Saturday 27th and Sunday 28th June 2015

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 7:50 am

Morning.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 7:56 am

Long time coming. Legacy of Ed? This surely is a glaring examply of a 'predatory' practice.

Tesco shareholders attack bosses over staff's 'slave wages' after it emerges taxpayer is topping up employees' incomes
Supermarket giant Tesco posted record annual loss of £6.4billion last year
Slammed for making executives millionaires while failing to pay living wage
Company is also at centre of Serious Fraud Office investigation into allegation its trading profits were artificiality inflated by £326million
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... wages.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... Shareholder Michael Mason-Mahon attacked the board to wide applause, saying: ‘You’re a cancer on our society because you keep the poor, poor. This is not right. ‘Slavery was abolished … The new slogan should be “Tesco – we do not pay Living Wage but we do reward our executives for failure and make them multimillionaires”.’
The retired businessman told the AGM in Westminster: ‘What we need is executives who act with honour and integrity. ‘Society can no longer accept the greed of executives in the UK, we need integrity and not people who just fill their pockets at the expense of others.’ Tesco pushed out chief executive Philip Clarke last year amid claims he failed to respond to the threat posed by Aldi and Lidl.
He was also in charge when the firm overstated profits. But he left with a £1.2million lump sum and a pension pot approaching £14million.
The firm’s former chief finance officer Laurie McIlwee received £1million and a pension pot of nearly £7million.
New chief executive Dave Lewis, brought in to turn the supermarket around, has been paid £4.1million for six months’ work, including a £3.2million ‘golden hello’.
Mr Mason-Mahon compared Mr Lewis’s £3,424-a-day pay with the £46-per-day of those working in Tesco stores – close to the minimum wage of £6.50 an hour.
Mr Lewis defended staff pay, saying: ‘We start from a place where the salary paid to colleagues in Tesco is the leading figure in the marketplace.

I may be wrong now but when Aldi were recruiting locally they were definitely paying more than Tesco - and offering longer hours - i.e. proper jobs rather than the 8 or 16 hours Tesco seems to rely on.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 8:21 am

Lawyers' strike over legal aid cuts boosted by the backing of major firms
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 49009.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One senior barrister told The Independent: “Courts grinding to a halt may just be the start. The entire criminal law system and how it can be sensibly administered could turn to chaos. That the Ministry of Justice know this and yet plays games reminiscent of 1970s industrial relations brinkmanship is unprecedented.”

WelshIan · Post by **WelshIan** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 9:10 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:Long time coming. Legacy of Ed? This surely is a glaring examply of a 'predatory' practice.

Tesco shareholders attack bosses over staff's 'slave wages' after it emerges taxpayer is topping up employees' incomes
Supermarket giant Tesco posted record annual loss of £6.4billion last year
Slammed for making executives millionaires while failing to pay living wage
Company is also at centre of Serious Fraud Office investigation into allegation its trading profits were artificiality inflated by £326million
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... wages.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... Shareholder Michael Mason-Mahon attacked the board to wide applause, saying: ‘You’re a cancer on our society because you keep the poor, poor. This is not right. ‘Slavery was abolished … The new slogan should be “Tesco – we do not pay Living Wage but we do reward our executives for failure and make them multimillionaires”.’
The retired businessman told the AGM in Westminster: ‘What we need is executives who act with honour and integrity. ‘Society can no longer accept the greed of executives in the UK, we need integrity and not people who just fill their pockets at the expense of others.’ Tesco pushed out chief executive Philip Clarke last year amid claims he failed to respond to the threat posed by Aldi and Lidl.
He was also in charge when the firm overstated profits. But he left with a £1.2million lump sum and a pension pot approaching £14million.
The firm’s former chief finance officer Laurie McIlwee received £1million and a pension pot of nearly £7million.
New chief executive Dave Lewis, brought in to turn the supermarket around, has been paid £4.1million for six months’ work, including a £3.2million ‘golden hello’.
Mr Mason-Mahon compared Mr Lewis’s £3,424-a-day pay with the £46-per-day of those working in Tesco stores – close to the minimum wage of £6.50 an hour.
Mr Lewis defended staff pay, saying: ‘We start from a place where the salary paid to colleagues in Tesco is the leading figure in the marketplace.
I may be wrong now but when Aldi were recruiting locally they were definitely paying more than Tesco - and offering longer hours - i.e. proper jobs rather than the 8 or 16 hours Tesco seems to rely on.

