Forum rules Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.
Children in care "get a raw deal" and the government is not doing enough to help them, MPs have said in a report.
In particular the Department for Education shows "alarming reluctance to play an active role" in improving the lot of these children, say the MPs.
Poor local services are too often left to "fester" says the report by the Commons Public Accounts Committee.
But a DfE spokesman said the report "purposefully" ignored "very real progress" made by government.
The "Chair's Comments" (that's Margaret Hodge) can be read here:
This piece appeared yesterday, a fabulous piece of one sided character assassination. I have no clue as to the truth of the story the guy is bringing up.
Re Hodge, what that article says is all true, the facts of it have been reported in both the alternative and the mainstream media for quite a few years. If the CSA enquiry ever gets started I fully expect Hodge to be called to give evidence as to what she did and didn't know about organised abuse at Islington children's homes, and why she failed to act when informed about it be whistleblowers.
As to whether that makes her the wrong person to head the Public Accounts Committee, I couldn't say. It certainly made her the wrong person to be Children's Minister under Blair, but in her current role she's clearly very effective, and the constant attacks on her demonstrate that. But this story from her past does undermine a lot of the work that she does, the PAC has a report out this morning on the way the state fails children in care, and my first thought was that regardless of what it might say, all people will focus on is how Margaret Hodge can have the nerve to comment on such a thing after what happened in Islington. And that was before I even saw this article in the Indy.
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Apparently HSBC bigwigs have friends at the Indy.
This piece appeared yesterday, a fabulous piece of one sided character assassination. I have no clue as to the truth of the story the guy is bringing up.
Seems to have been dropped off the Indy pages though.
It's what they call whataboutery.
Yes, it appears that there was child abuse going on while she was there at Islington but that's got nothing to do with her role on the PAC and certainly nothing to do with HSBC. Stick to one story at a time.
Did he mention the fact that Tories on the committee are blocking the PAC having Lord green appear before them?
Nope.
So why are they not being hypocritical given the fuss over the Crystal Methodist last year?
If I'm not here, then I'll be in the library. Or the other library.
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Apparently HSBC bigwigs have friends at the Indy.
This piece appeared yesterday, a fabulous piece of one sided character assassination. I have no clue as to the truth of the story the guy is bringing up.
Seems to have been dropped off the Indy pages though.
Aftmorneveternoon (crescent?)...
After reading that I'm a bit confused....it seems the thrust of the piece is to denounce an elected representative for trying, at least in part, to get some sort of clarity from the obfuscation around HSBC (and connections to illegality, tax evasion/avoidance and the hierarchy of the Tory party), through the role created by other elected representatives to hold various bodies to account for Public Spending. By linking to CSA (If Hodge has questions to answer re CSA (which it would seem she might, as might Mr Vaz), they are nothing compared to those needing to be answered by the Tory hierarchy (PIE hidden in St Annes Gate Government Office, to disappear from public view for quite a while - in 1979 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ffice.html) and the 'vigilant' press) and the 'family tax' thing without mentioning the same in relation to HSBC would seem to indicate that the inestimable Mr Norman might be 'on the list'...ex Daily Nazigraph journo? Nah...he definitely wouldn't be on any list anywhere, 'coz people who work for and own the Nazigraph are fully focused on 'holding power to account' (an account in Switzerland, possibly?).
WRT Clarkson....1) Are we sure this isn't just another publicity wheeze? (Remember THAT numberplate?) I'm fairly sure that, as Clarkson is a hyperfriend and admirer of Rebukakakakaka, the mantra would be all publicity is good publicity...the more column inches that are written, the more the money rolls in.
2) He used to be one of the 'Untouchables' (as above, friend of Rebukakakakaka/'beacon of sanity' within the Murkydochian press) but the mask has been slipping for a while now - many Murkydochian/Brookesian favourites (Chair of Culture, Media & Sport Select Committee and half-brother of someone or other, John Whittingdale, was a 'facebook friend' of rebukakakakaka) are in a state of confusion....the orders from Rupe and Murkydochia haven't been all that clear (We love the SNP...oh, hang on, what do you
mean they're 'left-wing'?/UKIP are brill....whaddya mean they're racist? That's OK, as long as it doesn't make it into the media...oh, hang on...)
...and 3)...really? Being punched by Clarkson?...was it like this?
Children in care "get a raw deal" and the government is not doing enough to help them, MPs have said in a report.
In particular the Department for Education shows "alarming reluctance to play an active role" in improving the lot of these children, say the MPs.
Poor local services are too often left to "fester" says the report by the Commons Public Accounts Committee.
But a DfE spokesman said the report "purposefully" ignored "very real progress" made by government.
The "Chair's Comments" (that's Margaret Hodge) can be read here:
That page also contains links to the full report – and is scathing in its criticism of the DfE.
I'm starting to wonder - what is the point of MPs and Select Committees? They investigate, analyse and report on the success or otherwise of the Government of the day...but as this is still unanswered and relates to the national finances from 2011/12 - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12 ... 30765.html - and nothing is ever done following the blatant lying and ignoring of truth and evidence...why are they there?
