Monday 20th July 2015

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 3:25 pm

Far more concerned about what they chose to be worthy enough to support as specified in their amendment.Exocet missile deliberately targetted ,given a turbo boost.No organisation,nor individual agreed,without at the very least substantial changes in reply to a previous consultation to a water downed version.No.member of the public voted for it as no intention was mentioned.Whatever your view,seriously bad for any notion of basic democracy.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 3:35 pm

Corbyn is not in his seventies. He is 66.
Prime Ministers over 60 on entering office include - Benjamin Disraeli, 63; Henry Campbell-Bannerman, 69; Andrew Bonar-Law, 64; Neville Chamberlain, 68; Winston Churchill, 65; Clement Attlee, 62; Harold Macmillan, 62; Alec Douglas-Home, 60; James Callaghan, 64.

Corbyn's 70 at the next election or thereabouts.

Since John Major really, the public has got used to political leaders being relatively. Vince Cable was a rare exception (pre-joining the Coalition).

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 3:39 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Andy Burnham decides rebelling on welfare too risky - See more at: http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-o ... 8TE7P.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now, after hours of agonised discussion, Mr Burnham appears to have decided the risks of rebelling are greater than the risks of backing the leadership.

Here is the statement he has released:

I wanted to update you on my position ahead of today’s vote on the welfare reform and work bill.

The party has come to a position over the last week and we now have a Reasoned Amendment which sets out our opposition to the bill.

As you know, I was very clear last weekend that we could not simply abstain on this bill and that we needed to set out where we have agreement with reforms, but more importantly, where we strongly disagree. For example, I have said that, as leader, I will oppose the two-child policy.

I also strongly oppose the changes in this bill that will increase child poverty whilst at the same time abolishing the child poverty reduction target. I will always defend our record as a Labour government of supporting low-paid people in work, and into work, through our tax credits.

For these reasons, I have led calls for the party to change its position.

Our reasoned amendment sets out clearly our opposition to many aspects of the bill. In truth, it could be stronger but it declines to give the bill a second reading and, therefore, voting for it tonight is the right thing to do.

The Tories want to use this period to brand us in the way they did in 2010. We must not allow that to happen.

Collective responsibility is important and it is what I would expect as leader of our party. It is why I will be voting for our reasoned amendment and, if it is defeated, abstaining on the bill.

But I can reassure you that this is only the beginning of a major fight with the Tories. I am determined that we will fight this regressive bill line by line, word by word in committee. If the government do not make the major changes during committee stage, then, as leader, I will oppose this bill at third reading.

Riiiiigggghhhhtt........

The Reasoned Amendment that Harman initially refused to table and that Coopers' camp said had "100% nothing to do with us".

The Reasoned Amendment that Harman then agreed to table when she was torn a new one by the PLP.
Coopers' camp now say she clearly opposes the Bill (clearly? really?) but will not brief on how the party should vote.

The Reasoned Amendment that Burnham is now saying he'll support, on a Bill he says he will fight......in committee. Committee.
Not in the House - unless he is leader by the time it comes up for third reading having already had a second. Which it might not get anyway if the amendment fails.

I see.

So now we have the ludicrous situation where it took a Labour back-bencher to rebel and take a few dissenters with her to make Harman back-track; the two candidates most likely to take over from her are "clearly opposed" or "going to fight" but not right now; and now Burnham has decided to abstain in the woolliest fashion possible maybe or maybe not but only if he's leader or or or......

This is playing Parliamentary Procedure Poker. Bills here, amendments there, abstentions in between, no commitment to anything in case it frightens the ponies. Is this the calibre of person fit to lead the party? Is this all we've fucking got?

Where's the passion? Where's the anger? Where's the opposition?

This Bill will pass.
Then Labour can wring its' collective hands and moan about it. Then they can complain and drone on about how unfair it all is. Then they can occupy the high moral ground and they can manufacture as much faux outrage as they can muster - knowing perfectly well that the time for real outrage is right now. Wimps.

