Thursday 14th May 2015

[AngryAsWell]

All this talk of Tristram got me thinking. What he needs is an appearance on some Q&A show, serious or comedic, but one where he faces down that opinionated historian who never stfu. His name escapes me as I type but but am about to Google before I post...

Put me out of my misery someone. The search term 'opinionated historian' does not give the expected result, but I'm sure you know who I mean; he's always popping up on the Beeb giving us his view..

David Starkey

[Willow904]

All this talk of Tristram got me thinking. What he needs is an appearance on some Q&A show, serious or comedic, but one where he faces down that opinionated historian who never stfu. His name escapes me as I type but but am about to Google before I post...

Put me out of my misery someone. The search term 'opinionated historian' does not give the expected result, but I'm sure you know who I mean; he's always popping up on the Beeb giving us his view..

David Starkey?

[ohsocynical]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 48313.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 38124.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 27933.html

I wonder if Cameron was thinking of Russell Brand when he was deciding on the Human Rights Act.

[ohsocynical]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 47245.html

Apologies if this link has already been posted. And - if it hasn't should I put it with the other Contenders?

[Swarthlander]

Not wishing to offend, Swarthlander, but I want to know, can we count on you? Which are you? The one really giving it to 'em or the one peering out from behind Eric Pickles?

Who would want to be behind Eric Pickles? I'm sure there's as much hot air coming from his rear orifice as there is his front.

The story with my bins is a long one. Basically, for years, I used to have to drag the bins a couple of hundred yards down a rough lane to be emptied and then drag them back again every week. Not a fun job in foul weather. During the winter I had the regular job of picking the recycle stuff out from a field drainage ditch because of strong winds blowing the bins over or a fox looking for a snack. A couple of years ago, after a long and tiresome discussion with the council, they agreed to send the wagon down the lane and all has been well until now.
Last week they did not empty the recycle bin (blue), this week they have not emptied the waste bin (green). I have emailed the council and I await to see what happens. Otherwise, out comes my pichfork to aid a re-discussion.

[utopiandreams]

Btw forget what I said of Tristram and Starkey. Something in my dim-witted mind confused Tristram with Dan Snow. I cannot imagine why; that's where historian came from.

[pk1]

Piece here by Survation on Labour candidates & how people view them.

http://survation.com/next-labour-leader ... d-present/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AnatolyKasparov]

How about Keir Starmer? He has "gravitas", experience out of politics (was Director of Public Prosecutions) comes across well on camera, will be able to sort the torys HRA mess out.....and the right name as well!

We just can't have somebody elected last week as Labour's new leader. Sorry

Dan Jarvis was only elected in October 2013 ....
Everyone keeps saying we want someone new
(he wont stand anyway was just tossing names around in my head and his popped up)

No, in March 2011 - so he's been an MP for most of the last parliament (and, indeed, a front bencher for much of it)

[AngryAsWell]

What about Chris Leslie, on R5 now and its reminding me he was one who was out and about on TV during the campaign and handled AN very well
Edit to change "AS" to AN

[Willow904]

Btw forget what I said of Tristram and Starkey. Something in my dim-witted mind confused Tristram with Dan Snow. I cannot imagine why; that's where historian came from.

Ha! Because you were actually making sense there. Tristram is an historian. Not entirely unlike Dan Snow.

[AngryAsWell]

We just can't have somebody elected last week as Labour's new leader. Sorry

Dan Jarvis was only elected in October 2013 ....
Everyone keeps saying we want someone new
(he wont stand anyway was just tossing names around in my head and his popped up)

No, in March 2011 - so he's been an MP for most of the last parliament (and, indeed, a front bencher for much of it)

You are right! no idea where I got that from

[utopiandreams]

Not wishing to offend, Swarthlander, but I want to know, can we count on you? Which are you? The one really giving it to 'em or the one peering out from behind Eric Pickles?

Who would want to be behind Eric Pickles? I'm sure there's as much hot air coming from his rear orifice as there is his front.

The story with my bins is a long one. Basically, for years, I used to have to drag the bins a couple of hundred yards down a rough lane to be emptied and then drag them back again every week. Not a fun job in foul weather. During the winter I had the regular job of picking the recycle stuff out from a field drainage ditch because of strong winds blowing the bins over or a fox looking for a snack. A couple of years ago, after a long and tiresome discussion with the council, they agreed to send the wagon down the lane and all has been well until now.
Last week they did not empty the recycle bin (blue), this week they have not emptied the waste bin (green). I have emailed the council and I await to see what happens. Otherwise, out comes my pichfork to aid a re-discussion.

Thanks for enlightening me, Swarthlander. I trust you knew I was joking.