Edit to add: I'm confident Mr Ed will address this...so I continue to live in Hope (north of Peterborough and close to Landslide)
Proud to be 1 of the 76% - Solidarity...because PODEMOS
Wondering the same myself about select committees, when the Right Honorable Secretary of State for Work & Pensions can blatantly lie and obfuscate in front of the committee members without any real repercussion, followed by his minions like McVey doing the same with a cheesy grin on her gobshite face, they don't hold any power to bring the executive to account.
I want to shed a bit of light on the claims made yesterday that the WCA kills people. It doesn't.
This is a very silly and exaggerated claim which does nothing to assist the campaign to have it scrapped.
The oft-quoted 10,600 figure comes from a statistical release issued in response to FOI requests.
It has been misinterpreted and seized upon in some quarters as evidence that the WCA kills.
The release says this - in 2010 to 2011, 728,740 people came off IB, ESA, or SDA (Severe Disablement Allowance)
IB and SDA are in the process of being abolished, and at that point there were still many people claiming them.
Of the 728,740 people who came off all those benefits, only 6% had a date of death recorded. 41,750 people.
This does not mean that 6% died, it means that DWP only knows about the date of death of 6%.
There is a "churn" in sickness benefits, because about 750,000 people every year claim for a very short time and do not have a WCA.
In the last year the release cites, a similar number came off benefits - but it does not say if they had a WCA or not.
So we don't know if the number cited is the usual churn or people taken off benefits following a WCA.
That is what it says in Table 1 and all it tells us is that 6% of people who come off benefit for any reason were known to have died.
Table 2 tells us that 310 people died after coming off ESA - who were previously claiming IB and who had already been reassessed.
Of those, 230 had been in the Support Group and 80 had been in the WRAG.
The release correctly points out that it has no figures for people who died after a fit-for-work decision or while waiting for appeal.
Table 3 is the one that caused the uproar, and its contents have been widely misunderstood and misinterpreted.
It says that the total number of claimants leaving ESA with a recorded date of death was 10,600.
These claimants are the ones which DWP knew about - there may be more it didn't know about and it does not have any information on claimants who were waiting for appeal or who were found fit for work; the deaths occurred within 6 weeks of the claims ending.
NB - some of these claims may have been closed BECAUSE the claimant died and the relatives informed DWP. We simply don't know.
Of the 10,600, 2,200 had not had their first WCA. So the WCA did not kill them. They died anyway, and we don't know if that was expected and we don't know if it happened during their claim or after the claim had been closed.
7,100 had been in the Support Group. A higher death rate would be expected in this cohort because they are the most ill.
As DWP had judged them too ill to work, it could be argued that in these cases the WCA got it right.
As with the un-assessed cohort, we have no idea exactly when in the claim the death occurred.
1,300 had been in the WRAG. We do not know if these claimants were sicker than their group allocation would imply or not.
As with the other two cohorts, we have no idea exactly when in the claim the death occurred.
So - of the 10,600 people who died, two-thirds of them had been in the Support Group. Thus more likely to die than the others.
As we do not know how DWP knows they died and as we do not know how or when their claims ended, it doesn't tell us much.
The WCA is not responsible for their claims closing or their deaths - they were in the group giving most support and we do not know why they stopped claiming. It is entirely possible that their claims were closed because they died. That applies to the 2,200 who had no WCA.
The only worrying thing is the WRAG cohort - 1,300 people who were judged capable of work-related activity died in the period examined; although we don't know how their claims ended, we do know that they were probably more ill than their group status would suggest.
The fact is that a computer algorithm cannot kill people. There is plenty wrong with the WCA and the LIMA it's based on, without claiming that it is responsible for the deaths of claimants.
The WCA, the Atos/Maximus people who conduct it, the DWP, the decision makers, are collectively responsible for bad assessments, bad decision making, and the removal of benefits from people who need them and/or the imposition of work-related activity on people too ill to comply.
The effects on health all that results in are well-documented, and there is no question that ill people are dying with no support. But to say that the WCA is killing people at the rate of 73 a week is wrong, and campaigners do themselves no favours by insisting it's true.
Liza Van Zyl wrote - "We heard from Owen Smith today....that it is important for disabled people to continue to die..."
This is a statement which claims Owen Smith said "that it is important for disabled people to die".
If she "heard from Owen Smith" she is claiming that he said it.
Mike Sivier and the various people who claim otherwise are clearly unable to comprehend English.
It is not acceptable to lie about what someone says, however well-meaning your agenda.
To attempt to bolster this libel by dismissing concerns from others is reprehensible.
Nobody has died purely because of the WCA.
Many have died with no support because the WCA and all its' sequelae in combination has left people destitute.
We have no idea how many of those people would have died anyway because they are already very ill.
We have no idea how many of those people would have survived had they been given the support they needed.
Mike Sivier, in his determination to deny what Liza Van Zyl actually wrote, is not helping the campaign to scrap the WCA.
He has demonstrated a lack of respect for other (dare I say more knowledgeable) campaigners with this insistence on an untruth.
The post I made on the offending blog yesterday has not been published. In it, I asked for some common sense on this, and an admission that Owen Smith did not say what he was accused of.
This is not only very disappointing, it is not helping.
"Poverty is the worst form of violence" - Mahatma Gandhi
Maybe we should petition Parliament to get a select committee to investigate the select committees.