Osborne - whose idea all this is - will rub his fat pampered hands with glee. What he wants is a Labour party split and arguing, and that is what he's going to get. Lucky little Gideon.
As a Chancellor, he is incompetent; as a political operator he is cunning, snide, clever, and should never be under-estimated. He's done it again - and unlike Ed Miliband, who could see through him and his manoeuvrings, none of the current leadership candidates have his measure and are falling right into his trap.

I despair.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 3:45 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Corbyn is not in his seventies. He is 66.
Prime Ministers over 60 on entering office include - Benjamin Disraeli, 63; Henry Campbell-Bannerman, 69; Andrew Bonar-Law, 64; Neville Chamberlain, 68; Winston Churchill, 65; Clement Attlee, 62; Harold Macmillan, 62; Alec Douglas-Home, 60; James Callaghan, 64.
Corbyn's 70 at the next election or thereabouts.

Since John Major really, the public has got used to political leaders being relatively. Vince Cable was a rare exception (pre-joining the Coalition).

What the public has got used used to is one thing - what it needs may well be something else.

We need change on a very fundamental level in this country. Why not in this too?

I'm too angry and too upset to post here or anywhere else today. I am truly in despair.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 3:47 pm

ephemerid wrote:A few small points.....

Both Cooper and Burnham have decided to abstain on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. This is cowardice, pure and simple.
They have been sitting on the fence so long they've got splinters up their arses. Kendall just IS an arse.

Corbyn is the only one of this otherwise sorry gang of four who is prepared to do Labour's job and oppose this Bill.
Good for him.

Corbyn is not in his seventies. He is 66.
Prime Ministers over 60 on entering office include - Benjamin Disraeli, 63; Henry Campbell-Bannerman, 69; Andrew Bonar-Law, 64; Neville Chamberlain, 68; Winston Churchill, 65; Clement Attlee, 62; Harold Macmillan, 62; Alec Douglas-Home, 60; James Callaghan, 64.

Should this poor excuse for a government fail to implode (over the EU, war in the Middle East, or some financial catastrophe that may or may not be of Gidiot's making) Corbyn will be 70 when the election must take place according to the 5-year fixed term Parliament rules, 71 later in May 2020.
After years of young, smooth, management types in leadership positions and constant complaints of inexperienced (in life or other work) PPE/SPAD clones occupying the Front Bench on both sides of the House, maybe it's time for someone with a bit more experience in both life and politics.

Many of us here have bemoaned the fact that there are so few "conviction" politicians any more; the rather marvellous Michael Sheen galvanised a lot of people with his exhortation "By God, believe in something"; and here, at last, we have someone who is prepared to stick his neck out and actually make some real arguments and take this sorry shower of shit in charge to task.
Unlike Kendall (a Tory in a red frock) or Cooper and Burnham (too much baggage, too little conviction, and way too much dithering) at least Corbyn is prepared to stand up for people like me. At long last, a Labour politician who will fight for me and people like me who have no hope under the Tories and not much more under Nu-Blu-Labour.

I like to think that Ed Miliband might have moved his party further to the left in time. We'll never find out now (unless he makes a comeback at some point) but it would have been a long and tortuous process with the sheer number of non-leftists in the Labour heirarchy.
For the sick, disabled, working poor, unemployed, young, or anyone else who doesn't match up to Cameron's personal blueprint of what a model little subject should be, it is now a matter of urgency that someone takes him and his nasty little henchmen on. He needs a bloody nose on a regular basis, and he is getting away - literally - with murder. I can't see anyone other than Corbyn doing it, frankly.

Yep. My thoughts exactly....

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 3:54 pm

I was going to hold off with this ... but I may as well post it now ... we're already down and furious so what's another piece of Kendallite going to matter, eh?

HuffPostUK Politics ‏@HuffPostUKPol 28m28 minutes ago
Liz Kendall says Labour has become too 'statist', wanting to 'regulate, restrict, fix, or ban' http://huff.to/1JbtbrF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Didn't you, along with the other Labour leadership candidates, apologise for not having paid enough attention to regulation of the banks?