Whilst on the topic it's bloody terrible living in a flat. We have separate bins but shared recycling ones. Sometimes annoying when others use yours but not having a lot it's rarely a problem. The recyclers however are a different matter. Someone invariably puts land-fill refuse in it. I guess that's magic too as it's never anybody else when asked; workmen decorating a flat this week I think. It generally means having to store rubbish, often ending up taking it in my car.

[utopiandreams]

Btw forget what I said of Tristram and Starkey. Something in my dim-witted mind confused Tristram with Dan Snow. I cannot imagine why; that's where historian came from.

Ha! Because you were actually making sense there. Tristram is an historian. Not entirely unlike Dan Snow.

Thanks, Willow. It was afterwards that I doubted myself and then came up with Dan Snow and wondered why I was so confused. Don't answer that!

[ohsocynical]

Another viewpoint on why Labour lost. I don't enjoy reading them, but it's best to bite the bullet!

https://stevetopple.wordpress.com/2015/ ... d-for-all/

[Swarthlander]

Thanks for enlightening me, Swarthlander. I trust you knew I was joking.

I always assume the best in people.

My bin problem is nothing serious, it's just that I pay council tax... hrumph! mutter....mutter...whinge....

[AngryAsWell]

Piece here by Survation on Labour candidates & how people view them.

http://survation.com/next-labour-leader ... d-present/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I lost trust in polls & polling companies during the campaign, so would rather wait to see what the candidates have to say themselves, than trust Survation

[AngryAsWell]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 47245.html

Apologies if this link has already been posted. And - if it hasn't should I put it with the other Contenders?

May as well add it to his "page" so we can keep track of what was said when

[Willow904]

Another viewpoint on why Labour lost. I don't enjoy reading them, but it's best to bite the bullet!

https://stevetopple.wordpress.com/2015/ ... d-for-all/

The criticisms of Labour are all fair enough but the complete and utter faith in the integrity and goodness of the SNP and Greens is rather frightening. I'd hoped that the Libdem experience had cured people of this. Power corrupts and vested interests seek to corrupt all who hold it. We pick the best defence against the vested interests that we can, but anyone who thinks their perfect party won't be sullied by the realities and compromises of real responsibility is being unrealistic. Ed did a good job of wrestling the Labour party back from the Thatcherites, but I guess it was just too soon for many to accept that the ghost of Blair had been put to bed. I guess they'll never understand that their rejection of Ed, because they disliked Blair, will be the fundamental reason behind any Blair resurrection.

[ohsocynical]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 47245.html

Apologies if this link has already been posted. And - if it hasn't should I put it with the other Contenders?

May as well add it to his "page" so we can keep track of what was said when

Done

[ohsocynical]

Another viewpoint on why Labour lost. I don't enjoy reading them, but it's best to bite the bullet!

https://stevetopple.wordpress.com/2015/ ... d-for-all/

The criticisms of Labour are all fair enough but the complete and utter faith in the integrity and goodness of the SNP and Greens is rather frightening. I'd hoped that the Libdem experience had cured people of this. Power corrupts and vested interests seek to corrupt all who hold it. We pick the best defence against the vested interests that we can, but anyone who thinks their perfect party won't be sullied by the realities and compromises of real responsibility is being unrealistic. Ed did a good job of wrestling the Labour party back from the Thatcherites, but I guess it was just too soon for many to accept that the ghost of Blair had been put to bed. I guess they'll never understand that their rejection of Ed, because they disliked Blair, will be the fundamental reason behind any Blair resurrection.

A lot of people will be nodding their heads, because the speed with which the Blairites have come out of the woodwork, proves they really didn't go away...

[AngryAsWell]

Another viewpoint on why Labour lost. I don't enjoy reading them, but it's best to bite the bullet!

https://stevetopple.wordpress.com/2015/ ... d-for-all/

The criticisms of Labour are all fair enough but the complete and utter faith in the integrity and goodness of the SNP and Greens is rather frightening. I'd hoped that the Libdem experience had cured people of this. Power corrupts and vested interests seek to corrupt all who hold it. We pick the best defence against the vested interests that we can, but anyone who thinks their perfect party won't be sullied by the realities and compromises of real responsibility is being unrealistic. Ed did a good job of wrestling the Labour party back from the Thatcherites, but I guess it was just too soon for many to accept that the ghost of Blair had been put to bed. I guess they'll never understand that their rejection of Ed, because they disliked Blair, will be the fundamental reason behind any Blair resurrection.

A lot of people will be nodding their heads, because the speed with which the Blairites have come out of the woodwork, proves they really didn't go away...

No they don't go away, but if Ed had won they would have had no influence on policy and would only have been able to turn themselves in to various version of Dan Hodges.

[SpinningHugo]

I expect the hustings will be important just like they were last time. Ed seized the moment then - will anybody now?

And what a disaster that was. He won with keynote policies of

(a) a graduate tax to replace fees

and

(b) a living wage

Only faint echoes of (b) were retained once he won.

