Tuesday 10th March 2015

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 3:51 pm

Good morfternoon.

Universal credit flaws make shorter hours better for some, says review

Changes to welfare system increase work disincentives and mean others see little change in income halving their working hours, says Resolution Foundation

For some, the work disincentives become worse than under the current system and, for others, the system is constructed so that their income falls very little if they halve their hours from 16 a week to eight, according to what is probably the largest independent review of the measure’s likely impact on more then 8 million claimants. (Guardian)

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... foundation

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 4:28 pm

pk1 wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
Well done
It's suggested in her first post
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These kind of lies make my blood boil!
Mine too.

The facebook woman suggested the 'disabled people have to die' crap but Sivier claims she said Owen Smith said it - an altogether different matter & one that needs to be apologised for or face a legal action.

Sadly I don't expect Smith to take action but it would serve them right if he did !

Random thought.

Implement Leveson in full.

Put a limit on how much media one person can own. Look at limiting foreign ownership also.

Give an independent body real powers to regulate.

Then, and only then, will it no longer be possible for Labour to use the right-wing press as an excuse for not doing left wing things.

Until then, Owen Smith may well have a point. There is no evidence to prove Mike Sivier's assertion that scrapping the WCA would gain Labour more voters that it would lose, which is not a verdict on the sentiments of voters towards disabled people but just an honest assessment of the complete ignorance of most voters and the ease with which they are manipulated by the media.

Of course, only a Labour majority would see Leveson implemented at all, let alone in full.

In the end, everything that is wrong with this country comes back to the same thing - wealthy vested interests. And those vested interests are desperate to prevent a Miliband win. I despair sometimes that the left-wing Labour bashers can't see that. The media loved Blair, they hate Miliband - doesn't that tell people everything they need to know about whose side Miliband is on?

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 4:34 pm

Someone starts to try and be realistic about a Labour/SNP coalition/pact:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 96132.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Opinions?

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 4:38 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:Someone starts to try and be realistic about a Labour/SNP coalition/pact:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 96132.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Opinions?

Big fat No.
I would not vote for Labour in 2020 if they hold hands with the SNP.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 4:40 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
pk1 wrote: And that's precisely the problem !

I warned Sivier he had libelled Owen Smith & each and every time it gets RT'd counts as an additional libel. I also notified Owen Smith that he was being libelled.

I also suggested to Smith that he should ask for an apology although he would be perfectly justified in taking legal action - maybe that would finally force bloggers to abide by libel laws of the country.
Well done
It's suggested in her first post
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
These kind of lies make my blood boil!
Samuel Miller (@Hephaestus7 ) seems to have deleted his tweet-link to the blog

I asked him to. (I daresay others did too - I don't know)

I Tweeted this - "Samuel, you are better than this. Owen Smith did not say that at all. Mike will lose support over this"

He told me he re-read the blog; and although he supports what Mike does (as do I and many others) he realised that Mike had used a hearsay remark based on a third party's interpretation of something Owen Smith said. He removed his Tweet - he also said that it is his habit to re-Tweet a lot of things almost automatically from some people (me included) and he should have paid more attention.

Mike has quoted directly from a Facebook post by Liza Van Zyl, who claimed that "Comrades, we heard from Owen Smith today....that it is important for disabled people to continue to die...."etc.

Dr. Liza Van Zyl has a blog called loonylefty.wordpress in which she writes very long and detailed posts about her unfair sacking from a university she used to work for and her experiences with the police and various unions when she was accused of "criminal acts against DWP".
In her blog, she says her various mental health conditions are very stable; in her formal complaints against her accusers, she says she is actually extremely ill and vulnerable.
The conversation on her Facebook page is interesting, as it seems to reflect her assertion that she is a) very ill and b) her illness does not affect her judgement.
This may well be true, but she claims that she has to leave the meeting at which Owen Smith was speaking because she was so distressed. She said this "My reflection of Smith's response is absolutely fair comment".

