Wednesday 4th March 2015

Post by **refitman** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 7:16 am

Morning all.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 8:20 am

Hi Dan, weather improved round your way yet?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 8:20 am

Morning.

Osborne crowing on Today - what a horrid breakfast soundtrack. Yes - he concedes - the poorest have suffered from the mistakes made before the 'Great Recession' - he makes it sound as though that's quite understandable and right. And then he goes on to say the IFS report lays the lie to people - the opposition politicians - who say the economy and living standards haven't recovered ... The report according to Osborne apparently says inequality is down, the richest have paid the most tax, and income levels are at their highest since 2010. So it's all ticketyboo.

Does it feel that way to you folks? We had one of our very rare rows in the Riots household recently when looking at our finances. The stress and uncertainty got the better of us as we realised we have to find ways of bringing more income in to make ends meet. The emphasis being on making ends meet .... not for any fripperies like new clothes, days out, holidays ... simply to pay bills.

So Osborne can go .... himself.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 8:25 am

In the style of Sparrow. Here's some twitter reaction to Osborne on Today ...

Owen Smith MP ‏@OwenSmithMP 7m7 minutes ago
So, we've recovered to where we were under the last Labour Govt, but not quite made up the ground lost since Cameron came to power. Woo, hoo

Ann McKechin retweeted
Alex Belardinelli ‏@abelardinelli 8m8 minutes ago
IFS report says household incomes down 2% compared to 2010. So at this election the answer to the Reagan question is a clear No.

I'm not alone then.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 8:27 am

One for hobiejoe.

Tom Newton Dunn ‏@tnewtondunn 38m38 minutes ago
EXCL: George Osborne will cut duty on beer in the Budget again, @schofieldkevin reveals http://sunpl.us/6016Fzfs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 8:29 am

And here's a bit more reaction from the twittersphere:

Chris Leslie ‏@ChrisLeslieMP 14m14 minutes ago
Did Osborne really just say "we've got on top of our debts and deficits"??!

Debbie Abrahams ‏@Debbie_abrahams 14m14 minutes ago
What about your giving a tax break to people on over £150k, Osborne? According to OECD, IMF inequality has increased! @BBCr4today

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 8:33 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning.

Osborne crowing on Today - what a horrid breakfast soundtrack. Yes - he concedes - the poorest have suffered from the mistakes made before the 'Great Recession' - he makes it sound as though that's quite understandable and right. And then he goes on to say the IFS report lays the lie to people - the opposition politicians - who say the economy and living standards haven't recovered ... The report according to Osborne apparently says inequality is down, the richest have paid the most tax, and income levels are at their highest since 2010. So it's all ticketyboo.

Does it feel that way to you folks? We had one of our very rare rows in the Riots household recently when looking at our finances. The stress and uncertainty got the better of us as we realised we have to find ways of bringing more income in to make ends meet. The emphasis being on making ends meet .... not for any fripperies like new clothes, days out, holidays ... simply to pay bills.

So Osborne can go .... himself.

I heard it with mounting incredulity. It was beyond deluded, but of course with Humphrys in the chair there was no danger of any serious questioning, just a nice pat on the back.

Post by **refitman** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 8:33 am

ErnstRemarx wrote:Hi Dan, weather improved round your way yet?

It's stopped snowing, at least. Cold & drizzly at the moment.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 8:38 am

Debbie Abrahams ‏@Debbie_abrahams 2m2 minutes ago
Inflation-adjusted median income of 22-30 yo down 7.6% on pre-recession levels, 31-59 yo down 2.5%. http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7616" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 8:40 am

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 32m 32 minutes ago
@stuartdunlop93 The age distribution of votes in latest YouGov is totally abnormal. 60+ level pegging, 18-24 CON 8% lead

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 1h 1 hour ago
@travancoretea 2% CON lead unlikely to give party most seats even with LAB's Scottish travails

I simply refuse to believe that the Conservatives have such winning appeal for young people ... that does look very weird.

rearofthestore · Post by **rearofthestore** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 9:09 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 32m 32 minutes ago
@stuartdunlop93 The age distribution of votes in latest YouGov is totally abnormal. 60+ level pegging, 18-24 CON 8% lead

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 1h 1 hour ago
@travancoretea 2% CON lead unlikely to give party most seats even with LAB's Scottish travails
I simply refuse to believe that the Conservatives have such winning appeal for young people ... that does look very weird.

