Thursday 28th May 2015

Post by **refitman** » Thu 28 May, 2015 7:14 am

Morning all.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 28 May, 2015 8:17 am

Hidden away in all the FIFA mess is this little gem, reported in the G.

The US justice department’s indictment against the Fifa officials claims that in 1996, a global sports company, which was not identified in court documents, agreed to pay $160m over 10 years to become the Brazil team’s exclusive footwear, apparel, accessories and equipment supplier. That was an apparent reference to Nike Inc, which sponsored the Brazil national team.

Nike has now said it is cooperating with authorities. In a statement, Nike said: “Like fans everywhere, we care passionately about the game and are concerned by the very serious allegations.

That unnamed sports company may well find itself subject to a lengthy compliance investigation.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 28 May, 2015 8:45 am

Too much to hope that the past/present football business interests of a certain old Aussie will also be under scrutiny ?

& good morning all.

Hope it is a better day for Rebecca Riots and her household.
Bad news about various breakages, the porch door is new isn't it ?

Edited to add: realise that I am not sure what Murdoch involvement there is in Sky Sports now, and presume that in Britain football broadcast contracts must be fairly transparent ?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 28 May, 2015 8:53 am

Morning all. Sorry to link to the Mail but ...

New low for the BBC? Bosses creating show which pitches jobless, under-employed and minimum wage workers against each other in battle to win £15,000
Britain's Hardest Grafter sees 25 people compete in series of challenges
Contestants will be eliminated after each stage in two weeks of filming and winner crowned 'Britain's Hardest Worker'
Concerns raised reality show could exploit young people for entertainment
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... 5-000.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How to establish that 'hard working people' narrative even more eh?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 28 May, 2015 8:59 am

yahyah wrote:Too much to hope that the past/present football business interests of a certain old Aussie will also be under scrutiny ?

& good morning all.

Hope it is a better day for Rebecca Riots and her household.
Bad news about various breakages, the porch door is new isn't it ?

Edited to add: realise that I am not sure what Murdoch involvement there is in Sky Sports now, and presume that in Britain football broadcast contracts must be fairly transparent ?

Morning. The porch door is indeed new. The replacement one will be even newer .... grrrrh.

I thought of you this morning as I was reading an article about women born in the 50s being discriminated against under the new pension law and questioning whether Ros Altmann might actually do something about improving their lot now she is in the Lords etc. Then I couldn't find it again to link to here ... I think it was in the Independent.

Also saw a lovely little tweet from Martha Lane Fox pointing out the huge number of female executives at Fifa - not.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Thu 28 May, 2015 9:07 am

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Hidden away in all the FIFA mess is this little gem, reported in the G.

The US justice department’s indictment against the Fifa officials claims that in 1996, a global sports company, which was not identified in court documents, agreed to pay $160m over 10 years to become the Brazil team’s exclusive footwear, apparel, accessories and equipment supplier. That was an apparent reference to Nike Inc, which sponsored the Brazil national team.

Nike has now said it is cooperating with authorities. In a statement, Nike said: “Like fans everywhere, we care passionately about the game and are concerned by the very serious allegations.

That unnamed sports company may well find itself subject to a lengthy compliance investigation.

Morftevenoon all...

Umm - I know I can be a bit dense (and the US Justice Dept aren't ones for wasting time and energy)...but isn't that how sponsorship works? A commercial entity pays a fee to have it's logo etc emblazoned all over the selected teams kit etc? There must be more to it than that...I wonder who FIFA upset for them to be the ones in the firing line.

...and it's a real shame the US DoJ doesn't feel the same way about the Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act (mind you, if you have deep pockets, the law doesn't apply or you can just pay to have it changed...isn't that right, Uncle Rupert?)

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 28 May, 2015 9:15 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
yahyah wrote:Too much to hope that the past/present football business interests of a certain old Aussie will also be under scrutiny ?

& good morning all.

Hope it is a better day for Rebecca Riots and her household.
Bad news about various breakages, the porch door is new isn't it ?

Edited to add: realise that I am not sure what Murdoch involvement there is in Sky Sports now, and presume that in Britain football broadcast contracts must be fairly transparent ?
Morning. The porch door is indeed new. The replacement one will be even newer .... grrrrh.

