Tuesday 28th July 2015

[AnatolyKasparov]

A new "private poll" of Labour leadership voters has been leaked and reported by the Daily Mirror - it has Cooper in 2nd ahead of Burnham (hmmmm........)

Corbyn well ahead in the first round, but only beating YC in the end by 51-49.

I have my suspicions of where it is from (one of the female candidates camps, for 99.9% certain - it also gives Kendall a suspiciously generous 14%)

But still interesting despite the above caveats. Jezza doesn't have this in the bag yet, far from it.

[Tubby Isaacs]

It's called a universal benefit because it benefits us all, of course the scions of the rich will benefit, as did the current cohort of incompetents. The rest of us benefit far more which outweighs the minuscule cost of Tarquin and Leonora's kids getting something for their taxes. At the same time it is more socially cohesive.

Try and raise £10bn of extra taxes for it. Chances are you won't be able to. And the same will happen as happens in Scotland- you'll be taking money out of targeted spending on the poor.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3159791" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And it's not a universal benefit if the majority of people go nowhere near a university.

If you can raise the money, spend it on schools which benefit far more people directly, and benefit society indirectly just as universities do.

If we move to something along the lines of a Finnish model, and cut tax breaks for rich old public schools, then free university education is only part of the solution, it has to be done with investment and renationalising our schools and colleges. The private sector waste in the schools sector at the moment seems phenomenal - though I havent seen any figures. Whether we go back to an LEA model, or something more regional for oversight, I don't know, but I am damn sure it will save millions for education.

Free Uni is bollucks on its own, I agree, it has to be part of an integrated education system that starts at primary and follows students to the end of their education, whether in a uni a technical coll, or real apprenticeship.

I agree with that.

I'd go with beefed up oversight of providers first (academy chains can't be inspected at the moment, outrageously). Then lots of the problems will sort themselves out.

Where we came into this discussion was Corbyn. £10bn for unversities to me looks exactly like what you're talking calling bollocks- a populist splurge. Spend most of the money further down.

Scotland has an awful record on access to higher education (though it predates the SNP, to be fair to them). The previous government relied far too much on cutting fees to improve access. It doesn't work.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Again, I think the SNP give some clues on rail renationalization- ie they avoid it for as long as possible.

If it were the easy anti-Red Tories gain people think it is, why would they do it?

They can't, (without the connivance of Westminster). They are constrained by the Railways Act 1993, which is reserved:

The current legal framework puts a number of constraints on how the Scottish Ministers might enable the provision of rail services in Scotland. For example-
•The Railways Act 1993 contains provision to prevent public sector operation of rail passenger franchises. The bodies to which the prohibition applies include the Scottish Ministers, all UK government departments and all UK local authorities. However, there is no corresponding statutory ban on foreign public sector bodies being able to bid for and operate UK franchises.
•The Railways Act 1993 requires, for all practical purposes, that rail passenger services should only be provided through a franchise. The Scottish Parliament does not have the power to amend the Railways Act 1993 in this regard to provide otherwise.

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/rai ... s-act-1993

But they could have got new powers to nationalize soon if they'd really wanted them. They nonetheless put stuff out on longish contracts, and in the case of the Sleeper a very long one.

[rebeccariots2]

There's quite a few policy ideas in this piece:

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 32m32 minutes ago
Lab shd ignore 'Tory Press' + go for new social care tax, says @Andy4Leader. Adds decision will be upto a commission http://huff.to/1Iqx3o8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Eric_WLothian]

I believe Reading Council stills owns and runs their buses.

Edinburgh Council own the majority (c90%) of shares in Lothian Buses who operate in the city and throughout the Lothians (except West Lothian). Flat fare is £1.50 per journey (unlimited day ticket around £4, I think).
in 2013:

The company will pay a dividend of nearly £3.3m to local authority shareholders.
http://lothianbuses.com/news/article/lo ... -best-year

LB's vehicles are modern and, as far as buses can be, generally environmentally friendly.
Contrast this with West Lothian services operated by FirstBus - £3.60 single fare for a journey to Edinburgh (about 15 miles) in an old banger which may or may not break down on the 1.5 hour journey!

