:
Fear not, @utopiandreams. I'd forgotten that I'd been putting my mind to the 'balloon on a stick' business so thank you for reminding me that I'd trawled my mind, whilst dozing off at some point, and retrieved very strong memories of balloons on sticks – and of children clamouring to have one. So. Blowing up balloons to sell at the beachside amusements, or at a fairground or circus (or some other gathering with opportunities for trade) is pretty hard work – lessened somewhat with a pump or, even better, with canister of helium – but the bugger of it is closing the balloons off so they don't go rocketing and farting off into the distance. Now, you can stretch the neck of a filled balloon over a plug or cork of some sort (but many will escape you) or you can tie them off – but that's fiddly, prone to failures such as popping the damned thing or losing your grip and it farts off. Enter the stick.utopiandreams wrote:@LadyCentauria
Regarding the second cartoon I'm still embarrassed by my 'balloon/moon on a stick' gaffe. Anyway good to see Dave has something to aspire to.
Nowhere in this story is there any link made between the reduction in permanent staffing numbers at hospitals due to coalition cuts ('efficiencies'!) and the refusal of government to honour the independent pay review award for some nurses.Nursing agency's £43m NHS payday: Mail investigation finds firm billed cash-strapped hospitals as much as £1,800 a shift to plug gap in staffing shortages
A nursing agency last year charged the NHS £43million to supply staff
Thornbury Nursing Services raked in £6.5m from individual hospital trusts
Mail investigation shows huge amount agencies are making from taxpayers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tages.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Way over my head I'm afraid, LadyC. I thought I were referring to KGB not LGBT affairs.LadyCentauria wrote:... O/T, again, is it my mind or was your joke really rather naughty for this time in the morning?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ussia.htmlThe UK could site American new nuclear missiles on British soil amid heightened tensions with Russia, Philip Hammond has indicated.
ADVERTISING
The comments raise the prospect of a return to a Cold War-type arms race with Russia over the use of nuclear missiles
The Foreign Secretary said there were “worrying signs” about the increased activity of Russian forces and the UK would consider the pros and cons of taking US intermediate-range weapons.
I'm glad someone else wrote this.Willow904 wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -education
Of the Labour right, I still consider Tristram Hunt vastly superior to either Kendall or Umunna and don't really understand why they decided to put all their eggs in the Liz Kendall basket for the leadership contest - it's almost as if they want to lose everyone who just voted for them. Hunt is extremely diplomatic when talking about where Labour went wrong with education before the election, he clearly understands that Ed's policies were very popular with those who voted Labour but didn't come across clearly to those who didn't. He proposes much that is about continuity of policy but change in presentation, insisting Labour had many things right (no more superflous free schools, no unqualified teachers, early years investment) but needs to turn up the volume. Why is he backing Kendall? Where Hunt talks good sense and easily entwines the values and objectives of both Labour right and left, Kendall says exactly the kind of right-wing things that could almost have been designed to split the Labour party irrevocably. Ah well, just as well Burnham's well ahead.
Don't you hate it when you allow someone to perceive you wrong?"Sadly, Miliband allowed himself to be perceived as uninterested in schools policy"
- Tristram Hunt
8 June 2015
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -education" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It was probably both - I suspect the KGB men were trying to ascertain whether Dave and his companion could be drawn into sexual shenanigans which they would then use as blackmail and a means to get him to do their bidding. Effete looking ex public school types such as them were the type they'd been told to look out for. They'd have had better luck with Osborne.utopiandreams wrote:Way over my head I'm afraid, LadyC. I thought I were referring to KGB not LBGT affairs.LadyCentauria wrote:... O/T, again, is it my mind or was your joke really rather naughty for this time in the morning?
