Thursday 21st May 2015
Posted: Thu 21 May, 2015 7:13 am
Morning all.
I bet TCC did his 'stern and a bit cross' face when he announced it.ephemerid wrote:And good morning to you, Refitman.
TCBBAC is getting tough on immigration. Very very tough indeed. He's inventing new offences and allsorts......
He is going to get much much tougher on illegal immigrants.
Well, the ones he can find, that is. With less police etc.
That aside, he can do absolutely nothing about net migration, which is 298,000. Which is in fact legal.
All those people had every right to come here and work.
Just as 327,000 Brits had every right to leave the UK.
In order to achieve the ambitions he set out today (which are the same ones he pledged in 2010 and told us to boot him out of office if he didn't keep them) he has decided to do some new stuff.
Councils will be required to crack down on rogue landlords who house illegal immigrants (Labour's idea); there will be a crack down - he likes crack downs - on exploitation of foreign workers paid NMW and tied to accommodation (Labour's idea); no businesses or agencies will able to recruit from abroad without advertising here first (Labour's idea).
Apart from, erm, not much, what he is planning are mainly Labour's ideas. Including new rules on claiming benefits.
Illegal immigrants are already illegal, so if they work they will be charged with a new offence of illegal working. Which is already illegal.
This means that any illegal money they earn is the proceeds of a crime, and the new rules will be that their money from this crime can be seized.
Apparently, this is a whole new thing that will invent new crimes which are already illegal things and therefore crimes. Already.
That'll stop 'em!
Some key paras suggest why the current leadership candidates are saying some of the things they are.Why did the voters reject Labour?
In voters’ eyes, Labour’s problem over the last five years was too little change, not too much.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... ect-labour" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
... With most people thinking the economy is improving, and inflation near zero, fifty-seven per cent of voters think the Tories ‘competent’.
The problem is just 31 per cent think the same about Labour. Amazingly, this number is higher than the proportion who think Labour has a good track record in government; just 27 per cent think Labour can look back with pride.
The single most powerful doubt about Labour was that ‘they would spend too much and can’t be trusted with the economy’. This concern is not rooted in the fiscal position used in the campaign; in fact by a 5 point margin voters thought Labour should cut spending more slowly than they planned rather than faster. Instead, as David Cameron’s trumpeting of Liam Byrne’s letter showed, it is Labour’s inability to demonstrate clear change from the past that grounds concern. The leadership candidates are right to come to a reckoning with that history on spending – it either needs to be fought for or conceded.
On immigration, the picture is similar. Voters are just as likely to see immigration as important to their vote as they are to think government spending is. By a margin of around 40 points, voters think Labour should be tougher on immigration rather than more positive about its benefits...
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 54m54 minutes ago
Cameron promises new law to seize pay of migrants caught working in Britain illegally http://sunpl.us/6019CwcN" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There's the difference in approach.Kevin Maguire @Kevin_Maguire 44m44 minutes ago
Don't seize illegal migrant's often low wages - grab the profits and shut the businesses of those exploiting them
It is very scary how they keep getting away with such things. Like sneaking in the huge rise in the amount allowed to be spent on election campaigns right at the last moment.Jonathan Ashworth MP @JonAshworth 3m3 minutes ago
So Tories want Eng Votes for Eng Laws, Mayors, Boundaries redrawn while axing Select Ctte that scrutinises such policies @GrahamAllenMP
Sarah Vine is, of course, married to Michael Gove.Let’s face it, sex is just another chore. Something else to tick off your endless to-do list: ‘fix the leaky sink, take the kids to the dentist, book the car in for its MOT, call Mum, have sex with husband’.
Is there anything more depressing in life than scheduled marital intercourse? Especially when you’re feeling about as alluring as last night’s mashed potatoes (hang on: is that actually last night’s potatoes on your jumper?)
