Tuesday 19th May 2015

Post by **refitman** » Tue 19 May, 2015 7:11 am

Good morning all.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 19 May, 2015 8:05 am

Good morning.

No yarn today albeit in better mood than yesterday. Just as I was about to think of one than I saw the plight of starving refugees from Myanmar adrift and refused entry elsewhere, even being towed back out to international waters with no aid whatsoever. Oh and apols for engaging with our feathered friend even if I did challenge them for fact as opposed to opinion. Anyway something else has caught my attention, which would you believe I have an anecdote for? I'll plunge straight in and then come to the point, one of morale.

Many moons ago I rose from being taken on to becoming assistant manager in doubly rapid time, not because of my talent but because of events in a business with few personnel. The existing assistant manager had been embezzling the company; morale was extremely low once discovered, the police were called and we were all suspect. We were each interviewed whilst the guilty party tried to incriminate others. So low was morale and the level of mistrust that we all felt like leaving.

I had to come clean about my criminal record for possession of cannabis and even for theft, the lifting of five paving slabs from a pile dropped on my drive in a brand new estate. There's even a back-story to that as I'd previously challenged the woman who reported me for her treatment of a toddler at the bus stop outside our house. The manager could tell the police had something on me so I felt the need to come clean.

'And now to my point, or two actually; the nurse guilty of a much more serious crime and its affect on the morale of fellow workers and secondly the suspicion and subsequent demonisation by the press of the one that was wrongfully arrested. I cannot begin to understand how they felt, especially the latter. It doesn't bear thinking about. Is it DrJazz at the other place who speaks of first hand experience of press harassment?

Edit: forget it, there's at least one typo. I still don't proof read!
Corrected as also the missing word, 'wrongfully'

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 19 May, 2015 8:19 am

Apparently the govt plans to slash 10bn of red tape for bussinesses. Presumably because all the regulations put in place after disasters such as the Bradford City ground fire have made the UK a far too safe and pleasant place to live.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 19 May, 2015 8:28 am

Morning.

Beth Rigby ‏@BethRigby 18m18 minutes ago
Cameron likely to drop plan to shrink Commons: http://on.ft.com/1Hoh33G" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; > PM looks to avoid "blue on blue action" over boundary review..

One of the small blessings of him having a tiny majority - he doesn't want to jeopardise that for when it will really matter?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 19 May, 2015 8:32 am

Willow904 wrote:Apparently the govt plans to slash 10bn of red tape for bussinesses. Presumably because all the regulations put in place after disasters such as the Bradford City ground fire have made the UK a far too safe and pleasant place to live.

Wtf is red tape anyway, Willow? Much better that laymen and women wrap things up with a blue ribbon. You'd think a bunch of lefty activists sit around dreaming things up rather than taking sensible precautions after years of practice or the experience of those in the know.

Swarthlander · Post by **Swarthlander** » Tue 19 May, 2015 8:38 am

Good morning.

Looks like Burnham has a bandwagon (or something) rolling. It appears he will be the next Labour leader. If Burnham and Cooper are gathering the most nominations there won't be any left for Hunt.

The deputy post will be the most interesting.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 19 May, 2015 8:39 am

Housing benefit cuts for under-21s would be disastrous for young people
The cost of evictions, homelessness and temporary accommodation would all but wipe out the controversial policy’s predicted savings
http://www.theguardian.com/housing-netw ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... A blanket removal of housing benefit from 18- to 21-year olds would affect nearly 20,000 young people. It also runs the risk of not only increasing homelessness but also could fail to deliver the promised savings to the taxpayer.

The government estimate the policy would save £120m, but the spike of homelessness it would cause will wipe out £115m of the savings – leaving just £5m left after the costs of increases in evictions and temporary accommodation

Even if exemptions for the most vulnerable, such as care leavers and those with children were to be put in place, the reductions in savings and the added costs of supporting those not exempted who become homeless would lead to a saving of just £3m.

The evidence is clear: there is little guarantee that the savings can be delivered, but plenty of evidence that youth homelessness could rise...

Another one of their 'savings' that is anything but

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 19 May, 2015 8:45 am

Swarthlander wrote:Good morning.

Looks like Burnham has a bandwagon (or something) rolling. It appears he will be the next Labour leader. If Burnham and Cooper are gathering the most nominations there won't be any left for Hunt.

The deputy post will be the most interesting.

How much influence does a deputy leader have on the overall direction of the party - and the way the leader pitches things? I'd like to think they had a fair bit and we could see the leadership as a duo package ... which might mitigate some of the concerns about having a leader who is drawn from the past (as seems pretty inevitable at the moment) if we have a deputy who is much more free of that. I like Angela Eagle and am sure she would be competent but don't know if she can provide that freshness ... Creasy could but I don't have much sense of how she would carve out and deliver a deputy party leader role yet. Tom Watson I might worry about turning around and having a go at the party and leadership ... Bradshaw is a safe pair of hands type - won't counteract the leadership being drawn from the narrow pool. Who have I forgotten?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 19 May, 2015 8:45 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:... The evidence is clear: there is little guarantee that the savings can be delivered, but plenty of evidence that youth homelessness could rise...

Another one of their 'savings' that is anything but[/quote]

There are some that maintain that if it saves one pound it is only fair on hardworking tax-payers, rebecca. Even so actual costs shall likely be even more. There is no sense whatsoever in many of this lot's policies.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 19 May, 2015 8:49 am

Paul Waugh retweeted
Mark Ferguson ‏@Markfergusonuk 3m3 minutes ago
Yesterday I left @LabourList

Today I start working on @leicesterliz’s campaign for Labour leader

And here’s why

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

I wondered what his new job was going to be .

