Thursday 19th March 2015

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 1:53 pm

IFS Post-Budget Briefing 2015
Budget Briefing 2015
Paul Johnson’s opening remarks
March 19 2015

"What’s the difference between Mr Osborne’s £900 better off and Mr Miliband’s £1,600 worse off?

In part the difference arises because Mr Miliband is talking about gross earnings, not net incomes. The latter allows the fuller description of what has happened to household living standards. Earnings have fallen more than other incomes. Employment has risen and pensioners’ incomes have risen. And measures of changes in gross earnings don’t take account of the tax system. If you are a taxpayer and your gross pay falls £1,600 then your net pay will fall by at most £1,100.

In addition Mr Miliband is looking at earnings only up to April 2014. Mr Osborne is relying on forecasts of income through to the end of2015. All of the real increase since 2010 is in the forecast. It occurs in the last year, in 2015. There is no actual increase in the data we have so far.

Finally, don’t forget the range of rather hidden pressures on public spending. Look in table 2.2 of the Red Book, the table that shows the public finance effects of policies announced in previous budgets. You’ll find a figure of £5 billion alongside a line saying “contracting out of NICs”. That is in fact an extra £5 billion of NI contributions required from public sector employers – a £5 billion reduction in spending power. Another £1 billion will be required from them to pay for extra costs of public service pensions.

And once again in this Budget the chancellor has made some unfunded commitments–the help to buy ISA and the extra money for mental health will be paid for by unspecified cuts elsewhere.

The upshot of all this? My guess is that even under a majority Conservative government, annual cuts in public service spending will not turn out much more dramatic than those we have seen over this parliament. We won’t be on the OBR’s rollercoaster. But it is a terrible shame that, despite all the mass of information in the EFO, I am left guessing. Whitehall departments are going to have to plan for some dramatically differing scenarios, one of which they will have to implement in just 12 months time."
(my bold)

http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/budgets/b ... 015_pj.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

'What’s the difference between Mr Osborne’s £900 better off and Mr Miliband’s £1,600 worse off'?

Osborne wants you to believe in something that hasn't happened while Miliband has described reality. Not too difficult to f****** figure out.

'My guess is that even under a majority Conservative government'

Pardon? I beg your god damn pardon? You daft fool what in the world you on about Tory majority government? What is wrong with you? Then the idiot goes on to insult us further by saying the Tories won't really be too terrible after the Tory majority...

edited for formatting clarity

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 1:57 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
citizenJA wrote:I was stupid young at 27 years old.
At 27 I'd been married for nearly ten years and had two children

My daughter was five years old & her daddy & I had been married for two. I had no idea about anything of significance. At least it seems that way to me now. And that's whatever wisdom I've gained right there. I'm just different now.

WelshIan · Post by **WelshIan** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 1:59 pm

citizenJA wrote:
WelshIan wrote:I like the Guardian's display of the polls and poll projections, it's very clean and clear.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng- ... projection" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What do you think about Electoral Calculus? Link below.

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 'Salmond redux' thing is bloody awful. It's complicated, too big (the whole thing doesn't fit on a 20" monitor), the font is too big so that it overlaps the area it is describing - I thought Lab/Nat Coalition was the label for the dot, not the yellowy-green area. It doesn't work and needs to be redesigned or scrapped.

Apart from that, I like the site overall because you can look at the prediction/forecast/guess for each seat.

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 2:02 pm

yahyah wrote:It's also presented us with one of the naffest ever political images, that of Danny Alexander holding his little orange dispatch box.

He'll rue the day he did it. No Lib Dem leader job for him.

No chance of that - he can't be leader when he's not in parliament (:fingers crossed emoticon)

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 2:09 pm

PorFavor wrote:Only 6 more budgets to go, then. Unless the DUP get to do theirs.

Allowing the LibDems to present their own version (at the taxpayers' expense) was wrong.

A couple of quotes BTL on The Graun

andrewjacob
48m ago 3 4
Bravo Alexander. Osborne's fiscal madness must be curtailed.

You Kip andrewjacob
27m ago 3
Not with a yellow box containing some jam butties a freddo bar and a carton of um bongo it wont!

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 2:14 pm

The LibDem's budget must have been the debacle of the year. Even Clegg didn't stay...I wonder if anyone in his party is taking any notice of him?

WelshIan · Post by **WelshIan** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 2:14 pm

100 posts! How did that happen?

I've got some Welsh cakes here to celebrate, help yourselves.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 2:18 pm

I'm beginning to feel embarrassed at the LibDem's so obvious desperation.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 2:19 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Rebecca wrote:IFS saying that Labour could meet its targets without implementing any cuts.
Oh,and guess what,the poor have suffered disproportionately during this govt.
The IFS seem to be getting frustrated with Osborne's refusal to say how £10 billion of his £12 billion social security cuts are going to be made, despite that target having been around for a couple of years.