So you do the only sensible thing: wait until your partner has gone to bed, and the sound of his snoring starts, before creeping upstairs and sliding into bed next to him, taking care lest the poor fellow should wake and, you know, get ideas.
I don't feel any sympathy for her though. None at all.DonutHingeParty wrote:In my new found spirit of co-operation, tolerance and attempts to understand Tories, I'll be avoiding ad hominem attacks. However, I couldn't resist this one.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... chore.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sarah Vine is, of course, married to Michael Gove.Let’s face it, sex is just another chore. Something else to tick off your endless to-do list: ‘fix the leaky sink, take the kids to the dentist, book the car in for its MOT, call Mum, have sex with husband’.
Is there anything more depressing in life than scheduled marital intercourse? Especially when you’re feeling about as alluring as last night’s mashed potatoes (hang on: is that actually last night’s potatoes on your jumper?)
So you do the only sensible thing: wait until your partner has gone to bed, and the sound of his snoring starts, before creeping upstairs and sliding into bed next to him, taking care lest the poor fellow should wake and, you know, get ideas.
Only if it has a mention in the local press. As far as I know nobody apart from Ofsted knows which schools are on the list to be inspected so the only indication of an inspection is when it gets put up...or if Lord Nash or the New Schools network have leaked it first.55DegreesNorth wrote:Morning folks,
Question for Roger O'T & Tubby.
Is it possible to find out if an Academy has been inspected but the report not released for some reason (eg appeal)? Ofsted site is not helpful.
Ben Bradshaw @BenPBradshaw 7m7 minutes ago
Time to look again at a voting system that exaggerates & exacerbates the divisions of of our dis-United Kingdom http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/l ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
It sort of verifies what I said about the UKIP vote and why so many Labour voters swung to them. It's immigration, immigration, immigration. Never mind that supporting UKIP has meant the Tories getting in which is going to hit that them the hardest. And never mind the ramifications if we come out of the EU.rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning. This is an interesting piece. You will need to suspend distrust of polls while you read as the analysis and commentary is based on polling ... but carried out on election day itself.
Some key paras suggest why the current leadership candidates are saying some of the things they are.Why did the voters reject Labour?
In voters’ eyes, Labour’s problem over the last five years was too little change, not too much.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... ect-labour" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;... With most people thinking the economy is improving, and inflation near zero, fifty-seven per cent of voters think the Tories ‘competent’.
The problem is just 31 per cent think the same about Labour. Amazingly, this number is higher than the proportion who think Labour has a good track record in government; just 27 per cent think Labour can look back with pride.
The single most powerful doubt about Labour was that ‘they would spend too much and can’t be trusted with the economy’. This concern is not rooted in the fiscal position used in the campaign; in fact by a 5 point margin voters thought Labour should cut spending more slowly than they planned rather than faster. Instead, as David Cameron’s trumpeting of Liam Byrne’s letter showed, it is Labour’s inability to demonstrate clear change from the past that grounds concern. The leadership candidates are right to come to a reckoning with that history on spending – it either needs to be fought for or conceded.
On immigration, the picture is similar. Voters are just as likely to see immigration as important to their vote as they are to think government spending is. By a margin of around 40 points, voters think Labour should be tougher on immigration rather than more positive about its benefits...
I can just imagine her saying to him, "Of course it isn't true darling, It was just a silly article, you know I fancy you."DonutHingeParty wrote:In my new found spirit of co-operation, tolerance and attempts to understand Tories, I'll be avoiding ad hominem attacks. However, I couldn't resist this one.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... chore.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sarah Vine is, of course, married to Michael Gove.Let’s face it, sex is just another chore. Something else to tick off your endless to-do list: ‘fix the leaky sink, take the kids to the dentist, book the car in for its MOT, call Mum, have sex with husband’.
Is there anything more depressing in life than scheduled marital intercourse? Especially when you’re feeling about as alluring as last night’s mashed potatoes (hang on: is that actually last night’s potatoes on your jumper?)
