Monday 20th July 2015

Post by **refitman** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 7:09 am

Morning all.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 8:28 am

I've just been looking at Apprenticeships Statistics: England, http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... N06113.pdf in a vain attempt to see what proportion of older apprentices there were/are. I can't say that before the last government I was familiar with government publications or statistics but had certainly seen a fair bit of public sector material in my OU capacity as mentor for database projects.

I have to say that the DWP and Education ones I've seen barely stand up to scrutiny; it's as if things are deliberately left unrecorded. For example the only apprenticeship age groups are above or below 25 years.

Which brings me to George's appeal for Labour's support for his 'benefit' reforms. As Jonathan Portes has already stated his figures don't stack up and those that are published are designed to hide the facts. Even small businesses have more demanding data requirements than this government or so it would seem.

55DegreesNorth · Post by **55DegreesNorth** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 8:56 am

utopiandreams wrote:I've just been looking at Apprenticeships Statistics: England, http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... N06113.pdf in a vain attempt to see what proportion of older apprentices there were/are. I can't say that before the last government I was familiar with government publications or statistics but had certainly seen a fair bit of public sector material in my OU capacity as mentor for database projects.

I have to say that the DWP and Education ones I've seen barely stand up to scrutiny; it's as if things are deliberately left unrecorded. For example the only apprenticeship age groups are above or below 25 years.

Which brings me to George's appeal for Labour's support for his 'benefit' reforms. As Jonathan Portes has already stated his figures don't stack up and those that are published are designed to hide the facts. Even small businesses have more demanding data requirements than this government or so it would seem.

Morning folks,
My cousin works for a local authority, and was recently sent on a training course, following which he was classed as an apprentice. He's 50 and has worked for them for decades.

#longtermeconomicplanisworking

Edited to include manners.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 8:58 am

Morning.

norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 15m15 minutes ago
So on Labour welfare revolt. Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper will back @HarrietHarman . Jeremy Corbyn will rebel. No word from Andy Burnham

Andy Burnham ‏@andyburnhammp 37m37 minutes ago
.@George_Osborne - playing politics with the lives of low-paid & vulnerable people since 2010 > http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Andy Burnham ‏@andyburnhammp 23m23 minutes ago
What's progressive, Mr Osborne, about cutting tax credits for low-paid families whilst giving £1bn inheritance tax cut for 26,000 people?

Tweets like that make me think he should 'rebel' - but will he?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 9:01 am

55DegreesNorth wrote:
utopiandreams wrote:I've just been looking at Apprenticeships Statistics: England, http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... N06113.pdf in a vain attempt to see what proportion of older apprentices there were/are. I can't say that before the last government I was familiar with government publications or statistics but had certainly seen a fair bit of public sector material in my OU capacity as mentor for database projects.

I have to say that the DWP and Education ones I've seen barely stand up to scrutiny; it's as if things are deliberately left unrecorded. For example the only apprenticeship age groups are above or below 25 years.

Which brings me to George's appeal for Labour's support for his 'benefit' reforms. As Jonathan Portes has already stated his figures don't stack up and those that are published are designed to hide the facts. Even small businesses have more demanding data requirements than this government or so it would seem.
Morning folks,
My cousin works for a local authority, and was recently sent on a training course, following which he was classed as an apprentice. He's 50 and has worked for them for decades.

#longtermeconomicplanisworking

Edited to include manners.

I think there's a lot of that going on. We had that article a while back pointing out how difficult it was to count apprenticeship starts accurately - and that the published figures are pretty useless as a result. The article said it should count 'people' rather than 'starts' to make it a better representation if I remember it right.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 9:05 am

@ohsocynical

You know what I was saying about mobiles being gadgets for everything including games (okay alluded to) and thereby flattening batteries. I've just had an update on yesterday's pickup from Alton Towers. What had happened was two parties had become separated; the one with the car's mobile had run out of charge and as I said yesterday the other's was running out when they contacted me. It transpires the driver waited ages for the other later on and of course nether of them was available by phone.

Kids today, ohso. When I were a lad before mobile phones we'd find each other at festivals let alone Alton Towers. Mind you I recall finding people I hadn't seen for years was common at festivals too.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 9:13 am

Morning all

Just start by saying hi to everyone and expressing my profound and venomous dislike for anything Tory

I have been lurking around the Daily Heil website (good to know what the enemy think)

True to form they cannot even take an interesting story and publish it without twisting it

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... nthem.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am interested in this because I never stand for the National Anthem; being a republican atheist I do not see what relevance a fictitious being helping an institution I do not believe should exist has.

