Friday 17th July 2015

Post by **refitman** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 7:13 am

Morning all.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 8:37 am

@AngryAsWell

That apprenticeship lad's death in the workplace is scandalous. A couple of days or so ago that I was talking about these nominal apprenticeships with a neighbour and comparing them to Thatcher's YTS. He too was a small employer during those days and we were constantly bombarded with requests to take YTS placements. Our businesses were never inspected or visited but probably would have if we'd taken any.

One of my competitors and customers who restored modern furniture (I restored antiques) had two YTS lads. I called into his workshop one day and one of the lads was using a bench saw, unsupervised and without the safety guard. I was furious and told him to stop. I may be wrong but thought YTS placements weren't allowed to use bench machinery so told them so and refitted the guard, admonishing the proprietor when he returned. Let's just say that the guard was off the next time I called. I worried about the responsibilities of those administering the scheme who were still badgering him to take more. Not a chance given how tiny his workshop was, but my concern was safety. We did fall out and argue the matter but I never actually reported him.

Anyway my point, I worry about supervision of the modern day apprenticeship given that so many of them seem no more than Maggie's YTS.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 8:49 am

I wonder if this Tory MP has ever pondered the same for people who lose their jobs, become sick or have to care for disabled relatives, or are forced to pay the bedroom tax ?

'I never expected to be watching the pennies at my age and yet this is what I have to' - meet the Tory minister whose £67k salary wasn't enough
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 94440.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 8:55 am

Morning all.

Following last night's discussion about the much delayed Ofsted report on Cramlington Learning Village which took place on 29–30 April 2015 (!!), here it is...

http://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection ... ELS/137457

Looks as though the original inspection team were all outsourced inspectors but then there's this:

Two of Her Majesty’s Inspectors visited the school on 11 June 2015 to gather additional evidence

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 8:56 am

Good morfternoon.

David Cameron backs MPs’ 10% pay rise as ‘the rate for the job’

Prime minister makes surprise U-turn after previously describing increase – at time of 1% cap for public sector workers – as ‘simply unacceptable’ (Guardian)

Yes. Really surprising, that . . . .

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 9:05 am

Morning.

Ben Bradshaw ‏@BenPBradshaw 6m6 minutes ago
Tories to break pre election pledge to cap care home fees because of the growing funding crisis in social care, today's @FT reports

How many pre election pledges will they not honour / break? We've already had the rail upgrades, fracking in national parks, SSSIs and under aquifers, and now this.

But I expect them to carry on insisting they get hunting back on - no matter how they have to do it. Their priorites are blatant and stink.

They have no real solutions for health and social care pressures and problems - just blame. Hiding behind trees. We should let them hunt Jeremy Hunt - over and over again.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 9:13 am

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

David Cameron backs MPs’ 10% pay rise as ‘the rate for the job’

Prime minister makes surprise U-turn after previously describing increase – at time of 1% cap for public sector workers – as ‘simply unacceptable’ (Guardian)
Yes. Really surprising, that . . . .

I lean toward better pay with fewer expense allowances, PorFavor, which I believe are the real scandal, particularly the second home allowance. MPs should be provided Olympic village style accommodation for parliamentary business (just another wasted resource or missed opportunity of the last government). I'm sure our usually right-wing press would approve, they'd have much more material for their salacious village gossip column.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 9:20 am

utopiandreams wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

David Cameron backs MPs’ 10% pay rise as ‘the rate for the job’

Prime minister makes surprise U-turn after previously describing increase – at time of 1% cap for public sector workers – as ‘simply unacceptable’ (Guardian)
Yes. Really surprising, that . . . .
I lean toward better pay with fewer expense allowances, PorFavor, which I believe are the real scandal, particularly the second home allowance. MPs should be provided Olympic village style accommodation for parliamentary business (just another wasted resource or missed opportunity of the last government). I'm sure our usually right-wing press would approve, they'd have much more material for their salacious village gossip column.