So you do the only sensible thing: wait until your partner has gone to bed, and the sound of his snoring starts, before creeping upstairs and sliding into bed next to him, taking care lest the poor fellow should wake and, you know, get ideas.
Worth pointing out that Cameron can't use his usual get-out clause of reducing non-EU migration since that is now at the level of June 2010.RogerOThornhill wrote:Net migration to the UK was 318,000 in the year ending December 2014, according to the latest provisional estimates
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration ... index.html
The highest level for a decade and all but 2k off the 2005 number.
ohsocynical wrote:It sort of verifies what I said about the UKIP vote and why so many Labour voters swung to them. It's immigration, immigration, immigration. Never mind that supporting UKIP has meant the Tories getting in which is going to hit that them the hardest. And never mind the ramifications if we come out of the EU.rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning. This is an interesting piece. You will need to suspend distrust of polls while you read as the analysis and commentary is based on polling ... but carried out on election day itself.
Some key paras suggest why the current leadership candidates are saying some of the things they are.Why did the voters reject Labour?
In voters’ eyes, Labour’s problem over the last five years was too little change, not too much.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... ect-labour" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;... With most people thinking the economy is improving, and inflation near zero, fifty-seven per cent of voters think the Tories ‘competent’.
The problem is just 31 per cent think the same about Labour. Amazingly, this number is higher than the proportion who think Labour has a good track record in government; just 27 per cent think Labour can look back with pride.
The single most powerful doubt about Labour was that ‘they would spend too much and can’t be trusted with the economy’. This concern is not rooted in the fiscal position used in the campaign; in fact by a 5 point margin voters thought Labour should cut spending more slowly than they planned rather than faster. Instead, as David Cameron’s trumpeting of Liam Byrne’s letter showed, it is Labour’s inability to demonstrate clear change from the past that grounds concern. The leadership candidates are right to come to a reckoning with that history on spending – it either needs to be fought for or conceded.
On immigration, the picture is similar. Voters are just as likely to see immigration as important to their vote as they are to think government spending is. By a margin of around 40 points, voters think Labour should be tougher on immigration rather than more positive about its benefits...
In the past I have also said that the other ideology they bought into is 'scrounging' off the State even though, again, they are going to be the ones that suffer the most.
It's what's made me so angry. By the time it sinks in what they've done, it'll be too bloody late.
And as a working class person, I haven't a clue what Labour could do to alter their minds.
ohsocynical wrote:It sort of verifies what I said about the UKIP vote and why so many Labour voters swung to them. It's immigration, immigration, immigration. Never mind that supporting UKIP has meant the Tories getting in which is going to hit that them the hardest. And never mind the ramifications if we come out of the EU.rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning. This is an interesting piece. You will need to suspend distrust of polls while you read as the analysis and commentary is based on polling ... but carried out on election day itself.
Some key paras suggest why the current leadership candidates are saying some of the things they are.Why did the voters reject Labour?
In voters’ eyes, Labour’s problem over the last five years was too little change, not too much.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... ect-labour" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;... With most people thinking the economy is improving, and inflation near zero, fifty-seven per cent of voters think the Tories ‘competent’.
The problem is just 31 per cent think the same about Labour. Amazingly, this number is higher than the proportion who think Labour has a good track record in government; just 27 per cent think Labour can look back with pride.
The single most powerful doubt about Labour was that ‘they would spend too much and can’t be trusted with the economy’. This concern is not rooted in the fiscal position used in the campaign; in fact by a 5 point margin voters thought Labour should cut spending more slowly than they planned rather than faster. Instead, as David Cameron’s trumpeting of Liam Byrne’s letter showed, it is Labour’s inability to demonstrate clear change from the past that grounds concern. The leadership candidates are right to come to a reckoning with that history on spending – it either needs to be fought for or conceded.
On immigration, the picture is similar. Voters are just as likely to see immigration as important to their vote as they are to think government spending is. By a margin of around 40 points, voters think Labour should be tougher on immigration rather than more positive about its benefits...
