Saturday 28th Feb & Sunday 1st March 2015

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 12:38 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:What... the... actual... ?

Someone's been playing that UKIP kick em off a cliff app for real?

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 12:46 pm

The rancidness of Thatcher's governments still manages to elicit a shake of the head 30 years on, Hillsborough, her ties with Savile, Orgreave, I doubt the truth will be aired fully in the media about any of them.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/mai ... -1-7129993" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And of course, her economic legacies will never get the scrutiny they so richly deserve either.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 12:57 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Re Manchester
Negotiation talks about Manchester devolution deal started last November. That was well known
The devolution of the NHS to Manchester was not well known or discussed. It was leaked on (last) Tuesday night.
Which suggests to me it's a stich up.

The announcement was a genuine surprise - there had been no nudges and winks in preceding weeks.
It was leaked by over-eager councillors in the Manchester area briefing BBC Radio Manchester and the Manchester Evening News. Well done to them on a fine scoop.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31661416" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AB did not know about it, which is why he is concerned.

Andy Burnham's warning over a 'Swiss-cheese' NHS with cities opting out
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... se-8721228" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now the question is - could 10 LA's have kept all their councillors quiet about this for months? I don't think so. In fact they didn't, being the ones who leaked it on Tuesday when they found out about it
So the next question is -
Who did know and why was no consultation done about it ?

Finally found the article I'd lost (it was from a link posted here so thanks and hat tip to whoever posted it) and its this that has me really angry ..

"A recent report by Simon Jenkins of The Guardian revealed that unelected civil servants in London, led by Treasury second permanent secretary John Kingman, joined from Manchester by the unelected Sir Howard Bernstein, outnumbered the two elected politicians, George Osborne and the Labour leader of Manchester, Sir Richard Leese, in the secret ‘devoManc’ negotiations in London." (about two thirds down)
Well worth a read.
http://www.tribunemagazine.org/2015/02/ ... -cromwell/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Osborne has played a blinder with this, he has split labour all by himself.
Split loyalties: Labour riven over NHS Devo Manc deal
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... er-8728654" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (and although the MEN is a NTBT paper, the facts are there)

http://www.tribunemagazine.org/2015/02/ ... -cromwell/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 1:12 pm

The Lib Dems say they would block Labour from cutting tuition fees in any future coalition
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 78034.html

The Liberal Democrats would block Labour from cutting university tuition fees to £6,000 if the parties went into coalition after the next election, a senior party figure has indicated.

Lib Dem cabinet minister Ed Davey described Labour's planned fee cut as “stupid” and said he would refuse to back it in government.

“We will stand up for making sure we can get the economy right, get the deficit down, and not wasting money on stupid policies like this latest Miliband policy,” he told BBC Radio 5 Live’s Pienaar’s politics programme on Sunday morning.

Asked whether he would refuse to execute the policy in a future coalition, Mr Davey said: “Yes I would”.

Has someone been spiking their food and drink in the HoC? I cannot see any other reason than not being in their right minds for feeling the need to say this now ....

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 1:25 pm

Further confirmation for Ernst re his belief that the Tories are a busted flush re activists and volunteers to do the groundwork in their constituencies.

Tories set up 'roll of honour' for MPs who campaign the most in marginal constituencies
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 77707.html

But backbench MPs have complained that whips are asking them to undertake tasks like delivering leaflets – traditionally the work of activists.

“This shows you how the voluntary party has been pretty much eviscerated by David Cameron,” said one MP. “That list is full of people desperate to suck up to the whips.” Mr Hands said the roll of honour was to “acknowledge” MPs’ hard work.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 1:36 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:The Lib Dems say they would block Labour from cutting tuition fees in any future coalition
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 78034.html
The Liberal Democrats would block Labour from cutting university tuition fees to £6,000 if the parties went into coalition after the next election, a senior party figure has indicated.

Lib Dem cabinet minister Ed Davey described Labour's planned fee cut as “stupid” and said he would refuse to back it in government.

“We will stand up for making sure we can get the economy right, get the deficit down, and not wasting money on stupid policies like this latest Miliband policy,” he told BBC Radio 5 Live’s Pienaar’s politics programme on Sunday morning.

Asked whether he would refuse to execute the policy in a future coalition, Mr Davey said: “Yes I would”.
Has someone been spiking their food and drink in the HoC? I cannot see any other reason than not being in their right minds for feeling the need to say this now ....
Wouldn't it be ironic if the LibDems actually stuck to a pledge to block a cut in tuition fees? Can they not see how utterly toxic that would be for them?

Perhaps they think this would appeal to the voters they still have. They've (mostly) lost the student vote. I'd assume they've lost many of their more left-leaning supporters, too, so they're left with the the more right-of-centre wing. Or, maybe they're hoping win the votes of wavering Conservative voters who can't quite bring themselves to vote for UKIP and would never in a million years go Labour or Green. It always used to be said that the Liberals were 'more Tory than the Tories'. Looks like we're back to those days - he and Cable are certainly following Cameron' and IDS' example of 'if in danger of losing a debate just get red and shouty!'

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 1:37 pm

Here you go Robert ....

Lilian Greenwood retweeted
Matthew McGregor ‏@mcgregormt 12m12 minutes ago
Nick Clegg should back up the Lib Dems’ promise to oppose any reduction in tuition fees by posing for a photo holding a signed pledge.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 1:40 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Further confirmation for Ernst re his belief that the Tories are a busted flush re activists and volunteers to do the groundwork in their constituencies.

Tories set up 'roll of honour' for MPs who campaign the most in marginal constituencies
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 77707.html

But backbench MPs have complained that whips are asking them to undertake tasks like delivering leaflets – traditionally the work of activists.
“This shows you how the voluntary party has been pretty much eviscerated by David Cameron,” said one MP. “That list is full of people desperate to suck up to the whips.” Mr Hands said the roll of honour was to “acknowledge” MPs’ hard work.