My (oft repeated) position is that we need a full public inquiry into all the laws/legislation/sell-offs/re-organisation of public services that have been enacted/implemented since 1979 (I'm not saying things were perfect in 1979, but the path taken has never been for the benefit of the people as a whole), in light of the manipulation by Murkydochia (Orgreave/Miners Strike/Hillsborough/Iraq War etc), the ThatcherSo-vile connections, we need to investigate to enure the decisions were the correct ones....like the various under-the-radar privatisations of public services....where did Serco/A4E/G4S etc etc come from again? (Rhetorical )
Proud to be 1 of the 76% - Solidarity...because PODEMOS
I want to shed a bit of light on the claims made yesterday that the WCA kills people. It doesn't.
This is a very silly and exaggerated claim which does nothing to assist the campaign to have it scrapped.
The oft-quoted 10,600 figure comes from a statistical release issued in response to FOI requests.
It has been misinterpreted and seized upon in some quarters as evidence that the WCA kills.
The release says this - in 2010 to 2011, 728,740 people came off IB, ESA, or SDA (Severe Disablement Allowance)
IB and SDA are in the process of being abolished, and at that point there were still many people claiming them.
Of the 728,740 people who came off all those benefits, only 6% had a date of death recorded. 41,750 people.
This does not mean that 6% died, it means that DWP only knows about the date of death of 6%.
There is a "churn" in sickness benefits, because about 750,000 people every year claim for a very short time and do not have a WCA.
In the last year the release cites, a similar number came off benefits - but it does not say if they had a WCA or not.
So we don't know if the number cited is the usual churn or people taken off benefits following a WCA.
That is what it says in Table 1 and all it tells us is that 6% of people who come off benefit for any reason were known to have died.
Table 2 tells us that 310 people died after coming off ESA - who were previously claiming IB and who had already been reassessed.
Of those, 230 had been in the Support Group and 80 had been in the WRAG.
The release correctly points out that it has no figures for people who died after a fit-for-work decision or while waiting for appeal.
Table 3 is the one that caused the uproar, and its contents have been widely misunderstood and misinterpreted.
It says that the total number of claimants leaving ESA with a recorded date of death was 10,600.
These claimants are the ones which DWP knew about - there may be more it didn't know about and it does not have any information on claimants who were waiting for appeal or who were found fit for work; the deaths occurred within 6 weeks of the claims ending.
NB - some of these claims may have been closed BECAUSE the claimant died and the relatives informed DWP. We simply don't know.
Of the 10,600, 2,200 had not had their first WCA. So the WCA did not kill them. They died anyway, and we don't know if that was expected and we don't know if it happened during their claim or after the claim had been closed.
7,100 had been in the Support Group. A higher death rate would be expected in this cohort because they are the most ill.
As DWP had judged them too ill to work, it could be argued that in these cases the WCA got it right.
As with the un-assessed cohort, we have no idea exactly when in the claim the death occurred.
1,300 had been in the WRAG. We do not know if these claimants were sicker than their group allocation would imply or not.
As with the other two cohorts, we have no idea exactly when in the claim the death occurred.
So - of the 10,600 people who died, two-thirds of them had been in the Support Group. Thus more likely to die than the others.
As we do not know how DWP knows they died and as we do not know how or when their claims ended, it doesn't tell us much.
The WCA is not responsible for their claims closing or their deaths - they were in the group giving most support and we do not know why they stopped claiming. It is entirely possible that their claims were closed because they died. That applies to the 2,200 who had no WCA.
The only worrying thing is the WRAG cohort - 1,300 people who were judged capable of work-related activity died in the period examined; although we don't know how their claims ended, we do know that they were probably more ill than their group status would suggest.
The fact is that a computer algorithm cannot kill people. There is plenty wrong with the WCA and the LIMA it's based on, without claiming that it is responsible for the deaths of claimants.
The WCA, the Atos/Maximus people who conduct it, the DWP, the decision makers, are collectively responsible for bad assessments, bad decision making, and the removal of benefits from people who need them and/or the imposition of work-related activity on people too ill to comply.
The effects on health all that results in are well-documented, and there is no question that ill people are dying with no support. But to say that the WCA is killing people at the rate of 73 a week is wrong, and campaigners do themselves no favours by insisting it's true.
Liza Van Zyl wrote - "We heard from Owen Smith today....that it is important for disabled people to continue to die..."
This is a statement which claims Owen Smith said "that it is important for disabled people to die".
If she "heard from Owen Smith" she is claiming that he said it.
Mike Sivier and the various people who claim otherwise are clearly unable to comprehend English.
It is not acceptable to lie about what someone says, however well-meaning your agenda.
To attempt to bolster this libel by dismissing concerns from others is reprehensible.
Nobody has died purely because of the WCA.
Many have died with no support because the WCA and all its' sequelae in combination has left people destitute.
We have no idea how many of those people would have died anyway because they are already very ill.
We have no idea how many of those people would have survived had they been given the support they needed.
Mike Sivier, in his determination to deny what Liza Van Zyl actually wrote, is not helping the campaign to scrap the WCA.
He has demonstrated a lack of respect for other (dare I say more knowledgeable) campaigners with this insistence on an untruth.
