Wednesday 4th March 2015

Tish · Post by **Tish** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 12:50 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote: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

That's exactly what I was just abut to post, Cameron would essentially be defending the current government, so there's no reason why Clegg couldn't to it instead, if Cameron refused. And I'm sure Clegg would jump at it, as you say, he's so vain that he probably thinks one barnstorming debate from him could turn the whole election around.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 12:54 pm

Ephemerid!
Hurrah!
I've not read your post thoroughly yet.
Robert, I know the black dog as down the well.
Take care of yourself & ask for what you need.

Love is an action.
I use the word love as I was taught by teachers, people I've worked with.
I was taught I'm as important as any other human being - each person important as I am.
My teachers & supervisors sometimes made mistakes.
'I'm not perfect!'
screamed one of the best men I know, he lost his temper completely & uncharacteristically screamed this in front of everyone present.
He usually did work so well I'd probably forgotten he wasn't perfect though I didn't think it until the moment after he told me he wasn't.
And I thanked him immediately for reminding me he wasn't perfect, sincerely.
Everyone else nodded solemnly.
After making mistakes, we fix them to the best of our ability & apologise as necessary if we're sincere & know we were wrong.

The second half of this message isn't directed at anyone, okay?
I was thinking about Ed Miliband & how in some ways I think of him (& other members & leadership in the Labour party) like I do the the man I wrote about above.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 12:56 pm

The Labour Party ‏@UKLabour · 4m4 minutes ago
People deserve to see real debates during the election. Why is Cameron dodging them? http://labour.tw/1Ki37x0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 1:05 pm

Revo Bat ‏@Revolving_Bat · 34s35 seconds ago
BREAKING: Students from Sheffield Uni are occupying Nick Clegg's office @freeunisheff #occupyclegg

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

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 1:07 pm

LBC's Shelagh Fogarty has Norman Lamb, Minister of State for Care and Support, taking calls to answer questions about 'elderly care' – otherwise known as care of the elderly. He's the first guest and the programme is starting now, 1pm. Listen on Freeview channel 732, via DAB radio, 97.3FM in Greater London, or via http://www.lbc.co.uk

Edit to add, she also has Prof. David Oliver, http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/about-us/wh ... vid-oliver, and Matthew ~~someone~~ Egan from a union I missed the name of...

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 1:07 pm

Results for #occupyclegg
https://twitter.com/hashtag/occupyclegg ... sh&lang=en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 1:10 pm

Been doing some idle checking of Maximus and going to the Saudi site, wondered whether they're responsible for handling foreign workers.

https://www.maximusuk.co.uk/maximus-worldwide

Strangely when you try to cut and paste the Maximus Government page link, it won't.

Now I've tried do you reckon I'll get a visit from men in black suits?

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 1:14 pm

Local Chippy has sent bags of chips over to them
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 1:26 pm

This country needs a prime minister, not an empty podium.- Petition to make Dave do the debates.
https://donation.labour.org.uk/page/con ... tv_debates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 1:26 pm

Tish wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote: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
That's exactly what I was just abut to post, Cameron would essentially be defending the current government, so there's no reason why Clegg couldn't to it instead, if Cameron refused. And I'm sure Clegg would jump at it, as you say, he's so vain that he probably thinks one barnstorming debate from him could turn the whole election around.

But, but, but......

Clegg has to represent the Libbing Dead, and he and his fellow yellow-bellies have been rubbishing the Tories at all and any given opportunity - whilst pretending that they have curbed the worst excesses of the Blue Meanies.

He can't stand up and be OGRFG and be the "alternative" at the same time, surely? Not even Clegg would try to get away with that...
of course, he might just be vain enough to try - he will explode with cognitive dissonance.

I'd pay to watch that.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 1:27 pm

About MAXIMUS
MAXIMUS is a leading operator of government health and human services programs in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Saudi Arabia. The Company delivers business process services to improve the cost effectiveness, efficiency and quality of government-sponsored benefit programs, such as Medicaid, Medicare, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Health Insurance BC (British Columbia), as well as welfare-to-work and child support programs around the globe. The Company's primary customer base includes federal, provincial, state, county and municipal governments. Operating under its founding mission of Helping Government Serve the People®, MAXIMUS has approximately 8,800 employees worldwide. For more information, visit http://www.maximus.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

CANADA
MAXIMUSdelivers outstanding customer service to more than four million British Columbians through innovative document management services, contact centre management, eHealth information technology solutions, and medical and pharmaceutical claims services. We provide child support services through the Family Maintenance and Support Programme and operate the Medical Services Plan and PharmaCare programmes on behalf of the Ministry of Health Services.

KINGDOM of SAUDI ARABIA
Together with our local partner company Noryan Corporation, we help jobseekers find employment through our specialised case management services. We are a trusted partner in helping Saudi nationals find quality employment and we are working to increase youth employment across the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

UNITED STATES
Operating under our founding mission of Helping Government Serve the People®, MAXIMUS operates crucial government benefits programmes through a wide range of administrative services, case management and customer contact centres. MAXIMUS strives to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and quality of government programmes, such as the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, Medicare, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), as well as welfare-to-work and child support maintenance programmes, while simultaneously delivering world-class customer service to programme participants.