It's particularly galling that Osborne persistently places 'welfare spending' outside austerity. When he's questioned about all the cuts he's going to have to make, his reply is always along the lines of 'yes but we're going to clamp down on tax avoidance and welfare so not all the cuts will have to come from departmental spending'. So is the DWP not a department any more?

Osborne says he has already made cuts of £21 Billion to what he calls welfare.

Last November, the IFS published a paper called "What is happening to spending on social security" ( http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7447" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) which starts off by saying that the government expected to make a £19 Billion reduction in social security spending.

In fact the reduction is £2.5 Billion between 2010/11 to 2014/15 - so he has failed to reduce spending to anything like £21BN.
It's all explained in the article, and worth a read.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 2:24 pm

WelshIan wrote:100 posts! How did that happen?

I've got some Welsh cakes here to celebrate, help yourselves.

Oh thank you! Seriously, thanks, how'd you know? I've a fresh tea & welsh cake, thank you kindly.

I know my post was long, the quoting from the IFS budget anaylsis, sorry about that, but seriously, incredible! What's the difference between what Osborne says is true & what Miliband says is true? There's an eternity between them.

The wage increase data Osborne tells us about hasn't happened yet.

It is so offensive to be lied to by someone who does it badly, for a worthless little cause - further humiliation this wanker gets to sashay down the street spinning & twinkle twinkle little star

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 2:25 pm

citizenJA wrote:...

God damn Tory governments do nothing but destroy..

Thanks citizenJA and StephenDolan for the links. As for the destruction of Tory governments that is one of the things I find hardest to accept, namely why they're considered good with the economy. The only way they balance the books is by selling publicly owned assets, which is how Osborne is trying to deceive the electorate yet again. 'And they call it a long term economic plan; anything but sustainable.

Looking back to Thatcher's time, which I feel I may do here without it being likened to Godwin's Law, she also wasted the North Sea oil and gas bonanza on massive tax cuts and unemployment. Then there's the selling of social housing whilst preventing their replacement, bank deregulation, which particularly hit small businesses (and her being a grocer's daughter too) plus the introduction of ridiculously high wages in public service, supposedly to attract the most able managers. In practice she attracted the greedy and not those committed to social good.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 2:33 pm

ephemerid wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
Rebecca wrote:IFS saying that Labour could meet its targets without implementing any cuts.
Oh,and guess what,the poor have suffered disproportionately during this govt.
The IFS seem to be getting frustrated with Osborne's refusal to say how £10 billion of his £12 billion social security cuts are going to be made, despite that target having been around for a couple of years.

It's particularly galling that Osborne persistently places 'welfare spending' outside austerity. When he's questioned about all the cuts he's going to have to make, his reply is always along the lines of 'yes but we're going to clamp down on tax avoidance and welfare so not all the cuts will have to come from departmental spending'. So is the DWP not a department any more?

Osborne says he has already made cuts of £21 Billion to what he calls welfare.

Last November, the IFS published a paper called "What is happening to spending on social security" ( http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7447" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) which starts off by saying that the government expected to make a £19 Billion reduction in social security spending.

In fact the reduction is £2.5 Billion between 2010/11 to 2014/15 - so he has failed to reduce spending to anything like £21BN.
It's all explained in the article, and worth a read.

Is it not deplorable Osborne is allowed to occupy his position without the judiciary or a small contingent of dragons laying hold of him, shoving his nose into documented lies he's told & continues to tell daily then throwing him into Tower?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 2:37 pm

@RobertSnozers

Although I thanked you, Robert, the least said of Kelvin MacKenzie the better. I haven't followed your link but believe it's old news, maybe he's spoken up again. Anyway it was in the Guardian well over a year ago, you may have left by then. I can't remember whether or not I commented, but it wouldn't have been polite.

Edit: oh, you didn't provide a link.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 2:42 pm

Tish wrote:
Willow904 wrote: Sorry for the rant. I think my exasperation with idealistic young people who won't vote Labour because, you know, "Iraq" has been simmering under the surface for a while. If you want to be that idealistic you're gonna have to go live on an island somewhere in the South Pacific and shun the modern world in its entirety because everything we do is tainted - from the mobile phone made in a sweatshop in China - to the solar panels made with metals mined by children.
I don't think its just Iraq that puts a lot of young people of Labour, I think its partly becouse they grew up under a Labour government that was in power for nearly all of their lives, so as far as they are concerned Labour are "the establishment" who must be opposed. My sister in law, who was 19 at the last election, voted Tory, basically becouse she felt it was "time for a change," and she had no memory of what the Tories were like last time. She says she won't vote for them again this year, but she won't vote Labour either, becouse she sees them as to blame for everything that ever went wrong with the country during her life up to now.

