High speed rail isn't "19th century technology". Whatever that sentence means anyway.But an obsession with leaving a 21st century “legacy” by embracing 19th century technology will not be balked.
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Also Paxo rubbish like this.
High speed rail isn't "19th century technology". Whatever that sentence means anyway.But an obsession with leaving a 21st century “legacy” by embracing 19th century technology will not be balked.
It's that you can hear him doing that sneer all the way through, and he's not done any work. If he interviewed himself, he'd be cut to shreds for this lazy nonsense.
I heard that and gasped ... and he is meant to be bigging up Burnham!ohsocynical wrote:Robert MacDonald @RFMacDonald 9 mins9 minutes ago
'Andy Burnham has deep roots in the N of the country, in the WC but (BUT!) at the same time he's deeply intelligent'
I think it refers to people who actually registered (probably online - a box-click thing, as I recall) as a supporter. Sorry for the delayed response!StephenDolan wrote:I'm slightly confused. Registered supporters. Is that anyone who has in the past donated to the Labour Party?
I think it refers to people who actually registered (probably online - a box-click thing, as I recall) as a supporter. Sorry for the delayed response!StephenDolan wrote:I'm slightly confused. Registered supporters. Is that anyone who has in the past donated to the Labour Party?
Absolutely agree with you, @AAW. He'd already laid out the repairs and rebuilding of schools (so many of which were in a dire state after 18 years of Tory Rule), same for hospitals, and something else (housing?); and he'd compared the levels of debt and deficit at the end of that 18 years under the Tories with what they were before the crash. All of that is positive, none of it is anything for the Labour Party to be ashamed of. Other things were not done right, to my mind, but we should hear what Hunty has to say about those things (which he wasn't involved in as he's not a 'career politician') and what he'd want to do in the future. The question should be what would 'Huntyism' be? Cooperism? Burnhamism? et cetera, et cetera.AngryAsWell wrote:It was a bit of a trap though as he said Yes! you could say Labour overspent if .... and he never got passed the IF because the audience started howling and Dimbleby when straight in on the attack. By the time it quietened down enough for him to speak again the whole point of what he was saying had gone and Dimbleby swiftly move on. He had already taken a lot of barracking before he got to the IF bit as well.gilsey wrote:I saw the few minutes in question, of T Hunt on QT. Between the audience, the others on the panel & Dimbleby smirking, he did well not to walk out. I had to turn it off.
He didn't make it any better at all by saying Labour overspent, in fact it confirmed my view that they can't win on this. Might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb and go full on support for the last Labour govt, apart from banking regulation.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick · 3h 3 hours ago
Keir Starmer for Labour leader may sound outlandish. He's 20-1, but Crick's law of leader elections is the freshest contenders usually wins
Read something earlier - sorry can't remember where - where someone was saying Starmer's lack of HoC experience shouldn't count against him ... it was outweighed by other skills, qualities and experience.Ken Livingstone @ken4london 31m31 minutes ago
Not backing any candidate at present but #keirforleader movement shows we need a broad field & MPs must offer members a wider choice
Labour are often lambasted for not building 1000's of houses but what everyone misses is the massive refurbishment program that brought over 1 million houses back up to habitable levels. Local authorities were able to offer grants for vital refurbishments that in the north included inside sanitation and kitchen extension's you could actually walk in to replace tiny scullery kitchen found on 2 up 2 down terraced properties at the time.LadyCentauria wrote:Absolutely agree with you, @AAW. He'd already laid out the repairs and rebuilding of schools (so many of which were in a dire state after 18 years of Tory Rule), same for hospitals, and something else (housing?); and he'd compared the levels of debt and deficit at the end of that 18 years under the Tories with what they were before the crash. All of that is positive, none of it is anything for the Labour Party to be ashamed of. Other things were not done right, to my mind, but we should hear what Hunty has to say about those things (which he wasn't involved in as he's not a 'career politician') and what he'd want to do in the future. The question should be what would 'Huntyism' be? Cooperism? Burnhamism? et cetera, et cetera.AngryAsWell wrote:It was a bit of a trap though as he said Yes! you could say Labour overspent if .... and he never got passed the IF because the audience started howling and Dimbleby when straight in on the attack. By the time it quietened down enough for him to speak again the whole point of what he was saying had gone and Dimbleby swiftly move on. He had already taken a lot of barracking before he got to the IF bit as well.gilsey wrote:I saw the few minutes in question, of T Hunt on QT. Between the audience, the others on the panel & Dimbleby smirking, he did well not to walk out. I had to turn it off.