I thought of you this morning as I was reading an article about women born in the 50s being discriminated against under the new pension law and questioning whether Ros Altmann might actually do something about improving their lot now she is in the Lords etc. Then I couldn't find it again to link to here ... I think it was in the Independent.

Also saw a lovely little tweet from Martha Lane Fox pointing out the huge number of female executives at Fifa - not.

Thanks, will look that up later about the pensions.

Can feel empathy with any who struggles with officialdom/DWP with regard to social security claims.

My husband has spent hours on the phone after getting a statement from one of his company pension schemes stating that they will no longer be paying cost of living increase on a large part of our income from them, because he is now 65.

It is to do with GMP, Guaranteed Minimum Pension.
Numerous phone calls to the DWP later, they can not confirm whether it will be indexed linked paid for by the government.

Some non-government websites say the State takes responsibilty for the indexation of GMP, but DWP employees seem very loathe to commit to a straight answer on my husband's pension income connected to it.

Are we being cynical, can't help thinking IDS has a hand in the confusion ?
Info available shows that the state did pay these index linked payments in the past, yet my husband found something in the Commons Library where IDS's dept seems to deny Secretary of State responsibility for it.

Five minutes later...My husband's intelligent, has had business and personnel career, and yet he is now still not getting the answer he seeks from the DWP guy in yet another phone call.

How do people who don't have confidence, or life/work experience in such matters cope with the DWP ?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 28 May, 2015 9:21 am

Wolfie@

Further down in the Guardian piece it says:

''The indictment said the company agreed to financial terms not in the initial contract, which included paying an additional $40m to an affiliate of the team’s marketing agent with a Swiss bank account and referring to the amount as “marketing fees”.''

BBC radio said that these 'marketing fees' & companies were under scrutiny.

Serious question...is use of Swiss bank accounts ever legitimate ?
Is it cynical to think something odd is going on just because of the words Swiss bank account ?

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Thu 28 May, 2015 9:23 am

yahyah wrote:Too much to hope that the past/present football business interests of a certain old Aussie will also be under scrutiny ?

& good morning all.

Hope it is a better day for Rebecca Riots and her household.
Bad news about various breakages, the porch door is new isn't it ?

Edited to add: realise that I am not sure what Murdoch involvement there is in Sky Sports now, and presume that in Britain football broadcast contracts must be fairly transparent ?

Ooops (or is it snap?)...

As I understand it, every company in the rancid old goats' stable is run along the same lines - draconian oppressive management style and wallet-wafting silence-purchasing. WRT soccer/Premier League etc...Sk

'came to the rescue' of football in England, wafting the wallet and pouring money into the top tier - with some great sounding phrases as well....'this is great news for all of football'/'this will strengthen the national team'/'Sky are the only people clever enough and 'football' enough to do it right'...it was a load of old b******s then and it's a load of old b******s now - it was only ever about establishing Sk

as a 'player' in UK media (with a nice juicy monopoly on satellite TV)....and strengthening Murkydochia...how many empty stadia exist now in the lower leagues (I'm thinking particularly of the Reebok/Bolton Wanderers) with no chance of ever filling the seats? I believe(TM) Labour had a policy for returning clubs to the fans (or at least starting the process)....I wonder if TCBBAC and his Monstrous Murkydochians have seen it yet....it'll probably end up being presented as another really jolly good idea from Clouncy.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 28 May, 2015 9:26 am

Good morning.

One of the things I quite like to do when David is gallavanting abroad is to see what foreign papers are saying; I am generally amused even if a little embarrassed.

http://internacional.elpais.com/interna ... 65754.html

http://elpais.com/elpais/2015/05/27/opi ... 43397.html

http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/20 ... _3214.html

Stuff to do, maybe more later.

Post by **refitman** » Thu 28 May, 2015 9:28 am

Lonewolfie wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Hidden away in all the FIFA mess is this little gem, reported in the G.

The US justice department’s indictment against the Fifa officials claims that in 1996, a global sports company, which was not identified in court documents, agreed to pay $160m over 10 years to become the Brazil team’s exclusive footwear, apparel, accessories and equipment supplier. That was an apparent reference to Nike Inc, which sponsored the Brazil national team.

Nike has now said it is cooperating with authorities. In a statement, Nike said: “Like fans everywhere, we care passionately about the game and are concerned by the very serious allegations.