The post I made on the offending blog yesterday has not been published. In it, I asked for some common sense on this, and an admission that Owen Smith did not say what he was accused of.
This is not only very disappointing, it is not helping.
Thanks for that.
It's tangentially akin to the Julie Bailey\Cure the NHS thing. Distorts the issues and makes people afraid to say that although improvements are needed within the NHS it must, notwithstanding, be protected at all costs (not that that's the case with the WCA, I hasten to add).
Michael Grade is the latest Tory peer to get in a huff about the debates, again with threats specifically aimed at the BBC, rather than all four channels.
"But as far as I know it’s still a free country and politicians of all parties have a free choice in whether they take part of not. If they decide, or any one of them decides, not to take part it’s not for the broadcasters then to go ahead without them. That is a political statement."
First part of that, of course. Anyone can refuse to participate. But then why shouldn't the broadcasters go ahead without them? How is that a political statement? There never really seems to be any explaination in any of these complaints about what exactly the broadcasters are doing that is so wrong.
I had a brain fart yesterday, i went into a bit of a meltdown over the Mike Sivier tweet, i'm a tad ashamed that actually fell for it hook line & sinker It was only after ephie filled us in with her excellent knowledge & background on the original Facebook poster that the penny dropped. I feel a bit of a twat now that i believed it Sivier on the other hand could cost ppl a lot more than a hissy fit, if not directly, then by losing Lab votes from disabled people.
I wasn't the only one who retweeted it tho' - the brilliant Prof. Samuel Miller who has been leading a campaign to try and get IDS charged with human rights abuses at the UN also retweeted it, and like myself swiftly deleted it.
Highly irresponsible of Sivier to broadcast that message to his readers. I was feeling a bit miserable before that anyhow over the whole WCA palarva, and if i fell for it big time (usually when ppl are at a low ebb and vulnerable they are more open to suggestion, hence this is how Moonies & other cults manage to recruit doctors & lawyers etc)
I used to be a CWU rep many years ago, i thought i was intelligent enough to give this a wide berth, but he has a good reputation otherwise, in fact he is usually the first to defend Lab critics who post on his blog, but to play devils advocate, or if you prefer shit stir over such an important issue (libel aside) - - if i can get worked up enough to want to assume , mistakenly that disabled people weren't getting a fair deal then what effect would Siviers pig headedness have on someone borderline suicidal ? There are people i know whom this would tip over the edge.
I can't get my head around it , what is he up to ?
Last edited by Toby Latimer on Wed 11 Mar, 2015 10:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
' Please let’s have no more headline grabbing from Labour candidates between now and Polling Day. The same goes for any retiring MPs in East Coast fishing ports with colourful turns of phrase and a liking for publicity. It’s not all about you as an individual, it’s about the Labour Party, our unity, our members, our voters, our manifesto, our team working as a team. To quote Attlee to the rent-a-quote Laski in 1945 “a period of silence on your part would be welcome”. ' http://labourlist.org/2015/03/lets-have ... lling-day/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Another depressing looking poll for Labour this morning. But look at the data. Labour clearly ahead in the unweighted sample.
I'm not against weighting, but surely there could be some more discussion of how the weightings are being done.
Morning.
I've just had a closer look at that Yougov poll and it throws up some interesting questions. The London sample has been weighted up a lot, presumably because London was under represented in the survey responses. The weighted sample puts the Tories in the lead in London (34% to Labour's 33%) which is at odds with recent specific polling for London that suggests Labour is well ahead there. In other words, where Yougov has tried to fill in the gaps in an under represented region, it appears its methodology isn't creating a very accurate prediction.
In some ways this isn't surprising because accurate methodologies are based on observed past effects and therefore it's hard to create an accurate methodology when the future - a six horse race - is so different from anything that has happened before. The real question for me is why did Yougov change their methodology after they were one of the closest predictors of the European elections?
"Fall seven times, get up eight" - Japanese proverb
"The post I made on the offending blog yesterday has not been published. In it, I asked for some common sense on this, and an admission that Owen Smith did not say what he was accused of. "
You're not alone there.
Graeme Burrell (@cadoret) last night tweeted Sivier:
I am in touch with a few of the Spartacus people, and those of you who are Twits will be familiar with one called HossyLass.
She took Mike to task yesterday, but as with us from here he would not back down.
The difficulty for me is this - if respected bloggers and writers insist on misinterpreting and misrepresenting statistics, they are as guilty as IDS.
They are doing exactly the same thing.
A few years ago, when the "73 people die a week" thing was headline news, I was among many who made a fuss about it. That was in 2012.
Then I read some real research.
HossyLass (who co-authored the various Spartacus reports) is extremely knowledgeable on this, and her recommendations for some serious reading include stuff by Nick at ilegal, Brian Wernham, and others - who she describes as "dangerous" to government in a way that other well-known bloggers aren't. She's right.
Nobody will take any notice of hysterical and misinformed rants about this. People who might otherwise support campaigns will rapidly lose interest if they think these bloggers and activists are spouting nonsense.
People like Owen Smith, who is the the left of Labour (the only thing Liza Van Zyl got right) is exactly the sort of person who we want on board; he has influence, and alienating him through libel will get us nowhere.