And by being able to say (wholly implausibly) that he opposed the Iraq War, something for which there was no evidence before the hustings began.

I rather like Chuka, but he appeals to the London metropolitan Guardian reading Labour party (ie me), and although the vote there held up very well, it is everywhere else that is the problem.

[pk1]

deleted

[Willow904]

Another viewpoint on why Labour lost. I don't enjoy reading them, but it's best to bite the bullet!

https://stevetopple.wordpress.com/2015/ ... d-for-all/

The criticisms of Labour are all fair enough but the complete and utter faith in the integrity and goodness of the SNP and Greens is rather frightening. I'd hoped that the Libdem experience had cured people of this. Power corrupts and vested interests seek to corrupt all who hold it. We pick the best defence against the vested interests that we can, but anyone who thinks their perfect party won't be sullied by the realities and compromises of real responsibility is being unrealistic. Ed did a good job of wrestling the Labour party back from the Thatcherites, but I guess it was just too soon for many to accept that the ghost of Blair had been put to bed. I guess they'll never understand that their rejection of Ed, because they disliked Blair, will be the fundamental reason behind any Blair resurrection.

A lot of people will be nodding their heads, because the speed with which the Blairites have come out of the woodwork, proves they really didn't go away...

Then it's up to Labour members to unequivocally reject them. They're part of the past and offer no solutions for the future. I'm not about to let Ed's influence be batted away that easily. He started the change. The next leader needs to move that on and bring more fresh ideas of their own. At least Andy Burnham is saying the right things, I just wish he was saying them more convincingly and I could be confident that he has the strength of character to forge his own way.

[SpinningHugo]

I also think Burnham and Cooper share a heavy responsibility for the defeat.

It was their job as senior people to go to Miliband at the latest a year ago and say they would resign unless he went. The frontbench were cowards.

[StephenDolan]

I expect the hustings will be important just like they were last time. Ed seized the moment then - will anybody now?

And what a disaster that was. He won with keynote policies of

(a) a graduate tax to replace fees

and

(b) a living wage

Only faint echoes of (b) were retained once he won.

And by being able to say (wholly implausibly) that he opposed the Iraq War, something for which there was no evidence before the hustings began.

I rather like Chuka, but he appeals to the London metropolitan Guardian reading Labour party (ie me), and although the vote there held up very well, it is everywhere else that is the problem.

It's the C, D and E voters Labour need to get voting. Turkeys may not vote for Christmas but they don't appear to be willing to vote against it either.

[Willow904]

I expect the hustings will be important just like they were last time. Ed seized the moment then - will anybody now?

And what a disaster that was. He won with keynote policies of

(a) a graduate tax to replace fees

and

(b) a living wage

Only faint echoes of (b) were retained once he won.

And by being able to say (wholly implausibly) that he opposed the Iraq War, something for which there was no evidence before the hustings began.

I rather like Chuka, but he appeals to the London metropolitan Guardian reading Labour party (ie me), and although the vote there held up very well, it is everywhere else that is the problem.

Not exactly helpful. Who do you think would bring in votes from a wider section of the population? What do you think of Tristram Hunt?

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Btw forget what I said of Tristram and Starkey. Something in my dim-witted mind confused Tristram with Dan Snow. I cannot imagine why; that's where historian came from.

Ha! Because you were actually making sense there. Tristram is an historian. Not entirely unlike Dan Snow.

Thanks, Willow. It was afterwards that I doubted myself and then came up with Dan Snow and wondered why I was so confused. Don't answer that!

To give him his full title, he is Dr Tristram Hunt FRHistS (Fellow of the Royal Historical Society); Dan Snow is a proper historian (he got a first-class honours in Modern History) but Hunty is a seriously proper historian whose speciality is urban history. Oh, and he was a member of the Footlights at the same time as Mitchell and Webb.

I'd love to see him on Question Time with David Starkey for whom he has, quite famously, utter contempt both as an historian and for his political views; he does pretty well on QT (notwithstanding the nuns furore, a typical piece of MSM faux outrage), saw him take down Melanie Phillips pretty effectively last year. And on a later edition he and Caroline Lucas showed remarkable unanimity on the question of how to deal with misguided youths who go out to join ISIL -don't simply punish them, but try to learn what motivated them, use that to dissuade others and rehabilitate them if necessary/possible.

I agree with AK in that his time at Education has been patchy, although he has done some good work too; but I'd also argue that he has a lot more to offer and we have yet to see the best of Dr Hunt.

[tinybgoat]

“The deliberations in Westminster are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the north of England. The northern cities feel far greater affinity with their Scottish counterparts such as Glasgow and Edinburgh than with the ideologies of the London-centric south.