I agree with that. I also think we need far fewer of them. A Parliament of around 250 would be more than enough. Pay them £150k+ each.

Mind you, there really is not that much work to do being an MP. Look at how much legislation is passed in a year: next to nothing. They do a lot of 'constituency work' nowadays, but they are pretty ineffectual at that. The average Labour MP has zero influence over central government and so can do precisely bugger all to help, other than give advice (which in most cases an expert such as a lawyer would be better qualified to give).

The only reason for having so many is to insure that a government has enough warm bodies to fill all the roles it needs. Both the Tories and Labour are shockingly poor when you cream off the top 100 most able in their ranks.

Post by **refitman** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 9:23 am

utopiandreams wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

David Cameron backs MPs’ 10% pay rise as ‘the rate for the job’

Prime minister makes surprise U-turn after previously describing increase – at time of 1% cap for public sector workers – as ‘simply unacceptable’ (Guardian)
Yes. Really surprising, that . . . .
I lean toward better pay with fewer expense allowances, PorFavor, which I believe are the real scandal, particularly the second home allowance. MPs should be provided Olympic village style accommodation for parliamentary business (just another wasted resource or missed opportunity of the last government). I'm sure our usually right-wing press would approve, they'd have much more material for their salacious village gossip column.

In principle I have no problems with moving money from their expenses to salary. The big problem I have is that the rest of the public sector is frozen, nurses get a recommended increase and we don't have enough money, but they can't do anything about this.

Specific MP accommodation is a winner.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 9:25 am

utopiandreams wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

David Cameron backs MPs’ 10% pay rise as ‘the rate for the job’

Prime minister makes surprise U-turn after previously describing increase – at time of 1% cap for public sector workers – as ‘simply unacceptable’ (Guardian)
Yes. Really surprising, that . . . .
I lean toward better pay with fewer expense allowances, PorFavor, which I believe are the real scandal, particularly the second home allowance. MPs should be provided Olympic village style accommodation for parliamentary business (just another wasted resource or missed opportunity of the last government). I'm sure our usually right-wing press would approve, they'd have much more material for their salacious village gossip column.

Hello.

My comment was really to do with David Cameron's dishonesty, rather than with the matter of MPs' pay per se - a subject I could bore everyone on at length. It's not a straightforward matter with a straightforward, single solution, is it?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 9:25 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33561504" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"We're running around stamping our feet, screaming at the electorate when ultimately what we need to do is meet people where they are at, not necessarily where we would want them to be," he said.

Very sensible. Umunna really does need to accept that Labour supporters have moved left and be prepared to meet them there. Oh sorry, he means the idiots who just voted Tory. Well, Labour could meet them where they are, but the spectacle of the two main parties fighting over the votes of less than a quarter of the eligible voting population would be a very sad indictment of our democracy. And also a fight Labour would lose.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 9:27 am

utopiandreams wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

David Cameron backs MPs’ 10% pay rise as ‘the rate for the job’

Prime minister makes surprise U-turn after previously describing increase – at time of 1% cap for public sector workers – as ‘simply unacceptable’ (Guardian)
Yes. Really surprising, that . . . .
I lean toward better pay with fewer expense allowances, PorFavor, which I believe are the real scandal, particularly the second home allowance. MPs should be provided Olympic village style accommodation for parliamentary business (just another wasted resource or missed opportunity of the last government). I'm sure our usually right-wing press would approve, they'd have much more material for their salacious village gossip column.

They'd probably try to take the government (themselves) to court on a human rights basis if they were only provided with authorised MPs digs ... loss of right to privacy, enjoyment of family life. We may think this is fanciful ... but I think their inbuilt hypocrisy, lack of self awareness and overweening sense of entitlement trumps common sense and decency for a fair few of them.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 9:29 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
utopiandreams wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.
Yes. Really surprising, that . . . .
I lean toward better pay with fewer expense allowances, PorFavor, which I believe are the real scandal, particularly the second home allowance. MPs should be provided Olympic village style accommodation for parliamentary business (just another wasted resource or missed opportunity of the last government). I'm sure our usually right-wing press would approve, they'd have much more material for their salacious village gossip column.
I agree with that. I also think we need far fewer of them. A Parliament of around 250 would be more than enough. Pay them £150k+ each.