Katie Hopkins is usually wrong about everything, and has views that would probably disturb even her heroine Mrs Thatcher. But she may have had a point when she declared Hunt was the best candidate. Mind you, she only said it because she thought that he shared a characteristic with Blair - that of looking (deceptively?) Tory enough not to scare Middle England.Willow904 wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -education
Of the Labour right, I still consider Tristram Hunt vastly superior to either Kendall or Umunna and don't really understand why they decided to put all their eggs in the Liz Kendall basket for the leadership contest - it's almost as if they want to lose everyone who just voted for them. Hunt is extremely diplomatic when talking about where Labour went wrong with education before the election, he clearly understands that Ed's policies were very popular with those who voted Labour but didn't come across clearly to those who didn't. He proposes much that is about continuity of policy but change in presentation, insisting Labour had many things right (no more superflous free schools, no unqualified teachers, early years investment) but needs to turn up the volume. Why is he backing Kendall? Where Hunt talks good sense and easily entwines the values and objectives of both Labour right and left, Kendall says exactly the kind of right-wing things that could almost have been designed to split the Labour party irrevocably. Ah well, just as well Burnham's well ahead.
Evemoraftinoons all...rebeccariots2 wrote:The other key story this morning is Cameron appearing to have already decided he is going to campaign for In re the EU - despite no details of his renegotiation yet he is insisting it will be successful - and ban his ministers from campaigning against him.
He seems to be banking on the assumption that most people aren't going to look very closely at what he 'achieves' and will trust him if he says it is a good deal.
Will the electorate fall for that ... or will the media and those that want Out be willing and able to present the counter arguments with equal force? Hang on to your seats. Not sure where we are going with this one.
Europe)...
AnatolyKasparov wrote:If only Tristram had been called (say) Robert Hunt or Peter Hunt, he might have stood a real chance. I know that is depressingly shallow, but its also how it is
Don't be surprised when he starts using it.ohsocynical wrote:AnatolyKasparov wrote:If only Tristram had been called (say) Robert Hunt or Peter Hunt, he might have stood a real chance. I know that is depressingly shallow, but its also how it is
Kevin would work.
Sadly you're right Anatoly. Tristram is a sort of cliche upper middle class name.AnatolyKasparov wrote:If only Tristram had been called (say) Robert Hunt or Peter Hunt, he might have stood a real chance. I know that is depressingly shallow, but its also how it is
Mike wouldn't though.ohsocynical wrote:AnatolyKasparov wrote:If only Tristram had been called (say) Robert Hunt or Peter Hunt, he might have stood a real chance. I know that is depressingly shallow, but its also how it is
Kevin would work.
AnatolyKasparov wrote:If only Tristram had been called (say) Robert Hunt or Peter Hunt, he might have stood a real chance. I know that is depressingly shallow, but its also how it is
To be fair, they look similar and have a similar manner. It's not just the backgrounds, it's a thoughtful way of speaking (unlike Cameron's two styles of unctuousness and fake sincerity, or shouty bullying).PorFavor wrote:AnatolyKasparov wrote:If only Tristram had been called (say) Robert Hunt or Peter Hunt, he might have stood a real chance. I know that is depressingly shallow, but its also how it is
As I said a while back, whenever Tristram Hunt's name is mentioned I always get a mental picture of Zac Goldsmith and have to recalibrate my brain. And I know perfectly well who he (TH) is - so what hope has he got?
Good morfternoon, everyone.
Edited - comma
Good Lord.David Cameron has been told he risks "turning a decent debate into a bitter argument" after the Prime Minister warned he would sack any minister who campaigned to leave the European Union.
"Everyone in government has signed up to the programme set out in the Conservative manifesto."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06 ... _hp_ref=tw
Do Tory MPs actually believe what was in the manifesto? Cameron's flair for banana skin politics in evidence again. The novel thing about him is that he throws the banana skins down in front of himself.Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 5m5 minutes ago
No10 in full fudge mode. Now say #EURef collective responsibility only applies to renegotiation period-no decision on what ministers do then
Matt Chorley @MattChorley 5m5 minutes ago
PM seemed clear in Bavaria last night that all ministers must to toe government line in referendum. Now No10 says it's a "hypothetical"
Matt Chorley @MattChorley 5m5 minutes ago
EU U-turn: Downing Street now says Cameron threat to sack ministers applies only during renegotiation NOT if they want to campaign to leave
Robert Hutton @RobDotHutton 5m5 minutes ago
EU referendum Tory status (collective responsibility edition): GOVERNMENT CLIMBDOWN #Journalese
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... d982cba80d" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;David Cameron has withdrawn his threat to sack ministers who want to campaign for an EU exit.
