Thursday 23rd July 2015

Post by **refitman** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 7:09 am

Morning all.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 7:49 am

Good morning, Refitman, and all.

So - Kendall and Cooper would not serve in any Shadow Cabinet should Corbyn become Labour leader. If asked, that is. Neither would Umunna.

Well, ladies and gent, that's fine with me.

Burnham, on the other hand, says he will serve if asked; which demonstrates to me that he is prepared to put the needs of his party before the his own ambition and would be willing to do his job and support the much-needed opposition to Tory hegemony. Good man.

Corbyn is doing well in the polls. He is my preferred candidate - not because I think he will necessarily make a good PM (although that's possible) but because I think he will make a formidable opponent to the preening popinjay we have as a poor excuse for a PM now.
Whether Corbyn wins or not, this whole business has sent a warning shot across the bows of the Blairites, the Progress clones, the Tory-lite New/Blue Labour types - and my hope is that Labour takes this opportunity to think about what it wants to be.

I have to say that the response of Kendall and Cooper looks very childish. We won't play unless we've got the ball. I would respectfully suggest to both that showing such a lack of respect for a fellow Labour MP with considerably more experience representing his constituency is very rude.
It's also a gift to the other side - the Tories and their lickspittles in the press will have a lot of fun with this.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 8:08 am

Morning refitman, ephemerid and others.

I've always thought the difficulty for Corbyn should he win would be in forming a loyal, committed and experienced shadow cabinet - which is a pretty poor show by the Labour party. I'm glad Burnham hasn't ruled himself out of working with and for him.

I see there is another story being bigged up by the media now ... re Kendall apparently being asked to withdraw so that Corbyn doesn't win. Whoever thought up that idea - if true - is beyond daft and being very disrespectful to those party members who support her and indeed all of us who care about a fair contest.

This tweet has just caught my eye ... seems a bit strange for a Lib Dem to be voting for a Labour leader - is this right? Does the union not care whether one of their members is a member/supporter of another party when they sign them up?

Bill Esterson retweeted
RachelMoses ‏@Rachel_Moses_ 11h11 hours ago
Have persuaded a Lib-Dem friend ( who has a union vote) to vote for @andyburnhammp YAY!!! #Andy4Leader @Andy4Leader

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 8:15 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning refitman, ephemerid and others.

I've always thought the difficulty for Corbyn should he win would be in forming a loyal, committed and experienced shadow cabinet - which is a pretty poor show by the Labour party. I'm glad Burnham hasn't ruled himself out of working with and for him.

I see there is another story being bigged up by the media now ... re Kendall apparently being asked to withdraw so that Corbyn doesn't win. Whoever thought up that idea - if true - is beyond daft and being very disrespectful to those party members who support her and indeed all of us who care about a fair contest.

This tweet has just caught my eye ... seems a bit strange for a Lib Dem to be voting for a Labour leader - is this right? Does the union not care whether one of their members is a member/supporter of another party when they sign them up?

Bill Esterson retweeted
RachelMoses ‏@Rachel_Moses_ 11h11 hours ago
Have persuaded a Lib-Dem friend ( who has a union vote) to vote for @andyburnhammp YAY!!! #Andy4Leader @Andy4Leader

Many Tory voting union members got a vote last time.

Edited to add - the people pushing the Kendall should step aside line clearly don't understand how the Labour election works.

I doubt many of her supporters will choose Corbyn as a preference.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 8:19 am

Well good on John Prescott. Talking a lot of basic common sense on Radio 4 - and calling out the awful skewed reliance on 'advisors' for representation of what's going on by the media.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 8:38 am

Teacher supply agencies searching as far as Canada and Singapore to plug staffing gaps
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educa ... 08272.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... Teacher supply agencies are being forced to search as far afield as Canada and Singapore to plug school staffing gaps as a result of a shortage of fully trained recruits in the UK.

However, strict limits on work permits have meant that up to 60 teachers recruited from the USA to start work in September are unlikely to turn up - as they have been refused permission to work in the UK.

Tish Seabourne, managing director of TimePlan, said she had written to Education Secretary Nicky Morgan to lift the ban...

I was surprised that a senior member of our local Labour party who does a lot of work in health hadn't realised how this cap on skilled workers from abroad could impact on that sector. They thought it wouldn't apply in health and education ... I told her that we (UK) had apparently already reached the limit set by the Tories for this year - and the recruitment crisis in the health service looked set to get much worse without the ability to take more people from overseas. We already have huge staff shortages here in many fields.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 9:23 am

Sadiq Khan and David Lammy may be interested in posts in a Corbyn cabinet.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 9:46 am

Morfternoon all...

With all of the 'Labour in crisis/disarray/useless/can't get elected unless they suck the bile-filled Murkydochian tentacles and prostrate themselves on the altar of vapid Blairite-Thatcherlite voodooconomics', here's the actual response from the rebels who voted against the Bill (with thanks to Ephie, who pointed me to our old friend, The Grim Squeaker...who had found it on LabourList....so, as ever....apologies if it's been linked, but I don't remember seeing it on here)

We are writing as MPs who voted last night to oppose the Government’s Welfare Bill, some by voting for the Labour amendment that said the Bill should be rejected and some by voting against the Bill when that amendment failed.