That unnamed sports company may well find itself subject to a lengthy compliance investigation.
Morftevenoon all...

Umm - I know I can be a bit dense (and the US Justice Dept aren't ones for wasting time and energy)...but isn't that how sponsorship works? A commercial entity pays a fee to have it's logo etc emblazoned all over the selected teams kit etc? There must be more to it than that...I wonder who FIFA upset for them to be the ones in the firing line.

...and it's a real shame the US DoJ doesn't feel the same way about the Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act (mind you, if you have deep pockets, the law doesn't apply or you can just pay to have it changed...isn't that right, Uncle Rupert?)

It's the next paragraph that shows why:

The indictment said the company agreed to financial terms not in the initial contract, which included paying an additional $40m to an affiliate of the team’s marketing agent with a Swiss bank account and referring to the amount as “marketing fees”.

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

Post by **refitman** » Thu 28 May, 2015 9:29 am

@yahyah - snap!

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Thu 28 May, 2015 9:31 am

yahyah wrote:Wolfie@

Further down in the Guardian piece it says:

''The indictment said the company agreed to financial terms not in the initial contract, which included paying an additional $40m to an affiliate of the team’s marketing agent with a Swiss bank account and referring to the amount as “marketing fees”.''

BBC radio said that these 'marketing fees' & companies were under scrutiny.

Serious question...is use of Swiss bank accounts ever legitimate ?
Is it cynical to think something odd is going on just because of the words Swiss bank account ?

Mea culpa....should've taken the time to read it....and quite....Swiss Bank Account....twas ever thus....from Nazi gold to HSBC (and the Bank of International Settlements) - hiding the nefarious activities of the rich and dishonourable for hundreds of years.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Thu 28 May, 2015 9:32 am

refitman wrote:
Lonewolfie wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Hidden away in all the FIFA mess is this little gem, reported in the G.
That unnamed sports company may well find itself subject to a lengthy compliance investigation.
Morftevenoon all...

Umm - I know I can be a bit dense (and the US Justice Dept aren't ones for wasting time and energy)...but isn't that how sponsorship works? A commercial entity pays a fee to have it's logo etc emblazoned all over the selected teams kit etc? There must be more to it than that...I wonder who FIFA upset for them to be the ones in the firing line.

...and it's a real shame the US DoJ doesn't feel the same way about the Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act (mind you, if you have deep pockets, the law doesn't apply or you can just pay to have it changed...isn't that right, Uncle Rupert?)
It's the next paragraph that shows why:
The indictment said the company agreed to financial terms not in the initial contract, which included paying an additional $40m to an affiliate of the team’s marketing agent with a Swiss bank account and referring to the amount as “marketing fees”.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... ppointment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You could say I'm losing the plot but I couldn't possibly comment

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 28 May, 2015 9:35 am

yahyah wrote:Wolfie@

Further down in the Guardian piece it says:

''The indictment said the company agreed to financial terms not in the initial contract, which included paying an additional $40m to an affiliate of the team’s marketing agent with a Swiss bank account and referring to the amount as “marketing fees”.''

BBC radio said that these 'marketing fees' & companies were under scrutiny.

Serious question...is use of Swiss bank accounts ever legitimate ?
Is it cynical to think something odd is going on just because of the words Swiss bank account ?

If you live and work in Switzerland, or possibly in countries without reliable banks then probably.

However everything in my compliance training would tell me to red flag any deal with fees for unspecified services paid to third parties not involved in the deal. It is these things that are the issue, regardless as to whether the third party has a need for a Swiss bank account or not (that would however dial the alarm factor up to 11).

If I became aware of any such deal being done within my company I would immediately report it to our compliance department. If anybody asked me to do such a deal that would go the same way. Failure to do so would have hugely serious consequences.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 28 May, 2015 10:12 am

Good-morning, everyone.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 28 May, 2015 10:17 am

Happy birthday to ohso

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 28 May, 2015 10:25 am

Happy birthday, Ohso!
Many happy returns of the day, my friend.
I love you.
cJA

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 28 May, 2015 10:29 am

Good morfternoon.

@Ohsocynical

Happy birthday!