Whilst to all of us in the general public, Aldi and Tesco are supermarkets, in retail classification they are in different sectors - Tesco is a supermarket and Aldi a discounter (as is Lidl). Therefore Tesco's claim to be the leaders may be correct when compared against the other supermarkets (Asda, Morrisons, Sainsburys, not sure if anyone else is in the sector) but not when widened out to include Lidl and Aldi.
Even if they are market leading, the criticism that they are not paying the Living Wage still stands, doesn't it?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 10:00 am

http://www.policy-network.net/pno_detai ... ign=buffer

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 10:20 am

From last night.

AngryAsWell wrote:Fleet StreetFox can be a bit like marmite, but there is no doubt that she has quite a turn of phrase ....

"Does Jeremy Hunt ever think about what nurses do?"

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wh ... ck-1306533" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Your link is to a Brian Reade article, AAW, that has a link to Fleet Street Fox's Jeremy Hunt is the man with nine lives - and now he's looking after yours: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fl ... my-1302938. Both worth a read, however

Note my deference to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. In defence of Michael Gove’s grammar guide: http://www.spectator.co.uk/life/status- ... mar-guide/.

I'm going for a lie down now; there's something rather disconcerting about agreeing with Michael and Toby.

Edit: the pedant in me has noticed that 'Both worth a read, however' has no verb or full stop for that matter. Just as well this isn't formal correspondence.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 10:32 am

If only Fleet Street Fox had spent more of the previous five years attacking the actual government rather than sneering at Miliband and Labour, eh?

Sorry, not a great fan (though she was of course far from alone in that)

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 10:35 am

@AnatolyKasparov

I only discovered her a few days ago, Anatoly, although I must have come across her before, so guess her previous offerings probably didn't resonate.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 10:55 am

I didn't know that the new head of Ofcom was the partner of the OBR chief until I read an article in the Torygraph today. Nor that she used to work for Osborne. Such a small world. I guess that means I won't be getting a TV licence any time soon then.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 11:03 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:Long time coming. Legacy of Ed? This surely is a glaring examply of a 'predatory' practice.

I may be wrong now but when Aldi were recruiting locally they were definitely paying more than Tesco - and offering longer hours - i.e. proper jobs rather than the 8 or 16 hours Tesco seems to rely on.

I think Aldi and Lidl pay one rate for any hours worked, no extra for unsocial hours, bank hols, etc.

Possibly Tesco do have some 'premium' rates, so may work out the same overall.

Btw, why are Lidl and Aldi called 'discounters', when they hardly ever discount anything?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 11:05 am

Not politics exactly but have just noticed this, CPS decision not to prosecute Lord Janner 'to be overturned': http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... overturned.

Quite right too. Now how's that inquiry coming along, Theresa? Or isn't multi-taskiing within your remit?

Edit: Cameron would be amused, I'd misspelled Theresa.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 11:19 am

Something else has caught my attention, 'Inept' head of family drug-dealing gang sentenced to nine years in jail: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... nine-years. Inept indeed! Some of you may have noticed how much attention I pay to names so be advised I found theirs amusing, Carl Honey-Jones and his wife Donna.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 11:21 am

Gorgeous day here in Stoke, everyone, good-morning.
My new Labour party membership card arrived less than an hour ago.
They send a new one every year.

"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 11:35 am

'And this, Government launches anti-trolling website to help victims of online abuse: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... line-abuse.

The Stop Online Abuse site: http://www.stoponlineabuse.org.uk/.

Not before time, although there does seem some overemphasis on LGBT issues. I'm not saying they're not targeted but almost anybody can. I've not viewed the site but hope such overemphasis is toned down, especially if marketed. Maybe I'm strange like that but having had imposed Social Services attention on our family since our daughter's birth, I'm not comfortable with overly highlighting differences.

Edit: I appear to have a mental block on LBGT, now corrected, which seems strange given my associating it with KGB.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 11:37 am

gilsey wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Long time coming. Legacy of Ed? This surely is a glaring examply of a 'predatory' practice.

I may be wrong now but when Aldi were recruiting locally they were definitely paying more than Tesco - and offering longer hours - i.e. proper jobs rather than the 8 or 16 hours Tesco seems to rely on.
I think Aldi and Lidl pay one rate for any hours worked, no extra for unsocial hours, bank hols, etc.

Possibly Tesco do have some 'premium' rates, so may work out the same overall.