I may just as well sing 'Bilbo Baggins saves West Bromwich Albion' (I am a Wolves fan.....)

The actual letter printed that James McLean sent to Dave Whelan at Wigan though shows a young man who has thought about things and feels that doing something he sees as hypocritical and against his beliefs is wrong. I respect him totally for that and it could also form the basis for a good discussion on the role of 'the poppy' in modern Britain (it seems to have become omnipresent and means different things than it did when I was younger) - as well as how the 'National Anthem' is not much of one at all and is also an anachronism. I personally feel uncomfortable with how much the UK still harks back to the World Wars and military conflict as though it was some sort of game - the lessons that the first half of the 20th Century should have taught us are being forgotten in the focus of the 'We beat the Krauts' mentality. I must also say I do not like seeing military personnel being continually lauded as 'Heroes' - some may be but definitely not all, as well as the fact that these so-called 'Heroes' are so badly treated by the Government on their return from conflict.

It is interesting to see that after both the major conflicts that involved the whole nation, not just a professional armed force, the returning soldiers demanded more socialist policies from the Government - it is so frequently glossed over now that 'Winnie' was massively defeated in the 1945 election

I am not saying that I agree with all that he says or what he chooses to do but I think it is refreshing to see someone prepared to stand up for something they obviously have thought about and it gave the opportunity for there to be an interesting article - of course the Heil failed at that didn't it!

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 9:14 am

Mark Steel ‏@mrmarksteel 4m4 minutes ago
To sum up the posh man just on Radio 4, if the King wanted the Nazis to bomb Britain that's a private matter and who are we to pry?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 9:20 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
55DegreesNorth wrote:
utopiandreams wrote:I've just been looking at Apprenticeships Statistics: England, http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... N06113.pdf in a vain attempt to see what proportion of older apprentices there were/are. I can't say that before the last government I was familiar with government publications or statistics but had certainly seen a fair bit of public sector material in my OU capacity as mentor for database projects.

I have to say that the DWP and Education ones I've seen barely stand up to scrutiny; it's as if things are deliberately left unrecorded. For example the only apprenticeship age groups are above or below 25 years.

Which brings me to George's appeal for Labour's support for his 'benefit' reforms. As Jonathan Portes has already stated his figures don't stack up and those that are published are designed to hide the facts. Even small businesses have more demanding data requirements than this government or so it would seem.
Morning folks,
My cousin works for a local authority, and was recently sent on a training course, following which he was classed as an apprentice. He's 50 and has worked for them for decades.

#longtermeconomicplanisworking

Edited to include manners.
I think there's a lot of that going on. We had that article a while back pointing out how difficult it was to count apprenticeship starts accurately - and that the published figures are pretty useless as a result. The article said it should count 'people' rather than 'starts' to make it a better representation if I remember it right.

From the document I linked to, rebexcca.

3.2 Participation
Apprenticeship participation has also increased since 2009/10. There were 851,500 people on apprenticeships in 2013/14 compared to 868,700 a year earlier.

It's the first time I've seen participant figures rather than starts. Even then we don't know their duration to be sure of any one time.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 9:23 am

Schools spending thousands of pounds of public money trying to unfairly boost Ofsted results
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 00507.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... Last night Ofsted said it was imposing a ban on taking part in Mocksteds. A spokeswoman for the education standards watchdog said: “Ofsted has repeatedly said we do not expect, or want, schools to prepare for inspections. Schools should do nothing other than focus on providing a good education.”

She added: “Under the terms of their new engagement, Ofsted inspectors will not be allowed to carry out mock Ofsted inspections. Furthermore, we have been clear with our contracted Ofsted inspector workforcethat they are not allowed to carry out mock Ofsted inspections.” A spokeswoman for the Department of Educationsaid: “We have been clear that headteachers do not need to prepare for visits from Ofsted.”...

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 9:34 am

Owen Jones ‏@OwenJones84 11h11 hours ago
Great to see George Osborne in The Guardian. A real lack of British media outlets offering an uncritical platform for the Tory viewpoint.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 9:37 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Schools spending thousands of pounds of public money trying to unfairly boost Ofsted results
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 00507.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... Last night Ofsted said it was imposing a ban on taking part in Mocksteds. A spokeswoman for the education standards watchdog said: “Ofsted has repeatedly said we do not expect, or want, schools to prepare for inspections. Schools should do nothing other than focus on providing a good education.”