Number 10 says his comments yesterday were “over-interpreted” and that he was just talking about ministers having to abide by collective responsibility during the negotiation process. Journalists at the prime minister’s briefing do not accept that they misrepresented his words, and the transcript supports their account.
Number 10 says Cameron has not yet decided whether or not ministers will be sacked if they oppose Britain staying in the EU during the renegotiation.
(my bold)Following receipt of a draft report in April 2015, the Department provided some
evidence on how it has tried to address issues identified in previous reports and how
other welfare reforms have considered these themes. In the Department’s view it has
made progress across programmes since the time of our initial reports. This includes
addressing concerns about programme management on Universal Credit and reducing
the time taken to process Personal Independence Payment claims.
Given the selective nature of the evidence provided and the limited time to review
a wide range of programmes, we were unable to audit the evidence or consider the
additional information in detail. We have acknowledged some recent developments
based on published information and statistics in Part One of the report. And we will
review several elements of the Department’s progress implementing welfare reforms
through our audit programme over the next few years.
Yep.Report
by the Comptroller
and Auditor General
NAO
Department for Work & Pensions
Welfare reform – lessons learned
The Department has accomplished a great deal in the past five years. It has taken
on an unprecedented number of reforms while cutting costs and managing a surge
in demand following the economic downturn. The Department has shown that it can
introduce and adapt programmes flexibly in the face of uncertainty. And it has continued
to make progress in difficult major programmes despite early failings.
With continued pressure to reduce costs and improve services, the Department will
not be able to revert to a slow incremental approach whenever it encounters problems, or to
delay or reduce planned savings whenever it fails to plan for the uncertainty of assumptions.
The Department has had to manage a broad and radical change programme, and learned
some hard lessons with significant financial and human costs. It is important that the
Department incorporates these lessons into an enhanced approach to managing change
quickly and based on more developed forward planning and anticipation of risks.
HC 77 SESSION 2015-16 29 MAY 2015
http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/upload ... m-Book.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He'll have to fight off Sol CampbellAnatolyKasparov wrote:Rumours that Goldsmith may put himself forward for the Tory nomination for London Mayor in the near future.
If so he would undoubtedly be the toughest opponent for Labour to beat (and further points towards Tessa being their candidate)
Though how he might square this with his very vocal opposition to any Heathrow Airport extension will be interesting to see........
Universal credit could make working fewer hours more attractive – study
Welfare programme faces significant design problems and needs serious reform, nine-month review concludes
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... tive-study" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The article is based upon the report below.rebeccariots2 wrote:There are a surprising number of very good comment BTL on this ... only surprising in that there seem to be more of the informed, well thought through ones than the often too frequent slag off anything and anyone to do with benefits type.
Universal credit could make working fewer hours more attractive – study
Welfare programme faces significant design problems and needs serious reform, nine-month review concludes
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... tive-study" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Making the most of UC
Final report of the Resolution Foundation review
of Universal Credit
David Finch
June 2015
http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/wp- ... REPORT.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Does she have any idea how that comes across to the thousands of activists slogging their guts out campaigning for the election - or the candidates who didn't win or the former Labour MPs who lost their seats? How does she know 'there is an even greater number of people ... who feel relieved that we are not in government'? Where is the evidence of that? Unless she's talking about Tories and other non Labour supporters of course.Harriet Harman, Labour’s acting leader, tells the Independent in an interview that some Labour supporters were privately relieved the party lost the election. She said:
Sometimes after an election, you get a sense that people think ‘Oh my God, that is terrible, what a disaster.’ A lot of people felt that because we got nearly 40,000 new party members who were very disappointed. But there is an even greater number of people, even though they were not enthusiastic about David Cameron or the Tories, who feel relieved that we are not in government. We have got to address it. It was not a blip.
