Saturday 16th, and Sunday 17th. May Weekend Edition.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 16 May, 2015 7:59 am

Good morning fledglings!

As some of you noted yesterday, Osborne plans to provide us all with his new budget for hardworking people in July.

This will, apparently, involve dealing with our country's productivity issues. That'll be interesting,
It will also include plans for three million apprenticeships. Obviously, a third of the working-age population needs training.
Training that currently pays about £3 an hour, and at the moment seems to involve retail giants like Morrisons getting older people to learn how to stack shelves really nicely (or, indeed, re-fold towels) while not claiming benefits for which they get a NVQ.

As long as the economy behaves itself and does what the OBR says it will do - and we all know how right the OBR always is - we will have a nice little budget surplus of £4BN by 2018/19. Just in time for Osborne to take over from TCBBAC before the next election.

What the Tories call "welfare reform" is in fact more cuts to social security. The plan is to cut 10% of the non-pensions part of the budget. As the pre-election announcements have identified just £1.5 to £2 Billion of what is a £12 Billion sum, Osborne is going to tell us where the axe will fall - and he will not mention that the £20BN of cuts in the last Parliament actually saved just £2BN, 10%.

Pensions themselves may be safe with the "triple-lock" - but I am betting now that some pensioners will be losing some help; maybe winter fuel allowances, or possibly being subject to the bedroom tax.
We already know that Osborne/IDS plan to increase the number of people affected by bedroom tax by 400,000 - currently it's 600,000 but they will impose it on a million people, we just don't know who.
The IFS has calculated that even with the freeze on working-age benefit uprating, some serious cutting has to happen for Osborne to reach his target of £12BN - they think it'll be child benefits and disability benefits. Again.
I am still of the opinion that changes will be made to ESA. I can't think of any other way they can cut the amount they say they will.
Unless, of course, they abolish more benefits than they already have.

What annoys me most about the MSM coverage and speculation on all this is the fact that nobody mentions how little was actually saved by all the pain inflicted on people last time - if the as-yet-to-be-proposed changes save 10% of the amount cut like last time, there will only be £1.2BN saved.
This leads me to the inevitable conclusion that none of this is about saving money - and I have said for a long time that this is the case- it's ideology dressed up as economics. As we already have massive increases in homelessness and hunger from the last tranche of policies, this will not be pretty.

Oh well. The sun is shining and the birds are singing. Some small comfort in a nasty world....

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 16 May, 2015 8:13 am

@ ephemerid

Thanks for that, ephe. Probably worth repeating something I said earlier at the end of Friday's offerings in response.

One thing I suppose we should all demand of Osborne, IDS and the DWP is that cuts in allowances have already created too many social and personal difficulties. Before any more should be adopted a full and proper risk analysis should be performed and fully placed before the House.

Surely as citizens we can at least demand that, or do we no longer have the most transparent government ever now that Tories have a majority? Legislators should not be expected to perform their duties without a published risk register, as exemplified by the Health and Social Care Act. Even when published as was the DWP Under-occupancy Risk Register, had it findings been discussed in the House then its failings may have been exposed. Outcomes are more important than perceived notions of fairness, especially when increased overall cost and hardship are two.

I ask for no more legislation by propaganda but evidence and researched analysis. Governance has slipped to a new low; we should all demand better.

Edit: further to what I said of the under-occupancy risk register, it identified the most likely outcome, i.e. rent arrears but didn't account for what such outcome would mean. As a piece of work in academia it was grossly substandard. For matters of governance it was a scandal.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 16 May, 2015 8:50 am

Morning, utopian dreams.

This government does not have the (perceived, and frequently found wanting) curbs on their policies that the LibDems claimed they provided.
This time, they have a majority, albeit a slender one - the'll do what they want of they can get away with it.
If normal democratic (hah!) process fails, they will do what they did last time - claim Commons Financial Privilege. The have form when it comes to subverting the will of Parliament, and I have no doubt that they will do it again if they don't get their way.

Any opposition will be weak at best; despite plenty of demands for a full impact assessment on the changes of the Welfare Reform Act, DWP wouldn't do one because they claimed it was "too complicated" and "too difficult". We can demand one all we like, they won't do it.

Osborne and IDS know perfectly well that their cuts and policies saved a negligible amount in the last Parliament; they knew at the time that their cuts and policies would cause immense hardship; now that they have the proof of it they are still ploughing ahead.
£20 Billion of cuts gave Osborne just £2 Billion in savings - while IDS spent £7BN on his useless Work Programme, another billion at least on changes to ESA assessments and introducing PIP, and presided over a £5BN increase in Housing Benefit.

IDS has announced that he does not intend to cut benefits by "cheese-paring" so we will not see bits and bobs cut here and there; he has said he will cut to effect "behavioural change" and that is his mission. He said "work sets you free from a life of dependency", don't forget.

If you are sick and/or disabled, you may not behave as if you are and you will be required to look for work or do compulsory work; if you are a lone parent, you will not have more children because marriage is approved of and lone parenthood is not; if you are made redundant from a professional post, you may not behave as though you are better than anyone else and you will apply for any job that gets you off benefit; and if you are the main claimant of Universal Credit in your household, everyone in your household will get the same treatment.

We can demand better; we can make as much fuss as we like; we can ask for evidence-based reform and we can insist that government does its job and puts the interests of the people first - and we will get precisely nowhere.
We did all that last time. We protested, we demanded impact assessments, we put forward better ideas, we researched/evidenced reports, we had charities, churchmen, all sorts remonstrating with government - and we got precisely nowhere.

It is pointless expecting this government to care about the impact of its policies on our poorest and most vulnerable. We know this already.
All we can do is keep on with the same things we have been doing - protesting, campaigning, collecting the evidence, doing the research.
Eventually, either the Tories' incompetence could force them out sooner than they think, or we will see social unrest that might have the same effect - but with Labour so weakened and with their policies on social security woolly at best, the Tories now have carte blanche to do their worst.