She's currently trying to decide whether to vote UKIP or Green (!!!), two parties which clearly have absolutely nothing in common, other than their carefully cultivated "outsider stauts." And it's not that she's stupid, she's just woefully uninformed about what any of the parties actually stand for, has no real interest in politics outside of the elections, and gets all of her information from either her parents (who've morphed into full on Daily Mail reading UKIPers in the last five years) or from people on Facebook.

I don't know what Labour can do really to appeal to people like that, I had hoped that the horrors of actually seeing the Tories in action would make them realise that even if Labour aren't perfect they're clearly preferable to the alternative. But maybe that kind of acceptance of reality only comes later in life. I'm pretty sure that young me (a kind of Rik from the Young Ones dressed like Madonna), would have had no truck with such lily livered compromise, so I'm kind of loath to criticise young people for their lack of acceptance of the status quo.

That guy in the Indie does sound like a dick though, especially as he clearly IS well informed and DOES know what the issues and problems are. And refusing to vote for anyone just makes him an irrelevance, at least my sister in law is trying to engage with the system rather than just going "you all suck". And are you still classed as a "young person" when you're 28? Shouldn't you have grown up a bit by then?

Thanks for this and you're quite right. The reason my frustration over young people and the Iraq thing has been simmering under the surface rather than openly expressed is because I know it's basically unfair. I think, like you, I expected more reaction to the horrors of a Tory government leading to a better appreciation of the fact that New Labour just wasn't that bad in comparison. Of course I have to remind myself that I'm comparing New Labour with the tail end of 17 years of Tory neglect, whereas, of course, people with shorter memories are comparing New Labour with just 5 years of Tory rule where chickens have been hatched but have not yet fully come home to roost. It's just really inconvenient for idealistic young people to fall out of love with Labour at a time when it has the best and most idealistic leader since John Smith and an actual chance of winning.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 2:43 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
citizenJA wrote:I was stupid young at 27 years old.

At 27 I'd been married for nearly ten years and had two children

:

I'd been self supporting for 9 years,worked since I left school,did banking exams,and had srn and RM by 27.I definetly would not have classed myself as young.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 2:44 pm

Jason wake retweeted
Gabriel Scally ‏@GabrielScally 4 hrs4 hours ago

Biggest #NHS Trust in UK fails & @Jeremy_Hunt fails to appear in Commons for Urgent Question. @andyburnhammp & @UKLabour MPs rightly angry!

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 2:47 pm

There is no mention of Ed Balls budget response in Sparrows blog,did anyone hear it?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 2:47 pm

IFS Post-Budget Briefing 2015
Budget Briefing 2015
March 19 2015

Paul Johnson, please excuse me for referring to you as a daft idiot insulting the intelligence of readers of your pdf report linked below.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/budgets/b ... 015_pj.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The information you managed to highlight for the edification of the people is commendable if not sufficiently forceful to suit me personally. You did manage to out with the truth about current government have done nothing but cause harm to the nation's least well-off while breaking promises, changing rules & courses of action that have terrorised the populace in a kind of Alice in Wonderland fever dream.

As a personal favour to me, not as a rule, mind, don't hypothesize about Tory majority governments again - to do so dramatically undercuts your professional integrity & anyway it won't happen.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 2:51 pm

Willow904 wrote:
Tish wrote:
Willow904 wrote: Sorry for the rant. I think my exasperation with idealistic young people who won't vote Labour because, you know, "Iraq" has been simmering under the surface for a while. If you want to be that idealistic you're gonna have to go live on an island somewhere in the South Pacific and shun the modern world in its entirety because everything we do is tainted - from the mobile phone made in a sweatshop in China - to the solar panels made with metals mined by children.
I don't think its just Iraq that puts a lot of young people of Labour, I think its partly becouse they grew up under a Labour government that was in power for nearly all of their lives, so as far as they are concerned Labour are "the establishment" who must be opposed. My sister in law, who was 19 at the last election, voted Tory, basically becouse she felt it was "time for a change," and she had no memory of what the Tories were like last time. She says she won't vote for them again this year, but she won't vote Labour either, becouse she sees them as to blame for everything that ever went wrong with the country during her life up to now.

She's currently trying to decide whether to vote UKIP or Green (!!!), two parties which clearly have absolutely nothing in common, other than their carefully cultivated "outsider stauts." And it's not that she's stupid, she's just woefully uninformed about what any of the parties actually stand for, has no real interest in politics outside of the elections, and gets all of her information from either her parents (who've morphed into full on Daily Mail reading UKIPers in the last five years) or from people on Facebook.

