Friday 3rd July 2015

[refitman]

Morning all.

[refitman]

[youtube]_FrOQC-zEog[/youtube]
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RogerOThornhill]

Morning.

Off to the library soon so won't be here for long.

Odd goings on with Kids Company - surely if the government had concerns they should have sent the Charity Commissioners in - that's their job after all.

This just looks like spite for not toeing the party line about how wonderful everything is.

And yet the New Schools Network keeps going despite being such an obvious Tory front with a revolving door between it, PX and the DfE.

I've just noticed that it's Gove who's partly behind this tough line on Kids Company - what an utter hypocrite.

[Willow904]

[youtube]_FrOQC-zEog[/youtube]
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ha! Very good. Now too chilled out to think about politics, though. Might defrost the freezer. Back later

[Eric_WLothian]

The wheels of justice grind exceeding slow:

A HEARING will take place today to decide whether relatives of Lockerbie bombing victims could pursue an appeal on behalf of the only man convicted of the atrocity.
A group of British relatives maintain they have a ‘legitimate interest’ in trying to get the case of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi back before a court for a full appeal.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/ ... -1-3820523

[citizenJA]

Y'all seen this here regarding the NHS?

Review of Operational Productivity in NHS providers
An independent report for the Department of Health by Lord Carter of Coles
Interim Report
June 2015
- For Jeremy, because I love him, LC of C -

The Commonwealth Fund Report ‘Mirror
Mirror on the Wall’ rates the NHS as the most
cost-effective health system in the world in
terms of value for money for the taxpayer, but
are our hospitals as efficient as their overseas
colleagues in the day-to-day delivery of
healthcare? To answer this question we need
a measure of hospital efficiency.

We're reminded of the Commonwealth Report, one of the criteria rating the UK as number one in the Western World is EFFICIENCY YOU B******* & *unt's crew write that needs to change.

The report highlighted that the NHS’ long
run efficiency performance has been 0.8%
annually. This has risen to 1.5-2% in recent
years largely due to pay restraint, but the
NHS needs to repeatedly achieve 2% net
savings for the rest of the decade (perhaps
rising to 3% by the end of the period). The
report identified the subsequent gap to be of
the order of £22bn.

You're taking apart the NHS.

These are unprecedented challenges for
the NHS. If they are to be achieved, we
need to create a culture of relentless cost
containment with a forensic examination of
every pound spent in delivering healthcare.
Everyone must play their part – from
executive boards and managers to nurses
and clinicians. No stone should be unturned
and nothing sacred or exempt from
examination.

Please read the bold bits & be afraid.

Our early findings are leading us to conclude
that most NHS hospitals can demonstrate
good practice in some areas, but all have
room for improvement. One thing is clear;
there is no silver bullet for delivering the
efficiencies outlined by Five Year Forward
View. Instead, it requires a relentless focus
on a multitude of efficiency opportunities
which when combined, have the potential
to make a significant contribution to the
£22bn.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... report.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Say goodbye to universal health care provision & delivery in the UK.

[citizenJA]

22 Hospital trusts, £22bn in savings - I kid you not.
22 is Jhunt's favourite number, yes it is.
It's not only horrifying to watch Tory government take apart the infrastructure making the UK productive, healthy & cost effective, they've got to treat each & every one of us like we're too dumb to laugh bitterly at their crazy stupid sound bites & repetitive numbers said over & over & over & over...until we sing it in our sleep.

1 Bolton NHS Foundation Trust
2 Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust
3 Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation
Trust
4 Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS
Foundation Trust
5 Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation
Trust
6 East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust
7 Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
8 Hinchingbrooke Healthcare NHS Trust
9 Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust
10 Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
11 Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust
12 Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust
13 North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust
14 Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
15 Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust
16 Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust
17 Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust
18 Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust
19 Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust
20 University College London Hospitals NHS
Foundation Trust
21 University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation
Trust
22 University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS
Foundation Trust

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... report.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AnatolyKasparov]

The wheels of justice grind exceeding slow:

A HEARING will take place today to decide whether relatives of Lockerbie bombing victims could pursue an appeal on behalf of the only man convicted of the atrocity.
A group of British relatives maintain they have a ‘legitimate interest’ in trying to get the case of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi back before a court for a full appeal.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/ ... -1-3820523

Some of us were never convinced of his guilt from the start.........

[gilsey]

@JohnWight1
The military repatriation of the bodies of murdered British tourists in Tunisia was nothing less than shameless propaganda by the govt.


Reassuring to know it's not just me thinking that.

[PorFavor]

Good morfternoon.

Labour leadership: Kendall in 'continuity Miliband' warning

24 minutes ago

Liz Kendall says she is the only Labour leadership candidate who would fully break with Ed Miliband's leadership.

She told The Sun her three rivals were all "continuity Miliband" candidates who would not connect with aspirational low and middle income voters. (BBC News website)

I've changed my mind. Liz Kendall will be getting my vote. Anyone who seeks the approbation of "The Sun" and, more importantly that great man Rupert Murdoch, is obviously on my side.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33378988

Edited to tidy up

[SpinningHugo]

Good morfternoon.

Labour leadership: Kendall in 'continuity Miliband' warning

24 minutes ago

Liz Kendall says she is the only Labour leadership candidate who would fully break with Ed Miliband's leadership.

