Monday 9th March 2015

FuriousGeorge · Post by **FuriousGeorge** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:21 pm

Why, the more the tories are exposed as deceitful, avoiding the truth, in bed with corrupt organisations do their poll ratings go up?

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:25 pm

pk1 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:Patrick Wintour retweeted
Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 4 mins4 minutes ago
Latest Ashcroft poll (06 - 08 Mar):
CON - 34% (-)
LAB - 30% (-1)
UKIP - 15% (+1)
GRN - 8% (+1)
LDEM - 5% (-2)
Lot's wife alert.
Will you elucidate for those like me that aren't quite sure how the reference to Lot's wife fits ?

That's how much salt I'm taking this poll with. A pillar, not pinch!

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:31 pm

StephenDolan wrote:
pk1 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote: Lot's wife alert.
Will you elucidate for those like me that aren't quite sure how the reference to Lot's wife fits ?
That's how much salt I'm taking this poll with. A pillar, not pinch!

Gotcha !

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:32 pm

Yes it did, TE.

Before excluding those not "absolutely certain to vote" the parties were neck and neck. IMO "certain to vote" findings should increasingly be disregarded since they presume a turnout of barely 50% - it will surely equal 2010's 65% this time and could be around 70%.

(in particular only about a quarter of 18-24 year olds typically say they will "certainly" vote, but it should be at least double that on the day)

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:35 pm

Couple of snippets from the LAP data.

Con 167
Lab 153
LD 22
Grn 42
UKIP 80
SNP 29

And

Refused to answer 60
Don't know 144

How LA squares the circle of the large percentages of RTA + DK with the leadership debates unlikely to have any bearing on the May result I do not know.

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:42 pm

Fun & games at DWP questions, McVey said Barry Sheerman was being sexist after comparing her to “a hard-hearted Hannah” Which is a song by Ella Fitzgerald.

When Sheerman pointed this out in a point of order afterwards McVey went on to say Labour had form on these sort of remarks after she claimed John McDonnell went to her constituency and said of her "Lynch the bitch"

John actually said "Why aren't we lynching the bastard?"

: ScreenShot00313.jpg (125.12 KiB) Viewed 8810 times

: ScreenShot00318.jpg (160.14 KiB) Viewed 8810 times

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:43 pm

Couple of points raised by Mike Smithson:

*Only 2 of @LordAscroft polls this year have had LAB leads. This compares with 16 of the 2 x weekly Populus polls

*Big driver of CON position in latest Ashcroft poll is higher certainty to vote. Before turnout filter LAB & CON almost level pegging

Sample size only 1003. Yougov poll closer to 2000

IIRC there was some debate last week that suggests phone polls tend to favour the Cons whereas online favours Labour.

LAP polls are phone polls.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:44 pm

Just managed to watch a bit of TV at work. First they were watching the PAC grilling Rona Fairhead (part time replacement for Chris Patten and part time director of HSBC). That little madam is not used to being contradicted. Obvs, she was innocent of absolutely everything. The heat was on so then they cut back to the studio and talked a bit about Ed Balls' speech instead. The presenter handed over to Norman Smith saying summat like, 'Ed Balls has made a complete mess with those figures hasn't he Norman?' 'Yes' says Norman because basically, if Ed's figures were correct, that would mean the Tories' figures would be wrong. Then on to OGRFPG's speech on schools today. Long extract of that. Who better to balance that than expenses cheat David Laws who said words to the effect of '2010-2015 good, Tories' future plans crazy'. He didn't add, not even sotto voce, 'unless we're in coalition with them again'. BBC just go away and die with dignity.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:46 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
refitman wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Oh dear, the England cricket team
Rule of 3: Cricket team are rubbish, football team are rubbish. Ergo: we're going to win the rugby world cup.

Compare them to some of our young athletes - Katrina Johnson-Thompson's face when she crossed the line and realised she hadn't broken the world record was a classic - she'd just won the gold but she was gutted to think what might have been. That's the sort of attitude that's needed.

Cricket in England has been messed around with over the past decade - all that money that Sky were supposed to have brought in and for what result?

Same as with football.

Think there's some good work being done by the counties, and that might improve the top level in time. And to be fair, the authorities don't think of development only in terms of the men's test team.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:49 pm

pk1 wrote: Lot's wife alert.

Will you elucidate for those like me that aren't quite sure how the reference to Lot's wife fits ?[/quote]
That's how much salt I'm taking this poll with. A pillar, not pinch![/quote]

Gotcha !