At no point does she to confirm that Owen Smith actually said that "it is important for disabled people to continue to die" what she says is that it is fair comment for her to infer that from what he said about the WCA generally.
Mike has now said that he wants to investigate the issue further, because more was said at the meeting (after Liza left) which puts what Smith is supposed to have said in a very different light.
He says he will speak to someone else who was there throughout. Liza has since posted a bit more on FB but insists that the comments she made were a fair interpretation of what Smith said.
Personally, having seen some of her stuff before in which she describes herself as the convenor of the anti-cuts movement in Wales (news to me), I tend to the view that she is a self-publicist. I could be wrong!

Mike should have checked this first - it's bad enough that he should use a quote verbatim without making sure it was right; but to use that quote as a title for his article and to advertise it so widely was very careless.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 4:43 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:Someone starts to try and be realistic about a Labour/SNP coalition/pact:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 96132.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Opinions?

Lots of overlap. (Though no mention of electoral reform?) Dare I say enough for the Scottish voters to ensure that Labour are the largest party in the UK?

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 4:44 pm

The BBC has suspended Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson "following a fracas" with a producer.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 4:46 pm

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/s ... ekPhALFo6l" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's a howler of epic proportions !

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 4:46 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:Someone starts to try and be realistic about a Labour/SNP coalition/pact:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 96132.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Opinions?
Big fat No.
I would not vote for Labour in 2020 if they hold hands with the SNP.

I tend to agree with you, as I see the SNP as tartan Tories, but it's an inescapable fact that Labour might have to do a deal with the SNP on May 8th. 57 days to go, to try to get people to see a bit of sense. Did a difficult 50 minutes door knocking on Sunday. I never cease to be amazed by people and their inability to actually care about what's happening around them and particularly to the poor, needy, disabled and sick. No doubt such people will continue in ignorance and apathy until what's happened to others happens to them. Then watch the outrage.

I'm out in my ward door knocking tomorrow lunchtime, so I'll be able to let you all know later just how things look in my (mostly Tory) ward.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 4:54 pm

ephemerid wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote: Well done
It's suggested in her first post
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
These kind of lies make my blood boil!
Samuel Miller (@Hephaestus7 ) seems to have deleted his tweet-link to the blog

I asked him to. (I daresay others did too - I don't know)

I Tweeted this - "Samuel, you are better than this. Owen Smith did not say that at all. Mike will lose support over this"

He told me he re-read the blog; and although he supports what Mike does (as do I and many others) he realised that Mike had used a hearsay remark based on a third party's interpretation of something Owen Smith said. He removed his Tweet - he also said that it is his habit to re-Tweet a lot of things almost automatically from some people (me included) and he should have paid more attention.

Mike has quoted directly from a Facebook post by Liza Van Zyl, who claimed that "Comrades, we heard from Owen Smith today....that it is important for disabled people to continue to die...."etc.

Dr. Liza Van Zyl has a blog called loonylefty.wordpress in which she writes very long and detailed posts about her unfair sacking from a university she used to work for and her experiences with the police and various unions when she was accused of "criminal acts against DWP".
In her blog, she says her various mental health conditions are very stable; in her formal complaints against her accusers, she says she is actually extremely ill and vulnerable.
The conversation on her Facebook page is interesting, as it seems to reflect her assertion that she is a) very ill and b) her illness does not affect her judgement.
This may well be true, but she claims that she has to leave the meeting at which Owen Smith was speaking because she was so distressed. She said this "My reflection of Smith's response is absolutely fair comment".

At no point does she to confirm that Owen Smith actually said that "it is important for disabled people to continue to die" what she says is that it is fair comment for her to infer that from what he said about the WCA generally.
Mike has now said that he wants to investigate the issue further, because more was said at the meeting (after Liza left) which puts what Smith is supposed to have said in a very different light.
He says he will speak to someone else who was there throughout. Liza has since posted a bit more on FB but insists that the comments she made were a fair interpretation of what Smith said.
Personally, having seen some of her stuff before in which she describes herself as the convenor of the anti-cuts movement in Wales (news to me), I tend to the view that she is a self-publicist. I could be wrong!

