle97 wrote:I'm sorry Paul, but a coalition with SNP blackmailing - yes, blackmailing! - Ed Miliband and Labour is not what I want, thank you. SNP want one thing and one thing only. EM would spend all of the time in defence of manoeuvres from SNP for their one aim instead of running the country - the COUNTRY! The United Kingdom.

Unless, of course, the preferred route for some people is that Westminster becomes the ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. Bloody hell!

Good afternoon.w
Gawd,writing on this tablet is too tricky!
Anyway, Giselle,could not agree more.I read the Scotsman each day,and have found nothing to indicate that the SNP have any desire to work for the good of the uk as a whole.they seem to hate labour to the core of their beings,are fiscally incompent and loath Ed balls.
If they get their way,a minority labour govt will spend too much time and money on an endless array of SNP demands,then,when Scotland has spent x millions on various projects,will demand another referendum.
Then the rest of the uk will be so sick of SNP blackmailing labour we will get another Tory govt.
So,rant over,sorry to whoever it of ends but I feel deeply about this.
Quite cross today,my large 8 month old gsd has decided to chew the bottom off my lovely silk,interlined sitting room curtains.What a mess.

daydreamer · Post by **daydreamer** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 12:33 pm

Willow904 wrote:
giselle97 wrote:Just finished catching up, having finally read all of the FTN links for the last few days.

Here's a link to RichardBlogger's take on the Manchester thing where, as usual, he has forensically researched what information is available and drawn some conclusions.

http://nhsvault.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/ ... f-nhs.html

I don't see much hope of the suggestions in his last paragraph happening though.

Me? I'm beyond disgust and rage at so-called Labour people who have given the opportunity to Cameron to say the following:

The Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is an important breakthrough. It has been made possible by our reforms. It will help to bring the NHS and social care together. The shadow Health Secretary, who presumably knew absolutely nothing about this, does not understand that eight Labour authorities in Greater Manchester have been talking to us and working with us about how to make this a reality. What a contrast: people working together to improve the NHS, instead of trying to weaponise it across the Dispatch Box.
These so-called Labour people, IMHO, have shit all over the activists (which includes me) and NHS people who have been fighting against the un-mandated, top-down re-organisation which only had one purpose - nothing to do with benefiting patients, and I hope that, for giving me, other activists, Burnham and Labour a kicking like this, they all rot in some nasty way somewhere unpleasant. Please excuse my hatred this morning. I do get over these phases quite quickly.

Can anyone tell me please if, in due course, I am taken ill whilst temporarily passing through the Manchester area how will I be attended to? I can't figure it out.
Thanks for the link. When this first broke it was hard to find much on it beyond headlines but that's two articles I've read now that suggest the whole thing is constitutionally a bit suspect. Now parliamentary Labour know about it they need the Labour councils involved to pull back a bit. A volte face is doable if they say the detail is putting them off. They just wanted to integrate health and social care, didn't realise Osborne's plans meant dismantling the NHS etc. If they insist on supporting it I think they should be expelled from the Labour party. I really am that angry about it. Devolution needs to be consistent and needs to happen for all regions of England at the same time or else you end up with thrown together deals like this where influential and wealthy areas make power grabs that shit on the rest of us. I really am dreading what will happen if the Tories get another 5 years. It's not just the ideology but Osborne's policies for wrongfooting the opposition, ill thought through bollocks purely to give Cameron a nifty one liner in PMQs. It's so juvenile and so damaging.

Agree with everything you say there, Willow.

Yes, I think they should be expelled from the Labour party too. What they appear to have done is unconstitutional, damaging to the NHS (how can we keep it National), to the Labour party, and it seems they are helping the Tories to damage Labour, too. Get shot.

daydreamer · Post by **daydreamer** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 12:36 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
giselle97 wrote:I'm sorry Paul, but a coalition with SNP blackmailing - yes, blackmailing! - Ed Miliband and Labour is not what I want, thank you. SNP want one thing and one thing only. EM would spend all of the time in defence of manoeuvres from SNP for their one aim instead of running the country - the COUNTRY! The United Kingdom.

Unless, of course, the preferred route for some people is that Westminster becomes the ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. Bloody hell!
Hi Giselle

I understand what you say.