Good Morning
I totally agree.
If you look at Ashcroft's Poll on Monday which showed a dubious 3% Con lead his age breakdown showed

Age 18-24 Age 25-34
CONS 24% 24%
LAB 28% 29%
LD 4% 5%
SNP 3% 1%

LAB LEAD +4% +5%

Screams outlier (or massaged if you think like me)

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 9:22 am

Margaret Hodge @margarethodge

Osborne refusing to say if he talked to Lord Green about HSBC tax evasion or avoidance. Why won't they come clean? Clear to me they knew.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... -live-blog

Andrew Sparrow has some twitter comments up on the live blog about Osborne's interview on R4 today (unfortunately I completely missed it). No one is impressed:

Jonathan Ashworth MP ✔ @JonAshworth

Why can't Osborne give a straight answer re whether he spoke to Lord Green re HSBC instead he really was wriggling around @BBCr4today

Looks like the squirrels are taking a day off.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 9:27 am

Willow904 wrote:
Margaret Hodge @margarethodge

Osborne refusing to say if he talked to Lord Green about HSBC tax evasion or avoidance. Why won't they come clean? Clear to me they knew.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... -live-blog

Andrew Sparrow has some twitter comments up on the live blog about Osborne's interview on R4 today (unfortunately I completely missed it). No one is impressed:

Jonathan Ashworth MP ✔ @JonAshworth

Why can't Osborne give a straight answer re whether he spoke to Lord Green re HSBC instead he really was wriggling around @BBCr4today

Looks like the squirrels are taking a day off.

Don't forget the euro tunnel squirrel. Look at all the money we raised... selling an asset.....

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 9:39 am

StephenDolan wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
Margaret Hodge @margarethodge

Osborne refusing to say if he talked to Lord Green about HSBC tax evasion or avoidance. Why won't they come clean? Clear to me they knew.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... -live-blog

Andrew Sparrow has some twitter comments up on the live blog about Osborne's interview on R4 today (unfortunately I completely missed it). No one is impressed:

Jonathan Ashworth MP ✔ @JonAshworth

Why can't Osborne give a straight answer re whether he spoke to Lord Green re HSBC instead he really was wriggling around @BBCr4today

Looks like the squirrels are taking a day off.
Don't forget the euro tunnel squirrel. Look at all the money we raised... selling an asset.....

The Euro Tunnel squirrel appears to be a disease-ridden black squirrel judging by how well it's gone down with the public!

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 9:56 am

ErnstRemarx wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning.

Osborne crowing on Today - what a horrid breakfast soundtrack. Yes - he concedes - the poorest have suffered from the mistakes made before the 'Great Recession' - he makes it sound as though that's quite understandable and right. And then he goes on to say the IFS report lays the lie to people - the opposition politicians - who say the economy and living standards haven't recovered ... The report according to Osborne apparently says inequality is down, the richest have paid the most tax, and income levels are at their highest since 2010. So it's all ticketyboo.

Does it feel that way to you folks? We had one of our very rare rows in the Riots household recently when looking at our finances. The stress and uncertainty got the better of us as we realised we have to find ways of bringing more income in to make ends meet. The emphasis being on making ends meet .... not for any fripperies like new clothes, days out, holidays ... simply to pay bills.

So Osborne can go .... himself.
I heard it with mounting incredulity. It was beyond deluded, but of course with Humphrys in the chair there was no danger of any serious questioning, just a nice pat on the back.

Moraftninooneve!

I can't say how pleased I am that I missed that - f*****g 'Great Recession' my a*** - Growth 1.4% May 2010/figures retrospectively changed to show no recession since 2010...and has he explained this yet?

‘According to the former document, compiled on the basis of well-understood accounting standards, the UK’s in-year deficit for 2011/12 was £185bn. The National Accounts used by the Chancellor put the figure at £90bn.’
http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/201 ... -accounts/

No? Thought not...and did anyone ask him about his sudden conversion to Labours' NHS plan and how that plays with the H&SC Bill 2012? (...and actually, why is Gidiot announcing as opposed to Pickles-Rhyming Slang?)

...and The Horse Warmer is here to tell us that the 18-24 yr olds have had some sort of Damoscene conversion? Really?