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 19 May, 2015 9:04 am

Very forthright Tory MP on Radio 4 saying Cameron did not win a landslide - contrary to all the hype - he has a tiny majority (savour that phrase - tiny majority) and did not win the election on a modernising, compassionate Tory manifesto - he won it on one of the most old fashioned Conservative manifestos ever. She says he is a very lucky man - he won it because of 'terrified Tories not shy Tories'. Only if a fair proportion of the lost Ukip vote had gone back to the Tories would he have got a good majority.

He's not going to do all the 'modernising' things Steve Hilton has been suggesting - re sorting out the tax dodging companies, paying more attention to consumer interests etc - he doesn't have a mandate for that. And - as Newsnight pointed out to Hilton himself - this focus on inequality and fairness sound exactly like Miliband's policies.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 19 May, 2015 9:14 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
Swarthlander wrote:Good morning.

Looks like Burnham has a bandwagon (or something) rolling. It appears he will be the next Labour leader. If Burnham and Cooper are gathering the most nominations there won't be any left for Hunt.

The deputy post will be the most interesting.
There's a long time to go but if nobody else can get enough nominations it will indeed be game over. I admit I have mixed feelings about Burnham. It depends how much traction the Mid Staffs stuff gets. Am still keeping a bit of an eye on Kendall, apparently odds on her are shortening, and if she can get enough nominations to stay in the race, could come through in the same way Cameron did.

Labour may need to turn the Tory smears on Midstaffs regardless of whether Burnham is leader, if they are to regain a position from which to effectively challenge the Tories on the NHS anyway. The whole point of the smear against Burnham was to discredit the messenger because they couldn't counter the message. If Burnham had genuine baggage, it would be a different matter, but the responsibility the Tories have carved for Burnham for what happened at Midstaffs is completely false. To allow a politically motivated smear to take a top Labour player out of the game is to allow the Tories to win. I have other doubts about Burnham, but not enough to not be reasonably happy to get behind him if he won and if there is any lesson from last time it's that it will be a lot easier all round if the most popular and obvious candidate wins and that probably is Burnham.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 19 May, 2015 9:15 am

Labour's problems in Scotland go well beyond Jim Murphy
Labour's troubles in Scotland go beyond left and right, and there's blame to be shared on both sides of the border.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... jim-murphy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is an interesting piece - and for those of us with not much sense of what has been going on in Scotland - informative about some of the detail re the Labour party.

This person sounds like someone who should be part of the rebuilding ... hope she is.

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Tue 19 May, 2015 9:15 am

Caught a bit of the news this morning - Dan Jarvis (talking about his support for Andy B) doing the mea culpa thing about Labour and spending. Immensely frustrating. Today's letters page in the Guardian presents a more detailed and accurate take on Labour's record:

Before they indulge in any further parroting of the Tory mantra that Labour overspent (Report, 16 May), perhaps the Labour leadership candidates could ask the House of Commons library for a breakdown of the figures. They could then explain exactly which items of government expenditure, in 2007 say, they regard as an overspend. For example, the Conservatives obviously think expenditure on early learning is an overspend, or they would not have cut Sure Start; similarly spending on a decent mental health service is an overspend or provision would not have plummeted from reasonable in 2007 to terrible in 2015. In 2007 our police community support officers used to cut crime and vandalism by running activities for local young people – an overspend for Tories, apparently. Do the Labour leadership candidates share these views?

Government expenditure for 2007 would necessarily have included a large sum to pay for the Iraq occupation and to step up security after the London bombings. Robin Cook and 138 other Labour MPs, Charles Kennedy and all the Liberal Democrats, voted that there was no moral case for it; 139 Conservatives out of 154 voted the contrary, so they cannot complain that the costs represented overspending.

My vote will go to a candidate who gives credit to Labour where credit is due, and doesn’t bang on about future generations having to pay our debts. My generation did not have to pay for the war our parents were forced to fight, because wise governments followed the policies of Beveridge and Keynes to ensure prosperity for the following 30 years. Austerity policies do the
reverse.

Well said Lynne Armstrong from Brixham.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -where-due

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 19 May, 2015 9:21 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
Swarthlander wrote:Good morning.

Looks like Burnham has a bandwagon (or something) rolling. It appears he will be the next Labour leader. If Burnham and Cooper are gathering the most nominations there won't be any left for Hunt.

The deputy post will be the most interesting.
There's a long time to go but if nobody else can get enough nominations it will indeed be game over. I admit I have mixed feelings about Burnham. It depends how much traction the Mid Staffs stuff gets. Am still keeping a bit of an eye on Kendall, apparently odds on her are shortening, and if she can get enough nominations to stay in the race, could come through in the same way Cameron did.

Not if she carries on droning endlessly about "public sector reform" and saying the last Labour government spent too much on hospitals schools and sure start centres

I agree that Burnham has baggage - he needs to show how he will deal with it. But contrasting him now with when he stood for the leadership 5 years ago - when he was a rather callow, ill-defined populist - shows how he has come on since then. Despite his flaws, he is the one to beat.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 19 May, 2015 9:21 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Paul Waugh retweeted
Mark Ferguson ‏@Markfergusonuk 3m3 minutes ago
Yesterday I left @LabourList

Today I start working on @leicesterliz’s campaign for Labour leader

And here’s why

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I wondered what his new job was going to be .

The problem with Kendall is that the for first few years with the general public it will probably be a case of "who?".

[youtube]_TA455ro9Wo[/youtube]

Swarthlander · Post by **Swarthlander** » Tue 19 May, 2015 9:25 am

@reb2 & Robert, et al.

I hope (such a well worn word) the deputy leader can be a force for good and not just a farce (e.g. Prescott) or a silent partner. Of course a strong deputy could overshadow a leader and put themselves in line for the next leadership contest. There could be friction between a leader and deputy if their ideas don't mesh which would not be good image for a 'united' party. But two good people at the helm would be nice.