In the past I have also said that the other ideology they bought into is 'scrounging' off the State even though, again, they are going to be the ones that suffer the most.
It's what's made me so angry. By the time it sinks in what they've done, it'll be too bloody late.
And as a working class person, I haven't a clue what Labour could do to alter their minds.
There must be something akin to Stockholm Syndrome going on, frightful_oik, since the Tories singled out virtually everyone at some time or another and yet were still voted back in.frightful_oik wrote:... There is a shrinking back from real analysis and a demand for soundbites and scapegoats...
If that is what you want, then Burnham is surely the best bet - just ask Jeremy Huntfrightful_oik wrote:ohsocynical wrote:It sort of verifies what I said about the UKIP vote and why so many Labour voters swung to them. It's immigration, immigration, immigration. Never mind that supporting UKIP has meant the Tories getting in which is going to hit that them the hardest. And never mind the ramifications if we come out of the EU.rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning. This is an interesting piece. You will need to suspend distrust of polls while you read as the analysis and commentary is based on polling ... but carried out on election day itself.
Some key paras suggest why the current leadership candidates are saying some of the things they are.
In the past I have also said that the other ideology they bought into is 'scrounging' off the State even though, again, they are going to be the ones that suffer the most.
It's what's made me so angry. By the time it sinks in what they've done, it'll be too bloody late.
And as a working class person, I haven't a clue what Labour could do to alter their minds.
I think that the answer is very little. Where do most people get their information? From the tabloids and the telly, or from their mates who get it from the tabloids and the telly. Both sources will tell them that politicians aren't to be trusted and Labour politicians are the most untrustworthy of all. There is a shrinking back from real analysis and a demand for soundbites and scapegoats. As I said in my discussion with Robert Snozers yesterday, that's why I feel Labour's leaders must not allow the telly/radio to get away with lazy journalism. Not much they can do about the press. Labour must challenge the narrative. And if it wants to win the next election, it has to fight dirty and create a counter narrative that may sometimes be unfair on the Tories/UKIP. But then I look at the leadership candidates and then I get depressed.
utopiandreams wrote:There must be something akin to Stockholm Syndrome going on, frightful_oik, since the Tories singled out virtually everyone at some time or another and yet were still voted back in.frightful_oik wrote:... There is a shrinking back from real analysis and a demand for soundbites and scapegoats...
We are taking two steps forward and three steps back, it seems to me. Instead of building up the movement, it's the knee-jerk reaction of "back to the drawing board". Even the drawing board gets replaced. We're trying to get political and societal change - not trying to market a new flavour of crisps.mikems wrote:I think that all this talk from the leadership candidates misses the blooming point by a mile. We will never be able to please the reactionary media, they will never support us, and we shouldn't waste our time trying to placate them and appear reasonable to them.
We need our own media. We used to have it, but it was all allowed to slip out of our hands and into the grasp of Murdoch and other capitalists.
We also need to rebuild the labour movement. Hunty talked about this yesterday, and, while we must accept that some things have gone forever simply because times change, the labour movement should be trying to find new ways of establishing itself at the centre of our communities again.
And we need a strategy, some idea of the sort of society we want to create and some ideas on how we get there. And all of that should come from a renewed labour movement.
Moving a bit to the left or right now will make no long term difference to the movement. Tactics won't win wars. Strategy wins wars and we simply haven't got a worthwhile strategy and have nothing to aim for at the moment.
It seems to me PF more like most of Labour's leadership candidates are suggesting that Labour become more like the Tories. The Tories may have won the election but they haven't won the argument, not least because that debate never gets heard.PorFavor wrote:We are taking two steps forward and three steps back, it seems to me. Instead of building up the movement, it's the knee-jerk reaction of "back to the drawing board". Even the drawing board gets replaced. We're trying to get political and societal change - not trying to market a new flavour of crisps.mikems wrote:I think that all this talk from the leadership candidates misses the blooming point by a mile. We will never be able to please the reactionary media, they will never support us, and we shouldn't waste our time trying to placate them and appear reasonable to them.