AUSTRALIA
Our primary focus in Australia is connecting jobseekers with employers through a comprehensive range of services tailored to meet the needs of both. As a top-rated provider under the Star Ratings programme, we bring proven expertise in employment and related health and human services, most notably supporting the Job Services Australia and Disability Employment Services programmes. We also provide services to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship

2013.
MAXIMUS Acquires UK-Based Company Health Management Limited
Acquisition Brings Independent Health Assessment Capabilities to the Company’s Business Portfolio in the United Kingdom

And if anyone missed it, there's a link on yesterdays board for a Australian TV expose into fraudulently obtaining government money by companies including Maximus.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 1:35 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:This country needs a prime minister, not an empty podium.- Petition to make Dave do the debates.
https://donation.labour.org.uk/page/con ... tv_debates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm wondering if I should support this or not.

Whilst I'd love to see OGRFG eviscerated by Miliband on primetime TV, I suspect that if Lynton lets him do the debates he will set ridiculous conditions for them and it'll be PMQs all over again.

In many ways, it would be much more powerful to have an empty podium. There remains - despite all the divisive politics we have suffered over the past few years -a very British sense of fair play.
I don't think the public would think much of Dodgy Dave swerving the only chance they have of seeing him go head-to-head with other leaders; it might even put them off voting for him......which would be good.

thatchersorphan · Post by **thatchersorphan** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 1:41 pm

@discordant harmony Just read your post from yesterday Going to try and answer your q's, though I'm including the beggars whether homeless or not (yet). I'm in manchester.

Do you have homeless people around where you live? Yes

Has it gotten worse (quantity wise) in the last 5 years? Yes - and the number of regular beggars went from none to 5, all sanctioned, 2 homeless. Last week there was a new one, not on a sanction but no money whilst waiting for payment to start after making a new claim.

Have you seen or read about any violence towards homeless people in your area and if so do you believe (tm) this has increased in the last few years?
The local beggars say its mostly some of the older people who give them abuse, which is different to the 80's when the generations that were 60 and over were much more civic minded.
The police have been stepping up their harassment too, moving beggars on in the day and the homeless ones at night when they are trying to sleep. Sleeping out in the suburbs rather than the town centre means less drunks to deal with at night, but they also get missed off the rough sleepers count, if they only look in the town centre.
Violence against the homeless is increasing - I catch more stories in local papers anyway. It may be just that theres a lot more homeless, and a lot more beggars, as the sanctioned are often out in the day also.

Would you give money to a person on the street if they asked you?
The local beggars know not to ask (aggressive begging gets clamped down on by police, and asking is 'considered aggressive') And I give every week, even if its only a small amount, as well as a brief chat. Was a homeless beggar myself under Thatcher, so I know what its like

Any other comments you can think of.
Other ways to help : " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; manchester opsafe winter, out saturdays
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ld-8421266" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; A rucksack appeal from Muslim aid. (The man in the picture is one of the ones I give to, he is still stuck in the dwp appeal system to try to get his money re-instated. He does quite well out of begging (though not nearly as well as the daily fail would have us believe beggars do), because hes always very polite, and never hassles anyone, so people keep an eye out to give to him. )

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ss-8351756" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; there's also this : Revealed: 'Massive' rise in 'hidden homeless' sleeping rough since recession

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 1:43 pm

Lonewolfie wrote:
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!

If the ~~corrected retrospectively-altered~~ cobbled figures for 2010 was only 90bn, doesn't that show that the Labour had already massively reduced the deficit by the time Gideon took over as Chancellor?

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 1:50 pm

Great stuff on here today. Sorry I haven't got time to respond.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 2:00 pm

thatchersorphan wrote:@discordant harmony Just read your post from yesterday Going to try and answer your q's, though I'm including the beggars whether homeless or not (yet). I'm in manchester.

Do you have homeless people around where you live? Yes

Has it gotten worse (quantity wise) in the last 5 years? Yes - and the number of regular beggars went from none to 5, all sanctioned, 2 homeless. Last week there was a new one, not on a sanction but no money whilst waiting for payment to start after making a new claim.

Have you seen or read about any violence towards homeless people in your area and if so do you believe (tm) this has increased in the last few years?
The local beggars say its mostly some of the older people who give them abuse, which is different to the 80's when the generations that were 60 and over were much more civic minded.
The police have been stepping up their harassment too, moving beggars on in the day and the homeless ones at night when they are trying to sleep. Sleeping out in the suburbs rather than the town centre means less drunks to deal with at night, but they also get missed off the rough sleepers count, if they only look in the town centre.
Violence against the homeless is increasing - I catch more stories in local papers anyway. It may be just that theres a lot more homeless, and a lot more beggars, as the sanctioned are often out in the day also.

Would you give money to a person on the street if they asked you?
The local beggars know not to ask (aggressive begging gets clamped down on by police, and asking is 'considered aggressive') And I give every week, even if its only a small amount, as well as a brief chat. Was a homeless beggar myself under Thatcher, so I know what its like

Any other comments you can think of.
Other ways to help : " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; manchester opsafe winter, out saturdays
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ld-8421266" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; A rucksack appeal from Muslim aid. (The man in the picture is one of the ones I give to, he is still stuck in the dwp appeal system to try to get his money re-instated. He does quite well out of begging (though not nearly as well as the daily fail would have us believe beggars do), because hes always very polite, and never hassles anyone, so people keep an eye out to give to him. )

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ss-8351756" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; there's also this : Revealed: 'Massive' rise in 'hidden homeless' sleeping rough since recession

I follow this guy on Twitter. https://twitter.com/buskingbobby" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; He collects socks and chocolate bars for the homeless. There are some good 'uns out there.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 2:02 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
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 craven poltroon halfwit of a PM is not here to give you his view on that" thrown in.

Fixed that for you AAW

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 2:05 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.