[AnatolyKasparov]

There's quite a few policy ideas in this piece:

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 32m32 minutes ago
Lab shd ignore 'Tory Press' + go for new social care tax, says @Andy4Leader. Adds decision will be upto a commission http://huff.to/1Iqx3o8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, should have been more stuff like this earlier in the campaign - and less worry about being tarred with the silly and essentially meaningless "continuity Miliband" label.

[Eric_WLothian]

Again, I think the SNP give some clues on rail renationalization- ie they avoid it for as long as possible.

If it were the easy anti-Red Tories gain people think it is, why would they do it?

They can't, (without the connivance of Westminster). They are constrained by the Railways Act 1993, which is reserved:

The current legal framework puts a number of constraints on how the Scottish Ministers might enable the provision of rail services in Scotland. For example-
•The Railways Act 1993 contains provision to prevent public sector operation of rail passenger franchises. The bodies to which the prohibition applies include the Scottish Ministers, all UK government departments and all UK local authorities. However, there is no corresponding statutory ban on foreign public sector bodies being able to bid for and operate UK franchises.
•The Railways Act 1993 requires, for all practical purposes, that rail passenger services should only be provided through a franchise. The Scottish Parliament does not have the power to amend the Railways Act 1993 in this regard to provide otherwise.

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/rai ... s-act-1993

But they could have got new powers to nationalize soon if they'd really wanted them. They nonetheless put stuff out on longish contracts, and in the case of the Sleeper a very long one.

I agree that they should have held off until after the GE but I doubt whether they would have persuaded the Tories to devolve the necessary powers.
Whether they want the power is another matter (Railways are all Westminster's fault)! I'll stick by my perception of the SNP as Tartan Tories.

[HindleA]

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



An open letter from a doctor to Jeremy Hunt

[howsillyofme1]

Evening everyone

Will probably be my last post for a while, if not ever, as I have become totally disillusioned with the political situation in the UK

I am no longer a UK resident, as you will know if you read my post explaining that a few months ago, and had planned to retire back to the homeland but even that is looking less likely a possibility now as there won't be much left in 15-20 years that I will want to come back to.

I am fed up of seeing the smug Tory bastards swanning around as if they had won a massive victory when the reality says they and their puppets in the media hoodwinked the public. A public whose lack of political awareness and inability to master simple arguments remains baffling to me. I read an article today in the Grauniad about an impoverished ex-soldier who was basically living on the streets due to the cuts but still says he supports them....it is that you guys are fighting against. I wish you luck. The narrative is set by Tory central office and their oligarchal tax dodging and criminal pals in the press - they are laughing at us - most of all at those who believe them

Not even the Labour party seems to be able to look forward with fresh ideas. Corbyn is no-one's ideal vision of a PM but he is the only one who is putting a different view of things and our only hope is that he wins or comes close enough to make a difference. If not, then what is the alternative. 5 more years of insipid Tory lite policies based on crass generalisations and false economics

The right, including on here, spout 'there is no alternative' - well I wish you well if that is the case. This right wing that says there is not alternative to privatization, or trying to stack the deck against the rich rather than in favour of them. We cannot even criticise and EU that is following the road to neoliberal economic dogma under Merkel, potentially a renewal of Sarkozy with Le Pen on his shoulder and Cameron.

We are accused of gesture politics for having the nerve to call for a publicly owned utility (when some is owned by the French state), or a publicly owned railway (some owned by the German state, and even in countries such as Switzerland this model works well) or for a much cheaper higher education system (ours is more expensive than our peers). There seems to be an acceptance that the rich can grab more and more but we cannot dare to answer back - the British class system is alive and well and still haunts the future development of our country. The massive transfer of taxpayers money and debt supported by the state to the banks and the rich is one of the big scandals of our times - but I forget, according to the script it is the poor family down the road or the Polish immigrant who is the enemy; not Murdoch and HSBC!