She told The Sun her three rivals were all "continuity Miliband" candidates who would not connect with aspirational low and middle income voters. (BBC News website)

I've changed my mind. Liz Kendall will be getting my vote. Anyone who seeks the approbation of "The Sun" and, more importantly that great man Rupert Murdoch, is obviously on my side.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33378988

Edited to tidy up

Yes,

Thank God no other candidate would ever stoop so low as to be interviewed by The Scum


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... rview.html

http://www.sunnation.co.uk/why-is-burnh ... -in-2010/

I don't think Kendall will win (which is sad) but I do think that the abuse she gets reveals why Labour loses.

[AnatolyKasparov]

There is a difference between doing a token interview with the Currant Bun and making its approval a centrepiece of your strategy.

But, of course, you know that

[PorFavor]

There is a difference between doing a token interview with the Currant Bun and making its approval a centrepiece of your strategy.

But, of course, you know that

Exactly. A point I should have made in my original post!

[SpinningHugo]

There is a difference between doing a token interview with the Currant Bun and making its approval a centrepiece of your strategy.

But, of course, you know that

If those were the facts, you would of course be right.

But they are not.

Those interviews are just as prominent and of the same length.

Perhaps this needs explanation.

The interviews are near identical. the reason Kendall's has been picked up is that she has been rude. She has called the others the 'continuity Miliband' candidates. This has been noticed because it is rude with a grain of truth to it. (I think it is also unfair, and the kind of thing I might say on the internet when particularly frustrated by someone saying Kendall is a Tory and should just fuck off (or indeed that I am and should).)

Feel free to criticise her for what she has said. but to denounce her as in some way a Murdoch stooge different from the others is just nonsense.

[citizenJA]

Facts
The GPES project has been significantly delayed
2.4 The NHS Information Centre started the GPES project in 2007 and by October 2008
had developed its first draft business case. The timetable in the business case expected
the service to start late in 2009-10. However, progress was disrupted by several factors.
These included uncertainties over Department funding, the Cabinet Office review of ICT
projects after the 2010 general election, difficulties in recruiting skilled staff and delays
in procuring the GPES extraction systems.

http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/upload ... gation.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The information from the NAO above is what everyone needs to know about what current Tory foul up government are going to try to blame on Labour.

The National Audit Office has today published the findings from its investigation into the General Practice Extraction Service (GPES), an IT system designed to allow NHS organizations to extract data from all GP practice computer systems in England. This data would be used to monitor quality, plan and pay for health services and help medical research.

The key findings of the investigation are as follows:
- The project has been significantly delayed and many customers have yet to receive data. The original business case said the service would start in 2009-10, but it took until April 2014 for Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) to provide the first GPES data extract to a customer.

- Mistakes in the original procurement and contract management contributed to losses of public funds, through asset write-offs and settlements with suppliers. The total expected cost of the GPES programme increased from £14 million to £40 million during the planning and procurement stage. Further cost increases have been smaller, but the project has had at least £5.5 million of write-offs and delay costs. The need for the service remains and further public expenditure is needed to improve GPES or replace it.
Only one customer, NHS England has so far received data from GPES. The time needed to design a new type of extract and restrictions in the contracts severely limits HSCIC’s ability to provide data to those who request it. It is unlikely that GPES in its current form can provide the NHS-wide service planned.

- These issues were brought to the attention of the National Audit Office through its financial audit of the HSCIC. The NAO observed during its visit that the system was not working as expected and that additional costs had been incurred through a settlement with one of the main suppliers, Atos IT Services UK Ltd.

http://www.nao.org.uk/report/general-pr ... stigation/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(my bold)

National Audit Office (NAO)
2 July 2015

[citizenJA]

I don't think Kendall will win (which is sad) but I do think that the abuse she gets reveals why Labour loses.

What does this even mean?

[SpinningHugo]

I don't think Kendall will win (which is sad) but I do think that the abuse she gets reveals why Labour loses.

What does this even mean?

It means

(i) Kendall won't win. I regret this

(ii) Kendall gets lots of abuse.

(iii) The abuse that Kendall receives shows, for me, that Labour is unwilling to make the compromises necessary to gain power. I regret that.

[citizenJA]

Good morfternoon.

Labour leadership: Kendall in 'continuity Miliband' warning

24 minutes ago

Liz Kendall says she is the only Labour leadership candidate who would fully break with Ed Miliband's leadership.

She told The Sun her three rivals were all "continuity Miliband" candidates who would not connect with aspirational low and middle income voters. (BBC News website)

I've changed my mind. Liz Kendall will be getting my vote. Anyone who seeks the approbation of "The Sun" and, more importantly that great man Rupert Murdoch, is obviously on my side.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33378988

Edited to tidy up

You're joking, right?
I think you're joking.
I don't think Kendall is joking & I'll bid her good-day.
What an idiotic platform, Kendall.
Thank you for making the choices easier.

[citizenJA]

I don't think Kendall will win (which is sad) but I do think that the abuse she gets reveals why Labour loses.

What does this even mean?

It means

(i) Kendall won't win. I regret this

(ii) Kendall gets lots of abuse.

(iii) The abuse that Kendall receives shows, for me, that Labour is unwilling to make the compromises necessary to gain power. I regret that.