For people like me, and others here who depend on what's left of social security, the next few years are going to be difficult. I don't know if the axe will fall on me; I am worried and I am one of the luckier ones because I have the support I need if I lose my entitlements.
For those who don't have that back-up, it will be hell. I'm expecting more untoward deaths and suicides.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 16 May, 2015 9:19 am

ephemerid wrote:... It is pointless expecting this government to care about the impact of its policies on our poorest and most vulnerable. We know this already.
All we can do is keep on with the same things we have been doing - protesting, campaigning, collecting the evidence, doing the research.
Eventually, either the Tories' incompetence could force them out sooner than they think, or we will see social unrest that might have the same effect - but with Labour so weakened and with their policies on social security woolly at best, the Tories now have carte blanche to do their worst...

... For those who don't have that back-up, it will be hell. I'm expecting more untoward deaths and suicides.

I entirely agree, ephe, and I expect more social unrest if they refuse to pay heed (Boris' water cannons anybody?). As for your last point then when I claimed JSA I always lived in fear of sanction although advised I was depressed I was either too proud to admit it or to claim additional benefits comparing my own state with those I perceived with real difficulties. Some of you for example, but first hand my late wife and daughter. Are you listening IDS with your perceived need for behavioural change?

The reality was that had I been sanctioned I would most likely have committed suicide myself, not idle words or a stupid threat I should add, 'most likely' is the operative term.

Edit: replaced Many with Some. I'd hate to have or to give the wrong impression.

Post by **refitman** » Sat 16 May, 2015 9:33 am

Having read the interview with Liz Kendall, in the Graun, I have to say I'm not overly enthused:

Kendall distances herself from her rivals in the older generation by saying that Labour should admit it spent too much in the run-up to the financial crash, and should commit itself to running a budget surplus. Indeed, she says, Labour should “wrap our arms around business” – whereas Miliband, she makes clear, was overly hostile to the private sector. “There are many good businesses that share our agenda, but they did not feel they could be part of what we were saying, because too much of the time they heard us attacking business, and giving the impression that profit is wrong,” she said.

(my highlights)

This sounds very Blair-lite.

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

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 16 May, 2015 9:38 am

AndrewSparrow ‏@AndrewSparrow 1h1 hour ago
AndrewSparrow retweeted Archbishop Cranmer
Lynton Crosby on the election - Superb read - He backs calls to ban publishing polls during election period

Archbishop Cranmer
‏@His_Grace
.@LyntonKCrosby: "..those who can do and those who can’t commentate” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general ... eople.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

I haven't read it - yet. I probably need to wake up, and toughen up, a bit more before that. Interesting if he is saying polls shouldn't be published during the campaign though.

Morning.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 16 May, 2015 9:38 am

Its all about "impressions" and "feelings" - waffle. Does she offer anything that is even vaguely, distinctively Labour?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 16 May, 2015 9:43 am

@refitman

I may or may not read your linked article, refitman, but it grates to hear of the defence of 'over-spending' or party members admitting the like. Granted counter-arguments should be formulated and vigorously defended but only when challenged. Constantly bringing it up unprompted adds to the Tory narrative and lies.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 16 May, 2015 9:46 am

refitman wrote:Having read the interview with Liz Kendall, in the Graun, I have to say I'm not overly enthused:
Kendall distances herself from her rivals in the older generation by saying that Labour should admit it spent too much in the run-up to the financial crash, and should commit itself to running a budget surplus. Indeed, she says, Labour should “wrap our arms around business” – whereas Miliband, she makes clear, was overly hostile to the private sector. “There are many good businesses that share our agenda, but they did not feel they could be part of what we were saying, because too much of the time they heard us attacking business, and giving the impression that profit is wrong,” she said.
(my highlights)

This sounds very Blair-lite.

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

I thought the same.

There are some people suggesting that there should be a break clause written in to this leadership contest ... that whoever is elected should be prepared to stand down / put themselves up for re election in 2018 - 3 years to build up the party and prove themselves in that role and then time for the party to decide if they are the right leader to fight an election. I might go for that. But 3 years is a long time to take a party in directions a lot of members and supporters don't want ... not sure there will be a way back from that even if there were another leader then elected.

When did Miliband say profit was wrong? If it was about the banks profiting from their various scams and misselling and nearly bringing the country down ... well spot on.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 16 May, 2015 9:51 am

ephemerid wrote:Morning, utopian dreams.

This government does not have the (perceived, and frequently found wanting) curbs on their policies that the LibDems claimed they provided.
This time, they have a majority, albeit a slender one - the'll do what they want of they can get away with it.
If normal democratic (hah!) process fails, they will do what they did last time - claim Commons Financial Privilege. The have form when it comes to subverting the will of Parliament, and I have no doubt that they will do it again if they don't get their way.

Any opposition will be weak at best; despite plenty of demands for a full impact assessment on the changes of the Welfare Reform Act, DWP wouldn't do one because they claimed it was "too complicated" and "too difficult". We can demand one all we like, they won't do it.

Osborne and IDS know perfectly well that their cuts and policies saved a negligible amount in the last Parliament; they knew at the time that their cuts and policies would cause immense hardship; now that they have the proof of it they are still ploughing ahead.
£20 Billion of cuts gave Osborne just £2 Billion in savings - while IDS spent £7BN on his useless Work Programme, another billion at least on changes to ESA assessments and introducing PIP, and presided over a £5BN increase in Housing Benefit.

IDS has announced that he does not intend to cut benefits by "cheese-paring" so we will not see bits and bobs cut here and there; he has said he will cut to effect "behavioural change" and that is his mission. He said "work sets you free from a life of dependency", don't forget.

If you are sick and/or disabled, you may not behave as if you are and you will be required to look for work or do compulsory work; if you are a lone parent, you will not have more children because marriage is approved of and lone parenthood is not; if you are made redundant from a professional post, you may not behave as though you are better than anyone else and you will apply for any job that gets you off benefit; and if you are the main claimant of Universal Credit in your household, everyone in your household will get the same treatment.

We can demand better; we can make as much fuss as we like; we can ask for evidence-based reform and we can insist that government does its job and puts the interests of the people first - and we will get precisely nowhere.
We did all that last time. We protested, we demanded impact assessments, we put forward better ideas, we researched/evidenced reports, we had charities, churchmen, all sorts remonstrating with government - and we got precisely nowhere.