[/quote]

Lot lived in Sodom, and was visited by angels who told him to flee because Sodom was about to be annihilated due to its wickedness.

He and his family were told to run for the hills, and never look back, or they would be swept away.

Lot's wife Edith decided to take a quick peek at what was happening - and Bam! She turned into a pillar of salt.

Note to Cameron - Go. Go immediately. Do not look back on the evil you have created. Or you will suffer.

Or - just suffer, actually.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:49 pm

"Gulliver says he has lost £1.7m in bonus payments because of what went wrong.

But it would not be right for him to lose money because of what happened before he even took charge."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... eddbeef037" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:50 pm

Money can't buy you happiness, Gulliver.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:53 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:citizenJA, gilesy

"It tells us poor people get poorer, but I think we knew that."

I don't think that graph does show that. So, each shaded area represents 10% of the work force, the darker areas are at the center, lighter at the edges.

If the poor had got (relatively) poorer and the rich (relatively) richer you would expect the bottom sections to have fallen, and the top section to have risen.

Nearly the opposite is true. the top sections have fallen, the bottom sections stayed nearly the same.

This is what the ONS mean by compositional change. This is partly explained by job losses at the top end, mainly finance but also oil and gas extraction.

Unemployment has fallen, fairly sharply, but lots of the jobs are poorly paid. This has also dragged down the median wage level (ie the percentage of people who are in work and in very well paid employment has also fallen, even if the absolute number has not).

The graph shows the rate of increase in earnings, not earnings per se.

You're overthinking again Hugo.
I meant something much simpler, which is that even when median earnings are rising, there's a good proportion of the population going backwards.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:55 pm

From Warwick Davis (not really, my idea of a joke).

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/memb ... -announced" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Levels taken away from primary schools. Government commission set up to guide schools on assessment without levels.

There are no current classroom teachers involved.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:57 pm

What makes the debate issue so troublesome for Cameron is that he hopes to run a totally "presidential" campaign at this coming GE.

People might tell Ashcroft now that they aren't bothered if he doesn't attend, but it will look rather more incongruous with the above if it actually happens.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:57 pm

Sweet potatoes & lentils simmered with onion, garlic & oil olive tonight.
It makes the flat smell nice when the partner comes home from his work.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 4:58 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:What makes the debate issue so troublesome for Cameron is that he hopes to run a totally "presidential" campaign at this coming GE.

People might tell Ashcroft now that they aren't bothered if he doesn't attend, but it will look rather more incongruous with the above if it actually happens.

Incongruous is a nice name for this jackass government from hell.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 5:01 pm

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/mai ... -1-7019938" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bradford Council’s executive member for education Coun Ralph Berry has asked why the DfE agreed to rent of close to £6m for a site when the council was able to buy a land for a through-age school for just over £350,000 through a compulsory purchase order.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 5:01 pm

New rules on Motability.

Disabled people who qualify for the scheme have to jump through many hoops including the new PIP descriptors to get a grant from the Motability scheme - there is a small cohort of people who lease cars which are extensively adapted so that they are wheelchair accessible and they can be driven whilst the person is still in the wheelchair.

It is expensive to adapt cars to do this, obviously; the Specialised Vehicle Fund was worth about £17 Million in 2012. And 2013, 2014, 2015.
What this amounts to is a real-terms cut; and although the SVF was always quite limited, it's now harder to get a grant than ever.
There are about 300 grants a year, the average grant being about £30,000.

The new rules are that only disabled people who spend a minimum of 12 hours a week either working, in training/education, volunteering, or caring, will be eligible for a grant from the SVF.

Mike Betts, who runs the Motability Operations on behalf of the Motability charity, received bonuses and other payments worth more than a million on top of his annual salary of £500,000 in 2013.

See Disability News Service.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 5:02 pm

weighting of polls.

Is there a link anywhere setting out the weighting methodology of the various pollsters? I know they have to do weighting, to avoid the shy Tory problem of 1992, but as they each weight differently we are not comparing like with like.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 5:04 pm

gilsey wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:citizenJA, gilesy

"It tells us poor people get poorer, but I think we knew that."

I don't think that graph does show that. So, each shaded area represents 10% of the work force, the darker areas are at the center, lighter at the edges.

If the poor had got (relatively) poorer and the rich (relatively) richer you would expect the bottom sections to have fallen, and the top section to have risen.

Nearly the opposite is true. the top sections have fallen, the bottom sections stayed nearly the same.