I'm pretty sure that Ernst put up a post, the other night, to clarify that the general Devo-Manc idea was known about by the ordinary local councillors but not the bit about the NHS which came out of the blue. I knew that Devo-Manc was planned, with an imposed acting Mayor and no election until at least 2017, months ago because it was being talked about on the political tv/radio programmes, news channels, and (I think) newspapers. But there was absolutely no suggestion at all of any control over the NHS budgets for the region being devolved, in any part of the media.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 2:09 pm

frightful_oik wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
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 craven poltroon halfwit of a PM is not here to give you his view on that" thrown in.
Fixed that for you AAW

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 2:24 pm

Re the polls.

The sample sizes are too small and the weightings ludicrous.

Does anyone collect the raw data from all the polls and aggregate it? Someone here might know?
I realise it would have a whole other set of problems, but it would at least give a different angle.

thatchersorphan · Post by **thatchersorphan** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 2:27 pm

Been watching the labour/ not labour thing degenerating (again). As we move nearer to the election there's even more danger of a polarisation into two opposing 'sides' (or half the people leaving). I really don't see the two sides as necessarily being in opposition though.
Those of us who aren't voting labour, (in my case, unless they change their stance on the unemployed and disabled) - have a problem with Labour MP's (with a few notable exceptions like McDonnell).
But there are many things we here DO agree on - we ALL (I hope) want our NHS restored, the social contract re-instated, the cuts to legal aid reversed, the bedroom tax gone, social housing built, and many other issues. Agreeing to disagree on some things will be necessary, ultimately it boils down to we all want things fixed, just some of us think Labour is the way, others of us aren't convinced that they will be more than tory-lite. When things get tense try to remember that we are all roughly on the same side.
For those who aren't currently planning to vote labour, being able to see when Labour are doing good things is very useful - msm are not covering Labour properly, we can't trust them to tell us, but we can know that the Labour supporters will let us know on the forum here.
For those voting labour - you get to see why we aren't. I do think its good that there's some people from here inside labour, so there's people inside trying to be a voice. I don't think labour is listening, but there is possibility there.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 2:27 pm

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/

The retro postcards and posters are in the Gifts section:

https://shop.labour.org.uk/products/gifts/

I've had emails, recently, offering limited edition tea-towels with retro poster images on them – which I'd love – but the offer closes at midday on Friday and my pocket wo'n't stretch to them. Never mind, might get some postcards at a later date.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 2:29 pm

James Chapman (Mail) ‏@jameschappers 12m12 minutes ago
@PickardJE @IainDale I thought Cameron crushed Miliband this week. In chamber it felt like that

They must be piping blue gas into that chamber he's in ...

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 2:30 pm

UKIP and their magic numbers!

St.Nige of Thanet has intoned that he will restrict immigration to 50,000. Yea, verily!
Only people of use fro Commonwealth countries need apply under Australian rules.

Jonathan Portes, who understands these things, has worked it all out for us.

To the nearest 10,000 or so - EU migrants: 150,000; Non-EU migrants: 150,000.
Assuming that if UKIP were in charge and we had a Brexit, there would be no free movement into the UK from the EU.
That would mean 150,000 EU nationals could not move here.
We would still have 150,000 Non-EU immigrants.

Their calculations do not account for the 75,000 Brits who leave annually for the EU and the 75,000 who go to other countries.

There are 2.3 Million EU nationals living in the UK.

There are 2.3 Million UK nationals living in the EU.

If there IS a problem, it's not coming from the EU.
Most EU migrants stay for 2 years on average, and are mostly in their twenties.
Brits going to the EU are mainly retirees - there are a million of them in EU countries.

800,000 UK nationals live in Spain; 400,000 of them are OAPs getting UK pensions and benefits.
They cost the Spanish health service a billion euros a year.

I wonder what would happen if they all had to come back to the UK if our EU partners decided to behave as Farage wants to?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 2:47 pm

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 1h 1 hour ago
If Cameron is empty-chaired one week before polling it will have big impact on the narrative that might not be beneficial to his party

I'm not signing any petition to get him to take part ... quite apart from anything else he's quite capable of using a mass petition to pretend to himself and the public that he's indispensable, so important that he must be heard, the UK simply can't go on without his presence on the TV screen.

I'm expecting Lynton and co to come up with a public sandwich eating contest as an alternative offer ...

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 2:50 pm

Camoron seems to be wanting debates before the official campaign starts, let's hope one of the broadcasters calls his bluff.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 2:51 pm

Well, it sounds like Miliband wiped the floor with Cameron during PMQs and that CMD's pretty much ruled out debating with him on telly.

If that doesn't make the headlines on the BBC this evening then it will confirm in my mind that they're actively working for the government.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 3:01 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:Well, it sounds like Miliband wiped the floor with Cameron during PMQs and that CMD's pretty much ruled out debating with him on telly.

If that doesn't make the headlines on the BBC this evening then it will confirm in my mind that they're actively working for the government.