I am heartily sick of this constant Labour-bashing by people whose best interests will be served by offering support for Labour in exchange for meaningful dialogue and a commitment to reform.
I do not approve of either Reeves or Green and the things they have said so far - but I am also aware that they and Labour are currently prioritising their election chances and they must be cautious.
I don't like it - but I know why they're doing it. If they do not engage with what people are saying once they're in office, that will be the time to withdraw support and call them names or whatever floats your boat.
I am at the receiving end of these appalling policies, but I am manifestly not a victim.
People with disabilities cannot have it both ways.
If they want autonomy and fair treatment, it does not behove them to squeal "victim" at every opportunity - nor does it help me or anyone else when they resort to hyperbole and libel.
Liza Van Zyl claims that her long term mental health conditions do not affect her judgement or her ability to represent the whole of Wales' anti-austerity movement, whilst simultaneously bursting into tears when she hears something that wasn't actually said or being a victim of all manner of iniquities too numerous to go into here.
She cannot have it both ways. I don't doubt that there is truth in some of her complaints, I don't doubt that her illness causes her some problems, and I don't doubt that she is sincere - but she has done the cause she claims to espouse inestimable damage and it would appear she has convinced her many followers that what she alleges is true.
Clearly, Mike Sivier and Jemahl Evans know her and are convinced that she heard what she says she heard. Despite this, they are saying that she didn't write what she wrote and that what I have seen on the link Mike supplied in his blog doesn't exist. It's absolutely ridiculous.
How anyone could think that shenanigans of this order will help to get the WCA scrapped is beyond me. It's damaging the credibility of all the good people who have worked so hard to get some pragmatism into the debate, and it's insulting to one of the few people in Owen Smith who is accessible enough to actually listen. It's attention-seeking, specious, and self-defeating bilge.
"Poverty is the worst form of violence" - Mahatma Gandhi
Paper reweighting.
-------------- UnW W
Sun/Star 168 321
Guardian 145 70
How can they be consistently spectacularly wrong when it comes to this, compared to other UnW figures?
Hmm.
I don't understand your post. Would you explain it to me, please?
Yougov polling results have generally been showing unweighted and weighted results roughly the same stats for sex, location, age, etc. Paper reading habits and reweighting are consistently miles out. Consistently the scum/Star are increasing by 50% and Guardian decreased by 50%. Given that the other raw, unweighted data is not far off the expected weighted category data, and the paper reading habits in the unweighted are pretty consistent, does this indicate that the reweighting is flawed (especially given that these are scum/YouGov polls)?
Paper reweighting.
-------------- UnW W
Sun/Star 168 321
Guardian 145 70
How can they be consistently spectacularly wrong when it comes to this, compared to other UnW figures?
Hmm.
I don't understand your post. Would you explain it to me, please?
Yougov polling results have generally been showing unweighted and weighted results roughly the same stats for sex, location, age, etc. Paper reading habits and reweighting are consistently miles out. Consistently the scum/Star are increasing by 50% and Guardian decreased by 50%. Given that the other raw, unweighted data is not far off the expected weighted category data, and the paper reading habits in the unweighted are pretty consistent, does this indicate that the reweighting is flawed (especially given that these are scum/YouGov polls)?
Paper reweighting.
-------------- UnW W
Sun/Star 168 321
Guardian 145 70
How can they be consistently spectacularly wrong when it comes to this, compared to other UnW figures?
Hmm.
Stephen I've mentioned the Sun issue before. The Sun suffered a massive drop in readership after it introduced its paywall. So, it must be hard to find enough Sun readers to meet the weighting quota. This may well mean that hard core Sun readers' views are overrepresented in every Yougov.
So Sivier was going to talk with another person who was at the meeting. Strange then that he didn't appear to get confirmation of the allegation against Smith.
That is what is so telling about this whole episode - a public meeting where an MP is alleged to have said "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 and affect Labour's general election chances." yet there has been no other report of this having been said ! Not one single soul other than Liza, has claimed Smith said anything so revolting & by golly, I think there would have been papers full to the brim of it if he had !
Poor Mike - he fell for it hook, line & sinker. The very least he could do is show some humility & admit he was wrong then apologise to Smith for repeating what appears to have been an emotional reaction by somebody not liking what she heard, albeit that she didn't hear what she thinks she did. An additional blog post admitting he got it wrong would go some way to restoring his credibility if he can't bring himself to deleting the offending blog that started this whole sorry tale.
Thank you for your post Ephe, you have helped calm me down considerably. As one who is (thankfully) neither sick or disabled I found the exchanges yesterday very trying - in a not very good way. Sympathy/ empathy for those who do need help and support began to drain as my exasperation grew, especially on reading the FB thread. I was seriously near the "you know what? if you don't like it lump it!" stage - not a normal emotion/ reaction from me.
Feeling a little more like myself again - thank you.
MS has now published your reply on his blog, and replied to it in a dismissive way.
Thank you again for bringing me back to earth and re-establishing my normal empathy for people who have to live with difficulties that I don't have to face (and - fingers crossed, and a fair wind - hope I will not have to).
Paper reweighting.