Mind you, there really is not that much work to do being an MP. Look at how much legislation is passed in a year: next to nothing. They do a lot of 'constituency work' nowadays, but they are pretty ineffectual at that. The average Labour MP has zero influence over central government and so can do precisely bugger all to help, other than give advice (which in most cases an expert such as a lawyer would be better qualified to give).

The only reason for having so many is to insure that a government has enough warm bodies to fill all the roles it needs. Both the Tories and Labour are shockingly poor when you cream off the top 100 most able in their ranks.

Maybe fewer MPs, SH, but not as much as you're suggesting; I favour a completely new approach involving PR with greater localism, splitting representation between constituency and national executives. I haven't time to portray my vision just now but haven't really thought it through. Perhaps it's time I did.

Edit: to be clear I mean not as many fewer. With a separate executive possibly a similar number in total.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 9:31 am

Willow904 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33561504
"We're running around stamping our feet, screaming at the electorate when ultimately what we need to do is meet people where they are at, not necessarily where we would want them to be," he said.
Very sensible. Umunna really does need to accept that Labour supporters have moved left and be prepared to meet them there. Oh sorry, he means the idiots who just voted Tory. Well, Labour could meet them where they are, but the spectacle of the two main parties fighting over the votes of less than a quarter of the eligible voting population would be a very sad indictment of our democracy. And also a fight Labour would lose.

Was it him that likened the parts of the party he's not keen on as behaving like 'petulant children'? Totally unhelpful. It just reinforces the perception that many have of a number of 'top' Labour MPs who have real disdain for the views of the membership that don't fit with their own.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 9:32 am

Why should MPs get more pay? They should get the same as most working people get, not be in the top tax bracket. How can they understand real life pressures if they are rich in comparative terms, and live without the same worries and problems we do?

We have gone from no pay for MPs, which favoured the rich, to massive wages for MPs, which makes them the rich. So I suggest we move to the middle ground and pay them reasonably but not too much.

As for the number of MPs, there is a new idea that there are too many of them. But there are no more of them now than there were 150 years ago. So why should there be fewer MPs? With an increasing population we need more representatives, not fewer.

I suggest people should reexamine the demands of the Chartists : still not completed, and no real steps made to extend or deepen democracy, except for a few partial reforms, ever since.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 9:37 am

Sarah Wollaston MP ‏@sarahwollaston 17m17 minutes ago
Slashing BBC income to the point of fatally diminishing its output would undermine the case for its existence. No thanks! I #BackTheBBC

Wish she wasn't a Tory.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 9:44 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Sarah Wollaston MP ‏@sarahwollaston 17m17 minutes ago
Slashing BBC income to the point of fatally diminishing its output would undermine the case for its existence. No thanks! I #BackTheBBC
Wish she wasn't a Tory.

But this is exactly what we need at the moment, rebecca, Tory MPs opposing the government line. Cameron and Osborne are dangerous if allowed free reign.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 9:47 am

mikems wrote:Why should MPs get more pay?

The main reason is that if you don't pay them properly you get two categories of people doing it

(i) the independently wealthy. The Tories are made up of people like this. Without a decent salary, people with Conservative attitudes don't want to be MPs.That has already changed the kind of people being Tory MPs for the worse. They used t be able to supplement their income in other ways (eg the Bar) but that has gone.

(ii) ideologues who don't mind living in a garret.

We don't pay them enough, and for decades everytime there has been a pay rise suggested it has been vetoed on the basis of "we can't do this at the same time as there are cuts to [insert whatever is being cut at that time.]" Cameron is taking a political hit for doing this, but now is the time to do it.