It is pointless expecting this government to care about the impact of its policies on our poorest and most vulnerable. We know this already.
All we can do is keep on with the same things we have been doing - protesting, campaigning, collecting the evidence, doing the research.
Eventually, either the Tories' incompetence could force them out sooner than they think, or we will see social unrest that might have the same effect - but with Labour so weakened and with their policies on social security woolly at best, the Tories now have carte blanche to do their worst.

For people like me, and others here who depend on what's left of social security, the next few years are going to be difficult. I don't know if the axe will fall on me; I am worried and I am one of the luckier ones because I have the support I need if I lose my entitlements.
For those who don't have that back-up, it will be hell. I'm expecting more untoward deaths and suicides.

I think if anything I'm getting angrier, and that's now mixed with despair.

On Twitter there are some stalwarts who are still posting the things they posted before the 7th. I guess they thought they wouldn't have to after last week. I want to scream that they're preaching to the converted.
I thought social media would give Labour that extra punch to reach enough people, but it didn't and I can't think of an alternative except every newspaper and the BBC going out of business and loud speaker vans touring the streets reeling off exactly how it is.

Within hours of UKIPs polling figures being known, I wrote they were voters who sympathised with the BNP and EDL, but hadn't quite liked to do anything about. Then the BBC made Farage and UKIP 'respectable'.
Someone has just written an article about it. It's one of those times I hate being proved right. I also think they shouldn't be given the light of day. You'd crush a cockroach without any compunction.

I think if Labour tries to pander to them, no good will come of it.

LibDems have left a gap.
Labour needs somehow to step into it and that probably means a swing to the right. If it eases the burden of decent, deserving people who've been caught up in all the nastiness, then so be it.

I shan't like it, but owt, as they say, is better than nowt.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 16 May, 2015 9:54 am

Ukip spy who infiltrated protest group 'tried to encourage abuse of Farage'
Party admits it sent informant into Thanet branch of Stand Up to Ukip during election campaign, and protesters claim he urged them to deface posters
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -of-farage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Extraordinary story.

Well done to the protest group people for smelling a rat and doing some investigative work ... this stinks.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 16 May, 2015 9:56 am

Should have added it's going to be dog eats dog, survival of the fittest. And while purists are putting their cases forward and arguing the finer points, people will be dying in despair.

I'm going with, whatever it takes...

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 16 May, 2015 9:57 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
refitman wrote:Having read the interview with Liz Kendall, in the Graun, I have to say I'm not overly enthused:
Kendall distances herself from her rivals in the older generation by saying that Labour should admit it spent too much in the run-up to the financial crash, and should commit itself to running a budget surplus. Indeed, she says, Labour should “wrap our arms around business” – whereas Miliband, she makes clear, was overly hostile to the private sector. “There are many good businesses that share our agenda, but they did not feel they could be part of what we were saying, because too much of the time they heard us attacking business, and giving the impression that profit is wrong,” she said.
(my highlights)

This sounds very Blair-lite.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -interview" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I thought the same.

There are some people suggesting that there should be a break clause written in to this leadership contest ... that whoever is elected should be prepared to stand down / put themselves up for re election in 2018 - 3 years to build up the party and prove themselves in that role and then time for the party to decide if they are the right leader to fight an election. I might go for that. But 3 years is a long time to take a party in directions a lot of members and supporters don't want ... not sure there will be a way back from that even if there were another leader then elected.

When did Miliband say profit was wrong? If it was about the banks profiting from their various scams and misselling and nearly bringing the country down ... well spot on.

That was the thing that leapt out at me - Ed Miliband did not, to my recollection, say, or hint, that profit was wrong. Exploitation in all its guises - yes, that was what he was against. Liz Kendall has already adopted a position of twisting facts to suit her own agenda. I'm not in the slightest bit impressed.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 16 May, 2015 9:59 am

Good morfternoon.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 16 May, 2015 10:01 am

I'm beginning to wish for a completely separate Welsh Labour party. Sorry those of you in England. I'm not a separatist by nature ... but what's on offer from Westminster just feels so alien from life and people I know here. I'm trying to get my mojo back ... not seen or heard much that I've found helpful from them yet.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 16 May, 2015 10:02 am

rebeccariots2 wrote: When did Miliband say profit was wrong? If it was about the banks profiting from their various scams and misselling and nearly bringing the country down ... well spot on.

That's what is so annoying - he never ever did. But its all about "impressions" don'tcha know - not in any way created by our wonderful and unbiased MSM of course?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 16 May, 2015 10:08 am

Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound 59s60 seconds ago
Tony Blair's old flatmate Charlie Falconer declares for Andy Burnham. Campaign to be run by Michael Dugher. Serious players.

JamesLyons ‏@STJamesl 1m1 minute ago
Andy Burnham first to roll out names - Owen Smith and Charlie Falconer backing a campaign run by Michael Dugher http://labourlist.org/2015/05/dugher-to ... -campaign/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 16 May, 2015 10:11 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote: When did Miliband say profit was wrong? If it was about the banks profiting from their various scams and misselling and nearly bringing the country down ... well spot on.
That's what is so annoying - he never ever did. But its all about "impressions" don'tcha know - not in any way created by our wonderful and unbiased MSM of course?

The wannabe's. Saying what they think people want to hear. Politician speak. Hogwash. Bullshit. Horse pucky.

Back to square one.

Swarthlander · Post by **Swarthlander** » Sat 16 May, 2015 10:24 am

Caroline Flint....

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05 ... _hp_ref=uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brilliant! yes, no, well precisely, going forward, cool! Brilliant!

Most excellent ante-meridian, cool, brilliant, OK! Going forward then...

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 16 May, 2015 10:26 am

Andrew Gwynne MP retweeted
Labour Matters ‏@labourmatters 22m22 minutes ago
The party who wanted to lock Cameron out of No10 plans to give him a free ride on fox hunting ban. #SNP to abstain.

Hunting ban ‘set to be repealed within 12 months’ with early Commons vote expected
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 54419.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 16 May, 2015 10:37 am

Before I go I'll just add another thought about housing, one of the major issues of our time. Given recent Tory schemes and those proposed by Labour it is still difficult to understand how Cameron still resides at Number Ten. Regardless of tenants and their families it was the impact of rent arrears on local councils and providers of social housing... and now they want to give their properties away too. Unbelievable.