I caught the end of the R5Live coverage as well as the wato. Needless to say, it didn't sound as bad when filtered through the BBC. The pearler that came out of R5Live was that none of the parties wanted the debates really and it was inevitable they'd not happen.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 3:05 pm

thatchersorphan wrote:Been watching the labour/ not labour thing degenerating (again). As we move nearer to the election there's even more danger of a polarisation into two opposing 'sides' (or half the people leaving). I really don't see the two sides as necessarily being in opposition though.
Those of us who aren't voting labour, (in my case, unless they change their stance on the unemployed and disabled) - have a problem with Labour MP's (with a few notable exceptions like McDonnell).
But there are many things we here DO agree on - we ALL (I hope) want our NHS restored, the social contract re-instated, the cuts to legal aid reversed, the bedroom tax gone, social housing built, and many other issues. Agreeing to disagree on some things will be necessary, ultimately it boils down to we all want things fixed, just some of us think Labour is the way, others of us aren't convinced that they will be more than tory-lite. When things get tense try to remember that we are all roughly on the same side.
For those who aren't currently planning to vote labour, being able to see when Labour are doing good things is very useful - msm are not covering Labour properly, we can't trust them to tell us, but we can know that the Labour supporters will let us know on the forum here.
For those voting labour - you get to see why we aren't. I do think its good that there's some people from here inside labour, so there's people inside trying to be a voice. I don't think labour is listening, but there is possibility there.

I accept your arguments, and your vote is a matter for your own decision, but what is your expectation of the result following your casting of your vote for the candidate/party you choose?

Do you want to see the Conservatives continue in power under Cameron and Osborne?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 3:13 pm

I get the impression the Beeb wouldn't be that unhappy if the debates did go by the wayside. Fortunately, it seems that Sky and ITV are made of sterner stuff.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 3:28 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote: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

Except that the invitation is to David Cameron, with that final debate being between the two party leaders who could become PM. Clegg's party is not currently, nor likely to become, one of the two largest parties so there is no chance of him becoming PM. The television companies have already ruled out any possibility of Caroline Lucas replacing Natalie Bennett for the Green Party, so why would they accept Clegg?

Perhaps Cameron is thinking that making a late announcement of his 'appearance' in the debates will lead to the sort of wild cheering, applause, trending-on-twitter, and rush for tickets, that would greet a pop-star whose rumoured appearance at Glastonbury is finally confirmed? Such delusions of grandeur, on his part, would come as no surprise to me.

thatchersorphan · Post by **thatchersorphan** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 3:40 pm

mbc1955 wrote:
I accept your arguments, and your vote is a matter for your own decision, but what is your expectation of the result following your casting of your vote for the candidate/party you choose?

Do you want to see the Conservatives continue in power under Cameron and Osborne?

I'm disabled. The difference isn't going to make much difference. Many of us are going to die prematurely whether its Labour or tories in charge. http://wowpetition.com/calums-list/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Some already have...
Living in fear of the future isn't going to change for the disabled or the sanctioned under Labour or tories. We're still screwed. More of us will die, more of us will experience worsening health. I'll fightback for as long as I'm still alive, but I'm not sure how long I can continue fighting for. The only 2 differences are - the NHS will be better under labour and even less people will fight for and with the disabled - as things will be better for more of you, leaving us fighting alone.
I should also mention that in my area, it is very likely that Labour will get in - the tories cannot win here, so my vote doesn't actually help the tories, I know of a disabled person who is voting labour, not because he believes labour is much better, just because in his area getting the tory out is priority. Area is also important - it can push you into voting tactically for the least worst. I'm not really in that situation, as the sitting lib dem MP is useless, and local election results have shown libs are finished here (I'm trying to help with that by telling people about his voting history - eg for NHS bill).

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 3:40 pm

LadyCentauria wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote: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
Except that the invitation is to David Cameron, with that final debate being between the two party leaders who could become PM. Clegg's party is not currently, nor likely to become, one of the two largest parties so there is no chance of him becoming PM. The television companies have already ruled out any possibility of Caroline Lucas replacing Natalie Bennett for the Green Party, so why would they accept Clegg?

Perhaps Cameron is thinking that making a late announcement of his 'appearance' in the debates will lead to the sort of wild cheering, applause, trending-on-twitter, and rush for tickets, that would greet a pop-star whose rumoured appearance at Glastonbury is finally confirmed? Such delusions of grandeur, on his part, would come as no surprise to me.

My guess is he'll try and ride it out. Failing that, join in last minute with Crosby trying to choose the topics (like he did for the London mayoral debates if memory serves me correctly).

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 3:54 pm

gilsey wrote:Camoron seems to be wanting debates before the official campaign starts, let's hope one of the broadcasters calls his bluff.

I always understood that there is some sort of strict written/unwritten? rule/law? that the election campaign is limited to six weeks before the date of the GE along with some sort of limit to the finances?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 3:57 pm

StephenDolan wrote:
LadyCentauria wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote: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
Except that the invitation is to David Cameron, with that final debate being between the two party leaders who could become PM. Clegg's party is not currently, nor likely to become, one of the two largest parties so there is no chance of him becoming PM. The television companies have already ruled out any possibility of Caroline Lucas replacing Natalie Bennett for the Green Party, so why would they accept Clegg?

Perhaps Cameron is thinking that making a late announcement of his 'appearance' in the debates will lead to the sort of wild cheering, applause, trending-on-twitter, and rush for tickets, that would greet a pop-star whose rumoured appearance at Glastonbury is finally confirmed? Such delusions of grandeur, on his part, would come as no surprise to me.
My guess is he'll try and ride it out. Failing that, join in last minute with Crosby trying to choose the topics (like he did for the London mayoral debates if memory serves me correctly).

He did this with the Sky young people's debate. Didn't announce he was appearing til the last moment which occasioned them having to hurriedly re-shuffle the schedule to accommodate him.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 4:05 pm

thatchersorphan wrote:
mbc1955 wrote:
I accept your arguments, and your vote is a matter for your own decision, but what is your expectation of the result following your casting of your vote for the candidate/party you choose?