Mike should have checked this first - it's bad enough that he should use a quote verbatim without making sure it was right; but to use that quote as a title for his article and to advertise it so widely was very careless.

Enlightening post, thank you. Looks like Mike was rather, er, hasty in using such unsubstantiated stuff. Had I been him, I think I'd have been doing the research and checking before posting something so libellous (and out of character). Let's hope this turns out to be a storm in a teacup rather than a long runner, and that all come out of it with a better appreciation of the views and beliefs of the other parties involved. And I hope that Dr. Van Zyl gets the mental health care that she apparently might be needing.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 4:55 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote:From the wonder of twitter, well a link. Social housing clearances in London, this is happening now, I dread to think what it would be like after a Con win. In London last week, there almost seems to be a ''rubbing their noses in it'' attitude, what with developments, billboards and the bumpf for the latest ''luxury development'' boasting ''panoramic views'' awful, just awful.

http://www.citymetric.com/politics/4-ot ... -about-808" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's another dubious one in Leytonstone, which Adil Chakraborty wrote about, I recall.

I wondered if the apparent reduction in social homes was down to leaseholders just being bought out. He was very courteous and said he didn't think there were that many of them.

I suppose some of these deals will assume that people just want out of the area, or are happy to accept a cash sum to move. Easy to imagine lots of older people being OK with that. And I assume too that some will get social flats nearby. My borough has 3 pages of new social lets every week (in Lutfur's "Propaganda on the rates"). So the developments might be better than they look.

But losing social flats from the total seems a bad idea.

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 4:57 pm

According to the Guardian's home page, Steve McFadyean was Rio Ferdinand's ex-Lover.

No wonder the Mirror resorted to phone hacking!

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 4:59 pm

pk1 wrote:http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/s ... ekPhALFo6l

It's a howler of epic proportions !

Oh dear.

I was looking at funny clips from You're On Sky Sports this morning. That word featured.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 4:59 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:Someone starts to try and be realistic about a Labour/SNP coalition/pact:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 96132.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Opinions?

This will be very sketchy, broad brush and off the top of my head but here goes -

The SNP's raison d'être is Scottish independence. The more Labour is successful in terms of meeting the aspirations of the Scottish people, the less likely the SNP is to be relevant to a lot of the people in Scotland. It would thus be in the SNP's interests to be "spoilers" in order to protect their own interests. I also feel that, at base, the SNP is in many ways quite Conservative (big "C"). However, if it's the only way to get a Labour government it has to be worth a try.

I'll now go and read the article (which I should have done before replying). So, half-expect me to be back saying something quite different to the above!

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 5:02 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:Someone starts to try and be realistic about a Labour/SNP coalition/pact:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 96132.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Opinions?

I don't know.

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 5:04 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:Someone starts to try and be realistic about a Labour/SNP coalition/pact:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 96132.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Opinions?

I'm all for it. I think that the difference between the parties comes down to Unionism V Independence, and although that might be enough of a divide for some, I think that far too much energy and capital is wasted on what is essentially in-fighting. There's not a single seat where the Tories stand a chance of getting in if people vote with their conscience rather than tactically, and I don't think the current line of attack from Labour is particularly convincing or edifying.

I think that both parties should stand on an Anti-Tory ticket, but both candidates stand, one for the Union and one for Independence.

As for what Ed should do - the first act would be to devolve responsibility for referenda affecting only the Scottish people, and for which only the Scottish People can vote for, to the Scottish Parliament. That way, the decision to hold a referendum on independence or not comes down to the SNP or whoever is in power at the time in Scotland, not at Westminster fiat. After all, we wouldn't let the EU tell us whether we could have a referendum or not.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 5:10 pm

Here comes Gilligan!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ngers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The truth, however, is that London Bridge is only the beginning, and some of the miseries suffered by its users will soon be passed on to travellers across large parts of Britain. From Leeds to Swansea, a Sunday Telegraph investigation has found, Network Rail has been losing control of its “enhancement programme” to modernise the railways.
Costs have been vastly inflating, delivery dates look almost certain to be missed and some key schemes trumpeted by ministers may even have to be cancelled. Criticism that until now has been spoken off the record and within the industry is starting to break into the open

You mean it's hard to do up railway infrastructure when it's having to be used at the same time?