All that matters is money, everything has to make a profit and value can only be defined in monetary terms - the fact that the Labour Party establishment is parroting the right wing Tory light policies shared here by Tubby and Hugo fills me with real sadness. I cannot support a party where the establishment is like that, and I find that Tubby/Hugo are more in line with all current political thinking across the spectrum than I am - and I cannot agree with them

Good luck to most of you here is your noble crusade against the tide but I fear the battle is being lost or will be soon

If a man elected in 1983 in the twilight years of his career and who has never really seemed suited to the role of a saviour is all that Labour (and the left) has to carry the fight then we are in a very bad place indeed

[ohsocynical]

For Tubby

http://www.reading-buses.co.uk/aboutus/

http://beta.reading.gov.uk/media/2418/P ... rategy.pdf


Edited to add: http://metro.co.uk/2015/05/20/poo-power ... d-5207435/

[rebeccariots2]

@howsillyofme1

Hope you will be back. Understand your disillusion ... and I share it ... but I do think this period of reckoning is pretty necessary. I don't know if you have read any of Willow's previous posts today but she, and others here, do point out the positives re what is going on now. Bigger ideas and shifts are beginning to be discussed - people are owning the left - or, ridiculously, 'hard left' label the press and some from other parties and in the political bubble want to assign to anything vaguely socialist.

It won't be Corbyn carrying the fight alone ... but he is already moving things along.

[rebeccariots2]

Brian Groom ‏@GroomB 7m7 minutes ago
Would-be infiltrators weeded out by Labour included @greenmiranda, former press aide to Ashdown, says @GeorgeWParker. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/387eabb4-3540 ... z3h7gpYEQc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Beth Rigby ‏@BethRigby 2m2 minutes ago
Labour weeds out infiltrators > @GroomB @greenmiranda @GeorgeWParker Miranda the operative: so undercover she announced it on #thisweek

Maybe we should feel flattered that those non supporters of Labour are so keen to get involved ...

I can't imagine wanting to vote in a Tory or Lib Dem leadership contest.

[ohsocynical]

Puerto Rico should close schools and sack teachers to pay back its debts, hedge funds say

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 21739.html

This neatly encapsulates what's wrong with the world...Too late to turn the tide now I guess.

[Tubby Isaacs]

the fact that the Labour Party establishment is parroting the right wing Tory light policies shared here by Tubby and Hugo fills me with real sadness.

Thinking Jeremy Corbyn talks simplistic stuff isn't Tory light or rightwing.

I've talked specifically about why I think he is. There's more to add. How does he think his talk about NATO would go down among Czechs, Poles etc? Only I don't think they see joining it as a provocation to Russia or being a dumb tool of the US. It would pretty much stymie whatever he wants to "renegotiate" in the EU.

And the accusation of "gesture politics" was on leaving the EU because of Greece, nothing else. Nor did I say you couldn't criticize the EU.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Puerto Rico should close schools and sack teachers to pay back its debts, hedge funds say

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 21739.html

This neatly encapsulates what's wrong with the world...Too late to turn the tide now I guess.

More on it here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Ri ... ebt_crisis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looks like in long term decline. Don't know what America is prepared to do about it.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Whether they want the power is another matter (Railways are all Westminster's fault)! I'll stick by my perception of the SNP as Tartan Tories.

Cameron wants 56 SNP MPs back next time, so he might do some late deal on SNP franchises. Possibly kicking in after the 2020 election, assuming Scotland is still around the Union then.

[onebuttonmonkey]

Lastly, you're conflating the time of free education with benefitting the middle class partly because there was a more entrenched class system and fewer opportunities anywhere for working class kids, educated or not. It's not the free education system that saw fewer working class kids go to college for decades. The rise of the middle class of late has gone alongside the institution of an economic apartheid of unpaid internships across the professions, now, so even today's access is gated after university. There was undoubtedly a different social set when i went to University in 1990 - the first year of loans - than those coming in when I left after my second stint only ten years later. Or rather, the poorer kids couldn't afford to be seen out as much.

That's not right.

https://www.tes.co.uk/news/school-news/ ... ail-behind" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Record numbers of pupils on free school meals are aiming to go to university this year – but they are still half as likely to apply as their more privileged peers.

Figures from university admissions body Ucas show that 14,230 students on free school meals in England applied for a place on a degree course from this autumn, compared with 8,720 six years ago.

This is the highest number yet recorded and represents a rise from 10.5 per cent of the total 18-year-olds receiving free school meals who applied in 2006, to 17.9 per cent who had submitted their application by the 24 March deadline this year.