-------------- UnW W
Sun/Star 168 321
Guardian 145 70
How can they be consistently spectacularly wrong when it comes to this, compared to other UnW figures?
Hmm.
I guess more people read the Sun/Star than Guardian? With all paper circulations so low these days, however, I think it's right to question the usefulness of them as a means of creating a representative poll. It can come across as just excuse to ensure a good right-wing showing if you weight up a small sample of Sun readers so heavily.
None of these tweeks would do much good if Labour were far enough ahead, though. The Labour collapse in Scotland is the only real movement from a year ago and it has cost them dearly. All in all, Labour are holding up pretty well in England and Wales, you just can't see it because of the drop in Scottish support suppressing the national figures. This is again why using past patterns as a basis for predicting the future is of limited use. All the seat calculators assume Scotland is still in the national game but it isn't, yet this isn't being taken into account when assessing how many seats current percentages will give Labour in rUK. As AK pointed out a few days ago, if Rees-Mogg is on course to lose his seat to Labour, no 72 on their target list, that would point to Labour gaining enough in Eng & Wales for a majority regardless of Scotland. It's all still to play for and remember all the narrow polls in the last Presidential election may have created the impression the election was "too close to call" but they couldn't change the reality that it really wasn't. If Rees-Moggy is really in danger then things are looking better than may superficially appear. (Predictive text came up with Rees-Moggy. I rather like it!)
"Fall seven times, get up eight" - Japanese proverb
Williams said Sturgeon and Alex Salmond were currently outmanoeuvring the coalition. "They are, at the moment, screwing both the parties in government for almost everything they can possibly get beyond what they are really entitled to," she said.
"They are asking for things they would be entitled to if they had won the referendum. Although they have got a remarkable machine, I accept that, and a remarkable campaign, what they haven’t been reasonable about is they can not expect to get everything form the UK that they would have got if they had won the referendum."
Williams also expressed concern about the "quite nasty streak in parts of the SNP" that was exposed during the referendum campaign. "It's not a tolerant party. They really tried to take journalists to the cleaners if they make any remarks unfairly of the SNP. That’s less true of the new first minister [Sturgeon] than it was of the previous first minister [Salmond] but its still quite serious. Not serious politically, but serious nationally and for the nature of the county and it worries me a bit," she said.
Has this woman forgotten that the fight to save the Union was nearly lost ?
Using expressions like "beyond what they are really entitled to" and "It's not a tolerant party" is spectacularly unhelpful at mending the antagonism between Scotland & England.
Of course, if that means more Scots vote SNP rather than Labour, her & her cohorts may well hold the balance of power so I suppose in their case, it would be 'job done'.
Disgusting little party & I will forever be ashamed that I helped put them into government in 2010. Unlike them though, I won't sell my soul for a second time !
Paper reweighting.
-------------- UnW W
Sun/Star 168 321
Guardian 145 70
How can they be consistently spectacularly wrong when it comes to this, compared to other UnW figures?
Hmm.
I guess more people read the Sun/Star than Guardian? With all paper circulations so low these days, however, I think it's right to question the usefulness of them as a means of creating a representative poll. It can come across as just excuse to ensure a good right-wing showing if you weight up a small sample of Sun readers so heavily.
None of these tweeks would do much good if Labour were far enough ahead, though. The Labour collapse in Scotland is the only real movement from a year ago and it has cost them dearly. All in all, Labour are holding up pretty well in England and Wales, you just can't see it because of the drop in Scottish support suppressing the national figures. This is again why using past patterns as a basis for predicting the future is of limited use. All the seat calculators assume Scotland is still in the national game but it isn't, yet this isn't being taken into account when assessing how many seats current percentages will give Labour in rUK. As AK pointed out a few days ago, if Rees-Mogg is on course to lose his seat to Labour, no 72 on their target list, that would point to Labour gaining enough in Eng & Wales for a majority regardless of Scotland. It's all still to play for and remember all the narrow polls in the last Presidential election may have created the impression the election was "too close to call" but they couldn't change the reality that it really wasn't. If Rees-Moggy is really in danger then things are looking better than may superficially appear. (Predictive text came up with Rees-Moggy. I rather like it!)
The US presidential election being too close to call was a narrative pushed by Karl Rove. Nate Silver dismantled this flawed logic and nailed every state if memory serves me correctly. The US media (deliberately?) misinterpreting the state polling was shocking. For a single state being ahead 53% to 47% in an accumulation of all that state polls doesn’t give you a 53% chance of winning.
The final bit of the withdrawal of Prospect Academies from sponsoring schools. This is the one that I wrote about last year which operates out of Bromley but had schools in Gloucester, Torbay,Totnes, and Bexhill
And just to repeat the blurb that was on their website...
What people say "Prospects Academies Trust is absolutely dedicated to students!"
Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education.
Oops.
The chap in charge at Prospects was before the Select Committee - I ought to go back and remind myself what he said - it wasn't very complimentary about the DfE IIRC.
If I'm not here, then I'll be in the library. Or the other library.
"The post I made on the offending blog yesterday has not been published. In it, I asked for some common sense on this, and an admission that Owen Smith did not say what he was accused of. "
You're not alone there.