I don't really want a Commons made up of poshos and Trots, and so we have to pay.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 9:54 am

utopiandreams wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Sarah Wollaston MP ‏@sarahwollaston 17m17 minutes ago
Slashing BBC income to the point of fatally diminishing its output would undermine the case for its existence. No thanks! I #BackTheBBC
Wish she wasn't a Tory.
But this is exactly what we need at the moment, rebecca, Tory MPs opposing the government line. Cameron and Osborne are dangerous if allowed free reign.

Yes, you're right utopian. I thought about it just after I pressed submit ... and came to a similar conclusion. That one of their own - who is pretty widely respected - calls them out on this rubbish, on their vindictiveness - is probably more effective. (It's certainly more than just about every former coalition Lib Dem MP did ...)

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 9:56 am

mikems wrote:
As for the number of MPs, there is a new idea that there are too many of them. But there are no more of them now than there were 150 years ago. So why should there be fewer MPs? With an increasing population we need more representatives, not fewer.

There were far too many then as well.

The reason there are so many is that it was always easier to increase rather than decrease their numbers. Today the big opposition to Cameron's constituency border changes (and cut in numbers) will come from MPs scared of losing seats. Other countries have smaller numbers. The US Senate has 400 odd, for a country six times as big.

I agree about the Chartists though. They thought MPs should be paid properly too.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 10:05 am

SpinningHugo wrote:... I don't really want a Commons made up of poshos and Trots, and so we have to pay.

I would have said extremists rather than Trots, though.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 10:06 am

SpinningHugo wrote: Other countries have smaller numbers. The US Senate has 400 odd, for a country six times as big.

Not sure you can compare the two given that States have far greater powers than anything we have as an equivalent. Add the representatives that individual States have as well and then see what the numbers are.

Also, not sure how Tories could get away with reducing the size of the HoC without reducing the numbers on the government payroll, and while increasing the size of the House of Lords (another 50 Tory peers wasn't it?)

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 10:07 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
mikems wrote:Why should MPs get more pay?
The main reason is that if you don't pay them properly you get two categories of people doing it

(i) the independently wealthy. The Tories are made up of people like this. Without a decent salary, people with Conservative attitudes don't want to be MPs.That has already changed the kind of people being Tory MPs for the worse. They used t be able to supplement their income in other ways (eg the Bar) but that has gone.

(ii) ideologues who don't mind living in a garret.

We don't pay them enough, and for decades everytime there has been a pay rise suggested it has been vetoed on the basis of "we can't do this at the same time as there are cuts to [insert whatever is being cut at that time.]" Cameron is taking a political hit for doing this, but now is the time to do it.

I don't really want a Commons made up of poshos and Trots, and so we have to pay.

The pressure is in the wrong place. Cameron shouldn't be under pressure to ignore the independent recommendation for MPs pay, he should be under pressure to accept the independent recommendation for nurses pay.

This is the neoliberal way, however. Instead of being encouraged to work towards a better life for themselves, as the Labour movement did, people are encouraged to demand a worse life for others, to cling onto their status of not being at the bottom of the pile.

How much MPs are paid isn't a big issue, there aren't very many of them. Their decisions impacting on the pay of others is. This story on MPs pay is just another squirrel. Cameron not getting a payrise doesn't help me. Nurses getting a payrise does as it helps retain skilled workers, means less reliance on agency workers, means a more efficient NHS, means a free at point of use universal healthcare service is more secure going forward.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 10:08 am

I have been idly trying to enliven the Labour leadership contest for myself by imagining which author / novel each of the candidates' 'narratives' (sorry, sorry) and characteristics might be imagined into ...

Have just had flights of fancy about Burnham and the gritty northern realism authors he might go with (I think we can count Alan Bennett out). I had thought Alan Sillitoe but then looked him up on Wikipedia and thought maybe not. Any thoughts?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 10:14 am

@Willow904

I wish I could communicate as plainly as you. I only allude to stuff; maybe indicative of my muddled brain

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 10:15 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:I have been idly trying to enliven the Labour leadership contest for myself by imagining which author / novel each of the candidates' 'narratives' (sorry, sorry) and characteristics might be imagined into ...