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Thu 28 May, 2015 10:31 am

Good morning all

I have 3 Swiss bank accounts.......unfortunately they are a bit lighter than those of those linked to the FIFA carry on

I agree with what TE is saying, Swiss banking secrecy is an enabler for the nefarious activities of the establishments and elites all around the world. To be honest though the Swiss have changed a lot recently and there are other places, and mostly British dependencies to be fair, that operate in far murkier circumstances

To do a rare thing, and stand up for my country of residence, they are a secretive and non-boastful people. I find it difficult to understand how their society works but I am starting to understand. I lived next door to a multimillionaire for 3 years and never knew - no ostentatious exhibition of wealth and no bragging. In their world keeping their financial details secret is normal, although they will declare it for their wealth tax

The issue is with non-domestic based people exploiting this 'quirk' - helped by the marketing of the Swiss banks themselves to be fair - and hiding their money from their own authorities.

I would say though before the Brits start throwing too much mud we look at own own areas of responsibility first - a comment often thrown at me by work colleagues when I criticise the Swiss system.

In the end though the banks are an enabler for those who see no problem in lining their own pockets...and corruption I am sure is far more prevalent than we know about. There is so much money in these deals and the complexity of financial transactions now only goes to help this

There seems to be little appetite for Governments to get to the bottom of this mainly, I expect, because those who fund political parties are neck deep in it all

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 28 May, 2015 10:39 am

The left can dismiss any Tory leader as bound by tribal instinct to oppress the poor and line the pockets of the top 1%. That is not Cameron. He may be victim of an incorrigible cronyism, and his overdue attempt to reform Britain’s welfare state has left many rough edges, some of them inexcusable. But he is a politician sincere in wanting to avoid the disciplines of a growing economy falling too heavily on those in genuine need. He is just not good at saying so.

- Simon Jenkins
27 May 2015

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

What doe that paragraph mean, please?
I've read it five times & don't understand what Jenkins is trying to say.
He's an author of a paragraph not wanting to take responsibility for bad writing of a good topic.

Post by **refitman** » Thu 28 May, 2015 10:52 am

citizenJA wrote:
The left can dismiss any Tory leader as bound by tribal instinct to oppress the poor and line the pockets of the top 1%. That is not Cameron. He may be victim of an incorrigible cronyism, and his overdue attempt to reform Britain’s welfare state has left many rough edges, some of them inexcusable. But he is a politician sincere in wanting to avoid the disciplines of a growing economy falling too heavily on those in genuine need. He is just not good at saying so.

- Simon Jenkins
27 May 2015

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ch-cameron" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What doe that paragraph mean, please?
I've read it five times & don't understand what Jenkins is trying to say.
He's an author of a paragraph not wanting to take responsibility for bad writing of a good topic.

Jenkins is an arse. He will write any clap-trap to make Dave 'look good'.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 28 May, 2015 10:53 am

UK will quit EU unless PM's reforms go through, says Philip Hammond

Foreign secretary believes Britons will opt to leave union unless EU leaders agree to changes and adds that referendum campaign could launch in spring 2016
Philip Hammond says ministers have been told changes to benefits for EU migrants will require treaty change. (Guardian)

This makes me very nervous. If Labour were in the driving seat and could influence the "narrative" so to speak, then I probably wouldn't be so fearful.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Thu 28 May, 2015 11:07 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:Good morning all

I have 3 Swiss bank accounts.......unfortunately they are a bit lighter than those of those linked to the FIFA carry on

I agree with what TE is saying, Swiss banking secrecy is an enabler for the nefarious activities of the establishments and elites all around the world. To be honest though the Swiss have changed a lot recently and there are other places, and mostly British dependencies to be fair, that operate in far murkier circumstances

To do a rare thing, and stand up for my country of residence, they are a secretive and non-boastful people. I find it difficult to understand how their society works but I am starting to understand. I lived next door to a multimillionaire for 3 years and never knew - no ostentatious exhibition of wealth and no bragging. In their world keeping their financial details secret is normal, although they will declare it for their wealth tax

The issue is with non-domestic based people exploiting this 'quirk' - helped by the marketing of the Swiss banks themselves to be fair - and hiding their money from their own authorities.

I would say though before the Brits start throwing too much mud we look at own own areas of responsibility first - a comment often thrown at me by work colleagues when I criticise the Swiss system.