“The needs and challenges of the north cannot be understood by the endless parade of old Etonions lining the frontbenches of the House of Commons.

“The north of England should join the newly independent Scotland and regain control over its own destiny.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/th ... ay-5692916" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Using the hashtag #TakeUsWithYou Scotland, the call appears to have originated in Sheffield.

Paul?




Just jesting.

Don't like this idea, it shoves boundary through Sheffield:-

https://www.change.org/p/the-uk-governm ... n-scotland
14,353 signed so far.

[ohsocynical]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -christmas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm trying to take in all the whys and wherefores. It's doing my head in!

[PorFavor]

Well, I'm alright, Jack! (Just joking.)

FORMER armed forces minister Mark Francois has been appointed the new minister for Portsmouth, The News can reveal. (News)

Another day, another "Minister for Portsmouth".

[SpinningHugo]

I expect the hustings will be important just like they were last time. Ed seized the moment then - will anybody now?

And what a disaster that was. He won with keynote policies of

(a) a graduate tax to replace fees

and

(b) a living wage

Only faint echoes of (b) were retained once he won.

And by being able to say (wholly implausibly) that he opposed the Iraq War, something for which there was no evidence before the hustings began.

I rather like Chuka, but he appeals to the London metropolitan Guardian reading Labour party (ie me), and although the vote there held up very well, it is everywhere else that is the problem.

Not exactly helpful. Who do you think would bring in votes from a wider section of the population? What do you think of Tristram Hunt?

(i) A woman.

(ii) Hunt is a joke candidate.

[PorFavor]

And what a disaster that was. He won with keynote policies of

(a) a graduate tax to replace fees

and

(b) a living wage

Only faint echoes of (b) were retained once he won.

And by being able to say (wholly implausibly) that he opposed the Iraq War, something for which there was no evidence before the hustings began.

I rather like Chuka, but he appeals to the London metropolitan Guardian reading Labour party (ie me), and although the vote there held up very well, it is everywhere else that is the problem.

Not exactly helpful. Who do you think would bring in votes from a wider section of the population? What do you think of Tristram Hunt?

(i) A woman.

(ii) Hunt is a joke candidate.

Do you have any particular woman\en in mind? Or do you mean Yvette Cooper - who won't be getting my vote, for the record.

[AngryAsWell]

And what a disaster that was. He won with keynote policies of

(a) a graduate tax to replace fees

and

(b) a living wage

Only faint echoes of (b) were retained once he won.

And by being able to say (wholly implausibly) that he opposed the Iraq War, something for which there was no evidence before the hustings began.

I rather like Chuka, but he appeals to the London metropolitan Guardian reading Labour party (ie me), and although the vote there held up very well, it is everywhere else that is the problem.

Not exactly helpful. Who do you think would bring in votes from a wider section of the population? What do you think of Tristram Hunt?

(i) A woman.

(ii) Hunt is a joke candidate.

So Cooper or Kendall - neither appeals to me, no way can I see Kendall on the world stage, and Cooper comes across to me as wooden.

[SpinningHugo]

Not exactly helpful. Who do you think would bring in votes from a wider section of the population? What do you think of Tristram Hunt?

(i) A woman.

(ii) Hunt is a joke candidate.

Do you have any particular woman\en in mind? Or do you mean Yvette Cooper - who won't be getting my vote, for the record.

My preference was for Creasy (as already expressed). But we know she is not standing.

So, my next best is Kendall.

After her, Cooper I suppose, although a very bland choice. I can see the problems with going for Umunna, although if the world were a better place I'd back him.

If we go for Burnham we have a death wish. Hunt is just a figure of fun, in my view.

[Willow904]

And what a disaster that was. He won with keynote policies of

(a) a graduate tax to replace fees

and

(b) a living wage

Only faint echoes of (b) were retained once he won.

And by being able to say (wholly implausibly) that he opposed the Iraq War, something for which there was no evidence before the hustings began.

I rather like Chuka, but he appeals to the London metropolitan Guardian reading Labour party (ie me), and although the vote there held up very well, it is everywhere else that is the problem.

Not exactly helpful. Who do you think would bring in votes from a wider section of the population? What do you think of Tristram Hunt?

(i) A woman.

(ii) Hunt is a joke candidate.

A woman for the sake of being a woman would be a disaster.

Why is Hunt a joke?

[TheGrimSqueaker]

And what a disaster that was. He won with keynote policies of

(a) a graduate tax to replace fees

and

(b) a living wage

Only faint echoes of (b) were retained once he won.

And by being able to say (wholly implausibly) that he opposed the Iraq War, something for which there was no evidence before the hustings began.

I rather like Chuka, but he appeals to the London metropolitan Guardian reading Labour party (ie me), and although the vote there held up very well, it is everywhere else that is the problem.

Not exactly helpful. Who do you think would bring in votes from a wider section of the population? What do you think of Tristram Hunt?