Thank you for the explanation
Labour gets abuse - end of - it's not fair, it's not democratic, it's based upon lies told impossible to counter all at once because media is owned by people who don't like Labour, left-wing governments & social democracy in general.

[citizenJA]

@JohnWight1
The military repatriation of the bodies of murdered British tourists in Tunisia was nothing less than shameless propaganda by the govt.


Reassuring to know it's not just me thinking that.

Oh jesus, gilsey, have a care, you're supposed to take your cap off in respectful devotion & be silent in a Tory contrived ceremony of propagandised horseshit exploiting a tragedy involving tourists killed by a lunatic with a gun.

Jeremy *unt is going to send you a bill for missing a cap doffing silence appointment.

[frightful_oik]

Y'all seen this here regarding the NHS?

Review of Operational Productivity in NHS providers
An independent report for the Department of Health by Lord Carter of Coles
Interim Report
June 2015
- For Jeremy, because I love him, LC of C -

The Commonwealth Fund Report ‘Mirror
Mirror on the Wall’ rates the NHS as the most
cost-effective health system in the world in
terms of value for money for the taxpayer, but
are our hospitals as efficient as their overseas
colleagues in the day-to-day delivery of
healthcare? To answer this question we need
a measure of hospital efficiency.

We're reminded of the Commonwealth Report, one of the criteria rating the UK as number one in the Western World is EFFICIENCY YOU B******* & *unt's crew write that needs to change.

The report highlighted that the NHS’ long
run efficiency performance has been 0.8%
annually. This has risen to 1.5-2% in recent
years largely due to pay restraint, but the
NHS needs to repeatedly achieve 2% net
savings for the rest of the decade (perhaps
rising to 3% by the end of the period). The
report identified the subsequent gap to be of
the order of £22bn.

You're taking apart the NHS.

These are unprecedented challenges for
the NHS. If they are to be achieved, we
need to create a culture of relentless cost
containment with a forensic examination of
every pound spent in delivering healthcare.
Everyone must play their part – from
executive boards and managers to nurses
and clinicians. No stone should be unturned
and nothing sacred or exempt from
examination.

Please read the bold bits & be afraid.

Our early findings are leading us to conclude
that most NHS hospitals can demonstrate
good practice in some areas, but all have
room for improvement. One thing is clear;
there is no silver bullet for delivering the
efficiencies outlined by Five Year Forward
View. Instead, it requires a relentless focus
on a multitude of efficiency opportunities
which when combined, have the potential
to make a significant contribution to the
£22bn.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... report.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Say goodbye to universal health care provision & delivery in the UK.

Of course, we could just increase income tax rates by a couple of pence...

Oh, do I need to wash my mouth out with soap and water now? Have I crossed the Rubicon?

[citizenJA]

Of course, we could just increase income tax rates by a couple of pence...

Oh, do I need to wash my mouth out with soap and water now? Have I crossed the Rubicon?

Nope. It's a great idea. Thank you very much indeed.

[AnatolyKasparov]

(iii) The abuse that Kendall receives shows, for me, that Labour is unwilling to make the compromises necessary to gain power. I regret that.

And this is where most of us here part company.

One of the most irritating things about neo-Blairites is their tendency to claim (especially when pressed in an argument) that only they care about Labour winning elections. You really think most of those backing Cooper or Burnham - indeed, the candidates themselves - *don't* desperately want Labour to return to power? Hell, even many of those backing Corbyn do - and indeed claim that he is Labour's best chance of doing so (I disagree obviously, but still)

In the opinion of many of us, not only is what Kendall is proposing not needed for Labour to return to power, it could actively harm its chances of doing so.

A straw in the wind btw, a certain DPJ Hodges seems to have given up on Liz and is now backing Yvette for leader - not a complete surprise given that he is basically a populist opportunist rather than a Blairite ideologue in the manner of Rentoul or the Times posse, but still interesting.......

[PorFavor]

I don't think Kendall will win (which is sad) but I do think that the abuse she gets reveals why Labour loses.

What does this even mean?

It means

(i) Kendall won't win. I regret this

(ii) Kendall gets lots of abuse.

(iii) The abuse that Kendall receives shows, for me, that Labour is unwilling to make the compromises necessary to gain power. I regret that.

I don't expect Jeremy Corbyn will get anywhere near winning. Many Labour members will compromise by voting for someone with a more realistic chance of winning a General Election. What many people won't do is roll over and totally capitulate - which seems to me to be your idea of "compromise".

[SpinningHugo]

(iii) The abuse that Kendall receives shows, for me, that Labour is unwilling to make the compromises necessary to gain power. I regret that.

And this is where most of us here part company.

One of the most irritating things about neo-Blairites is their tendency to claim (especially when pressed in an argument) that only they care about Labour winning elections. You really think most of those backing Cooper or Burnham - indeed, the candidates themselves - *don't* desperately want Labour to return to power? Hell, even many of those backing Corbyn do - and indeed claim that he is Labour's best chance of doing so (I disagree obviously, but still)

In the opinion of many of us, not only is what Kendall is proposing not needed for Labour to return to power, it could actively harm its chances of doing so.