Exactly. I saw it earlier and despaired. It's an evidence-free zone. What was she thinking (and I use that term very loosely)? At best it's an insult to almost everyone involved in Labour's election campaign.rebeccariots2 wrote:From the G politics blog (which has taken it from the Independent article)
Does she have any idea how that comes across to the thousands of activists slogging their guts out campaigning for the election - or the candidates who didn't win or the former Labour MPs who lost their seats? How does she know 'there is an even greater number of people ... who feel relieved that we are not in government'? Where is the evidence of that? Unless she's talking about Tories and other non Labour supporters of course.Harriet Harman, Labour’s acting leader, tells the Independent in an interview that some Labour supporters were privately relieved the party lost the election. She said:
Sometimes after an election, you get a sense that people think ‘Oh my God, that is terrible, what a disaster.’ A lot of people felt that because we got nearly 40,000 new party members who were very disappointed. But there is an even greater number of people, even though they were not enthusiastic about David Cameron or the Tories, who feel relieved that we are not in government. We have got to address it. It was not a blip.
Government by Oxymoron is neither new nor surprising. One classically brilliant way of outmanoeuvering your opponents is to stop making sense. This leaves them gawping in disbelief while you make good your escape
Matt Chorley @MattChorley 21m21 minutes ago
One furious Tory MP on EU sack/don't sack confusion: 'They must make up their f***ing minds.' http://dailym.ai/1FEhp3v" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Robert Hutton retweeted
Neitherangryorscared @NeAnOrScared 20m20 minutes ago
@RobDotHutton over-interpreted is the new Mis-spoke
James Tapsfield @JamesTapsfield 15m15 minutes ago
David Davis welcomes No10's "re-interpretation" on ministers' EU campaigning, says "vital" people can follow conscience
Faisal Islam @faisalislam 16m16 minutes ago
David Davis tells #skynews "I want the clarification made more clear... vital that ordinary members of government can vote way they want"
Tom Blenkinsop @TomBlenkinsop 9m9 minutes ago
Boots Axes 700 Jobs As Part Of 'Transformation' http://news.sky.com/story/1498213/boots ... s-part-of-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
To me they have just done a normal "press speak" on her. Try it this way.rebeccariots2 wrote:From the G politics blog (which has taken it from the Independent article)
Does she have any idea how that comes across to the thousands of activists slogging their guts out campaigning for the election - or the candidates who didn't win or the former Labour MPs who lost their seats? How does she know 'there is an even greater number of people ... who feel relieved that we are not in government'? Where is the evidence of that? Unless she's talking about Tories and other non Labour supporters of course.Harriet Harman, Labour’s acting leader, tells the Independent in an interview that some Labour supporters were privately relieved the party lost the election. She said:
Sometimes after an election, you get a sense that people think ‘Oh my God, that is terrible, what a disaster.’ A lot of people felt that because we got nearly 40,000 new party members who were very disappointed. But there is an even greater number of people, even though they were not enthusiastic about David Cameron or the Tories, who feel relieved that we are not in government. We have got to address it. It was not a blip.