In the end though the banks are an enabler for those who see no problem in lining their own pockets...and corruption I am sure is far more prevalent than we know about. There is so much money in these deals and the complexity of financial transactions now only goes to help this

There seems to be little appetite for Governments to get to the bottom of this mainly, I expect, because those who fund political parties are neck deep in it all

I always try to separate the 'nation' from its people when commenting (in my head, at least) - otherwise I'd be viewed from abroad as cruelty-loving Tory...oh, wait - that's what the SNP think of me so maybe...

The banks are international (with branches in Switzerland) and use Switzerland because of its' historical secrecy....but as you correctly say, the British/London banks have been 'working really jolly hard' to take the mantle...

Britain, open for business, no longer has a “mission.” Any moralizing remnant of the British Empire is gone; it has turned back to the pirate England of Sir Walter Raleigh. Britain’s ruling class has decayed to the point where its first priority is protecting its cut of Russian money — even as Russian armored personnel carriers rumble around the streets of Sevastopol.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/opini ... .html?_r=1

...and just to reinforce the international nature of it all...

“By and large really significant corruption in the resources sector does not involve suitcases of cash,” said Scott Horton, a lecturer at Columbia Law School who investigated the Simandou concessions for the new Guinean government and who wasn't speaking specifically about Steinmetz. “It involves millions of dollars being paid into bank accounts. They may be in Geneva or London or New York. They may be held in the British Virgin Islands or the Caymans. Very, very rarely are they moving money into banks in Guinea or Liberia or Sierra Leone. You cannot pull off this large scale corruption without involving lawyers, accountants, investment advisers in places like Geneva, London, Amsterdam, New York and Paris.”

http://www.icij.org/project/swiss-leaks ... ecret-ways

...and of course, the 'FEAR OF MILIBAND' had nothing whasoever to do with this letter....no sir....definitely not....

All UK Overseas Territories or Crown Dependencies will have to produce a publicly accessible central register of beneficial ownership within six months of the election of a Labour government. If any Overseas Territory or Crown Dependency does not meet this deadline, we will ask the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to put them on the OECD’s tax haven blacklist.

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1102824 ... oks-in-six

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Thu 28 May, 2015 11:08 am

....and Hippo Birdy, ohso

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 28 May, 2015 11:30 am

refitman wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
The left can dismiss any Tory leader as bound by tribal instinct to oppress the poor and line the pockets of the top 1%. That is not Cameron. He may be victim of an incorrigible cronyism, and his overdue attempt to reform Britain’s welfare state has left many rough edges, some of them inexcusable. But he is a politician sincere in wanting to avoid the disciplines of a growing economy falling too heavily on those in genuine need. He is just not good at saying so.

- Simon Jenkins
27 May 2015

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ch-cameron" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What doe that paragraph mean, please?
I've read it five times & don't understand what Jenkins is trying to say.
He's an author of a paragraph not wanting to take responsibility for bad writing of a good topic.
Jenkins is an arse. He will write any clap-trap to make Dave 'look good'.

Yes.
I thought, 'I can't be reading this right'.
Jenkins bluffing buoyantly on Dave's government - disaster policies, broken promises, lies...our Davey is a good fella.

But he is a politician sincere in wanting to avoid the disciplines of a growing economy...

Absurd, this. What does 'avoiding disciplines of a growing economy' mean? Embarrassing contribution from you, Jenkins.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 28 May, 2015 11:37 am

Lonewolfie wrote:
...and of course, the 'FEAR OF MILIBAND' had nothing whasoever to do with this letter....no sir....definitely not....

All UK Overseas Territories or Crown Dependencies will have to produce a publicly accessible central register of beneficial ownership within six months of the election of a Labour government. If any Overseas Territory or Crown Dependency does not meet this deadline, we will ask the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to put them on the OECD’s tax haven blacklist.

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1102824 ... oks-in-six

Exactly.
A reminder of what was best about Miliband's Labour government.
Ed Miliband spooked a lot of wealthy, influential interests.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 28 May, 2015 11:45 am

Hello all.