A straw in the wind btw, a certain DPJ Hodges seems to have given up on Liz and is now backing Yvette for leader - not a complete surprise given that he is basically a populist opportunist rather than a Blairite ideologue in the manner of Rentoul or the Times posse, but still interesting.......

Of course everyone rational wants to win. Even those who will vote for Corbyn. I think Labour doesn't want to win enough. This is for two reasons

(i) Iraq. This poisoned the memory of Blair and his inheritance. That is why you (and others) label people to your right as Blairites in debate. It means the party wants no return to Blair in any form.

(ii) Despite the rhetoric, the 2010-2015 government was not as horrendous as Thatcher at her height. That means there is not the burning desire to remove the Tories at any cost that there was 20 years ago. We'll see whether 2015-2020 changes that.

Hodges' analysis was that Miliband was useless and Labour would lose in 2015 as a result. At this point, it would be great if he were right. If we had had Cooper from, say, 2013 onwards then I think we might now be in government with the SNP. However, I'd be a liar if I said I thought Cooper or Burnham have said or done anything of any interest in the hustings process, and the hurdle is going to be higher in 2020 than it was in 2015.

[HindleA]

Afternoon

https://speye.wordpress.com/2015/07/02/ ... -says-bbc/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Osborne and IDS conspire to kill social housing with ‘welfare’ changes says BBC

[Willow904]

The interviews are near identical. the reason Kendall's has been picked up is that she has been rude. She has called the others the 'continuity Miliband' candidates. This has been noticed because it is rude with a grain of truth to it. (I think it is also unfair, and the kind of thing I might say on the internet when particularly frustrated by someone saying Kendall is a Tory and should just fuck off (or indeed that I am and should).)

Feel free to criticise her for what she has said. but to denounce her as in some way a Murdoch stooge different from the others is just nonsense.

You write this as if it is already an accepted fact that being a 'continuity Miliband' is a bad thing.

I would challenge that. I doubt it would be possible for Labour to win without the support of people who voted in 2010 and 2015. It's not that Kendall wants to appeal to a wider audience that's the problem, it's exactly what Labour needs and what all the candidates are attempting to do in their own ways (bar Corbyn). The problem with Kendall is she is only appealing to those to the right of Labour, what she says and how she says it is very off-putting to those who support Labour right now. She would lose Labour a lot of voters, including me. Burnham and Cooper recognise that it is imperative to keep the core support on side, establish their trust, before trying to widen Labour's appeal in the coming years. That Kendall doesn't understand what is necessary to win the Labour leadership contest leads me to doubt whether she understands what is necessary to win an election. She (and you) seem to assume the 9m people who just voted for Labour did so despite Ed Miliband and his manifesto, but where is the evidence? It is just as possible that they voted for Labour because of Ed Miliband's manifesto and Labour risks losing them if they reject it entirely as Kendall seems to be doing (and if she isn't doing that, then she is appalling at putting herself across because that's how it seems).

[mikems]

Jeremy Corbyn has as much chance as anyone else of winning a general election. Blair won because the tories were exhausted and people were fed up to the back teeth of them. Blairites insist on interpreting this as proof of the widespread popularity of their own views. But they are wrong.

In five years this country will be a very different place and anyone writing off Corbyn, or a return to social democracy in the Labour party, is doing it because they want to prevent that very thing.

I see it as who would be best for the country as a whole, including the forgotten and oppressed third and future generations. And that is Corbyn by a mile. Going on as we are, pretending that we are not living in a corrupt plutocracy, seeking to curry favour with our enemies and dancing to their tunes, may lead to electoral victories but will do nothing for the country or the people.

[SpinningHugo]

It is just as possible that they voted for Labour because of Ed Miliband's manifesto and Labour risks losing them if they reject it entirely as Kendall seems to be doing (and if she isn't doing that, then she is appalling at putting herself across because that's how it seems).

Of course in a way that is true. If you think Miliband was great and that we should continue the good work he did, then yes vote for another candidate (Burnham is probably your man).

If you think, like me, that what matters is the same thing as has has mattered in every election since the 1920s: the gap between the Labour and Tory vote, then vote Kendall.

Some now claim that there is more of a choice open to parties of the left than there were 15 years ago. I think that is fallacious. indeed that the collapse of the Lib Dems shows that support for parties other than Lab and Con has fallen not risen since 2010, and will fall still further as Ukip goes into decline.

[SpinningHugo]

Jeremy Corbyn has as much chance as anyone else of winning a general election. Blair won because the tories were exhausted and people were fed up to the back teeth of them. Blairites insist on interpreting this as proof of the widespread popularity of their own views. But they are wrong.

In five years this country will be a very different place and anyone writing off Corbyn, or a return to social democracy in the Labour party, is doing it because they want to prevent that very thing.

I see it as who would be best for the country as a whole, including the forgotten and oppressed third and future generations. And that is Corbyn by a mile. Going on as we are, pretending that we are not living in a corrupt plutocracy, seeking to curry favour with our enemies and dancing to their tunes, may lead to electoral victories but will do nothing for the country or the people.

How did he win in 2001? And 2005?

Were the Tories still exhausted?

They must tire easy.

[mikems]

If you think, like me, that what matters is the same thing as has has mattered in every election since the 1920s: the gap between the Labour and Tory vote, then vote Kendall.