Do you want to see the Conservatives continue in power under Cameron and Osborne?
I'm disabled. The difference isn't going to make much difference. Many of us are going to die prematurely whether its Labour or tories in charge. http://wowpetition.com/calums-list/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Some already have...
Living in fear of the future isn't going to change for the disabled or the sanctioned under Labour or tories. We're still screwed. More of us will die, more of us will experience worsening health. I'll fightback for as long as I'm still alive, but I'm not sure how long I can continue fighting for. The only 2 differences are - the NHS will be better under labour and even less people will fight for and with the disabled - as things will be better for more of you, leaving us fighting alone.
I should also mention that in my area, it is very likely that Labour will get in - the tories cannot win here, so my vote doesn't actually help the tories, I know of a disabled person who is voting labour, not because he believes labour is much better, just because in his area getting the tory out is priority. Area is also important - it can push you into voting tactically for the least worst. I'm not really in that situation, as the sitting lib dem MP is useless, and local election results have shown libs are finished here (I'm trying to help with that by telling people about his voting history - eg for NHS bill).

LABOUR WILL:
• Integrate physical health, mental health and social care
services so we can give people a personal care plan and single
point of contact for those with the greatest needs.

Hopefully that will help you.

http://b.3cdn.net/labouruk/414e1ab67632 ... 6bflfq.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am neither sick, disabled or unemployed, that has never stopped me fighting for those less fortunate. And never will.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 4:06 pm

mbc1955 wrote:
thatchersorphan wrote:Been watching the labour/ not labour thing degenerating (again). As we move nearer to the election there's even more danger of a polarisation into two opposing 'sides' (or half the people leaving). I really don't see the two sides as necessarily being in opposition though.
Those of us who aren't voting labour, (in my case, unless they change their stance on the unemployed and disabled) - have a problem with Labour MP's (with a few notable exceptions like McDonnell).
But there are many things we here DO agree on - we ALL (I hope) want our NHS restored, the social contract re-instated, the cuts to legal aid reversed, the bedroom tax gone, social housing built, and many other issues. Agreeing to disagree on some things will be necessary, ultimately it boils down to we all want things fixed, just some of us think Labour is the way, others of us aren't convinced that they will be more than tory-lite. When things get tense try to remember that we are all roughly on the same side.
For those who aren't currently planning to vote labour, being able to see when Labour are doing good things is very useful - msm are not covering Labour properly, we can't trust them to tell us, but we can know that the Labour supporters will let us know on the forum here.
For those voting labour - you get to see why we aren't. I do think its good that there's some people from here inside labour, so there's people inside trying to be a voice. I don't think labour is listening, but there is possibility there.
I accept your arguments, and your vote is a matter for your own decision, but what is your expectation of the result following your casting of your vote for the candidate/party you choose?

Do you want to see the Conservatives continue in power under Cameron and Osborne?

I had honestly thought that if Labour were a poor third, a person would be able to vote for a smaller or fringe party without doing much damage to the overall national result - which it wouldn't. But then someone on here pointed out that boundary changes [which we know the Tories love] are based on percentage of votes for each party, so even that can have long term consequences.
I should have realised that because Bracknell was strongly labour until boundary changes and overnight became what is now a safe Tory seat.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 4:07 pm

thatchersorphan wrote:
mbc1955 wrote:
I accept your arguments, and your vote is a matter for your own decision, but what is your expectation of the result following your casting of your vote for the candidate/party you choose?

Do you want to see the Conservatives continue in power under Cameron and Osborne?
I'm disabled. The difference isn't going to make much difference. Many of us are going to die prematurely whether its Labour or tories in charge. http://wowpetition.com/calums-list/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Some already have...
Living in fear of the future isn't going to change for the disabled or the sanctioned under Labour or tories. We're still screwed. More of us will die, more of us will experience worsening health. I'll fightback for as long as I'm still alive, but I'm not sure how long I can continue fighting for. The only 2 differences are - the NHS will be better under labour and even less people will fight for and with the disabled - as things will be better for more of you, leaving us fighting alone.
I should also mention that in my area, it is very likely that Labour will get in - the tories cannot win here, so my vote doesn't actually help the tories, I know of a disabled person who is voting labour, not because he believes labour is much better, just because in his area getting the tory out is priority. Area is also important - it can push you into voting tactically for the least worst. I'm not really in that situation, as the sitting lib dem MP is useless, and local election results have shown libs are finished here (I'm trying to help with that by telling people about his voting history - eg for NHS bill).

Where I am, we have a LibDem incumbent who is very popular (and a reasonable constituency MP). He's a farmer, and this is a very rural area; when we haven't had him, we've had a Tory.

Voting Labour here will make no difference; but our candidate is a breath of fresh air, has experience in local politics and was the Mayor of the largest town in the constituency (Brecon) and it would be nice if he was able to increase the vote share.

Like you, being sick and disabled, I am not expecting anything of use from Labour if they get into office. I have railed against the uselessness of Reeves and Green here so often I won't do it again now; but they are not listening to what disabled people are saying.

If I had to vote tactically, I would. Just to keep the Tories out. I have a suspicion that they will win here, but it'll be close.

It's difficult, isn't it? For the greater good, I have to say that Labour will get my vote; I think they are the least worst option.
I think Miliband has the makings of a statesman - but I wish he would be more radical and ditch the Blairites.
Cooper would be first for the chop. I can never forgive her for ESA and the WCA. Reeves would be good at the Treasury.
Green should remember that ears and mouths are in the correct proportions - less talking, more listening.

And John McDonnell should be at DWP. Nobody else comes close.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 4:09 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
gilsey wrote:Camoron seems to be wanting debates before the official campaign starts, let's hope one of the broadcasters calls his bluff.