Have just had flights of fancy about Burnham and the gritty northern realism authors he might go with (I think we can count Alan Bennett out). I had thought Alan Sillitoe but then looked him up on Wikipedia and thought maybe not. Any thoughts?

D.H. Lawrence

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 10:15 am

Good-morning, everyone.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 10:17 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:I have been idly trying to enliven the Labour leadership contest for myself by imagining which author / novel each of the candidates' 'narratives' (sorry, sorry) and characteristics might be imagined into ...

Have just had flights of fancy about Burnham and the gritty northern realism authors he might go with (I think we can count Alan Bennett out). I had thought Alan Sillitoe but then looked him up on Wikipedia and thought maybe not. Any thoughts?

I could imagine Burnham being a teacher in the school in Barry Hines "A Kestral for a Knave". Teaching maths maybe?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 10:18 am

citizenJA wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:I have been idly trying to enliven the Labour leadership contest for myself by imagining which author / novel each of the candidates' 'narratives' (sorry, sorry) and characteristics might be imagined into ...

Have just had flights of fancy about Burnham and the gritty northern realism authors he might go with (I think we can count Alan Bennett out). I had thought Alan Sillitoe but then looked him up on Wikipedia and thought maybe not. Any thoughts?
D.H. Lawrence

No, no, no no noooooo.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 10:18 am

Morfternoon afterbubbles all...

MPs pay....as we know, the 'expense account' process was brought in by Thatcher, specifically so that MPs would be able to increase their income in line with international standards without the 'embarrassment' of a 'wage increase'...which was deemed to be 'unpopular'...as ever, a 'narrative' peddled by the unhumans with the gleeful backing of the MSM (as they were well aware that, in time, there would be another 'scandal' for them to berate our elected representatives and tell us how 'terrible' they are....nothing whatsoever to do with undermining the democratic process and trust in politicians...nope, absolutely nothing to do with that at all).

I agree with the increase in numbers of politicians, an increase in the salary, appropriate expenses (travel etc) and shared accommodation (1 flat per MP in a block, with full administrative support etc)...but then I feel that until politics/politicians return to being a public service, there for its' own ends and concerned purely with its legally binding (but totally ignored) responsibility to serve the whole population, we're going to get what we've been getting for the last 35 years, where politicians see their time as a step up the ladder and a 'career progression'....but then I also believe(TM) that political parties should be state funded, voting compulsory and the press controlled (to a degree) by Leveson.

Thatcher, in 1979, broke the time-honoured consensus that when assuming office, you were respectful and non-critical of the previous administration - she immediately destroyed any mutual respect between politicians and changed the game...only, unfortunately, it's not a game. Until we have a full public enquiry into the actions and activities of that administration (79-92) including Orgreave (we've now had absolute proof that the government of the day lied about its' motives)...and there's so much more that stinks, including the ability to 'reform' trades unions...so how can anyone trust that anything/everything else they did was 'for the good of the nation'? It wasn't - it was purely a mechanism by which to return power and wealth to those who (should) own it through entitlement. We are reaping the whirlwind of those actions now - every action is automatically assumed to be for personal gain....if a union wants strike action, it's because the members are 'greedy' or the leadership is 'power hungry' or some such b******s...nothing whatsoever to do with the unions only having the legal right to strike over pay and conditions....nope, nothing whatsoever....and most definitely absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with 'principles' - you can't have those in modern political life....other humans you haven't met are just 'stock' to be administered.

I think what this waffle is trying to say is that arguing the toss about MPs numbers and pay, without looking at how we've got to where we are and what they actually do, is a bit like holing a boat below the water line and then arguing about whether we need an oar or a paddle (really hope that makes sense).

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 10:23 am

utopiandreams wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:... I don't really want a Commons made up of poshos and Trots, and so we have to pay.
I would have said extremists rather than Trots, though.