BUT look at Electoral Calculus's most recent prediction (admittedly based on the polls we know must be shaky at best).

If this is the outcome on 7 May Labour and the SNP can consign the Coalition parties to the dustbin. Despite all the reservations I have about the separatist movement, I'm learning to live with this idea because it's likely and I think it will be OK. Miliband will never allow independence as a condition of coalition.

Sure I still want a Labour majority, but it's my way to live with what's probable and think about getting the best from that. If I'm right, we should stop worrying about Scotland because they aren't going to elect Coalition MPs.

Paul,

I understand and respect your argument, and you're probably right and it's what we are going to have to live with after the election. But in my humble opinion it won't be okay. Also to your last point, didn't they help to elect a Tory government in 1979?

daydreamer · Post by **daydreamer** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 12:39 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
daydreamer wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote: If you accept the inevitability of a Labour SNP coalition, then the polls in Scotland are just fine, because the Tories and Libs are doing terribly!
Sorry to be tribal (and no doubt nasty), but I don't want a coalition with the SNP! They're neoliberal (it's a laugh they try to paint themselves as left wing), nationalist, and I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw you, Paul.

It might finish Labour for good a coalition with the SNP, as they'll certainly hold Labour to ransom. Sorry if this upset's our Scottish nesters, I certainly have no wish to do that . These are just my feelings on the subject.
I just don't see a sensible alternative if that's the electoral outcome.

I agree with you.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 12:42 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:If you accept the inevitability of a Labour SNP coalition, then the polls in Scotland are just fine, because the Tories and Libs are doing terribly!
Not really. On UKPollingreport, three out of four predictions have Labour actually losing seats from their current position, which I presume means they are expected to lose more in Scotland than they gain in England and Wales

Labour won 258 (?) seats last time - even the most pessimistic forecasts I have seen put them higher than that.

What "predictions" are you referring to?

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 12:43 pm

giselle97 wrote:I'm sorry Paul, but a coalition with SNP blackmailing - yes, blackmailing! - Ed Miliband and Labour is not what I want, thank you. SNP want one thing and one thing only. EM would spend all of the time in defence of manoeuvres from SNP for their one aim instead of running the country - the COUNTRY! The United Kingdom.

Unless, of course, the preferred route for some people is that Westminster becomes the ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. Bloody hell!

I don't think there'll be a formal coalition but, if the SNP do get all the seats the polls are suggesting, there'll likely be some form of Supply & Demand arrangement with them. The next five years are going to be tough, regardless. I don't want Westminster to become an 'English Parliament' – if we absolutely had to have one of those it should be a separate institution with its own elected representatives – can't be MEPs, so EMPs or summat. There'd have to be a referendum, and a proper discussion on whether or not people really want their taxes to pay for another layer of government with its building, staff, representatives, running costs, etc., And the Northern Irish MPs would have to decide, once and for all, between Stormont and Westminster, no more sitting in both.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 12:45 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:How do you embed tweets?

I screenshot them, save to computer then post using the Filename option but if I can't be arsed doing that, I just copy the text of it & post in the text box.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 12:51 pm

Rebecca wrote: Quite cross today,my large 8 month old gsd has decided to chew the bottom off my lovely silk,interlined sitting room curtains.What a mess.

Whoops.

(Don't be cross at me but I am sitting here having a little chuckle at the thought of your puppy looking at you all apologetic & angelic, amid the shreds of fabric

)

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 12:52 pm

LadyCentauria wrote:
giselle97 wrote:I'm sorry Paul, but a coalition with SNP blackmailing - yes, blackmailing! - Ed Miliband and Labour is not what I want, thank you. SNP want one thing and one thing only. EM would spend all of the time in defence of manoeuvres from SNP for their one aim instead of running the country - the COUNTRY! The United Kingdom.

