Wednesday 15th July 2015

Post by **refitman** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 7:11 am

Morning all.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 8:16 am

Moaning from my wing of the party reaching feverish levels.

The best, as usual, is Hopi Sen

http://hopisen.com/2015/one-step-beyond/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More irritable versions of the same thing

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/john-mcter ... is-a-tory/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/07/13/th ... or-labour/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/07/14/la ... ing-glass/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Genuine question for people here. Imagine, for a moment, thinking like me. You are on the right of the Labour party, but can see that the preferred strategy you'd like to pursue which you think will be successful is getting further and further away. The party is quite clearly moving away from you, and has been for at least five years.

What can you do? Other than moan on messgeboards.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 8:28 am

If Hopi Sen is 'the best' then your side hasn't got a lot going for it. Socialists are thoughtful and intelligent people, in my experience, not unthinking gamblers or stereotypes.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 8:29 am

SpinningHugo wrote:Moaning from my wing of the party reaching feverish levels.

The best, as usual, is Hopi Sen

http://hopisen.com/2015/one-step-beyond/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More irritable versions of the same thing

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/john-mcter ... is-a-tory/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/07/13/th ... or-labour/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/07/14/la ... ing-glass/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Genuine question for people here. Imagine, for a moment, thinking like me. You are on the right of the Labour party, but can see that the preferred strategy you'd like to pursue which you think will be successful is getting further and further away. The party is quite clearly moving away from you, and has been for at least five years.

What can you do? Other than moan on messgeboards.

Hello. If it's any consolation, a lot of us here have been in the same boat as you find yourself in now - only from the west wing, rather than the east wing, so to speak. And then, of course, there is still the Liz Kendall spectre . . .

The only thing for it is to keep on moaning here (and I hope that you will) - at least you can have a civilised and reasoned dialogue in this place.

Good morfternoon, everyone.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 8:33 am

With the usual apologies if we've . . . .

Tories launch biggest crackdown on trade unions for 30 years

Business secretary Sajid Javid to criminalise unlawful picketing, and make it harder for workers to strike legally and for Labour to get union funding
PCS union members march in central London (Guardian)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... kes-labour

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 8:35 am

In my opinion, we are nearly back to the political setup of the19C, with Tories and Whigs. The working class has little or no representation and has to depend on the goodwill of the Whigs (New Labour) for any slight improvement in their lives, but the Whigs are little different to the tories, living in similar mansions, attending the same social functions, intermarrying for money and career, etc.

The Trade Unions are out in the cold, about to be returned to a state of illegality (with the Whigs silent) and desperate for a political party to represent their members...perhaps forced to the point of creating a new party, if it is still legal for us to do that...

Blairism is Whiggism - a pretence that capitalism can be made to work for all, when it really only works for capitalists.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 8:44 am

One for you, I think, PF.

Jason Beattie ‏@JBeattieMirror 23m23 minutes ago
When I was on the Birmingham Post I had the job of supplying the "weather word" to sum up the next day's forecast. Today I'd go for "dank"

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 8:50 am

mikems wrote:In my opinion, we are nearly back to the political setup of the19C, with Tories and Whigs. The working class has little or no representation and has to depend on the goodwill of the Whigs (New Labour) for any slight improvement in their lives, but the Whigs are little different to the tories, living in similar mansions, attending the same social functions, intermarrying for money and career, etc.

The Trade Unions are out in the cold, about to be returned to a state of illegality (with the Whigs silent) and desperate for a political party to represent their members...perhaps forced to the point of creating a new party, if it is still legal for us to do that...

Blairism is Whiggism - a pretence that capitalism can be made to work for all, when it really only works for capitalists.

We've got a lot of good Whigs ... just not nearly enough of them in the 'top team' and certainly not enough who are actually prepared to speak out loudly and challenge the status quo.

Interesting that Kendall as well as Cooper has already spoken out against the Trade Union restricting bill ... haven't seen views from Burnham and Corbyn so far but expect they will be against too.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 8:56 am

Up to £20bn of benefits are UNCLAIMED every year - so why are the Tories declaring war on so called benefits cheats
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 8:57 am

Jack of Kent ‏@JackofKent 47m47 minutes ago
So this morning:

9.00 result of @TheCriminalBar ballot which may bring crown courts to a halt.