And you want this done on the West Coast Mainline too?

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 5:12 pm

StephenDolan wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:Someone starts to try and be realistic about a Labour/SNP coalition/pact:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 96132.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Opinions?
Lots of overlap. (Though no mention of electoral reform?) Dare I say enough for the Scottish voters to ensure that Labour are the largest party in the UK?

Apparently so, but I foresee a lot of arguments, were it to come to pass. Anyway, it's purely hypothetical and for now the focus has to be a majority, otherwise it might happen. God forbid that scum like the FibDems might come into the picture. What an appalling thought.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 5:13 pm

DonutHingeParty wrote:According to the Guardian's home page, Steve McFadyean was Rio Ferdinand's ex-Lover.

No wonder the Mirror resorted to phone hacking!

The wonderful Grauniad App has a lot to be responsible for !

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 5:14 pm

DonutHingeParty wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:Someone starts to try and be realistic about a Labour/SNP coalition/pact:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 96132.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Opinions?
I'm all for it. I think that the difference between the parties comes down to Unionism V Independence, and although that might be enough of a divide for some, I think that far too much energy and capital is wasted on what is essentially in-fighting. There's not a single seat where the Tories stand a chance of getting in if people vote with their conscience rather than tactically, and I don't think the current line of attack from Labour is particularly convincing or edifying.

I think that both parties should stand on an Anti-Tory ticket, but both candidates stand, one for the Union and one for Independence.

As for what Ed should do - the first act would be to devolve responsibility for referenda affecting only the Scottish people, and for which only the Scottish People can vote for, to the Scottish Parliament. That way, the decision to hold a referendum on independence or not comes down to the SNP or whoever is in power at the time in Scotland, not at Westminster fiat. After all, we wouldn't let the EU tell us whether we could have a referendum or not.

Where's the solidarity between SNP & Labour in the press? Between SNP party members & Labour party members? The party leadership? Does any exist? I ask sincerely. I don't have SNP party friends here in Stoke. I've gone through the Tory policies on The Public Whip. The SNP & Labour held together nice with their votes against Tory/LibDem Welfare 'Reform', Bedroom Tax, exc.
Six SNP members.
Good speeches.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 5:35 pm

I hope RebeccaRiots is okay...She's not been around.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 5:35 pm

citizenJA wrote:
DonutHingeParty wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:Someone starts to try and be realistic about a Labour/SNP coalition/pact:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 96132.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Opinions?
I'm all for it. I think that the difference between the parties comes down to Unionism V Independence, and although that might be enough of a divide for some, I think that far too much energy and capital is wasted on what is essentially in-fighting. There's not a single seat where the Tories stand a chance of getting in if people vote with their conscience rather than tactically, and I don't think the current line of attack from Labour is particularly convincing or edifying.

I think that both parties should stand on an Anti-Tory ticket, but both candidates stand, one for the Union and one for Independence.

As for what Ed should do - the first act would be to devolve responsibility for referenda affecting only the Scottish people, and for which only the Scottish People can vote for, to the Scottish Parliament. That way, the decision to hold a referendum on independence or not comes down to the SNP or whoever is in power at the time in Scotland, not at Westminster fiat. After all, we wouldn't let the EU tell us whether we could have a referendum or not.
Where's the solidarity between SNP & Labour in the press? Between SNP party members & Labour party members? The party leadership? Does any exist? I ask sincerely. I don't have SNP party friends here in Stoke. I've gone through the Tory policies on The Public Whip. The SNP & Labour held together nice with their votes against Tory/LibDem Welfare 'Reform', Bedroom Tax, exc.
Six SNP members.
Good speeches.