It's almost as though there's some sort of plan to use kindergarten levels of cognitive reasoning to justify their crimes...oh....hang on

In other news, the Scum (picked up on twitter, gingerly between fingertips at arms length with other fingertips holding nose) has apparently printed the picture of Adam Johnson (Wendyballer arrested for sex with underage girl) with said girl - so at a stretch, could be construed as saying 15 yr olds - if they look old enough, wink wink...as is being played out on said Twitter - and yet, we have many very damaged people desperately trying to find some sort of respite from the horrific memories and continuing stress of CSA...

Hmmm.....not a good start to the day....however - sun is shining (here in Hope), weather is sweet...time for a walk, not a tweet!

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 10:30 am

Good-morning, everyone.
I left the thread earlier yesterday & caught up this morning - excellent posts, all - just a few thoughts specifically below

ErnstRemarx, thanks for your opinion about Andy Burnham's recent article - it was a strong, decent message reassuring me greatly - I don't have to have people agree with me; I do need to know if my judgement requires reevaluation.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ar_twitter

Discordantharmony, thank you for asking the questions about homelessness & our experiences where we live.

Tubby Isaacs - thank for the article linked below regarding mandatory reporting of abuse. I need your opinion on my thoughts here. I've worked in the US in child care & care giving for older adults. Mandatory reporting of suspected abuse was required from me as part of my work. Parents, elderly adults, my supervisors & co-worker & family of people I cared for knew I was entrusted with this obligation. I never felt my duty to report suspected mistreated of someone in my care to clearly identified supervisors or the police was an inappropriate request from me.

But then I always felt supported by my supervisors & law enforcement. Because I was front line staff, I'd likely see evidence of abuse first. Every time I discussed issues confidentially with a supervisor, documented my concerns in writing to log the event, we worked together & without hostilities, brought concerns into the light & we helped stop mistreatment from happening - at least we did the best we could. I wasn't threatened with criminal proceedings against me because we worked together & confidentially documented our concerns.

Cameron's readiness to bring criminal proceedings against social workers, teachers & doctors for failing to report suspected abuse & calling for 'mandatory reporting' are two words meaning something I don't recognise when I write 'mandatory reporting'.

Did Dave include bringing criminal proceedings against the police for failure to report, investigate & prosecute when necessary too? Nah, I don't guess he did, did he. The people Dave wants criminal proceedings brought against don't have the authority to investigate, arrest or detain those who may be abusing the people they work with. So that's another jackass idea of yours, Dave.

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2015/03/ ... -children/

Howsillyofme1 - great post regarding our work & friendship here. We can walk away from our social media & this website at any time - all too easily we can close down. If someone needs to be away for awhile, yep, that's the right thing to do, maybe. It's hard but let's not walk away from each other for good. Human relationships is politics. It's messy sometimes. We're not going to get anywhere isolated from each other.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 10:33 am

Lonewolfie
...time for a walk, not a tweet!

Excellent advice.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 10:37 am

Pete Garrard ‏@LiverpoolPeteG 3 hrs3 hours ago

YouGov unweighted:

Lab 36%
Con 31%

After weightings:

Lab 34%
Con36%

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/d ... 030315.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

#dodgyweightings #GE2015

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 10:39 am

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 2h2 hours ago

Cross tabs from latest YouGov poll. Look at age splits. Its the young driving the CON recovery pic.twitter.com/kmENiy7ZBD

More

Ian ‏@Mancman10 13 mins13 minutes ago Manchester, England

@MSmithsonPB You've missed that the poll also shows CON leading 39~36 in the North which is nonsense polling,no chance they are

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 10:43 am

I know there is a tendency to rubbish polls we don't like, but both these last two YouGovs seem distinctly dodgy don't they?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 10:45 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning.

Osborne crowing on Today - what a horrid breakfast soundtrack. Yes - he concedes - the poorest have suffered from the mistakes made before the 'Great Recession' - he makes it sound as though that's quite understandable and right. And then he goes on to say the IFS report lays the lie to people - the opposition politicians - who say the economy and living standards haven't recovered ... The report according to Osborne apparently says inequality is down, the richest have paid the most tax, and income levels are at their highest since 2010. So it's all ticketyboo.