What rubbish. Please make logical arguments, at least. You are dressing up your own opinions as self-evident facts that we are mulishly refusing to accept for some reason. In fact, we simply disagree with you.

As for how did Blair win in 01 and 05 - with declining votes and a rubbish opposition, that's how.

[mikems]

If you think, like me, that what matters is the same thing as has has mattered in every election since the 1920s: the gap between the Labour and Tory vote, then vote Kendall.

What rubbish. Please make logical arguments, at least. You are dressing up your own opinions as self-evident facts that we are mulishly refusing to accept for some reason. In fact, we simply disagree with you.

As for how did Blair win in 01 and 05 - with declining votes and a rubbish opposition, that's how.

[Tubby Isaacs]

If you think, like me, that what matters is the same thing as has has mattered in every election since the 1920s: the gap between the Labour and Tory vote, then vote Kendall.

What rubbish. Please make logical arguments, at least. You are dressing up your own opinions as self-evident facts that we are mulishly refusing to accept for some reason. In fact, we simply disagree with you.

As for how did Blair win in 01 and 05 - with declining votes and a rubbish opposition, that's how.

Sorry, Mike, couldn't resist it.

I strongly disagree with Hugo about Kendall though.

[Willow904]

(ii) Despite the rhetoric, the 2010-2015 government was not as horrendous as Thatcher at her height. That means there is not the burning desire to remove the Tories at any cost that there was 20 years ago. We'll see whether 2015-2020 changes that.

Yes, it was. And Thatcher got re-elected too, remember. She expanded home ownership so more people were vested in the kind of policy that benefits people with property (even though those policies are detrimental to the economy at large and the prospects of the bottom 50%).

Under Major house prices crashed and he got kicked out.

Under Blair house prices boomed and he got re-elected. But at what price for our economy and society? So many people without affordable accommodation, no secure roof over their heads. New Labour allowed house prices to get out of control and this is the reason I will never vote for a Blairite again. It may not be as bad as deliberately inflating house prices as Osborne has been doing, but the effects of not acting on house price inflation has still been very damaging.

There is so much talk of compromising, but it is those on good wages with expensive houses who are going to have to compromise if we are to avoid a further and much more devastating economic crash. Does Liz Kendall have what it takes to interfere in the housing market to get hundreds of thousands of homes built as Ed was proposing, even though it will be unpopular with middle class voters who will see their property values go down? The private sector hasn't built enough houses by itself since the 1920s. We need a socialist to get us out of this mess. Perhaps they need to hide their socialism a bit to get elected, but not so much that those of us with a smidgen of understanding of what this country needs thinks that they don't 'get it', and I'm afraid in Kendall's case I really don't think she get's it.

[AngryAsWell]

I disagree with Liz Kendall's statements on almost everything. If she is being advised, the advice is wrong. If they are her own opinions I don't like them.
Ether way I can't vote for her.
Its not abusive to disagree or express an opinion about a candidate.
We lost because the last days of the campaign were hijacked by the press/media screaming about the SNP and what deals Labour would do with them. Even the BBC admitted that their last week of coverage concentrated on that aspect far too much.
A bit late with that, BBC.
If policy had been discussed things like the HoL reform, full investigation of blacklisting, ending fees for employment tribunals, enabling public/non-profit ownership of railways, triple lock against fracking, £1,600 Future Fund for every 18 & 19 year old not in college, university or apprenticeship, build 200,000 homes a year across the UK, fully implement Leveson, would have been known about by the public at large, as it wasn't, they didn't.

The only "massive change" we need is changes to the news media.

[mikems]

But Tubby, Labour's vote did decline. It was 13,5 million in 97. And Hague and Howard were both rubbish leaders and did not gain public support. You know this, so I don't really understand your interjection.

[SpinningHugo]

"Does Liz Kendall have what it takes to interfere in the housing market to get hundreds of thousands of homes built as Ed was proposing"

This is a classic example of what Hopi Sen called Labour's dressing itself up in Syriza clothing, whilst actually proposing SPD policies.

The housing pledge was pathetic.

The pledge was to increase the number of houses built per year to 200,000 by 2020.

This pledge was 50,000 lower than the equivalent pledge made by Brown. It was also considerably LOWER than the annual increase in demand!

It was hopelessly vague as to how it would be achievable, housing sector people not accepting that the bland proposals on council cooperation would achieve very much.

What is actually needed is a combination of left and right thinking (a 'third way' if you like).

First we need to radically cut back on housing regulation. Greenbelt restrictions are there to stop urban sprawl. They were put in place at a time of low population growth (indeed contraction ) in London and the south east. These need to be burnt. The major problem is not lack of money (houses after all are worth many times more than they cost to build in the south) it is land.

Second we need to assist local authorities in building, by cutting back right to buy, and enabling them to borrow.

With specific groups these things will be unpopular, but overall they will be popular and effective. The usual Corbyn answer (just build more state social housing) was known by Labour to be hopelessly impractical, but Miliband lacked either the confidence or intellectual rigour to propose something that might actually work.

[AngryAsWell]

"Does Liz Kendall have what it takes to interfere in the housing market to get hundreds of thousands of homes built as Ed was proposing"

This is a classic example of what Hopi Sen called Labour's dressing itself up in Syriza clothing, whilst actually proposing SPD policies.

The housing pledge was pathetic.