One of the problems I perceive is the SNP's electoral stance towards Labour. It's not "We share some common ground and therefore we can coexist", but rather more "You're no better than the Tories! Scots wahey! Kiss the Saltire!", as BTL comments in The Graun tend to demonstrate.

A socialist party - if they care to thus decribe themselves - should not be, should never be a nationalist party that inherently rejects internationalism, which is one of the founding bedrocks of socialism, IMHO. It's not about countries; it's about ordinary working people of all countries finding common cause together and allying against the powerful and plutocratic elite that own most of the wealth and run most of business - particularly the meeja, its propaganda arm.

Still, that's just my take. I think they're slightly more populist Tories who daren't offend those on the left in Scotland who are daft enough to vote for them on nationalist grounds.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 5:41 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
DonutHingeParty wrote: I'm all for it. I think that the difference between the parties comes down to Unionism V Independence, and although that might be enough of a divide for some, I think that far too much energy and capital is wasted on what is essentially in-fighting. There's not a single seat where the Tories stand a chance of getting in if people vote with their conscience rather than tactically, and I don't think the current line of attack from Labour is particularly convincing or edifying.

I think that both parties should stand on an Anti-Tory ticket, but both candidates stand, one for the Union and one for Independence.

As for what Ed should do - the first act would be to devolve responsibility for referenda affecting only the Scottish people, and for which only the Scottish People can vote for, to the Scottish Parliament. That way, the decision to hold a referendum on independence or not comes down to the SNP or whoever is in power at the time in Scotland, not at Westminster fiat. After all, we wouldn't let the EU tell us whether we could have a referendum or not.
Where's the solidarity between SNP & Labour in the press? Between SNP party members & Labour party members? The party leadership? Does any exist? I ask sincerely. I don't have SNP party friends here in Stoke. I've gone through the Tory policies on The Public Whip. The SNP & Labour held together nice with their votes against Tory/LibDem Welfare 'Reform', Bedroom Tax, exc.
Six SNP members.
Good speeches.
One of the problems I perceive is the SNP's electoral stance towards Labour. It's not "We share some common ground and therefore we can coexist", but rather more "You're no better than the Tories! Scots wahey! Kiss the Saltire!", as BTL comments in The Graun tend to demonstrate.

A socialist party - if they care to thus decribe themselves - should not be, should never be a nationalist party that inherently rejects internationalism, which is one of the founding bedrocks of socialism, IMHO. It's not about countries; it's about ordinary working people of all countries finding common cause together and allying against the powerful and plutocratic elite that own most of the wealth and run most of business - particularly the meeja, its propaganda arm.

Still, that's just my take. I think they're slightly more populist Tories who daren't offend those on the left in Scotland who are daft enough to vote for them on nationalist grounds.

They're not daft enough to vote for them.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 5:45 pm

Justine Miliband has given an interview, in it she acknowledges it is going to be a viscous fight but wants to ''fight for decency'' and not to put to too fine a point on it that is what it is going to come down to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31820175" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

diGriz · Post by **diGriz** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 5:57 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:Someone starts to try and be realistic about a Labour/SNP coalition/pact:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 96132.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Opinions?
Big fat No.
I would not vote for Labour in 2020 if they hold hands with the SNP.

This is all to play toward a Con/SNP deal. It seems to be working.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 5:59 pm

Cameron dismisses generals, who raise concerns over military spending as after airtime, as they have books to flog.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... nding.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I make no comment on defence spending, other departments have been pared to the bone.

I will leave the subtle, nuanced posts to others, but Cameron is a dismissive arrogant twat.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 6:00 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:Someone starts to try and be realistic about a Labour/SNP coalition/pact:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 96132.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Opinions?

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 6:04 pm

On the SNP
Vouchers are not my kind of social services
Ken Macintosh MSP, Scottish Labour’s Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights, argues that folk who rely on benefits deserve dignity.