This is what the ONS mean by compositional change. This is partly explained by job losses at the top end, mainly finance but also oil and gas extraction.

Unemployment has fallen, fairly sharply, but lots of the jobs are poorly paid. This has also dragged down the median wage level (ie the percentage of people who are in work and in very well paid employment has also fallen, even if the absolute number has not).
The graph shows the rate of increase in earnings, not earnings per se.

You're overthinking again Hugo.
I meant something much simpler, which is that even when median earnings are rising, there's a good proportion of the population going backwards.

Of course, but that graph shows that the people going backwards are in the top decile, not the bottom, of the distribution..

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 5:04 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:weighting of polls.

Is there a link anywhere setting out the weighting methodology of the various pollsters? I know they have to do weighting, to avoid the shy Tory problem of 1992, but as they each weight differently we are not comparing like with like.

I've often wondered that, along with thinking the pols are just fixed

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 5:05 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:From Warwick Davis (not really, my idea of a joke).

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/memb ... -announced" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Levels taken away from primary schools. Government commission set up to guide schools on assessment without levels.

There are no current classroom teachers involved.

I see Daisy Christodolou has got herself on there - any experience of primary teaching which is where the main problems are with this one? None whatsoever...I despair.

The person they really should have had on there is Tim Dracup who blogs and tweets as Gifted Phoenix.

https://giftedphoenix.wordpress.com/tag ... um-levels/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 5:09 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:weighting of polls.

Is there a link anywhere setting out the weighting methodology of the various pollsters? I know they have to do weighting, to avoid the shy Tory problem of 1992, but as they each weight differently we are not comparing like with like.
I've often wondered that, along with thinking the pols are just fixed

What I couldn't understand was why Yougov felt the need to change their methodology after they were one of the closest on the Euro elections.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 5:11 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:weighting of polls.

Is there a link anywhere setting out the weighting methodology of the various pollsters? I know they have to do weighting, to avoid the shy Tory problem of 1992, but as they each weight differently we are not comparing like with like.

Agreed.

Comparisons should only be made between polls run by the same company ie yougov with yougov, LAP & LAP etc etc.

Sadly however, the media world has little or no knowledge or understanding of how the various pollsters operate & their ignorance leads to incorrect headlines, generating page upon page of ill-informed bunkum.

Anthony Wells has written a lengthy post on the weighting methods of each pollster:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/faq-weighting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 5:18 pm

LAP polls this year:

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 5:19 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:From Warwick Davis (not really, my idea of a joke).

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/memb ... -announced" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Levels taken away from primary schools. Government commission set up to guide schools on assessment without levels.

There are no current classroom teachers involved.

It's a farce. I was in the WeeBundle's Personal Education Plan meeting short while ago (all adopted and LAC have one of these) and the question was asked: what level is she at in English and maths? Last year (year 3) they could tell me; this year all they could do was shrug their shoulders. There was and is no metric for gauging how a child is doing, and, importantly, improving, which is absolutely vital to know about an adopted or looked after child. Without it, it's more or less impossible to know whether pupil premium money spent specifically on that child is actually producing the desired effect.

It. Is. Complete. Madness.

Well, I suppose that the Tories have managed to fuck up practically every other area of life, so best have a go at 8 year old girls too.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 5:21 pm

I'm blocked by Daisy Christodolou.

I put a couple of challenging tweets to her. Then again, how else do I hold the new quasi-civil service to account?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 5:24 pm

Regarding assessment levels at primary school.

As yet nobody has said how, if every school comes up with their own system of assessment, league tables are supposed to work given (i) progress between KS1 and KS2 is measured by levels and (ii) it will make comparability between schools impossible.

People could see this coming a mile off...

diGriz · Post by **diGriz** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 5:26 pm

pk1 wrote:LAP polls this year:

This is the sort of poll a vested interest would applaud. I suspect after the election many of these polls will be revised with a 'whoops!' sort of attitude. Narrative created by 'mistake'.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 5:31 pm

Poor little Fester McVile.

So people are being rude and sexist and whatnot. Tsk tsk.

What with OGRFG upset because Miliband was "personally horrid" to him (allegedly) it's such a shame.

Diddums.

So no wonder their longtermeconomicplan(TM) includes this - no EU households will be entitled to claim Universal Credit unless they have worked here.
There's a good breakdown of what effect this could have at http://www.24dash.com/housing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Every day there's a new announcement of some change or other - all of them are not positive for claimants.