Unless, of course, the preferred route for some people is that Westminster becomes the ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. Bloody hell!
I don't think there'll be a formal coalition but, if the SNP do get all the seats the polls are suggesting, there'll likely be some form of Supply & Demand arrangement with them. The next five years are going to be tough, regardless. I don't want Westminster to become an 'English Parliament' – if we absolutely had to have one of those it should be a separate institution with its own elected representatives – can't be MEPs, so EMPs or summat. There'd have to be a referendum, and a proper discussion on whether or not people really want their taxes to pay for another layer of government with its building, staff, representatives, running costs, etc., And the Northern Irish MPs would have to decide, once and for all, between Stormont and Westminster, no more sitting in both.

Certainly Sturgeon said they wouldn't enter a formal coalition.

Miliband is committed to all party consultation on a new UK "constitution" anyway as well as more power to English regions. It may well be that the will of the electorate is to sort the Westminster problem out once and for all. I'd welcome that, while very much wanting Scotland to "stay" as part of the new order. Let's see.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 1:02 pm

Ok, there are lots of reasons to hope for a majority Labour administration, but we have just been given a good reason to hope that Labour falls short: tuition fees.

The cut in fees is a very expensive way of giving the wealthy more. The opportunity cost is enormous.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... pretty-bad

Why, when money is so tight, has Labour opted for such an expensive sop to the wealthiest?

Because our leader was elected on a pledge to bin tuition fees

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... are_btn_tw

Without that, his brother would currently be leader of the opposition.

A graduate tax is a deeply stupid policy. It has been reviewed time and again. Nobody who has seriously looked at higher education policy supports it. No actual government would adopt it. So, something had to be done even if it was not a graduate tax.

The tuition fee cut has no support from anyone interested in University funding. If Labour falls short of a majority, it will be quickly abandoned.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 1:06 pm

pk1 wrote:
Rebecca wrote: Quite cross today,my large 8 month old gsd has decided to chew the bottom off my lovely silk,interlined sitting room curtains.What a mess.
Whoops.

(Don't be cross at me but I am sitting here having a little chuckle at the thought of your puppy looking at you all apologetic & angelic, amid the shreds of fabric )

Ha.She didn't even acknowledge the strips of silk festooning the floor.Or the chewed up vintage velvet cushion either.Not even a shrug.Good job we love her!

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 1:08 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
LadyCentauria wrote:
giselle97 wrote:I'm sorry Paul, but a coalition with SNP blackmailing - yes, blackmailing! - Ed Miliband and Labour is not what I want, thank you. SNP want one thing and one thing only. EM would spend all of the time in defence of manoeuvres from SNP for their one aim instead of running the country - the COUNTRY! The United Kingdom.

Unless, of course, the preferred route for some people is that Westminster becomes the ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. Bloody hell!
I don't think there'll be a formal coalition but, if the SNP do get all the seats the polls are suggesting, there'll likely be some form of Supply & Demand arrangement with them. The next five years are going to be tough, regardless. I don't want Westminster to become an 'English Parliament' – if we absolutely had to have one of those it should be a separate institution with its own elected representatives – can't be MEPs, so EMPs or summat. There'd have to be a referendum, and a proper discussion on whether or not people really want their taxes to pay for another layer of government with its building, staff, representatives, running costs, etc., And the Northern Irish MPs would have to decide, once and for all, between Stormont and Westminster, no more sitting in both.
Certainly Sturgeon said they wouldn't enter a formal coalition.

Miliband is committed to all party consultation on a new UK "constitution" anyway as well as more power to English regions. It may well be that the will of the electorate is to sort the Westminster problem out once and for all. I'd welcome that, while very much wanting Scotland to "stay" as part of the new order. Let's see.

Phew!

I don't trust Nicola Sturgeon at all.

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 1:21 pm

Rebecca wrote:
pk1 wrote:
Rebecca wrote: Quite cross today,my large 8 month old gsd has decided to chew the bottom off my lovely silk,interlined sitting room curtains.What a mess.
Whoops.

(Don't be cross at me but I am sitting here having a little chuckle at the thought of your puppy looking at you all apologetic & angelic, amid the shreds of fabric )
Ha.She didn't even acknowledge the strips of silk festooning the floor.Or the chewed up vintage velvet cushion either.Not even a shrug.Good job we love her!