Graeme Burrell (@cadoret) last night tweeted Sivier:
"The post I made on the offending blog yesterday has not been published. In it, I asked for some common sense on this, and an admission that Owen Smith did not say what he was accused of. "
You're not alone there.
Graeme Burrell (@cadoret) last night tweeted Sivier:
He doesn't delete criticism, he silences it.
Yes, I saw he had blocked you.
Such petulant behaviour is typical of someone who knows they have lost the argument.
"The post I made on the offending blog yesterday has not been published. In it, I asked for some common sense on this, and an admission that Owen Smith did not say what he was accused of. "
You're not alone there.
Graeme Burrell (@cadoret) last night tweeted Sivier:
He doesn't delete criticism, he silences it.
Yes, I saw he had blocked you.
Such petulant behaviour is typical of someone who knows they have lost the argument.
Arrogance and petulance ran through all his posts yesterday. It started with his reply to you in which he loftily informed you that he understood the libel laws better than you because "he was a journalist" (He is a blogger, nothing more) and carried on from there; I did something unforgivable, I made take a good look at what he had done that day and he didn't like what he saw - easier to block me than admit what a fool he had been.
Willow904 wrote: As AK pointed out a few days ago, if Rees-Mogg is on course to lose his seat to Labour, no 72 on their target list, that would point to Labour gaining enough in Eng & Wales for a majority regardless of Scotland. It's all still to play for and remember all the narrow polls in the last Presidential election may have created the impression the election was "too close to call" but they couldn't change the reality that it really wasn't. If Rees-Moggy is really in danger then things are looking better than may superficially appear. (Predictive text came up with Rees-Moggy. I rather like it!)
There's another positive aspect to the polls too. One of the things they (?sometimes) weight for is Tory voters being more likely to turn out on the day. The closer the polls are, the more Labour supporters should be likely to get out and vote.
One staff member with more than two decades of experience told the survey: "I have never in all my career felt as stressed, unsatisfied and under pressure as I do now."
Another said: "I have seen four different people crying at their desks because they cannot cope with work over the last two weeks."
I will put this here since I am the subject of some posts. Robert knows grammar, I am sure he will point out if I am incorrect.
Hi Andrea,
Just to clarify since your making claims about me on FTN.
Firstly grammar.
You state on FTN
This is a statement which claims Owen Smith said "that it is important for disabled people to die".
That statement does not appear in the article by Mike. If it had I would have been screaming libel with you.
There is no attributed direct quote saying that Owen said anything of the sort,
The three paragraphs that come from LVZ are all within quotation marks as coming from her with close quotes at the end of the final extract. That clearly defines that it is her statement. Within those quotation marks there is only one unattributed quote that could (but not clearly) be attributed to Owen (By LVZ not Mike) which is ‘soft on welfare’. There is also a statement attributed but not quoted(because the opening quote there denotes the continuation of the extract).
He said that while he personally doesn’t like the WCA, his Labour colleagues will not support scrapping it because of fears it will play badly with the right wing press and damage Labour’s electoral chances…
Again, it is not a direct quote but presumably LVZ paraphrasing.
Now, you can call that Nick Robinsonesque reporting and I wouldnt argue with you, but you cannot state it is libel, nor can you say Mike said Owen said this, nor can you that about LVZ. Mike has correctly punctuated it as a journo, and from what I can see LVZ has been very careful in her punctuation on facebook. If you want to take issue with the inference in the article I have no problems with that! Take it up with Mike and LVZ, that has never been my argument; I simply pointed out consistently that the article wasn't libel and made no claims to what O smith said.
My grammar isn't brilliant, my editor constantly complains I overuse commas, but I really do understand attribution and quotation, and at the moment all I am doing is checking grammar and punctuation!
Just to point out, I dont know Mike Sivier other than reading his blog now and again, and had never heard of LVZ until yesterday when this jumped into my twitter timeline. You really shouldnt make assumptions about me.
My brother finally got through his third hearing and DWP have upheld his appeal on all grounds, and all his support returned (although he is still waiting for arrears). I think the ex-services/ ptsd/ diabetic combination spooked them after recent press but apparently he can go away and not worry about it again. Thanks for your help with that, it really helped him get his head together.
I'm also going to say something else. Everyone on here is concerned about the upcoming election and perhaps even the greens splitting the left wing vote or the damage that can be done to Labour's election chances. Indeed it is often so bitter I no longer post here.
I know of at least two green constituency groups in labour/tory marginals, whose decision to stand a candidate in the next election was swayed by behavior on this site. Maybe think about that hey before unleashing the attack dogs.
pk1 wrote:Interesting snippet from LVZ's facebook thread.
So Sivier was going to talk with another person who was at the meeting. Strange then that he didn't appear to get confirmation of the allegation against Smith.
That is what is so telling about this whole episode - a public meeting where an MP is alleged to have said "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 and affect Labour's general election chances." yet there has been no other report of this having been said ! Not one single soul other than Liza, has claimed Smith said anything so revolting & by golly, I think there would have been papers full to the brim of it if he had !
Poor Mike - he fell for it hook, line & sinker. The very least he could do is show some humility & admit he was wrong then apologise to Smith for repeating what appears to have been an emotional reaction by somebody not liking what she heard, albeit that she didn't hear what she thinks she did. An additional blog post admitting he got it wrong would go some way to restoring his credibility if he can't bring himself to deleting the offending blog that started this whole sorry tale.