For my sins I trawled the twitter pages of a few Welsh Conservative MPs this morning, a more truly awful bunch you would struggle to meet, there was the usual photos of them and activists delivering the usual bumpf, ok I grant you the fact it isn't the most reliable source of where they are at with their activists but Cairns had around 7 and the dreadful David TC Davies had with him 5 which go under the banner of Monmouth Tories. Both fools have an excellent chance of getting re-elected. FFS.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 1:41 pm

Lady C ponders whether the Lib Dems are making this stand re refusing to lower tuition fees if they are in coalition in order to appeal to their remaining die hard supporters .... Ahem, this BTL on one of the 6 LDV articles on this issue would suggest that's a mistake if so ...

expats 1st Mar '15 - 10:10am
Mar ’15 – 9:11am…..Yes the current policy is what is in place as you can read from Vince Cable above….

Yes; that is what I read! However, you must excuse me if I seem unsure….

A little about.me.. I’m 71 and, apart from 1997, have voted Lib(Dem) all my voting life…As a LibDem (rather like an English cricket supporter) I’ve had far more bad days than good…..Stiill, I believed in our core values and, although never expecting a parliamentary majority, I hoped one day we’d hold the balance of power..
Well, as the old adage goes, be careful of what you wish for.

On Tuition fees I’m now told that the Tory model was the right one; on ‘top down’ NHS reorganisation we voted for the Tory model; on ‘Bedroom Tax’ the same…. etc. and not only did we vote for them , we actively advocated them….. I well remember “75% of policies are LibDem”

If I’m disenchanted, imagine how the rest of the voting public feel…..Well, don’t imagine, just look at our history since 2010… We have become so toxic that swathes of good, hard working councillors have been wiped out because of decisions taken at the top….

In conclusion, Please don’t tell me we had too few MPs to stop the policies of the most right wing Tory government in my lifetime. We had enough MPs to vote their policies through. And don’t tell me that things would have been worse without the LibDems in government…. When you’re drowning in 20 feet of water it is of little consolation to be told that it’s deeper further out…

Will I vote LibDem?…Almost certainly not…Who will I vote for? Probably Labour (or” none of the above”)

http://www.libdemvoice.org/vince-cable- ... l#comments

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 1:45 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:The Lib Dems say they would block Labour from cutting tuition fees in any future coalition
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 78034.html
The Liberal Democrats would block Labour from cutting university tuition fees to £6,000 if the parties went into coalition after the next election, a senior party figure has indicated.

Lib Dem cabinet minister Ed Davey described Labour's planned fee cut as “stupid” and said he would refuse to back it in government.

“We will stand up for making sure we can get the economy right, get the deficit down, and not wasting money on stupid policies like this latest Miliband policy,” he told BBC Radio 5 Live’s Pienaar’s politics programme on Sunday morning.

Asked whether he would refuse to execute the policy in a future coalition, Mr Davey said: “Yes I would”.
Has someone been spiking their food and drink in the HoC? I cannot see any other reason than not being in their right minds for feeling the need to say this now ....
Wouldn't it be ironic if the LibDems actually stuck to a pledge to block a cut in tuition fees? Can they not see how utterly toxic that would be for them?

They don't make sense on any level.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 1:46 pm

Happy St. David's Day!
Dydd Gwyl Dewi hapus!

To all our Welsh peps

xxx

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 2:58 pm

Thanks AAW.

We celebrated the occasion by going hill walking, got completely soaked in typical Welsh weather and battered by driving wind & hail too ! Have thawed out with a plateful of veggie-bacon sandwiches and hot drink.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 3:11 pm

A good long read on the in's and out's of the Manchester deal, that ends with this sentence, one that I could not agree more with.

"The Osborne-Bernstein deal was like two mafia bosses carving up Apulia. There was no white paper or consultative document, let alone a debate in parliament. Manchester’s deal with Osborne was reached by sleight of hand, by one man with a political problem to solve and another who saw this as an opportunity."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... -greatness" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 3:23 pm

Re. Manchester NHS.

I don't give a flying fart who knew what when or who did what to whom how why and for how much. I do not care.

What I care about is the splitting up of a NATIONAL health service. Regional controls or whatever it is sold as by people who want it gone.

In Wales, we have devolved responsibility for the NHS and social care. We are better at combining both than England.
If we have problems in the NHS and in social care, it is due to under-funding and that is due to Barnett.

Osborne is, effectively, promoting a Barnett-esque financial settlement which Manchester can use to provide health and social care.
Total control of the budget is the carrot - insufficient and /or dwindling funding will be the stick.
What gets spent where will depend on a small group of people - it's not on.

This is creating regional provision which can also affect pay, conditions, training, and career paths for health care staff.
Osborne has made no secret of the fact that he wants regional pay for public servants. He has said on more than one occasion that public sector pay should be lower and reflect prices/whatever areas where the cost of living is low. This is one way to get it.

This is nasty, typical, divide-and-rule game-playing which could have disastrous consequences for the NHS.
Setting Labour against Labour, and laughing all the way.

Robert knows the NHS well, so do I - and we both agree that this idea is wrong.
Maybe I have been reading Ernst's post wrong, in which case I apologise - but if you agree with this, Ernst, then I am disappointed in you.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 3:39 pm

This from Tom Pride has been converted into my St Davids Day celebration ... it's a glorious read. Enjoy it.

5 things successful people do every day to avoid being a Lib Dem
https://tompride.wordpress.com/2015/03/ ... a-lib-dem/

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 3:47 pm

ephemerid wrote:Re. Manchester NHS.

I don't give a flying fart who knew what when or who did what to whom how why and for how much. I do not care.