Btw, why are Lidl and Aldi called 'discounters', when they hardly ever discount anything?

Aldi pays over the odds, but staff are expected to give a hand with any jobs that need to be done and they work darned hard. Staff levels are kept to a minimum. Speedy scanning, and slinging your shopping straight back into the trolley means less checkouts. It's one of the reasons they are so much cheaper.
They don't have management wandering around with clipboards. In fact you'll often see the manager manning a till, and if all the six tills don't need manning, they are working in the warehouse and stocking shelves.

Lidl is owned by the brother of the guy that owns Aldi. They haven't spoken to each other in years.

In our local Aldi, they have staff that have been there since they opened six years ago so it can't be too bad...

WelshIan · Post by **WelshIan** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 12:00 pm

I think Aldi and Lidl are classed as discount retailers (along with the likes of Poundland, etc) because the don't offer the range of products to be considered supermarkets. I could be wrong though!

I think the quote from the Tesco CEO is typical of what we see these days - it may well be correct in a narrow, semantic definition of 'marketplace' but it misleads as that definition is not the same as the typical reader's definition. He doesn't say which colleagues are paid the market leading rate (the directors, senior management, all staff?!)
It also does not actually answer the point that was raised, and are we supposed to congratulate them on being the best of a bad bunch.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 12:18 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
gilsey wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Long time coming. Legacy of Ed? This surely is a glaring examply of a 'predatory' practice.

I may be wrong now but when Aldi were recruiting locally they were definitely paying more than Tesco - and offering longer hours - i.e. proper jobs rather than the 8 or 16 hours Tesco seems to rely on.
I think Aldi and Lidl pay one rate for any hours worked, no extra for unsocial hours, bank hols, etc.

Possibly Tesco do have some 'premium' rates, so may work out the same overall.

Btw, why are Lidl and Aldi called 'discounters', when they hardly ever discount anything?
Aldi pays over the odds, but staff are expected to give a hand with any jobs that need to be done and they work darned hard. Staff levels are kept to a minimum. Speedy scanning, and slinging your shopping straight back into the trolley means less checkouts. It's one of the reasons they are so much cheaper.
They don't have management wandering around with clipboards. In fact you'll often see the manager manning a till, and if all the six tills don't need manning, they are working in the warehouse and stocking shelves.

Lidl is owned by the brother of the guy that owns Aldi. They haven't spoken to each other in years.

In our local Aldi, they have staff that have been there since they opened six years ago so it can't be too bad...

Anecdote time.

I came across an ex-Lidl-employee working (as an Aldi employee - not owing to her suffering a bout of confusion) at Aldi. She said that Lidl was a terrible employer and that things were much better at Aldi.

Good morfternoon, everyone.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 12:21 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Lawyers' strike over legal aid cuts boosted by the backing of major firms
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 49009.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One senior barrister told The Independent: “Courts grinding to a halt may just be the start. The entire criminal law system and how it can be sensibly administered could turn to chaos. That the Ministry of Justice know this and yet plays games reminiscent of 1970s industrial relations brinkmanship is unprecedented.”

(my bold)

Current government may not understand the magnitude of their irresponsibility, but the country & world does.
I should think their egos, if nothing else, would move them to fix what's wrong.

"Is this what you want to be remembered for? Really?"

It didn't stop Thatcher or WBush though so never mind.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 12:31 pm

PorFavor wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
gilsey wrote: I think Aldi and Lidl pay one rate for any hours worked, no extra for unsocial hours, bank hols, etc.

Possibly Tesco do have some 'premium' rates, so may work out the same overall.

Btw, why are Lidl and Aldi called 'discounters', when they hardly ever discount anything?
Aldi pays over the odds, but staff are expected to give a hand with any jobs that need to be done and they work darned hard. Staff levels are kept to a minimum. Speedy scanning, and slinging your shopping straight back into the trolley means less checkouts. It's one of the reasons they are so much cheaper.
They don't have management wandering around with clipboards. In fact you'll often see the manager manning a till, and if all the six tills don't need manning, they are working in the warehouse and stocking shelves.

Lidl is owned by the brother of the guy that owns Aldi. They haven't spoken to each other in years.

In our local Aldi, they have staff that have been there since they opened six years ago so it can't be too bad...

Anecdote time.

I came across an ex-Lidl-employee working (as an Aldi employee - not owing to her suffering a bout of confusion) at Aldi. She said that Lidl was a terrible employer and that things were much better at Aldi.