Trivia...
Every morning I wake up to Radio4 and every morning I reach over to switch it off whilst cursing. I will have to retune to Classic FM or something.

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Tue 19 May, 2015 9:25 am

I know it's not a top priority perhaps, but it niggles me a bit that politicians these days want to be known by their nicknames. It may have started with Tony Benn, who to be fair had a valid reason to prefer to be known by that rather than Anthony Wedgwood Benn.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 19 May, 2015 9:36 am

Wow. We have negative inflation...

The rate of consumer price index (CPI) inflation fell to minus 0.1% in April, from 0% in March.
The rate of retail price index (RPI) inflation was unchanged at 0.9%.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 19 May, 2015 9:47 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:Wow. We have negative inflation...

The rate of consumer price index (CPI) inflation fell to minus 0.1% in April, from 0% in March.
The rate of retail price index (RPI) inflation was unchanged at 0.9%.

The only, tiny, silver lining of a small Tory majority, is that they alone will inherit the mess they have made. I did have a fear in the back of my mind that if Labour were in charge this time they would almost certainly lose next time as they would struggle to turn around an economy badly handled by the Coalition. Perhaps with a majority the progress Labour could have made in some areas, like abolition of the House of Lords, may have made it worth it, but as a minority government it could have been pretty uphill work. As I rather like Ed and his family, I wouldn't blame him one jot if he's actually feeling rather relieved right now and generally feeling like he just dodged a bullet!

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 19 May, 2015 9:52 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:He's not going to do all the 'modernising' things Steve Hilton has been suggesting - re sorting out the tax dodging companies, paying more attention to consumer interests etc - he doesn't have a mandate for that. And - as Newsnight pointed out to Hilton himself - this focus on inequality and fairness sound exactly like Miliband's policies.

To which Hilton's response was, to paraphrase, it's nothing like Ed's policies because I'm pro-business.

GetYou · Post by **GetYou** » Tue 19 May, 2015 9:58 am

http://www.24dash.com/news/central_gove ... ant-deaths" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1 in 5 seems a bit of an underestimation.

Employment Minister, Priti Patel said: "Our welfare reforms are transforming the lives of some of the poorest families in our communities"

They sure are.

Oh, and Yvette Cooper, Ed was not anti-business, he was pro-citizen

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 19 May, 2015 10:11 am

GetYou wrote: Oh, and Yvette Cooper, Ed was not anti-business, he was pro-citizen

Indeed.
Why do these successful businesses and 'aspirational', 'middle class' voters need all this government support anyway? Surely they can look after themselves.

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Tue 19 May, 2015 10:16 am

Morning all. Apparently we now have deflation

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Tue 19 May, 2015 10:18 am

Willow904 wrote:Apparently the govt plans to slash 10bn of red tape for bussinesses. Presumably because all the regulations put in place after disasters such as the Bradford City ground fire have made the UK a far too safe and pleasant place to live.

Can't agree strongly enough with this,
There has been a massive improvement in health, safety, environmental awareness and energy efficiency within industry over last 15 years,
most of this is initially due to 'red tape', but once forced to start making changes it is generally accepted as being in employees and employers best interest.
Where I work (steel) , safety is seen as the number one priority, the stated aim is we'd rather make a loss than have injuries.
I'm sure there are areas where 'red tape' could be reduced, but only in spirit of 'continual improvement',
not idealogical reactionary vandalism.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Tue 19 May, 2015 10:20 am

danesclose wrote:Morning all. Apparently we now have deflation

I await my bus pass dropping in price, with eager anticipation

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 19 May, 2015 10:24 am

From Rowson's twitter feed.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 19 May, 2015 10:29 am

And while we have negative inflation on the CPI measure we have...

UK house prices increased by 9.6% in the year to March 2015, up from 7.4% in the year to February 2015.

I notice all those right wingers who used to whine that Labour never did anything about house price increases have come up with solutions to this...oh...hang on...no, they haven't.

Odd that.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 19 May, 2015 10:33 am

The link between unionism and equality.

https://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2014/ ... -equality/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'd argue that everyone needs a union. In Thatchers time there was a fairly decent Claimants Union. We may not all be miners and steelworkers but we do all need something that will represent out rights and fight our corner outside of party politics.

One of the best conversations while I was away was about a building to house new machinery for spice production. It went on the lines of, well it's not enough these days to house it and keep to the regulations on building and safety, you have to make adequate provision for workers for rest breaks and meals and to relieve themselves, and it's not enough to make the machine safe, every last worker has to be safe in the building too, that means it has to be cool enough to work in, and they need more than life and limb safety. You might think this is basic stuff, and it used to be for here, except that in a ZHC world who is looking, who is checking. Here we are losing respect for such things, in the developing world they are gaining it.

(Workers in the spice industries with a traditional western market, I have to say, are some of the poorest paid in the world, who have been working in some of the most primitive of conditions. They produce stuff that makes us think luxury when we have coffee or cakes or at Christmastime. Or that are being recognised now for health benefits. The added value such products give to food are exploited to the full by the big conglomerates, who are not beyond using cheap toxic substitutes rather than the real thing.)

But I digress here, I know it, for some good reasons. We are used to thinking about some countries as being less civilised or organised or progressive than we are, and maybe less capable of having awareness of what is happening in terms of the global picture. I would argus that they are far from being like this, in fact they have had that discourse we have failed to have, recognise very well the major issues. After all, they were the exploited, and occupied, and the ones where conflicts and yes, modern weapons, were deployed. They are working towards that greater equality, while we are complicit in eroding our own. That doesn't come, of course, without attracting all kinds of predators. But they are getting wise to that too. My observation was they don't sit around talking politics, if the vested interests get too greedy the workers in some places simply go elsewhere. They can do this because there are plenty of jobs, not just from industry but because they have healthy internal markets and create work based on the populations needs. All the things we talk of here. I hear Africa also has many thriving places too, that our world keeps trying to push back into the dark ages. (Of exploitative asset stripping. Don't play ou game? We'll fund you a vision of hell.)