What I care about is the splitting up of a NATIONAL health service. Regional controls or whatever it is sold as by people who want it gone.

In Wales, we have devolved responsibility for the NHS and social care. We are better at combining both than England.
If we have problems in the NHS and in social care, it is due to under-funding and that is due to Barnett.

Osborne is, effectively, promoting a Barnett-esque financial settlement which Manchester can use to provide health and social care.
Total control of the budget is the carrot - insufficient and /or dwindling funding will be the stick.
What gets spent where will depend on a small group of people - it's not on.

This is creating regional provision which can also affect pay, conditions, training, and career paths for health care staff.
Osborne has made no secret of the fact that he wants regional pay for public servants. He has said on more than one occasion that public sector pay should be lower and reflect prices/whatever areas where the cost of living is low. This is one way to get it.

This is nasty, typical, divide-and-rule game-playing which could have disastrous consequences for the NHS.
Setting Labour against Labour, and laughing all the way.

Robert knows the NHS well, so do I - and we both agree that this idea is wrong.
Maybe I have been reading Ernst's post wrong, in which case I apologise - but if you agree with this, Ernst, then I am disappointed in you.

I agree totally with the main issues you highlight Ephe, but as a Manchester resident I DO care who stitched us up and why.
AND what they stand to gain from it.
Who will become the unelected, unwanted, heavens-knows-how-much-salaried, imposed Mayor for instance?

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 3:58 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
ephemerid wrote:Re. Manchester NHS.

I don't give a flying fart who knew what when or who did what to whom how why and for how much. I do not care.

What I care about is the splitting up of a NATIONAL health service. Regional controls or whatever it is sold as by people who want it gone.

In Wales, we have devolved responsibility for the NHS and social care. We are better at combining both than England.
If we have problems in the NHS and in social care, it is due to under-funding and that is due to Barnett.

Osborne is, effectively, promoting a Barnett-esque financial settlement which Manchester can use to provide health and social care.
Total control of the budget is the carrot - insufficient and /or dwindling funding will be the stick.
What gets spent where will depend on a small group of people - it's not on.

This is creating regional provision which can also affect pay, conditions, training, and career paths for health care staff.
Osborne has made no secret of the fact that he wants regional pay for public servants. He has said on more than one occasion that public sector pay should be lower and reflect prices/whatever areas where the cost of living is low. This is one way to get it.

This is nasty, typical, divide-and-rule game-playing which could have disastrous consequences for the NHS.
Setting Labour against Labour, and laughing all the way.

Robert knows the NHS well, so do I - and we both agree that this idea is wrong.
Maybe I have been reading Ernst's post wrong, in which case I apologise - but if you agree with this, Ernst, then I am disappointed in you.
I agree totally with the main issues you highlight Ephe, but as a Manchester resident I DO care who stitched us up and why.
AND what they stand to gain from it.
Who will become the unelected, unwanted, heavens-knows-how-much-salaried, imposed Mayor for instance?

I agree AAW. The process is as important as the outcome. Never trust the Tories on the NHS.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 4:09 pm

If Ed gets in he has the most almighty job in front of him sorting out employment and companies sucking on the government tit.

Our grandson was taken on as an apprentice learning office management. We were cynical about it from the start because he has atrocious short term memory, but at least he was working which is all he wants to do, so we were happy for him but with lots of reservations because we knew pretty much what would happen.

The company he works for is way out in the sticks...His mum, my daughter in law who suffers from Type 1 diabetes which is unstable, was wearing herself out trying to get him and the twelve year old daughter to work and school on time. She had a really bad hyper attack and our son had a job bringing her round. The docs said to try and pace herself more. Pretty impossible because his boss had said they'd sack him if he was late anymore, so Mr Ohso said he'd take him in the morning; his dad makes a detour on his way home and picks him up in the afternoon.
They have sent him to day release and he has five months left to go, but they've told him there won't be a job for him once the apprenticeship is finished.

They obviously don't want to take anyone on permanently otherwise they'd have given the apprenticeship to some one who was capable of doing the job.

They're on to a nice little earner I'd say.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 4:16 pm

And I suppose we can lay a lot of the blame about apprenticeships at Cleggs door.

The shit for brains knob head.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 4:33 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Lady C ponders whether the Lib Dems are making this stand re refusing to lower tuition fees if they are in coalition in order to appeal to their remaining die hard supporters .... Ahem, this BTL on one of the 6 LDV articles on this issue would suggest that's a mistake if so ...

expats 1st Mar '15 - 10:10am
Mar ’15 – 9:11am…..Yes the current policy is what is in place as you can read from Vince Cable above….

Yes; that is what I read! However, you must excuse me if I seem unsure….

A little about.me.. I’m 71 and, apart from 1997, have voted Lib(Dem) all my voting life…As a LibDem (rather like an English cricket supporter) I’ve had far more bad days than good…..Stiill, I believed in our core values and, although never expecting a parliamentary majority, I hoped one day we’d hold the balance of power..
Well, as the old adage goes, be careful of what you wish for.

On Tuition fees I’m now told that the Tory model was the right one; on ‘top down’ NHS reorganisation we voted for the Tory model; on ‘Bedroom Tax’ the same…. etc. and not only did we vote for them , we actively advocated them….. I well remember “75% of policies are LibDem”

If I’m disenchanted, imagine how the rest of the voting public feel…..Well, don’t imagine, just look at our history since 2010… We have become so toxic that swathes of good, hard working councillors have been wiped out because of decisions taken at the top….