I love that article you quoted. The title of it is:

Rise in poor pupils applying to university, but they still trail behind

The very next paragraph is:

But pupils not on free school meals are twice as likely to have university in their sights, with 37.1 per cent of the cohort putting in applications this year, itself a rise from 30.3 per cent eight years ago. The average across all students is 34.6 per cent, up from 27.7 per cent in 2006.

So, you know - the growth in expectation in universities is broadly the same regardless of free school meals or not. Gee, I'm convinced. University fees are fine, eh?

Spoiler: I never said that fees were preventing applications - I did say that the benefit of free education was important especially for poorer students - especially when they were going to struggle more to pay them off. Hey ho. It's a benefit for all. We disagree. And that's fine - but taking a quote that doesn't prove your point out of context hardly helps to make the reason for our disagreement clearer, does it? Or is my disagreement simply "gesture politics"? I've lost track of what that means...

[Tubby Isaacs]

You were suggesting a negative change in people from lower income groups attending university. I put up something showing you that isn't even near being true.

This is the highest number yet recorded and represents a rise from 10.5 per cent of the total 18-year-olds receiving free school meals who applied in 2006, to 17.9 per cent who had submitted their application by the 24 March deadline this year

So a rise there of 70%

But pupils not on free school meals are twice as likely to have university in their sights, with 37.1 per cent of the cohort putting in applications this year, itself a rise from 30.3 per cent eight years ago.

A rise of 22%

So the rise isn't in line with all students. It's over triple the rise.

I love that article you quoted. The title of it is:

Rise in poor pupils applying to university, but they still trail behind

I know what the title is. And doesn't this suggest to you that the focus should be schools? It does to me.

Fees are too high, I agree. But £10bn on universal grants and fees is totally disproportionate. You need, if indeed you can raise that money at all, something that looks after poorer students and helps them in school.

[onebuttonmonkey]

You were suggesting a negative change in people from lower income groups attending university. I put up something showing you that isn't even near being true.

This is the highest number yet recorded and represents a rise from 10.5 per cent of the total 18-year-olds receiving free school meals who applied in 2006, to 17.9 per cent who had submitted their application by the 24 March deadline this year

So a rise there of 69%

But pupils not on free school meals are twice as likely to have university in their sights, with 37.1 per cent of the cohort putting in applications this year, itself a rise from 30.3 per cent eight years ago.

A rise of 22%

So the rise isn't in line with all students. It's over triple the rise.

I love that article you quoted. The title of it is:

Rise in poor pupils applying to university, but they still trail behind

I know what the title is. And doesn't this suggest to you that the focus should be schools? It does to me.

No, I wasn't. I explicitly acknowledged that there hadn't been a decline in applications. I said it was worse for poorer students to be saddled with debt and that the value of providing free education outweighed the cost regardless of the proportions.

As for whether the focus should be the universities or the schools? I think the question is nonsense. We're the 6th richest country in the world. It should be both and we can afford it if we want to - and I say that as someone with no kids who's more than happy that i fund the country's future. Also, the better we fund these institutions, the more capable we'll be of funding them in future.

[Tubby Isaacs]

No, I wasn't. I explicitly acknowledged that there hadn't been a decline in applications. I said it was worse for poorer students to be saddled with debt and that the value of providing free education outweighed the cost regardless of the proportions.

As for whether the focus should be the universities or the schools? I think the question is nonsense. We're the 6th richest country in the world. It should be both and we can afford it if we want to - and I say that as someone with no kids who's more than happy that i fund the country's future. Also, the better we fund these institutions, the more capable we'll be of funding them in future.

I thought you mentioned that there was a narrow social cohort now and there wasn't in 1990.

There are going to be choices. £10bn as Corbyn suggests, is £10bn not spent on something else. That he can prioritize this when we have the school places crisis we have looks to me like he's primarily interested in signing up students.

Or within universities, why not give some of that to research?

I don't think you'll find it very easy to raise this money however rich we are. What will happen is, as in Scotland. Other more progressive spending gets cut. Plus research, as it happens.

[onebuttonmonkey]

No, I wasn't. I explicitly acknowledged that there hadn't been a decline in applications. I said it was worse for poorer students to be saddled with debt and that the value of providing free education outweighed the cost regardless of the proportions.

As for whether the focus should be the universities or the schools? I think the question is nonsense. We're the 6th richest country in the world. It should be both and we can afford it if we want to - and I say that as someone with no kids who's more than happy that i fund the country's future. Also, the better we fund these institutions, the more capable we'll be of funding them in future.