It's not really about the Commons though (IMHO) - the executive, who are now making the rules, are most definitely 'poshos' - where are the 'Trots'? Dennis Skinner, maybe? Even Jeremy Corbyn, possibly....not going to get anywhere near actual power though - they've been kept away from that for a long time - they might actually do something useful with it.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 10:29 am

yahyah wrote:I wonder if this Tory MP has ever pondered the same for people who lose their jobs, become sick or have to care for disabled relatives, or are forced to pay the bedroom tax ?

'I never expected to be watching the pennies at my age and yet this is what I have to' - meet the Tory minister whose £67k salary wasn't enough
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 94440.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It might work just to make them sit in a room and 'do the math' as their wonderful leaders in the US would say....my personal preference would be to make everyone who supports cuts to Social Security, live for 3 months claiming Social Security (with no access to anything else)...as we saw from Porta-loo, 7 days is obviously nowhere near long enough.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 10:35 am

Lonewolfie wrote:
utopiandreams wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:... I don't really want a Commons made up of poshos and Trots, and so we have to pay.
I would have said extremists rather than Trots, though.
It's not really about the Commons though (IMHO) - the executive, who are now making the rules, are most definitely 'poshos' - where are the 'Trots'? Dennis Skinner, maybe? Even Jeremy Corbyn, possibly....not going to get anywhere near actual power though - they've been kept away from that for a long time - they might actually do something useful with it.

I partially agree, Wolfie. If there were a separate executive has to be guided from below and not just answerable. The LibDems in coalition for example completely countered that, issuing executive directives rather than following their membership however they portray themselves. I do like Dennis and Jeremy though, but notice AB has spoken of localism and building power from the ground up.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 10:40 am

The idea that MPs should be paid more is nothing more or less than received wisdom nowadays, accepted as common sense because so often repeated as if it is common sense. But there are never any proper, valid reasons advanced that chime with democratic principles.

We should, as democrats, be demanding our representatives come from the people, elected from among our equals, not special people selected for their special ability and deserving of special rewards.

It is a career option now, not just for tories (it has always been a career move for them) but for our own side too. And that rots democracy and creates an unrepresentative caste of professionals who demand better pay for themselves to reward their specialness.

Let's have some ideas for the progressive reform of democracy so that it is more inclusive, less distanced from us and something that constantly needs to be reformed to deepen and widen it.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 10:43 am

High court rules data retention and surveillance legislation unlawful
Victory for Tory MP David Davis and Labour’s Tom Watson, who said there were insufficient privacy safeguards, as judges find Dripa inconsistent with EU law
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... d-unlawful" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another measure they rushed through - and the Lib Dems allowed - which has come back on them.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 10:47 am

No surprise about that ruling. You can't override treaty obligations with domestic legislation, no matter how loudly you scream.

They'll just carry on anyway, regardless of what the law says, so it is all a bit of a pantomime.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 10:48 am

@mikems

Another question is how to disincentivise the status seekers and charlatans from standing. I may be guilty of blaming the electorate for choosing them but the party selects those that stand.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 10:51 am

mikems wrote:The idea that MPs should be paid more is nothing more or less than received wisdom nowadays, accepted as common sense because so often repeated as if it is common sense. But there are never any proper, valid reasons advanced that chime with democratic principles.

We should, as democrats, be demanding our representatives come from the people, elected from among our equals, not special people selected for their special ability and deserving of special rewards.

It is a career option now, not just for tories (it has always been a career move for them) but for our own side too. And that rots democracy and creates an unrepresentative caste of professionals who demand better pay for themselves to reward their specialness.

Let's have some ideas for the progressive reform of democracy so that it is more inclusive, less distanced from us and something that constantly needs to be reformed to deepen and widen it.

They all - well mostly - seem so far away from the real conditions that most people find themselves experiencing and working in. Yesterday Radio 4 had an item on the petrol station attendants who have their wages docked if people drive away without paying for their petrol ... yes, there are companies actually doing that (and it's illegal apparently). One young lad has his wages docked most months - there is nothing he can do about it - to the tune of about £200. His normal take home pay for a full time month is £1000 - minus the amount of unpaid for petrol the company decides he has to shoulder responsibility for.