I quite like the regulations on animal welfare, environmental protections, health and safety in the workplace myself.

I could go on ... but I won't.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 3:55 pm

Yes, but it is still very unlikely that Corbyn will actually win.

Assuming he doesn't, what will his backers do next? My advice to them would be to utilise the amount of support he *has* recieved (almost certainly, it will be higher than almost any of the "expert" pundits predicted when he entered the race) as a way of influencing the new leader.

Never forget, the candidate who *is* basically advocating a Tory-lite strategy looks set to be wiped out. This is an immensely significant development.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 4:01 pm

ephemerid wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Corbyn is not in his seventies. He is 66.
Prime Ministers over 60 on entering office include - Benjamin Disraeli, 63; Henry Campbell-Bannerman, 69; Andrew Bonar-Law, 64; Neville Chamberlain, 68; Winston Churchill, 65; Clement Attlee, 62; Harold Macmillan, 62; Alec Douglas-Home, 60; James Callaghan, 64.
Corbyn's 70 at the next election or thereabouts.

Since John Major really, the public has got used to political leaders being relatively. Vince Cable was a rare exception (pre-joining the Coalition).

What the public has got used used to is one thing - what it needs may well be something else.

We need change on a very fundamental level in this country. Why not in this too?

I'm too angry and too upset to post here or anywhere else today. I am truly in despair.

God help me, I'm 71. I've a damn sight more idea about how the world works now, than I did in my forties or fifties although you wouldn't have convinced me of that when I was younger.
No reason to think Corbyn won't be able to hack it in 2015.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 4:03 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Yes, but it is still very unlikely that Corbyn will actually win.

Assuming he doesn't, what will his backers do next? My advice to them would be to utilise the amount of support he *has* recieved (almost certainly, it will be higher than almost any of the "expert" pundits predicted when he entered the race) as a way of influencing the new leader.

Never forget, the candidate who *is* basically advocating a Tory-lite strategy looks set to be wiped out. This is an immensely significant development.

Well, sadly, if Corbyn doesn't win or nearly wins and is sidelined, that's the last the Labour party will see of me.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 4:05 pm

And no, I won't be looking at the Green party. They can fuck off as far as I'm concerned.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 4:12 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Yes, but it is still very unlikely that Corbyn will actually win.

Assuming he doesn't, what will his backers do next? My advice to them would be to utilise the amount of support he *has* recieved (almost certainly, it will be higher than almost any of the "expert" pundits predicted when he entered the race) as a way of influencing the new leader.

Never forget, the candidate who *is* basically advocating a Tory-lite strategy looks set to be wiped out. This is an immensely significant development.

Absolutely. Kendall coming last should give the PLP the final hint required that the New Labour model is dead. Deader than dead. Political journalists take note too before we get the 'senior Labour figure' briefing based puff piece.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 4:16 pm

GetYou wrote:
Willow904 wrote:What if one or more of the leadership contenders break ranks and vote against? If they end up leader, would you be able to forgive the stupidity of the section of the party that thinks Labour can only win by echoing Tory small- statism? I only ask, because it seems to me that this issue is shaping up to be the one to split the party that has threatened since 2010 and interestingly the left seems much stronger now than then. It could win. It may have to win, if the party is to survive.
In short, no. I'm not sure I can ever come to terms with how far the party has moved away from it's original ethos. I voted Labour last time because it appeared to be moving back towards the support of ordinary people, despite the disgrace that was the vote (abstention) on retrospective legislation on Workfare. Another lurch to the right would probably end my support once and for all.

Labour don't seem to be lurching anywhere, just frozen in Osborne's headlights. Very depressing. It is very much as I suspected. Chasing Tory swing voters will lose many of the voters Ed managed to attract. It's not a strategy that will ever widen Labour's appeal, just swap one set of voters for a possible other set and probably not even that if Osborne can keep house prices from crashing.