The pledge was to increase the number of houses built per year to 200,000 by 2020.

This pledge was 50,000 lower than the equivalent pledge made by Brown. It was also considerably LOWER than the annual increase in demand!

It was hopelessly vague as to how it would be achievable, housing sector people not accepting that the bland proposals on council cooperation would achieve very much.

What is actually needed is a combination of left and right thinking (a 'third way' if you like).

First we need to radically cut back on housing regulation. Greenbelt restrictions are there to stop urban sprawl. They were put in place at a time of low population growth (indeed contraction ) in London and the south east. These need to be burnt. The major problem is not lack of money (houses after all are worth many times more than they cost to build in the south) it is land.

Second we need to assist local authorities in building, by cutting back right to buy, and enabling them to borrow.

With specific groups these things will be unpopular, but overall they will be popular and effective. The usual Corbyn answer (just build more state social housing) was known by Labour to be hopelessly impractical, but Miliband lacked either the confidence or intellectual rigour to propose something that might actually work.

We will get 200,000 homes built a year by 2020. This will close the gap between the number of homes we build and the number of homes we need, as well as providing up to 230,000 jobs in construction.

We will unblock the supply of new homes by giving local authorities "use it or lose it" powers over developers who hoard land that has planning permission so that they can sell it on for a bigger profit, instead of building on it now.

We will deliver a new generation of New Towns and Garden Cities, and give a new "right to grow" to communities who want to expand but are blocked by neighbouring local authorities.

We will tackle empty homes by giving councils more power to charge higher rates of council tax on empty properties, and ensure new homes are advertised in the UK first, not overseas.

http://www.labour.org.uk/issues/detail/house-building" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SpinningHugo]

"Does Liz Kendall have what it takes to interfere in the housing market to get hundreds of thousands of homes built as Ed was proposing"

This is a classic example of what Hopi Sen called Labour's dressing itself up in Syriza clothing, whilst actually proposing SPD policies.

The housing pledge was pathetic.

The pledge was to increase the number of houses built per year to 200,000 by 2020.

This pledge was 50,000 lower than the equivalent pledge made by Brown. It was also considerably LOWER than the annual increase in demand!

It was hopelessly vague as to how it would be achievable, housing sector people not accepting that the bland proposals on council cooperation would achieve very much.

What is actually needed is a combination of left and right thinking (a 'third way' if you like).

First we need to radically cut back on housing regulation. Greenbelt restrictions are there to stop urban sprawl. They were put in place at a time of low population growth (indeed contraction ) in London and the south east. These need to be burnt. The major problem is not lack of money (houses after all are worth many times more than they cost to build in the south) it is land.

Second we need to assist local authorities in building, by cutting back right to buy, and enabling them to borrow.

With specific groups these things will be unpopular, but overall they will be popular and effective. The usual Corbyn answer (just build more state social housing) was known by Labour to be hopelessly impractical, but Miliband lacked either the confidence or intellectual rigour to propose something that might actually work.

We will get 200,000 homes built a year by 2020. This will close the gap between the number of homes we build and the number of homes we need, as well as providing up to 230,000 jobs in construction.

We will unblock the supply of new homes by giving local authorities "use it or lose it" powers over developers who hoard land that has planning permission so that they can sell it on for a bigger profit, instead of building on it now.

We will deliver a new generation of New Towns and Garden Cities, and give a new "right to grow" to communities who want to expand but are blocked by neighbouring local authorities.

We will tackle empty homes by giving councils more power to charge higher rates of council tax on empty properties, and ensure new homes are advertised in the UK first, not overseas.

http://www.labour.org.uk/issues/detail/house-building" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I said.

Hopeless. That policy wouldn't even stop the problem getting worse than it is now, as it doesn't match the increase in demand. It is vague blather, scared of offending anyone.

We should have deregulated and proposed an LVT to claw back the gain to landowners. That could have then been ploughed into social care. We should have been going for an LVT (and council tax rebanding) and not stupid mansion tax policies.

The one and only thing to be said in favour of Labour's dreadful 2015 housing policy was that the Tories' was several times worse.

[I should have added that Labour's policy was also dishonest, though again nowhere near as dishonest as the Tories'. The idea that there is a significant and growing problem with developers 'hoarding' land is just nonsense. Developers need a 'bank' of land in order to smooth supply. They need a cushion so that when jobs come to an end they aren't forced either to keep hundreds of people idle or sack them. There is no evidence at all of any 'hoarding' increase. A classic example of Labour proposing a solution that wasn't the problem. It was stuff like that which meant that they didn't get the endorsement from housing experts that they should have had.

Miliband really, really was not good at his job.]

[refitman]

"Does Liz Kendall have what it takes to interfere in the housing market to get hundreds of thousands of homes built as Ed was proposing"

This is a classic example of what Hopi Sen called Labour's dressing itself up in Syriza clothing, whilst actually proposing SPD policies.

The housing pledge was pathetic.

The pledge was to increase the number of houses built per year to 200,000 by 2020.

This pledge was 50,000 lower than the equivalent pledge made by Brown. It was also considerably LOWER than the annual increase in demand!

It was hopelessly vague as to how it would be achievable, housing sector people not accepting that the bland proposals on council cooperation would achieve very much.