Well, I knew I was digressing...... I suppose what I'm saying is we have all the tools, all the mechanisms, have done all the thinking, but somehow have forgotten how to use them. Rampant capitalism won't be defeated by protest and shouting, it will be defeated by making it irrelevant. In that respect I understand where green voters are coming from though I'm a bit less patient with their policy making.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 19 May, 2015 10:40 am

gilsey wrote:

From Rowson's twitter feed.

Don't you just love Rowson!

Sometimes I feel he taps into a synchronous alternative universe. Though to be fair he's only speaking of one tendency in Labour, we keep witnessing the other being strangled. Please no LK for leader, it's enough to make you take up arms. If one could move in the first place.

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Tue 19 May, 2015 10:44 am

Not sure whether this is OK to post, and Admin may wish to remove it. There's a piece in the Guardian about John Whittingdale and the way he has the BBC in his sights because his party weren't happy with Auntie's coverage of the election. That's the BBC packed full of rabid lefties like Nick Robinson (former Chairman of Conservative Students), James Landale (old Etonian and guest in Cameron's kitchen), John Humphrys (who has, according to Labour MPs, the Daily Mail in front of him when interviewing them), Andrew Neil, Allegra Stratton, Laura Kuennsberg et al.

Osborne's former friend, Natalie Rowe, devotes a chapter in her new book, Whipping Up A Storm, to Whittingdale. She says:

Around November 2013 a source came to me with information that John Whittingdale was having a relationship with a known prostitute who specialised in S & M (whose name I've chosen not to reveal at this present time). The vice girl worked in a well-established basement flat in Central London. I then gave the story (with the permission of my source) to a tabloid newspaper. The woman in question was using cocaine on a daily basis and had extreme alcohol abuse issues. Was he using public money in order to pay for a home that he had set her up in? Had he claimed expenses on official business that he had taken her to? These were just a few questions among many that needed to be investigated. But what happened after I gave the story to a tabloid is most sinister. I was told it was potentially a story that could possibly cause Whittingdale to resign. All I was to do was to relay his movements with her to the journalist that was overseeing the story at the paper. My source then started giving me information as to when Whittingdale and the prostitute would meet up and places they would be going to. We already knew that he had taken her to the X FACTOR talent show finals in Amsterdam and that he was in the process of taking her to a Royal event. So every time I received any info I then relayed it back. So on the day he was to attend the annual Sports Ball in 2013, I informed the paper that he would be taking her with him.
He was on official business as he was the Culture, Media and Sports Committee Chairman. The idea was to get photos of Whittingdale and the hooker attending together. The photographer was notified and he indeed got the pics the paper wanted. This was a huge event as Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, was the guest of honour as Patron of SportsAid. The photographer also had both Whittingdale and the hooker on video as they left the Sports Ball to go back to his home. The hooker in question, while at the event, was relaying everything back to a 'friend' of hers by text message. What's worrying is that she could have been a security risk, apart from a political embarrassment for Whittingdale. The paper also had a video of them at the X FACTOR finals London, in the same year. It was all looking good for the paper to get set. But what I didn't know was that someone at the paper was already tipping John Whittingdale off about the fact that my source was trying to sell a story on the Conservative MP and his hooker. John Whittingdale then notified her of what he knew. She then unwittingly told my source that someone was trying to sell a story on her and Whittingdale. The irony of it was she said (to my source) she didn't want to end up being the next 'Miss Whiplash' (referring to me, a phrase the tabloids titled me with).
I was mortified. I relayed what I'd been made aware of and was assured that there wasn't a leak at the papers. John Whittingdale then took her to see the fireworks display at the Houses of Parliament to see in the new year. She also gave out her 'business cards' to other members of Parliament that attended the do. Then the bombshell came! She told my source that Whittingdale had shut down any story about him and her and that no paper would run the story, that he had his own source at the very paper that I had given my story to. Whittingdale then proceeded to educate her on what she should do if any press were to approach her; she was to call the Press Complaints and he coached her on exactly what to say. And she did indeed put a call in to the Press Complaints department. He was now abusing his power as the Secretary of State for Culture and Media, the papers didn't want to upset him and he knew that. Most of the papers wanted self-regulation and he was part of the decision making. Whittingdale got what he wanted, there would be no story as to whether he’d used public money on official business and claimed on expenses for the hooker, flights, hotels etc. She also (in a secret tape recording) said that Whittingdale wanted to keep their relationship, and for a while they should be careful - he made it clear to her that the fact she was a prostitute was obviously fine with him and that a “girl’s got to earn a living”. Well, let’s hope he debates that in the next Government debate on legalising prostitution, the hypocrite.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 19 May, 2015 10:50 am

Brrrr. The joys of prepayment meters. Finally went for a shower after repeatedly being called out for one thing and another (eldest's and partner's car in an accident yesterday). It's not just the running out it's the ridiculous charges too, so what Mr. Cameron have you done about that? It has nothing to do with payment history, credit rating or the like, it's just that many of us live in rented accommodation with very little security of tenure.

Which reminds me... I'll keep it brief just say that in one such accommodation I had to fork out considerable sums just to get connected. How there could be arrears on prepayment I'll never know, and wtf had it got to do with me anyway?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 19 May, 2015 10:54 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:And while we have negative inflation on the CPI measure we have...

UK house prices increased by 9.6% in the year to March 2015, up from 7.4% in the year to February 2015.
I notice all those right wingers who used to whine that Labour never did anything about house price increases have come up with solutions to this...oh...hang on...no, they haven't.