I don't know what Labour can do really to appeal to people like that, I had hoped that the horrors of actually seeing the Tories in action would make them realise that even if Labour aren't perfect they're clearly preferable to the alternative. But maybe that kind of acceptance of reality only comes later in life. I'm pretty sure that young me (a kind of Rik from the Young Ones dressed like Madonna), would have had no truck with such lily livered compromise, so I'm kind of loath to criticise young people for their lack of acceptance of the status quo.

That guy in the Indie does sound like a dick though, especially as he clearly IS well informed and DOES know what the issues and problems are. And refusing to vote for anyone just makes him an irrelevance, at least my sister in law is trying to engage with the system rather than just going "you all suck". And are you still classed as a "young person" when you're 28? Shouldn't you have grown up a bit by then?
Thanks for this and you're quite right. The reason my frustration over young people and the Iraq thing has been simmering under the surface rather than openly expressed is because I know it's basically unfair. I think, like you, I expected more reaction to the horrors of a Tory government leading to a better appreciation of the fact that New Labour just wasn't that bad in comparison. Of course I have to remind myself that I'm comparing New Labour with the tail end of 17 years of Tory neglect, whereas, of course, people with shorter memories are comparing New Labour with just 5 years of Tory rule where chickens have been hatched but have not yet fully come home to roost. It's just really inconvenient for idealistic young people to fall out of love with Labour at a time when it has the best and most idealistic leader since John Smith and an actual chance of winning.

The Iraq thing undermined confidence in Labour, but I suspect it's waned as an issue. No one ever mentions it when I'm canvassing. Young - well, most - people aren't into politics because they don't see it as relevant, despite the fact it touches on almost everything in their lives, but they're no different in that respect to many of their elders. I point this out to the 'not interested's on the doorstep and ask them if they value and use the NHS, for example. The answer's always yes, and that's all you need to say. The other thing I say to those (proudly) proclaim themselves to be non voters is to point out to them that no politician will therefore pay any attention to anything they have to say, seeing as they don't vote. There is quite literally no answer to that.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 2:53 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Jason wake retweeted
Gabriel Scally ‏@GabrielScally 4 hrs4 hours ago

Biggest #NHS Trust in UK fails & @Jeremy_Hunt fails to appear in Commons for Urgent Question. @andyburnhammp & @UKLabour MPs rightly angry!

Methinks Burnham is going to tear him a new one for that. Absolutely disgraceful and contemptible conduct.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 2:54 pm

Rebecca wrote:There is no mention of Ed Balls budget response in Sparrows blog,did anyone hear it?

Hang on, you know it's getting more difficult to access that information these days.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 3:00 pm

@ErnstRemarx

Democracy is the victim of its own success, I guess. Hard fought rights and freedoms have made life comfortable, so comfortable many people no longer feel the need to fight and apathy is the result. I'm not sure if there is really a solution for that. Another 5 years of a Tory govt may galvanize a few more people into action, I suppose, but I really hope it doesn't come to that.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 3:08 pm

Rebecca wrote:There is no mention of Ed Balls budget response in Sparrows blog,did anyone hear it?

It was the main budget so EdM responded (protocol)
He did great!

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 3:10 pm

Ed Miliband responds to George Osborne's 2015 Budget - video highlights
(not up on YouTube yet)

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

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 3:15 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
Rebecca wrote:There is no mention of Ed Balls budget response in Sparrows blog,did anyone hear it?
It was the main budget so EdM responded (protocol)
He did great!

I know,but thought Balls responded today.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 3:17 pm

#NewApproach ‏@newapproach_UK 6 mins6 minutes ago

#InActualFact Almost a quarter of disabled people aren't registered to vote

http://disabilitycounts.info/ #DisabilityCounts

That's a bit disturbing. But can see reasons why some aren't. My 18 year old granddaughter who is autistic wouldn't have a clue. She'd do what you told her and where to put her cross, but that doesn't seem right to me.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 3:18 pm

Miliband says IFS confirms Tory cuts would be twice as deep as any this parliament

Ed Miliband has put out a statement welcoming what the IFS has said about the budget. (Andrew Sparrow, Guardian)

Here is a rather good one-liner from the statement -

And on living standards, the chancellor tried to tell people they have never had it so good. In fact, he was a chancellor who has never had it so wrong. (Andrew Sparrow, Guardian)

Edited to remove an empty quote box

Edited again to add -

Or do I mean a two-liner? Any road up, I thought it was rather pithy.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 3:18 pm

Rebecca wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
Rebecca wrote:There is no mention of Ed Balls budget response in Sparrows blog,did anyone hear it?
It was the main budget so EdM responded (protocol)
He did great!
I know,but thought Balls responded today.

I *think* that Balls has his go at the end of the Budget debate, which is a few days off yet?