Sorry AAW - got to disagree on this one. I've read the transcript several times and don't think it improves with different punctuation. It's a very gobbledygook statement taken all together anyway - which is why I've asked where the evidence for her comments are. Shame she felt the need to say something like this at the current time.AngryAsWell wrote:To me they have just done a normal "press speak" on her. Try it this way.rebeccariots2 wrote:From the G politics blog (which has taken it from the Independent article)
Does she have any idea how that comes across to the thousands of activists slogging their guts out campaigning for the election - or the candidates who didn't win or the former Labour MPs who lost their seats? How does she know 'there is an even greater number of people ... who feel relieved that we are not in government'? Where is the evidence of that? Unless she's talking about Tories and other non Labour supporters of course.Harriet Harman, Labour’s acting leader, tells the Independent in an interview that some Labour supporters were privately relieved the party lost the election. She said:
Sometimes after an election, you get a sense that people think ‘Oh my God, that is terrible, what a disaster.’ A lot of people felt that because we got nearly 40,000 new party members who were very disappointed. But there is an even greater number of people, even though they were not enthusiastic about David Cameron or the Tories, who feel relieved that we are not in government. We have got to address it. It was not a blip.
Sometimes after an election, you get a sense that people think ‘Oh my God, that is terrible, what a disaster’ a lot of people felt that because we got nearly 40,000 new party members who were very disappointed.
But there is an even greater number of people [who did not vote for us] even though they were not enthusiastic about David Cameron or the Tories, who feel relieved that we are not in government. We have got to address it. It was not a blip
Maybe so, Willow, but shall never compensate for having enabled him.Willow904 wrote:... Dave's flip flopping all over the place this morning. I wonder if Clegg's stature will grow as the man who kept the coalition running smoothly, as Dave brings his unique brand of chaos-breeding lack of responsibility to his majority Tory government?
The name Tristram always makes me think of either Peter Davison in 'All creatures ..' or strangely enough Wagners Valkyries, both of which are 'Tristans'.nickyinnorfolk wrote:Sadly you're right Anatoly. Tristram is a sort of cliche upper middle class name.AnatolyKasparov wrote:If only Tristram had been called (say) Robert Hunt or Peter Hunt, he might have stood a real chance. I know that is depressingly shallow, but its also how it is
Having said that, the only Tristram I've met in real life was a little boy from a very working class family. His mum (Tracey) had lost a brother called Trevor and had originally wanted to call her son that name, only her husband vetoed it - hence the choice of the only other name they knew that started 'Tr-'. Plus she'd liked the character called Tristram in All Creatures Great and Small.
The evidence is that Labour lost the election.rebeccariots2 wrote:Sorry AAW - got to disagree on this one. I've read the transcript several times and don't think it improves with different punctuation. It's a very gobbledygook statement taken all together anyway - which is why I've asked where the evidence for her comments are. Shame she felt the need to say something like this at the current time.AngryAsWell wrote:To me they have just done a normal "press speak" on her. Try it this way.rebeccariots2 wrote:From the G politics blog (which has taken it from the Independent article)
Does she have any idea how that comes across to the thousands of activists slogging their guts out campaigning for the election - or the candidates who didn't win or the former Labour MPs who lost their seats? How does she know 'there is an even greater number of people ... who feel relieved that we are not in government'? Where is the evidence of that? Unless she's talking about Tories and other non Labour supporters of course.
Sometimes after an election, you get a sense that people think ‘Oh my God, that is terrible, what a disaster’ a lot of people felt that because we got nearly 40,000 new party members who were very disappointed.
But there is an even greater number of people [who did not vote for us] even though they were not enthusiastic about David Cameron or the Tories, who feel relieved that we are not in government. We have got to address it. It was not a blip
We got sent a little summer campaign briefing the other day ... I presume it came from the wider campaign organisers and was percolated out to branches. I looked at it and wondered if they thought we are all blinking idiots - it started with suggesting we thank candidates. This may be why I've not got much latitude for lax statements at the moment! I'm looking forward to seeing a bit more substance from the deputy leadership candidates - which I'm guessing because of who some of them are will probably contain a fair bit about the Labour movement and campaigning.
Oh, I'm actually suggesting Clegg has done something even worse than enabling the Tories for 5 years. By bringing a smidgen of competence to the coalition government he may well have made them re-electable in a way they may not have managed on their own. Double whamy.utopiandreams wrote:Maybe so, Willow, but shall never compensate for having enabled him.Willow904 wrote:... Dave's flip flopping all over the place this morning. I wonder if Clegg's stature will grow as the man who kept the coalition running smoothly, as Dave brings his unique brand of chaos-breeding lack of responsibility to his majority Tory government?