Does it feel that way to you folks? We had one of our very rare rows in the Riots household recently when looking at our finances. The stress and uncertainty got the better of us as we realised we have to find ways of bringing more income in to make ends meet. The emphasis being on making ends meet .... not for any fripperies like new clothes, days out, holidays ... simply to pay bills.

So Osborne can go .... himself.

(my bold)
Osborne must not have read the report because it does not support current government having been competent.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publicati ... ndards.pdf

The policies the Tory-led coalition government have put into place have stalled our country for nearly five years. The damage done is extreme. Sophistry & lies take Tories only so far - perhaps to the end of a gentle interview but no farther. Their leadership has directly, intentionally, harmed many people in this country. Tories were a minority party in 2010. Their performance over the last five years keeps them a minority party serving a small section of society.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 10:48 am

ohsocynical wrote:Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 2h2 hours ago

Cross tabs from latest YouGov poll. Look at age splits. Its the young driving the CON recovery pic.twitter.com/kmENiy7ZBD

More

Ian ‏@Mancman10 13 mins13 minutes ago Manchester, England

@MSmithsonPB You've missed that the poll also shows CON leading 39~36 in the North which is nonsense polling,no chance they are

Those 60ish 18-24 year olds sure skewer the results. Given the northern figures is there a reasonable probability that they're both? I'd be interested to know which location this could be.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 10:50 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I know there is a tendency to rubbish polls we don't like, but both these last two YouGovs seem distinctly dodgy don't they?

Yep.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 10:55 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I know there is a tendency to rubbish polls we don't like, but both these last two YouGovs seem distinctly dodgy don't they?

If that amount of weighting was necessary, it suggests the original poll was very unrepresentative. I suppose the only poll that counts is the one on May 7th. The combination of Coalition government running out of things they agree on to do and 5 year fixed term parliaments (too long, maybe?) seems to have left the political scene feeling very flat. It's almost like the lull before the storm. I don't think there is going to be any breakaway from this polling deadlock until the tv debates lurch into view and the posters start going up in windows (where can I get a poster, btw? My husband's with Unite, can he get one from them does anyone know?). Meanwhile the Tories use the dying days of government to sell off Eurostar, the bastards, while the Libdems remain in government, agreeing to and being responsible for every move, without seeming to have anything to do with it.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 11:04 am

Someone asked about OneButtonMonkey ?
He's over at the G with another excellent post
http://discussion.theguardian.com/comme ... k/48369678" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(Let the page load fully, then scroll down to comments - his is highlighted in pink)

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 11:09 am

RobertSnozers wrote:Morning all.

From a look at the article CitzenJA posted, Burnham's having to be very careful. Reading between the lines, it seems as though the political leaders in Manchester have let him in an incredibly difficult position and not able to tell those incompetent scumbags in local government what he really thinks of the backroom deal they've cooked up with Osborne. I'd prefer a little more courage but I can see why not publicly dressing down senior members of your own party weeks from an election might not be the wisest course of action. Even so, I hope Miliband and Burnham are busy privately ripping Leese a new arsehole for taking Osborne's thirty pieces of silver. I'm still a little confused as to how well known this deal was beforehand - Ernst suggested he knew about it months ago, yet Burnham and the other Manchester MPs seem to have been caught on the hop - http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... er-8762999" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Burnham's article seems to suggest the deal has not actually been signed yet - his article says the Chancellor has questions to answer before the deal is signed. Yet it was signed with some pomp and circumstance on the 27th Feb, so not sure what's happening there.

Whatever's happened, Osborne has pulled a masterstroke, but he couldn't have done it without gullible or corrupt politicians in Manchester doing his bidding. I'm still unhappy and deeply, deeply disappointed in the Labour Party. I'll probably still vote Labour at the GE, but I'll be holding my nose while I do it. I'd been planning to offer my services for a bit of campaigning, even though I'm somewhat socialphobic and the slightest confrontation (yes, even online) sends me into a panic, but I can't see myself doing that now.

The "deal" was done in two parts
First DevoManch was know about since the start and signed in November
The second only emerged a week Tuesday, late evening when it was leaked to the MEN. This was the addition of the NHS to the deal.
The Tribune and Simon Jenkins article explain in full what happened - a stich up indeed it would seem, if both those articles are right.
I'll try and find the links
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;
The secret negotiations to restore Manchester to greatness
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... -greatness" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(edit - links found and added)

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 11:14 am

Good to see you back, Robert - we don't need anybody else here taking their ball away

I understand how you feel (really) but hope you will feel able to help Labour in the end. I see Burnham's comments on this as encouraging, overall.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 11:14 am

I think ernst said that he didn't know about the NHS part before last week.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 11:15 am

Jenkins final paragraph says it all:
"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."