Imagine if IDS had to take some responsibility for the wastage under Universal Credit - or Greening for the total mess up over rail franchising - or Boris for his water cannon.

These are parallel worlds. One where you can interfere in everyone's lives, spend loads of our money and not be properly called to account. The other where you are filmed at work, have no power to influence things, and have to take the rap for someone else's crime.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 10:54 am

@utopiandreams

It's only got worse since Blair's party 'reforms', which really removed democracy from the party and imposed too many candidates from the centre. Not only that, party culture changed and started to accommodate the charlatans as 'winners' and 'realists' etc.

They were/are scared of the more left-wing membership. See SH above. But, of course, if the right of the labour movement was able to argue its case more effectively, and not split the party when they are in a minority, there wouldn't be such left-wing domination in the first place.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 11:00 am

I see the Lib Dems have done well in yesterday's local elections ... they overturned a Labour held seat in Wrexham (or close to) by some considerable margin. I will wait to hear further about the results from Anatoly - would welcome his views on what happened there.

I wonder what the Assembly elections next year will bring ... I really do.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 11:11 am

utopiandreams wrote:@mikems

Another question is how to disincentivise the status seekers and charlatans from standing. I may be guilty of blaming the electorate for choosing them but the party selects those that stand.

Pay them less. Make their job description so watertight that they can have no other earnings. Cut off all the grace and favour stuff.

I'm in a haircuts for the well to do mood. Have just read a story about Doritos on a day when 1. We find out that we are de facto committed to military action in Syria, and 2. MPs will be getting that 10% more while people with mobility issues are losing their independence.

I should say good morning graciously, but my mood is too far in the wrong direction, and I'm very grumpy with the world today, so you'll have to assume that some compassionate balance will be restored at some point and I'll hope the day gets better for everyone. Including our lovely Ohso's. (If the apostrophe is superfluous please blame it on my bad (private) education.

I really can't decide whether it is or isn't.) Anyway, I hope they are both coping with today and that things go well.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 11:19 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:I have been idly trying to enliven the Labour leadership contest for myself by imagining which author / novel each of the candidates' 'narratives' (sorry, sorry) and characteristics might be imagined into ...

Have just had flights of fancy about Burnham and the gritty northern realism authors he might go with (I think we can count Alan Bennett out). I had thought Alan Sillitoe but then looked him up on Wikipedia and thought maybe not. Any thoughts?
D.H. Lawrence
No, no, no no noooooo.

For some reason I'm consciously unaware of, I immediately thought of D.H. Lawrence's, "St. Mawr", after reading your post.
edited to add - & that's bizarre, because most of the story takes place in the US Southwest.
The horse is from Wales.
But Andy Burnham isn't from Wales or from the US Southwest.
Apologies, RR2.

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks07/0700621h.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 11:22 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: Other countries have smaller numbers. The US Senate has 400 odd, for a country six times as big.

Not sure you can compare the two given that States have far greater powers than anything we have as an equivalent. Add the representatives that individual States have as well and then see what the numbers are.

Also, not sure how Tories could get away with reducing the size of the HoC without reducing the numbers on the government payroll, and while increasing the size of the House of Lords (another 50 Tory peers wasn't it?)

I can' defend the House of Lords. How it is made up is utterly ridiculous. Of course, a Tory would say that is Labour's responsibility.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 11:23 am

According to the Star, Corbyn has taken the lead in constituency party nominations, 49 to Burnham's 48, with Cooper on 33 and Kendall on 5.

Gaining a lot of support from students, apparently, who are registering 'in droves' to vote for him.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 11:25 am

mikems wrote:According to the Star, Corbyn has taken the lead in constituency party nominations, 49 to Burnham's 48, with Cooper on 33 and Kendall on 5.

Gaining a lot of support from students, apparently, who are registering 'in droves' to vote for him.