The debacle of last night must never be repeated.

We are grateful that Andy Burnham showed leadership in moving Labours position to an amendment opposing the Bill. He is clear, as we are clear that this Bill is regressive and hits working families and children.

Andy was right, as someone bound by the collective responsibility of the Shadow Cabinet, despite his personal opposition to the Bill, to abstain. As someone who aspires to lead and unite our Party he was right not to lead a split in Labour, which would have weakened our ability to take the fight to the Tories.

The Parliamentary passage of this legislation has only just begun, this is not the end of the battle. Andy has said that unless the Government make major changes, then as leader, he will oppose this Bill at every opportunity when it is considered by MPs in the Autumn.

http://labourlist.org/2015/07/dozens-of ... eadership/

It seems to me (as an outsider to Labour) that the 40 year old 'divide and rule' strategy is still working as well as ever - left wingers screaming at LabourredTories...Labour screaming and shouting at themselves...moderate/centrist voters looking on, tutting at the 'disarray' and general disunity...whilst Councy Funt and the Monsters of Murkydochia continue to oppress and victimise large swathes of society, continue to ignore any logical human actions, continue to believe(TM) that everything they say and do is absolutely unquestionable and totally correct, continue to destroy society and its' community links....and on and on.

The discussion on here yesterday seemed to revolve around how Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock were 'not good enough' and the 'message from the Left' was rejected by 'the people'....with all due respect, any analysis of electoral results, party policy and leadership is (IMHO) completely useless(TM-SH) without viewing it through the prism of Murkydochia. Never forget how unpopular The Grantham Witch was before the 'great tide of patriotism' that engulfed 'the nation' after the 'strong handling' of the Falklands Conflict....all whipped-up and supported by....guess who

(I know - I'm like a scratched record - but either the old goat was then/is now the most powerful and influential person in Britain/the world (Bernard Ingham briefed the Sun on what to write in the evening, then briefed Thatcher on what they had written the next morning...and Murdoch is renowned for his close (daily) contact with his editors)...or he doesn't actually exist.)

I'm still a 'Burnhamite', am very supportive of the Corbyn message, am not supportive of Kendall (at all) and, as I've said here before, Cooper has some very dodgy links to international finance/Bilderberg etc....but....for me (again - I'm on the outside looking in) it should be Burnham or Cooper (to be clear, I will have no issue whatsoever fully supporting Corbyn if he wins - and you never know - the blinding light of logic and facts, as presented by someone who has never believed(TM) the neo-liberal bullsh1t, just might cause enough of a stir for a vote of 'no confidence' in Clouncy)...I think, however, Burnham or Cooper are stronger all round.

...and some positives...

Burnham - Actively pressed for an Inquiry into Hillsborough (until told to desist by Tory Blur, so is definitely not a Murkydochian)/is very easily exonerated from Mid-Staffs by the actual FACTS/is, I believe(TM) a damn sight better than he's portrayed (by the MSM/Murkydochia

)

Cooper - A woman (I know - shouldn't even be in the sphere of thought....but...Clouncy, Gidiot, G(r)ove(ller), Rhyming slang etc really really won't know what to do....'it's a woman...like St Margaret? No...Like Mumsy? No...Like nanny then? No....Tory cabinet runs around doing an impression of Monty Pythons Upper Class Twi/at of the Year)...and...the biggest of all....she's Mrs Balls....scourge of Gidio-gnome-ics.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 10:01 am

ephemerid wrote:Good morning, Refitman, and all.

So - Kendall and Cooper would not serve in any Shadow Cabinet should Corbyn become Labour leader. If asked, that is. Neither would Umunna.

Well, ladies and gent, that's fine with me.

Burnham, on the other hand, says he will serve if asked; which demonstrates to me that he is prepared to put the needs of his party before the his own ambition and would be willing to do his job and support the much-needed opposition to Tory hegemony. Good man.

Corbyn is doing well in the polls. He is my preferred candidate - not because I think he will necessarily make a good PM (although that's possible) but because I think he will make a formidable opponent to the preening popinjay we have as a poor excuse for a PM now.
Whether Corbyn wins or not, this whole business has sent a warning shot across the bows of the Blairites, the Progress clones, the Tory-lite New/Blue Labour types - and my hope is that Labour takes this opportunity to think about what it wants to be.

I have to say that the response of Kendall and Cooper looks very childish. We won't play unless we've got the ball. I would respectfully suggest to both that showing such a lack of respect for a fellow Labour MP with considerably more experience representing his constituency is very rude.
It's also a gift to the other side - the Tories and their lickspittles in the press will have a lot of fun with this.

Good-morning, Ephemerid & everyone!