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 11:18 am

ohsocynical wrote:Pete Garrard ‏@LiverpoolPeteG 3 hrs3 hours ago

YouGov unweighted:

Lab 36%
Con 31%

After weightings:

Lab 34%
Con36%

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/d ... 030315.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

#dodgyweightings #GE2015

Thanks for that report link.
The report claims 53% of the people disapprove of current government while 35% approve of current government.
Out of 1701 people, 490 will vote Labour, 423 Tory.
But... but... that's unweighted!
So unfair!
Tories should get more votes!
'Cause Tories say so!

YouGov weight data..."YouGov is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules" sure, good for you.
Doesn't mean taking raw data from 1701 people & cooking it is legitimate.
423 Tory voters = 480 Tory voters
490 Labour voters = 459 Labour voters
Abiding by rules of the British Polling Council or no, this poll is spun.
Like Tory Chancellor Jeff.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 11:21 am

RobertSnozers wrote:Morning all.

From a look at the article CitzenJA posted, Burnham's having to be very careful. Reading between the lines, it seems as though the political leaders in Manchester have let him in an incredibly difficult position and not able to tell those incompetent scumbags in local government what he really thinks of the backroom deal they've cooked up with Osborne. I'd prefer a little more courage but I can see why not publicly dressing down senior members of your own party weeks from an election might not be the wisest course of action. Even so, I hope Miliband and Burnham are busy privately ripping Leese a new arsehole for taking Osborne's thirty pieces of silver. I'm still a little confused as to how well known this deal was beforehand - Ernst suggested he knew about it months ago, yet Burnham and the other Manchester MPs seem to have been caught on the hop - http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... er-8762999" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Burnham's article seems to suggest the deal has not actually been signed yet - his article says the Chancellor has questions to answer before the deal is signed. Yet it was signed with some pomp and circumstance on the 27th Feb, so not sure what's happening there.

Whatever's happened, Osborne has pulled a masterstroke, but he couldn't have done it without gullible or corrupt politicians in Manchester doing his bidding. I'm still unhappy and deeply, deeply disappointed in the Labour Party. I'll probably still vote Labour at the GE, but I'll be holding my nose while I do it. I'd been planning to offer my services for a bit of campaigning, even though I'm somewhat socialphobic and the slightest confrontation (yes, even online) sends me into a panic, but I can't see myself doing that now.

Your feelings on this very closely echo my own. I was fuming over it and still am to a degree. I'd throw Leese out of the Labour party myself for what I view as unconstitutional and undemocratic behaviour that flies in the face of official Labour policy on the NHS, but that's probably why it's a good thing Ed's in charge and not me, I suspect! As you say, Burnham's article was akin to walking a tightrope. I appreciate he is in a very difficult position and I'm pleased that he has clarified this is not how he would proceed if Minister for Health, but without a statement from Ed Miliband I'm still in the dark about the Labour party's position per se and it's not a comfortable feeling. The NHS feels more exposed than it has been at any other time right now.

As to some of Ernst's comments the other day, I believe he was completely at cross purposes with other posters at one point, discussing the Manchester devolution in general, when others were discussing the new NHS bit specifically and he did catch up later on and make this clear subsequently which very much helped me make sense of his earlier comments, that I had previously found quite bemusing, if that makes any sense.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 11:26 am

Willow904 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:I know there is a tendency to rubbish polls we don't like, but both these last two YouGovs seem distinctly dodgy don't they?
If that amount of weighting was necessary, it suggests the original poll was very unrepresentative. I suppose the only poll that counts is the one on May 7th. The combination of Coalition government running out of things they agree on to do and 5 year fixed term parliaments (too long, maybe?) seems to have left the political scene feeling very flat. It's almost like the lull before the storm. I don't think there is going to be any breakaway from this polling deadlock until the tv debates lurch into view and the posters start going up in windows (where can I get a poster, btw? My husband's with Unite, can he get one from them does anyone know?). Meanwhile the Tories use the dying days of government to sell off Eurostar, the bastards, while the Libdems remain in government, agreeing to and being responsible for every move, without seeming to have anything to do with it.