A much calmer, rational review of what went wrong in the election from Paul Blomfield. As long as Labour has MPs who understand how our economic system is failing and what needs to change, I still have some hope. I personally feel that Labour isn't in need of a new message, but rather a new messenger. Someone who can explain what Labour wants to achieve (an economy that works for workers, rather than stock market gamblers) in terms that people can understand and rally round. Ed was brilliant at identifying the issues, tentative but in the right direction with the solutions and a bit poor at communicating to a wide audience. The last two need work, not the first, imo.

http://labourlist.org/2015/05/understan ... e-answers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We need to understand why, campaigning unambiguously on the radical pledges in the 2015 manifesto, we were able to increase the Labour vote by 42% in Sheffield Central while 30 miles away my friend and colleague Chris Williamson lost his seat in Derby North

The above quote is why I'm convinced those within Labour who think the party must move Tony Blair style to the right are living in a deluded past. The political landscape has changed dramatically, there is no simple, straightforward move left or right to conquer all. The future is very unpredictable. I think Labour needs to embrace that, try to channel the mood of the nation as Ed did over Syria. One of the reasons I think Ed lost was because the mood of the nation in the final year of the Coalition became very insular and nationalist, something Labour was never going to be able to embrace. Hopefully when realities kick in the nationalist surge will subside and Labour will have more to work with again.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 28 May, 2015 11:53 am

citizenJA wrote:
The left can dismiss any Tory leader as bound by tribal instinct to oppress the poor and line the pockets of the top 1%. That is not Cameron. He may be victim of an incorrigible cronyism, and his overdue attempt to reform Britain’s welfare state has left many rough edges, some of them inexcusable. But he is a politician sincere in wanting to avoid the disciplines of a growing economy falling too heavily on those in genuine need. He is just not good at saying so.

- Simon Jenkins
27 May 2015

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ch-cameron" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What doe that paragraph mean, please?
I've read it five times & don't understand what Jenkins is trying to say.
He's an author of a paragraph not wanting to take responsibility for bad writing of a good topic.

It's bonkers, isn't it? He accepts that Cameron's actual policies have impacted unfairly on the poorest and he also accepts that Cameron has never even said anything that remotely suggests he gives a damn about the poor, yet he asserts he's really a misunderstood good guy and quite different from all the other Tories who say nothing about helping the poor and do nothing either. Bizarre.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 28 May, 2015 12:23 pm

norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 51m51 minutes ago
No 10 say PM supports calls for Sepp Blatter to quit as head of #Fifa

Well that's it then - he's definitely staying.

Cameron's reverse law means that he should have offered Blatter his full support if he actually wants him to go.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 28 May, 2015 12:32 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Happy birthday to ohso

Happy Birthday from me as well

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 28 May, 2015 12:35 pm

Cameron is judged by some of us on what his government actually *does*. Crazy idea that will never catch on with the MSM, I know

Post by **refitman** » Thu 28 May, 2015 12:39 pm

Yvette Coopers response to May:

Two weeks ago they promised the Queen’s speech would repeal the Human Rights Act. Two weeks on, the repeal has been repealed. We have been here before, because two years ago the home secretary promised Tory party conference that she would abolish the Human Rights Act. She promised us a document and a draft bill, and she said she was prepared to pull out of the [European convention on human rights] together. But what happened? No document, no plans, no bill.

Last time it took her two years to ditch her promise. This time it has taken her two weeks. The British bill of rights has disappeared again, and we still have no idea what they actually want to do ...

This time the home secretary cannot blame the Liberal Democrats for the chaos because this time she and the justice secretary [Michael Gove] and this time they are going to have to work together to sort it out, and I bet that will be fun for them. You look at them; they can’t even bear to sit next to each other on the front bench.

I bet she was really pleased at his appointment; probably the only person in the government who could make her relationship with the former deputy prime minister a good one.

Last summer the justice secretary told friends that the home secretary was “dull and uninspiring”. Then she said he was a “wild-eyed neocon”. He said she “lacks the intellectual firepower and quick wit”. No wonder they want to abolish the right to free speech.

But you can understand the poor old prime minister desperate to find the justice secretary a job that he could actually do. Because he clearly could not stay at education; he upset the entire teaching profession and lost so many teachers’ votes. He clearly could not stay as chief whip. He upset all of his backbenchers and lost an awful lot of parliamentary votes. So the one job he thought he could do was go and be in charge of justice and prisoners, because at least they don’t have the vote.