Anyway I then thought of a certain two or three faced character who used to be Housing Minister and whose achievements could barely have been counted before introduction of zero to mathematics. For example his landing strip being of far greater importance than housing people.

Which reminded me... time to move on for those you with a delicate or should I say discerning nature?

I recently mentioned an old mate who angered me for splashing people at bus stops. On the subject of puddles, it's just as well we both had leather upholstery in our cars, the damp patches on our passenger seats could at least be adequately cleaned. Anyway it was he who introduced me to flying. On his way to a flying lesson he once insisted I give it a go, only £5 for a trial lesson. That is back in the day when a fiver would nearly buy you an ounce of dope. On returning to ground I couldn't sign the enrolment papers quickly enough (why a squiggly red line under enrolment?). As for my smile it, remained uninterrupted for at least a week.

I shall give you some peace now. Not quite what I'd intended today but think I'll refresh my php. Fare thee well.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Sat 16 May, 2015 10:41 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound 59s60 seconds ago
Tony Blair's old flatmate Charlie Falconer declares for Andy Burnham. Campaign to be run by Michael Dugher. Serious players.

JamesLyons ‏@STJamesl 1m1 minute ago
Andy Burnham first to roll out names - Owen Smith and Charlie Falconer backing a campaign run by Michael Dugher http://labourlist.org/2015/05/dugher-to ... -campaign/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Shipman isn't wrong, those are very serious players and, interestingly, all from north of Watford. Dugher (mildly) impressed me in the run up to the election, with his promise to re-regulate buses (beating Natalie Bennett to that one by a good six months) and making noises about "public ownership of the railways" that only just stopped short of a promise to renationalise; Smith seems to make the right noises too, Falconer (with his connections to Blair and his "Dome Secretary" baggage) is the only fly in the ointment, but his organisational skills are good and his constitutional knowledge among the best in the country.

I'm still not keen on the idea of Tom Watson as Deputy, he fulfilled the role of useful rentagob briefing against Miliband too well for me to entirely trust him; but if his brief was to act as enforcer a la Prescott I could see the logic of him being there.

Edited to say .... oh, and Morning all.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 16 May, 2015 10:49 am

ohsocynical wrote:
LibDems have left a gap.
Labour needs somehow to step into it and that probably means a swing to the right. If it eases the burden of decent, deserving people who've been caught up in all the nastiness, then so be it.

I shan't like it, but owt, as they say, is better than nowt.

The gap the Libdems have left is a social democrat one and if Labour want to occupy it they need to embrace the need for electoral reform and PR as soon as possible before the Libdems regroup. If the few Libdems left go full on Liberal they are unlikely to break out of their reduced circumstances, which leaves Labour with the chance to build support among ex-Libdem voters in parts of the country where Labour support has been traditionally low, particularly since the breakaway from Labour of the SDP, in the south and south west. But they have to come out strongly for PR and they have to do it now. Is there any among the leadership challengers who have even mentioned the democratic deficit?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 16 May, 2015 10:51 am

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound 59s60 seconds ago
Tony Blair's old flatmate Charlie Falconer declares for Andy Burnham. Campaign to be run by Michael Dugher. Serious players.

JamesLyons ‏@STJamesl 1m1 minute ago
Andy Burnham first to roll out names - Owen Smith and Charlie Falconer backing a campaign run by Michael Dugher http://labourlist.org/2015/05/dugher-to ... -campaign/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Shipman isn't wrong, those are very serious players and, interestingly, all from north of Watford. Dugher (mildly) impressed me in the run up to the election, with his promise to re-regulate buses (beating Natalie Bennett to that one by a good six months) and making noises about "public ownership of the railways" that only just stopped short of a promise to renationalise; Smith seems to make the right noises too, Falconer (with his connections to Blair and his "Dome Secretary" baggage) is the only fly in the ointment, but his organisational skills are good and his constitutional knowledge among the best in the country.

I'm still not keen on the idea of Tom Watson as Deputy, he fulfilled the role of useful rentagob briefing against Miliband too well for me to entirely trust him; but if his brief was to act as enforcer a la Prescott I could see the logic of him being there.

Edited to say .... oh, and Morning all.

Morning TGS. It's all becoming a bit of a sargasso sea for me - this leadership election. I'm seeing the tweets from the Progress conference now ... where they are standing up to say what was wrong about the election and Miliband's politics. Who knows what we are going to see emerge as the 'direction'.

And then I see this ...

Toby Perkins ‏@tobyperkinsmp 3m3 minutes ago
Spot on. @yougov Peter Kellner says Labour's 97 achievements:Min Wage, NHS spending, Surestart etc more radical than 2015 offer #PAC15

And think - is he / are they right? There was a time under early Blair when it was positive and radical ... but at what a subsequent cost.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 16 May, 2015 11:03 am

Yomorfterhiya!

(also not welsh)

Am beginning to think that most of the current Labour leadership would exert the most beneficial effect by joining the Conservatives and pulling them to the left. Leave Labour to have some kind of fundamental beliefs to stand up for. Blair tried the foot in the door approach but then stayed where he was to stay in power. Labour have forgotten that the goal is not simply to get into power, it is to make things fundamentally different.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 16 May, 2015 11:09 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Shipman isn't wrong, those are very serious players and, interestingly, all from north of Watford. Dugher (mildly) impressed me in the run up to the election, with his promise to re-regulate buses (beating Natalie Bennett to that one by a good six months) and making noises about "public ownership of the railways" that only just stopped short of a promise to renationalise; Smith seems to make the right noises too, Falconer (with his connections to Blair and his "Dome Secretary" baggage) is the only fly in the ointment, but his organisational skills are good and his constitutional knowledge among the best in the country.

I'm still not keen on the idea of Tom Watson as Deputy, he fulfilled the role of useful rentagob briefing against Miliband too well for me to entirely trust him; but if his brief was to act as enforcer a la Prescott I could see the logic of him being there.

Edited to say .... oh, and Morning all.
Morning TGS. It's all becoming a bit of a sargasso sea for me - this leadership election. I'm seeing the tweets from the Progress conference now ... where they are standing up to say what was wrong about the election and Miliband's politics. Who knows what we are going to see emerge as the 'direction'.