Labour Campaign Essentials
The retro postcards are wonderful.

https://shop.labour.org.uk/products/cam ... ssentials/

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 11:27 am

Miliband isn't going to pick a fight with prominent local council leaders in public just before a GE - and when there are local elections as well, don't forget - unless he can possibly avoid it anyway. Its just not how he does things generally as leader, apart from anything else.

The possible get out here is that not much of this is going to happen in the next two months. Just be thankful Gideon didn't pull this stunt a year or two ago

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 11:30 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Miliband isn't going to pick a fight with prominent local council leaders in public just before a GE - and when there are local elections as well, don't forget - unless he can possibly avoid it anyway. Its just not how he does things generally as leader, apart from anything else.

The possible get out here is that not much of this is going to happen in the next two months. Just be thankful Gideon didn't pull this stunt a year or two ago

Regarding the GMHS. Is there anything that can be put in place prior to the election that'll prove difficult / impossible to unpick / rollback post election?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 11:30 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Miliband isn't going to pick a fight with prominent local council leaders in public just before a GE - and when there are local elections as well, don't forget - unless he can possibly avoid it anyway. Its just not how he does things generally as leader, apart from anything else.

The possible get out here is that not much of this is going to happen in the next two months. Just be thankful Gideon didn't pull this stunt a year or two ago

Why did Chancellor Jeff broker this deal & not BehindtheTree?
Burnham has responded as is appropriate.
Miliband delegates like a competent leader should.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 11:42 am

citizenJA wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:I know there is a tendency to rubbish polls we don't like, but both these last two YouGovs seem distinctly dodgy don't they?
If that amount of weighting was necessary, it suggests the original poll was very unrepresentative. I suppose the only poll that counts is the one on May 7th. The combination of Coalition government running out of things they agree on to do and 5 year fixed term parliaments (too long, maybe?) seems to have left the political scene feeling very flat. It's almost like the lull before the storm. I don't think there is going to be any breakaway from this polling deadlock until the tv debates lurch into view and the posters start going up in windows (where can I get a poster, btw? My husband's with Unite, can he get one from them does anyone know?). Meanwhile the Tories use the dying days of government to sell off Eurostar, the bastards, while the Libdems remain in government, agreeing to and being responsible for every move, without seeming to have anything to do with it.
Labour Campaign Essentials
The retro postcards are wonderful.

https://shop.labour.org.uk/products/cam ... ssentials/

Thanks JA. They're a bit pricey though. We got one from the union last time but I don't know if that was because my husband was shop steward at his last job (not as exciting as it sounds, there were only about 4 of them!). Now he's just a regular member.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 11:45 am

citizenJA wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Miliband isn't going to pick a fight with prominent local council leaders in public just before a GE - and when there are local elections as well, don't forget - unless he can possibly avoid it anyway. Its just not how he does things generally as leader, apart from anything else.

The possible get out here is that not much of this is going to happen in the next two months. Just be thankful Gideon didn't pull this stunt a year or two ago
Why did Chancellor Jeff broker this deal & not BehindtheTree?
Burnham has responded as is appropriate.
Miliband delegates like a competent leader should.

This explains it, when reading its worth remembering that Bernstein is unelected - not an elected councillor
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... -greatness" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 11:59 am

StephenDolan wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Miliband isn't going to pick a fight with prominent local council leaders in public just before a GE - and when there are local elections as well, don't forget - unless he can possibly avoid it anyway. Its just not how he does things generally as leader, apart from anything else.

The possible get out here is that not much of this is going to happen in the next two months. Just be thankful Gideon didn't pull this stunt a year or two ago
Regarding the GMHS. Is there anything that can be put in place prior to the election that'll prove difficult / impossible to unpick / rollback post election?

There is a question mark over whether - constitutionally - Osborne actually has the power / authority to sign such a deal.
The second question mark hangs over whether Manchester should have done a public consultation (by "should" I mean as a legal requirement, obviously from a moral point of view they should have.)

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 12:02 pm

Good morning, all.