For the Queen’s speech debate on home affairs.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 28 May, 2015 12:46 pm

refitman wrote:Yvette Coopers response to May:
Two weeks ago they promised the Queen’s speech would repeal the Human Rights Act. Two weeks on, the repeal has been repealed. We have been here before, because two years ago the home secretary promised Tory party conference that she would abolish the Human Rights Act. She promised us a document and a draft bill, and she said she was prepared to pull out of the [European convention on human rights] together. But what happened? No document, no plans, no bill.

Last time it took her two years to ditch her promise. This time it has taken her two weeks. The British bill of rights has disappeared again, and we still have no idea what they actually want to do ...

This time the home secretary cannot blame the Liberal Democrats for the chaos because this time she and the justice secretary [Michael Gove] and this time they are going to have to work together to sort it out, and I bet that will be fun for them. You look at them; they can’t even bear to sit next to each other on the front bench.

I bet she was really pleased at his appointment; probably the only person in the government who could make her relationship with the former deputy prime minister a good one.

Last summer the justice secretary told friends that the home secretary was “dull and uninspiring”. Then she said he was a “wild-eyed neocon”. He said she “lacks the intellectual firepower and quick wit”. No wonder they want to abolish the right to free speech.

But you can understand the poor old prime minister desperate to find the justice secretary a job that he could actually do. Because he clearly could not stay at education; he upset the entire teaching profession and lost so many teachers’ votes. He clearly could not stay as chief whip. He upset all of his backbenchers and lost an awful lot of parliamentary votes. So the one job he thought he could do was go and be in charge of justice and prisoners, because at least they don’t have the vote.
For the Queen’s speech debate on home affairs.

That is top quality, now if I believed Cooper could apply that aggressive approach to fighting the stupidity of the Snoopers Charter I would be happy. Unfortunately I suspect she agrees with it.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 28 May, 2015 12:47 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Happy birthday to ohso
Happy Birthday from me as well

And me. Hope Mr Ohso is going to treat you and you have a grand day.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 28 May, 2015 12:47 pm

refitman wrote:Yvette Coopers response to May:
Two weeks ago they promised the Queen’s speech would repeal the Human Rights Act. Two weeks on, the repeal has been repealed. We have been here before, because two years ago the home secretary promised Tory party conference that she would abolish the Human Rights Act. She promised us a document and a draft bill, and she said she was prepared to pull out of the [European convention on human rights] together. But what happened? No document, no plans, no bill.

Last time it took her two years to ditch her promise. This time it has taken her two weeks. The British bill of rights has disappeared again, and we still have no idea what they actually want to do ...

This time the home secretary cannot blame the Liberal Democrats for the chaos because this time she and the justice secretary [Michael Gove] and this time they are going to have to work together to sort it out, and I bet that will be fun for them. You look at them; they can’t even bear to sit next to each other on the front bench.

I bet she was really pleased at his appointment; probably the only person in the government who could make her relationship with the former deputy prime minister a good one.

Last summer the justice secretary told friends that the home secretary was “dull and uninspiring”. Then she said he was a “wild-eyed neocon”. He said she “lacks the intellectual firepower and quick wit”. No wonder they want to abolish the right to free speech.

But you can understand the poor old prime minister desperate to find the justice secretary a job that he could actually do. Because he clearly could not stay at education; he upset the entire teaching profession and lost so many teachers’ votes. He clearly could not stay as chief whip. He upset all of his backbenchers and lost an awful lot of parliamentary votes. So the one job he thought he could do was go and be in charge of justice and prisoners, because at least they don’t have the vote.
For the Queen’s speech debate on home affairs.

I suppose to have said that they were a "captive audience" would have been judged to be in poor taste.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 28 May, 2015 12:54 pm

I'm now more than confused by Cameron and Hammond's approach to the EU negotiations and referendum.

Cameron's list of the concessions he wants includes the refusing of out of work benefits to EU migrants and restricting payment of in work benefits to those who have been here - and presumably in work - for 4 years plus. Both these will require treaty change according to government law officers. Other EU heads of state have said they won't negotiate for anything that requires treaty change.

If Cameron isn't going to get these things ... which that seems to indicate is almost a dead cert - how can he do anything but argue against staying in? These are his red lines for remaining in, no?