I have a suspicion that the person he was going to phone might be Jemahl - who tweeted "lol you sent my phone into meltdown" and "they don't want to comment on the WCA, it's shoot the messenger and ignore the message"
I got one from him too - "Ephy, I respect you very much, the article really really doesn't say that"
If either Mike or Jemahl read this, I am offering my small contribution on the comprehension of the English language, viz:
"We have heard from Owen Smith" - one person calling herself "we" heard noises emanating from Owen Smith which she reported verbatim and those noises were or sounded the same as "it is important for disabled people to continue to die".
Mike has based an article on his blog on that statement made by one person who could not have heard what she says she heard because Owen Smith did not say it. Even if you do not accept his denial, had he actually said this, it would have been widely reported in my opinion - and that IS just an opinion, it is not fact. There is a difference and it seems not everyone understands that.
Time to move on. I will take what Mike Sivier posts in future with a pinch of salt, and I will assume that anything Liza Van Zyl posts anywhere should be scrutinised before I can give it any credence.
Now I'm off to watch PMQs.
"Poverty is the worst form of violence" - Mahatma Gandhi
Temulkar wrote:I'm also going to say something else. Everyone on here is concerned about the upcoming election and perhaps even the greens splitting the left wing vote or the damage that can be done to Labour's election chances. Indeed it is often so bitter I no longer post here.
I know of at least two green constituency groups in labour/tory marginals, whose decision to stand a candidate in the next election was swayed by behavior on this site. Maybe think about that hey before unleashing the attack dogs.
I didn't realise FTN had such power and influence Tem.
pk1 wrote:Interesting snippet from LVZ's facebook thread.
So Sivier was going to talk with another person who was at the meeting. Strange then that he didn't appear to get confirmation of the allegation against Smith.
That is what is so telling about this whole episode - a public meeting where an MP is alleged to have said "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 and affect Labour's general election chances." yet there has been no other report of this having been said ! Not one single soul other than Liza, has claimed Smith said anything so revolting & by golly, I think there would have been papers full to the brim of it if he had !
Poor Mike - he fell for it hook, line & sinker. The very least he could do is show some humility & admit he was wrong then apologise to Smith for repeating what appears to have been an emotional reaction by somebody not liking what she heard, albeit that she didn't hear what she thinks she did. An additional blog post admitting he got it wrong would go some way to restoring his credibility if he can't bring himself to deleting the offending blog that started this whole sorry tale.
I have a suspicion that the person he was going to phone might be Jemahl - who tweeted "lol you sent my phone into meltdown" and "they don't want to comment on the WCA, it's shoot the messenger and ignore the message"
I got one from him too - "Ephy, I respect you very much, the article really really doesn't say that"
If either Mike or Jemahl read this, I am offering my small contribution on the comprehension of the English language, viz:
"We have heard from Owen Smith" - one person calling herself "we" heard noises emanating from Owen Smith which she reported verbatim and those noises were or sounded the same as "it is important for disabled people to continue to die".
Mike has based an article on his blog on that statement made by one person who could not have heard what she says she heard because Owen Smith did not say it. Even if you do not accept his denial, had he actually said this, it would have been widely reported in my opinion - and that IS just an opinion, it is not fact. There is a difference and it seems not everyone understands that.
Time to move on. I will take what Mike Sivier posts in future with a pinch of salt, and I will assume that anything Liza Van Zyl posts anywhere should be scrutinised before I can give it any credence.
Now I'm off to watch PMQs.
I sent you an email 3 mins or so ago pointing out I dont know either of them and they certainly wouldnt be calling me, I wasnt at the meeting and my argument has consistently about the grammatical points of attribution and punctuation.
Andrea, you can easily contact me or ask me rather than making incorrect assumptions about me, cant you.
Temulkar wrote:I'm also going to say something else. Everyone on here is concerned about the upcoming election and perhaps even the greens splitting the left wing vote or the damage that can be done to Labour's election chances. Indeed it is often so bitter I no longer post here.
I know of at least two green constituency groups in labour/tory marginals, whose decision to stand a candidate in the next election was swayed by behavior on this site. Maybe think about that hey before unleashing the attack dogs.
Temulkar wrote:I'm also going to say something else. Everyone on here is concerned about the upcoming election and perhaps even the greens splitting the left wing vote or the damage that can be done to Labour's election chances. Indeed it is often so bitter I no longer post here.
I know of at least two green constituency groups in labour/tory marginals, whose decision to stand a candidate in the next election was swayed by behavior on this site. Maybe think about that hey before unleashing the attack dogs.
I didn't realise FTN had such power and influence Tem.
You would be surprised at how many people of all parties read this place then.
within the Murkydochian press) but the mask has been slipping for a while now - many Murkydochian/Brookesian favourites (Chair of Culture, Media & Sport Select Committee and half-brother of someone or other, John Whittingdale, was a 'facebook friend' of rebukakakakaka) are in a state of confusion....the orders from Rupe and Murkydochia haven't been all that clear (We love the SNP...oh, hang on, what do you 
)