9.15 Gove appears before @CommonsJustice

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 9:12 am

Criminal Bar Association takes strike action

http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=9e9 ... e65e95f98a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 9:15 am

Morning.

Shhh We have an entitlement culture where everybody,apart from the people espousing it ,obviously,grasps everything they can.I believe.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 9:17 am

Ian Dunt ‏@IanDunt 10m10 minutes ago
Barristers vote for no new work and no-returns by 982 votes to 795 votes, equating to 55% in favour and 45% against.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 9:34 am

Isn't that an illegal strike ballot?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 9:37 am

SH

On certain issues,the Labour Party has moved increasingly away from me,indeed in direct contradiction to some fundamentals that both parties used to a agree on.They agree now of course in collusive denial of evidence and facts.It is not a right/left demarcation but basic morality to me,ironically the most progressive movement from the past were initiated by those identified as from the right.Why do I remain,given zero difference,probably in the vain hope someone will emerge ,regardless of which wing they nominally come from.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 9:40 am

SpinningHugo wrote:Moaning from my wing of the party reaching feverish levels.

The best, as usual, is Hopi Sen

http://hopisen.com/2015/one-step-beyond/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More irritable versions of the same thing

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/john-mcter ... is-a-tory/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/07/13/th ... or-labour/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/07/14/la ... ing-glass/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Genuine question for people here. Imagine, for a moment, thinking like me. You are on the right of the Labour party, but can see that the preferred strategy you'd like to pursue which you think will be successful is getting further and further away. The party is quite clearly moving away from you, and has been for at least five years.

What can you do? Other than moan on messgeboards.

I've tried to read some of this but didn't get far, so apologies if the answer isn't focused on whatever they're talking about.....but really? Mithering on about 'unpopular leader' (how many on your 'wing' of the party actively supported Ed Miliband? Or did you all do CameronCrosbys work for them by telling everyone within earshot that you were/are Labour but that your leader was 'unelectable?), 'economic credibility' (no mention of the reality of economics from 2007 to 2010 - just an absolute acceptance of the CoulsonCameron (as it was then) line that 'Labour spent too much' - disproved then and now by the ONS, the IMF, the OECD, the OBR and on and on), 'leadership contest a total disaster'...really? With so much negativity towards your (supposed) own side, I'm surprised any of you are actually able to vote Labour at all.

All predicated, yet again, on the false notion that 'the Nation' supports that Tories....24% of the possible vote is NOT 'support' - from the things you write I get the impression that you believe(TM) everything within politics and done by politicians is done for it's 'impact' - Sturgeon saying something thoughtful and intelligent about foxhunting has you denouncing the statement as 'pure sophistry' (I'm no fan of Sturgeon/SNP due to the Murkydochian connections, but will give her the benefit of the doubt)...and yet, as with so much, some people actually believe things and understand realities, trying to at least do something useful to counteract the Tory hegemony.

Whilst you and your compatriots on the Blairite/right side of the party (for clarity, I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Labour Party - but I did vote Labour in 2015) stare into your navels and bemoan the fact that, now you've defeated Miliband, all you have left is to blame yourselves and wallow in your negativity...disabled children still starve, the NHS disappears into the US health corporations, Fire and Police services are effectively removed through cuts, child abuse victims still suffer their pain, Cameron continues to flounce about with his monstrous cohorts untroubled by the likes of an opposition, making more stuff up and continuing to avoid accountability for anything...all fully supported by the MSM, because 'Labour/Miliband would be/have been terrible'....but who for? Certainly not the vast majority of the population (and the badgers and the foxes etc etc).

Please don't get me wrong - this is not meant to be a personal attack on you, but I have a real issue with moaning and whining about how terrible/awful/disastrous Labour are....whilst the fabric of our society and the legacy of the post-war settlement continues to be destroyed, the rights of animals and humans are consigned to the dustbin of history - I could go on (and on and on and on) - the REAL enemy, the one that is sitting back, enjoying watching people suffer pain, mental torture, hunger and much more, laughing into its expense account and future highly lucrative employment with HSBC or GoldmanSachs (or G4S, Serco, Capita, Murkydochia etc) is very happy that you are more concerned by what 'Labour' did than what they are actually doing...so I have 2 answers to your question...either...

...get out and about, meet some real people who have been affected by the changes to PIP, the 'Bedroom Tax', the 'Welfare Reforms', Gidiots mythical 'economic recovery', the 'Benefits cap' (and on and on and on, again), learn what is actually happening (not what the MSM/Westmonster elite thinks it should tell you is happening), start to fight back and agitate for real change...