Odd that.

Come now, Roger, speculation is all. You don't expect anybody to actually work for a living do you, despite government rhetoric?

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 19 May, 2015 11:09 am

utopiandreams wrote:Brrrr. The joys of prepayment meters. Finally went for a shower after repeatedly being called out for one thing and another (eldest's and partner's car in an accident yesterday). It's not just the running out it's the ridiculous charges too, so what Mr. Cameron have you done about that? It has nothing to do with payment history, credit rating or the like, it's just that many of us live in rented accommodation with very little security of tenure.

Which reminds me... I'll keep it brief just say that in one such accommodation I had to fork out considerable sums just to get connected. How there could be arrears on prepayment I'll never know, and wtf had it got to do with me anyway?

Had something similar but even more bizarre in a similar type of accommodation in that while I transferred my account when I moved in I found myself receiving fuel bills in my name in triplicate complete with arrears. After a few months of total confusion it transpired that one of them was for a dwelling that didn't and had never existed. I still can't work that one out. The other had huge arrears they wanted to recover from me! I was fortunate enough to be able to have the prepayment doodads removed, perhaps because I had uncovered a total mess that seemed to be entirely the fault of the underlying supply body, I can't remember their name, rather than the fuel suppliers themselves who just sell a product on. The chaos of privatised services. And the bloody poor service that is the end result. That the public apparently wants.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 19 May, 2015 11:14 am

@seeingclearly

Go on then, a little more. I was finally recompensed with an additional £50 I think by way of apology. Nevertheless I was only connected after telling them of my disabled daughter and even then had to pay either £150 or £250. What if I hadn't have been able to raise such funds?

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 19 May, 2015 11:34 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: There's a long time to go but if nobody else can get enough nominations it will indeed be game over. I admit I have mixed feelings about Burnham. It depends how much traction the Mid Staffs stuff gets. Am still keeping a bit of an eye on Kendall, apparently odds on her are shortening, and if she can get enough nominations to stay in the race, could come through in the same way Cameron did.
Not if she carries on droning endlessly about "public sector reform" and saying the last Labour government spent too much on hospitals schools and sure start centres

I agree that Burnham has baggage - he needs to show how he will deal with it. But contrasting him now with when he stood for the leadership 5 years ago - when he was a rather callow, ill-defined populist - shows how he has come on since then. Despite his flaws, he is the one to beat.
It depends what you mean by reform. If she just means what Tories mean, i.e. privatisation and outsourcing, then no. But it might be worth reading the fairly extensive material on what Kendall is proposing for the NHS, which I don't think anyone would suggest does not need to change to respond to population challenges. She has said a lot about true integration of health and social care, for example, and changes to make the service better able to cope with lifestyle health issues and long term conditions.

On the 'Labour spent too much' before the crash issue, it's a moot point whether we like it or not. Strictly adhering to Keynes would have meant not running that (admittedly small) deficit in the boom years, and let's not pretend that everything that was spent then was spent entirely wisely. Dealing with rising demand in the NHS back then rather than just chucking money at it (as the current government seems to be doing, ironically) would have saved billions in the long run. I don't think the pre-crash deficit made a noticeable difference when the crash came along (the government would have had to have run a huge surplus to avoid a large deficit when tax receipts crashed) but if saying that is what Labour needs to gain credibility again, then so be it. And a bit like Ed with the Iraq war, people like Liz Kendall can afford to say it because they weren't associated with that government.

I don't think we quite appreciated just how much 'Labour's Mess' and 'No Money Left' sunk into the public consciousness in the last parliament. It left a strong impression of Tory competence vs Labour incompetence, and Labour's failure to come to grips with it basically lost us the election. That will now never be turned around until it's in the history books. If it takes the new generation to move forward by accepting, in a qualified way, the narrative that everyone believes now anyway, is that so bad?

I get very impatient with the notion of Labour incompetence in the face of what the coalition and in the longer term the Tories have done. While I was very disappointed with foreign policy during the new labour period it was very evident that for a large amount of people thing improved under labour, though they never managed to get to the worst hit places still life did become less punitive.

I particularly get miffed on Health because the public health and awareness actions they took had lasting and beneficial results and those same initiatives no longer exist. A lost of my work in those years was at the delivery end of such stuff, often not in direct delivery but in documenting and enabling local participation in genuine consultation on what local areas needed and how best things could be delivered. Exactly what many people are crying out for in fact. The health action zones (HAZ) were one such example of these. Nobody got left out, and the results were good, it was preventative health provision at its best tackling the causes, not just the symptoms. I was a very small player, so claim no credit, I'll say though there were some extremely good thinkers doing the right things. I'll not say that this was the whole picture though, because where funding goes vested interests follow, and that was rearing a rather ugly head, too. But that doesn't take away from the fact that there was some amazing work done with lasting effect in a very integrated way that brought cost effective results. It costs the state a lot to support deprived disenfranchised people, as we can see, and it makes me mad that the narratives are all about flower vases and PFI.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 19 May, 2015 11:54 am

utopiandreams wrote:@seeingclearly

Go on then, a little more. I was finally recompensed with an additional £50 I think by way of apology. Nevertheless I was only connected after telling them of my disabled daughter and even then had to pay either £150 or £250. What if I hadn't have been able to raise such funds?

Absolutely. A well-known cable company kept a minimal line open for me, while I went through an 11 month ordeal with the DWP, on the basis of my disability, only to cut me off two weeks before it was resolved in my favour. I was happy to pay what I owed, but was incredibly dismayed by the huge reconnection fee they demanded off me. They of course were aware I was due back payments, but what if I hadn't been awarded them? I too would have been unable to raise such sums, and would have been at risk. No matter that it had been a long very hard year, and only my ability to turn lentils into good eating and my garden into greens allowed my family to survive. I don't remember them demanding such sums when I gave them my custom some twenty years before.