And then I see this ...
Toby Perkins ‏@tobyperkinsmp 3m3 minutes ago
Spot on. @yougov Peter Kellner says Labour's 97 achievements:Min Wage, NHS spending, Surestart etc more radical than 2015 offer #PAC15
And think - is he / are they right? There was a time under early Blair when it was positive and radical ... but at what a subsequent cost.

Superficially right but fundamentally wrong. Ed's proposals were a direct attack on power - power of the unaccountable, the vested interests, the media moguls, predatory capitalists, non-doms - it was a direct attack on the whole corrupt capitalist system which keeps the whole discredited "trickle down" Thatcherite nonsense going. Ed's problem was that voters needed to understand the problem, in order to see that he had the right solutions. I'm really missing him right now. We can't afford to lose him from frontline politics. This new bunch really have me worried, they seem a bit clueless. Burnham is possibly the only hope, he started more Blairite I believe but genuinely seemed to move behind Ed. He certainly seems more aware of what is at stake and how the current government threaten everything Labour has ever held dear. I'm just not sure if he's going to be any better at getting one step ahead of the Tories then Ed. All the strategists within Labour appear to be Blairites and only willing to work for the Blairite cause which is a real worry. I almost wonder if ensuring Ed crashed and burned wasn't part of some kind of longer term plan.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 16 May, 2015 11:11 am

Good lord ... Margaret Beckett talking a lot of common sense on Radio 4. Says it is currently impossible to know why the election was lost - finds it strange that some people seem to consider they know and have already decided what to do about it - need to actually ask people and find out. Fully prepared to accept Labour might have lost because people rejected the message - but did they actually get to hear the message? When interviewer says but that means there was a failure of communication she says - Well yes - but look at how Cameron managed to fix so many things and cites the 7 way debate that was manipulated by him to escape a head to head debate.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 16 May, 2015 11:15 am

Willow904 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
LibDems have left a gap.
Labour needs somehow to step into it and that probably means a swing to the right. If it eases the burden of decent, deserving people who've been caught up in all the nastiness, then so be it.

I shan't like it, but owt, as they say, is better than nowt.
The gap the Libdems have left is a social democrat one and if Labour want to occupy it they need to embrace the need for electoral reform and PR as soon as possible before the Libdems regroup. If the few Libdems left go full on Liberal they are unlikely to break out of their reduced circumstances, which leaves Labour with the chance to build support among ex-Libdem voters in parts of the country where Labour support has been traditionally low, particularly since the breakaway from Labour of the SDP, in the south and south west. But they have to come out strongly for PR and they have to do it now. Is there any among the leadership challengers who have even mentioned the democratic deficit?

Someone mentioned if we had PR we'd have around fifty? [or nearly] Kipper MPs right now, which put a lot of people off...Me included.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 16 May, 2015 11:15 am

Coop AGM not sounding good.

stellacreasy ‏@stellacreasy 2m2 minutes ago
Audience starts heckling as group chair keeps calling it a company not the coop society - says it all! #KeepItCoop #CoopAGM

stellacreasy ‏@stellacreasy 4m4 minutes ago
coop group claim cooperative all about apples not activists. That’s why #KeepItCoop matters! #voteyes9 #voteyes10

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 16 May, 2015 11:20 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:I'm beginning to wish for a completely separate Welsh Labour party. Sorry those of you in England. I'm not a separatist by nature ... but what's on offer from Westminster just feels so alien from life and people I know here. I'm trying to get my mojo back ... not seen or heard much that I've found helpful from them yet.

You may get your wish before too long - Scottish Labour is surely going its own way within a few years, and one would then expect England and Wales to follow?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 16 May, 2015 11:21 am

ohsocynical wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
LibDems have left a gap.
Labour needs somehow to step into it and that probably means a swing to the right. If it eases the burden of decent, deserving people who've been caught up in all the nastiness, then so be it.

I shan't like it, but owt, as they say, is better than nowt.
The gap the Libdems have left is a social democrat one and if Labour want to occupy it they need to embrace the need for electoral reform and PR as soon as possible before the Libdems regroup. If the few Libdems left go full on Liberal they are unlikely to break out of their reduced circumstances, which leaves Labour with the chance to build support among ex-Libdem voters in parts of the country where Labour support has been traditionally low, particularly since the breakaway from Labour of the SDP, in the south and south west. But they have to come out strongly for PR and they have to do it now. Is there any among the leadership challengers who have even mentioned the democratic deficit?
Someone mentioned if we had PR we'd have around fifty? [or nearly] Kipper MPs right now, which put a lot of people off...Me included.

The number I saw was 83 ... cripes. But the mere fact of having PR might make a lot of people vote differently ... and might make a lot more people engage ... it's almost impossible to do a straight comparison when our mindsets and approach might be very different. It would certainly make a Tory majority and getting some of the most regressive and punitive policies pushed on us far less easy.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 16 May, 2015 11:22 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:Good lord ... Margaret Beckett talking a lot of common sense on Radio 4. Says it is currently impossible to know why the election was lost - finds it strange that some people seem to consider they know and have already decided what to do about it - need to actually ask people and find out. Fully prepared to accept Labour might have lost because people rejected the message - but did they actually get to hear the message? When interviewer says but that means there was a failure of communication she says - Well yes - but look at how Cameron managed to fix so many things and cites the 7 way debate that was manipulated by him to escape a head to head debate.

Margaret Beckett, although not really my cup of tea, is capable of saying some sound things. I was surprisingly impressed by her in her role as caretaker after John Smith died, and don't think she ever got the credit for that stint that was her due.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 16 May, 2015 11:26 am

PorFavor wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Good lord ... Margaret Beckett talking a lot of common sense on Radio 4. Says it is currently impossible to know why the election was lost - finds it strange that some people seem to consider they know and have already decided what to do about it - need to actually ask people and find out. Fully prepared to accept Labour might have lost because people rejected the message - but did they actually get to hear the message? When interviewer says but that means there was a failure of communication she says - Well yes - but look at how Cameron managed to fix so many things and cites the 7 way debate that was manipulated by him to escape a head to head debate.
Margaret Beckett, although not really my cup of tea, is capable of saying some sound things. I was surprisingly impressed by her in her role as caretaker after John Smith died, and don't think she ever got the credit for that stint that was her due.