Well I never.FT Westminster
@ftwestminster
Paid-leave voluntary work pledge shelved http://on.ft.com/1KQ2qXL" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I concede that the Independent's preamble might be misrepresenting what Harriet Harman meant. But they are certainly not misrepresenting what she actually said - so, really, it's a case of "their guess is as good as mine".AngryAsWell wrote:The evidence is that Labour lost the election.rebeccariots2 wrote:Sorry AAW - got to disagree on this one. I've read the transcript several times and don't think it improves with different punctuation. It's a very gobbledygook statement taken all together anyway - which is why I've asked where the evidence for her comments are. Shame she felt the need to say something like this at the current time.AngryAsWell wrote: To me they have just done a normal "press speak" on her. Try it this way.
Sometimes after an election, you get a sense that people think ‘Oh my God, that is terrible, what a disaster’ a lot of people felt that because we got nearly 40,000 new party members who were very disappointed.
But there is an even greater number of people [who did not vote for us] even though they were not enthusiastic about David Cameron or the Tories, who feel relieved that we are not in government. We have got to address it. It was not a blip
We got sent a little summer campaign briefing the other day ... I presume it came from the wider campaign organisers and was percolated out to branches. I looked at it and wondered if they thought we are all blinking idiots - it started with suggesting we thank candidates. This may be why I've not got much latitude for lax statements at the moment! I'm looking forward to seeing a bit more substance from the deputy leadership candidates - which I'm guessing because of who some of them are will probably contain a fair bit about the Labour movement and campaigning.
Either we want politicians to speak normally in a relaxed way, without having every word examined and taken out of context, or we continue to complain that they are robotic automations when they give stilted none-answers.
We can't have it both ways.
Who'd have thought that being an even bigger berk than any of that lot was the key to getting rid of them?3h ago10:44
The Telegraph has identified six senior Tories who it thinks could resign over Europe. It’s a slightly odd list, because it includes Boris Johnson, who has not got a government job he could resign from (although he does attend political cabinet). The other names are: Philip Hammond, Sajid Javid, Michael Gove, Michael Fallon and Iain Duncan Smith.(Politics Blog, Guardian)
I tend to agree. It seems to me that if Labour has access to research and polling that suggests potential Labour supporters were relieved they didn't get in, then this is useful information that they need to incorporate into their strategy and keep going back to these individuals to test if their attempts to neutralise the poor perception of their economic competence are working. What they shouldn't be doing is voluntarily blabbing this negative research to the press. The press will attack Labour anyway, there's no need to provide them with the ammunition.PorFavor wrote:I concede that the Independent's preamble might be misrepresenting what Harriet Harman meant. But they are certainly not misrepresenting what she actually said - so, really, it's a case of "their guess is as good as mine".AngryAsWell wrote:The evidence is that Labour lost the election.rebeccariots2 wrote: Sorry AAW - got to disagree on this one. I've read the transcript several times and don't think it improves with different punctuation. It's a very gobbledygook statement taken all together anyway - which is why I've asked where the evidence for her comments are. Shame she felt the need to say something like this at the current time.
We got sent a little summer campaign briefing the other day ... I presume it came from the wider campaign organisers and was percolated out to branches. I looked at it and wondered if they thought we are all blinking idiots - it started with suggesting we thank candidates. This may be why I've not got much latitude for lax statements at the moment! I'm looking forward to seeing a bit more substance from the deputy leadership candidates - which I'm guessing because of who some of them are will probably contain a fair bit about the Labour movement and campaigning.
Either we want politicians to speak normally in a relaxed way, without having every word examined and taken out of context, or we continue to complain that they are robotic automations when they give stilted none-answers.
We can't have it both ways.
She's not new to this game, and should have worded her comments more carefully - if indeed she meant what you take her comments to mean.