I thought you mentioned that there was a narrow social cohort now and there wasn't in 1990.

There are going to be choices. £10bn as Corbyn suggests, is £10bn not spent on something else. That he can prioritize this when we have the school places crisis we have looks to me like he's primarily interested in signing up students.

The closest I got was saying that you didn't see people from poorer backgrounds out as much in 2000 as ypu did in 1990 - but I suggested it was simply because they couldn't afford to be part of that side of university life, not that they weren't at university.

I don't know what the validity of that £10bn is but I'll take your word for it. I also think the increase in student numbers (firstly driven by funding cuts to Universities, but since then related to other things, too) isn't entirely for the best. But regardless: not renewing Trident frees up at least £20bn up front and over £3bn further each year. And we could, you know, raise more money, too, in plenty of ways. Or even get some back from profits from nationalised utilities (OK, that one isn't likely, but it's a nice thought). Even if funding was means tested as it was back in the day, there's ways of addressing the fundamental problem of the huge debt now incurred in getting a University education.

[Tubby Isaacs]

And not that Howsilly is about anymore, I'm not of the "no alternative" type. I was an admirer of Miliband, and think lots of the policy was good. "Continuity Miliband", with a more forceful personality, is what I want, exactly.

[Eric_WLothian]

Whether they want the power is another matter (Railways are all Westminster's fault)! I'll stick by my perception of the SNP as Tartan Tories.

Cameron wants 56 SNP MPs back next time, so he might do some late deal on SNP franchises. Possibly kicking in after the 2020 election, assuming Scotland is still around the Union then.

Too late - the SNP can't do anything for the next 10 years, with or without the powers, unless the contract is breached or Abello throws in the towel. (In the latter case, Osborne will just fold it and throw it back).

Cameron has ruled out another referendum during this parliament (not that he wouldn't change his mind if it was to the Tories', not Scotland's, advantage).

DAVID Cameron has put himself on a collision course with the Scottish National Party after flatly refusing to consider another independence referendum.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3842519

On the other hand Salmond said it's inevitable and Sturgeon hasn't made her mind up. Only the UK Gov can authorise a legally binding referendum so I guess Scotland will still be in the Union by the next election.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Ah, sorry I misunderstood you before. I thought you were saying there was definitely a different social set in 1990, and were adding the last bit in a wry way.

The £10bn is the figure I saw Corbyn throwing about. I assume he's already spent the money from scrapping Trident already (I agree with scrapping it). Windfall tax could be revived, though don't know if it would be legal this time.

It's made much more difficult because Osborne has given lots of tax away- the raise in the Income Tax threshold was rightly called unaffordable by Cameron in the 2010 debates, but they've done it anyway. It's going to be hard enough to fill in the gaps for these populist giveaways.

[rebeccariots2]

This should please you Tubby.

Jeremy Corbyn backs British membership of EU
Labour leadership candidate says he is not content with current state of EU but wants to work with European allies to ‘fight for a better Europe’
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ship-of-eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tubby Isaacs]

Whether they want the power is another matter (Railways are all Westminster's fault)! I'll stick by my perception of the SNP as Tartan Tories.

Cameron wants 56 SNP MPs back next time, so he might do some late deal on SNP franchises. Possibly kicking in after the 2020 election, assuming Scotland is still around the Union then.

Too late - the SNP can't do anything for the next 10 years, with or without the powers, unless the contract is breached or Abello throws in the towel. (In the latter case, Osborne will just fold it and throw it back).

Cameron has ruled out another referendum during this parliament (not that he wouldn't change his mind if it was to the Tories', not Scotland's, advantage).

DAVID Cameron has put himself on a collision course with the Scottish National Party after flatly refusing to consider another independence referendum.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3842519

On the other hand Salmond said it's inevitable and Sturgeon hasn't made her mind up. Only the UK Gov can authorise a legally binding referendum so I guess Scotland will still be in the Union by the next election.

Yes, the long contracts suggested they were happy to be rid of nationalizing rail. You'd think negotiating something as trivial as public franchises would have been a doddle for the people who were getting Scotland into a currency union rUK didn't want them in, or into the EU with all the UK opt-outs, and indeed NATO while having a big dispute over Trident.