"This provoked a storm of indignation from SNP backbenches (including from their new compatriot a Mr Alex Salmond) who suggested that vouchers were far “more cost-effective”. Never mind the needs of applicants, did Scottish Labour not “recognise the constraints on local government”, or the alternative that really astounded me, that we should simply “hope that common sense and compassion” would influence the decision on payments"
http://www.labourhame.com/progressives-or-populists/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 6:10 pm

Lab and SNP. They can't do a coalition I don't think because there are too many red lines that neither could cross. They could do confidence and supply I suppose, based on where they overlap. It all depends on the numbers of seats. IF SNP and Irish groups butt out of E&W votes it's not a problem provided Lab > Con + Lib + UKIP. If they haven't we're in messy territory. Caroline Lucas could find herself being wooed.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 6:11 pm

Glad to see Owen Smith has responded to Mike Sivier

Owen Smith MP ‏@OwenSmithMP 12m12 minutes ago
@MidWalesMike @kb32904 @ephemerid213 @Hephaestus7 It should go without saying, but this is obviously a lie. I would never say such a thing.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 6:14 pm

Lynne Featherstone has been taking a battering in general election polls to date but a new survey commissioned by her party reveals a resurgence in the Liberal Democrat MP’s popularity.

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/politics/ ... _1_3987059" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[/quote]

Good response btl:

Joshua Dixon Tuesday, March 10, 2015
I am not sure its accurate to say Survation are claiming anything with this poll, as the poll makes clear that they simply carried out fieldwork with questions and methodology set by the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems decided the questions, the order of questions, and probably also the weighting assumptions, and they could carry out as many polls as they like in as many constituencies as they like before deciding which ones they want to publish. It's incredible that with all of that in their favour they are reduced to trumpeting a poll that finds them trailing.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 6:37 pm

SNP
I loathe the SNP. A mendacious party. I hate nationalism in all its forms. The left and nationalists are enemies. That is true in all times and places.

If the SNP want to vote for a Labour queens speech, or give Labour a vote if confidence (or abstain) fine.

But we should not pretend that the SNP have any interest in a successful leftwing government of the United Kingdom. They don't.

No deals. They can support Labour or the Tories. Up to them.

Govern as we can, and then call a second election (see 1974).

rearofthestore · Post by **rearofthestore** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 6:38 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Here comes Gilligan!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ngers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The truth, however, is that London Bridge is only the beginning, and some of the miseries suffered by its users will soon be passed on to travellers across large parts of Britain. From Leeds to Swansea, a Sunday Telegraph investigation has found, Network Rail has been losing control of its “enhancement programme” to modernise the railways.
Costs have been vastly inflating, delivery dates look almost certain to be missed and some key schemes trumpeted by ministers may even have to be cancelled. Criticism that until now has been spoken off the record and within the industry is starting to break into the open
You mean it's hard to do up railway infrastructure when it's having to be used at the same time?

And you want this done on the West Coast Mainline too?

Of course you are right Tubby.
However historically that is just the way it has always been done. All previous electrification work has been done whilst a running railway has operated through it. The difference now is the enhanced safety requirement which requires enhanced protection at enhanced cost. The other problem is the failure of the fragmented railway and particularly the private railway companies unwillingness to fund diversionary routes during planned engineering work and emergency closures. For example Virgin West Coast will not rail divert during planned closures between Preston and Carlisle via Hellifield and Settle even but instead will turf all passengers at Preston and Carlisle and shove them on a bus to save money. Now that's something we never did in BR Times. Virtually every route in Britain was subject to a contingency plan which was capable of implementation within an hour.
No longer...the joys and benefits of privatisation you know.

Post by **refitman** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 6:44 pm

Well, the subject on this email confused me, when I saw it on my phone:

From: David Cameron
Subject: I ❤ Labour

Makes a lot more sense when you read the entire thing:

Hi Daniel — my name is David Cameron. I'm launching a fundraising campaign for Labour today and I need your help. Read on...