Good morfternoon, everyone.

Yep. I also know someone who said Lidl were appalling to work for and took the first opportunity to move to the Co-op, despite the Co-op not being great payers, but haven't heard anything against Aldi.

Afternoon.

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 12:51 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:http://www.policy-network.net/pno_detai ... ign=buffer

There you go. Pouncing in with your good news again.

Did you manage to keep one hand free whilst keying the link?

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 12:52 pm

ADMINISTRATORS:

I can't work out how to delete my account so could you please do it for me? Many thanks.

Goodbye to all the good folk on here.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 12:58 pm

Carl Honey-Jones, 31, was sentenced to a nine-year custodial term, while his wife, 32 – whose lawyer has insisted was just “taking cash from her husband and spending it” – had her sentence adjourned until 6 July.

Four other relatives were involved, including Honey-Jones’s father-in-law Brian Harding, 58, who mixed cocaine with cutting agents in his garage; and Honey-Jones’s cousin, Matthew Jones, 24, described in court as Honey-Jones’s “right-hand man”.

Donna Honey-Jones’s brother and sister also inadvertently gave themselves up after calling the police to report that they had received threats from gangsters.

I'm sorry to go on but cannot believe the idiocy of these people; there is so much more than above. As for Brian Harding, he deserves all he gets. Yeah, I'm a little ambivalent about supply but cutting agents are unforgivable. Even so claiming benefits whilst making a living are are unforgivable too. As for reporting 'gangsters' to the police in their position, what can I say? Stupid, stupid, stupid!

Time for licensed suppliers I guess. There should be no room for the likes of Honey-Jones and Harding. Perhaps Geogie-Boy should get onto it. Having said that there is still a market for knee-capping loan sharks, I believe, despite legitimate ones with somewhat less harsh collection methods. 'And talking of beliefs I notice IDS still has them in nearly every statement he makes.

I was about to look at The Stop Online Abuse site: http://www.stoponlineabuse.org.uk/ but have got to dash now. Besides my granddaughter is demanding my attention now. See you.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 1:00 pm

@giselle97

Seems a little extreme, giselle. Whatever your reasons, fare thee well, and please pop back should you feel the urge. You shall be missed otherwise.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 1:04 pm

giselle97 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:http://www.policy-network.net/pno_detai ... ign=buffer
There you go. Pouncing in with your good news again.

Did you manage to keep one hand free whilst keying the link?

That piece by Hopi Sen is a classic of the "WHY THIS ELECTION RESULT MEANS THAT EVERYBODY MUST SUPPORT MY POLITICS" genre.

I refrain from further comment.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 1:20 pm

giselle97 wrote:ADMINISTRATORS:

I can't work out how to delete my account so could you please do it for me? Many thanks.

Goodbye to all the good folk on here.

Oh jesus, what's happening
Please don't go

Post by **refitman** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 1:26 pm

Just to echo what Paul mentioned the other day, if anyone would like to join Letsskip and be a moderator, let me know. It would mainly involve fixing links in posts and catching the very rare spam that appears. I'll handle all the background technical stuff.

Either PM me here or on Twitter (@refitman).

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 1:32 pm

giselle97 wrote:ADMINISTRATORS:

I can't work out how to delete my account so could you please do it for me? Many thanks.

Goodbye to all the good folk on here.

People can't delete their own account on here I understand, precisely because of the risk of doing it in a huff and regretting it later.

I hope - and expect - that you will be back before too long.

Post by **refitman** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 1:38 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
giselle97 wrote:ADMINISTRATORS:

I can't work out how to delete my account so could you please do it for me? Many thanks.

Goodbye to all the good folk on here.
People can't delete their own account on here I understand, precisely because of the risk of doing it in a huff and regretting it later.

I hope - and expect - that you will be back before too long.

I've emailed giselle.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 2:15 pm

utopiandreams wrote:Not politics exactly but have just noticed this, CPS decision not to prosecute Lord Janner 'to be overturned': http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... overturned.

Quite right too. Now how's that inquiry coming along, Theresa? Or isn't multi-taskiing within your remit?

Edit: Cameron would be amused, I'd misspelled Theresa.