Could Cameron chuck the rail franchises bone some time? Nice bit of "of course we'd have nationalized rail" in it for the SNP. No need to do anything.

[Tubby Isaacs]

This should please you Tubby.

Jeremy Corbyn backs British membership of EU
Labour leadership candidate says he is not content with current state of EU but wants to work with European allies to ‘fight for a better Europe’
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ship-of-eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Excellent!

[rebeccariots2]

I have come up with a potential money making plan for the Riots household. Mr Riots has ... don't all swoon at once ... something of the Jeremy Corbyn look about him. I have been threatening to drop into Peacock's of Cardigan to look out some white vests for him. He's not keen on that ... definitely not a natural vest wearer. But he perked up no end when I suggested he might stand in for Jezza and do some of his speeches and interviews. We're going to have fun with that one ... god alone knows what Mr Riots could come out with at a gig like that.

[Eric_WLothian]

Cameron wants 56 SNP MPs back next time, so he might do some late deal on SNP franchises. Possibly kicking in after the 2020 election, assuming Scotland is still around the Union then.

Too late - the SNP can't do anything for the next 10 years, with or without the powers, unless the contract is breached or Abello throws in the towel. (In the latter case, Osborne will just fold it and throw it back).

Cameron has ruled out another referendum during this parliament (not that he wouldn't change his mind if it was to the Tories', not Scotland's, advantage).

DAVID Cameron has put himself on a collision course with the Scottish National Party after flatly refusing to consider another independence referendum.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3842519

On the other hand Salmond said it's inevitable and Sturgeon hasn't made her mind up. Only the UK Gov can authorise a legally binding referendum so I guess Scotland will still be in the Union by the next election.

Yes, the long contracts suggested they were happy to be rid of nationalizing rail. You'd think negotiating something as trivial as public franchises would have been a doddle for the people who were getting Scotland into a currency union rUK didn't want them in, or into the EU with all the UK opt-outs, and indeed NATO while having a big dispute over Trident.

Could Cameron chuck the rail franchises bone some time? Nice bit of "of course we'd have nationalized rail" in it for the SNP. No need to do anything.

Possible, but it would set a precedent for other regional franchises to be awarded or nationalised locally.

Meanwhile the SNP have reacted predictably to Cameron ruling out a referendum:

THE SNP said it is not for the Prime Minister to “dictate” when Scotland holds another referendum after David Cameron said there would no second vote this parliament.
Nicola Sturgeon’s party said the timing of a another independence referendum would not be down to a “Tory Prime Minister”.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3842519

I'm always intrigued by the Nats' assertion that “The timing of any future referendum is a matter for the people of Scotland to decide". Does this mean we're going to hold a referendum on whether to hold a referendum?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Yeah, ridiciulous that the Prime Minister of the UK might have a view on the UK splitting up.

I used to think Sturgeon was smart, and would settle down for 5 years building up powers and making her case, and letting the GERs settle down. It's going to be constant war footing, isn't it? And to hell with what that does for investment in Scotland.

[Tubby Isaacs]

btw, Northern Ireland's rail is entirely public. Scotland's could be too, if it helped the SNP froth about Red Tories near an election.

[ohsocynical]

Reading house prices at their highest since 1995

Rise in prices is faster than London

Prices are up 12% in a year in Bracknell Forest

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/readin ... 95-9746351

It's obscene.

[rebeccariots2]

Lib Dem Voice seems to be running a series of posts from recent defectors ... they've got one from a previous Ukipper who says ' I would be constantly at odds with members over certain policy areas such as immigration, foreign aid, climate change denial, poverty and education.' There's really not much left after that.

And they have a post by a former Green Party candidate who has now rejoined the Lib Dems who says the Green Party 'is a hard place to be if you are male'.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Only Lib Dem Voice.

(But I say that whilst recognising that I like that they give a forum to members.)

[ohsocynical]

I have come up with a potential money making plan for the Riots household. Mr Riots has ... don't all swoon at once ... something of the Jeremy Corbyn look about him. I have been threatening to drop into Peacock's of Cardigan to look out some white vests for him. He's not keen on that ... definitely not a natural vest wearer. But he perked up no end when I suggested he might stand in for Jezza and do some of his speeches and interviews. We're going to have fun with that one ... god alone knows what Mr Riots could come out with at a gig like that.