Oh Rebecca - so sorry. My Dad, had a black (manual) Singer sewing machine which was a pride and joy and I remember him sitting at it many a night making clothes for us all. He used to make all the curtains for us and the neighbours queued up as well. My Auntie Daisy was also a seamstress/upholsterer. This talent doesn't run in the family, since there is still a blue and white gingham part-made apron of mine in a box somewhere from 1960s that was part of my ghastly needlework class! Memo to Giselle - throw out.

If my Dad was here today, I'm sure he would come up with all sorts of suggestions of how you could repair your curtains (and he'd probably be delighted to do it for you).

Getting back to where I started, our dog when she was a puppy did much the same as your GSD puppy has done. If it's the bottoms of the curtains only, then you can maybe cut off the shredded sections and add a replacement section - maybe in a contrasting fabric/colour. My Dad actually bought the silk to do just this from the tailor in the village who used to make all the fancy, long dresses for the ladies - sarongs and such stuff. It may not sound nice, but the curtains really looked great after. I'll try to find a photo! Vintage velvet cushion .... no answer, sorry.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 1:33 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: I haven't come across the suggestion before that the main contributor to Ed's win over David was tuition fees. What's the thinking behind this?

I don't think it was the main contributor. That was the Iraq War. Miliband was the only serious candidate who could claim that he opposed it. My view of that is the same as Balls' here

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... leadership

But, Miliband's graduate tax proposal was also enormously important in August 2010. He was the only candidate (other than I think Abbott) to back it, and this was at the time the rise in tuition fees was going through. This and the (vague) support for the living wage was his keynote policy marking him out as of the left. In a tight race, without it he would have lost.

Restoring EMA would cost 1/5th of the tuition fee cut, would not be regressive (as the cut is), and would improve access (the cut won't). The cut will, I think, only happen if Labour get a majority, and I think that is unlikely now (although Miliband will be PM I think).

It is a populist and daft move by a party that doesn't think it will now win. (Far more of them by the Tories of course (eg the stupid proposal to renegotiate EU membership, the insane fiscal policy proposals etc etc).

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 1:39 pm

giselle97 wrote:
Rebecca wrote:
pk1 wrote: Whoops.

(Don't be cross at me but I am sitting here having a little chuckle at the thought of your puppy looking at you all apologetic & angelic, amid the shreds of fabric )
Ha.She didn't even acknowledge the strips of silk festooning the floor.Or the chewed up vintage velvet cushion either.Not even a shrug.Good job we love her!
Oh Rebecca - so sorry. My Dad, had a black (manual) Singer sewing machine which was a pride and joy and I remember him sitting at it many a night making clothes for us all. He used to make all the curtains for us and the neighbours queued up as well. My Auntie Daisy was also a seamstress/upholsterer. This talent doesn't run in the family, since there is still a blue and white gingham part-made apron of mine in a box somewhere from 1960s that was part of my ghastly needlework class! Memo to Giselle - throw out.

If my Dad was here today, I'm sure he would come up with all sorts of suggestions of how you could repair your curtains (and he'd probably be delighted to do it for you).

Getting back to where I started, our dog when she was a puppy did much the same as your GSD puppy has done. If it's the bottoms of the curtains only, then you can maybe cut off the shredded sections and add a replacement section - maybe in a contrasting fabric/colour. My Dad actually bought the silk to do just this from the tailor in the village who used to make all the fancy, long dresses for the ladies - sarongs and such stuff. It may not sound nice, but the curtains really looked great after. I'll try to find a photo! Vintage velvet cushion .... no answer, sorry.

No good crying over spilt milk as it were.
I have lots of leftover fabric,I can patch up the curtains,but...what if she has a taste for curtain shredding now?never touched any of them before.
She did chew up the sitting room carpet in the summer !

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 1:57 pm

Rebecca wrote:
giselle97 wrote:
Rebecca wrote: Ha.She didn't even acknowledge the strips of silk festooning the floor.Or the chewed up vintage velvet cushion either.Not even a shrug.Good job we love her!
Oh Rebecca - so sorry. My Dad, had a black (manual) Singer sewing machine which was a pride and joy and I remember him sitting at it many a night making clothes for us all. He used to make all the curtains for us and the neighbours queued up as well. My Auntie Daisy was also a seamstress/upholsterer. This talent doesn't run in the family, since there is still a blue and white gingham part-made apron of mine in a box somewhere from 1960s that was part of my ghastly needlework class! Memo to Giselle - throw out.