(i) A woman.

(ii) Hunt is a joke candidate.

Thank you for your reasoned input SH, it was most valuable.

[seeingclearly]

Morning Dan and tc2, yahyah, and utopiandreams.

After my very long response to Willow yesterday on the sanctions-figures-that-make-no-sense-as-usual, those of you who read it (and I hope you settled down with a flask and sandwiches...) may have noticed that the ONS claimant count figures which the government quotes do not as yet include people claiming the JSA element of UC. The ONS calculates them separately as "experimental" rather than "official" statistics.

At the last count, there were 35,600 UC single straightforward claimants on the JSA element who count as unemployed, actively seeking work, etc. like their ordinary JSA counterparts but with extra UC rules on top. They will steadily increase in number as UC gets rolled out; also slowly increasing is the number of couples making a joint claim whose status is also fairly straightforward.

Starting now, is the UC roll-out for people who work and claim tax credits being put on to UC - all new claims for tax credits in this group of people will now be for UC instead. Entitlement for TCs is based on income, and there is no "income floor" - there is a lower limit on hours worked, and to qualify a single person must be working for an employer for 30 hours a week, or be in "sustainable" self employment.

The "income floor" for one person on UC is about £12,000PA if employed and £11,000 if self-employed. The hours don't matter any more.
All the people who want to make a new claim for TCs in these circumstances must now claim UC - they will all be "mandated to the jobcentre" and required to sign a Claimant Commitment. However many hours they work.

New guidance for this describes how Jobcentres will address "low-earning behaviour". This behaviour is not going to be tolerated.

"Under-achieving" employed workers will be subject to mandatory interventions even if they can demonstrate that they are doing what the CC requires, and they will be expected to work more hours, ask for better pay, or change their job, subject to sanction.
Self-employed people must comply with the "gainful self-employment test" which is aimed at "protecting the taxpayer from those who declare themselves self-employed but whose businesses routinely generate little income" - these people will have to close down their businesses and claim UC as a JSA-type jobseeker - this is likely to cost the taxpayer more, not less.

Failure to earn £900 a month will mean that the business must close - someone earning about £800 would currently get by on a small amount of TCs and perhaps some HB/LHA; under UC they will have to shut up shop, and claim JSA and full HB/LHA entitlement.
35% of the self-employed in the UK earn less than the UC income floor. Not all of them are currently claiming TCs or other help; but we are still talking about a lot of people who will have to close down their enterprise - which they were actively encouraged by IDS to take up.

It is estimated that there will be between one and two million people affected by these UC conditions when the roll-out is complete - this could take a long time if it is restricted to new claims only; but as HMRC have issued new rules on sustainability of self-employment in what they call "preparation for UC" the switch from working for yourself to becoming a JSA/UC dependent jobseeker might happen sooner for some.

Thanks to pisspoor wages, ZHCs, short hours contracts, insecure work causing people to have to sign on and off repeatedly, plus the active promotion - until now - of Jobcentres and Work Programme providers to get people off JSA and into self-employment, there is a massive cohort of people who will be affected by this. Massive.
UC's Claimant Commitment can impose any conditions on a claimant that the Jobcentre sees fit. That covers everything from impossible numbers of jobs to be applied for, mandatory attendance for signing on daily, mandatory "training" or programmes, and compulsory unpaid work. Even if you are already working full time.

Some of the people who will be affected by this will have voted Tory. They have no idea what's coming. At least a million of them are going to be forced back on to JSA and expected to work for it; any deviation from what they have been ordered to do will result in a sanction.
IDS will attempt to hide the rising claimant count, but as it is the figures are already massaged and the real picture of employment in this country is hazy at best. Where it will show, eventually, is in tax receipts - and with less money, the Tories will....cut benefits.

Ever since this all started, when the coalition came in I have found it utterly bizarre, and when I read your clear pictures of what these measures do, I have to shake my head to clear it of my own normal perceptions. Because everything paints a picture in which normal human enterprise and engagement in life is getting stamped on and replaced by some formulaic impossibility. People don't organise like this, left to their own devices. I'm afraid I'm unable so see any long term benefit in any of it, for individuals or for us as a nation. There seems to be a coordinated attempt to strip away work and opportunity, stamp out creativity, enterprise and innovation, and demolish aspiration, and it's expanding upward.

I keep coming back to a single question. To what end is this happening? And I can't see one, or not a sane one. The reducing us to a cheap labour pool one doesn't work either. Depressing wages is only part of it, you still have to keep people motivated and hungry to work, and you still have to bring the development needed so there are real jobs to do, productive work. But I can't see this happening.

In the meantime other countries know how to do this stuff ok and are thriving. It's a mess, however can anyone think this will bring any kind of progress or prosperity, it's the opposite of what's needed.