She added: “Under the terms of their new engagement, Ofsted inspectors will not be allowed to carry out mock Ofsted inspections. Furthermore, we have been clear with our contracted Ofsted inspector workforcethat they are not allowed to carry out mock Ofsted inspections.” A spokeswoman for the Department of Educationsaid: “We have been clear that headteachers do not need to prepare for visits from Ofsted.”...

If I remember correctly, there was a huge cull of outsourced Ofsted inspectors recently...I;m sure their experience might be of use to schools which wouldn't breach the above since they no longer work for contracted companies.

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 9:57 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Owen Jones ‏@OwenJones84 11h11 hours ago
Great to see George Osborne in The Guardian. A real lack of British media outlets offering an uncritical platform for the Tory viewpoint.

Morning all. I wonder if Owen Jones will resign, or will he continue taking the Guardian's pay packet?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 10:04 am

danesclose wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Owen Jones ‏@OwenJones84 11h11 hours ago
Great to see George Osborne in The Guardian. A real lack of British media outlets offering an uncritical platform for the Tory viewpoint.
Morning all. I wonder if Owen Jones will resign, or will he continue taking the Guardian's pay packet?

I don't think that is particularly fair on him....he has to earn money like we all do and where else in the MSM would he go?

I think it is fine for him to highlight these things whilst remaining at the paper...in theory the ethos remains a wishy washy centre-left and so his politics are still consistent with that ethos (he is less wishy washy than the main paper though)

I criticise my employers all the time for some of the strategic decisions made but I wouldn't resign based on that fact

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 10:05 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Owen Jones ‏@OwenJones84 11h11 hours ago
Great to see George Osborne in The Guardian. A real lack of British media outlets offering an uncritical platform for the Tory viewpoint.

That's funny, RR, thank you.

1,300 comments, few of them complimentary.......

I have put up a new post on TGS's blog, http://www.thegrimsqueakerreturns.wordpress.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; about the Welfare Reform and Work Bill.

The Bill gets its' second reading today, and as far as we know Labour under the stewardship of Harman will not be opposing it.
This is a shameful dereliction of duty from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and I am appalled by it.

The Bill has an attached Memorandum which clarifies delegated powers - this is, effectively, giving IDS even more power to do what he wants. It was bad enough that the 2012 WRA allowed amendments to be made without further recourse to Parliament; but this Memorandum gives the Secretary of State total control of various elements of the "reforms", for example, the S of S will be able to vary the total benefit cap on a town-by-town basis should he choose to do so, and as the cap will no longer be calculated on the basis of average earnings but some arbitrary figure the S of S alights upon. It could be £20,000 in Oxford and £5,000 in Hull. Anything.

I just hope that common sense prevails and the wisdom of Mhairi Black, the youngest MP since 1667, shames more experienced Parliamentarians into working together to do the job of opposing Tory hegemony - which is held by a very slender working majority and could be defeated (especially on this) quite easily. Obviously, IDS could (as Grayling did on his behalf last time) invoke Commons Financial Privilege and if he did we would know (if we don't already) that these people are fascists. Meanwhile, Labour dithers.

The youngest MP ever was Christopher Monck, the 2nd.Duke of Albemarle, who was elected by the good people of Devon aged 13.
I suspect that he might be more effective than many of today's MPs - he entered Grays Inn aged 12. Clever boy.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 10:06 am

55DegreesNorth wrote:... My cousin works for a local authority, and was recently sent on a training course, following which he was classed as an apprentice. He's 50 and has worked for them for decades...

Classed as apprentice? Does that also mean paid as one, 55DegreesNorth? I don't know whether here or in the G but I recently remarked on my youngest having training days for the parent employer (he's with an agency but is supposedly being taken on). It's just that I've seen paperwork calling them Apprenticeship Days and wondered whether they were taking advantage of some government scheme or other. He does get his nominal wage though.

Anyway over 800,000 apprentices per year. Now I wonder how many are on Work Related Activity or Workfare and that's doesn't account for those who disappear after sanction. I'm also looking forward, not in anticipation let's say expect, increasing numbers from the 1.4m entrepreneurs that Cameron keeps boasting about to come a cropper soon. How many of them were forced or badgered off JSA? DWP statistics give no indication whatsoever. You'd think they didn't care.