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 3:19 pm

ohsocynical wrote:#NewApproach ‏@newapproach_UK 6 mins6 minutes ago

#InActualFact Almost a quarter of disabled people aren't registered to vote

http://disabilitycounts.info/ #DisabilityCounts

That's a bit disturbing. But can see reasons why some aren't. My 18 year old granddaughter who is autistic wouldn't have a clue. She'd do what you told her and where to put her cross, but that doesn't seem right to me.

My daughter is registered but I don't take her to vote,likewise she wouldn't have a clue.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 3:24 pm

One of Labour’s Shadow Justice team seems to have taken a practical approach to their brief – by stopping crime in the street. "Dan Jarvis [Labour MP for Barnsley Central]...faced down a man who attempted to take his wallet on the London Underground, simply by saying: “That’s not going to happen.” ...then simply walked away.

Jarvis...:

“This guy came up to me with a bottle and tried to kill me.
“I walked into the Tube and the man, who was clearly very drunk and aggressive, came over and said if I didn’t give him my wallet he would break the bottle over my head.
“I said ‘that’s not going to happen’ and we stood and faced each other off for what seemed like quite a long time.
“I had visions of us rolling around on the platform, but thankfully it didn’t come to that.
“I walked away thinking ‘he’s going to hit me from behind’ but he didn’t and I went and reported it to the police.”

Reports that Dan Jarvis put on a pair of sunglasses as he walked away from the incident have not been confirmed."

http://labourlist.org/2015/03/dan-jarvi ... is-wallet/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would've backed away but Jarvis was on the spot & it worked so who am I to say it's a bad idea to turn your back on a drunk aggressor? It's not likely to be possible to negotiate with a drunk aggressor; the eye contact sounds like it worked though.

I'm still searching for Ed Balls rebuttal - my Linux open source isn't cooperating with Parliamentary audio/video & so far, Ed Ball's name isn't on the list of those who've spoken, according to UK Parliamentary website.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... ebates/#s1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hey, here's a comrade
Adjournment - Shooter's Hill mobile phone mast at Stoke-on-Trent - Robert Flello
Why to go, Sir, get that mobile mast installed & wireless capacity functional.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 3:39 pm

The IFS is saying (according Andrew Sparrow over at the Guardian) that George Osborne is only able to say that debt is falling as a percentage of national income in 2015-16 because he has brought forward assets sales.

He's come unstuck on that before (but shrugged it off), hasn't he? I can't remember the details (telecoms or something similar?). I can't see it being so easy to bat this lot away, though, if it doesn't come up with the right outcome. It's all starting to look rockier by the minute.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 3:46 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote: The Iraq thing undermined confidence in Labour, but I suspect it's waned as an issue. No one ever mentions it when I'm canvassing. Young - well, most - people aren't into politics because they don't see it as relevant, despite the fact it touches on almost everything in their lives, but they're no different in that respect to many of their elders. I point this out to the 'not interested's on the doorstep and ask them if they value and use the NHS, for example. The answer's always yes, and that's all you need to say. The other thing I say to those (proudly) proclaim themselves to be non voters is to point out to them that no politician will therefore pay any attention to anything they have to say, seeing as they don't vote. There is quite literally no answer to that.
My guess is that people who still say they don't vote Labour because of Iraq were never going to anyway. It's the one thing that that the LibDems still have to let them think they can act morally superior to Labour (despite Libya), and it's something the Greens can say to differentiate themselves.

People ought to have realised that the world is a bit more complicated by now. And the Middle East has no right answers.

It's interesting, this.

My daughter (who is 27 now) wanted to go on the anti-war march but her father convinced her not to bother.

She's been in the RAF now for a few years working in intelligence. There's a limit to what she can talk about obviously, but she has told me a few things about ME issues which changed her mind about the rights and wrongs of it all.

A lot of her friends in the military - and she thinks this is true of most of the younger ones - think that the UK military definitely made a difference to people at a local level in Iraq. But, just like in Afghanistan, what they have achieved will simply disappear in time as the insanity of the politics in the area take ascendance again. As it invariably does.

I'm aware that a lot of people think that the rise in Islamic fundamentalism is due to this - I don't agree with that. I think the likes of IS have used the war in Iraq and conflicts elsewhere as a handy recruitment tool, certainly, but the real brains behind all this unrest are not the lunatics we see on the telly. This whole thing is, as always, about money, power, and oil. The people are just fodder.

All this has happened before - in Iran in 1979. That led to a re-drawing of the diplomatic map in the ME and led to new alliances and more wars as time went on. Iran has been run by a theocracy ever since - yet despite the removal of all Western influences and the insistence on Islamic dress codes etc, for women, there are more women going to university and more in politics than there were under the Shah; and the growing economy is much less reliant on oil. I'm not saying that I think a theocracy is a good thing, BTW!

I think many youngsters are anti-war because it goes with the territory of being young; most people don't want war - the issue for me with Iraq was the lies we were told and the toadying to the congenital idiot Dubya. Any other POTUS and it would not have happened.
We have Ed Miliband to thank for Cameron and Obama being prevented from getting us involved in the unholy mess of Syria.