I like the way you've described Kendall & Cooper's childishness - exactly so - & it's unworthy behaviour of them both. Hopefully, they've had their spat & have moved on together. Having read some history of the Labour party, personality & ideological clashes the party aren't uncommon.

RobertSnozers wrote yesterday about Labour party members & leadership:

Put five of them together and you'd get eight or nine opinions on the same thing.

http://flythenest.org/viewtopic.php?p=60904#p60904" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Robert's entire post yesterday was full of insight.

The Labour party is probably the most wholesome political party in the UK. For all we may complain about certain Labour MPs being "out of touch", essentially Labour is most representative, it's not facing a lot of competition there, granted. Labour MPs are many regular people, for the most part. It doesn't surprise me Labour leadership argue more & seem to lack cohesiveness, especially at this time. It shouldn't surprise us, we're going to pick a Labour leader soon. We're getting organised. It can get messy.

The negative in all that is Tory government point at that & laugh, attempting to use it to distract the nation.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 10:06 am

I've got to dash out, I'll come back to you all later.
cJA

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 10:47 am

Morning all.

Interesting to see that the DfE have updated their advice on setting up a new school.

Establishing a new school: free school presumption

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... resumption

This replaces the old advice which went under the heading...

Academy and free school presumption

Looks like they've finally realised that having new schools opening by the same provider, some of which are called academies (on one list) and others free schools (on another) was an utter nonsense.

When I looked at the full pages history on the old webpage I saw this:

3 March 2014 9:12am
The advice document has been further updated to provide clarity on local authority assessment of proposals as well as removing the references to the Targeted Basic Need programme, which has ended.

27 February 2014 12:00pm
Document updated to reflect that the Targeted Basic Need programme has now ended.

18 July 2013 10:07am
First published.

It was the schools set up under the Targeted Basic Need which were defined as academies so the difference between schools set up because of pupil numbers (academies) and to give parent choice (free schools) has now gone.

At a guess I'd say the Treasury has said to the DfE "We haven't the money for any new free schools set up just because someone wants to run a school so it's all about whether the LA needs a new school in the area".

At some point I'll do a comparison between the old and new documents.

Edit in italics.
Edit II - scrap that - free school proposals can still go direct to the DfE.

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 10:53 am

Kuennsberg gets the BBC political editor gig. The comments under the Guardian article show that her pro Tory bias has not gone unnoticed.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/j ... cal-editor" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Meanwhile, Peter Oborne has written in the Independent about the cowed BBC and the threat it faces from the government.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 08773.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 11:15 am

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning refitman, ephemerid and others.

I've always thought the difficulty for Corbyn should he win would be in forming a loyal, committed and experienced shadow cabinet - which is a pretty poor show by the Labour party. I'm glad Burnham hasn't ruled himself out of working with and for him.

I see there is another story being bigged up by the media now ... re Kendall apparently being asked to withdraw so that Corbyn doesn't win. Whoever thought up that idea - if true - is beyond daft and being very disrespectful to those party members who support her and indeed all of us who care about a fair contest.

This tweet has just caught my eye ... seems a bit strange for a Lib Dem to be voting for a Labour leader - is this right? Does the union not care whether one of their members is a member/supporter of another party when they sign them up?

Bill Esterson retweeted
RachelMoses ‏@Rachel_Moses_ 11h11 hours ago
Have persuaded a Lib-Dem friend ( who has a union vote) to vote for @andyburnhammp YAY!!! #Andy4Leader @Andy4Leader
Many Tory voting union members got a vote last time.

Edited to add - the people pushing the Kendall should step aside line clearly don't understand how the Labour election works.

I doubt many of her supporters will choose Corbyn as a preference.

Some will though, and others will vote JC 1 LK 2. There's nowt so queer as folk......

Bedford Falls · Post by **Bedford Falls** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 11:39 am

Morning All

More destructive behaviour from the bunch of clowns in power.

After gagging its own pesticide advisors last week

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... icotinoids" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Defra has has bowed to pressure from the farmers’ union to allow crop growers to use neonicotinoids

http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/news/natio ... icide.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 12:04 pm

Pleased to see RobertSnozers back. Trust all is well, other than the Tory power grab that is.

I had a lot to say on that matter and much, much more besides, but haven't time to fully expurgate what I have in mind for a public forum...

I must say it was refreshing to see John Prescott telling everyone to calm down over the Labour leadership battle, and not in the affected manner of Michael Winner, as favoured by our dear PM. Anyway got the heads up on forthcoming design and implementation of web services so am currently refreshing my development skills. Of course I don't reinvent the wheel and examine open source solutions for the sector and don't mind a spot of web design. Shall be busy awhile, upkeep and maintenance too if I play my cards right.

I'll still pop in for a read and whatever may enter my mind. Cheers.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 12:37 pm

Council slams First Great Western service as committee established to hold rail operators to account - See more at:

http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/ ... y47RB.dpuf

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 12:40 pm

Just on the Osborne crackdwon on school back office costs...