He didn't make it any better at all by saying Labour overspent, in fact it confirmed my view that they can't win on this. Might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb and go full on support for the last Labour govt, apart from banking regulation.
It is, but he's been paid huge amounts of money for years and told he was clever, so doesn't need to do any better.PorFavor wrote: Yes - that is a very odd thing to say.
An entire set of arguments that are, I am afraid, so mind numbingly bad as to be embarrassing. Unless of course you are simply trolling the argument for fun, in which case Bravo.SpinningHugo wrote:I don't think the numbers are there to stop it. There are only a two or three at most.AngryAsWell wrote:Eurosceptic David Davis could oppose government on human rights reform
Tory MP’s comments show growing backbench rebellion over plan that could lead to withdrawal from European court of human rights
Lets hope enough of them see common sense and decency over this dangerously undemocratic proposal, to put a stop to it.
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/may ... hts-reform" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If interested in human rights, I have some musings here
https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2015 ... ights-act/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Presumably Paxo thinks 21st century technology means some sort of spaceship.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Also Paxo rubbish like this.
High speed rail isn't "19th century technology". Whatever that sentence means anyway.But an obsession with leaving a 21st century “legacy” by embracing 19th century technology will not be balked.
It's that you can hear him doing that sneer all the way through, and he's not done any work. If he interviewed himself, he'd be cut to shreds for this lazy nonsense.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has admitted that 10 of the 49 benefit claimants whose deaths were subject to secret reviews had had their payments sanctioned.
http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/on ... dmits-dwp/
Bonnie Greer @Bonn1eGreer · 1h 1 hour ago
Make sure mouth isn't full when you read this one:
via @toadmeister-"negligible impact of #Tory press on..#GE2015"
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/content/w ... l-election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Ooops. I read Dave has promised him a job in cabinet...Once the heat dies down I should imagine.rebeccariots2 wrote:I wonder how Shapps has found his first few days at the Dept for International Development? For my Friday afternoon positive thought I allowed myself a bit of happiness that we would no longer have to put up with him acting as general spokesperson for the government all over the media. He is contained.
Most of us want some peace, shared prosperity, maintenance of our infrastructure & freedom to live without fear in order to study, work & create. It is not asking for too much. It is more than possible, it is simpler, easier to understand & causes fewer problems in our country & world. Every single person & other life form benefit from this approach.ohsocynical wrote:All you Northerners, I'd print this off and frame it....
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/commentisfree
A fine wit below the line appropriately asked why the article's premise relied upon YouGov data as a primary source of validation.rebeccariots2 wrote:Bonnie Greer @Bonn1eGreer · 1h 1 hour ago
Make sure mouth isn't full when you read this one:
via @toadmeister-"negligible impact of #Tory press on..#GE2015"
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/content/w ... l-election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Hard to take their argument that the Mirror counterbalances the views of the Telegraph and Mail seriously, given the fact that the Mirror rarely, if ever, features in the BBC's nightly review of the papers, let alone ever sets the agenda for all BBC political coverage in the way the Telegraph and Mail do.rebeccariots2 wrote:Bonnie Greer @Bonn1eGreer · 1h 1 hour ago
Make sure mouth isn't full when you read this one:
via @toadmeister-"negligible impact of #Tory press on..#GE2015"
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/content/w ... l-election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
From Labour List:
Newly-elected Labour MP call for a leader who won’t “draw back to New...
With a leadership and deputy leadership contest underway, many are offering their view on which path the party should take post-Miliband. A group of newly-elected MPs, which include the likes of...
http://labourlist.org/2015/05/newly-ele ... ew-labour/
Maybe he's looking passed high speed to Maglev Trains ?TechnicalEphemera wrote:Presumably Paxo thinks 21st century technology means some sort of spaceship.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Also Paxo rubbish like this.
High speed rail isn't "19th century technology". Whatever that sentence means anyway.But an obsession with leaving a 21st century “legacy” by embracing 19th century technology will not be balked.
It's that you can hear him doing that sneer all the way through, and he's not done any work. If he interviewed himself, he'd be cut to shreds for this lazy nonsense.
ohsocynical wrote:Ooops. I read Dave has promised him a job in cabinet...Once the heat dies down I should imagine.rebeccariots2 wrote:I wonder how Shapps has found his first few days at the Dept for International Development? For my Friday afternoon positive thought I allowed myself a bit of happiness that we would no longer have to put up with him acting as general spokesperson for the government all over the media. He is contained.