If my Dad was here today, I'm sure he would come up with all sorts of suggestions of how you could repair your curtains (and he'd probably be delighted to do it for you).

Getting back to where I started, our dog when she was a puppy did much the same as your GSD puppy has done. If it's the bottoms of the curtains only, then you can maybe cut off the shredded sections and add a replacement section - maybe in a contrasting fabric/colour. My Dad actually bought the silk to do just this from the tailor in the village who used to make all the fancy, long dresses for the ladies - sarongs and such stuff. It may not sound nice, but the curtains really looked great after. I'll try to find a photo! Vintage velvet cushion .... no answer, sorry.
No good crying over spilt milk as it were.
I have lots of leftover fabric,I can patch up the curtains,but...what if she has a taste for curtain shredding now?never touched any of them before.
She did chew up the sitting room carpet in the summer !

I think it's time to visit the library and look for a loaner on behavioural dog psychology.

Good luck!

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 2:12 pm

Here's the link to the PDF for Manchester.

GREATER MANCHESTER
HEALTH AND SOCIAL
CARE DEVOLUTION
Memorandum of Understanding

http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/mou.pdf

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 2:19 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:If you accept the inevitability of a Labour SNP coalition, then the polls in Scotland are just fine, because the Tories and Libs are doing terribly!
Not really. On UKPollingreport, three out of four predictions have Labour actually losing seats from their current position, which I presume means they are expected to lose more in Scotland than they gain in England and Wales. Two of the predictions have the Tories ahead on seats. So no, I don't accept the inevitability of a Labour SNP coalition. The Tories have already lost all the seats in Scotland they possibly can, and the LibDems will be an irrelevance, especially if the Tories succeed in taking a couple of seats off them.

Glimmers of light on the horizon: 1 - the usual pattern of oppositions falling back just before an election might actually work in Labour's favour in Scotland where (in Westminster terms) the SNP is the opposition; 2 - the polls might not reflect the position in the actual seats, where Labour support might hold up better and the SNP waste a lot of support on boosting their own majorities (I don't have any evidence for this but the only constituency polling we have is Ashcroft's rather selective polls); 3 - Labour can pull back a couple of points between now and May on the basis of the Tories/media having exhausted their attacks (not sure I buy this); 4 - the key marginals continue to look a bit better than the national picture, though not nearly as much as they did; 5 - the Tories seem to have given up on trying to take seats off Labour; 6 - even if the Tories get the most seats they might not be able to form a government (this really is clutching at straws because a government of Labour and the SNP where Labour won neither the popular vote or the most seats would be on very dodgy constitutional ground and might end up damaging Labour far more than 2010 did).

Regarding your point 6: If the Tories get the most seats the LibDems will enter into negotiations on forming a new coalition with them 'in the interests of forming a stable government' – and we'll be in for more of the same. Of course, the chances are that those two parties together would still be a fair way away from having an overall majority in the House. Neither the Greens, nor the SNP, will enter into that coalition because both would lose far more support than they could possibly gain from it, and the SNP would probably lose control of the Scottish Parliament in 2016 as a result. Both are on record as saying they wouldn't enter a formal coalition but that there is no way they would prop up a Tory government - the SNP has said that they would consider entering another sort of agreement with Labour, if Labour won the most seats.

It's the party with the most seats that gets first go at forming a Government, so let's hope that's Labour. And I'm hoping (and working) even harder to try to get an overall Labour majority.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 2:32 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: I haven't come across the suggestion before that the main contributor to Ed's win over David was tuition fees. What's the thinking behind this?
I don't think it was the main contributor. That was the Iraq War. Miliband was the only serious candidate who could claim that he opposed it. My view of that is the same as Balls' here

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... leadership

But, Miliband's graduate tax proposal was also enormously important in August 2010. He was the only candidate (other than I think Abbott) to back it, and this was at the time the rise in tuition fees was going through. This and the (vague) support for the living wage was his keynote policy marking him out as of the left. In a tight race, without it he would have lost.