UK Education Matters ‏@SchoolDuggery Jul 21
Term finally ends for all. Except those wasteful back-office staff getting accounts done and organising maintenance. Overpaid slackers.

and

UK Education Matters ‏@SchoolDuggery Jul 21
Everyone's heart sink when reading that? "Back office" sounds so unimportant. When really it's vital stuff that frees teachers to teach.

Yep, couldn't agree more. I've just come back from a meeting with our school business manager who is trying to organise some work during the holidays to get some more learning space - it's complicated....

Term? Oh that ended yesterday...HT and senior learning leader were in as well and will be tomorrow. Others will be in during the holidays too. Work needs to get done - they don't simply shut the school and return when the kids come in.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 1:39 pm

John Prescott tells Tony Blair it is Iraq and not Jeremy Corbyn that stops people voting Labour

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 09669.html

I have a very small circle of friends who used to be Labour voters...And three of them said they wouldn't support Labour anymore because of Iraq. I think Prescott has hit the nail on the head to a certain extent.

It seems a bit daft to me. I hated what Blair did and we are still seeing the consequences, but what's done is done and as long as a lesson is learned, you have to move on.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 1:44 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
John Prescott tells Tony Blair it is Iraq and not Jeremy Corbyn that stops people voting Labour

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 09669.html
I have a very small circle of friends who used to be Labour voters...And three of them said they wouldn't support Labour anymore because of Iraq. I think Prescott has hit the nail on the head to a certain extent.

It seems a bit daft to me. I hated what Blair did and we are still seeing the consequences, but what's done is done and as long as a lesson is learned, you have to move on.

Cameron and his lickspittles are incapable of learning a lesson. Too thick.

The way I look at it. Blair killed a lot of people with Iraq. Supporting Corbyn hasn't - yet.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 2:43 pm

Some may agree

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com ... shame.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As good a defence of Corbyn's support as there is.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 2:58 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:Some may agree

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com ... shame.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As good a defence of Corbyn's support as there is.

Thanks for the link.

There's a certain amount of truth in the article and it doesn't make a positive case for any of the others.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 3:00 pm

Oh -

Good morfternoon!

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 3:00 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:Some may agree

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com ... shame.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As good a defence of Corbyn's support as there is.

Good read, thanks.

Capture one, or a combination of Ukippers, soft Tories, disaffected non-voting Labour supporters.

There may be an agreement of certain policies, but how often do voters not vote for someone because of a policy they vehemently disagree with? Are elections for governments to lose or is the fear or suspicion of the alternative enough to say Stick?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 3:04 pm

Just to say hello and welcome to Bedford Falls. I hadn't spotted you as a new poster until today - so sorry for being a bit late with the welcome.

I've been musing about your username - sounds as though it could be a posh area in the States with lots of green space and trees between large houses - or something to do with the demise of Bedford UK rather like the fall of Jericho.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 3:14 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:Some may agree

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com ... shame.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As good a defence of Corbyn's support as there is.

It has several good points, and captures the essential truth that much of his "support" is a vote of no confidence in the other candidates.

As rightly said by your good self last night, Burnham and Cooper refusing to even say if they would offer EM a job was one of their low points in this contest

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 3:19 pm

Paul Waugh retweeted
HuffPostUK Politics ‏@HuffPostUKPol 3h3 hours ago
.@DawnButlerBrent is chuffed with her #whatswrongwithyou hashtag after Kay Burley interview: http://huff.to/1SDZ6lk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's cheered me up. Not surprised it sparked a hashtag - brilliant straightforward response to Burley's hectoring ... one a lot of people probably wish they'd made.

Bedford Falls · Post by **Bedford Falls** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 3:23 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Just to say hello and welcome to Bedford Falls. I hadn't spotted you as a new poster until today - so sorry for being a bit late with the welcome.

I've been musing about your username - sounds as though it could be a posh area in the States with lots of green space and trees between large houses - or something to do with the demise of Bedford UK rather like the fall of Jericho.

Hi Rebecca. Thanks for the welcome. I'm not strictly a newbie but only post once in a blue moon.

The user name is the town in 'It's a Wonderful Life'. Seemed apt as I am looking for a new home and obviously would like to find a little Utopian community (I may have to go back to the 1940s though)

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 3:30 pm

Bedford Falls wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Just to say hello and welcome to Bedford Falls. I hadn't spotted you as a new poster until today - so sorry for being a bit late with the welcome.

I've been musing about your username - sounds as though it could be a posh area in the States with lots of green space and trees between large houses - or something to do with the demise of Bedford UK rather like the fall of Jericho.
Hi Rebecca. Thanks for the welcome. I'm not strictly a newbie but only post once in a blue moon.

The user name is the town in 'It's a Wonderful Life'. Seemed apt as I am looking for a new home and obviously would like to find a little Utopian community (I may have to go back to the 1940s though)

Ah - so it is American inspired - got that bit right then. Good luck with looking for a little Utopia. I often say that we are living in a paradise ... but a lot of very hard graft is required to live here (or scads of money to pay someone else to do the hard graft).