...or...

...join the Liberal Democrats.

(I'm hopeful that this post will qualify as 'civilised and reasoned dialogue'(TM-PF))..and moraftingeve all...

El pueblo unido jamas sera vencido

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 9:58 am

I would have thought the most important task for political centrists right now is to stop the rush towards right-wing extremism, not prevent Labour electing a socialist as leader. But they still have their guns trained on the left, as fundamental principles of our society are being thrown away on spurious and self-interested grounds.

It's like their response to Thatcher's savaging of the working class : denounce Labour as too left wing and split the party, allowing the old witch to carry on against weakened opposition.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 10:00 am

http://ukcampaign4change.com/2015/07/15 ... t-reports/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FOI hearing today on DWP’s refusal to publish Universal Credit reports

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 10:00 am

mikems wrote:Isn't that an illegal strike ballot?

If a serious question, they aren't employees of anyone, so no.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 10:03 am

"now you've defeated Miliband"

No part of the Labour party defeated Miliband.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 10:04 am

Unemployment rises for first time in 2 years

Here are the headline unemployment figures.

Unemployment rose by 15,000 between March and May to 1.85m, the first rise in more than two years. That is 5.6%.

The claimant count last month rose by 7,000 to 804,200.

Average earnings increased by 3.2% in the year to May, 0.5% up on the previous month. (Politics Blog, Guardian)

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 10:24 am

No, Hugo, not a serious question. However, if the reasons behind the latest 'clampdown' (fascist rhetoric noted) are 'disruption' to 'essential services' what does being employed have to do with anything?

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 10:27 am

If strikes are to be effectively banned on those grounds, and not as part of shifting the balance of power between employers and workers, then why shouldn't a future socialist prime minister suggest banning capital and investment strikes? Or any sort of gambling on the exchanges because of the 'disruption' to 'essential services'?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 10:43 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
mikems wrote:In my opinion, we are nearly back to the political setup of the19C, with Tories and Whigs. The working class has little or no representation and has to depend on the goodwill of the Whigs (New Labour) for any slight improvement in their lives, but the Whigs are little different to the tories, living in similar mansions, attending the same social functions, intermarrying for money and career, etc.

The Trade Unions are out in the cold, about to be returned to a state of illegality (with the Whigs silent) and desperate for a political party to represent their members...perhaps forced to the point of creating a new party, if it is still legal for us to do that...

Blairism is Whiggism - a pretence that capitalism can be made to work for all, when it really only works for capitalists.
We've got a lot of good Whigs ... just not nearly enough of them in the 'top team' and certainly not enough who are actually prepared to speak out loudly and challenge the status quo.

Interesting that Kendall as well as Cooper has already spoken out against the Trade Union restricting bill ... haven't seen views from Burnham and Corbyn so far but expect they will be against too.

TU rights is actually one thing that Kendall hasn't been too bad on.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 10:46 am

Hmm...why do I smell a rat?

Golden Hillock, one of the Trojan Horse schools in the Park View trust, has just been reinspected - a full inspection by 3 HMIs and only 3 months since they last had a s.8 inspection which said

Having considered all the evidence, I am of the opinion that at this time the school is making reasonable progress towards the removal of special measures.

OK, so three months on and we get Inadequate and placed in special measures!

Why? Here's a clue...

This inspection took place under section 5 of the Education Act at the request of the Department for Education, in line with the Secretary of State’s powers. The request was related to the planned re-brokering of Golden Hillock Academy to the Ark Foundation on 1 September 2015.

And the lead sponsor of ARK is of course Paul Marshall who sits on the DfE Board. The next bit even says:

In April 2014, Golden Hillock Academy was judged to require special measures. Since then, it has received regular monitoring inspections by Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI). The academy has been making reasonable progress towards the removal of special measures.

Why do I get the feeling that this is a "Give me a school in special measures- not one "making progress to get out of it" so that I can have a s.8 inspection done in, say December which says " the school is making reasonable progress towards the removal of special measures" and the DfE can say "Look, aren't wonderful?" ?

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 10:57 am

SpinningHugo wrote:"now you've defeated Miliband"

No part of the Labour party defeated Miliband.