In conclusion, Please don’t tell me we had too few MPs to stop the policies of the most right wing Tory government in my lifetime. We had enough MPs to vote their policies through. And don’t tell me that things would have been worse without the LibDems in government…. When you’re drowning in 20 feet of water it is of little consolation to be told that it’s deeper further out…

Will I vote LibDem?…Almost certainly not…Who will I vote for? Probably Labour (or” none of the above”)
http://www.libdemvoice.org/vince-cable- ... l#comments

More a pondering on whether they were hoping to attract the more centrist amongst the right-wing from outside their party having lost so many of their own supporters. From the comment of the loyal Lib(Dem) above they're losing the almost-die-hards, too. I feel for that chap/chapess, really. My comment about the Libs being believed 'more Tory than the Tories' was a view held by those outside the old Liberal Party, rather than those within – many/most of whom, I'm sure, were really not. I think this issue is going to lose the LibDems more support from inside their base of supporters but might win them defectors from 'the right.'

Whether or not Cable, Davey, etc., are actually trying to appeal to a more right-of-centre voter, I don't know; perhaps they've just been infected by five years in Torydom. Cable went into government with a reputation for financial wisdom – prescience even. He's had to go from believing that tuition fees were wrong and had to be abolished, to believing that they were right and had to be increased. It might be too hard for him to make the switch even partway back. What's that thing called when hostages adopt the thinking of their captors? It could be that.

A slightly tangential thought: If it comes to another coalition, I think the LibDems are more likely to be welcomed into one by the Tories than by Labour. They keep saying, "We'll speak first to the party with the most seats." Well, what if the party with the most seats doesn't speak to them first? There's more than a slim chance that they'll only be the fourth-largest party after the 7th of May and there's no law that says there has to be a coalition, anyway.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 4:37 pm

http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/uk ... -1.845031
Heartbreaking letter from the woman with nowhere left to turn

I have to say that at least Maggie's government had a bit more empathy for someone older who'd lost their job.
At 64 [if I remember correctly] they'd be allowed to officially retire and claim their old age pension. Or if more than a few years off official retirement would be put on long term sick benefits.
Not ideal and cynical in the extreme when it came to massaging unemployment figures, but better than we have now.

Dave has far surpassed her in terms of heartlessness.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 4:40 pm

Lady C you are thinking of Stockholm Syndrome, which is indeed a good fit for the behaviour of quite a few LibDems since the GE (also called "doing a Colonel Nicholson")

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 4:58 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:This from Tom Pride has been converted into my St Davids Day celebration ... it's a glorious read. Enjoy it.

5 things successful people do every day to avoid being a Lib Dem
https://tompride.wordpress.com/2015/03/ ... a-lib-dem/

He's slipped up slightly by assuming that the people concerned are male. See number 5.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 5:15 pm

gilsey wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:This from Tom Pride has been converted into my St Davids Day celebration ... it's a glorious read. Enjoy it.

5 things successful people do every day to avoid being a Lib Dem
https://tompride.wordpress.com/2015/03/ ... a-lib-dem/
He's slipped up slightly by assuming that the people concerned are male. See number 5.

I should have nailed my husband's scrotum to the floor in April 2010 when I got temporarily seduced by the Lib Dems.

Post by **refitman** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 5:20 pm

yahyah wrote:
gilsey wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:This from Tom Pride has been converted into my St Davids Day celebration ... it's a glorious read. Enjoy it.

He's slipped up slightly by assuming that the people concerned are male. See number 5.

I should have nailed my husband's scrotum to the floor in April 2010 when I got temporarily seduced by the Lib Dems.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 5:22 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/uk ... -1.845031
Heartbreaking letter from the woman with nowhere left to turn
I have to say that at least Maggie's government had a bit more empathy for someone older who'd lost their job.
At 64 [if I remember correctly] they'd be allowed to officially retire and claim their old age pension. Or if more than a few years off official retirement would be put on long term sick benefits.
Not ideal and cynical in the extreme when it came to massaging unemployment figures, but better than we have now.

Dave has far surpassed her in terms of heartlessness.
There's a book about Thatcher's Christian upbringing and how that influenced her politics (I think it's called 'Mrs Thatcher and God' or something like that), in particular the unintended results of the individualistic aspects of the policies she introduced in completely driving out notions of Christian morals. It's an interesting thesis. Thatcher had some rather naive ideas about community and morality in society, which she not only failed to advance, she virtually destroyed any chance of. When Tories and neoliberals today talk about completing Thatcher's work, they mean establishing the dominance of free market economics in every area of life - something not even Thatcher wanted to do. Don't get me wrong, she was heartless in a number of respects and misguided in others, but what she unleashed is worse.

I remember the GE when she was leader of the Cons. My two were at primary school, and the mothers used to stand and chat whilst waiting for the kids to come out of school. They were all pumped up at the thought of a woman leading the country and how she would advance women's issues...
Many of them voted for her but it wasn't long before they were disillusioned. I had a hard time trying not to say told you so.

I've still not made up my mind as to whetherit was simply the way she was or that she had worked out she needed to be harder than the men to succeed. [To my despair, I suspect women MPs are still doing that]

She had a disfunctional childhood with a dirty old man as a father, and from what I've read a mother who 'switched off', which has to have had a bearing on her later life.

One thing I'm dead sure of was that she had nothing but contempt for men and thought herself far superior in brain power and organisational skills.

She was a peculiar and very complex woman.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 5:23 pm

ohsocynical wrote:If Ed gets in he has the most almighty job in front of him sorting out employment and companies sucking on the government tit.

Our grandson was taken on as an apprentice learning office management. We were cynical about it from the start because he has atrocious short term memory, but at least he was working which is all he wants to do, so we were happy for him but with lots of reservations because we knew pretty much what would happen.

The company he works for is way out in the sticks...His mum, my daughter in law who suffers from Type 1 diabetes which is unstable, was wearing herself out trying to get him and the twelve year old daughter to work and school on time. She had a really bad hyper attack and our son had a job bringing her round. The docs said to try and pace herself more. Pretty impossible because his boss had said they'd sack him if he was late anymore, so Mr Ohso said he'd take him in the morning; his dad makes a detour on his way home and picks him up in the afternoon.
They have sent him to day release and he has five months left to go, but they've told him there won't be a job for him once the apprenticeship is finished.