We need our own media. We used to have it, but it was all allowed to slip out of our hands and into the grasp of Murdoch and other capitalists.
We also need to rebuild the labour movement. Hunty talked about this yesterday, and, while we must accept that some things have gone forever simply because times change, the labour movement should be trying to find new ways of establishing itself at the centre of our communities again.
And we need a strategy, some idea of the sort of society we want to create and some ideas on how we get there. And all of that should come from a renewed labour movement.
Moving a bit to the left or right now will make no long term difference to the movement. Tactics won't win wars. Strategy wins wars and we simply haven't got a worthwhile strategy and have nothing to aim for at the moment.
Dave blamed the LibDems for preventing Tories from keeping immigrants out.utopiandreams wrote:So many problems all down to immigration nothing at all to do with government. Silly me, it was too. It must have been the fault of the LibDems because now this is all going to be resolved now we have a majority Conservative government... As I type this Dave has now explicitly blamed the LibDems by name.
Good early afternoon, PorFavor.PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.
Yeah great minds think alike, гражданка. I very nearly suggested we'd be seeing those again.citizenJA wrote:...P.S. The LibDem immigration van, Dave.
That last is what the Labour party should be doing IMO. They started with some of their policies - but didn't manage to get a positive narrative established and need to do much more in actual work on the ground in said communities. Tough but necessary work.Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 50m50 minutes ago
Cameron blames Vince Cable's "Business Department" for blocking crackdown on illegal migrants
David Wooding @DavidWooding 48m48 minutes ago London, England
David Cameron has blamed those pesky Lib Dems for blocking his plans to control immigration. He's got a free rein now, so no excuses!
AndrewSparrow @AndrewSparrow 27m27 minutes ago
"Neither achievable not desirable" - IoD on Cameron's net migration target - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... 8a5a131964" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Emily Ashton @elashton 34m34 minutes ago
IPPR think tank calls on govt to dump net migration target & focus on "supporting communities affected by immigration impacts"
What is even more depressing is that the "move right" brigade have no *new* ideas - just rehashing what worked with Blair in the 1990s.PorFavor wrote:We are taking two steps forward and three steps back, it seems to me. Instead of building up the movement, it's the knee-jerk reaction of "back to the drawing board". Even the drawing board gets replaced. We're trying to get political and societal change - not trying to market a new flavour of crisps.mikems wrote:I think that all this talk from the leadership candidates misses the blooming point by a mile. We will never be able to please the reactionary media, they will never support us, and we shouldn't waste our time trying to placate them and appear reasonable to them.
We need our own media. We used to have it, but it was all allowed to slip out of our hands and into the grasp of Murdoch and other capitalists.
We also need to rebuild the labour movement. Hunty talked about this yesterday, and, while we must accept that some things have gone forever simply because times change, the labour movement should be trying to find new ways of establishing itself at the centre of our communities again.
And we need a strategy, some idea of the sort of society we want to create and some ideas on how we get there. And all of that should come from a renewed labour movement.
Moving a bit to the left or right now will make no long term difference to the movement. Tactics won't win wars. Strategy wins wars and we simply haven't got a worthwhile strategy and have nothing to aim for at the moment.
COULSON TRIAL, DAY 4 MORNING
https://www.byline.com/project/8/article/59" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This may be a poor representation of what she actually said - but I shall proceed on the basis that it isn't.She [Liz Kendall] says she wants to change the party’s approach to business completely. Paying for services requires a dynamic economy. Saying that should not be news. The fact that this counts as news says something about the state of the party. (Politics Blog, Guardian)
For ECB, read tory government.England the concept, the self-serving and self-preserving administrative mess, that seems to be irking people, which manifests itself in everything from the ICC carve-up to the perpetual hole-digging of the World Cup fall-out and relations with that former No4 batsman chap.