I bow to others superior knowledge and accept Corbyn is unlikely to win an election but at least a voice of opposition would be healthy for British democracy. Harman has done Labour no favours leaving Burnham and Cooper between a rock and a hard place. No doubt the SNP will be delighted to be handed the job of the real opposition once again. It's interesting that voting against the Tories doesn't seem to be viewed a vote loser north of the border, yet social attitudes in Scotland are almost identical to those in the rest of the UK.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 4:17 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
ephemerid wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: Corbyn's 70 at the next election or thereabouts.

Since John Major really, the public has got used to political leaders being relatively. Vince Cable was a rare exception (pre-joining the Coalition).

What the public has got used used to is one thing - what it needs may well be something else.

We need change on a very fundamental level in this country. Why not in this too?

I'm too angry and too upset to post here or anywhere else today. I am truly in despair.
God help me, I'm 71. I've a damn sight more idea about how the world works now, than I did in my forties or fifties although you wouldn't have convinced me of that when I was younger.
No reason to think Corbyn won't be able to hack it in 2015.

Lots of it, I think, is that the media looks much harder for "skeletons" than they did. It's become an advantage not to have been around.

He's in the worst position of having a past without it involving running anything. There's nothing to suggest he'd even be any good at leadership. From the way he's pulling figures out of his arse about what a top rate tax would bring in and simplistic stuff about tax loopholes, and prioritizing students over schools (think who goes to university and who doesn't) I think his judgement looks poor.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 4:22 pm

Willow904 wrote:
GetYou wrote:
Willow904 wrote:What if one or more of the leadership contenders break ranks and vote against? If they end up leader, would you be able to forgive the stupidity of the section of the party that thinks Labour can only win by echoing Tory small- statism? I only ask, because it seems to me that this issue is shaping up to be the one to split the party that has threatened since 2010 and interestingly the left seems much stronger now than then. It could win. It may have to win, if the party is to survive.
In short, no. I'm not sure I can ever come to terms with how far the party has moved away from it's original ethos. I voted Labour last time because it appeared to be moving back towards the support of ordinary people, despite the disgrace that was the vote (abstention) on retrospective legislation on Workfare. Another lurch to the right would probably end my support once and for all.
Labour don't seem to be lurching anywhere, just frozen in Osborne's headlights. Very depressing. It is very much as I suspected. Chasing Tory swing voters will lose many of the voters Ed managed to attract. It's not a strategy that will ever widen Labour's appeal, just swap one set of voters for a possible other set and probably not even that if Osborne can keep house prices from crashing.

I bow to others superior knowledge and accept Corbyn is unlikely to win an election but at least a voice of opposition would be healthy for British democracy. Harman has done Labour no favours leaving Burnham and Cooper between a rock and a hard place. No doubt the SNP will be delighted to be handed the job of the real opposition once again. It's interesting that voting against the Tories doesn't seem to be viewed a vote loser north of the border, yet social attitudes in Scotland are almost identical to those in the rest of the UK.

Scotland's different because the SNP can always blame "Westminster" for everything. You can only see them as the real opposition if you treat their MPs as belonging to a different party to the SNP government.

But it should be a no brainer to oppose this budget, I agree.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 4:27 pm

HuffPostUK Politics ‏@HuffPostUKPol 28m28 minutes ago
Liz Kendall says Labour has become too 'statist', wanting to 'regulate, restrict, fix, or ban

What have Labour restricted that they shouldn't have done?

She's a fool. Biggest statists around are Gove and co.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 4:29 pm

Osborne - whose idea all this is - will rub his fat pampered hands with glee. What he wants is a Labour party split and arguing, and that is what he's going to get. Lucky little Gideon.
As a Chancellor, he is incompetent; as a political operator he is cunning, snide, clever, and should never be under-estimated. He's done it again - and unlike Ed Miliband, who could see through him and his manoeuvrings, none of the current leadership candidates have his measure and are falling right into his trap.

Hang on, none of them are the leader and they're in the Shadow Cabinet. What are they supposed to do? Resign en masss? That's precisely what Osborne would want.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 4:36 pm

Remember too that the SNP will get more powers to put its money where its mouth is in Scotland on eg welfare.