A couple of hundred quid is just a number to them, and potentially an area of clawback if taken over a companies entire client group, but if you are bouncing around on the bottom it's he difference between an passable month and a bloody awful month.

Swarthlander · Post by **Swarthlander** » Tue 19 May, 2015 12:00 pm

From the 'other place'...

Halfon says the Conservatives should seriously consider changing the party’s name.

We are going to have a national conversation. The name is something we should look at. If we get the message right as well as the policies, we will de facto become the Workers’ party.

He says the Conservatives should be the party for working people.

The prime minister wants me to spread the message that we are the party of working people now.

If he really wants to help the workers, Len McCluskey [the Unite general secretary] should join the Tories.

Blimey!

I'll have some of what he's using.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 19 May, 2015 12:03 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
seeingclearly wrote:I particularly get miffed on Health because the public health and awareness actions they took had lasting and beneficial results and those same initiatives no longer exist. A lost of my work in those years was at the delivery end of such stuff, often not in direct delivery but in documenting and enabling local participation in genuine consultation on what local areas needed and how best things could be delivered. Exactly what many people are crying out for in fact. The health action zones (HAZ) were one such example of these. Nobody got left out, and the results were good, it was preventative health provision at its best tackling the causes, not just the symptoms. I was a very small player, so claim no credit, I'll say though there were some extremely good thinkers doing the right things. I'll not say that this was the whole picture though, because where funding goes vested interests follow, and that was rearing a rather ugly head, too. But that doesn't take away from the fact that there was some amazing work done with lasting effect in a very integrated way that brought cost effective results. It costs the state a lot to support deprived disenfranchised people, as we can see, and it makes me mad that the narratives are all about flower vases and PFI.
Yes, that's very true. It angers me that so much good work was axed on Day One of the coalition that could have helped with the problems we've faced over the last few years. Labour's approach should have been to vociferously defend its record where it was not just defensible but laudable, but that never seemed to have cut through. Perhaps, in retrospect, Ed Miliband's 'softly softly' approach to party unity meant that too many difficult questions about the approach to tackling the coalition's failings didn't really get tackled.

It's been a hard time for Labour, when everything they said to defend themselves was turned to muck and served up as a denunciatory sound byte. I don't think it was softly softly so much as not starting up the toxic messages that made matters worse. All the accusations were, tbf, aired in the proper place, parliament, and refuted effectively by Labour, though it was always hard to hear their message through the jeering.

I don't think we should buy into this notion that Labour didn't defend itself. How the heck could they given the bias. We should instead be educating people to see how their views are manipulated.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 19 May, 2015 12:23 pm

Swarthlander wrote:From the 'other place'...
Halfon says the Conservatives should seriously consider changing the party’s name.

We are going to have a national conversation. The name is something we should look at. If we get the message right as well as the policies, we will de facto become the Workers’ party.

He says the Conservatives should be the party for working people.

The prime minister wants me to spread the message that we are the party of working people now.

If he really wants to help the workers, Len McCluskey [the Unite general secretary] should join the Tories.
Blimey! I'll have some of what he's using.

Reminds me of another party that claimed to be the party of workers - what was it called again? Oh yes, the National Socialist German Workers Party. We've already got blatant English nationalism, throw in a bit of 'workers party' and the Tories are virtually there. Picking on the disabled, repealing the Human Rights Act and moaning about the ECHR and EU which were founded primarily to prevent the return of fascism in Europe - it leaves you a bit cold, really. Not to mention "work" being the cure all for everything, rather than wages. What the hell is this country turning into? What happened to "a fair days wage for a fair days work"?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 19 May, 2015 12:24 pm

seeingclearly wrote:
utopiandreams wrote:@seeingclearly

Go on then, a little more. I was finally recompensed with an additional £50 I think by way of apology. Nevertheless I was only connected after telling them of my disabled daughter and even then had to pay either £150 or £250. What if I hadn't have been able to raise such funds?
Absolutely. A well-known cable company kept a minimal line open for me, while I went through an 11 month ordeal with the DWP, on the basis of my disability, only to cut me off two weeks before it was resolved in my favour. I was happy to pay what I owed, but was incredibly dismayed by the huge reconnection fee they demanded off me. They of course were aware I was due back payments, but what if I hadn't been awarded them? I too would have been unable to raise such sums, and would have been at risk. No matter that it had been a long very hard year, and only my ability to turn lentils into good eating and my garden into greens allowed my family to survive. I don't remember them demanding such sums when I gave them my custom some twenty years before.

A couple of hundred quid is just a number to them, and potentially an area of clawback if taken over a companies entire client group, but if you are bouncing around on the bottom it's he difference between an passable month and a bloody awful month.

Absolutely, seeingclearly, I cannot put my finger on whether it be a change of attitude since Thatch, the rise in population or possibly computerisation or more likely the stranglehold that corporatism and finance has over us. Whatever it is we are no longer seen as individuals but as cash cows, or is that fodder or stock as some would label us. Which reminds me...

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Tue 19 May, 2015 12:26 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: There's a long time to go but if nobody else can get enough nominations it will indeed be game over. I admit I have mixed feelings about Burnham. It depends how much traction the Mid Staffs stuff gets. Am still keeping a bit of an eye on Kendall, apparently odds on her are shortening, and if she can get enough nominations to stay in the race, could come through in the same way Cameron did.
Not if she carries on droning endlessly about "public sector reform" and saying the last Labour government spent too much on hospitals schools and sure start centres

I agree that Burnham has baggage - he needs to show how he will deal with it. But contrasting him now with when he stood for the leadership 5 years ago - when he was a rather callow, ill-defined populist - shows how he has come on since then. Despite his flaws, he is the one to beat.
It depends what you mean by reform. If she just means what Tories mean, i.e. privatisation and outsourcing, then no. But it might be worth reading the fairly extensive material on what Kendall is proposing for the NHS, which I don't think anyone would suggest does not need to change to respond to population challenges. She has said a lot about true integration of health and social care, for example, and changes to make the service better able to cope with lifestyle health issues and long term conditions.