I always understood that there is some sort of strict written/unwritten? rule/law? that the election campaign is limited to six weeks before the date of the GE along with some sort of limit to the finances?

There is, I think the start is 28th March.
That also brings in the TV Co's obligation to ensure equal and balance election coverage for all parties (yeah right! I can hear the collective sigh)

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 4:28 pm

thatchersorphan wrote:
mbc1955 wrote:
I accept your arguments, and your vote is a matter for your own decision, but what is your expectation of the result following your casting of your vote for the candidate/party you choose?

Do you want to see the Conservatives continue in power under Cameron and Osborne?
I'm disabled. The difference isn't going to make much difference. Many of us are going to die prematurely whether its Labour or tories in charge. http://wowpetition.com/calums-list/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Some already have...
Living in fear of the future isn't going to change for the disabled or the sanctioned under Labour or tories. We're still screwed. More of us will die, more of us will experience worsening health. I'll fightback for as long as I'm still alive, but I'm not sure how long I can continue fighting for. The only 2 differences are - the NHS will be better under labour and even less people will fight for and with the disabled - as things will be better for more of you, leaving us fighting alone.
I should also mention that in my area, it is very likely that Labour will get in - the tories cannot win here, so my vote doesn't actually help the tories, I know of a disabled person who is voting labour, not because he believes labour is much better, just because in his area getting the tory out is priority. Area is also important - it can push you into voting tactically for the least worst. I'm not really in that situation, as the sitting lib dem MP is useless, and local election results have shown libs are finished here (I'm trying to help with that by telling people about his voting history - eg for NHS bill).

Same here ,

I'm paraplegic, I have lingering meningitis in the spinal fluid that can't be eradicated, diabetic, doubly incontinent, pressure sores on my heels that may cause amputation if they get much worse, etc etc been going on 11 years now & I am living a specially adapted bungalow on which I have a mortgage. Unless the DLA to PIP rollout is scrapped, or at least the descriptors radically altered then I am under no illusion that I will no longer qualify as I can 'wash myself' get into my electrically operated profiling bed unaided and prepare meals.

When I stop receiving DLA I will no longer be able to afford the mortgage, I will lose my home & everything I value in my independence. The evil shits the Tories introduced this policy which is no more than to be expected from them, but Reeves (& Ed) won't change it.

There is no way on this earth I am going to end up homeless - I would rather top myself first. It would be ironic if after suffering under this shower for the last five years that I would eventually cease to exist under a Labour government.

I'm going to be the author of my own demise no matter what even if I voted Lab. I live in an extremely safe Lab seat anyhow, they won't miss one more vote.

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 4:42 pm

ephemerid wrote:
thatchersorphan wrote:
mbc1955 wrote:
I accept your arguments, and your vote is a matter for your own decision, but what is your expectation of the result following your casting of your vote for the candidate/party you choose?

Do you want to see the Conservatives continue in power under Cameron and Osborne?
I'm disabled. The difference isn't going to make much difference. Many of us are going to die prematurely whether its Labour or tories in charge. http://wowpetition.com/calums-list/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Some already have...
Living in fear of the future isn't going to change for the disabled or the sanctioned under Labour or tories. We're still screwed. More of us will die, more of us will experience worsening health. I'll fightback for as long as I'm still alive, but I'm not sure how long I can continue fighting for. The only 2 differences are - the NHS will be better under labour and even less people will fight for and with the disabled - as things will be better for more of you, leaving us fighting alone.
I should also mention that in my area, it is very likely that Labour will get in - the tories cannot win here, so my vote doesn't actually help the tories, I know of a disabled person who is voting labour, not because he believes labour is much better, just because in his area getting the tory out is priority. Area is also important - it can push you into voting tactically for the least worst. I'm not really in that situation, as the sitting lib dem MP is useless, and local election results have shown libs are finished here (I'm trying to help with that by telling people about his voting history - eg for NHS bill).

Where I am, we have a LibDem incumbent who is very popular (and a reasonable constituency MP). He's a farmer, and this is a very rural area; when we haven't had him, we've had a Tory.

Voting Labour here will make no difference; but our candidate is a breath of fresh air, has experience in local politics and was the Mayor of the largest town in the constituency (Brecon) and it would be nice if he was able to increase the vote share.

Like you, being sick and disabled, I am not expecting anything of use from Labour if they get into office. I have railed against the uselessness of Reeves and Green here so often I won't do it again now; but they are not listening to what disabled people are saying.

If I had to vote tactically, I would. Just to keep the Tories out. I have a suspicion that they will win here, but it'll be close.

It's difficult, isn't it? For the greater good, I have to say that Labour will get my vote; I think they are the least worst option.
I think Miliband has the makings of a statesman - but I wish he would be more radical and ditch the Blairites.
Cooper would be first for the chop. I can never forgive her for ESA and the WCA. Reeves would be good at the Treasury.
Green should remember that ears and mouths are in the correct proportions - less talking, more listening.

And John McDonnell should be at DWP. Nobody else comes close.

I'm not a big admirer of Cooper either. John McDonnell, Debbie Abrahams, Sheila Gilmore, Ian Lavery, Tom Greaterex, Skinner, Glenda (if she wasn't retiring) & no doubt quite a few others who I forget would make a better job of it than Reeves in my opinion.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 4:50 pm

Quite a nice post from the Graun's article on Cameron ducking the debates - one of my rare visits to the place. This is from SteB1:

"It's obvious why Cameron is trying to avoid a debate. David Cameron has now dodged so many necessary questions his actions have raised over the last 5 years, that he is completely vulnerable. Any able debater would be able to destroy Cameron in a head to head debate, simply because he has got so much to hide, and he has avoided so many questions.