They're more likely to cut taxes, on previous form.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 5:05 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... affordable" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lower benefit caps 'will exclude poor families from large parts of England

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... -it-seems/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The benefit cut that isn’t quite as it seems

http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/article ... -incentive" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

30 pound cut is No Incentive

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 5:10 pm

Willow904 wrote:
GetYou wrote:
Willow904 wrote:What if one or more of the leadership contenders break ranks and vote against? If they end up leader, would you be able to forgive the stupidity of the section of the party that thinks Labour can only win by echoing Tory small- statism? I only ask, because it seems to me that this issue is shaping up to be the one to split the party that has threatened since 2010 and interestingly the left seems much stronger now than then. It could win. It may have to win, if the party is to survive.
In short, no. I'm not sure I can ever come to terms with how far the party has moved away from it's original ethos. I voted Labour last time because it appeared to be moving back towards the support of ordinary people, despite the disgrace that was the vote (abstention) on retrospective legislation on Workfare. Another lurch to the right would probably end my support once and for all.
Labour don't seem to be lurching anywhere, just frozen in Osborne's headlights. Very depressing. It is very much as I suspected. Chasing Tory swing voters will lose many of the voters Ed managed to attract. It's not a strategy that will ever widen Labour's appeal, just swap one set of voters for a possible other set and probably not even that if Osborne can keep house prices from crashing.

I bow to others superior knowledge and accept Corbyn is unlikely to win an election but at least a voice of opposition would be healthy for British democracy. Harman has done Labour no favours leaving Burnham and Cooper between a rock and a hard place. No doubt the SNP will be delighted to be handed the job of the real opposition once again. It's interesting that voting against the Tories doesn't seem to be viewed a vote loser north of the border, yet social attitudes in Scotland are almost identical to those in the rest of the UK.

Looking in from the outside I appreciated Burnham's acknowledging there may be a role for Corbyn if he was leader, seeing is believing however. As for Osborne's reforms abstention doesn't seem enough, I recall saying the same of LibDems in government, even those I still had respect for buckled under the party whip. Anyway as others have suggested, Harman is not the elected leader so whatever the machinations of the party adherence to shadow ministry protocol seems even more futile.

Osborne plays too fast and loose for my liking. I'd have loved to have played him in sport, but he was probably too tubby in his youth. I used to play hockey before overly soft dangerous play rules; you had a stick to protect yourself from the ball. I loved rugby too but was a little too small as an adult, but you could always get your own back by not turning your head as you went in for the tackle (pun intended).

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 5:30 pm

‘we could strap babies to foxes and then tie them up with badgers, shoot them, and Labour wouldn’t know how to oppose it’.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... n-success/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you want more than symbolic votes against social security cuts, you have to vote for somebody other than Corbyn. Every vote for him is a gift to the Tories, who want a fiery Labour party. In opposition. Forever.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 5:38 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:‘we could strap babies to foxes and then tie them up with badgers, shoot them, and Labour wouldn’t know how to oppose it’.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... n-success/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you want more than symbolic votes against social security cuts, you have to vote for somebody other than Corbyn. Every vote for him is a gift to the Tories, who want a fiery Labour party. In opposition. Forever.

From Isabel Hardman's article that you link to, SH

Those present at strategy meetings and political cabinet meetings say the focus is already on the 2020 vision..

2020 vision? I don't like the sound of that coming from Tories.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 5:38 pm

IDS has just risen to launch the debate on 2nd Reading of Welfare Reform and Work Bill. The Speaker has selected Harriet Harman's amendment out of the two put forward by Labour Members, and the one each by SNP and LibDems.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 5:56 pm

This reduction of social rents seems counter to previous policy. Wasn't it the last government, buckling to Tory whims, that increased them to 80% of nominal market rents?

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 6:04 pm

utopiandreams wrote:
Those present at strategy meetings and political cabinet meetings say the focus is already on the 2020 vision..
2020 vision? I don't like the sound of that coming from Tories.