They obviously don't want to take anyone on permanently otherwise they'd have given the apprenticeship to some one who was capable of doing the job.

They're on to a nice little earner I'd say.

That's awful for your grandson and the whole of your family

You're right, there's a hell of mess and tangle to sort out on 'apprenticeships' – especially the ones which are just a way for firms to earn money from the government by claiming to be 'training providers' as this one seems to be doing.

Call me old-fashioned but I still think that apprenticeships should be predominantly craft-based, should involve thorough training and the equivalent of City & Guilds – what's that, now, Level 2/Level 3? They should produce people who are ready to strike out on their own, a.k.a. journeymen, and/or to go on to do a Bachelors' or Masters' degree. Calling an entry level job in retail, or whatever, an 'apprenticeship' strikes me as daft and just gives firms permission to pay a lower minimum wage than they would otherwise have to, which is pure exploitation.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 5:25 pm

yahyah wrote:
gilsey wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:This from Tom Pride has been converted into my St Davids Day celebration ... it's a glorious read. Enjoy it.

He's slipped up slightly by assuming that the people concerned are male. See number 5.

I should have nailed my husband's scrotum to the floor in April 2010 when I got temporarily seduced by the Lib Dems.

Me too. Definitely me too....

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 5:27 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Lady C you are thinking of Stockholm Syndrome, which is indeed a good fit for the behaviour of quite a few LibDems since the GE (also called "doing a Colonel Nicholson")

Thank you! I've been racking my brains but it just wouldn't come to me!

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 5:40 pm

yahyah wrote:
gilsey wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:This from Tom Pride has been converted into my St Davids Day celebration ... it's a glorious read. Enjoy it.

He's slipped up slightly by assuming that the people concerned are male. See number 5.

I should have nailed my husband's scrotum to the floor in April 2010 when I got temporarily seduced by the Lib Dems.

Well - there might be a money making opportunity for those of an entrepreneurial nature here. Replica scrota - called Cleggies - for sale complete with hammer and nails. Sold as a stress buster. Expect the sound of mass hammering if the Tories get back in and it looks like the Lib Dems are keen to sniff their arses again.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 5:49 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
yahyah wrote:
gilsey wrote: He's slipped up slightly by assuming that the people concerned are male. See number 5.

I should have nailed my husband's scrotum to the floor in April 2010 when I got temporarily seduced by the Lib Dems.
Well - there might be a money making opportunity for those of an entrepreneurial nature here. Replica scrota - called Cleggies - for sale complete with hammer and nails. Sold as a stress buster. Expect the sound of mass hammering if the Tories get back in and it looks like the Lib Dems are keen to sniff their arses again.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 6:03 pm

Just seen that there's been a people's march for the NHS in Tredegar.
https://twitter.com/search?q=nhs%20tred ... ode=photos" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wonder if LetsSkip was/is there ?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 6:04 pm

Its 6pm. Not quite dark, crocus are out and Bracknell's grass verge daffodils will be out within the week. In 4 weeks exactly the clocks will be going forward.

In the meantime we have just had rain, hail, high winds and thunder. March has definitely arrived with a roar.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 6:10 pm

yahyah wrote:Just seen that there's been a people's march for the NHS in Tredegar.
https://twitter.com/search?q=nhs%20tred ... ode=photos" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wonder if LetsSkip was/is there ?

Sadly no yahyah, just about to go work, 12 hour night shift..

Looks like a good turn out there too.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 6:23 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
ephemerid wrote:Re. Manchester NHS.

I don't give a flying fart who knew what when or who did what to whom how why and for how much. I do not care.

What I care about is the splitting up of a NATIONAL health service. Regional controls or whatever it is sold as by people who want it gone.

In Wales, we have devolved responsibility for the NHS and social care. We are better at combining both than England.
If we have problems in the NHS and in social care, it is due to under-funding and that is due to Barnett.

Osborne is, effectively, promoting a Barnett-esque financial settlement which Manchester can use to provide health and social care.
Total control of the budget is the carrot - insufficient and /or dwindling funding will be the stick.
What gets spent where will depend on a small group of people - it's not on.

This is creating regional provision which can also affect pay, conditions, training, and career paths for health care staff.
Osborne has made no secret of the fact that he wants regional pay for public servants. He has said on more than one occasion that public sector pay should be lower and reflect prices/whatever areas where the cost of living is low. This is one way to get it.

This is nasty, typical, divide-and-rule game-playing which could have disastrous consequences for the NHS.
Setting Labour against Labour, and laughing all the way.

Robert knows the NHS well, so do I - and we both agree that this idea is wrong.
Maybe I have been reading Ernst's post wrong, in which case I apologise - but if you agree with this, Ernst, then I am disappointed in you.
I agree totally with the main issues you highlight Ephe, but as a Manchester resident I DO care who stitched us up and why.
AND what they stand to gain from it.
Who will become the unelected, unwanted, heavens-knows-how-much-salaried, imposed Mayor for instance?

I take your point - you're right, really.....

Whoever is involved in this, they are putting their need/wish for control locally above the good of the country.

I happen to think that really sucks - and if they are daft enough to believe that Osborne actually gives a shit about health in Manchester they are deluded; if they know he doesn't but are doing this for their own ends it's disgraceful.

Osborne is thick in many ways; but he is a canny and cunning political operator, and he has set Labour against Labour.
Bet he's loving it.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 6:36 pm

ephemerid wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
ephemerid wrote:Re. Manchester NHS.

I don't give a flying fart who knew what when or who did what to whom how why and for how much. I do not care.