And then Hammond has the arrogance to say how the UK electorate will vote - NO apparently - in advance of any negotiation, any outcome of negotiation, and any actual vote.

We need another excoriating speech from Labour - akin to Cooper's on the HRA U turn - to show up this utter sham from the Tories.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 28 May, 2015 1:02 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:I'm now more than confused by Cameron and Hammond's approach to the EU negotiations and referendum.

Cameron's list of the concessions he wants includes the refusing of out of work benefits to EU migrants and restricting payment of in work benefits to those who have been here - and presumably in work - for 4 years plus. Both these will require treaty change according to government law officers. Other EU heads of state have said they won't negotiate for anything that requires treaty change.

If Cameron isn't going to get these things ... which that seems to indicate is almost a dead cert - how can he do anything but argue against staying in? These are his red lines for remaining in, no?

And then Hammond has the arrogance to say how the UK electorate will vote - NO apparently - in advance of any negotiation, any outcome of negotiation, and any actual vote.

We need another excoriating speech from Labour - akin to Cooper's on the HRA U turn - to show up this utter sham from the Tories.

Well, a cock-up is all that we can reasonably expect. Such a disaster that will adversely affect more or less everyone.

Post by **refitman** » Thu 28 May, 2015 1:13 pm

~~The referendum bill has been published (PDF):~~
And the explanatory notes (also PDF): http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 6002en.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 28 May, 2015 1:16 pm

Willow904 wrote: I personally feel that Labour isn't in need of a new message, but rather a new messenger.

I'd have more confidence that that was all that was required if the people saying this were not also the same people who had said how great the previous messenger was.

Systemic over-optimism seems to be a trait of the left.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 28 May, 2015 1:22 pm

Just popped back to wish Oh So a lovely birthday.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Thu 28 May, 2015 1:24 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
Willow904 wrote: I personally feel that Labour isn't in need of a new message, but rather a new messenger.
I'd have more confidence that that was all that was required if the people saying this were not also the same people who had said how great the previous messenger was.

Systemic over-optimism seems to be a trait of the left.

Is that the same as aspiration?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 28 May, 2015 1:29 pm

UK growth hit by trade deficit and services slowdown

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32911521" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Exports down, imports up, no revision to the 0.3% growth figures for the first quarter of 2015.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Thu 28 May, 2015 1:30 pm

Systemic over-optimism seems to be a trait of the left.

That's what right-wingers say, for sure.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Thu 28 May, 2015 1:32 pm

Left-wingers even have a saying about it all : 'Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.'

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 28 May, 2015 1:48 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Cameron is judged by some of us on what his government actually *does*. Crazy idea that will never catch on with the MSM, I know

Exactly. Policies & results might get ignored by MSM but it doesn't make it go away.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Thu 28 May, 2015 1:54 pm

On Europe, if the referendum is based on removal of workers' rights and more freedom for capital, I will vote to withdraw.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 28 May, 2015 2:00 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
Willow904 wrote: I personally feel that Labour isn't in need of a new message, but rather a new messenger.
I'd have more confidence that that was all that was required if the people saying this were not also the same people who had said how great the previous messenger was.

Systemic over-optimism seems to be a trait of the left.

Isn't the Labour Party, whatever views you hold about its best way forward, "of the left"? If it's not "of the left" then it ceases to be the Labour Party. In which case another party with another name is what's required (by you and those holding your views). Except, somehow, the name "Labour", and all that goes with the name, seems to have value\usefulness so people not daring to go down the SDP route are happy to hide behind its skirts. You can't have it both ways.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Thu 28 May, 2015 2:04 pm

We live in a class dominated, rotten society, full of privilege and injustice, full of social division and hatred generated by a corrupt and complicit media, driven to extremes by the roller-coaster demands of the ruling elites and their need to increase their wealth on a constant basis, and the main problem we have is an over-optimisitic left, not a section of society that sees all the above as natural and right.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 28 May, 2015 2:06 pm

refitman wrote:The referendum bill has been published (PDF): http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Scotla ... -1947.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And the explanatory notes (also PDF): http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 6002en.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The first link took me to a webpage entitled:

Scotland Bill sells Scotland short

Is that part of the referendum bill I'm not seeing? Thank you, refitman.