Bit embarrassed to say I can't really remember her stint then PF ... not because I'm not old enough, I sure am, but don't think I was paying enough attention to party politics then.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 16 May, 2015 11:27 am

1) the story from a few days ago whereby someone here (apologies can't remember exactly who) pointed out that a majority (?) of people would rather forego a payrise than have one that meant a colleague would get a higher one. Scary scary scary. --> providing a rationale will not necessarily work

2) the press --> constant negative stories about Labour - whatever they do - mean Labour are currently unelectable.

These are the two things we need to change.

(edited to add missing em dash

)

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Sat 16 May, 2015 11:33 am

Right, I've ruled out Kendall, Cooper and Hunt. Just leaves Creagh and Burnham. We'll see.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 16 May, 2015 11:35 am

ohsocynical wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
LibDems have left a gap.
Labour needs somehow to step into it and that probably means a swing to the right. If it eases the burden of decent, deserving people who've been caught up in all the nastiness, then so be it.

I shan't like it, but owt, as they say, is better than nowt.
The gap the Libdems have left is a social democrat one and if Labour want to occupy it they need to embrace the need for electoral reform and PR as soon as possible before the Libdems regroup. If the few Libdems left go full on Liberal they are unlikely to break out of their reduced circumstances, which leaves Labour with the chance to build support among ex-Libdem voters in parts of the country where Labour support has been traditionally low, particularly since the breakaway from Labour of the SDP, in the south and south west. But they have to come out strongly for PR and they have to do it now. Is there any among the leadership challengers who have even mentioned the democratic deficit?
Someone mentioned if we had PR we'd have around fifty? [or nearly] Kipper MPs right now, which put a lot of people off...Me included.

I know, the thought makes me a bit queasy too, but we have to think long term. We may get 50 Ukip MPs the first time but what about next time? And then, to have any influence, they would have to be mature and work with other parties. Would the Tories be able to put together a stable government with them? Would Ukip MPs be able to actually agree what to vote for? PR favours organised parties with strong principles that are willing to compromise to get things done - ie. socially progressive parties. With FPTP, the Tories were able to gain a majority with only 24% of the eligible vote. They represent less than a quarter of voters but now have carte blanche to push through all sorts of things three quarters of people don't support. Even if they ended up in power with Ukip, they'd have to represent more views, even if they're not my views, they'd have to govern for more of the country. The democratic deficit is becoming a destructive force for this country. Way, way too few people, of any political persuasion, are now represented in our government. The new FPTP bias towards the Tories will only become worse if they change the boundaries again. The only way the left can get them out now will be with a broad alliance in support of PR.

I should add, I've always supported PR, so I'm a little biased. It just seems to me that since the 70s the only way Labour beat FPTP was by filling a Tory vacuum left by Major's economic woes and the Blairites are hoping for a repeat in 2020 which will keep Thatcherite "trickle down" bollocks for another generation. I think I've just had enough. I liked Ed's way, it was brave. Supporting PR would be brave too. Current leadership challengers aren't looking very brave at the mo. I hope that changes.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 16 May, 2015 11:39 am

Sorry for banging on about the rise in UKIP but I keep trying to get my head around what's happened.

In the run up to the election, 'It's the economy stupid', was, as normal, bandied about - except the stupid didn't think it was. For a lot of Labour voters it was immigration.

Labour is never going to win over those who voted UKIP, by trying to out tough them on that particular subject.
Not only would it be wrong, but with EU membership which is essential, Labour's hands are tied to a great extent. I don't see what else Ed could have said. I keep thinking I must have missed something. Did I?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 16 May, 2015 11:42 am

@Willow904

Just breaking my silence to doubly recommend you last post, Willow. Now if I could find my hockey stick (haven't played for years) and you your cricket bat, are you up for bashing some sense into people?

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 16 May, 2015 11:48 am

2) what do people read a newspaper for?

--> can we provide a better alternative that weans them off the Sun, Mail and Express?
(when I say "we" I don't mean FTN I mean everyone who wants to recover Britain as the reasonably tolerant collaborative society it was in a brief interlude after the world wars)

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 16 May, 2015 11:52 am

Willow904 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
Willow904 wrote: The gap the Libdems have left is a social democrat one and if Labour want to occupy it they need to embrace the need for electoral reform and PR as soon as possible before the Libdems regroup. If the few Libdems left go full on Liberal they are unlikely to break out of their reduced circumstances, which leaves Labour with the chance to build support among ex-Libdem voters in parts of the country where Labour support has been traditionally low, particularly since the breakaway from Labour of the SDP, in the south and south west. But they have to come out strongly for PR and they have to do it now. Is there any among the leadership challengers who have even mentioned the democratic deficit?
Someone mentioned if we had PR we'd have around fifty? [or nearly] Kipper MPs right now, which put a lot of people off...Me included.
I know, the thought makes me a bit queasy too, but we have to think long term. We may get 50 Ukip MPs the first time but what about next time? Would the Tories be able to put together a stable government with them? Would Ukip MPs be able to actually agree what to vote for? PR favours organised parties with strong principles that are willing to compromise to get things done - ie. socially progressive parties. With FPTP, the Tories were able to gain a majority with only 24% of the eligible vote. They represent less than a quarter of voters but now have carte blanche to push through all sorts of things three quarters of people don't support. Even if they ended up in power with Ukip, they'd have to represent more views, even if they're not my views, they'd have to govern for more of the country. The democratic deficit is becoming a destructive force for this country. Way, way too few people, of any political persuasion, are now represented in our government. The new FPTP bias towards the Tories will only become worse if they change the boundaries again. The only way the left can get them out now will be with a broad alliance in support of PR.

I should add, I've always supported PR, so I'm a little biased. It just seems to me that since the 70s the only way Labour beat FPTP was by filling a Tory vacuum left by Major's economic woes and the Blairites are hoping for a repeat in 2020 which will keep Thatcherite "trickle down" bollocks for another generation. I think I've just had enough. I liked Ed's way, it was brave. Supporting PR would be brave too. Current leadership challengers aren't looking very brave at the mo. I hope that changes.

I've never been able to make up my mind about PR. Aren't there some countries where PR works against getting anything done...Italy?