Not interested in governing for the good of the country, even with 5 years before the next election. Scum.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 6:06 pm

Corbyn won't win because he won't get more than half the vote first time and he won't be anyone's second preference?

Or have I totally misunderstood the process?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 6:18 pm

utopiandreams wrote:This reduction of social rents seems counter to previous policy. Wasn't it the last government, buckling to Tory whims, that increased them to 80% of nominal market rents?

It's not very good for housing associations and councils, who would have been counting on that extra income. It's just arsing about.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 6:40 pm

I missed Edu questions in the Commons as I was down at the school interviewing but will take a look for anything interesting (betcha can't wait eh?). Just noticed this.

Education select committee launches inquiry into regional schools commissioners

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/education-sele ... issioners/

The new education select committee is to launch an inquiry into the role of regional schools commissioners (RSCs).

Announced this afternoon, the committee, chaired by Neil Carmichael, wants written evidence about the role of the eight RSCs in the autumn, including about what impact they have had in their first year and whether there are enough to fulfil their “expanding role”.

Well, one of them seems to have completely blown open a three-tier system that has been running for a long time in Redditch much to the dismay of local people but hey, they don't count in the new Edu-world we have...

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/rsc-agrees-to- ... -concerns/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And no, there won't be nearly enough of them if they're going to stick their noses into LA schools too.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 6:45 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
utopiandreams wrote:This reduction of social rents seems counter to previous policy. Wasn't it the last government, buckling to Tory whims, that increased them to 80% of nominal market rents?
It's not very good for housing associations and councils, who would have been counting on that extra income. It's just arsing about.

The bedroom tax, right-to-buy and now this. Arsing about? I'd call it an outright attack on social housing, Tubby, which is indefensible given the housing crisis.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 7:34 pm

Iain Duncan Smith is trying to erase the words 'child poverty' from the Child Poverty Act

Under the new Wefare Bill, the Child Poverty Act would be renamed to be the "Life Chances Act."...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ia ... se-6105011" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's a certain synchronicity about the appearance of those distant images of trying out Nazi salutes which served to remind us how relatively 'appealing' Hitler and his brand were at the time. I used to think people comparing then and now were far too paranoid ... the more that is revealed of this 'compassionate Conservatism' my opinion of them changes.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 8:02 pm

I've calmed down a bit now. Not a lot, but a bit.

Before I shut down for the night, I'll say this.

Parliament shuts down for the Summer Recess tomorrow. It does not start work until Monday 7th.September.

The new leader of the Labour Party will be known on Saturday 12th.September. He/she will form his/her own new Cabinet.

Under these circumstances, I fail to see why the reasons given for abstaining along the lines of supporting Harman/front bench would have to resign/etc. etc. risible. There is no more Parliamentary work going on until September, and then only for 5 days before it all changes.

Yes, the government will continue to fail to govern in our best interests; and yes, Labour may feel the need to comment on what they're up to.
But for any candidate to pretend that this is about party unity when it is manifestly about their own chances at the top job is a proposition I simply cannot accept. I am unsurprised at the idiotic Kendall; not too surprised by Cooper who gave us the WCA; but I am very disappointed in Burnham.

The lovely people who organised all those Twitterstorms for Ed and Labour before the election might be planning another.....as they were wondering about what the memes could be, I offered them some little rhymes to keep them amused.
Liz from Leicester - worse than Esther.
Yvette Cooper - in a stupor.
Abstain, Burnham? That'll learn 'em.

Goodnight.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 8:03 pm

Isabel HardmanVerified account
‏@IsabelHardman
But I hear MPs who’ve worked out what’s going on have been reassured cut will be reversed in a few yrs’ time anyway! http://specc.ie/1MfQd1A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you read the article linked to (and it's a pretty good one by Hardman - yes, it is) you realise this tweet is about the cut to ESA rates.

She goes into some detail about how badly (maliciously,perverse, and misleading in my book) skewed the government arguments are for this cut. The article ends with ...