Restoring EMA would cost 1/5th of the tuition fee cut, would not be regressive (as the cut is), and would improve access (the cut won't). The cut will, I think, only happen if Labour get a majority, and I think that is unlikely now (although Miliband will be PM I think).

It is a populist and daft move by a party that doesn't think it will now win. (Far more of them by the Tories of course (eg the stupid proposal to renegotiate EU membership, the insane fiscal policy proposals etc etc).

When graduates become high earners (like a Vet say) they will lose tax relief on pension payment, so will - in effect - be helping to fund future students.
Although EMA will not be reinstated the Youth Allowance (to be paid to students whose parents earn blow 40k - on a sliding scale) will in effect replace it. So instead of going on JSA and being bared from studying, they can go to collage. Whereas at the moment any teen who wants to study loses JSA and so has no means of independent living.
There is a big problem with the student loan system not least that on initial introduction students were told they would not count towards credit rating. But now they are doing just that, officially or unofficially they are affecting mortgage applications.

"Graduates facing mortgage timebomb: Those with university debts having applications turned down because their £9,000-a-year tuition fees saddle them with high debt repayments"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ments.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So we have a generation of young people starting out in life will 40k+ in debt and no way of ever owning a home, and in some cases not even being able to rent in an area with businesses that their degree would be most useful in.
This is the "big picture" Labour are (in a small way, agreed) starting to address. with the reduction in fees.
During the leader debates EdM gave a much better overall view of his vision for Britain, rather than identifying single policies.
That's why he won. Simple.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 2:36 pm

Rebecca wrote:
giselle97 wrote:
Rebecca wrote: Ha.She didn't even acknowledge the strips of silk festooning the floor.Or the chewed up vintage velvet cushion either.Not even a shrug.Good job we love her!
Oh Rebecca - so sorry. My Dad, had a black (manual) Singer sewing machine which was a pride and joy and I remember him sitting at it many a night making clothes for us all. He used to make all the curtains for us and the neighbours queued up as well. My Auntie Daisy was also a seamstress/upholsterer. This talent doesn't run in the family, since there is still a blue and white gingham part-made apron of mine in a box somewhere from 1960s that was part of my ghastly needlework class! Memo to Giselle - throw out.

If my Dad was here today, I'm sure he would come up with all sorts of suggestions of how you could repair your curtains (and he'd probably be delighted to do it for you).

Getting back to where I started, our dog when she was a puppy did much the same as your GSD puppy has done. If it's the bottoms of the curtains only, then you can maybe cut off the shredded sections and add a replacement section - maybe in a contrasting fabric/colour. My Dad actually bought the silk to do just this from the tailor in the village who used to make all the fancy, long dresses for the ladies - sarongs and such stuff. It may not sound nice, but the curtains really looked great after. I'll try to find a photo! Vintage velvet cushion .... no answer, sorry.
No good crying over spilt milk as it were.
I have lots of leftover fabric,I can patch up the curtains,but...what if she has a taste for curtain shredding now?never touched any of them before.
She did chew up the sitting room carpet in the summer !

How about putting a contrasting [or harmonising] band at the bottom.
My local cleaning service no longer does dry cleaning because of the eco-nastiness and steam cleans instead. My lovely 100% linen curtains ended up clean but three inches short so I sewed a striped linen band at the bottom and they look great.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 2:38 pm

Giselle,see,pups like to chew stuff.The previous curtains,French vintage,hand sewn,were ruined when an adopted stray cat had diarrhoea ALL over them!
Years ago my former husband,a vet,insisted that I read a dog psychology book written by a colleague.the title was the perfect puppy.And,the perfect puppy,another gsd,ate the bloody thing.
Oh well,think of the fun she had as the silk ripped.

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 28 Feb, 2015 2:49 pm

Rebecca wrote:Giselle,see,pups like to chew stuff.The previous curtains,French vintage,hand sewn,were ruined when an adopted stray cat had diarrhoea ALL over them!
Years ago my former husband,a vet,insisted that I read a dog psychology book written by a colleague.the title was the perfect puppy.And,the perfect puppy,another gsd,ate the bloody thing.
Oh well,think of the fun she had as the silk ripped.