Having had a long hard think, and having been encouraged by more than a few personal contacts, I've decided to come back a bit sooner than I'd anticipated.
I am in no doubt that HindleA's departure is largely due to my stroppiness the other day; but I can do no more to apologise than I have already done.
When these things have happened before, I've done my best to be a peacemaker when possible (when I haven't joined in myself, that is) so I am not very proud of myself this time.

I have been very poorly lately; the winter is never a good time of year with my sort of illness, and I have been surprised at how badly my recent bereavement has affected my mood and thus my judgement.

Black dogs have been snapping at my heels for a while; this is not an excuse, simply a statement of fact about where I'm at.

Still, on reflection, that's no excuse to behave like a child; so I'm back. I'm just upset that A isn't here too. I hope he comes back.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the reasons why I'm posting here today is this -
there is a new report on the DWPs sanctions figures, and new information on the impact of Mandatory Reconsideration of Review.
See refuted.org for links and details.

Reminder - MCRs were brought in to prevent claimants having an immediate right to appeal; the new system started in October 2013.
Any challenge to any benefit entitlement decision, including sanctions, must first go through MCR for which there is no time limit.
At the time, I predicted that the rate of appeals heard at Tribunal level would fall.....and it has.

The number of JSA claimants challenging a sanction has fallen from 33% to 20% at MCR stage. Only 0.14% pursue this to a Tribunal.
The proportion of ESA claimants challenging a sanction has fallen from 35% to 20%. There is no record of them going to Tribunal at all.

DWP does not publish statistics for the maximum term sanctions - 156 weeks, imposed on the third "high-level failure".
It is estimated that this is around 2,000 claimants; half of them are probably lone parents.

The reasons for JSA sanctions are more variable, with many coming from WP providers. The money lost to claimants is £328 Million in 2013-14.
The reasons for ESA sanctions are predominantly "failure to engage in work-related activity" at 90%. The money lost to claimants is £4 Million PA.

So - hundreds of millions are being lost to claimants, who are then more likely to need hardship payments or DHPs.
Charities and LAs are having to keep these people going while they wait for MCR or whatever.
Costs of homelessness and hunger, plus legal action for evictions etc, are being borne by LAs.

All claimants are less likely to challenge a sanction or other decision at all, and few go as far as a full appeal.
Decision Makers now have a target to deny benefit in 80% of all cases, irrespective of compliance with legislation.
Access to the only truly independent arbiter, ie. Tribunals Service, is prevented/postponed by the MCR system.

I suspect that any money saved in actual benefit payments is simply being spent elsewhere to support people hit by sanctions.
I have no doubt that there are significant administration costs in the imposition and processing of sanctions.

Lest we forget - since the new regime came in, 1,900,000 people have been sanctioned for an average of 12 weeks.
Of those, 1,600,000 have neither found work nor claimed another benefit. They just fell off the figures, "economically inactive".

In 2010, there were 5 Million people claiming out-of-work benefits. There still are.

£25 Billion has been spent and not one penny of it has made any difference whatsoever.....beyond enriching welfare-to-work leeches, impoverishing claimants who now rely on charity, and costing local authorities a fortune.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 12:05 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:Morning all.

From a look at the article CitzenJA posted, Burnham's having to be very careful. Reading between the lines, it seems as though the political leaders in Manchester have let him in an incredibly difficult position and not able to tell those incompetent scumbags in local government what he really thinks of the backroom deal they've cooked up with Osborne. I'd prefer a little more courage but I can see why not publicly dressing down senior members of your own party weeks from an election might not be the wisest course of action. Even so, I hope Miliband and Burnham are busy privately ripping Leese a new arsehole for taking Osborne's thirty pieces of silver. I'm still a little confused as to how well known this deal was beforehand - Ernst suggested he knew about it months ago, yet Burnham and the other Manchester MPs seem to have been caught on the hop - http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... er-8762999" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Burnham's article seems to suggest the deal has not actually been signed yet - his article says the Chancellor has questions to answer before the deal is signed. Yet it was signed with some pomp and circumstance on the 27th Feb, so not sure what's happening there.

Whatever's happened, Osborne has pulled a masterstroke, but he couldn't have done it without gullible or corrupt politicians in Manchester doing his bidding. I'm still unhappy and deeply, deeply disappointed in the Labour Party. I'll probably still vote Labour at the GE, but I'll be holding my nose while I do it. I'd been planning to offer my services for a bit of campaigning, even though I'm somewhat socialphobic and the slightest confrontation (yes, even online) sends me into a panic, but I can't see myself doing that now.