What I care about is the splitting up of a NATIONAL health service. Regional controls or whatever it is sold as by people who want it gone.

In Wales, we have devolved responsibility for the NHS and social care. We are better at combining both than England.
If we have problems in the NHS and in social care, it is due to under-funding and that is due to Barnett.

Osborne is, effectively, promoting a Barnett-esque financial settlement which Manchester can use to provide health and social care.
Total control of the budget is the carrot - insufficient and /or dwindling funding will be the stick.
What gets spent where will depend on a small group of people - it's not on.

This is creating regional provision which can also affect pay, conditions, training, and career paths for health care staff.
Osborne has made no secret of the fact that he wants regional pay for public servants. He has said on more than one occasion that public sector pay should be lower and reflect prices/whatever areas where the cost of living is low. This is one way to get it.

This is nasty, typical, divide-and-rule game-playing which could have disastrous consequences for the NHS.
Setting Labour against Labour, and laughing all the way.

Robert knows the NHS well, so do I - and we both agree that this idea is wrong.
Maybe I have been reading Ernst's post wrong, in which case I apologise - but if you agree with this, Ernst, then I am disappointed in you.
I agree totally with the main issues you highlight Ephe, but as a Manchester resident I DO care who stitched us up and why.
AND what they stand to gain from it.
Who will become the unelected, unwanted, heavens-knows-how-much-salaried, imposed Mayor for instance?

I take your point - you're right, really.....

Whoever is involved in this, they are putting their need/wish for control locally above the good of the country.

I happen to think that really sucks - and if they are daft enough to believe that Osborne actually gives a shit about health in Manchester they are deluded; if they know he doesn't but are doing this for their own ends it's disgraceful.

Osborne is thick in many ways; but he is a canny and cunning political operator, and he has set Labour against Labour.
Bet he's loving it.

Both the above points 100% agree, they are very big concerns, but an even bigger one for Manchester population is with very little revenue raising powers - certainly no enough to run the NHS aspect of this - what will they do if the tory's do get back in and cut their budget to a farthing and half a peanut ?
We will be up the Swanee without an NHS to paddle to.
Sorry to sound a bit selfish on this - I do realise the whole NHS stands to lose out and how very important that is - but I'm so angry about all aspects of it, its hard to get rational thoughts down coherently.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 6:42 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Its 6pm. Not quite dark, crocus are out and Bracknell's grass verge daffodils will be out within the week. In 4 weeks exactly the clocks will be going forward.

In the meantime we have just had rain, hail, high winds and thunder. March has definitely arrived with a roar.

Weather was a little exciting here, too! Let's hope March goes out like a lamb

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 6:46 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Its 6pm. Not quite dark, crocus are out and Bracknell's grass verge daffodils will be out within the week. In 4 weeks exactly the clocks will be going forward.

In the meantime we have just had rain, hail, high winds and thunder. March has definitely arrived with a roar.

Imagine how good you feel about spring if you keep horses.

Peasant trampling season will soon be upon us.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 6:57 pm

LadyCentauria wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:If Ed gets in he has the most almighty job in front of him sorting out employment and companies sucking on the government tit.

Our grandson was taken on as an apprentice learning office management. We were cynical about it from the start because he has atrocious short term memory, but at least he was working which is all he wants to do, so we were happy for him but with lots of reservations because we knew pretty much what would happen.

The company he works for is way out in the sticks...His mum, my daughter in law who suffers from Type 1 diabetes which is unstable, was wearing herself out trying to get him and the twelve year old daughter to work and school on time. She had a really bad hyper attack and our son had a job bringing her round. The docs said to try and pace herself more. Pretty impossible because his boss had said they'd sack him if he was late anymore, so Mr Ohso said he'd take him in the morning; his dad makes a detour on his way home and picks him up in the afternoon.
They have sent him to day release and he has five months left to go, but they've told him there won't be a job for him once the apprenticeship is finished.

They obviously don't want to take anyone on permanently otherwise they'd have given the apprenticeship to some one who was capable of doing the job.

They're on to a nice little earner I'd say.
That's awful for your grandson and the whole of your family You're right, there's a hell of mess and tangle to sort out on 'apprenticeships' – especially the ones which are just a way for firms to earn money from the government by claiming to be 'training providers' as this one seems to be doing.

Call me old-fashioned but I still think that apprenticeships should be predominantly craft-based, should involve thorough training and the equivalent of City & Guilds – what's that, now, Level 2/Level 3? They should produce people who are ready to strike out on their own, a.k.a. journeymen, and/or to go on to do a Bachelors' or Masters' degree. Calling an entry level job in retail, or whatever, an 'apprenticeship' strikes me as daft and just gives firms permission to pay a lower minimum wage than they would otherwise have to, which is pure exploitation.

In the short time my MP Philip Lee followed me, I challenged his boast on the employment figures for Bracknell which according to the DWP are at 72%. I reminded him of workfare, ZH, and apprenticeships...He seemed to think an 'apprenticeship as a shop assistant was worthwhile. I said nothing wrong with the job per se, but a cunning way to subsidise big business and massage employment figures.

He unfollowed me after that. Twat!

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 7:17 pm

Jesus. If the South East gets the equivalent of DevoManc they'll have us in paupers wards....

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 7:21 pm

pk1 wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:
pk1 wrote: By "bum faced overlord" are you meaning Andy Burnham or George Osborne ?

I've tried but failed to find a Hansard link to any debate in Parliament over this where either man was talking so I really have no idea who has said what. A link would be helpful.
Can't give you one PK, but I assumed that the Cameron quote was from the NoC, if not, apologies and I'm sure someone else will produce the URL. G'Night!
Still none the wiser about who you mean when you refer to a "bum faced overlord" but maybe the fact you didn't answer means you were referring to Burnham & if that's the case, I'd find it really quite sad that a Labour councillor would refer to a Labour MP in that manner but maybe that's just me. Hopefully I'm wrong.