Maglev is one of those fantastic technologies that just won't cut it in the real world. When it works well it is brilliant, but the costs and risk kill it.AngryAsWell wrote:Maybe he's looking passed high speed to Maglev Trains ?TechnicalEphemera wrote:Presumably Paxo thinks 21st century technology means some sort of spaceship.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Also Paxo rubbish like this.
High speed rail isn't "19th century technology". Whatever that sentence means anyway.
It's that you can hear him doing that sneer all the way through, and he's not done any work. If he interviewed himself, he'd be cut to shreds for this lazy nonsense.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/a ... n-test-run" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I've no experience of either so will take your word for it. I just thought if we are going to spend all that money we ma as well make it as up to date as possible.TechnicalEphemera wrote:Maglev is one of those fantastic technologies that just won't cut it in the real world. When it works well it is brilliant, but the costs and risk kill it.AngryAsWell wrote:Maybe he's looking passed high speed to Maglev Trains ?TechnicalEphemera wrote: Presumably Paxo thinks 21st century technology means some sort of spaceship.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/a ... n-test-run" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Incidentally I have travelled on one, very fast, very smooth. However not noticeably better than the Shinkansen.
Me too. Thanks, as always, to @EpheTubby Isaacs wrote:Drawn to this last bit. Sounds like there's a complaint to Dilnot in that.ephemerid wrote:
Tomlinson is wrong - claims are being processed at twice the rate, not five times; DLA higher rates were 36% of claims not 16%.
He has read the headline "key messages" and misinterpreted them.
Appreciate your eagle eye.
AngryAsWell wrote:I've no experience of either so will take your word for it. I just thought if we are going to spend all that money we ma as well make it as up to date as possible.TechnicalEphemera wrote:Maglev is one of those fantastic technologies that just won't cut it in the real world. When it works well it is brilliant, but the costs and risk kill it.AngryAsWell wrote: Maybe he's looking passed high speed to Maglev Trains ?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/a ... n-test-run" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Incidentally I have travelled on one, very fast, very smooth. However not noticeably better than the Shinkansen.
Bill Grimsey isn't exactly my idea of a 'successful' business person and, in the interview I heard with him, just came across as anti-Labour in general and bitter about life – as if he some sort of deity-given-right to meet Ed, in the first place. Just look at the list of all the companies he's been involved with – they don't seem to have, exactly, thrived with his hands anywhere-near the tiller!rebeccariots2 wrote:I heard that and gasped ... and he is meant to be bigging up Burnham!ohsocynical wrote:Robert MacDonald @RFMacDonald 9 mins9 minutes ago
'Andy Burnham has deep roots in the N of the country, in the WC but (BUT!) at the same time he's deeply intelligent'
And if that wasn't wounding enough we then had scads of Bill Grimsey (?) - Labour supporting business person - tearing Labour, Ed Miliband and Chuka Umunna to shreds. Apparently every business person he spoke to when doing some work for Labour asked him why on earth he was doing it because 'they're absolutely unelectable'.
Yep, and up to the Decent Homes Standard, too. Every council-owned estate and individual property in this borough benefitted massively from that change in the RTB legislation which finally allowed councils to spend their receipts from the sale of council properties on anything to do with housing. Under the Thatcher Govt.'s legislation, councils had been expressly forbidden from spending a penny of it in any way on housing matters. The other 'good thing' in housing terms was Labour's tightening up of the RTB qualifications – requiring longer residence first, a lower discount (it was down from 70% to 16% here) and a slightly tougher regime on how much discount people would have to pay back for early sale or not actually being the person who was buying the dwelling. Those were all good things and it's a great shame that many councils chose not to use their borrowing powers to build much, if any, social housing – and that there wasn't a serious push from the Labour Governments to make that happen.AngryAsWell wrote:Labour are often lambasted for not building 1000's of houses but what everyone misses is the massive refurbishment program that brought over 1 million houses back up to habitable levels. Local authorities were able to offer grants for vital refurbishments that in the north included inside sanitation and kitchen extension's you could actually walk in to replace tiny scullery kitchen found on 2 up 2 down terraced properties at the time.LadyCentauria wrote:Absolutely agree with you, @AAW. He'd already laid out the repairs and rebuilding of schools (so many of which were in a dire state after 18 years of Tory Rule), same for hospitals, and something else (housing?); and he'd compared the levels of debt and deficit at the end of that 18 years under the Tories with what they were before the crash. All of that is positive, none of it is anything for the Labour Party to be ashamed of. Other things were not done right, to my mind, but we should hear what Hunty has to say about those things (which he wasn't involved in as he's not a 'career politician') and what he'd want to do in the future. The question should be what would 'Huntyism' be? Cooperism? Burnhamism? et cetera, et cetera.AngryAsWell wrote: It was a bit of a trap though as he said Yes! you could say Labour overspent if .... and he never got passed the IF because the audience started howling and Dimbleby when straight in on the attack. By the time it quietened down enough for him to speak again the whole point of what he was saying had gone and Dimbleby swiftly move on. He had already taken a lot of barracking before he got to the IF bit as well.