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 3:42 pm

Have I shown you this before?

http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-e ... ction-2015" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is Vernon Bogdanor on the 2015 election. Well worth watching.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 3:42 pm

Tracy Young ‏@theblondebmw 46 mins46 minutes ago

So followers what happens if Labour senior figures get their way about Corbyn it's obvious that they're not very happy with us at mo?

John Hughes ‏@JohnHughes127 8 mins8 minutes ago

@theblondebmw Don't Vote Labour any more! what else can we be expected to do, if denied the right to choose a Leader of Choice, "What"else.

A lot of people thinking this?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 4:00 pm

Jonathan Reynolds MP retweeted
DECC ‏@DECCgovuk 25m25 minutes ago
Green Deal Finance Company funding to end http://ow.ly/PZxlG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another one bites the dust.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 4:07 pm

Jamie Reed ‏@jreedmp 3m3 minutes ago Newcastle Upon Tyne, England
To all you Labour voters out there and to all those who wanted to vote for us, but just couldn't in the end, I really, really, really...

Jamie Reed ‏@jreedmp 3m3 minutes ago Newcastle Upon Tyne, England
...hope that Labour activists - partic those who weren't around to suffer Thatcherism - don't let you down. Two wasted defeats are enough.

That's not helpful. As a Labour 'activist' I don't like his presumption that it will somehow be our fault if he doesn't get the leadership contest result he wants ... or gets the one he really doesn't want. Are 'activists' all the same now - a homogenous group - or not allowed to have their own opinions - or at fault if they don't agree with him? He seems to be singling out younger 'activists' as somehow not having the same right to an opinion as others 'those who weren't around to suffer Thatcherism'. Does he not think they have already suffered the results of Thatcherism and then some under Cameron and Osborne?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 4:11 pm

Jim Pickard ‏@PickardJE 11m11 minutes ago
Jim Pickard retweeted oliver wright
It was a Tory initiative. I thought it was going to be "the biggest home improvement programme since WW2".

oliver wright
‏@oliver_wright
So the Green Deal is dead. Killed off on the sly the day after Parliament rises. Not good.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/gree ... ing-to-end" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 4:18 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Teacher supply agencies searching as far as Canada and Singapore to plug staffing gaps
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educa ... 08272.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... Teacher supply agencies are being forced to search as far afield as Canada and Singapore to plug school staffing gaps as a result of a shortage of fully trained recruits in the UK.

However, strict limits on work permits have meant that up to 60 teachers recruited from the USA to start work in September are unlikely to turn up - as they have been refused permission to work in the UK.

Tish Seabourne, managing director of TimePlan, said she had written to Education Secretary Nicky Morgan to lift the ban...
I was surprised that a senior member of our local Labour party who does a lot of work in health hadn't realised how this cap on skilled workers from abroad could impact on that sector. They thought it wouldn't apply in health and education ... I told her that we (UK) had apparently already reached the limit set by the Tories for this year - and the recruitment crisis in the health service looked set to get much worse without the ability to take more people from overseas. We already have huge staff shortages here in many fields.
A lot of people in politics don't get it. I was talking to a Tory councillor a few years ago during a very complicated debate on maternity and paediatric services, which had to be reconfigured around the long term available staff numbers. 'How many Paediatricians do you need?' she demanded. Not as simple as that, I replied. 'You don't know, do you?' Not as simple as that. It takes seven years to train a doctor to basic qualified level, more for a staff grade, and you can't control which area they'll choose to specialise in. And you need a certain number at a certain grade, including consultants. 'Well we needed X number of teachers so we just recruited them. How can you not know how many paediatricians you need?' [Exasperated] I'm just a press officer, I have no idea. [Triumphantly] 'Well I expect my press officers to know things like this! If you were my press officer, I'd sack you!' If I were your press officer, I'd happily go.

NHS Trusts exist on staff from abroad. Most of them have 'missions' to other countries to find long-term, sustainable sources of staff. The previous points system already made it more difficult because it meant trying to recruit more senior medics and adapt them to the NHS rather than just bringing them over as students and training them from the start in British practices. We're going to get another crisis in no time if this is how things are going.

This is a real problem in the NHS - and always has been. (And it's good to see you, Robert)

Back in my Westminster A&E days, we had a skeleton staff of 3 nurses in night duty. 1 sister/senior staff nurse, 1 other qualified, and 1 student nurse (we were lucky as we didn't get them until they were in their third year).
Some nights it was enough; others it was nowhere near enough - and the nature of the work meant that you could never predict what would be a safe staffing level. There was a fair bit of pressure to avoid putting senior (and thus more expensive) people on at the weekends - when we were likely to be at our busiest.
The wards are not so difficult to assess - but even there it doesn't take much for a situation to change from adequate to dangerous if the status of one patient goes from stable to critical. Someone goes into shock or cardiac arrest, or a very poorly emergency comes in from A&E or post-op, and all your staff are tied up with nobody covering the other patients.