The CPS director of public prosecutions had evidence to go ahead with a case however, four doctors determined Janner's dementia made him unfit to prosecute due to permanent loss of neurological function. It's my understanding the defendant has to be able to understand what's going on. The article linked is worth reading. I wasn't aware of Simon Danczuk's quest for 'a trial of facts' urging the CPS to reconsider the case. I'm not sure why the CPS director responsible for finding is being pressured to resign over this ruling.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 2:19 pm

I fail entirely to understand the rationale of abandoning 95 percent of people you get on with because of 5% that you don't.
Bloody left.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 2:19 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
giselle97 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:http://www.policy-network.net/pno_detai ... ign=buffer
There you go. Pouncing in with your good news again.

Did you manage to keep one hand free whilst keying the link?
That piece by Hopi Sen is a classic of the "WHY THIS ELECTION RESULT MEANS THAT EVERYBODY MUST SUPPORT MY POLITICS" genre.

I refrain from further comment.

Given all the local council elections you've tirelessly reported on over the last 5 years, much appreciated by many here, I wonder if you felt that Labour never really broke through in contrast to what the national polls were saying?

Certainly I began to feel concerned a year ago when the Libdems lost their MEP for the South West. It was the first real intimation that the Libdems were facing a wipeout in the South of England and that could only mean a lot of gains for the Tories. Unfortunately I didn't understand enough about the state of play for Labour marginals in other parts of the country to grasp just how much of an uphill battle they faced further north, but no one could ignore the Scottish polls which promised to be dire even if at the very extremes of margin of error in Labour's favour. I guess what I'm saying is when election night came I chose to go to bed before the exit polls because I needed to get a good night's sleep for stuff scheduled for the next day - maybe it was all the really old people when I went to vote - but I didn't have a good feeling. The point is, that bad feeling was based on a combination of factors that had little or nothing to do with Ed Miliband. Many SNP supporters are on the record as saying they were put off Labour by the Blair years, the loss of Scotland began well before Ed. The Libdems lost supporters and Labour tactical voters by going into Coalition with the Tories, I fail to see how another Labour leader could have changed that. Which left the marginals - with the Greens standing in almost every seat, continuing disillusionment with New Labour and expenses scandals pushing some traditional Labour voters towards Ukip and Cameron writing a personal letter to every constituent invoking an imaginary SNP bogeymen, aided by an astonishingly partisan BBC, I suspect any Labour leader would have struggled without the support of the media. Ed's refusal to be in anyone's pocket is key to the defeat, I accept to a degree, but I would argue it was also key to the support he did achieve. What Hugo doesn't seem able to condider is that a return to cosying up to Murdoch and the elite will lose many current supporters - it's not going to be a simple equation of Labour support plus swing voters as it was in 1997. From this perspective Burnham has the strongest grasp of how things stand, praising the manifesto that 9m people just voted for as one of the best he's stood on. Cooper talks of having to build out from the core. They both get the importance of shoring up current support before attempting to gain a wider audience in a way Kendall doesn't seem to. She's already got an eye on Tory swing voters in 2020. Labour voters in 2015 that she needs to become leader are ignored at her peril.

Sorry for length of comment. This whole Ed lost the election, Labour has to move right stuff winds me up. The 2010 predictions that New Labour had lost its way and would need at least 2 terms to recover has been proved correct. Labour's defeat is much bigger than Ed. A few policies aimed at swing voters to the right isn't going to fix it.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 2:31 pm

citizenJA wrote:... I wasn't aware of Simon Danczuk's quest for 'a trial of facts' urging the CPS to reconsider the case. I'm not sure why the CPS director responsible for finding is being pressured to resign over this ruling.

Simon does seem to have a bee in his bonnet, гражданка, (doesn't his wife claim past abuse?), so I can understand and share his wish for 'a trial of facts'. However (sorry Michael) I am with you on constant calls for resignation every time something goes awry though, there is too much trial by media or the mob for my liking; an understandable reaction I guess when those in positions of power or authority regularly flout their responsibilities. Yeah I'm looking at Cameron and those he keeps close.

Btw seeing Michael Gove as Lord Chancellor these days reminds me of how I saw him in my Stag Hunt dream, attired in black gown and Oxford cap albeit without the gold trim or embroidery and I've yet to see him clutching a King James' Bible.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 2:31 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:I fail entirely to understand the rationale of abandoning 95 percent of people you get on with because of 5% that you don't.
Bloody left.

I hope you're not making trouble again . . . .

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 2:32 pm

"who me?" emoticon

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 2:39 pm

"From this perspective Burnham has the strongest grasp of how things stand, praising the manifesto that 9m people just voted for as one of the best he's stood on."