So, at last, that's 10 we know about – although the DWP will still deny that they were in any way culpable for those ten deaths. Thanks for the link, Ohso.ohsocynical wrote:The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has admitted that 10 of the 49 benefit claimants whose deaths were subject to secret reviews had had their payments sanctioned.
http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/on ... dmits-dwp/
Though they were unable to build council properties they neatly sidestepped the problem and here in the midlands at least housing associations grew their portfolios and some fantastic innovative schemes were put in place. These include for those who were earning and wanted to invest in their own future part ownership, self build and other options. It was not the total lack of building its portrayed as because many good properties that would otherwise have been chewed up and spat out by the property developers were rescued, and became good cheap housing.AngryAsWell wrote:Labour are often lambasted for not building 1000's of houses but what everyone misses is the massive refurbishment program that brought over 1 million houses back up to habitable levels. Local authorities were able to offer grants for vital refurbishments that in the north included inside sanitation and kitchen extension's you could actually walk in to replace tiny scullery kitchen found on 2 up 2 down terraced properties at the time.LadyCentauria wrote:Absolutely agree with you, @AAW. He'd already laid out the repairs and rebuilding of schools (so many of which were in a dire state after 18 years of Tory Rule), same for hospitals, and something else (housing?); and he'd compared the levels of debt and deficit at the end of that 18 years under the Tories with what they were before the crash. All of that is positive, none of it is anything for the Labour Party to be ashamed of. Other things were not done right, to my mind, but we should hear what Hunty has to say about those things (which he wasn't involved in as he's not a 'career politician') and what he'd want to do in the future. The question should be what would 'Huntyism' be? Cooperism? Burnhamism? et cetera, et cetera.AngryAsWell wrote: It was a bit of a trap though as he said Yes! you could say Labour overspent if .... and he never got passed the IF because the audience started howling and Dimbleby when straight in on the attack. By the time it quietened down enough for him to speak again the whole point of what he was saying had gone and Dimbleby swiftly move on. He had already taken a lot of barracking before he got to the IF bit as well.
(Gosh it's ages since I was around in time to say that!)PorFavor wrote:Goodnight, everyone.
I take your point LadyC but bringing boarded up empty houses back into liveable standard is virtually the same as building a house, in that each renovated property provided a home. What I'm trying to say is they did more for home provision than they are credited with.LadyCentauria wrote:Yep, and up to the Decent Homes Standard, too. Every council-owned estate and individual property in this borough benefitted massively from that change in the RTB legislation which finally allowed councils to spend their receipts from the sale of council properties on anything to do with housing. Under the Thatcher Govt.'s legislation, councils had been expressly forbidden from spending a penny of it in any way on housing matters. The other 'good thing' in housing terms was Labour's tightening up of the RTB qualifications – requiring longer residence first, a lower discount (it was down from 70% to 16% here) and a slightly tougher regime on how much discount people would have to pay back for early sale or not actually being the person who was buying the dwelling. Those were all good things and it's a great shame that many councils chose not to use their borrowing powers to build much, if any, social housing – and that there wasn't a serious push from the Labour Governments to make that happen.AngryAsWell wrote:Labour are often lambasted for not building 1000's of houses but what everyone misses is the massive refurbishment program that brought over 1 million houses back up to habitable levels. Local authorities were able to offer grants for vital refurbishments that in the north included inside sanitation and kitchen extension's you could actually walk in to replace tiny scullery kitchen found on 2 up 2 down terraced properties at the time.LadyCentauria wrote: Absolutely agree with you, @AAW. He'd already laid out the repairs and rebuilding of schools (so many of which were in a dire state after 18 years of Tory Rule), same for hospitals, and something else (housing?); and he'd compared the levels of debt and deficit at the end of that 18 years under the Tories with what they were before the crash. All of that is positive, none of it is anything for the Labour Party to be ashamed of. Other things were not done right, to my mind, but we should hear what Hunty has to say about those things (which he wasn't involved in as he's not a 'career politician') and what he'd want to do in the future. The question should be what would 'Huntyism' be? Cooperism? Burnhamism? et cetera, et cetera.