On the 'Labour spent too much' before the crash issue, it's a moot point whether we like it or not. Strictly adhering to Keynes would have meant not running that (admittedly small) deficit in the boom years, and let's not pretend that everything that was spent then was spent entirely wisely. Dealing with rising demand in the NHS back then rather than just chucking money at it (as the current government seems to be doing, ironically) would have saved billions in the long run. I don't think the pre-crash deficit made a noticeable difference when the crash came along (the government would have had to have run a huge surplus to avoid a large deficit when tax receipts crashed) but if saying that is what Labour needs to gain credibility again, then so be it. And a bit like Ed with the Iraq war, people like Liz Kendall can afford to say it because they weren't associated with that government.

I don't think we quite appreciated just how much 'Labour's Mess' and 'No Money Left' sunk into the public consciousness in the last parliament. It left a strong impression of Tory competence vs Labour incompetence, and Labour's failure to come to grips with it basically lost us the election. That will now never be turned around until it's in the history books. If it takes the new generation to move forward by accepting, in a qualified way, the narrative that everyone believes now anyway, is that so bad?

Not sure how government can be sure economy is booming, so it makes sense to run with a smallish deficit to ensure spending plans can be met.
Cameron's 'fixing roof whilst the sun is shining' seems simplistic, and by not allowing for variations in economic performance would result in a stop/go approach to Government spending.

I don't think it's right to accept the lies
i) Labour spent too much
ii) The 'no money' letter

Not sure how the message can be got across though,
in my experience people seem to be surprised but accept the letter being a joke, when told about it.

The fact the Tories accepted Labour spending plans needs exploiting.

The overall aim should be to spread discontent by feeding the feeling that Conservatives got in by lying, and have no mandate and questionable legitimacy.
It's what they'd have done to Labour.

Swarthlander · Post by **Swarthlander** » Tue 19 May, 2015 12:29 pm

Willow904 wrote:
Swarthlander wrote:From the 'other place'...
Halfon says the Conservatives should seriously consider changing the party’s name.

We are going to have a national conversation. The name is something we should look at. If we get the message right as well as the policies, we will de facto become the Workers’ party.

He says the Conservatives should be the party for working people.

The prime minister wants me to spread the message that we are the party of working people now.

If he really wants to help the workers, Len McCluskey [the Unite general secretary] should join the Tories.
Blimey! I'll have some of what he's using.
Reminds me of another party that claimed to be the party of workers - what was it called again? Oh yes, the National Socialist German Workers Party. We've already got blatant English nationalism, throw in a bit of 'workers party' and the Tories are virtually there. Picking on the disabled, repealing the Human Rights Act and moaning about the ECHR and EU which were founded primarily to prevent the return of fascism in Europe - it leaves you a bit cold, really. Not to mention "work" being the cure all for everything, rather than wages. What the hell is this country turning into? What happened to "a fair days wage for a fair days work"?

Good point(s) Willow.
It's natural for folk to deny the comparisons to the 1930s (that won't happen here) but there are signs.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 19 May, 2015 1:02 pm

seeingclearly wrote:
utopiandreams wrote:@seeingclearly

Go on then, a little more. I was finally recompensed with an additional £50 I think by way of apology. Nevertheless I was only connected after telling them of my disabled daughter and even then had to pay either £150 or £250. What if I hadn't have been able to raise such funds?
Absolutely. A well-known cable company kept a minimal line open for me, while I went through an 11 month ordeal with the DWP, on the basis of my disability, only to cut me off two weeks before it was resolved in my favour. I was happy to pay what I owed, but was incredibly dismayed by the huge reconnection fee they demanded off me. They of course were aware I was due back payments, but what if I hadn't been awarded them? I too would have been unable to raise such sums, and would have been at risk. No matter that it had been a long very hard year, and only my ability to turn lentils into good eating and my garden into greens allowed my family to survive. I don't remember them demanding such sums when I gave them my custom some twenty years before.

A couple of hundred quid is just a number to them, and potentially an area of clawback if taken over a companies entire client group, but if you are bouncing around on the bottom it's he difference between an passable month and a bloody awful month.

Or having to go to a pay day lender.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Tue 19 May, 2015 1:41 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
tinybgoat wrote:Not sure how government can be sure economy is booming, so it makes sense to run with a smallish deficit to ensure spending plans can be met.
Cameron's 'fixing roof whilst the sun is shining' seems simplistic, and by not allowing for variations in economic performance would result in a stop/go approach to Government spending.

I don't think it's right to accept the lies
i) Labour spent too much
ii) The 'no money' letter

Not sure how the message can be got across though,
in my experience people seem to be surprised but accept the letter being a joke, when told about it.

The fact the Tories accepted Labour spending plans needs exploiting.

The overall aim should be to spread discontent by feeding the feeling that Conservatives got in by lying, and have no mandate and questionable legitimacy.
It's what they'd have done to Labour.
It's too late not to accept the lies. It's too late to make the point about the spending plans. That point has been made, and is too easily countered. It came from a time when Brown was trusted on the economy and before he 'crashed it'. In any event, no-one cares. We might as well argue that unemployment wasn't actually that bad in 1979. By 2020, it will have been ten years since Labour was last in power and 15 since it won an election. Trying to turn back the clock and fight the battles of the past won't help.