Bastards.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 5:32 pm

pk1

Many thanks, that is exactly what I wanted.

Unfortunately it looks fairly out of date.

Weighting on past voting looks problematic today. The Lib Dems would still be getting 10% on that method even if their vote dropped to zero. In a much more fluid climate, weighting by past voting seems dangerous.

What would be nice is if someone could collate the unweighted data from the various pollsters, weight according to age/sex, and then allow us to try out various political weightings to see what difference it makes.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 5:36 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Regarding assessment levels at primary school.

As yet nobody has said how, if every school comes up with their own system of assessment, league tables are supposed to work given (i) progress between KS1 and KS2 is measured by levels and (ii) it will make comparability between schools impossible.

People could see this coming a mile off...

Well, quite. It beggars belief that they'd ditch a universally used system in favour of...what...? Apparently the same sort of Byzantine stupidity that id the very hallmark of coalition education 'policy'. If it's fixed - make sure you break it.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 5:37 pm

pk1 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:Patrick Wintour retweeted
Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 4 mins4 minutes ago
Latest Ashcroft poll (06 - 08 Mar):
CON - 34% (-)
LAB - 30% (-1)
UKIP - 15% (+1)
GRN - 8% (+1)
LDEM - 5% (-2)
Lot's wife alert.
Will you elucidate for those like me that aren't quite sure how the reference to Lot's wife fits ?

Lot and his wife had to run away from something and 'God' told him he had to go first and she'd follow after but they'd only be 'safe' it Lot didn't look back to check she was coming. Well, after a while, Lot did turn around to see she was following and 'God' promptly turned her into a 'pillar of salt' to punish Lot. So, we who are hoping for a Labour election victory, shouldn't be distracted from our path by losing trust and heart in our 'mission'. And here endeth the lesson...

I've never quite understood why Lot wasn't the one to be turned into a pillar of salt unless his 'God' was looking for the most vindictive way to punish a man who loved his wife dearly. In which case, that 'God' wasn't exactly setting a good example to its followers. I think Lot's family were, supposedly, the only 'decent' family in Sodom and/or Gomorrah and 'God' destroyed the whole town because Lot's daughters got raped and murdered by strangers posing as 'God-fearing' friends. The old testament 'God' was a right bastard...

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 5:39 pm

Toby Latimer wrote:Fun & games at DWP questions, McVey said Barry Sheerman was being sexist after comparing her to “a hard-hearted Hannah” Which is a song by Ella Fitzgerald.

When Sheerman pointed this out in a point of order afterwards McVey went on to say Labour had form on these sort of remarks after she claimed John McDonnell went to her constituency and said of her "Lynch the bitch"

John actually said "Why aren't we lynching the bastard?"

ScreenShot00313.jpg

ScreenShot00318.jpg

If she ever goes on Twitter, she'll find herself called a damn sight worse than that.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 5:47 pm

Totally off-topic but I want terraced contoured batteries, as just shown off on the Apple keynote presentation introducing the new 12" Macbook – which means I want the new Macbook. You can also use pressing harder as a gesture on the trackpad which will automatically do all sorts of magic. I still don't need an Apple watch, mind...

daydreamer · Post by **daydreamer** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 5:48 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Spacedone wrote:Morning.

Apologies for continuing something from last night but I just want to respond to a point from 51A.

51A wrote: Do you know what, absolutely the worst of forum form. All the things you could have levelled at that useless, parasitic wanker and you go for how many children and what their names are. Be very ashamed of yourselves.

Oh, FFS. 'Be very ashamed of yourselves'? How dare you?

Edit, OK, to explain, though I don't think I should have to. His children's names are indicative of his privilege - some of the multiple middle names are from aristocratic forebears. They are indicative if his arrogance - more of the middle names are those of Saints. They are indicative of how out if touch he is - they are Mediaeval saints. And how uncaring - as others pointed out, saddling his own offspring with names that might make them targets for other children, unless of course they spend their lives around people for whom those names aren't terribly unusual, in which case we're back to the privilege.

Furthermore, the original post did make reference to several of Rees-Mogg's more egregious points.

Thanks Robert for making these points.

I seem to have been criticised for merely pointing out, as tactfully as I could, that he had 4 children and not 3, as a couple of previous posters had missed the daughter. I refuse to be ashamed for that.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 5:58 pm

Goodnight, everyone.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 6:05 pm

When she's on form Margaret Hodge is very good.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31799405

"When things go wrong in the public sector on your watch you resign. No one has deigned to accept responsibility," she added, saying that Ms Fairhead's performance at HSBC raised serious questions about her current position as chair of the BBC Trust.