You description of how people who can't earn enough will be treated convinces me these policies are insane. I'm starting to want to know exactly who is pulling the strings, and why. There's not a single one who's an expert in their field, most aren't expert in any field at all.

[Swarthlander]

At least we have the farce that is UKIP. Nigel Fuehrer is now a problem, can't do with him - can't do without him. And it's all down to money.

[frightful_oik]

We seem to be heading for the following choice at the next election:
1) Tories
2) Tory but nicer, honest!
3) Tory but more liberal (until we get the limos at any rate)
4) Tory but completely bonkers as well
5) Not Tory but not electable

I'm looking into emigrating. God it's depressing.

[PorFavor]

Did I say "Good morfternoon"?

Well, I'm saying it now . . . .

[ohsocynical]

As an ex-LibDem who supported Ed rather than Labour, I'm finding it difficult to form any deep opinion about the leadership.

I can only read a certain amount, before my anger wells up as bad as ever. It's best to get it all out in the open, but the more I read, the more fractured it all seems.

Considering the Cons only increased their vote by less than 1% [.o8%?] We should have been waving them goodbye.

We aren't. Instead we have the rise of UKIP.

If Labour listen to the voters who swung UKIPs way and start pandering to them, I won't like that.

If they go too far to the right I won't like that either.

Is there a middle way?

I'm dithering. Not convinced.

[Swarthlander]

ITV staff are on strike today...

No, I didn't notice either...

[AngryAsWell]

As an ex-LibDem who supported Ed rather than Labour, I'm finding it difficult to form any deep opinion about the leadership.

I can only read a certain amount, before my anger wells up as bad as ever. It's best to get it all out in the open, but the more I read, the more fractured it all seems.

Considering the Cons only increased their vote by less than 1% [.o8%?] We should have been waving them goodbye.

We aren't. Instead we have the rise of UKIP.

If Labour listen to the voters who swung UKIPs way and start pandering to them, I won't like that.

If they go too far to the right I won't like that either.

Is there a middle way?

I'm dithering. Not convinced.

There is time, there may well be other candidates to declare (in fact I think more will do) the main thing is to lets hear what they have to say when the campaign actually starts.
I think we also need to put aside "labels", my own views now are not what they were 10 years ago, so I feel we need to listen to what they have to say now, about the future of this country, not what they may or may not have said/felt/thought many years ago.
(I'm trying to be optimistic and hopeful, not critical)

[ohsocynical]

Morning Dan and tc2, yahyah, and utopiandreams.

After my very long response to Willow yesterday on the sanctions-figures-that-make-no-sense-as-usual, those of you who read it (and I hope you settled down with a flask and sandwiches...) may have noticed that the ONS claimant count figures which the government quotes do not as yet include people claiming the JSA element of UC. The ONS calculates them separately as "experimental" rather than "official" statistics.

At the last count, there were 35,600 UC single straightforward claimants on the JSA element who count as unemployed, actively seeking work, etc. like their ordinary JSA counterparts but with extra UC rules on top. They will steadily increase in number as UC gets rolled out; also slowly increasing is the number of couples making a joint claim whose status is also fairly straightforward.

Starting now, is the UC roll-out for people who work and claim tax credits being put on to UC - all new claims for tax credits in this group of people will now be for UC instead. Entitlement for TCs is based on income, and there is no "income floor" - there is a lower limit on hours worked, and to qualify a single person must be working for an employer for 30 hours a week, or be in "sustainable" self employment.

The "income floor" for one person on UC is about £12,000PA if employed and £11,000 if self-employed. The hours don't matter any more.
All the people who want to make a new claim for TCs in these circumstances must now claim UC - they will all be "mandated to the jobcentre" and required to sign a Claimant Commitment. However many hours they work.

New guidance for this describes how Jobcentres will address "low-earning behaviour". This behaviour is not going to be tolerated.

"Under-achieving" employed workers will be subject to mandatory interventions even if they can demonstrate that they are doing what the CC requires, and they will be expected to work more hours, ask for better pay, or change their job, subject to sanction.
Self-employed people must comply with the "gainful self-employment test" which is aimed at "protecting the taxpayer from those who declare themselves self-employed but whose businesses routinely generate little income" - these people will have to close down their businesses and claim UC as a JSA-type jobseeker - this is likely to cost the taxpayer more, not less.

Failure to earn £900 a month will mean that the business must close - someone earning about £800 would currently get by on a small amount of TCs and perhaps some HB/LHA; under UC they will have to shut up shop, and claim JSA and full HB/LHA entitlement.
35% of the self-employed in the UK earn less than the UC income floor. Not all of them are currently claiming TCs or other help; but we are still talking about a lot of people who will have to close down their enterprise - which they were actively encouraged by IDS to take up.