No, 'bum faced overlord' is Cameron, not Andy Burnham, for whom I have the highest respect. When I voted on a new leader for Labour, Ed Miliband was my pick with Andy Burnham no. 2 - if I thought he could have won it, he'd probably have got my vote.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 7:22 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:Another thing about 'DevoManc' is that if those powers can be given to Manchester, they can be given to Kent, and if that bunch of Thatcherite kippers, stuck-up little Hitlers and pompous sadists get the control over the health service they've been fighting for, I give the NHS approximately ten minutes before it implodes.

This is the problem - if it happens, it sets a precedent.

I think it's very dangerous, and if it goes ahead it will put another nail in the coffin.

The Tories have done more damage to the NHS in a few short years than I would have thought possible.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 7:30 pm

Torcuil Crichton retweeted
Telegraph Politics ‏@TelePolitics 32m32 minutes ago
Independence activists abuse Nick Robinson after his tumour operation is revealed http://tgr.ph/1G7sjTE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know I'm feeling low at the moment ... but this brings me down even more. Really sad that we have groups of people unable to respond to such news in a way that's outside and beyond their one agenda ...

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 7:36 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Torcuil Crichton retweeted
Telegraph Politics ‏@TelePolitics 32m32 minutes ago
Independence activists abuse Nick Robinson after his tumour operation is revealed http://tgr.ph/1G7sjTE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I know I'm feeling low at the moment ... but this brings me down even more. Really sad that we have groups of people unable to respond to such news in a way that's outside and beyond their one agenda ...

This was the Telegraph reporting a few nasty Tweets. There will always be some scum out there but I imagine most Scots would be as upset as you.

Sorry you're not feeling good Rebecca.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 7:37 pm

pk1 wrote:
mbc1955 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote: I find it hard to believe that Ernst would do any such thing, though it would be nice to have that confirmed
Sorry, but isn't it obvious he's talking about Osborne?! After telling us not to believe Andy Burnham didn't now anything, he refers to an HoC speech in which said 'bum-face overlord' claims Parliamentary Labour (ie the Shadow Health Secretary) knew nothing and tells us to ignore that. How can it be read as meaning anyone different?
Reading it again, yes I agree it does look like it may have been Osborne but given the previous remarks made:

For a start, do you imagine for a minute that AB and the other AGMA based MPs were kept in the dark over the negogiations? Christ, I started hearing about this nearly 8 months back (IIRC), and I'm a lowly councillor. The Ivan Lewis's of this world will have known all about what was being said. NW politics is like a fucking sieve: no matter how 'hush hush' negotiations might (be alleged to) be, it was out there, and we were officially briefed over a month ago about it by our leader.

and

And do not for a minute think that Andy Burnham was kept in the dark about what's going on - he's the MP for Leigh FFS.
it suggests something altogether more worrying because Ernst suggests that Labour councillors & Labour MP's including Andy Burnham have been colluding with Osborne behind the backs of Manchester residents specifically & the country more generally.

I find it hard to believe that is the case & I'm surprised that if it was so well known, how come nobody ever mentioned it before ? Not even our posters at FTN who hail from Manchester & who would be directly affected by this change gave even a hint at it.

DevoManc has been an option - though a distant one perhaps - for some time, and I'm pretty sure it was proferred by a Manchester University research body. It's been out there for a while, but the conversion of Osborne is the dubious bit, IMO. He was dead set against it until the Scottish referendum and then started chunnering about the possibility. I've always assumed that it's not more widely known about because (a) Manchester based press and screen/radio meeja are disgracefully bad for the most part and (b) because there are only about 2-3 Mancs on FTN. I had written briefings on it (deleted from my council email now, otherwise my inbox fills up incredibly quickly), as did other councillors.

The main thrust has always been, how can we get increased money and powers so that Whitehall doesn't decide it all for us (as they currently do)? Whilst potential consequences could be difficult (to say the least), that's been the main factor. Having a mayor is an unwanted extra, but everyone knows or knew this.

I'm sorry if it looks like there's been a conspiracy of silence, but that's really not the case.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 7:44 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:Another thing about 'DevoManc' is that if those powers can be given to Manchester, they can be given to Kent, and if that bunch of Thatcherite kippers, stuck-up little Hitlers and pompous sadists get the control over the health service they've been fighting for, I give the NHS approximately ten minutes before it implodes.

I'd call that getting off lightly. Before this Devo Manc stuff, I thought we were heading for John Redwood running the whole of England.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 7:51 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:
pk1 wrote:
mbc1955 wrote: Sorry, but isn't it obvious he's talking about Osborne?! After telling us not to believe Andy Burnham didn't now anything, he refers to an HoC speech in which said 'bum-face overlord' claims Parliamentary Labour (ie the Shadow Health Secretary) knew nothing and tells us to ignore that. How can it be read as meaning anyone different?
Reading it again, yes I agree it does look like it may have been Osborne but given the previous remarks made:

For a start, do you imagine for a minute that AB and the other AGMA based MPs were kept in the dark over the negogiations? Christ, I started hearing about this nearly 8 months back (IIRC), and I'm a lowly councillor. The Ivan Lewis's of this world will have known all about what was being said. NW politics is like a fucking sieve: no matter how 'hush hush' negotiations might (be alleged to) be, it was out there, and we were officially briefed over a month ago about it by our leader.

and

And do not for a minute think that Andy Burnham was kept in the dark about what's going on - he's the MP for Leigh FFS.
it suggests something altogether more worrying because Ernst suggests that Labour councillors & Labour MP's including Andy Burnham have been colluding with Osborne behind the backs of Manchester residents specifically & the country more generally.