"I think the government should sack you," she said.

daydreamer · Post by **daydreamer** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 6:08 pm

Willow904 wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
citizenJA wrote:@Lonewolfie
500 free schools Dave is promising after talking up 153 just the other day.
The man's off his head.

Naturally, nefarious global finance doesn't help.
Goodness. What number should we expect tomorrow?
I find it interesting that this has come today alongside a feature on BBC about asbestos in schools:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31793017

It saddens me that the Future Schools programme under Labour that was in some cases replacing old schools with completely new built ones was scrapped and was replaced instead with the willy-nilly spending on free schools that has been used in some cases to convert old buildings which may have asbestos present. We had a great opportunity to make our schools fit for the future and its been thrown away and replaced with old offices without playgrounds in areas with plenty of school places already. Why does anyone think the Tories are competent or good with money? It really is beyond me.

Because it's a lie that's been repeated so many times over the last 40 years (probably longer) that it's now deeply ingrained. Am I right in thinking that overall Labour have performed better on the economy than the Tories? It's certainly no worse.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 6:08 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:From Warwick Davis (not really, my idea of a joke).

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/memb ... -announced" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Levels taken away from primary schools. Government commission set up to guide schools on assessment without levels.

There are no current classroom teachers involved.
It's a farce. I was in the WeeBundle's Personal Education Plan meeting short while ago (all adopted and LAC have one of these) and the question was asked: what level is she at in English and maths? Last year (year 3) they could tell me; this year all they could do was shrug their shoulders. There was and is no metric for gauging how a child is doing, and, importantly, improving, which is absolutely vital to know about an adopted or looked after child. Without it, it's more or less impossible to know whether pupil premium money spent specifically on that child is actually producing the desired effect.

It. Is. Complete. Madness.

Well, I suppose that the Tories have managed to fuck up practically every other area of life, so best have a go at 8 year old girls too.

That's if they can even tell who should be getting the pupil premium any more, having given everyone free school meals.

daydreamer · Post by **daydreamer** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 6:11 pm

Willow904 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:Council in Jeremy Hunt's constituency soending taxpayer's money to remove anti-TTIP signs from people's gardens

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey- ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Can they do that? Remove a sign that is on someone's property?
I'm not sure. There are rules regarding adverts but these placards weren't adverts, they were political endorsements. Does this mean a Tory council could just go round and remove Labour party placards because they are in breach of advertising rules? I'm struggling to see the difference between these TTIP signs and other political material. How is opposing TTIP an advert?

Well, it isn't an advert is it. They just want to silence people, take away our right to protest. We're living in a democracy don't you know

Whoops, where's me manners. Evening all.

Spacedone · Post by **Spacedone** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 6:16 pm

Evening all. Just caught up on the posts. Some corkers as usual

Can anyone tell me what "evidence-based scaremongering" is because since Andrew Sparrow accused Balls of it I've been scratching my head to try and understand how something can be both based on evidence and scaremongering at the same time.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 6:17 pm

daydreamer wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
Spacedone wrote:Morning.

Apologies for continuing something from last night but I just want to respond to a point from 51A.

Oh, FFS. 'Be very ashamed of yourselves'? How dare you?

Edit, OK, to explain, though I don't think I should have to. His children's names are indicative of his privilege - some of the multiple middle names are from aristocratic forebears. They are indicative if his arrogance - more of the middle names are those of Saints. They are indicative of how out if touch he is - they are Mediaeval saints. And how uncaring - as others pointed out, saddling his own offspring with names that might make them targets for other children, unless of course they spend their lives around people for whom those names aren't terribly unusual, in which case we're back to the privilege.

Furthermore, the original post did make reference to several of Rees-Mogg's more egregious points.
Thanks Robert for making these points.

I seem to have been criticised for merely pointing out, as tactfully as I could, that he had 4 children and not 3, as a couple of previous posters had missed the daughter. I refuse to be ashamed for that.

51A must be under horrendous stress at the moment, so maybe we can cut her some slack ?

She has mentioned previously about her brother having been charged with the killing of their step mother and his court case has been reported in the Welsh press in the last week or so and I believe he is awaiting sentence.