How you do that for a hospital is one thing; how you predict what that hospital will need in X years' time is a very inexact science. The length of time it takes to train people, the new advances in medicine (which can happen really quickly) and something completely random like a new housing estate in the area or a hospital closure in the next county can increase demand unexpectedly.

Hunt, of course, has stopped the work being done on safe staffing. I can imagine why. He also wants trusts to stop spending money on agency staff, but has no ideas on how hospitals are supposed to staff their wards and departments without them.
What doesn't help is budgetary controls - if there are limited funds for staff, then either the skill mix will suffer with unqualified or inexperienced staff in the right numbers, or numbers will not be enough if senior staff are retained.

Another problem is pay. A newly-qualified staff nurse on NHS rates (Band 5) gets just under £12/hour; a sister/charge nurse (Band 7) capable of running a ward or department gets just over £17/hour - these are the minimum. Shift allowances are not generous.
Working for Thornbury, the newly-qualified nurse will get £29/hour basic and up to £65/hour for weekends, nights, bank holidays; the more senior nurse can get between £36/hour and £93.50/hour - Thornbury also offers a pension scheme and generous mileage.

Many nurses have been downgraded (as with Serco in the West Country) or find themselves stuck on the same grade for longer. Nurses' pay is much better than it was; but terms and conditions are not so good, and there is as much unpaid overtime going on as there ever was. They earn a lot more doing agency and can pick and choose when they work - I don't blame them for doing it, frankly.

Hunt and the Tories will not be able to staff the NHS if they insist on their new immigration rules; they are running out of doctors wanting to be GPs and there are serious rumblings of discontent among consultants now; given how much more our home-grown medics and nurses can earn if they go abroad or work through agencies, what Hunt is doing will cost the NHS a lot more than just staffing it properly and paying those staff a decent salary.
Tens of billions are being wasted on training for staff who either leave or do another job, on agency fees and high rates of pay, and on top of that the costly re-organisations and re-configurations that never have a chance to bed in. As Robert points out, this stuff is very complicated - there really needs to be an over-arching decade-plus-long strategy for planning how our NHS will develop and how to recruit and retain the people we need.

We already know from the experience with Circle that chucking large amounts of cash at a private provider, even giving them the right to cut services as they see fit, doesn't work any better than the standard NHS for the services they haven't cut. And the stupidity of all these reforms and diktats is that the NHS remains one of the best value-for-money systems in the world and all these changes are costing more than they save. It's sheer lunacy.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 5:47 pm

''Jeremy Corbyn accused of inaction over paedophile scandal

Labour MP John Mann says leadership contender Mr Corbyn "did nothing" about allegations of child abuse in Islington in 1980s''

''...In an open letter to Mr Corbyn, he said: "Your inaction in the 1980s and 1990s says a lot, not about your personal character, which I admire, but about your politics which I do not.
Your carefully worded excusing of Islington Council in the House of Commons equally demonstrates why it is inappropriate for you to attempt to lead the Labour Party at the critical time of the Goddard Enquiry, as child abuse is the issue that will haunt this Parliament."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... andal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another thing to make me less inclined to vote with my heart.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 6:17 pm

Local rag in Bournemouth gets "some" answers re free school farce.

TWO years after it first opened to pupils, the amount of public money spent on Bournemouth's first free school still remains a mystery.

Despite the fact it has been open since September 2013, the total amount of money spent on Parkfield Free School is still not in the public domain.

The Echo's latest Freedom of Information request to the Department for Education was, in the main, refused on the grounds that the capital costs of the project have not yet been finalised.

We asked how much government money in total has been spent to date on Parkfield, but instead the DfE would only give us limited information about the school's pre-opening and post-opening expenditure that revealed the school received £145,807.46 before opening and £467,500 afterwards.

However the DfE does publish lists of payments over £25,000 and these appear to show that between July and December 2013, a total of £2.14million was paid to Parkfield Education Limited, the trust that set up the school.

These are described simply as 'Free School Capital Costs' but the information is so limited and difficult to identify that there is no guarantee these are the total costs.

Land registry records also show that Parkfield paid £3million for the College of Air Traffic Control at Hurn, which was set to be its new home from this September but has now been delayed by a year following the discovery of bats.

So, from what the DfE is prepared to put in the public domain, the trust have received (have I got this right?) about £2.75m.

From this they found £3m for the temporary site. Not to mention the cost of running the school for 3 years, acquiring the permanent site and all the arsing about with the bats.

Hmmm.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 6:18 pm

This is looks like a lie.

Mr Timpson said they had "always intended" that Parkfield School would operate from temporary accommodation from September 2015 and had set aside money for this.

He said the budget allocated for temporary classrooms will now be used to pay an additional year's rent at Dorset House.

Because it looks to lots of people like it was supposed to be in the permanent building until some bats were discovered in it.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 7:17 pm

Hadn't seen this from the other day.