Yes. This.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 12:05 pm

Welcome back, ephemerid.

Many of us will sympathise with what you have to say, through personal experience in all too many cases.

Keep fighting the good fight

EDIT: and the same to you too, Robert S. Take care.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 12:11 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
gilsey wrote:I think ernst said that he didn't know about the NHS part before last week.
That was not my understanding, and I apologise if I have made a mistake. Confirmation would be welcome.

Here's the confirmation. I knew all about the DevoManc stuff. The NHS stuff was/is new. I should have been much more precise in what I wrote rather than being opaque. My apologies for that.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 12:12 pm

Very pleased to see you, ephe.

Just want to say that imo it's for the person who's been upset by a comment to decide if they need to take a break.
If the person who thinks they've done the upsetting does too, it's hard on the rest of us, I can understand their feelings, but in all cases I've seen here before, they've been misunderstood and/or the other has taken a general remark personally.
Unless the mods tell you you're out of order, you're not, and the rest of the FTNers don't want you to go. That's a general 'you', not aimed specifically at ephe, for the avoidance of doubt.

Post by **refitman** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 12:14 pm

Andrew Sparrow, for all his faults (perceived and otherwise), does have a lovely turn of phrase:

Snap PMQs Verdict: Cameron’s bluster machine was on overdrive, and it probably saved him from a drubbing, but his hyperactive question-dodging could not disguise the fact that Miliband had him bang to rights.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 12:20 pm

this from the King's Fund
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2015/0 ... ium=social" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

starts positive

Last week’s announcement of plans to devolve responsibility for health and social care to statutory organisations in Greater Manchester is a bold initiative that could bring substantial benefits if implemented well.

but go to the last 2 paras

Many important questions remain to be answered, including what the role of clinical commissioning groups is in the proposed arrangements and how not to lose the benefits of GPs’ involvement in commissioning. It will also be important to ensure the plans do not result in a further layer of decision-making being superimposed on an already complex system. The implications for providers are equally unclear, particularly around their relationship with national regulators as partnership-working is strengthened in Greater Manchester. Most important of all is to work through what ‘national’ means in a devolved health and care system and the areas in which local variations in services and standards are not permitted.

With financial pressures on public services set to continue, there needs to be clarity on how overspending of NHS budgets will be handled, especially after the build-up year. This includes the scope for local authorities to switch funding from the NHS to other services. The Commission on the Future of Health and Social Care in England showed that the case for a single health and social care budget is compelling but only if sufficient funding is provided. Merging two leaky buckets does not create a watertight solution, as Simon Stevens has observed, and devolution in a time of austerity risks shifting blame for unpopular decisions from Whitehall to town hall in the absence of sustainable funding agreements.

my bold.
So it's not going to work then, and we must hope that AB's going to tear it up on 8 May.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 12:25 pm

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 6 mins6 minutes ago
Big news from Westminster - Cameron appears to rule out TV debate with Miliband

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 12:38 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 6 mins6 minutes ago
Big news from Westminster - Cameron appears to rule out TV debate with Miliband

Good. Excellent. I hope he runs way like the snivelling coward he is.

I hope the sweaty oleaginous puce-faced excuse for a human being that is Our Glorious Ronsealed Fishpointer General gets all the opprobrium that can be heaped on him for his craven behaviour and his failure to account for his term in office.

So there. Ner ner nee ner ner.

Meanwhile - thank you, JA, TGS, Toby, Ernst, PorFavor, Stephen, for your PMs; and thanks to all the rest of you for your kindness.

I really do appreciate it.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 12:40 pm

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 3 mins3 minutes ago

The TV event of the year! DC versus EdM with Cameron empty chaired..

How is that going to work then. Ed doing it on his own?

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 12:44 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 3 mins3 minutes ago

The TV event of the year! DC versus EdM with Cameron empty chaired..

How is that going to work then. Ed doing it on his own?

He can do a couple of hours public Q&A with "its a shame the PM is not here to give you his view on that" thrown in.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 12:47 pm

Its not impossible that Clegg (as DPM and all that) might be asked to stand in for Cameron. That would appeal to his vanity if nothing else