I've reverted to a general distrust of politicians. Given the crew we have now I can't see that a bunch of Kippers would suddenly cause everyone else to clean up their act, or become social reformers. Thinking of Europe, and the ramifications if we left, we might end up with worse.
And if we're thinking of a huge swathe of the British public having a social conscience, then Ed would be settling into no 10 by now.

God I'm depressed!!!!

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 16 May, 2015 11:53 am

ohsocynical wrote:Sorry for banging on about the rise in UKIP but I keep trying to get my head around what's happened.

In the run up to the election, 'It's the economy stupid', was, as normal, bandied about - except the stupid didn't think it was. For a lot of Labour voters it was immigration.

Labour is never going to win over those who voted UKIP, by trying to out tough them on that particular subject.
Not only would it be wrong, but with EU membership which is essential, Labour's hands are tied to a great extent. I don't see what else Ed could have said. I keep thinking I must have missed something. Did I?

I'm still not sure how much of it was about policy and how much of it was a presentational issue. I wonder if Andy Burnham saying the same things as Ed but in a northern accent might have made a difference among Ukip voters who, compared to floating Libdem voters, were certainly not convinced by the Tory offer. I've thought long and hard about why Ukip voters think Farage is different and the only difference I can see is that he didn't go to university. I think some Ukippers are maybe biased against intellectuals in general and don't trust them and wonder if superficially Andy Burnham might better suit their idea of what an average bloke should be (regardless of his actual background if that makes any sense). He's certainly very definitely English, which was a problem for Ed with some voters, I think. He couldn't convince on immigration because he was viewed as virtually an immigrant himself. I know all this sounds very shallow, but maybe the problems were shallow and nothing to do with policy at all. Which is where Beckett is absolutely right - too many people jumping to too many conclusions without any evidence. What I've said is based on what I know of the thinking of the two people I know who have voted Ukip. Do our leadership contenders have this insight of why people may have abandoned Labour for Ukip? A lot of Ed's policies polled very favourably, so surely that must give those proposing a change of direction at least some pause for thought?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 16 May, 2015 11:58 am

tinyclanger2 wrote:2) what do people read a newspaper for?

--> can we provide a better alternative that weans them off the Sun, Mail and Express?
(when I say "we" I don't mean FTN I mean everyone who wants to recover Britain as the reasonably tolerant collaborative society it was in a brief interlude after the world wars)

My impression is people read the Sun for their excellent football coverage. Perhaps we should lobby the Mirror to improve their football content. They sometimes only run to 5 pages, clearly not enough, and as for F1, just a tiny paragraph most race weekends. We need more sport output combined with left-wing commentary, that's what we need!

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 16 May, 2015 12:02 pm

Willow904 wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:2) what do people read a newspaper for?

--> can we provide a better alternative that weans them off the Sun, Mail and Express?
(when I say "we" I don't mean FTN I mean everyone who wants to recover Britain as the reasonably tolerant collaborative society it was in a brief interlude after the world wars)
My impression is people read the Sun for their excellent football coverage. Perhaps we should lobby the Mirror to improve their football content. They sometimes only run to 5 pages, clearly not enough, and as for F1, just a tiny paragraph most race weekends. We need more sport output combined with left-wing commentary, that's what we need!

I think this is spot on. What if there was an absolutely brilliant, cheap sports paper (poss with some celebrity stuff????) that gave a big stack of people what they mostly want from the press. With big names and backing, entertaining, great analysis. etc?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 16 May, 2015 12:08 pm

ohsocynical wrote:... God I'm depressed!!!!

I sincerely hope not, ohso, but do understand. During the height of my own depression... I'm immediately reminded of an individual whose name I cannot remember commenting btl on what not to say to those suffering with it. He/she (probably a he) had absolutely no idea of what they were talking about, was being suitably admonished albeit I didn't join in. He kept suggesting that depressives were self-centred and wallowing in their lack of attention or appreciation.

Anyway, I digress, during the height of my depression what most concerned me was the government, not for myself but for their treatment of others, most particularly those in need of a little support. In fact it came to the point where I could have assassinated Cameron or IDS for example given the chance. In reality I'd decided the last thing they deserved was recognition as martyrs to their cause. There was also what the right wing media would have made of the actions of a mad man with my skeletons in the cupboard. I'd have made them a national heroes and that would never do!

I really am going to shut up now. I only popped back to thank folk as I supped my coffee.

Edit: Damn it I forgot what I was going to say after all that. Joy. That was what was lacking in my life when depressed, ohso. Please find some, anything.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 16 May, 2015 12:09 pm

Willow904 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:Sorry for banging on about the rise in UKIP but I keep trying to get my head around what's happened.

In the run up to the election, 'It's the economy stupid', was, as normal, bandied about - except the stupid didn't think it was. For a lot of Labour voters it was immigration.

Labour is never going to win over those who voted UKIP, by trying to out tough them on that particular subject.
Not only would it be wrong, but with EU membership which is essential, Labour's hands are tied to a great extent. I don't see what else Ed could have said. I keep thinking I must have missed something. Did I?
I'm still not sure how much of it was about policy and how much of it was a presentational issue. I wonder if Andy Burnham saying the same things as Ed but in a northern accent might have made a difference among Ukip voters who, compared to floating Libdem voters, were certainly not convinced by the Tory offer. I've thought long and hard about why Ukip voters think Farage is different and the only difference I can see is that he didn't go to university. I think some Ukippers are maybe biased against intellectuals in general and don't trust them and wonder if superficially Andy Burnham might better suit their idea of what an average bloke should be (regardless of his actual background if that makes any sense). He's certainly very definitely English, which was a problem for Ed with some voters, I think. He couldn't convince on immigration because he was viewed as virtually an immigrant himself. I know all this sounds very shallow, but maybe the problems were shallow and nothing to do with policy at all. Which is where Beckett is absolutely right - too many people jumping to too many conclusions without any evidence. What I've said is based on what I know of the thinking of the two people I know who have voted Ukip. Do our leadership contenders have this insight of why people may have abandoned Labour for Ukip? A lot of Ed's policies polled very favourably, so surely that must give those proposing a change of direction at least some pause for thought?

Ah. Just realised. I think it's enjoying a pint, the pub and fags and not being ashamed of it...I know it's frowned on for health reasons and not acceptable in polite company as it were, but I find that part of his 'character' doesn't bother me at all.