What is actually needed is a combination of left and right thinking (a 'third way' if you like).

First we need to radically cut back on housing regulation. Greenbelt restrictions are there to stop urban sprawl. They were put in place at a time of low population growth (indeed contraction ) in London and the south east. These need to be burnt. The major problem is not lack of money (houses after all are worth many times more than they cost to build in the south) it is land.

Second we need to assist local authorities in building, by cutting back right to buy, and enabling them to borrow.

With specific groups these things will be unpopular, but overall they will be popular and effective. The usual Corbyn answer (just build more state social housing) was known by Labour to be hopelessly impractical, but Miliband lacked either the confidence or intellectual rigour to propose something that might actually work.

We will get 200,000 homes built a year by 2020. This will close the gap between the number of homes we build and the number of homes we need, as well as providing up to 230,000 jobs in construction.

We will unblock the supply of new homes by giving local authorities "use it or lose it" powers over developers who hoard land that has planning permission so that they can sell it on for a bigger profit, instead of building on it now.

We will deliver a new generation of New Towns and Garden Cities, and give a new "right to grow" to communities who want to expand but are blocked by neighbouring local authorities.

We will tackle empty homes by giving councils more power to charge higher rates of council tax on empty properties, and ensure new homes are advertised in the UK first, not overseas.

http://www.labour.org.uk/issues/detail/house-building" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I said.

Hopeless. That policy wouldn't even stop the problem getting worse than it is now, as it doesn't match the increase in demand. It is vague blather, scared of offending anyone.

We should have deregulated and proposed an LVT to claw back the gain to landowners. That could have then been ploughed into social care. We should have been going for an LVT (and council tax rebanding) and not stupid mansion tax policies.

The one and only thing to be said in favour of Labour's dreadful 2015 housing policy was that the Tories' was several times worse.

How would you pay for LVT and redoing the council tax banding? Because that is what would have been hammered at Labour if those had ben the policies (not saying they're bad).

[SpinningHugo]

We will get 200,000 homes built a year by 2020. This will close the gap between the number of homes we build and the number of homes we need, as well as providing up to 230,000 jobs in construction.

We will unblock the supply of new homes by giving local authorities "use it or lose it" powers over developers who hoard land that has planning permission so that they can sell it on for a bigger profit, instead of building on it now.

We will deliver a new generation of New Towns and Garden Cities, and give a new "right to grow" to communities who want to expand but are blocked by neighbouring local authorities.

We will tackle empty homes by giving councils more power to charge higher rates of council tax on empty properties, and ensure new homes are advertised in the UK first, not overseas.

http://www.labour.org.uk/issues/detail/house-building" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I said.

Hopeless. That policy wouldn't even stop the problem getting worse than it is now, as it doesn't match the increase in demand. It is vague blather, scared of offending anyone.

We should have deregulated and proposed an LVT to claw back the gain to landowners. That could have then been ploughed into social care. We should have been going for an LVT (and council tax rebanding) and not stupid mansion tax policies.

The one and only thing to be said in favour of Labour's dreadful 2015 housing policy was that the Tories' was several times worse.

How would you pay for LVT and redoing the council tax banding? Because that is what would have been hammered at Labour if those had ben the policies (not saying they're bad).

Properly sold, an LVT would have been no more unpopular than the mansion tax, indeed probably less so. We should couple it with cutting stamp duty (which deters movement which is a major issue) and levying it as a charge on the property (so that the elderly cash poor but house rich don't need to pay until death). Council tax banding is just obviously the right thing to do.

As it was, Labour ended up with trivial class war sounding policies (ie the mansion tax) that wouldn't have done any significant good at all.

[AngryAsWell]

The housing policy was formulated around the policy review "The Lyons Housing Review"
Full details here
http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/e ... view_2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It contains much more detail than the bullet points chosen for the manifesto, which - I agree - should have been much more specific.

[refitman]

As I said.

Hopeless. That policy wouldn't even stop the problem getting worse than it is now, as it doesn't match the increase in demand. It is vague blather, scared of offending anyone.

We should have deregulated and proposed an LVT to claw back the gain to landowners. That could have then been ploughed into social care. We should have been going for an LVT (and council tax rebanding) and not stupid mansion tax policies.

The one and only thing to be said in favour of Labour's dreadful 2015 housing policy was that the Tories' was several times worse.

How would you pay for LVT and redoing the council tax banding? Because that is what would have been hammered at Labour if those had ben the policies (not saying they're bad).

Properly sold, an LVT would have been no more unpopular than the mansion tax, indeed probably less so. We should couple it with cutting stamp duty (which deters movement which is a major issue) and levying it as a charge on the property (so that the elderly cash poor but house rich don't need to pay until death). Council tax banding is just obviously the right thing to do.

As it was, Labour ended up with trivial class war sounding policies (ie the mansion tax) that wouldn't have done any significant good at all.

Nicely side-stepped. I didn't say they were wrong or worse than that proposed. How do you pay to re-value every house in the country?

levying it as a charge on the property (so that the elderly cash poor but house rich don't need to pay until death).

What, like the mansion tax?