Labour’s Emma Lewell-Buck asks Cameron to confirm that a care worker in her constituency will be worse off because of the tax credit cuts, even allowing for the increase in the minimum wage.

Cameron says that worker will benefit from the minimum wage increase.

Last night Labour voted against that, he says. “Put that on your leaflets.”

They didn't vote against increasing the minimum wage. Lying and utterly spiteful.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 7:26 pm

"And you sound like Sarah Millican anyway", the PM added.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 7:31 pm

yahyah wrote:''Jeremy Corbyn accused of inaction over paedophile scandal

Labour MP John Mann says leadership contender Mr Corbyn "did nothing" about allegations of child abuse in Islington in 1980s''

''...In an open letter to Mr Corbyn, he said: "Your inaction in the 1980s and 1990s says a lot, not about your personal character, which I admire, but about your politics which I do not.
Your carefully worded excusing of Islington Council in the House of Commons equally demonstrates why it is inappropriate for you to attempt to lead the Labour Party at the critical time of the Goddard Enquiry, as child abuse is the issue that will haunt this Parliament."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... andal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another thing to make me less inclined to vote with my heart.

As ever with the Telegraph, it's left to the very end of the article before they point out that Corbyn (who is called "he" in the paragraph) was calling for a public enquiry as soon as the abuse came to light.

One could be forgiven for thinking that it was Mann who did this. After all, it was Mann, according to Mann, who exposed the goings-on at Dolphin Square.....except he didn't. His dossier came from information sourced by Exaro.
Mann is also, apparently, the scourge of all expenses cheats. He should know what cheating on expenses is all about, as he employs his wife on £35K PA to work in his constituency office, where I believe she is rarely seen.
Mann was elected to Parliament 20 years after Corbyn, and I personally doubt that he has much of a clue what Corbyn did or didn't do. The reason why Corbyn wrote to Islington Council was to try to work with them and get them to co-operate with an enquiry.

The Telegraph does this all the time. Mann - who threatens people who are rude to him on Twitter with legal action - is a self-publicist. Whilst he has been good on CSA recently, and very good on drug treatment and rehab, I think he's just stirring things here.

If there is a Labour villain here, it's the council - as led at the time by Margaret Hodge. They ignored the reports of abuse for years.

Corbyn has also asked for a standing commission on child abuse (in the '90s) and wants any current or future enquiries to be made internationally if necessary to prevent paedophiles escaping justice.

I daresay it's entirely possible he didn't do enough 20, 30 years ago. It's proven fact that neither did anyone else. The victims have been waiting for decades for any enquiry at all - and all our elected representatives are guilty of dragging their feet.

Remember all the outrage about PIE during the election campaign? That was later shown to be nonsense and that many people were hoodwinked by PIE people so that they could get into reputable organisations and influence things their way.

This is more of the same. Things are not what they seem. In my humble opinion.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 7:32 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Hadn't seen this from the other day.

Labour’s Emma Lewell-Buck asks Cameron to confirm that a care worker in her constituency will be worse off because of the tax credit cuts, even allowing for the increase in the minimum wage.

Cameron says that worker will benefit from the minimum wage increase.

Last night Labour voted against that, he says. “Put that on your leaflets.”
They didn't vote against increasing the minimum wage. Lying and utterly spiteful.

Yup. And notice that he doesn't answer her actual question - of course. The care worker might benefit from the wage increase but experience far more disbenefit from the tax credit cut - and, yes, be worse off. But Cameron just cites the increase in the minimum wage ... won't answer properly.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 7:41 pm

John Rentoul ‏@JohnRentoul 3h3 hours ago
I repeat, Labour is preparing to elect the assassin of its most successful leader as deputy.

Sheesh. Will someone please turn the heat down. This is getting beyond ridiculous. What kind of language / venom is that?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 7:49 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
John Rentoul ‏@JohnRentoul 3h3 hours ago
I repeat, Labour is preparing to elect the assassin of its most successful leader as deputy.
Sheesh. Will someone please turn the heat down. This is getting beyond ridiculous. What kind of language / venom is that?

You clearly didn't see his Indie piece today, then.

A completely unhinged rant, the most glorious moment of which was absolving Clegg of any blame for the LibDem wipeout - it was all Miliband's fault, apparently

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 7:52 pm

A lot of people in politics don't get it. I was talking to a Tory councillor a few years ago during a very complicated debate on maternity and paediatric services, which had to be reconfigured around the long term available staff numbers. 'How many Paediatricians do you need?' she demanded. Not as simple as that, I replied. 'You don't know, do you?' Not as simple as that. It takes seven years to train a doctor to basic qualified level, more for a staff grade, and you can't control which area they'll choose to specialise in. And you need a certain number at a certain grade, including consultants. 'Well we needed X number of teachers so we just recruited them. How can you not know how many paediatricians you need?' [Exasperated] I'm just a press officer, I have no idea. [Triumphantly] 'Well I expect my press officers to know things like this! If you were my press officer, I'd sack you!' If I were your press officer, I'd happily go.