It is estimated that there will be between one and two million people affected by these UC conditions when the roll-out is complete - this could take a long time if it is restricted to new claims only; but as HMRC have issued new rules on sustainability of self-employment in what they call "preparation for UC" the switch from working for yourself to becoming a JSA/UC dependent jobseeker might happen sooner for some.

Thanks to pisspoor wages, ZHCs, short hours contracts, insecure work causing people to have to sign on and off repeatedly, plus the active promotion - until now - of Jobcentres and Work Programme providers to get people off JSA and into self-employment, there is a massive cohort of people who will be affected by this. Massive.
UC's Claimant Commitment can impose any conditions on a claimant that the Jobcentre sees fit. That covers everything from impossible numbers of jobs to be applied for, mandatory attendance for signing on daily, mandatory "training" or programmes, and compulsory unpaid work. Even if you are already working full time.

Some of the people who will be affected by this will have voted Tory. They have no idea what's coming. At least a million of them are going to be forced back on to JSA and expected to work for it; any deviation from what they have been ordered to do will result in a sanction.
IDS will attempt to hide the rising claimant count, but as it is the figures are already massaged and the real picture of employment in this country is hazy at best. Where it will show, eventually, is in tax receipts - and with less money, the Tories will....cut benefits.

Ever since this all started, when the coalition came in I have found it utterly bizarre, and when I read your clear pictures of what these measures do, I have to shake my head to clear it of my own normal perceptions. Because everything paints a picture in which normal human enterprise and engagement in life is getting stamped on and replaced by some formulaic impossibility. People don't organise like this, left to their own devices. I'm afraid I'm unable so see any long term benefit in any of it, for individuals or for us as a nation. There seems to be a coordinated attempt to strip away work and opportunity, stamp out creativity, enterprise and innovation, and demolish aspiration, and it's expanding upward.

I keep coming back to a single question. To what end is this happening? And I can't see one, or not a sane one. The reducing us to a cheap labour pool one doesn't work either. Depressing wages is only part of it, you still have to keep people motivated and hungry to work, and you still have to bring the development needed so there are real jobs to do, productive work. But I can't see this happening.

In the meantime other countries know how to do this stuff ok and are thriving. It's a mess, however can anyone think this will bring any kind of progress or prosperity, it's the opposite of what's needed.

You description of how people who can't earn enough will be treated convinces me these policies are insane. I'm starting to want to know exactly who is pulling the strings, and why. There's not a single one who's an expert in their field, most aren't expert in any field at all.

I think you'll find pretty much the same thing has/is happening in the US...Depressed wages, a 3 tier health system, a lesser social safety net. Harsh conditions if you're poor.
Cameron using young US Republicans is proof enough. The Atlantic Bridge plays a big part in what the Conservatives will get up to. The only difference is they have a written constitution which is hard to muck about with. We don't have one.

[StephenDolan]

Question Time tonight is listed as Farage, Brian May, Hunts Jeremy and Tristam.

[ohsocynical]

I suppose I'm looking for a leader who will check what the right wing press objected to most, eg. Taxing Non-Doms, and push those policies. It really resonated with the public, because of how the press handled it.

I must be weird because if I'd been a floating voter, that policy alone would have caused me to vote Labour.

I can't get over how little those don't knows who were followed for a year by the BBC, seemed to care or even realise what was happening to the NHS.

Shit. I've just had a 'what if' moment. What if their thoughts were heavily censored?

[nickyinnorfolk]

A friend of my husband's is a Labour councillor in south London and has had some dealings with Chuka Umunna. To the surprise of probably nobody, his impression of Mr Umunna was that he was an egotistical pain in the arse. He was also pessimistic about Labour's chances before the election, which I found overly negative at the time. He said, then, that Andy Burnham should be a shoo-in after Ed bowed out. Burnham of course will have a battle on his hands from the outset regarding being scapegoated over Mid Staffs.

I think Burnham is a good choice - he's been assertive with aggressive interviewers and is from a working class background. My other half would like Caroline Flint to stand, although she hasn't so far signalled that she's interested. I think she would be very good as well. He and I disagree about Yvette Cooper - I think she'd surprise people and would make an impressive leader - he's not so keen.

[SpinningHugo]

Not exactly helpful. Who do you think would bring in votes from a wider section of the population? What do you think of Tristram Hunt?

(i) A woman.

(ii) Hunt is a joke candidate.

A woman for the sake of being a woman would be a disaster.

Why is Hunt a joke?

We just lost a load of votes to Ukip.

Going from the north London nerd that was Miliband to the privately educated Baron Hunt of Chesterton (in his over sized suits) doesn't strike me as a recipe for electoral sucess.

[ohsocynical]

Morning Dan and tc2, yahyah, and utopiandreams.