The good news: I'm not currently prime minister of the United Kingdom. I'm actually a Labour member from Glasgow.

The better news: I'm doing all I can to kick my namesake out of Number 10, and I think it'd be really funny if David Cameron (me) helped Labour raise £24,000 in the next 24 hours to get rid of David Cameron (prime minister).

I think I'll call it "David Cameron's £24k for Labour (in 24 hours) Challenge."

Daniel, can you chip in a few quid to help hit our target? Whatever you can afford — it takes two minutes to donate:

All donations will help Labour win the election — and when we win, we'll get a brand new government, with good ideas such as raising the minimum wage, getting rid of the Bedroom Tax and scrapping exploitative zero-hours contracts.

And in return, I will be able to show my driving licence without someone taking the mickey out of me.

So, help David Cameron (me) get David Cameron (prime minister) out of Number 10. Donate to "David Cameron's £24k for Labour (in 24 hours) Challenge" now!

Thank you,

David Cameron
Labour member from Glasgow (not Tory leader)

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 6:54 pm

Evening.

Alastair Morgan has written a powerful letter to Rupert Murdoch on the 28th anniversary of Daniel Morgan's murder.
https://fothom.files.wordpress.com/2015 ... rev-rb.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, want to say thanks to PK for her sterling effort in tackling Mike Sivier.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 6:59 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:SNP
I loathe the SNP. A mendacious party. I hate nationalism in all its forms. The left and nationalists are enemies. That is true in all times and places.

If the SNP want to vote for a Labour queens speech, or give Labour a vote if confidence (or abstain) fine.

But we should not pretend that the SNP have any interest in a successful leftwing government of the United Kingdom. They don't.

No deals. They can support Labour or the Tories. Up to them.

Govern as we can, and then call a second election (see 1974).

I agree completely. The SNP's constant cry is 'more for Scotland'. If Scotland gets more, another part of the UK gets less. In my opinion this is a 100% Tory point of view "me, me, me, and stuff anybody else". (It's certainly not socialist).
It is obviously in the SNP's interest to try to engineer a Tory government in Westminster. Trying to split the Labour vote is one way of helping towards this objective.

While I don't often dust off the tinfoil hat, I think there's a degree of truth here:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/david-madd ... -1-3713938

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 7:00 pm

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

margaret-hodge-accused-bullying-hsbc-bosses

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 7:05 pm

Owen Smith has categorically denied that he said what was attributed to him.

As we thought.

I have Tweeted Mike and posted my view on his blog before I saw Owen's response.

I also replied to Owen with a shameless plug for FTN.......

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 7:18 pm

ephemerid wrote:Owen Smith has categorically denied that he said what was attributed to him.

As we thought.

I have Tweeted Mike and posted my view on his blog before I saw Owen's response.

I also replied to Owen with a shameless plug for FTN.......

Mike's not buying it. He's just said to me that nobody had said Smith said what was attributed to him !

So despite the quotes scanned directly from her facebook page, according to Mike Sivier, she didn't say Smith had said it !!

Two minutes spent on her facebook post reveals these instances where she apparently didn't claim Smith said it:

we heard from Owen Smith MP today (a member of the left wing of the of the Labour Party leadership) that it is important for disabled people to continue to die, lest any commitment by Labour to scrap the Work Capability Assessment generate a negative response in the press

But far more upsetting was that NOBODY among the cream of Wales' Labour left challenged what he said or asked him to clarify/confirm his disgusting pronouncement.

but Mike is now RTing all the guff tweeted earlier by Temular because obviously Tem must be right & the rest of us wrong.....

If the fucking Cons get back in again because of the actions of these poxy liars, I hope they will be able to live with themselves because it will be the end for many of us.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 7:29 pm

C4 News saying that one source said that Clarkson punched a producer.