Not even the parts of the shadow cabinet who continuously briefed against him? Not even Labour MP's seeking self publicity by writing for the right wing press heavily critical of Ed?
Not even the so-called "left" Hodges and his ilk of press cohorts ?
Not even those who attempted a last minuet coup to put AJ in as leader?
Sorry facts don't stand up.
Without the snipping from within and without sections of the Labour party over the 5 years of his leadership he would have been in a much stronger position to fight the tory's.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 10:59 am

Theresa May, the home secretary, is making a statement in the Commons later on water cannon. London has bought some second-hand water cannon from the Germans, but the Metropolitan police cannot use them unless May gives them permission, and for months she has been delaying a decision on this.

The statement will be at about 1.30pm, because there is a statement on Iran first. I will be covering the water cannon statement in detail. (Politics Blog, Guardian - my emphasis)

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 11:00 am

AngryAsWell wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:"now you've defeated Miliband"

No part of the Labour party defeated Miliband.
Not even the parts of the shadow cabinet who continuously briefed against him? Not even Labour MP's seeking self publicity by writing for the right wing press heavily critical of Ed?
Not even the so-called "left" Hodges and his ilk of press cohorts ?
Not even those who attempted a last minuet coup to put AJ in as leader?
Sorry facts don't stand up.
Without the snipping from within and without sections of the Labour party over the 5 years of his leadership he would have been in a much stronger position to fight the tory's.

No, none of them. Considering how badly we were doing, the loyalty (save Hodges who had a personal animus) was astonishing. The Tories are never as loyal. The Tories, of course, having a far, far better electoral record than Labour does post War.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 11:04 am

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-55 ... -win-votes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 11:19 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:"now you've defeated Miliband"

No part of the Labour party defeated Miliband.
Not even the parts of the shadow cabinet who continuously briefed against him? Not even Labour MP's seeking self publicity by writing for the right wing press heavily critical of Ed?
Not even the so-called "left" Hodges and his ilk of press cohorts ?
Not even those who attempted a last minuet coup to put AJ in as leader?
Sorry facts don't stand up.
Without the snipping from within and without sections of the Labour party over the 5 years of his leadership he would have been in a much stronger position to fight the tory's.
No, none of them. Considering how badly we were doing, the loyalty (save Hodges who had a personal animus) was astonishing. The Tories are never as loyal. The Tories, of course, having a far, far better electoral record than Labour does post War.

I disagree. Those briefing against him gave the right wing press free ammunition to fire at will.
And they did. Frequently.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 11:21 am

AngryAsWell wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:"now you've defeated Miliband"

No part of the Labour party defeated Miliband.
Not even the parts of the shadow cabinet who continuously briefed against him? Not even Labour MP's seeking self publicity by writing for the right wing press heavily critical of Ed?
Not even the so-called "left" Hodges and his ilk of press cohorts ?
Not even those who attempted a last minuet coup to put AJ in as leader?
Sorry facts don't stand up.
Without the snipping from within and without sections of the Labour party over the 5 years of his leadership he would have been in a much stronger position to fight the tory's.

I've said it before, and will again - part of Ed's problem was he didn't get a more convincing mandate as leader.

(and yes, that is partly the fault of those who "really" wanted him but chickened out and voted for David instead - people like me, ahem

)

This gave certain individuals (both in the media and PLP) an excuse never to become fully reconciled to his leadership.

I hope the next leader, whoever that is, at least wins in a way that brooks no argument - and lays down the law to potential whingers right away

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 11:22 am

AngryAsWell wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote: Not even the parts of the shadow cabinet who continuously briefed against him? Not even Labour MP's seeking self publicity by writing for the right wing press heavily critical of Ed?
Not even the so-called "left" Hodges and his ilk of press cohorts ?
Not even those who attempted a last minuet coup to put AJ in as leader?
Sorry facts don't stand up.
Without the snipping from within and without sections of the Labour party over the 5 years of his leadership he would have been in a much stronger position to fight the tory's.
No, none of them. Considering how badly we were doing, the loyalty (save Hodges who had a personal animus) was astonishing. The Tories are never as loyal. The Tories, of course, having a far, far better electoral record than Labour does post War.
I disagree. Those briefing against him gave the right wing press free ammunition to fire at will.
And they did. Frequently.

Meh. No worse than Blair or Cameron got from their own side, and they looked lik winning.