Just don't sign him up for any cookery demonstrations....

[Willow904]

Brian Groom ‏@GroomB 7m7 minutes ago
Would-be infiltrators weeded out by Labour included @greenmiranda, former press aide to Ashdown, says @GeorgeWParker. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/387eabb4-3540 ... z3h7gpYEQc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Beth Rigby ‏@BethRigby 2m2 minutes ago
Labour weeds out infiltrators > @GroomB @greenmiranda @GeorgeWParker Miranda the operative: so undercover she announced it on #thisweek

Maybe we should feel flattered that those non supporters of Labour are so keen to get involved ...

I can't imagine wanting to vote in a Tory or Lib Dem leadership contest.

If it's a choice between Osborne, Boris and May, would it even make a difference - they all look unelectable to me. I'd love to see Osborne take over a la Brown and tank similarly at an election that comes a couple of years too late ( without the consolation of saving the world from global financial meltdown), it would be real poetic justice, somehow.

[Willow904]

And not that Howsilly is about anymore, I'm not of the "no alternative" type. I was an admirer of Miliband, and think lots of the policy was good. "Continuity Miliband", with a more forceful personality, is what I want, exactly.

Me too, pretty much. People underestimate the overall impact of changing everything in a small way as against changing a small number of things in a big way. For me, Corbyn's big sounding agenda is less than it appears, whilst the sum total of all the things Ed was proposing could have come together to have a much bigger effect. The challenge to the hegemony of the press, unilateral action on British tax havens, abolition of the Lords. Re-nationalisation of the railways seems unambitious in comparison. I don't think it was Ed's vision that was too small, I think it was the electorate's imagination that was too narrow to grasp how such changes could ultimately benefit them, by breaking the iron grip of vested interests that's holding our country back.

[Temulkar]

Andy Burnham has just been filleted by Evan Davies

[HindleA]

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

Denying prisoners legal aid may be illegal, appeal court rules


Judgement:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/819.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HindleA]

These cookery programmes are really getting out of hand.

[rebeccariots2]

I have come up with a potential money making plan for the Riots household. Mr Riots has ... don't all swoon at once ... something of the Jeremy Corbyn look about him. I have been threatening to drop into Peacock's of Cardigan to look out some white vests for him. He's not keen on that ... definitely not a natural vest wearer. But he perked up no end when I suggested he might stand in for Jezza and do some of his speeches and interviews. We're going to have fun with that one ... god alone knows what Mr Riots could come out with at a gig like that.

Just don't sign him up for any cookery demonstrations....

Now there's an idea Ohso. I think that would be more of a Tommy Cooper like gig ... messy, chaotic and absolutely fascinating

[rebeccariots2]

I apologise for the Daily Mail link ... but

GPs offered cash incentives worth up to £200,000 for NOT sending patients to hospital for routine op such as hip replacements and cataracts
GPs told to slash numbers referred for procedures of ‘low clinical value’
This includes hip and knee surgery and cataract treatment
Outpatient appointments before and after surgery also 'a waste of time'
Scheme was designed to save money and free up hospital appointments
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... racts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So we're now paying GPs to divert people away from getting a service. This is the Tory way.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Rachel de Souza drops a bollock in email to Theodore Agnew.

Says a "Good" Ofsted for a school they had their eyes on makes her "sick".

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... tion-trust" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RogerOThornhill]

If it's a choice between Osborne, Boris and May, would it even make a difference - they all look unelectable to me. I'd love to see Osborne take over a la Brown and tank similarly at an election that comes a couple of years too late ( without the consolation of saving the world from global financial meltdown), it would be real poetic justice, somehow.

IIRC the only time Tory members get the chance to vote is in the final round when it's down to 2...after weeding out the ridiculous and hopelessly unelectable.

[RogerOThornhill]

Rachel de Souza drops a bollock in email to Theodore Agnew.

Says a "Good" Ofsted for a school they had their eyes on makes her "sick".

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... tion-trust" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And Inspiration Trust wonders why parents don't want anything to do with them?

[Tubby Isaacs]

[RogerOThornhill]

Yeah well, it's only a union-endorsed bit of paper ain't it?

Night...