Robert, thanks for this.

She was asking about extra paediatricians you'd need to recruit at a fixed point in the future, have I understood that correctly? If so, to take her own teacher analogy further, it's like asking how many head of departments/ school leaders you'll need in X years time.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 7:53 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
John Rentoul ‏@JohnRentoul 3h3 hours ago
I repeat, Labour is preparing to elect the assassin of its most successful leader as deputy.
Sheesh. Will someone please turn the heat down. This is getting beyond ridiculous. What kind of language / venom is that?

No sense that Blair had outstayed his welcome at all.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 7:56 pm

Meanwhile, a MORI poll (yes, yes, I know) has come out re the Labour leadership.

It gives Burnham easily the best ratings (he is even ranked top by Tory voters) whilst Liz "SHE IS THE *ONLY* ONE THE TORIES FEAR" Kendall is only just ahead of Corbyn

(in an almost Rentoulian feat of mental gymnastics, George Eaton managed to fit in the above trope re LK even whilst reporting these figures)

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 7:56 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
John Rentoul ‏@JohnRentoul 3h3 hours ago
I repeat, Labour is preparing to elect the assassin of its most successful leader as deputy.
Sheesh. Will someone please turn the heat down. This is getting beyond ridiculous. What kind of language / venom is that?
You clearly didn't see his Indie piece today, then.

A completely unhinged rant, the most glorious moment of which was absolving Clegg of any blame for the LibDem wipeout - it was all Miliband's fault, apparently

The media lobby 'bubble' seems to be more pernicious and inward looking than even the politicians Westminster bubble. Talk about looking 'backwards'...

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 8:02 pm

Also - I want to say this on the subject of CSA.

I saw many abused children during my time in various A&E departments. Mostly, the abuse was physical violence - shaking, hitting, or appalling neglect. Plus the occasional Munchausen By Proxy, which were horrible.

I was lucky in that I only saw a few confirmed cases of CSA, although there were quite a few more where it was suspected. After those children left the hospital, whether in the care of social services or not, we rarely found out what happened to them unless they came back again.

On one occasion at St.Charles' the doctor refused to release the child, despite the child not really needing a hospital admission to a ward, because the social worker was insistent that the child would be OK at home under her supervision. There was physical evidence of historical long-term abuse. We admitted her anyway (which you couldn't do now). Eventually, she was taken to foster carers.

I don't think people - apart from the abusers and their victims - generally understand how hard it used to be to raise the question at all, let alone get anything done about it. It got a lot worse after the Cleveland scandal in 1987 when 121 children were diagnosed as abused by a controversial test; a year later, 94 of the children removed from their parents were returned. After that, not many doctors were prepared to diagnose abuse unless there was overwhelming evidence.
All this played into the hands of abusers - I suspect many genuine cases that could and should have been dealt with weren't as a direct result. On top of all that, we know now that police, councils, all manner of professionals who should know better, have been ignoring warning signs and actual hard evidence for years.

I think Mann is just being unnecessarily picky here. And I think the Telegraph - just to add it's vitriol to its exhortation to vote Corbyn for £3 - is doing it's usual thing of rubbishing Labour at any given opportunity even if the story isn't entirely accurate.
Corbyn is no better and no worse than any other politician of his generation on this - and unlike some, he at least isn't enmeshed in the corruption, or with the people, who have been named by reputable sources as not only covering up abuse but actually perpetrating it themselves.

Personally, yahyah, I'd be disinclined to take what Mann says as gospel.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 8:16 pm

Beth Rigby retweeted
Richard Fletcher ‏@fletcherr 20m20 minutes ago
Web providers set to face multimillion-pound broadband levy - reports @FT's @BethRigby http://on.ft.com/1Dz0FtO" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can't access the FT now (they changed / withdrew their free limited access deal a little while ago ... wonder if that was in preparation for the sell off).

This smells like it means a new cost which will be passed on to broadband customers. Hey peeps - we'll get rid of the £3 contribution you make to green crap on your annual energy bill - and replace it with an extra £5 a month for the service that already drives you mad because you don't think you get what you pay for.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 23 Jul, 2015 8:39 pm

dominic dyer ‏@domdyer70 13h13 hours ago
Growing anger over shortage of TB vaccine for badgers as DEFRA reliance on one supplier causes supply cut off until start 2016

FFS.

and

dominic dyer ‏@domdyer70 3h3 hours ago
Panic in NFU as Chancellor demands 40% budget cut at DEFRA badger cull could be for the chop RT http://www.fginsight.com/news/defras-fu ... -cuts-4985" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

They might actually have to pay for the slaughter themselves ... that's what the panic is about. They've been heavily subsidised by Defra (loans of cages etc) to date. Not to mention the cost of policing (and the police are looking at further cuts of up to 30%). Of course - the line that was spun to justify this was that this would be farmer led and paid for.