The only way Cameron could avoid being destroyed on his evasiveness, is if he addressed these issues beforehand. However, his failure to even attempt to address these unanswered questions now makes it pretty obvious he has no intention of answering these questions.

Even if David Cameron were to try answering these questions in a head to head debate, it would be so easy for an able debater to simply say, "but yes Mr Cameron, even if that is true, why have you waited so late to answer these questions?" In other words it would be like shooting fish in a barrel to portray him as dodgy Dave.

I don't think there's a cat in hell's chance of David Cameron appearing in a debate now. The Tories know they have got everything to lose if he does appear in a debate. He risks being left floundering, and being exposed as the dodgy Prime Minister he his. Something they have been trying and succeeding in keeping out of the media, and out of the public eye.

However, this is the dilemma for the Tories, and why Cameron's slick evasiveness is real trouble for them. If Cameron refuses to appear in the debates, and the debates go ahead without him, it will be so easy to label Cameron as "frit" - using the term his hero Thatcher used.

It demonstrates just how much of a one trick pony the Conservative Party under Cameron is, and how their whole edifice is a house built on sand. There have been reports in the Tory Press, that there are plans for Osborne and Gove to throw a protective ring around David Cameron if he loses at the forthcoming General Election. This is because Osborne and Gove know that dodge dodgy Dave the spin doctor, is the only hope they have of selling their awful Tory agenda to the public.

David Cameron, is as I say a one trick pony. His one trick is to be able to give untruthful pledges in a very convincing way. David Cameron is a pure spin merchant. However, this is also why David Cameron has this mountain of unanswered questions. He has bought the public with his convincing speeches and pledges, but again, and again we get the very opposite of what David Cameron pledges. This is because his one trick is "doublespeak" i.e. saying one thing, whilst really intending the complete opposite.

In everywhere but a totalitarian state, "doublespeak" should have a limited shelf life. If there's a free media, and a politicians makes pledges they have no intention of keeping to, the media should hold him to account. Yet the vast majority of the British media, not just the Tory Press, have let David Cameron get away with this Scot free. It's a bit of a mystery why, because the media could turn numerous broken pledges from Cameron into major news stories if they wanted to, but they have never even attempted it.

Why does David Cameron lead such a charmed life with the media? What has he got on them?"

Someone invite him over to here...!

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 4:59 pm

I AM A COUNTRYMAN Declared Dave yesterday.

Anyone care to see my photoshopped version of the headline ?

It's very sweary Mary

: ScreenShot00269.jpg (165.44 KiB) Viewed 14941 times

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 5:00 pm

ohsocynical wrote:About MAXIMUS
MAXIMUS is a leading operator of government health and human services programs in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Saudi Arabia. The Company delivers business process services to improve the cost effectiveness, efficiency and quality of government-sponsored benefit programs, such as Medicaid, Medicare, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Health Insurance BC (British Columbia), as well as welfare-to-work and child support programs around the globe. The Company's primary customer base includes federal, provincial, state, county and municipal governments. Operating under its founding mission of Helping Government Serve the People®, MAXIMUS has approximately 8,800 employees worldwide. For more information, visit http://www.maximus.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

CANADA
MAXIMUSdelivers outstanding customer service to more than four million British Columbians through innovative document management services, contact centre management, eHealth information technology solutions, and medical and pharmaceutical claims services. We provide child support services through the Family Maintenance and Support Programme and operate the Medical Services Plan and PharmaCare programmes on behalf of the Ministry of Health Services.

KINGDOM of SAUDI ARABIA
Together with our local partner company Noryan Corporation, we help jobseekers find employment through our specialised case management services. We are a trusted partner in helping Saudi nationals find quality employment and we are working to increase youth employment across the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

UNITED STATES
Operating under our founding mission of Helping Government Serve the People®, MAXIMUS operates crucial government benefits programmes through a wide range of administrative services, case management and customer contact centres. MAXIMUS strives to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and quality of government programmes, such as the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, Medicare, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), as well as welfare-to-work and child support maintenance programmes, while simultaneously delivering world-class customer service to programme participants.

AUSTRALIA
Our primary focus in Australia is connecting jobseekers with employers through a comprehensive range of services tailored to meet the needs of both. As a top-rated provider under the Star Ratings programme, we bring proven expertise in employment and related health and human services, most notably supporting the Job Services Australia and Disability Employment Services programmes. We also provide services to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship

2013.
MAXIMUS Acquires UK-Based Company Health Management Limited
Acquisition Brings Independent Health Assessment Capabilities to the Company’s Business Portfolio in the United Kingdom

And if anyone missed it, there's a link on yesterdays board for a Australian TV expose into fraudulently obtaining government money by companies including Maximus.

Creepy.

The bit I've bolded, can anyone explain why any govt would pay a company to do that? Is it just a neo-liberal fashion?
In the real world, businesses and govts have job vacancies, people are born, educated, go out and look for jobs. How much taxpayers money is pissed up the wall to intermediaries?

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 5:09 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31733898

Broadcasters have offered to bring forward a planned election debate between David Cameron and Ed Miliband if the leaders agree.
Sky News and Channel 4 said they would "obviously be willing" to change the date of the head-to-head clash, currently scheduled for 30 April.
Earlier the Labour leader accused Mr Cameron in the Commons of trying to "avoid" the debate.
The PM has said he wants it to take place before the election campaign.
In a statement, the two broadcasters said: "Sky News and Channel 4 are continuing to prepare for a head-to-head debate between the prime minister and the leader of the opposition on 30 April.
"However, in response to media inquiries following today's PMQs, we would obviously be willing to host a debate on a different day the two main party leaders could agree on."