Reading between the lines on his Twitter output I suspect he wouldn't need much convincing, the articles he has written over the past week do read like some sort of personal manifesto.JustMom wrote:I wish someone could convince Jon Trickett to stand for the leadership,he said he would continue with Ed's policies.
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Reading between the lines on his Twitter output I suspect he wouldn't need much convincing, the articles he has written over the past week do read like some sort of personal manifesto.JustMom wrote:I wish someone could convince Jon Trickett to stand for the leadership,he said he would continue with Ed's policies.
RMT haven't reached agreement with National Rail yet.One of two rail unions planning bank holiday industrial action has called off its strike after receiving a new pay offer from Network Rail. Manuel Cortes, general secretary of the TSSA, said:
"Our negotiating team at Acas has received a revised offer from Network Rail. As a result of this, they have suspended the planned industrial action, pending the outcome of a meeting of our workplace representatives next week."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32832191" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I wonder what happened to Network Rail's threat to take TSSA to court over alleged ballot irregularities?citizenJA wrote:RMT haven't reached agreement with National Rail yet.One of two rail unions planning bank holiday industrial action has called off its strike after receiving a new pay offer from Network Rail. Manuel Cortes, general secretary of the TSSA, said:
"Our negotiating team at Acas has received a revised offer from Network Rail. As a result of this, they have suspended the planned industrial action, pending the outcome of a meeting of our workplace representatives next week."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32832191" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Their strike isn't called off at this time.
My best to you all, comrades.
"Network Rail had been due to mount a legal challenge in the High Court against the TSSA's strike ballot."PorFavor wrote:I wonder what happened to Network Rail's threat to take TSSA to court over alleged ballot irregularities?citizenJA wrote:RMT haven't reached agreement with National Rail yet.One of two rail unions planning bank holiday industrial action has called off its strike after receiving a new pay offer from Network Rail. Manuel Cortes, general secretary of the TSSA, said:
"Our negotiating team at Acas has received a revised offer from Network Rail. As a result of this, they have suspended the planned industrial action, pending the outcome of a meeting of our workplace representatives next week."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32832191" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Their strike isn't called off at this time.
My best to you all, comrades.
Nail on the head.ohsocynical wrote:I posted earlier that as a working class person I didn't know what Labour could do to swing UKIP voters back to them.
I think I do, but without Labour being in power it won't happen.
Masses of Social housing. Better wages, and stopping the importation of cheap labour.
Make their lives a bit easier so that they can afford to take a holiday, or buy a big TV. Or have a drink and a take away a couple of times a week. Even treat themselves to something new, even if it is from Primark.
Once they have that, the majority of them will stop fretting about immigrants...I guarantee it.
But, and it's a huge but, the only way that's going to happen is for Labour to get in but they can't while those at the bottom of the ladder are hard done by and needing someone else to blame.
It's a never ending circle.
He has been around since God was a boy but never made the jump to the top table; whether that is through lack of ability, bad luck or a mixture of the two, difficult to call, certainly a few missteps along the way. But his entry would shake things up a little, that is for sure.JustMom wrote:Would he be any good do you think ?TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Reading between the lines on his Twitter output I suspect he wouldn't need much convincing, the articles he has written over the past week do read like some sort of personal manifesto.JustMom wrote:I wish someone could convince Jon Trickett to stand for the leadership,he said he would continue with Ed's policies.
He does say he was kept off the tv because he has a strong northern accent.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:He has been around since God was a boy but never made the jump to the top table; whether that is through lack of ability, bad luck or a mixture of the two, difficult to call, certainly a few missteps along the way. But his entry would shake things up a little, that is for sure.JustMom wrote:Would he be any good do you think ?TheGrimSqueaker wrote: Reading between the lines on his Twitter output I suspect he wouldn't need much convincing, the articles he has written over the past week do read like some sort of personal manifesto.