What matters is the same thing that has mattered in every election since the early 1920s. The gap between the Tory and Labour vote. Getting 9m votes is essentially worthless if the Tories get 11m.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 2:51 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:"From this perspective Burnham has the strongest grasp of how things stand, praising the manifesto that 9m people just voted for as one of the best he's stood on."

What matters is the same thing that has mattered in every election since the early 1920s. The gap between the Tory and Labour vote. Getting 9m votes is essentially worthless if the Tories get 11m.

Losing a few million with a shift to the right isn't going to close that gap. The progress the Greens made in vote share is dangerous, if it hits a significant level a lot of left-wingers who vote Labour out of practicality will go Green if they think their vote will count to get a left-wing MP, even if just one, rather a suspect Labour one with dodgy ties and donations. The calibre of prospective MPs under Ed has been much better. I'm happy with new recruits. They're less tainted by big business sponsorship. Kendall doesn't inspire me to believe this progress in the right direction would continue with her in charge.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 2:52 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:"From this perspective Burnham has the strongest grasp of how things stand, praising the manifesto that 9m people just voted for as one of the best he's stood on."

What matters is the same thing that has mattered in every election since the early 1920s. The gap between the Tory and Labour vote. Getting 9m votes is essentially worthless if the Tories get 11m.

Don't you believe that, given the Conservative's track record even thus far into their majority, being more rottweiler-ish without much changing the last manifesto is a path worth pursuing? You seem very keen to give up without a fight. Very Vichy. (No insult to the French intended - just a bit of smart-arse shorthand.)

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 3:06 pm

PorFavor wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:"From this perspective Burnham has the strongest grasp of how things stand, praising the manifesto that 9m people just voted for as one of the best he's stood on."

What matters is the same thing that has mattered in every election since the early 1920s. The gap between the Tory and Labour vote. Getting 9m votes is essentially worthless if the Tories get 11m.
Don't you believe that, given the Conservative's track record even thus far into their majority, being more rottweiler-ish without much changing the last manifesto is a path worth pursuing? You seem very keen to give up without a fight. Very Vichy. (No insult to the French intended - just a bit of smart-arse shorthand.)

Not to mention the fact that a bit of consistency gives Labour more credibility as a genuine movement based on principles and firm convictions. There is still an issue of trust that needs addressing. Turning its back on Ed's attempts to rebuild trust could be fatal at this point, I fear. Burnham and Cooper both seem to get that. Neither stand out as a leader, but a convergence of views among those with most influence within the parliamentary party is encouraging. Labour need to operate as a team with a steadfast common vision - it's the only way to neutralise the constant strategic attacks from the right.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 3:12 pm

What could Ed Miliband & the Labour party have done differently prior to the 2015 GE to have altered the outcome & secured a Labour government? I've not read or heard anything convincing me policy or personality changes in Labour would've altered the outcome. Perhaps if Labour were really Tories, the 2015 GE may have secured them a government - that's a wild guess from me, sincerely. But I'm a Labour party member & supporter. I liked the manifesto, leadership team & leader. The Labour party are a mostly decent crew going to benefit more people & the country.

Twenty-first century media, society interconnected in real-time streaming communications is a lot of information flowing fast & yet, human beings still have just the one day. I continue to note securing what people look at & hear on a daily basis determine the conversations in media, give a name to fears people have, what people decide they want & who'll they think best at getting it for them.

The UK electorate is edging toward nearly fifty million people.
It's a tragedy about twenty million people didn't vote.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 3:22 pm

Willow904 wrote:... Losing a few million with a shift to the right isn't going to close that gap...

As Clegg found out, Willow. He even told people like me (to the left of Blair) that our votes/support were no longer needed. 'And I'm talking of past LibDem supporters so how that would go down with traditional Labourites, I've no idea.

I think it was your next post, can't tell now without going back, but you speak of pulling together as a team. I must say that despite our differing past allegiances I do find myself agreeing with most of what you say regarding Labour leadership and/or contenders.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 3:28 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:"From this perspective Burnham has the strongest grasp of how things stand, praising the manifesto that 9m people just voted for as one of the best he's stood on."

What matters is the same thing that has mattered in every election since the early 1920s. The gap between the Tory and Labour vote. Getting 9m votes is essentially worthless if the Tories get 11m.

Help people who're currently unregistered to vote onto the electoral register in order for their vote to be counted in elections, help people understand how to vote by mail or get safely to their voting place on election day.