If you are reading 51A, hope you have some support around you.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 6:21 pm

daydreamer wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
PorFavor wrote: Goodness. What number should we expect tomorrow?
I find it interesting that this has come today alongside a feature on BBC about asbestos in schools:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31793017

It saddens me that the Future Schools programme under Labour that was in some cases replacing old schools with completely new built ones was scrapped and was replaced instead with the willy-nilly spending on free schools that has been used in some cases to convert old buildings which may have asbestos present. We had a great opportunity to make our schools fit for the future and its been thrown away and replaced with old offices without playgrounds in areas with plenty of school places already. Why does anyone think the Tories are competent or good with money? It really is beyond me.
Because it's a lie that's been repeated so many times over the last 40 years (probably longer) that it's now deeply ingrained. Am I right in thinking that overall Labour have performed better on the economy than the Tories? It's certainly no worse.

Simon Wren Lewis, as ever, is good on this.

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/ ... nt-at.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 6:22 pm

More localism.

http://www.propertywire.com/news/europe ... 10238.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Councils in the UK could be prevented from introducing selective licensing for private sector landlords unless there are specific reasons for doing so.
The Department of Local Government and Communities believes that for an area to be designated as subject to selective licensing it must contain a high proportion of properties in the private rented sector, in relation to the total housing accommodation in that area.

It has announced proposals that would mean that if an area has one or more of four specific conditions, the authority may consider introducing licensing. These include hazards caused by poor housing conditions, an influx of migration and if the area is suffering from a high level of deprivation which affects a significant number of the occupiers of properties.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 6:27 pm

Trouble 't mill.....

A leading Liberal Democrat grassroots group has said that members are being left in the dark about how the party’s policies would be paid for.

In a briefing ahead of the party’s spring conference in Liverpool this weekend, Liberal Reform described it as “regrettable that even at this final conference before the election, party members are being left in the dark as to how all of these plans are going to be funded”.

“The party is currently saying we want a 60:40 split between cuts and tax increases – that is tax rises of £30bn,” the briefing reads. “It is difficult to see how that can be funded without the basic income tax rate or VAT going up. And that is before the increases in spending to which the party is already committed.”

When asked about the comments at a press conference on Monday, deputy prime minister Nick Clegg said he had not heard of Liberal Reform, despite having written a forward to a major publication by the group in September 2013.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No comment facility enabled, naturally

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 6:29 pm

yahyah wrote:
daydreamer wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: Oh, FFS. 'Be very ashamed of yourselves'? How dare you?

Edit, OK, to explain, though I don't think I should have to. His children's names are indicative of his privilege - some of the multiple middle names are from aristocratic forebears. They are indicative if his arrogance - more of the middle names are those of Saints. They are indicative of how out if touch he is - they are Mediaeval saints. And how uncaring - as others pointed out, saddling his own offspring with names that might make them targets for other children, unless of course they spend their lives around people for whom those names aren't terribly unusual, in which case we're back to the privilege.

Furthermore, the original post did make reference to several of Rees-Mogg's more egregious points.
Thanks Robert for making these points.

I seem to have been criticised for merely pointing out, as tactfully as I could, that he had 4 children and not 3, as a couple of previous posters had missed the daughter. I refuse to be ashamed for that.

51A must be under horrendous stress at the moment, so maybe we can cut her some slack ?

She has mentioned previously about her brother having been charged with the killing of their step mother and his court case has been reported in the Welsh press in the last week or so and I believe he is awaiting sentence.

If you are reading 51A, hope you have some support around you.

Absolutely.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 6:30 pm

So now they are selling off parts of the Lake District...

Lake District's Stickle Tarn among seven areas for sale
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-31294591" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 09 Mar, 2015 6:31 pm

pk1 wrote:Trouble 't mill.....

A leading Liberal Democrat grassroots group has said that members are being left in the dark about how the party’s policies would be paid for.

In a briefing ahead of the party’s spring conference in Liverpool this weekend, Liberal Reform described it as “regrettable that even at this final conference before the election, party members are being left in the dark as to how all of these plans are going to be funded”.

“The party is currently saying we want a 60:40 split between cuts and tax increases – that is tax rises of £30bn,” the briefing reads. “It is difficult to see how that can be funded without the basic income tax rate or VAT going up. And that is before the increases in spending to which the party is already committed.”

When asked about the comments at a press conference on Monday, deputy prime minister Nick Clegg said he had not heard of Liberal Reform, despite having written a forward to a major publication by the group in September 2013.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No comment facility enabled, naturally

All the same these Lib Dems.
My MP, when I asked him via email whether he supported Orange Book Liberalism claimed he had never heard of it. Yeah, right.