After my very long response to Willow yesterday on the sanctions-figures-that-make-no-sense-as-usual, those of you who read it (and I hope you settled down with a flask and sandwiches...) may have noticed that the ONS claimant count figures which the government quotes do not as yet include people claiming the JSA element of UC. The ONS calculates them separately as "experimental" rather than "official" statistics.

At the last count, there were 35,600 UC single straightforward claimants on the JSA element who count as unemployed, actively seeking work, etc. like their ordinary JSA counterparts but with extra UC rules on top. They will steadily increase in number as UC gets rolled out; also slowly increasing is the number of couples making a joint claim whose status is also fairly straightforward.

Starting now, is the UC roll-out for people who work and claim tax credits being put on to UC - all new claims for tax credits in this group of people will now be for UC instead. Entitlement for TCs is based on income, and there is no "income floor" - there is a lower limit on hours worked, and to qualify a single person must be working for an employer for 30 hours a week, or be in "sustainable" self employment.

The "income floor" for one person on UC is about £12,000PA if employed and £11,000 if self-employed. The hours don't matter any more.
All the people who want to make a new claim for TCs in these circumstances must now claim UC - they will all be "mandated to the jobcentre" and required to sign a Claimant Commitment. However many hours they work.

New guidance for this describes how Jobcentres will address "low-earning behaviour". This behaviour is not going to be tolerated.

"Under-achieving" employed workers will be subject to mandatory interventions even if they can demonstrate that they are doing what the CC requires, and they will be expected to work more hours, ask for better pay, or change their job, subject to sanction.
Self-employed people must comply with the "gainful self-employment test" which is aimed at "protecting the taxpayer from those who declare themselves self-employed but whose businesses routinely generate little income" - these people will have to close down their businesses and claim UC as a JSA-type jobseeker - this is likely to cost the taxpayer more, not less.

Failure to earn £900 a month will mean that the business must close - someone earning about £800 would currently get by on a small amount of TCs and perhaps some HB/LHA; under UC they will have to shut up shop, and claim JSA and full HB/LHA entitlement.
35% of the self-employed in the UK earn less than the UC income floor. Not all of them are currently claiming TCs or other help; but we are still talking about a lot of people who will have to close down their enterprise - which they were actively encouraged by IDS to take up.

It is estimated that there will be between one and two million people affected by these UC conditions when the roll-out is complete - this could take a long time if it is restricted to new claims only; but as HMRC have issued new rules on sustainability of self-employment in what they call "preparation for UC" the switch from working for yourself to becoming a JSA/UC dependent jobseeker might happen sooner for some.

Thanks to pisspoor wages, ZHCs, short hours contracts, insecure work causing people to have to sign on and off repeatedly, plus the active promotion - until now - of Jobcentres and Work Programme providers to get people off JSA and into self-employment, there is a massive cohort of people who will be affected by this. Massive.
UC's Claimant Commitment can impose any conditions on a claimant that the Jobcentre sees fit. That covers everything from impossible numbers of jobs to be applied for, mandatory attendance for signing on daily, mandatory "training" or programmes, and compulsory unpaid work. Even if you are already working full time.

Some of the people who will be affected by this will have voted Tory. They have no idea what's coming. At least a million of them are going to be forced back on to JSA and expected to work for it; any deviation from what they have been ordered to do will result in a sanction.
IDS will attempt to hide the rising claimant count, but as it is the figures are already massaged and the real picture of employment in this country is hazy at best. Where it will show, eventually, is in tax receipts - and with less money, the Tories will....cut benefits.

Ever since this all started, when the coalition came in I have found it utterly bizarre, and when I read your clear pictures of what these measures do, I have to shake my head to clear it of my own normal perceptions. Because everything paints a picture in which normal human enterprise and engagement in life is getting stamped on and replaced by some formulaic impossibility. People don't organise like this, left to their own devices. I'm afraid I'm unable so see any long term benefit in any of it, for individuals or for us as a nation. There seems to be a coordinated attempt to strip away work and opportunity, stamp out creativity, enterprise and innovation, and demolish aspiration, and it's expanding upward.

I keep coming back to a single question. To what end is this happening? And I can't see one, or not a sane one. The reducing us to a cheap labour pool one doesn't work either. Depressing wages is only part of it, you still have to keep people motivated and hungry to work, and you still have to bring the development needed so there are real jobs to do, productive work. But I can't see this happening.

In the meantime other countries know how to do this stuff ok and are thriving. It's a mess, however can anyone think this will bring any kind of progress or prosperity, it's the opposite of what's needed.

You description of how people who can't earn enough will be treated convinces me these policies are insane. I'm starting to want to know exactly who is pulling the strings, and why. There's not a single one who's an expert in their field, most aren't expert in any field at all.

This might interest you. Helps if you substitute Conservative for Republican.

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/14/utter_i ... socialflow