[citizenJA]

I disagree with Liz Kendall's statements on almost everything. If she is being advised, the advice is wrong. If they are her own opinions I don't like them.
Ether way I can't vote for her.
Its not abusive to disagree or express an opinion about a candidate.
We lost because the last days of the campaign were hijacked by the press/media screaming about the SNP and what deals Labour would do with them. Even the BBC admitted that their last week of coverage concentrated on that aspect far too much.
A bit late with that, BBC.
If policy had been discussed things like the HoL reform, full investigation of blacklisting, ending fees for employment tribunals, enabling public/non-profit ownership of railways, triple lock against fracking, £1,600 Future Fund for every 18 & 19 year old not in college, university or apprenticeship, build 200,000 homes a year across the UK, fully implement Leveson, would have been known about by the public at large, as it wasn't, they didn't.

The only "massive change" we need is changes to the news media.

I agree with your entire post here, well said.

[mikems]

Mansion tax was a liberal policy that Labour took. Nothing to do with 'class warfare'. Far more likely it was chosen because it avoids a proper reevaluation of rates/council tax, not to advance working class power.

[AngryAsWell]

[I should have added that Labour's policy was also dishonest, though again nowhere near as dishonest as the Tories'. The idea that there is a significant and growing problem with developers 'hoarding' land is just nonsense. Developers need a 'bank' of land in order to smooth supply. They need a cushion so that when jobs come to an end they aren't forced either to keep hundreds of people idle or sack them. There is no evidence at all of any 'hoarding' increase. A classic example of Labour proposing a solution that wasn't the problem. It was stuff like that which meant that they didn't get the endorsement from housing experts that they should have had.

Miliband really, really was not good at his job.]

Section 106 is why they hoard land (and sorry but they do) and why building declined since its introduction.

Stalled schemes due to economically unviable affordable housing requirements result in no development, no regeneration and no community benefit

Even the government agree - for "stalled" read "Land Hoarding"
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... appeal.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mikems]

They need a cushion so that when jobs come to an end they aren't forced either to keep hundreds of people idle or sack them.

It is obvious you have never been a building-site worker. Sacking people is exactly what they do. And they hoard land to keep prices high, by regulating supply and demand, not to even their workload.

If local authorities were in charge of real housing policy, they would be instructed to start building on this or that site, with the threat of compulsory purchase if they were reluctant. That's the way to build the houses we need, it seems to me, if it is necessary to have private companies doing the building.

[citizenJA]

I think Labour doesn't want to win enough.

Despite the rhetoric, the 2010-2015 government was not as horrendous as Thatcher at her height. That means there is not the burning desire to remove the Tories at any cost that there was 20 years ago. We'll see whether 2015-2020 changes that.

Labour want to win enough, I'm certain. I saw the face of Mr. Miliband after the 2015 GE result. It hurt him knowing five years of a Tory government was the electoral result - he's a good man, a working man & his ambition was to lead & serve, represent the regular people. That was the job he wanted to do for the UK.

Rhetoric nothing - you may not have either experienced or witnessed enough of the suffering of the last five years 2010-2015 but you're wrong when you say this time isn't as bad as Thatcher's worst. Media & wealth have consolidated their grip everywhere since the 1980's - the UK & all over the world. Environmental degradation, global interconnectivity make the world a faster, tenser & hectic place now; these stressors & a piss poor government have cost us lives & livelihoods. Poorer health, inferior education costing too much, more insecure housing at inflated prices, degraded employment conditions & pay & lost prosperity - that's the legacy of Tory-led government 2010-2015.
Look at this Tory legislation:
The Health & Social Care Act 2012.
The Academies (Land Transfer Schemes) Regulations 2012.
Welfare Reform Act 2012.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.
Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.
Those are just off the top of my head for chrissake.
The 2015 GE result is the worst election result in UK history - it wasn't done fair, so Labour not being hungry enough for victory doesn't cut it with me. It wasn't a fair election in my opinion & there's no winning a deck stacked against you. Disagree all you like about my analysis. But then you & I will fundamentally disagree about what went wrong for Labour GE 2015. And that's fine. I don't need to be right. I'm offering you all my opinion.

[SpinningHugo]

They need a cushion so that when jobs come to an end they aren't forced either to keep hundreds of people idle or sack them.

It is obvious you have never been a building-site worker. Sacking people is exactly what they do. And they hoard land to keep prices high, by regulating supply and demand, not to even their workload.

If local authorities were in charge of real housing policy, they would be instructed to start building on this or that site, with the threat of compulsory purchase if they were reluctant. That's the way to build the houses we need, it seems to me, if it is necessary to have private companies doing the building.

No.

Even if we made all house building a monopoly of the state, the state would still #hoard# land. You can't build housing on a just in time basis.

There is ZERO evidence of any increase in land hoarding (lots of evidence of a decline in house building, but that is a different matter).

[citizenJA]

They need a cushion so that when jobs come to an end they aren't forced either to keep hundreds of people idle or sack them.

It is obvious you have never been a building-site worker. Sacking people is exactly what they do. And they hoard land to keep prices high, by regulating supply and demand, not to even their workload.

If local authorities were in charge of real housing policy, they would be instructed to start building on this or that site, with the threat of compulsory purchase if they were reluctant. That's the way to build the houses we need, it seems to me, if it is necessary to have private companies doing the building.

Ed Miliband's government was going to do that, compulsory purchase so local authorities could get on with it.
I agree with your post.