I know he's not working class, but it's as near as we're going to get these days.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 16 May, 2015 12:36 pm

To recap:

* current Labour leadership to join Tories and move them to left
* True Labour to build on grass roots stuff and bring Labour-led improvements to people's daily lives
* Boycott the MSM by providing a better version of what most people want PLUS popular campaign to implement Leveson
* Reclaim the BBC
* Labour to craft feel-good stories to complement rationale
* Labour to relentlessly hold Tories and their policies to account, starting NOW

edited to add - for Labour can often substitute "left" as the Greens (and LibDems) and others need to collaborate with much of this.
The SNP (given fox-hunting position) are clearly going to collaborate with the Tories just as much as the Orange Bookers have done for the last 5 years. No surprises there I'm afraid. But tactically I don't know if Labour need to be going on and on and on and on and on about this, or loving the SNP to death given the forthcoming Scottish Election.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 16 May, 2015 12:39 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:Sorry for banging on about the rise in UKIP but I keep trying to get my head around what's happened.

In the run up to the election, 'It's the economy stupid', was, as normal, bandied about - except the stupid didn't think it was. For a lot of Labour voters it was immigration.

Labour is never going to win over those who voted UKIP, by trying to out tough them on that particular subject.
Not only would it be wrong, but with EU membership which is essential, Labour's hands are tied to a great extent. I don't see what else Ed could have said. I keep thinking I must have missed something. Did I?
I'm still not sure how much of it was about policy and how much of it was a presentational issue. I wonder if Andy Burnham saying the same things as Ed but in a northern accent might have made a difference among Ukip voters who, compared to floating Libdem voters, were certainly not convinced by the Tory offer. I've thought long and hard about why Ukip voters think Farage is different and the only difference I can see is that he didn't go to university. I think some Ukippers are maybe biased against intellectuals in general and don't trust them and wonder if superficially Andy Burnham might better suit their idea of what an average bloke should be (regardless of his actual background if that makes any sense). He's certainly very definitely English, which was a problem for Ed with some voters, I think. He couldn't convince on immigration because he was viewed as virtually an immigrant himself. I know all this sounds very shallow, but maybe the problems were shallow and nothing to do with policy at all. Which is where Beckett is absolutely right - too many people jumping to too many conclusions without any evidence. What I've said is based on what I know of the thinking of the two people I know who have voted Ukip. Do our leadership contenders have this insight of why people may have abandoned Labour for Ukip? A lot of Ed's policies polled very favourably, so surely that must give those proposing a change of direction at least some pause for thought?

Ah. Just realised. I think it's enjoying a pint, the pub and fags and not being ashamed of it...I know it's frowned on for health reasons and not acceptable in polite company as it were, but I find that part of his 'character' doesn't bother me at all.

I know he's not working class, but it's as near as we're going to get these days.

Ha! "Wanted - one Labour Party leader. Must be a non-non-smoker. Beer drinker preferred."

But I kind of know where you're coming from.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 16 May, 2015 12:52 pm

Thanks utopiandreams...

I've suffered depression since I was in my twenties, so know what to expect and do. It's the first time though that politics and outside events has affected me.
I have a deep fear for the future. Not only worry about what will happen when we aren't able to look after ourselves, but face the upheaval of moving due to financial circumstances.
Even though pensioners in our position ie: fairly healthy so far, have had less, or no cuts, our savings have shrunk & earn next to nothing. We have had to start digging into them for things like house repairs. And we can't keep up with all the things that are going wrong or that I'm too old to do myself.
I was horrified at having to fork out a fiver for eight plastic blades for our lawnmower the other day. I shopped around for cheaper but no luck.

We are far worse off than we were five years ago. Just before Christmas Our boiler broke again, so we decided we'd have a go at keeping just the one room heated and perhaps the savings might pay for repair.
I've just had a £96 refund from Eon, but it won't cover the repair and the other day we admitted to each other that it wasn't pleasant and are hoping we don't have to face another winter doing the same. The cold saps your will and energy which you don't have so much of as you age.

We have to move to survive.

Your options shrink as you get older. It's hateful...

thatchersorphan · Post by **thatchersorphan** » Sat 16 May, 2015 1:08 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Sorry for banging on about the rise in UKIP but I keep trying to get my head around what's happened.

In the run up to the election, 'It's the economy stupid', was, as normal, bandied about - except the stupid didn't think it was. For a lot of Labour voters it was immigration.

Labour is never going to win over those who voted UKIP, by trying to out tough them on that particular subject.
Not only would it be wrong, but with EU membership which is essential, Labour's hands are tied to a great extent. I don't see what else Ed could have said. I keep thinking I must have missed something. Did I?

They were fighting (again) on the tories terms. A new narrative needed, one that explains the benefits of the EU, and the benefits of immigration, as well as the number of british people living and working in other countries.

On the social media and preaching mostly to the converted - we need to use social media, but we also need to outreach, ALL of us, and not just to close friends and family. The media has failed us, we must be the media - tell people the things they don't know, and encourage them to use the internet instead of the TV for news. In the USA fox viewers were actually less informed by watching faux news than if they hadn't watched any 'news' at all, I'm wondering what that figure looks like here, we know that in surveys the public has got the figures on immigration, benefits, percentage of Muslims in the population and so on.
I've been surprised at how ill-informed people are - I've even found people who have never even heard of sanctions and mandatory workfare, as well as a complete lack of knowledge about past struggles, what the unions achieved, what protections we get from Europe (working time directive etc). We can share info on social media, especially with new arrivals, but ultimately we also have to talk to the people who aren't using the news sources that we do.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 16 May, 2015 1:09 pm

http://www.snp.org/node/15739
The SNP has a long-standing position of not voting on matters that only affect England. The Hunting Act is one such matter that purely affects England and Wales, and so SNP MPs would not vote on this issue. However, SNP MPs will always be a voice for the protection of our environment and wildlife.

The Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act was passed by the Scottish Parliament in February 2002, making Scotland the first part of the UK to ban traditional fox hunting and hare coursing. There are no plans to repeal the Act in Scotland.

Is this true? How longstanding?
(seems to be discrepancy see below)