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 10:13 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:
danesclose wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Morning all. I wonder if Owen Jones will resign, or will he continue taking the Guardian's pay packet?

I don't think that is particularly fair on him....he has to earn money like we all do and where else in the MSM would he go?

I think it is fine for him to highlight these things whilst remaining at the paper...in theory the ethos remains a wishy washy centre-left and so his politics are still consistent with that ethos (he is less wishy washy than the main paper though)

I criticise my employers all the time for some of the strategic decisions made but I wouldn't resign based on that fact

I understand your point of view, but don't necessarily agree with it - why is it so vital that he works for the MSM to earn money?
Also given the position of The Guardian over the recent past (one of the reasons for the existence of this site), and some of Owen Jones' comments about Labour & the Left I just find his position a tad hypocritical. Apologies if I've caused any offence.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 10:24 am

Good-morning, everyone.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 10:39 am

Morning all.

Burnham seems to have boxed himself in with those tweets, have to vote against now surely?

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 10:40 am

danesclose wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
danesclose wrote: Morning all. I wonder if Owen Jones will resign, or will he continue taking the Guardian's pay packet?

I don't think that is particularly fair on him....he has to earn money like we all do and where else in the MSM would he go?

I think it is fine for him to highlight these things whilst remaining at the paper...in theory the ethos remains a wishy washy centre-left and so his politics are still consistent with that ethos (he is less wishy washy than the main paper though)

I criticise my employers all the time for some of the strategic decisions made but I wouldn't resign based on that fact

I understand your point of view, but don't necessarily agree with it - why is it so vital that he works for the MSM to earn money?
Also given the position of The Guardian over the recent past (one of the reasons for the existence of this site), and some of Owen Jones' comments about Labour & the Left I just find his position a tad hypocritical. Apologies if I've caused any offence.

It isn't "vital" that he works for the MSM, no.

But - as a writer and journalist of a left-wing persuasion, he's a rarity in the MSM these days, and at least if he's in the G or on QT he's getting an alternative voice out there.

Interesting factoid - in 2013 he won the Young Writer of the Year at the Political Book Awards. The prize is only £3,000, but he gave half the money to support Lisa Forbes election campaign and the rest to Disabled People Against Cuts.

Maybe some of his recent outpourings come across as hypocritical - but he's red through and through. I don't always agree with what he says (especially his recent thing about the EU) but I can't deny his sincerity.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 10:46 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning.

norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 15m15 minutes ago
So on Labour welfare revolt. Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper will back @HarrietHarman . Jeremy Corbyn will rebel. No word from Andy Burnham

Andy Burnham ‏@andyburnhammp 37m37 minutes ago
.@George_Osborne - playing politics with the lives of low-paid & vulnerable people since 2010 > http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Andy Burnham ‏@andyburnhammp 23m23 minutes ago
What's progressive, Mr Osborne, about cutting tax credits for low-paid families whilst giving £1bn inheritance tax cut for 26,000 people?
Tweets like that make me think he should 'rebel' - but will he?

I expect not, because he would surely have to leave the SC - and I doubt if he is ready to "burn bridges" like that at this stage.

He might make a point of actually staying away rather than turning up to Osborne's fatuous charade??

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 11:11 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning.

norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 15m15 minutes ago
So on Labour welfare revolt. Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper will back @HarrietHarman . Jeremy Corbyn will rebel. No word from Andy Burnham

Andy Burnham ‏@andyburnhammp 37m37 minutes ago
.@George_Osborne - playing politics with the lives of low-paid & vulnerable people since 2010 > http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Andy Burnham ‏@andyburnhammp 23m23 minutes ago
What's progressive, Mr Osborne, about cutting tax credits for low-paid families whilst giving £1bn inheritance tax cut for 26,000 people?
Tweets like that make me think he should 'rebel' - but will he?
I expect not, because he would surely have to leave the SC - and I doubt if he is ready to "burn bridges" like that at this stage.

He might make a point of actually staying away rather than turning up to Osborne's fatuous charade??