I like to think that people have moved on from Iraq - I've only heard mention of it once or twice in my canvassing.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 3:54 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote: The Iraq thing undermined confidence in Labour, but I suspect it's waned as an issue. No one ever mentions it when I'm canvassing. Young - well, most - people aren't into politics because they don't see it as relevant, despite the fact it touches on almost everything in their lives, but they're no different in that respect to many of their elders. I point this out to the 'not interested's on the doorstep and ask them if they value and use the NHS, for example. The answer's always yes, and that's all you need to say. The other thing I say to those (proudly) proclaim themselves to be non voters is to point out to them that no politician will therefore pay any attention to anything they have to say, seeing as they don't vote. There is quite literally no answer to that.
My guess is that people who still say they don't vote Labour because of Iraq were never going to anyway. It's the one thing that that the LibDems still have to let them think they can act morally superior to Labour (despite Libya), and it's something the Greens can say to differentiate themselves.

People ought to have realised that the world is a bit more complicated by now. And the Middle East has no right answers.

I agree with you, Robert.

Please remember the number of protesters who marched in order to tell Tony Blair & the Labour party not to go into war with the ghastly Bush bastard. Some Labour party MPs listened to their constituents & the rest of the nation & didn't vote for war. That's a fine thing. People don't like it when they feel a thing strongly & find their numbers lodging legitimate complaint effectively ignored. Many best friends marched & felt their protest failing to move Blair to remain out of war as a betrayal. Blair may not have paid the price as others would wish but he's not come out unscathed for his mistake. Ed Miliband declines to know Tony Blair at this time. I don't know any friends continuing to blame the current Labour party for neglect then. Ed Miliband has said it was a bad thing, going to war - it wasn't a good action. I accept his apology. If I thought current Labour party leadership would ignore me again, I'd not be able to support them. My conscience is clear; I'm able to support Labour.

I'm unaware of any Tory who voted against going to war at that time. Perhaps no Tories were against it. But Tories & Labour & all the others representing the people are duty bound to do what is best for the entire nation, not just a few.

It's not fair, Labour having to be better than Tories in conduct, action, word at all times. It's not a just, equitable arrangement Labour party representation having to always maintain higher standards than are required from Tories & others. It's not hard to be more decent than Tory representatives. Decency, competency, conscientious action, competent management isn't too difficult for anyone. I wish current government had done a better job. People would be alive, happier & less frightened. I take no pleasure in the waste current Tory-led coalition government have visited upon the nation.

Ed Miliband has taken a supremely unpopular global leader stance in regards to Palestine & Israel. Ed Miliband won't support aggression against Palestine. God help you, Ed Miliband. Edited to add - I honour Ed Miliband for his pursuit of peace.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 3:55 pm

PorFavor wrote:The IFS is saying (according Andrew Sparrow over at the Guardian) that George Osborne is only able to say that debt is falling as a percentage of national income in 2015-16 because he has brought forward assets sales.

He's come unstuck on that before (but shrugged it off), hasn't he? I can't remember the details (telecoms or something similar?). I can't see it being so easy to bat this lot away, though, if it doesn't come up with the right outcome. It's all starting to look rockier by the minute.

Didn't he do the same with Tax supposedly to be clawed back from Swiss accounts? Included d fantastic sum, and then it was far less.

When you think of just how much he's been allowed to get away with.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 4:02 pm

citizenJA wrote:
One of Labour’s Shadow Justice team seems to have taken a practical approach to their brief – by stopping crime in the street. "Dan Jarvis [Labour MP for Barnsley Central]...faced down a man who attempted to take his wallet on the London Underground, simply by saying: “That’s not going to happen.” ...then simply walked away.

Jarvis...:

“This guy came up to me with a bottle and tried to kill me.
“I walked into the Tube and the man, who was clearly very drunk and aggressive, came over and said if I didn’t give him my wallet he would break the bottle over my head.
“I said ‘that’s not going to happen’ and we stood and faced each other off for what seemed like quite a long time.
“I had visions of us rolling around on the platform, but thankfully it didn’t come to that.
“I walked away thinking ‘he’s going to hit me from behind’ but he didn’t and I went and reported it to the police.”

Reports that Dan Jarvis put on a pair of sunglasses as he walked away from the incident have not been confirmed."

http://labourlist.org/2015/03/dan-jarvi ... is-wallet/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I would've backed away but Jarvis was on the spot & it worked so who am I to say it's a bad idea to turn your back on a drunk aggressor? It's not likely to be possible to negotiate with a drunk aggressor; the eye contact sounds like it worked though.