... Tory MPs will naturally support the second reading of tonight’s Bill, but any chance to quibble the detail of this benefit cut will come either in the committee stage or at report stage. Perhaps some of them are not yet aware of what this change really means. But I hear from those who have picked up that this will not affect people who just need some more help with interview skills, but people who are too ill to work that ministers are suggesting the benefit cut will be reversed when the government starts running a surplus. This suggests that not even those in charge of this particular policy are confident that it is sensible to put sick people on a very low benefit rate for what could be a long time.

That's disgusting.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 8:06 pm

steve richards ‏@steverichards14 1m1 minute ago
In his first Commons' speech as Lib Dem leader Tim Farron also providing more coherent opposition to the Welfare Bill than Labour.

steve richards ‏@steverichards14 6m6 minutes ago
SNP providing more coherent and confident opposition to the welfare bill in the Commons' debate than confused, bewildered Labour.

Bloody Harman.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 8:29 pm

I boringly repeat when you deem necessary rooms specifically for care/medical purposes as spare and penalise them as a default position ,anything is possible.Fundamental breach IMHO.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 8:38 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
steve richards ‏@steverichards14 1m1 minute ago
In his first Commons' speech as Lib Dem leader Tim Farron also providing more coherent opposition to the Welfare Bill than Labour.

steve richards ‏@steverichards14 6m6 minutes ago
SNP providing more coherent and confident opposition to the welfare bill in the Commons' debate than confused, bewildered Labour.
Bloody Harman.

I agree, fucking useless.

Her one achievement in her political career.

To be the worst Labour leader - ever.

(Yep even worse than Michael Foot).

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 8:51 pm

Goodnight, everyone.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 8:52 pm

Sounds as though Huw Irranca Davies made a really good speech on the Welfare Bill. (from some tweets I've seen)

Was he not someone who might have made a good leadership candidate? He's such a good speaker.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 9:04 pm

Night PF.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 9:23 pm

From this afternoon's Edu questions...

Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP):
What estimate her Department has made of the number of free schools that will be in operation by 2020.[901088]

The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb):
Free schools are helping to raise academic standards and tackle disadvantage, ensuring social justice is at the heart of our education reform programme. Over 250 free schools have opened since 2010, and our manifesto commits us to at least 500 more during this Parliament. By 2020, free schools will have created over 400,000 new school places.

Mr Carswell:
For every part of England to benefit from the spread of free schools, restrictions on their expansion need to be removed and capital attracted. What will the Minister do to remove those restrictions and overcome the reactionary blob in his Department?

Mr Gibb:
The only restriction that applies to the establishment of new free schools is that there must be demand and need for those free school places. That is our policy. I would be interested to know the policy of the UK Independence party, and indeed Labour, on free schools.

Oh?

In which case there really is no difference between a free school and a new academy of which 50 were opened between 2010 and 2015.

Free School policy before was all about providing parental choice...those crafty badgers moving the goalposts again!

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 9:24 pm

House of Lords vote casts doubt on Tory plans to extend right to buy
Amendment to charities bill, backed by the Lords on Monday, could scupper plan to force housing associations to sell to tenants at a discount
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... ants-doubt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 9:42 pm

More...

Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab):
I am told that, having forced schools across the country to become academies, the Department now finds that the bureaucratic oversight is too difficult and is trying to force them all to become part of large academy chains. That may work for normal schools, but it is very difficult for studio schools and university technical colleges. Will the Secretary of State confirm that there is no truth in that rumour and that there is no pressure on schools to join academy chains?

Nicky Morgan:
I do not know where the hon. Lady has got that from. Being part of a chain and having that support can offer advantages to schools, but the whole point about the self-improving, school-led system that my Department oversees is that it is exactly that: school led. It is for schools, governors, heads and teachers to make decisions about the way in which the schools are run.

Erm...from the Schools Commissioner last year?