I've altered the spacing so this takes up less space. I don't like this current practice of giving every sentence a fresh paragraph! – unless I'm doing it with my customary rambling and multi-clausal writterings*

*Writtering: wittering on about something at length - and with barely a pause for breath - but in print, rather than in speech.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 5:09 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:
Why does David Cameron lead such a charmed life with the media? What has he got on them?"

Someone invite him over to here...!

He leads a charmed life, because he - the Tory Party - allows them to lead a charmed life. He has given them greater freedom and more money than Maggie ever managed.

You simply don't bite the hand that feeds you

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 5:10 pm

Afternoon all.

I've been lurking as I'm in the library so missed watching PMQs.

Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con):
As we approach the general election, may I urge my right hon. Friend to abandon his natural reticence and remind the British people that the last Labour Prime Minister destroyed the public finances, ran up a massive £156 billion budget deficit, plundered the pension funds and sold off the gold at a ridiculously low price, whereas under my right hon. Friend’s stewardship and five years of hard graft the United Kingdom now has the fastest growing economy in the G7, with average wages rising in real terms for the first time since 2007? What we need is, as my right hon. Friend said, a Conservative Government.

You can see where the trolls get it from - wonder what his constituents think of him wasting an opportunity to raise something important?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 5:15 pm

Gilsey

Creepy.

The bit I've bolded, can anyone explain why any govt would pay a company to do that? Is it just a neo-liberal fashion?
In the real world, businesses and govts have job vacancies, people are born, educated, go out and look for jobs. How much taxpayers money is pissed up the wall to intermediaries?

I used to joke a year or more on the threads I was saving up my money to buy a job.
Reading a lot Dickens & history taught me a person had to buy their way into a profession or situation.
It's not fucking funny, having to purchase employment, it's not funny at all.
I've had enough of this remorseless government telling lies & paying people to tell lies.
People have to know the truth in order to make appropriate decisions.
This is enough.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 5:17 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Afternoon all.

I've been lurking as I'm in the library so missed watching PMQs.

Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con):
As we approach the general election, may I urge my right hon. Friend to abandon his natural reticence and remind the British people that the last Labour Prime Minister destroyed the public finances, ran up a massive £156 billion budget deficit, plundered the pension funds and sold off the gold at a ridiculously low price, whereas under my right hon. Friend’s stewardship and five years of hard graft the United Kingdom now has the fastest growing economy in the G7, with average wages rising in real terms for the first time since 2007? What we need is, as my right hon. Friend said, a Conservative Government.

You can see where the trolls get it from - wonder what his constituents think of him wasting an opportunity to raise something important?

Purchasing dwellers beneath bridges to repeat Tory lies are a long-standing Tory expenditure.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 04 Mar, 2015 5:18 pm

Very interesting update from the Badger Trust on their meeting with Liz Truss yesterday.
http://badgertrust.org.uk/news/posts/20 ... pdate.aspx

Particularly like these bits:

Cull Roll Out

We pressed the Secretary of State (SoS) to confirm plans for roll out post May 7th, should Tories return to office.

SoS was not willing to commit herself on this issue, other than to say culling would remain part of the TB reduction strategy.

We pointed out that any plans for cull roll out must involve full consultation with all key stakeholders and a financial impact assessment.

We also discussed the need to engage local communities, the police and local authorities in this process.

We also raised concerns over Natural England (NE) and DEFRA officials being involved in recent farm meetings held in the South West, to discuss extension of the culls.

We also pointed out that Gloucestershire had fallen well short of its cull targets and even the Chief Vet had confirmed it was a border line decision if this pilot area should continue.

Since leaving the meeting, we have received confirmation from NE via our solicitor at Bindmans that the Gloucestershire cull licence could be revoked, due to failures by the cull contractors. We have used this information in follow up media interviews.

What's come out in the media re what's gone on in Gloucestershire barely scratches the surface .... one day, one better day, it must all be put out there.

We also went over some of the historical policy mistakes which had led to the increase in TB over the last 15 years, particularly restocking after foot and mouth.

SoS showed a worrying lack of awareness in this area and a willingness to keep playing the Ireland and New Zealand card to support culling.

We used the meeting to take apart the justification for culling based on the New Zealand and Ireland experiences and left the SoS with key data showing how cattle measures were working (compiled by Jan Bailey).

Annual Testing

We pressed hard on the growing support for annual testing of cattle for TB in England, not only from wildlife groups but also vet, farm and landowning organisations.

We said the NFU excuse that this is too costly, does not hold water after the tax payer has spent £15 million plus on the culls to date.

SoS listened with interest and her officials confirmed a further tightening of test measures was being considered, but they did not go as far as to say this would involve Annual Testing across all of England.

and ....

The Secretary of State seemed nervous and at times not on top of her brief.

Nigel Gibbens the Chief Vet was very noticeable by his absence.

The only officials present were her Private Secretary and representatives from the legal and TB policy units.

The Secretary of State took the unusual step of saying at the start of the meeting it would be considered private and off the record.

On walking down Whitehall earlier I nearly bumped into Liz Truss as she headed into Downing Street. I can only think the call for radio silence on the meeting came from the Prime Minister himself.

We gave no commitment not to share the discussions in the media (particularly as ITV & BBC were waiting to film interviews on steps of DEFRA after meeting).

so there ...