That's instant dismissal stuff - and an assault charge too.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 7:30 pm

pk1 wrote:
ephemerid wrote:Owen Smith has categorically denied that he said what was attributed to him.

As we thought.

I have Tweeted Mike and posted my view on his blog before I saw Owen's response.

I also replied to Owen with a shameless plug for FTN.......
Mike's not buying it. He's just said to me that nobody had said Smith said what was attributed to him !

So despite the quotes scanned directly from her facebook page, according to Mike Sivier, she didn't say Smith had said it !!

Two minutes spent on her facebook post reveals these instances where she apparently didn't claim Smith said it:

we heard from Owen Smith MP today (a member of the left wing of the of the Labour Party leadership) that it is important for disabled people to continue to die, lest any commitment by Labour to scrap the Work Capability Assessment generate a negative response in the press

But far more upsetting was that NOBODY among the cream of Wales' Labour left challenged what he said or asked him to clarify/confirm his disgusting pronouncement.
but Mike is now RTing all the guff tweeted earlier by Temular because obviously Tem must be right & the rest of us wrong.....

If the fucking Cons get back in again because of the actions of these poxy liars, I hope they will be able to live with themselves because it will be the end for many of us.

Both of those individuals have a very skewed view of the world, and are of zero significance in the grand scheme of things. I really wouldn't worry, nobody is listening to them.

Smith should take court action.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 7:33 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:C4 News saying that one source said that Clarkson punched a producer.

That's instant dismissal stuff - and an assault charge too.

Probably, but as a producer your job is to make the program and keep out of the way of the stars.

I suggest that getting into a fracas with Clarkson suggests you have failed in that job description. It isn't really a normal work environment.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 7:34 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:C4 News saying that one source said that Clarkson punched a producer.

That's instant dismissal stuff - and an assault charge too.

He's been suspended and Sunday's 'Top Gear' has been pulled according to the 6 o'clock news.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 7:43 pm

Tory donor windfall for Camerons weeks before party leadership bid

http://gu.com/p/46gvg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shocked. Shocked I tell you.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 7:43 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:C4 News saying that one source said that Clarkson punched a producer.

That's instant dismissal stuff - and an assault charge too.
Probably, but as a producer your job is to make the program and keep out of the way of the stars.

I suggest that getting into a fracas with Clarkson suggests you have failed in that job description. It isn't really a normal work environment.

Bullshit.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 7:56 pm

citizenJA wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:C4 News saying that one source said that Clarkson punched a producer.

That's instant dismissal stuff - and an assault charge too.
Probably, but as a producer your job is to make the program and keep out of the way of the stars.

I suggest that getting into a fracas with Clarkson suggests you have failed in that job description. It isn't really a normal work environment.
Bullshit.

No - modern reality.

A producer is a hired hand, Clarkson is an actual star. I happen to think he is a bit of an arse but he brings in the cash.

These days if you have a racist or sexist component companies exposure to the law is such they won't tolerate it. However I suspect a move sideways and a chunk of compensation for the individual concerned is most likely. If the BBC sack him Clarkson will just move to the competition.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 8:00 pm

Goodnight, everyone.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 8:05 pm

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 8:07 pm

Ultra-right-wing racist representative of sinister organisation poses for photo with Tommy Robinson:

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

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 10 Mar, 2015 8:09 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:C4 News saying that one source said that Clarkson punched a producer.

That's instant dismissal stuff - and an assault charge too.
Probably, but as a producer your job is to make the program and keep out of the way of the stars.

I suggest that getting into a fracas with Clarkson suggests you have failed in that job description. It isn't really a normal work environment.
I can't express just how much I don't agree with that viewpoint.

The real world is money, it is why EC didn't get sacked at ManU for booting a fan - on camera.

Top Gear was the biggest selling DVD in the UK last year. It brings in a huge chunk of the BBC revenue for overseas sales. It is so lucrative the BBC paid Clarkson a fortune to buy him out of the rights.

We are talking hundreds of millions of pounds here.

So yes I rather think the BBC will let this slide.