Seems to me the only way out of this for Burnham, with integrity intact, is to convince Harman behind the scenes to have a change of heart. She may be persuaded on the grounds that Corbyn is sure to vote against and if he is the only leadership contender to do so, it could seriously boost his campaign. The fact Labour have tabled amendment is already pointing to Harman having to concede on this point. As she won't be leader in future it is better for her to back down than Burnham, who is still favourite for the role.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 11:34 am

Re Owen Jones : better he said it than not saying it, isn't it? And if he didn't work for them, who would care what he thought?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 11:36 am

Yes, OJ is not responsible for the Graun deciding to let Gidiot troll their readers. I naively hoped this sort of stuff had departed with Rubbisher, evidently not

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 11:37 am

Willow904 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning.
Tweets like that make me think he should 'rebel' - but will he?
I expect not, because he would surely have to leave the SC - and I doubt if he is ready to "burn bridges" like that at this stage.

He might make a point of actually staying away rather than turning up to Osborne's fatuous charade??
Seems to me the only way out of this for Burnham, with integrity intact, is to convince Harman behind the scenes to have a change of heart. She may be persuaded on the grounds that Corbyn is sure to vote against and if he is the only leadership contender to do so, it could seriously boost his campaign. The fact Labour have tabled amendment is already pointing to Harman having to concede on this point. As she won't be leader in future it is better for her to back down than Burnham, who is still favourite for the role.

Problem with that is Cooper having backed Harman's position.

Harman caused this fiasco. Cooper and Burnham should've agreed to both vote against. There's enough in there to justify on different grounds. Isolates Kendall, stops Corbyn being the sole dissenter and puts the SNP MPs back in their box.

Harman threw herself under the bus, no one pushed her. She needs to carry the can for this.

Just my 2ps worth

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 11:44 am

StephenDolan wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote: I expect not, because he would surely have to leave the SC - and I doubt if he is ready to "burn bridges" like that at this stage.

He might make a point of actually staying away rather than turning up to Osborne's fatuous charade??
Seems to me the only way out of this for Burnham, with integrity intact, is to convince Harman behind the scenes to have a change of heart. She may be persuaded on the grounds that Corbyn is sure to vote against and if he is the only leadership contender to do so, it could seriously boost his campaign. The fact Labour have tabled amendment is already pointing to Harman having to concede on this point. As she won't be leader in future it is better for her to back down than Burnham, who is still favourite for the role.
Problem with that is Cooper having backed Harman's position.

Harman caused this fiasco. Cooper and Burnham should've agreed to both vote against. There's enough in there to justify on different grounds. Isolates Kendall, stops Corbyn being the sole dissenter and puts the SNP MPs back in their box.

Harman threw herself under the bus, no one pushed her. She needs to carry the can for this.

Just my 2ps worth

Has Cooper backed Harman's position or just Harman? In other words, is there still scope for Harman to change her mind and leave Burnham and Cooper the freedom to vote against without challenging her authority as leader? Perhaps she could discover a flaw in the small print that allows her to change her mind?

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 11:59 am

Willow904 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:
Willow904 wrote: Seems to me the only way out of this for Burnham, with integrity intact, is to convince Harman behind the scenes to have a change of heart. She may be persuaded on the grounds that Corbyn is sure to vote against and if he is the only leadership contender to do so, it could seriously boost his campaign. The fact Labour have tabled amendment is already pointing to Harman having to concede on this point. As she won't be leader in future it is better for her to back down than Burnham, who is still favourite for the role.
Problem with that is Cooper having backed Harman's position.

Harman caused this fiasco. Cooper and Burnham should've agreed to both vote against. There's enough in there to justify on different grounds. Isolates Kendall, stops Corbyn being the sole dissenter and puts the SNP MPs back in their box.

Harman threw herself under the bus, no one pushed her. She needs to carry the can for this.

Just my 2ps worth
Has Cooper backed Harman's position or just Harman? In other words, is there still scope for Harman to change her mind and leave Burnham and Cooper the freedom to vote against without challenging her authority as leader? Perhaps she could discover a flaw in the small print that allows her to change her mind?

Harman has no authority as leader, she can safely be ignored. I guess Burnham won't want to antagonise her and he is probably bound by collective responsibility. However he needs to vote against, explain why he is voting against and point out Harman is not the elected leader of the Labour Party.

She can sack him, but that would be very unwise.

Osbornes policy is bad economics, insane demographics and it punishes kids for being poor. No Labour MP should vote for this stupidity. The days when the left wing had nowhere else to go are over. Harman and Kendall need to think about that. What worked for Blair in the 90s won't work now.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 12:29 pm

Harriet Harman faces major revolt with Labour bitterly divided over response to welfare cuts

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 01052.html

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 12:43 pm

Johnson's buses- still shit.