Tories get rid of leaders who look like losing (Thatcher, IDS). We don't. We stick loyally to them as they drive us over a cliff.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 11:23 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Up to £20bn of benefits are UNCLAIMED every year - so why are the Tories declaring war on so called benefits cheats
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Haven't read article, rebecca, but I suspect £20bn is nowhere near enough. One of the results of sanctions for example has been the number of disappearing claimants, entirely the intention no doubt.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 11:24 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: No, none of them. Considering how badly we were doing, the loyalty (save Hodges who had a personal animus) was astonishing. The Tories are never as loyal. The Tories, of course, having a far, far better electoral record than Labour does post War.
I disagree. Those briefing against him gave the right wing press free ammunition to fire at will.
And they did. Frequently.

Meh. No worse than Blair or Cameron got from their own side, and they looked lik winning.

Tories get rid of leaders who look like losing (Thatcher, IDS). We don't. We stick loyally to them as they drive us over a cliff.

There are lots of Tories who think getting rid of Thatcher was one of the worst things they ever did.

Looking at what happened to the party subsequently, they might have a point. Taking a "hit" in 1992 might have been the best long term strategy for them.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 11:25 am

Lonewolfie wrote: I have a real issue with moaning and whining about how terrible/awful/disastrous Labour are....whilst the fabric of our society and the legacy of the post-war settlement continues to be destroyed, the rights of animals and humans are consigned to the dustbin of history - I could go on (and on and on and on) - the REAL enemy, the one that is sitting back, enjoying watching people suffer pain, mental torture, hunger and much more, laughing into its expense account and future highly lucrative employment with HSBC or GoldmanSachs (or G4S, Serco, Capita, Murkydochia etc) is very happy that you are more concerned by what 'Labour' did than what they are actually doing...so I have 2 answers to your question...either...

...get out and about, meet some real people who have been affected by the changes to PIP, the 'Bedroom Tax', the 'Welfare Reforms', Gidiots mythical 'economic recovery', the 'Benefits cap' (and on and on and on, again), learn what is actually happening (not what the MSM/Westmonster elite thinks it should tell you is happening), start to fight back and agitate for real change...

...or...

...join the Liberal Democrats.

(I'm hopeful that this post will qualify as 'civilised and reasoned dialogue'(TM-PF))..and moraftingeve all...

El pueblo unido jamas sera vencido

Well I thought you were going to say, join the tories.

Other than that, I think you speak for most of us here, and imo that's as much 'civilised and reasoned dialogue' with SH as we need today.

edited to add, for the avoidance of doubt, I would prefer to see giselle on this forum than SH.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 11:41 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote: I disagree. Those briefing against him gave the right wing press free ammunition to fire at will.
And they did. Frequently.

Meh. No worse than Blair or Cameron got from their own side, and they looked lik winning.

Tories get rid of leaders who look like losing (Thatcher, IDS). We don't. We stick loyally to them as they drive us over a cliff.
There are lots of Tories who think getting rid of Thatcher was one of the worst things they ever did.

Looking at what happened to the party subsequently, they might have a point. Taking a "hit" in 1992 might have been the best long term strategy for them.

If they had not, they would have list the 1992 election. It is only the ultras, those who prefer the purity of principle over compromise, who prefer death and glory who think that.

We, of course, have lots of our own ultras.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 11:44 am

He said that the very steep fall in the number of people taking cases to employment tribunal since fees were introduced by the coalition did not prove that people were being denied access to justice. Last year figures showed a 70% drop in cases. Gove said the impact of fees was being reviewed, but that he would only consider getting rid of fees if there was evidence of injustice, and that so far that evidence did not exist.
"My view would be that it is only if one can point to examples of rough justice one should seek to reconsider. A simple reduction in the number of people going to employment tribunals is not in itself proof that there has been any injustice visited on anyone ...

I’d have to see whether or not there was an example of people, or an individual, who had been dismissed, who hadn’t had appropriate access to justice as a result, and that hard case, or those hard cases, would led me to think again. But at the moment what I think is likely to have been the case is that the bar has been set at a higher level, absolutely, but there is no evidence yet that the bar being set at a higher level has meant that meritorious claims by people who feel that they are being discriminated against aren’t being heard."

Govespeak.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 11:46 am

Yes, and my point is that might have been better longer term.

(I remember Tories on election night 1997 saying "we should have lost in '92")

It is pretty rare to have a "good election to lose" (more so than some make out) but there is no doubt that they do exist.