If this as a consequence causes greater individual voter registration then great. I look forward to the advertising campaign at peak times to push IVR btw, a bit like help to buy....

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 11:27 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
utopiandreams wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.
Yes. Really surprising, that . . . .
I lean toward better pay with fewer expense allowances, PorFavor, which I believe are the real scandal, particularly the second home allowance. MPs should be provided Olympic village style accommodation for parliamentary business (just another wasted resource or missed opportunity of the last government). I'm sure our usually right-wing press would approve, they'd have much more material for their salacious village gossip column.
I agree with that. I also think we need far fewer of them. A Parliament of around 250 would be more than enough. Pay them £150k+ each.

Mind you, there really is not that much work to do being an MP. Look at how much legislation is passed in a year: next to nothing. They do a lot of 'constituency work' nowadays, but they are pretty ineffectual at that. The average Labour MP has zero influence over central government and so can do precisely bugger all to help, other than give advice (which in most cases an expert such as a lawyer would be better qualified to give).

The only reason for having so many is to insure that a government has enough warm bodies to fill all the roles it needs. Both the Tories and Labour are shockingly poor when you cream off the top 100 most able in their ranks.

Unless we move to a fully federal system (which there is an argument for) then 250 MPs is far too low.

Not least because it means the "payroll vote" would be even more dominant than now - even if the size of *that* is reduced, as it should be.

As with our discussion on unions last night, the better route is to improve the quality of those who get elected......

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 11:29 am

seeingclearly wrote:
utopiandreams wrote:@mikems

Another question is how to disincentivise the status seekers and charlatans from standing. I may be guilty of blaming the electorate for choosing them but the party selects those that stand.
Pay them less. Make their job description so watertight that they can have no other earnings. Cut off all the grace and favour stuff.

I'm in a haircuts for the well to do mood. Have just read a story about Doritos on a day when 1. We find out that we are de facto committed to military action in Syria, and 2. MPs will be getting that 10% more while people with mobility issues are losing their independence.

I should say good morning graciously, but my mood is too far in the wrong direction, and I'm very grumpy with the world today, so you'll have to assume that some compassionate balance will be restored at some point and I'll hope the day gets better for everyone. Including our lovely Ohso's. (If the apostrophe is superfluous please blame it on my bad (private) education. I really can't decide whether it is or isn't.) Anyway, I hope they are both coping with today and that things go well.

I understand how you feel.
I too think of the Ohsos, hoping they're both doing well & wonder if I should insert an apostrophe - or do we add an '-es'? Ohsoes? I doubt it. I've had an eclectic education. Incoherent, even.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 11:32 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote: Not least because it means the "payroll vote" would be even more dominant than now - even if the size of *that* is reduced, as it should be.

I'm pretty sure there was talk among some Tories - some of whom might actually now be ministers - about reducing the size of government and combining or abolishing some departments.

That talk seems to have disappeared once in government...funny that...maybe they realised that putting more MPs onto the backbenches with a small majority wasn't such a great idea.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 11:35 am

mikems wrote:According to the Star, Corbyn has taken the lead in constituency party nominations, 49 to Burnham's 48, with Cooper on 33 and Kendall on 5.

Gaining a lot of support from students, apparently, who are registering 'in droves' to vote for him.

These CLP nominations don't actually mean very much tbh. That is one reason why the JC campaign is targeting them successfully.

Quite a few of these meetings have had fairly low attendances (not much more than 50 in Hornsey/Wood Green, one of the biggest CLP's in the country - this was in fact a "delegates only" affair, but that doesn't alter my wider point)

And they are conducted by FPTP, not the system that will be used for the actual election - which means they are often being "won" on low overall percentage scores (this is true of all the candidates, but especially pertinent to Jezza given that he isn't as transfer friendly as Burnham or Cooper)

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Fri 17 Jul, 2015 11:40 am

Massive Wildfire Threatens Greek Capital

http://news.sky.com/story/1520696/massi ... ek-capital" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;