I also want to show school leaders that working as part of an academies chain is much more rewarding than trying to go it alone. The achievements of academies working together is one of the things that has excited me most about these reforms in recent years.

https://www.tes.co.uk/news/school-news/ ... sooner-our

1. "We fucked up by converting too many schools to academies and now can't cope with them all"
2 " Would you mind most awfully forming a chain?"

How about being honest about what you want which is "a fully academized system in chains. Local preferably but we're not fussy"?

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 10:04 pm

Seems there are still some good 'uns in Labour...

Jon StoneVerified account
‏@joncstone “I would swim through vomit to vote against this bill,” Labour MP John McDonnell tells the House of Commons ahead of welfare cuts vote

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 10:11 pm

Just seen a tweet with photo attached of John McDonnell MP's statement in debate on the Welfare Bill ...

I would swim through vomit to vote against this Bill, and listening to some of the nauseating speeches in support of it, I might have to.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 10:12 pm

Snap AAW!

And what a snap, eh!

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 10:16 pm

So tonight's vote is not the end of it ?

"But I can reassure you that this is only the beginning of a major fight with the Tories. I am determined that we will fight this regressive bill line by line, word by word in committee. If the government do not make the major changes during committee stage, then, as Leader, I will oppose this bill at third reading.

Yours sincerely,

Andy Burnham"
(from AS blog)

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 10:17 pm

Clare Hepworth OBE ‏@Hepworthclare · 5 mins5 minutes ago
Labour's amendment defeated by 100 votes.
MP's now vote on the Bill

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 10:24 pm

If there was a disease where your tissues ate themselves up through sheer sourness - Rentoul would be in the end stages. I wish there was some way of excluding his tweets from the lobby threads I watch ... I don't want to catch it.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 10:25 pm

Just to cheer everybody up, this is from The Guardian piece on eccentric architect Frank Lloyd Wright.

A few blocks away stands a mysterious pink pavilion. This is Wright’s design for a filling station, which lay tucked away in a drawer until last year. “Wright demanded a fee that was the same as the cost of building the damned thing,” says James Sandoro, the 70-year-old owner of the Pierce-Arrow transport museum, who has spent $1m realising Wright’s unbuilt paean to the new car culture of the roaring 20s (and a further $10m on a giant shed in which to house it). “It probably didn’t help that he wanted to have open fires beneath the gas tanks in the roof.”

Ever the innovator, Wright had proposed a gravity-fed pumping system, where the petrol would flow down from the roof through dangling pipes, in patriotic red, white and blue. But he also insisted on having an open hearth down below, to give the attendant’s quarters a domestic touch. “Everything he built was dangerous,” says Sandoro, tiptoeing past the steep staircase that leads to the basement, roped off for safety reasons.

Who knew that IDS was an architect in his previous life?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 10:36 pm

"My plea to my very hon. Friends is this: please do not have what Aneurin Bevan might have called an “emotional spasm” and try to feel better by simply voting against this, that or the other. The one message tonight is that we must get behind the reasoned amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition. Later, we can discuss all the other disadvantages that the Government have put into the Bill, and we can vote against them if we wish to do so. The one message that must go out from the Chamber tonight is that the Government talk loudly about supporting strivers but, when it comes to it, they are proposing to make that group worse off without a second thought. It will be difficult for us to oppose what I see as by far the worst measure in the Bill, but I hope that we can send a united message and not be at sixes and sevens voting to our hearts’ content on all different aspects of the Bill. That is my plea. I shall return to the Chamber as soon as I can to listen to how others develop their own themes on the way in which the Government are making strivers worse off."

- Frank Field, Labour MP for Birkenhead

7.19 pm
20 July 2015
House of Commons

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... known/471/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't have a television licence.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 10:37 pm

Tom Newton Dunn ‏@tnewtondunn · 9 mins9 minutes ago
124 MPs voted against Welfare Bill - so minus SNP, Libs, Green etc, that's 50+ Labour MPs - close to a quarter - defying party whip. Ouch.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 10:42 pm

Liz Kendall calls for Labour to return to its roots so 'people have the power'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ople-power" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't understand what is going on sometimes - like now.