And I haven't even mentioned how knifing Maggie in that way arguably f***ed the Tories psychologically for a generation.

(indeed, UKIP might not exist in the way they now do but for it)

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 11:47 am

Confirmation that no record is kept of those households moving off the benefit cap into work.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... 0#g5625.r0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 12:54 pm

Cameron says it was right to raise the pension age. That enabled the government to introduce the tripe[sic] lock.

(Politics Blog, Guardian)

It amused me, anyway . . .

Edited to tidy up (brackets were involved)

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 1:37 pm

That is one "l" of a joke.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 1:51 pm

Groan.

On Look North just now they reported the unemployment figures using the phrase 'claiming jobseekers allowance' rather than 'unemployed'. Good.

Post by **refitman** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 2:04 pm

Anyone think Boris kept the receipt for the water canon?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 2:28 pm

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 17m17 minutes ago
Boris on w cannon: "I fail to see the physiological difference between the people of England and Wales and the people of Northern Ireland"

Stephen Bush ‏@stephenkb 19m19 minutes ago
The Johnson mayoral legacy in full: the cable car. The Heatherwick bus. And some water cannons we can't use.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 2:29 pm

refitman wrote:Anyone think Boris kept the receipt for the water canon?

Ha! I think people here have probably, by now, cottoned on to the fact that I don't entirely dislike Theresa May. She's, in many ways, less awful than most of the others. Anyway, she's done well today - especially in the light of the union legislation which is in the pipeline. (No pun intended.)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 2:35 pm

How much did these things cost? I've forgotten - and I'm lazy.

Edited to add

To misquote David Byrne . . .

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 2:46 pm

She's, in many ways, less awful than most of the others.

I fear she is more interested in hurting her political enemies than protecting our rights.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 2:56 pm

mikems wrote:
She's, in many ways, less awful than most of the others.
I fear she is more interested in hurting her political enemies than protecting our rights.

Oh, I'm sure getting one over on Boris Johnson was part of her reasoning. But I'd rather, if push came to shove, see the back of him if possible. Of the two of them, he's the nastier piece of work. And the other contenders for the leadership are as bad as he is. Theresa May is marginally better.

Edited to remove an unwanted "though".

No brackets were hurt in this edit

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 3:03 pm

I can't say I am surprised

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... p-election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Abbott was a weak candidate in lots of ways, and her standing in 2010 concealed the left's strength.

The membership has lost its collective marbles

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 15 Jul, 2015 3:18 pm

I know I may well regret posting this .... but

Jeremy Corbyn "on course to come top" in the Labour leadership election
Private polling, seen by the New Statesman, shows the veteran leftwinger ahead in the first round of voting.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... p-election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and the last two paras of that article:

It appears as if the Islington North MP's strength is largely coming from new and younger members. One CLP chair believes that "more than two thirds" of new recruits since the election are supporters of Corbyn, a finding mirrored by the leadership campaigns' experience of phoning new members. It also appears as if many members from the party's right have abandoned the party during the years of Ed Miliband, being replaced by what one staffer describes as "true believers".

There is now a conversation about what can be done to prevent a Corbyn victory. Some senior Labour MPs believe that respected grandees from the Miliband era and the party's "soft left" must come out against a Corbyn victory to prevent the worst happening. But given the hostile response to Harriet Harman's coded warning to "think not who you like and who makes you feel comfortable - think who actually will be able to reach out to the public and actually listen to the public and give them confidence", interpreted as an "anyone but Corbyn" call, that may prove ineffective.

My experience at our last two local party meetings doesn't bear out the first bolded sentence ... I was surprised that the pretty unanimous view of those present was that they mostly agreed with Corbyn - these were older members in both sense of the word. That seemed to be for two reasons - they were utterly underwhelmed by the other candidates - Corbyn has clear convictions and speaks pretty directly about them - the members are fed up with people who seem to need to work out what their views are against a whole range of other considerations including what they think people want to hear.

As for that second bolded sentence ... words fail me ... wrong on so many levels. Can anyone tell me who the 'respected grandees' are from the Miliband era? Are they the same ones that popped up to stick the oar in to Ed Miliband at every opportunity and remind us they thought we picked the wrong Miliband? Who are the party's 'soft left'? And who are the senior Labour MPs who think this interference is right or will in any way turn out well?