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

Boris Johnson is facing criticism over another of his pet projects after batteries in dozens of the London mayor’s new Routemaster-style hybrid buses malfunctioned.

Many of the “Boris buses”, which cost £350,000 each and were intended to halve CO2 emissions, are running almost entirely on diesel, drivers have complained. The engines were supposed to only run when they needed to charge the battery.

Transport for London (TfL) confirmed the electric power supplies on up to 80 of the buses have had to be mended or replaced by the manufacturer.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 12:46 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Schools spending thousands of pounds of public money trying to unfairly boost Ofsted results
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 00507.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... Last night Ofsted said it was imposing a ban on taking part in Mocksteds. A spokeswoman for the education standards watchdog said: “Ofsted has repeatedly said we do not expect, or want, schools to prepare for inspections. Schools should do nothing other than focus on providing a good education.”

She added: “Under the terms of their new engagement, Ofsted inspectors will not be allowed to carry out mock Ofsted inspections. Furthermore, we have been clear with our contracted Ofsted inspector workforcethat they are not allowed to carry out mock Ofsted inspections.” A spokeswoman for the Department of Educationsaid: “We have been clear that headteachers do not need to prepare for visits from Ofsted.”...

If I remember correctly, there was a huge cull of outsourced Ofsted inspectors recently...I;m sure their experience might be of use to schools which wouldn't breach the above since they no longer work for contracted companies.

So a school lives and dies by the Ofsted, but they expect schools not to prepare for it?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 12:49 pm

A few schools used to brag about their mock Ofsteds. The Greenwich Free School did, I recall.

Shame the real Ofsted wasn't any good.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 1:03 pm

Note to Eric- I got the early release thing wrong yesterday. The SNP are abolishing the automatic release for prisonsers serving more than 4 years who fail parole but get let out automatically 2/3 of their way through their sentences.

Still looks to me like they're going to have more people in prison. There's also the danger that prisoners are released cold at the end of their sentences.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 1:09 pm

Cadbury take ELEVEN CHOCS from Heroes and Roses tubs but price stays same

FANS of Cadbury chocolates Heroes and Roses got another slap in the face today as the maker reduced the number of treats inside the tubs.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/592363 ... stays-same

And worthwhile remembering, they sell these tubs for far less at Christmas. As low as £4 at times.

GetYou · Post by **GetYou** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 1:32 pm

Sorry I've not been on here for a while, (work + life keep getting in the way) but I've just dropped in to say that I cannot vote for any party which does not oppose these Social Security reforms and I imagine I'm not the only one.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 1:45 pm

Cameron, unambiguously opposing Islamic extremism.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 1:45 pm

GetYou wrote:Sorry I've not been on here for a while, (work + life keep getting in the way) but I've just dropped in to say that I cannot vote for any party which does not oppose these Social Security reforms and I imagine I'm not the only one.

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.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 1:50 pm

I think that obsessing about exactly who will vote what way tonight misses the wider point.

Which is that Harman's bizarre and wrong headed attempt to "bounce" the next elected leader into supporting all this stuff has clearly failed.

The only people actually still backing it are Kendall and her dwindling cult followers, who are about to be humiliated in historic fashion.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 1:53 pm

GetYou wrote:Sorry I've not been on here for a while, (work + life keep getting in the way) but I've just dropped in to say that I cannot vote for any party which does not oppose these Social Security reforms and I imagine I'm not the only one.

It's a straight choice between a bit more electable, but don't really like their politics, or, stay true to Labour's roots and principles regardless.
Leaning towards sticking to my principles. I'm strongly attracted to Corbyn. He is as near the Labour party of my younger days as makes no difference. He has some opinions I disagree with, but few that I couldn't live with.
I think he's probably a little ahead of his time. Give it another five years when even more people are having a hard time, and he could be the best thing since Hovis.

Edited to add:
And being a golden oldie his age doesn't matter to me. In his early seventies in 2015, he might be frailer but his wisdom should more than make up for it. He could be in a wheelchair, but if his brain is sharp that's all that matters.

Edited again to add....No offence to someone in a wheelchair whose brain isn't sharp. Hope you all get what I mean....