I find it hard to believe that is the case & I'm surprised that if it was so well known, how come nobody ever mentioned it before ? Not even our posters at FTN who hail from Manchester & who would be directly affected by this change gave even a hint at it.
DevoManc has been an option - though a distant one perhaps - for some time, and I'm pretty sure it was proferred by a Manchester University research body. It's been out there for a while, but the conversion of Osborne is the dubious bit, IMO. He was dead set against it until the Scottish referendum and then started chunnering about the possibility. I've always assumed that it's not more widely known about because (a) Manchester based press and screen/radio meeja are disgracefully bad for the most part and (b) because there are only about 2-3 Mancs on FTN. I had written briefings on it (deleted from my council email now, otherwise my inbox fills up incredibly quickly), as did other councillors.

The main thrust has always been, how can we get increased money and powers so that Whitehall doesn't decide it all for us (as they currently do)? Whilst potential consequences could be difficult (to say the least), that's been the main factor. Having a mayor is an unwanted extra, but everyone knows or knew this.

I'm sorry if it looks like there's been a conspiracy of silence, but that's really not the case.

Devolvement of powers was known about yes. Including the NHS in that was not.
"The Osborne-Bernstein deal was like two mafia bosses carving up Apulia. There was no white paper or consultative document, let alone a debate in parliament. Manchester’s deal with Osborne was reached by sleight of hand, by one man with a political problem to solve and another who saw this as an opportunity."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... -greatness" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Osborne NHS deal for Manchester dumps Aneurin Bevan and rivals Thomas Cromwell
http://www.tribunemagazine.org/2015/02/ ... -cromwell/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 7:52 pm

ephemerid wrote:Re. Manchester NHS.

I don't give a flying fart who knew what when or who did what to whom how why and for how much. I do not care.

What I care about is the splitting up of a NATIONAL health service. Regional controls or whatever it is sold as by people who want it gone.

In Wales, we have devolved responsibility for the NHS and social care. We are better at combining both than England.
If we have problems in the NHS and in social care, it is due to under-funding and that is due to Barnett.

Osborne is, effectively, promoting a Barnett-esque financial settlement which Manchester can use to provide health and social care.
Total control of the budget is the carrot - insufficient and /or dwindling funding will be the stick.
What gets spent where will depend on a small group of people - it's not on.

This is creating regional provision which can also affect pay, conditions, training, and career paths for health care staff.
Osborne has made no secret of the fact that he wants regional pay for public servants. He has said on more than one occasion that public sector pay should be lower and reflect prices/whatever areas where the cost of living is low. This is one way to get it.

This is nasty, typical, divide-and-rule game-playing which could have disastrous consequences for the NHS.
Setting Labour against Labour, and laughing all the way.

Robert knows the NHS well, so do I - and we both agree that this idea is wrong.
Maybe I have been reading Ernst's post wrong, in which case I apologise - but if you agree with this, Ernst, then I am disappointed in you.

For the avoidance of all doubt, what I've been referring to since this thread started is the DevoManc proposals, and that's what I've been referring to at all times. The NHS negotiations were a surprise to me, but I am insistent that the original idea to devolve monies and power to AGMA have been suggested for a long time and on the table for months. For the record, I absolutely agree that this late addition is surprising, but Andy Burnham will have known about the DevoManc stuff for ages, and it would surprise me somewhat if he had no hint whatsoever of the NHS deal - unless there was a level of secrecy in the talks hitherto unknown. If Richard Leese was part of the negotiators and didn't tell Burnham, and Burnham genuinely didn't know, then that would provide a consistent explanation, in which case, Leese - who I indicated yesterday has been in charge of Manchester council for far too long - has overstepped the mark and may well be brought to account for it by the Labour councillors in Manchester, as well as potentially risking a rather terminal encounter with the NEC and Ed Miliband.

Is the above absolutely clear to everyone reading?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 7:54 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:
DevoManc has been an option - though a distant one perhaps - for some time, and I'm pretty sure it was proferred by a Manchester University research body. It's been out there for a while, but the conversion of Osborne is the dubious bit, IMO. He was dead set against it until the Scottish referendum and then started chunnering about the possibility. I've always assumed that it's not more widely known about because (a) Manchester based press and screen/radio meeja are disgracefully bad for the most part and (b) because there are only about 2-3 Mancs on FTN. I had written briefings on it (deleted from my council email now, otherwise my inbox fills up incredibly quickly), as did other councillors.

The main thrust has always been, how can we get increased money and powers so that Whitehall doesn't decide it all for us (as they currently do)? Whilst potential consequences could be difficult (to say the least), that's been the main factor. Having a mayor is an unwanted extra, but everyone knows or knew this.

I'm sorry if it looks like there's been a conspiracy of silence, but that's really not the case.

But nobody seemed to think it would be about health.

How can schools be taken out of existing authorities, increasing costs massively, but health go the other way, and to a metropolitan county which doesn't even have elections to it?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sun 01 Mar, 2015 8:08 pm

Just reading that Jenkins piece on Manchester and something jumped out at me.

There now emerged into Osborne’s ken an economist called Jim O’Neill from a bank whose grotesque wealth makes Tory and Labour ministers alike go weak at the knees, Goldman Sachs. O’Neill had invented the acronyms Bric and Mint for developing world economies; he was also a Mancunian and one specialising in urban economics. In conversation with Osborne he portrayed cities not as outdated rust-buckets but as engines of growth. There was, he said, “a powerful correlation between the size of a city and the productivity of its inhabitants”. The top 600 world cities contained just 20% of global population, but they created 60% of global GDP. This was Osborne’s kind of talk.

Yeah, I know him...guess where he is?

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/jim-oneill

I bet you're shocked to learn that Gove had him appointed to the Board at the DfE alongside the Agnews, Marsahlls and Nashs of this world....or probably not.