You're right, it is and they certainly did. Sorry not to have made it clear that my final sentence only aims criticism at those councils which didn't use the powers they'd been given to invest in housing, only the ones they were obliged to on renovation and repair.AngryAsWell wrote:I take your point LadyC but bringing boarded up empty houses back into liveable standard is virtually the same as building a house, in that each renovated property provided a home. What I'm trying to say is they did more for home provision than they are credited with.LadyCentauria wrote:Yep, and up to the Decent Homes Standard, too. Every council-owned estate and individual property in this borough benefitted massively from that change in the RTB legislation which finally allowed councils to spend their receipts from the sale of council properties on anything to do with housing. Under the Thatcher Govt.'s legislation, councils had been expressly forbidden from spending a penny of it in any way on housing matters. The other 'good thing' in housing terms was Labour's tightening up of the RTB qualifications – requiring longer residence first, a lower discount (it was down from 70% to 16% here) and a slightly tougher regime on how much discount people would have to pay back for early sale or not actually being the person who was buying the dwelling. Those were all good things and it's a great shame that many councils chose not to use their borrowing powers to build much, if any, social housing – and that there wasn't a serious push from the Labour Governments to make that happen.AngryAsWell wrote: Labour are often lambasted for not building 1000's of houses but what everyone misses is the massive refurbishment program that brought over 1 million houses back up to habitable levels. Local authorities were able to offer grants for vital refurbishments that in the north included inside sanitation and kitchen extension's you could actually walk in to replace tiny scullery kitchen found on 2 up 2 down terraced properties at the time.
TechnicalEphemera wrote:An entire set of arguments that are, I am afraid, so mind numbingly bad as to be embarrassing. Unless of course you are simply trolling the argument for fun, in which case Bravo.SpinningHugo wrote:I don't think the numbers are there to stop it. There are only a two or three at most.AngryAsWell wrote:Eurosceptic David Davis could oppose government on human rights reform
Tory MP’s comments show growing backbench rebellion over plan that could lead to withdrawal from European court of human rights
Lets hope enough of them see common sense and decency over this dangerously undemocratic proposal, to put a stop to it.
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/may ... hts-reform" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If interested in human rights, I have some musings here
https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2015 ... ights-act/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I would stick to political punditry if I were you. The idea you hold that it is wrong to limit the power of the state by the HRA is nuts. For the record Hitler was at one point an elected politician.
That's the first time I've seen that - she is utterly dire.thatchersorphan wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02r9gnb just been passed the link to patel on bbc a couple of days ago.
Rejoice all, we are heading for continual growth, everything is rosy, the economy is being 'cured' by the tories.
Idiotic divinity syndrome seems to be contagious.. she has IDS blind faith in her version of reality
It sounds like shes memorised the tory election leaflets, full of soundbites. Trying to decide if shes even worse than McVile.
Telegraph NewsVerified account
@TelegraphNews
Nigel Farage to sack Patrick O'Flynn in purge of Ukip coup plotters http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... tters.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Evening all. Doesn't look like Ukip's internal fisticuffs is played out yet.Suzanne Evans @SuzanneEvans1 1h1 hour ago
Suzanne Evans retweeted Telegraph News
So @Nigel_Farage ex-aide continues his poisonous briefings. He does NF no favours by making him look like a despot.
It's the same with any party that is based on a cult of the leader - exactly what happened with the BNP.rebeccariots2 wrote:Telegraph NewsVerified account
@TelegraphNews
Nigel Farage to sack Patrick O'Flynn in purge of Ukip coup plotters http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... tters.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …Evening all. Doesn't look like Ukip's internal fisticuffs is played out yet.Suzanne Evans @SuzanneEvans1 1h1 hour ago
Suzanne Evans retweeted Telegraph News
So @Nigel_Farage ex-aide continues his poisonous briefings. He does NF no favours by making him look like a despot.
To be fair, I struggled to actually get a clear grip on exactly what you are saying, possibly too many negatives to get my head round it. So this may be an interpretation issue on my part.SpinningHugo wrote:TechnicalEphemera wrote:An entire set of arguments that are, I am afraid, so mind numbingly bad as to be embarrassing. Unless of course you are simply trolling the argument for fun, in which case Bravo.SpinningHugo wrote: I don't think the numbers are there to stop it. There are only a two or three at most.
If interested in human rights, I have some musings here
https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2015 ... ights-act/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I would stick to political punditry if I were you. The idea you hold that it is wrong to limit the power of the state by the HRA is nuts. For the record Hitler was at one point an elected politician.
Did you read it?
I say exactly the opposite in the very first sentence.
I was setting out what bad arguments are, but if you read to the end I set out a good one.