I'm still searching for Ed Balls rebuttal - my Linux open source isn't cooperating with Parliamentary audio/video & so far, Ed Ball's name isn't on the list of those who've spoken, according to UK Parliamentary website.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... ebates/#s1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hey, here's a comrade
Adjournment - Shooter's Hill mobile phone mast at Stoke-on-Trent - Robert Flello
Why to go, Sir, get that mobile mast installed & wireless capacity functional.

Re Dan Jarvis:
The bad thing:

He and his brother Rob Jarvis are fans of Nottingham Forest F.C.,

The good thing:

During his time in the Parachute Regiment, Jarvis was a platoon commander with 3 Para in Kosovo in 1999, and was with General Sir Mike Jackson at Pristina Airport when Jackson refused the suggestion of his American NATO superior to confront Russian forces. Jarvis later described Jackson's comment to Wesley Clark that he was "not going to start World War Three for you" as a "very surreal moment in my life". Jarvis then served as Jackson's personal staff officer. In 2000 he was deployed to Sierra Leone in the aftermath of Operation Barras to help the Army learn the lessons of the kidnap of a group of troops by an armed rebel group.

Jarvis served in Iraq during Operation Telic and in Afghanistan during Operation Herrick. He was deployed to Afghanistan twice, first as a member of the team making the first reconnaissance trips to Helmand Province in 2005 to 2006 in preparation for a decision on whether to commit British troops there. The second deployment was a six-month tour as a company commander with the Special Forces Support Group, leading a company of 100 troops. He was also deployed to Northern Ireland.

It probably wasn't going to happen.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 4:07 pm

There an excellent article at the Staggers by Frances Ryan on Reeves and Labour.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 4:07 pm

http://aqicn.org/city/united-kingdom/st ... nt-centre/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Air quality degrading.
I can feel the pollution in my head it aches
I know the pollution comes before I check the website for the reading.
My asthmatic partner works in a climate controlled environment & I'm grateful for that during times like this.
It smells like the nineteenth century coming through the window.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 4:18 pm

I'm sure I read that the broadcasters were expecting to put out a statement this morning on the agreement reached between them & the party leaders on the TV debates.

I haven't seen any statement nor heard anything about it today.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 4:20 pm

"Our latest estimates suggest that Labour would be able to meet its fiscal targets with no cuts at all after 2015-16"

Paul Johnson, IFS

I'm guessing he means that Labour's spending plans are indeed fully costed & don't rely on cuts. If indeed, that is what he means, I say well done Ed Balls !

Paul Johnson is a speaker at a public event in my constituency soon. I have purchased my ticket & if he has any further good news to share, I will share it with you

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 4:21 pm

Removed.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 4:26 pm

pk1 wrote:I'm sure I read that the broadcasters were expecting to put out a statement this morning on the agreement reached between them & the party leaders on the TV debates.

I haven't seen any statement nor heard anything about it today.

Yes, you're quite correct.

UK broadcasters are expected to confirm that the first TV election debate featuring the party leaders will go ahead next week, with David Cameron and Ed Miliband interviewed separately by Jeremy Paxman.

It is thought that the announcement on Thursday will also confirm the formats for the rest of the debates, and that there are unlikely to be substantial changes to the proposals which Downing Street claimed on Tuesday to have agreed with broadcasters. (Guardian - my emphasis)

I haven't heard anything today so far.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -next-week

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 4:32 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
ephemerid wrote:There an excellent article at the Staggers by Frances Ryan on Reeves and Labour.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Given the clarifications that both Reeves and Gentleman have made I can't agree with you that this article is "excellent". Sorry.
I just get 'page not found'. What's it about?

Try this link:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... e-are-scum" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I didn't read it after seeing the much-derided 'quote' by Reeves because I doubt it's value when the article is based on a 'quote' taken out of context, despite the original author (Amelia Gentleman) confirming her own question to Reeves was missing from the subsequently published piece in the Graun.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 4:42 pm

ephemerid wrote:There an excellent article at the Staggers by Frances Ryan on Reeves and Labour.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That links not working, only article I can find is some woman giving the "I'm not voting Labour because...." line, is that it?
(edit to say no its not, wrong author)

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 4:45 pm

@Frightful_oik
Thank you for the information about Dan Jarvis. It's wonderful you've educated me about his career. Sounds like an interesting person.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/barnsleycentral/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

During his time in the Parachute Regiment, Jarvis was a platoon commander with 3 Para in Kosovo in 1999, and was with General Sir Mike Jackson at Pristina Airport when Jackson refused the suggestion of his American NATO superior to confront Russian forces. Jarvis later described Jackson's comment to Wesley Clark that he was "not going to start World War Three for you" as a "very surreal moment in my life". Jarvis then served as Jackson's personal staff officer. In 2000 he was deployed to Sierra Leone in the aftermath of Operation Barras to help the Army learn the lessons of the kidnap of a group of troops by an armed rebel group.