Who will these people vote for?

Be the Labour party member you'd enthusiastically vote Labour for to represent you as a Member of Parliament. A part of our adult responsibility is civic participation. We are a representative democracy. We all get to vote. The current Labour party is a mostly responsible, competent & progressive group of people. I'm proud of the Labour party, members & leadership. The Labour party currently has the largest membership of any UK political party & I'm not going to die under this Tory government. I'm going to do what I can to protect others until we've a better government - a Labour government.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 3:40 pm

PorFavor wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:"From this perspective Burnham has the strongest grasp of how things stand, praising the manifesto that 9m people just voted for as one of the best he's stood on."

What matters is the same thing that has mattered in every election since the early 1920s. The gap between the Tory and Labour vote. Getting 9m votes is essentially worthless if the Tories get 11m.
Don't you believe that, given the Conservative's track record even thus far into their majority, being more rottweiler-ish without much changing the last manifesto is a path worth pursuing? You seem very keen to give up without a fight. Very Vichy. (No insult to the French intended - just a bit of smart-arse shorthand.)

I explained at length at the time what I thought was wrong with the 2015 manifesto (on here and elsewhere).

So no.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 4:09 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:"From this perspective Burnham has the strongest grasp of how things stand, praising the manifesto that 9m people just voted for as one of the best he's stood on."

What matters is the same thing that has mattered in every election since the early 1920s. The gap between the Tory and Labour vote. Getting 9m votes is essentially worthless if the Tories get 11m.

The gap between Tories and Labour is vast.
What do Tories give the people & nation?
What do Labour give the people & nation?
History teaches us frightened, humiliated people sometimes vote for a strong, hate-filled leader.
It doesn't have to be that way.
Most people will choose cooperation most of the time, given the choice, given some freedom from fear & space to hear about fair, long-term care for people & country.
A country devastated by war, loss & sporting ration books voted for a competent, compassionate & humanitarian government. What was built then out of that Labour government is some of the finest contemporary social security, health care delivery, quality housing & infrastructure systems in the world.

The landed gentry in the UK got to keep their inherited property so a relatively few number of people own a lot of it. The monarchy & House of Lords is still around. I'm more indignant about the former. God damn ingratitude for the work regular people do daily is reflected in the shabby employment conditions & lack of public infrastructure support current Tory government give the people & country.

The global environmental degradations beginning in earnest in the late nineteenth century challenges all the nations of the world now. This may take the ball out of everyone hands soon, maybe.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 4:20 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:"From this perspective Burnham has the strongest grasp of how things stand, praising the manifesto that 9m people just voted for as one of the best he's stood on."

What matters is the same thing that has mattered in every election since the early 1920s. The gap between the Tory and Labour vote. Getting 9m votes is essentially worthless if the Tories get 11m.
Don't you believe that, given the Conservative's track record even thus far into their majority, being more rottweiler-ish without much changing the last manifesto is a path worth pursuing? You seem very keen to give up without a fight. Very Vichy. (No insult to the French intended - just a bit of smart-arse shorthand.)
I explained at length at the time what I thought was wrong with the 2015 manifesto (on here and elsewhere).

So no.

I liked the Labour party 2015 manifesto.
Jobs guarantee (real wages for work!), dump Health & Social Care Act 2012, dump Bedroom Tax, regulate Buy-to-Let, private sector housing, rent controls, build more public sector housing, affordable housing, investment in renewable energy infrastructure, Labour PM wouldn't be jerking off in Brussels like the current Tory PM, wasting time, money & making the UK a laughing stock, give the young people plenty of quality things to do, either training, University or apprenticeships, blaze up the Sure Start centres again, NHS staffed & funded properly, ending the institutional harassment of ill & disabled people through IDS' DWP...

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 4:48 pm

The Greek people are going to vote on whether they accept the creditors' demands or not.

Greece calls snap referendum over eurozone bailout
Alexis Tsipras says government will campaign for no vote as Athens tells finance ministers in Brussels that Greek people need to decide country’s future

The Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, announced in the early hours that the poll would be held on 5 July and the government has said it will campaign for a no vote. The Greek finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, said the government wanted to let voters decide.

“We received 36% of the vote. For a momentous decision of this nature we felt the need to secure 50%+1,” he said.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... s-brussels" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 4:48 pm

Dave has a Cobra meeting scheduled for today.