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 2:33 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
GetYou wrote:Sorry I've not been on here for a while, (work + life keep getting in the way) but I've just dropped in to say that I cannot vote for any party which does not oppose these Social Security reforms and I imagine I'm not the only one.
It's a straight choice between a bit more electable, but don't really like their politics, or, stay true to Labour's roots and principles regardless.
Leaning towards sticking to my principles. I'm strongly attracted to Corbyn. He is as near the Labour party of my younger days as makes no difference. He has some opinions I disagree with, but few that I couldn't live with.
I think he's probably a little ahead of his time. Give it another five years when even more people are having a hard time, and he could be the best thing since Hovis.

Edited to add:
And being a golden oldie his age doesn't matter to me. In his early seventies in 2015, he might be frailer but his wisdom should more than make up for it. He could be in a wheelchair, but if his brain is sharp that's all that matters.

Edited again to add....No offence to someone in a wheelchair whose brain isn't sharp. Hope you all get what I mean....

Hello!

As I was reading your post, an item on the parlous state of NHS wheelchair provision came onto the BBC TV news. It was hastily ditched in favour of crossing to Sepp Blatter's incoherent and rambling press conference. Priorities, eh?

GetYou · Post by **GetYou** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 2:51 pm

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.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 2:53 pm

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.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 2:58 pm

Roughly what I expected, tbh.

It shouldn't be forgotten that a lot of the PLP have a residual affection for Harman, even if they disagree strongly on this, and don't want to overly humiliate her.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 3:04 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Roughly what I expected, tbh.

It shouldn't be forgotten that a lot of the PLP have a residual affection for Harman, even if they disagree strongly on this, and don't want to overly humiliate her.

I'm so glad that Harriet Harman's finer feelings have been given their rightful due. Sod everyone else.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 3:05 pm

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.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 3:05 pm

My point is that she has actually lost the wider battle on this one, everybody knows it.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 3:05 pm

John Rentoul ‏@JohnRentoul 2h2 hours ago
I wonder. @jameskirkup predicts "someone from Blairite Labour" will defect to Tories in coming months http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... split.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Wouldn't that just give the SNP a veritable orgasm of 'We told you so' ...

Anyway - no idea how stupid or sound this 'prediction' is but if someone does defect - good riddance. You'd really have to be something else to want to join Cameron and IDS and co ...

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 3:08 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
John Rentoul ‏@JohnRentoul 2h2 hours ago
I wonder. @jameskirkup predicts "someone from Blairite Labour" will defect to Tories in coming months http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... split.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Wouldn't that just give the SNP a veritable orgasm of 'We told you so' ...

Anyway - no idea how stupid or sound this 'prediction' is but if someone does defect - good riddance. You'd really have to be something else to want to join Cameron and IDS and co ...

Not just the SNP but everybody in Labour who is not Blairite.

Few things did more harm to the Labour right, and aided the left, in the 1970s than Reg Prentice ratting (after so many rightist Labourites had come to his aid, too)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 3:11 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
John Rentoul ‏@JohnRentoul 2h2 hours ago
I wonder. @jameskirkup predicts "someone from Blairite Labour" will defect to Tories in coming months http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... split.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Wouldn't that just give the SNP a veritable orgasm of 'We told you so' ...

Anyway - no idea how stupid or sound this 'prediction' is but if someone does defect - good riddance. You'd really have to be something else to want to join Cameron and IDS and co ...
Not just the SNP but everybody in Labour who is not Blairite.

Few things did more harm to the Labour right, and aided the left, in the 1970s than Reg Prentice ratting (after so many rightist Labourites had come to his aid, too)

Spooky. I was thinking about him (RP) last night.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 3:11 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:My point is that she has actually lost the wider battle on this one, everybody knows it.

I understand what you are saying ... but at the same time it really highlights - once again - the disconnection. The wider battle you refer to is actually a battle going on in the PLP and the Westminster circle. The real wider perspective is and should be about the people and the country they want to represent - and that certainly hasn't been won by this. It will further disillusion another chunk of people who have been trying to cling on to some hope.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 20 Jul, 2015 3:15 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:My point is that she has actually lost the wider battle on this one, everybody knows it.
I understand what you are saying ... but at the same time it really highlights - once again - the disconnection. The wider battle you refer to is actually a battle going on in the PLP and the Westminster circle. The real wider perspective is and should be about the people and the country they want to represent - and that certainly hasn't been won by this. It will further disillusion another chunk of people who have been trying to cling on to some hope.

Well, that is all fair comment too and the next Labour leader has to take it on board - it is one of the things on which the party's future depends.