Jarvis served in Iraq during Operation Telic and in Afghanistan during Operation Herrick. He was deployed to Afghanistan twice, first as a member of the team making the first reconnaissance trips to Helmand Province in 2005 to 2006 in preparation for a decision on whether to commit British troops there. The second deployment was a six-month tour as a company commander with the Special Forces Support Group, leading a company of 100 troops. He was also deployed to Northern Ireland.

Dan Jarvis [Labour MP Barnsley Central]

http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_youngbrit.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 4:51 pm

Rebecca wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
citizenJA wrote:I was stupid young at 27 years old.
At 27 I'd been married for nearly ten years and had two children :

I'd been self supporting for 9 years,worked since I left school,did banking exams,and had srn and RM by 27.I definetly would not have classed myself as young.

Apologies for not spotting this comment sooner, Rebecca, please excuse me.
I didn't have your strength of character or resolve when I was 27 years old.
I don't know if I have it now; I've given more thought about the time I've lived today.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 4:53 pm

pk1 wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote: Given the clarifications that both Reeves and Gentleman have made I can't agree with you that this article is "excellent". Sorry.
I just get 'page not found'. What's it about?
Try this link:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... e-are-scum" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I didn't read it after seeing the much-derided 'quote' by Reeves because I doubt it's value when the article is based on a 'quote' taken out of context, despite the original author (Amelia Gentleman) confirming her own question to Reeves was missing from the subsequently published piece in the Graun.

I read the article. The best thing about it was this, I thought:

“Are you the welfare party?” “We are the party of a living wage for people going to work in the morning and dignified support for anyone unable to,” is an answer that can be said proudly. (New Statesman)

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 4:54 pm

PorFavor wrote:
I read the article. The best thing about it was this, I thought:

“Are you the welfare party?” “We are the party of a living wage for people going to work in the morning and dignified support for anyone unable to,” is an answer that can be said proudly. (New Statesman)

Nice line, that.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 4:55 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Jason wake retweeted
Gabriel Scally ‏@GabrielScally 4 hrs4 hours ago

Biggest #NHS Trust in UK fails & @Jeremy_Hunt fails to appear in Commons for Urgent Question. @andyburnhammp & @UKLabour MPs rightly angry!

Okay - this is what I meant about different standards of conduct being applied when there should be none. I'd read about the biggest NHS Trust failure & then find out Junt doesn't show up for work. That's not okay. Fire him.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 4:56 pm

citizenJA wrote:I'm trying to avoid clicking the 'thank you' button because the webpage takes too long to reload. I read your posts, friends, & thank you all for them.

I'm joining you in that endeavour, today, cJA. In part because of reloading but also because:
a) I might be guilty of over-thanking – I really appreciate everyone's posts and think they're all brilliant so it's difficult to select particularly appreciated ones,
b) the not-rechargeable batteries in the mouse have died and I can't get to the shop today, and I'm using a clunky jerky ancient one from my Blueberry iMac
c) my poor little right handy-pandy is all hurty - everybody say awww and kiss better

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 4:57 pm

citizenJA wrote:@Frightful_oik
Thank you for the information about Dan Jarvis. It's wonderful you've educated me about his career. Sounds like an interesting person.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/barnsleycentral/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
During his time in the Parachute Regiment, Jarvis was a platoon commander with 3 Para in Kosovo in 1999, and was with General Sir Mike Jackson at Pristina Airport when Jackson refused the suggestion of his American NATO superior to confront Russian forces. Jarvis later described Jackson's comment to Wesley Clark that he was "not going to start World War Three for you" as a "very surreal moment in my life". Jarvis then served as Jackson's personal staff officer. In 2000 he was deployed to Sierra Leone in the aftermath of Operation Barras to help the Army learn the lessons of the kidnap of a group of troops by an armed rebel group.

Jarvis served in Iraq during Operation Telic and in Afghanistan during Operation Herrick. He was deployed to Afghanistan twice, first as a member of the team making the first reconnaissance trips to Helmand Province in 2005 to 2006 in preparation for a decision on whether to commit British troops there. The second deployment was a six-month tour as a company commander with the Special Forces Support Group, leading a company of 100 troops. He was also deployed to Northern Ireland.
Dan Jarvis [Labour MP Barnsley Central]

http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_youngbrit.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jarvis was not the only person involved in that Pristina Airport incident who has subsequently found fame in another arena. A recce unit of the Household Cavalry was ordered by Wesley Clark to forcibly take the airport from the Russians; the captain in charge of the unit, when he arrived at the airport, was not happy with those orders and queried them with Jackson, who backed him 100% and which led to that "World War Three" quote. Captain James Hillier Blount is now better known, of course, as singer/songwriter James Blunt.