Are there any FTN friends in Tunisia?
I send love to you.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... ims-attack" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 4:55 pm

The Greek finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, said the government wanted to let voters decide.

“We received 36% of the vote. For a momentous decision of this nature we felt the need to secure 50%+1,” he said.

Chancellor Jeff, this is what compassionate, responsible leadership does - tell the people the truth, work for the benefit of the people & acknowledge receiving thirty-some-odd percent of total electorate support necessitates seeking a mandate for further action.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 4:58 pm

citizenJA wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
PorFavor wrote: Don't you believe that, given the Conservative's track record even thus far into their majority, being more rottweiler-ish without much changing the last manifesto is a path worth pursuing? You seem very keen to give up without a fight. Very Vichy. (No insult to the French intended - just a bit of smart-arse shorthand.)
I explained at length at the time what I thought was wrong with the 2015 manifesto (on here and elsewhere).

So no.
I liked the Labour party 2015 manifesto.
Jobs guarantee (real wages for work!), dump Health & Social Care Act 2012, dump Bedroom Tax, regulate Buy-to-Let, private sector housing, rent controls, build more public sector housing, affordable housing, investment in renewable energy infrastructure, Labour PM wouldn't be jerking off in Brussels like the current Tory PM, wasting time, money & making the UK a laughing stock, give the young people plenty of quality things to do, either training, University or apprenticeships, blaze up the Sure Start centres again, NHS staffed & funded properly, ending the institutional harassment of ill & disabled people through IDS' DWP...

The manifesto wasn't responsible for a surge of nationalism in Scotland which, as a unionist party Labour was always going to lose out from. Neither was the manifesto responsible for the collapse of the Libdems. Blair benefited from Labour votes in Scotland and Libdem votes locking the Tories out of many constituencies in the south. Ed didn't enjoy these benefits so he lost. This is why I'm not convinced SH's swing vote strategy will work in 2020. If they are to persuade me otherwise, they have to at least concede that the above advantages Blair enjoyed throughout the New Labour years are no longer in play and explain how they would counter them, if they aren't in favour of trying to win SNP and Ukip voters back.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 5:15 pm

Lawyers' strike over legal aid cuts boosted by the backing of major firms
...Mr Gove...“pressing ahead” to create a legal system that delivered “value for money to taxpayers”.

A legal system that delivers 'value for money to taxpayers'...
Depriving people of legal representation delivers injustice to taxpayers.

After an 8.5 per cent cut in the legal aid budget last year, Mr Gove...told lawyers that he intended to continue the legacy of his widely criticised predecessor, Chris Grayling, & introduce a further 8.5 per cent cut in state fees. He also gave notice that the number of firms allowed to provide legal aid at short notice will be reduced from 2,000 to 540.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 49009.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 27 Jun, 2015 5:55 pm

Willow904 wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: I explained at length at the time what I thought was wrong with the 2015 manifesto (on here and elsewhere).

So no.
I liked the Labour party 2015 manifesto.
Jobs guarantee (real wages for work!), dump Health & Social Care Act 2012, dump Bedroom Tax, regulate Buy-to-Let, private sector housing, rent controls, build more public sector housing, affordable housing, investment in renewable energy infrastructure, Labour PM wouldn't be jerking off in Brussels like the current Tory PM, wasting time, money & making the UK a laughing stock, give the young people plenty of quality things to do, either training, University or apprenticeships, blaze up the Sure Start centres again, NHS staffed & funded properly, ending the institutional harassment of ill & disabled people through IDS' DWP...
The manifesto wasn't responsible for a surge of nationalism in Scotland which, as a unionist party Labour was always going to lose out from. Neither was the manifesto responsible for the collapse of the Libdems. Blair benefited from Labour votes in Scotland and Libdem votes locking the Tories out of many constituencies in the south. Ed didn't enjoy these benefits so he lost. This is why I'm not convinced SH's swing vote strategy will work in 2020. If they are to persuade me otherwise, they have to at least concede that the above advantages Blair enjoyed throughout the New Labour years are no longer in play and explain how they would counter them, if they aren't in favour of trying to win SNP and Ukip voters back.

That we managed to pick up so few of those Lib Dem votes was appalling. Those who did not vote Lib Dem who had before were primarily not those who were happy with a Tory coalition.

As I have said before, there is nothing to be done in Scotland, and even I don't blame Miliband primarily for that (although his weak leadership was a contributing factor).