The best way for Labour is to present a vision for the country that people want to see, while countering everything the Tories do and say with passion and vigour, on why it is bad right now (and what the party would be doing instead). If I were leader, I'd be making sure each brief had a 'sunlit uplands' and an 'attack dog' representative with a good team behind them so as to present a comprehensive picture of how things would be and will be.

I agree with idea of moving on
& countering what's to come,
but suspect/fear this will be made harder by continual referral to supposed past failings, not sure it will make it easier if they're accepted by Labour.
Didn't help having dual attack from Tories & Libdems over last 5 years, maybe this aspect will be better this time.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 19 May, 2015 1:43 pm

Swarthlander wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
Swarthlander wrote:From the 'other place'... Blimey! I'll have some of what he's using.
Reminds me of another party that claimed to be the party of workers - what was it called again? Oh yes, the National Socialist German Workers Party. We've already got blatant English nationalism, throw in a bit of 'workers party' and the Tories are virtually there. Picking on the disabled, repealing the Human Rights Act and moaning about the ECHR and EU which were founded primarily to prevent the return of fascism in Europe - it leaves you a bit cold, really. Not to mention "work" being the cure all for everything, rather than wages. What the hell is this country turning into? What happened to "a fair days wage for a fair days work"?
Good point(s) Willow.
It's natural for folk to deny the comparisons to the 1930s (that won't happen here) but there are signs.

It's the fact that they can't see how remodelling themselves as the "workers party", after the way they have demonised the sick and disabled, the poor and the vulnerable, might look. Absolutely no awareness whatsoever of how far away from traditional conservatism they've gone, how warped their ideas of how society works has become. Are they not even a little bit uneasy how readily the comparisons to Nazi Germany are made?

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Tue 19 May, 2015 1:48 pm

tinybgoat wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
tinybgoat wrote:Not sure how government can be sure economy is booming, so it makes sense to run with a smallish deficit to ensure spending plans can be met.
Cameron's 'fixing roof whilst the sun is shining' seems simplistic, and by not allowing for variations in economic performance would result in a stop/go approach to Government spending.

I don't think it's right to accept the lies
i) Labour spent too much
ii) The 'no money' letter

Not sure how the message can be got across though,
in my experience people seem to be surprised but accept the letter being a joke, when told about it.

The fact the Tories accepted Labour spending plans needs exploiting.

The overall aim should be to spread discontent by feeding the feeling that Conservatives got in by lying, and have no mandate and questionable legitimacy.
It's what they'd have done to Labour.
It's too late not to accept the lies. It's too late to make the point about the spending plans. That point has been made, and is too easily countered. It came from a time when Brown was trusted on the economy and before he 'crashed it'. In any event, no-one cares. We might as well argue that unemployment wasn't actually that bad in 1979. By 2020, it will have been ten years since Labour was last in power and 15 since it won an election. Trying to turn back the clock and fight the battles of the past won't help.

The best way for Labour is to present a vision for the country that people want to see, while countering everything the Tories do and say with passion and vigour, on why it is bad right now (and what the party would be doing instead). If I were leader, I'd be making sure each brief had a 'sunlit uplands' and an 'attack dog' representative with a good team behind them so as to present a comprehensive picture of how things would be and will be.
I agree with idea of moving on
& countering what's to come,
but suspect/fear this will be made harder by continual referral to supposed past failings, not sure it will make it easier if they're accepted by Labour.
Didn't help having dual attack from Tories & Libdems over last 5 years, maybe this aspect will be better this time.

I don't agree that Labour can let it lie. Firstly it's untrue. Secondly the Tories will just keep saying it if it's not challenged. Thirdly, if things go tits up under this government, (which I think they will), then people will turn to a third party if they think the other two are crap and that will be UKIP with its blame game and easy solutions. Not saying it will be easy, (thanks BBC), but Labour must challenge these myths wherever they're alleged or they become the truth.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Tue 19 May, 2015 2:12 pm

On negative inflation, Mark Carney says, "Enjoy it while it lasts. We'll be working to bring inflation back to the 2% target." Stripping out volatile areas like food and energy, inflation is 0.8%, according to chap I don't recognise on BBC. Oh David Gauke. Something to do with the Treasury, isn't he?

Aftevemorn, all

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 19 May, 2015 2:17 pm

Willow904 wrote:
Swarthlander wrote:
Willow904 wrote: Reminds me of another party that claimed to be the party of workers - what was it called again? Oh yes, the National Socialist German Workers Party. We've already got blatant English nationalism, throw in a bit of 'workers party' and the Tories are virtually there. Picking on the disabled, repealing the Human Rights Act and moaning about the ECHR and EU which were founded primarily to prevent the return of fascism in Europe - it leaves you a bit cold, really. Not to mention "work" being the cure all for everything, rather than wages. What the hell is this country turning into? What happened to "a fair days wage for a fair days work"?
Good point(s) Willow.
It's natural for folk to deny the comparisons to the 1930s (that won't happen here) but there are signs.
It's the fact that they can't see how remodelling themselves as the "workers party", after the way they have demonised the sick and disabled, the poor and the vulnerable, might look. Absolutely no awareness whatsoever of how far away from traditional conservatism they've gone, how warped their ideas of how society works has become. Are they not even a little bit uneasy how readily the comparisons to Nazi Germany are made?

Not when you remember how many of our upper classes were Nazi sympathisers...

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 19 May, 2015 2:33 pm

Ed's positive campaign failed to click with enough people. Decency and caring didn't do it.

Tories scraped though on negative campaigning.

I'd like to see Labour play the Tories at their own game. Make aggressive attacks on Tory policies. Ram the figures home. Show no mercy.

Lets get the lies and bad statistics firmly wedged in people's brains now.
Keep repeating if there's one more MP or high up that repeats the lie about Stafford they'll sue.

After all. What have we got to lose?