Wednesday 5th August 2015

Post by **refitman** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 7:09 am

Morning all.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 8:32 am

Morning.

Peeing down here again. Some more seriously wet weather gardening today ... full waterproof gear packed and ready to go.

Isabel Hardman ‏@IsabelHardman 1h1 hour ago
Kids Company reportedly closing tonight - here’s the leaked cache of emails about how it spent its extra govt money http://specc.ie/1SJ6f9l" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Having looked at the emails ... I can't honestly say that they are that revelatory and shocking. Yes, the comments about the journalist are unprofessional - and people may well not like or be used to CB's style. I wonder if we're going to get a better sense - with some hindsight - of how this rapid unravelling of such a large and well known organisation has come about.

Post by **refitman** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 8:38 am

Just to say, hello Stagger Lee *waves* and welcome back Toby.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 8:42 am

Ex NME journo & all round good egg Charles Shaar Murray does a pretty mean interpretation of Stagger Lee btw. He's also quite a 'lefty' & Tory hater.

[youtube]lFxpVC0ECAQ[/youtube]

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 8:45 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning.

Peeing down here again. Some more seriously wet weather gardening today ... full waterproof gear packed and ready to go.

Isabel Hardman ‏@IsabelHardman 1h1 hour ago
Kids Company reportedly closing tonight - here’s the leaked cache of emails about how it spent its extra govt money http://specc.ie/1SJ6f9l" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Having looked at the emails ... I can't honestly say that they are that revelatory and shocking. Yes, the comments about the journalist are unprofessional - and people may well not like or be used to CB's style. I wonder if we're going to get a better sense - with some hindsight - of how this rapid unravelling of such a large and well known organisation has come about.

The journalist writes:

''People who have worked at the charity in the past have advised me to publish these emails as widely as possible and as quickly as possible, even though they were never intended to be read by anybody outside of Kids Company.

They say my personal safety would be at less risk if I did so and, after careful thought, I have decided they are right.''

That's serious stuff if it is true. Which is not the same as Goslett or his sources believing it is true.

Something is fishy about this whole thing.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 8:48 am

City A.M. ‏@CityAM 28m28 minutes ago
BREAKING: Suzanne Evans to run as Ukip candidate for London Mayor http://dlvr.it/BlRnCj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 8:55 am

TobyLatimer wrote:Ex NME journo & all round good egg Charles Shaar Murray does a pretty mean interpretation of Stagger Lee btw. He's also quite a 'lefty' & Tory hater.

[youtube]lFxpVC0ECAQ[/youtube]

He's pretty nifty isn't he ?
Mr YahYah's got a fantastic Mississippi John Hurt version.
Great vocals on it.

Maybe we could have an FTN leader election music playlist ?

My choice would be 'Tossing & Turning' or the Zombies 'I Can't Make Up My Mind'.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 8:56 am

NHS patients may face widescale charges, warns financial thinktank
Health budget must rise, or patient fees increase and services diminish, public finance institute warns ministers in bleak assessment of ‘short-term’ pledges
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... -thinktank" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 8:57 am

yahyah wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning.

Peeing down here again. Some more seriously wet weather gardening today ... full waterproof gear packed and ready to go.

Isabel Hardman ‏@IsabelHardman 1h1 hour ago
Kids Company reportedly closing tonight - here’s the leaked cache of emails about how it spent its extra govt money http://specc.ie/1SJ6f9l" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Having looked at the emails ... I can't honestly say that they are that revelatory and shocking. Yes, the comments about the journalist are unprofessional - and people may well not like or be used to CB's style. I wonder if we're going to get a better sense - with some hindsight - of how this rapid unravelling of such a large and well known organisation has come about.
The journalist writes:

''People who have worked at the charity in the past have advised me to publish these emails as widely as possible and as quickly as possible, even though they were never intended to be read by anybody outside of Kids Company.

They say my personal safety would be at less risk if I did so and, after careful thought, I have decided they are right.''

That's serious stuff if it is true. Which is not the same as Goslett or his sources believing it is true.

Something is fishy about this whole thing.

I think the journalist went a bit over the top in his description of the emails - as said above they are a bit 'odd' but there is nothing revelatory in them.

We haven't anything concrete on the abuse charges - I guess we will have to await the outcome of the proceedings

Question is was it fraudulent or just someone with a big ambition coming unstuck over the financials - not the first time that has happened. I think some in Government, the trustees and , again, the auditors may have some questions to answer if the charity has collapsed so quickly after receiving a 3 million quid injection

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 9:34 am

yahyah wrote:
TobyLatimer wrote:Ex NME journo & all round good egg Charles Shaar Murray does a pretty mean interpretation of Stagger Lee btw. He's also quite a 'lefty' & Tory hater.

[youtube]lFxpVC0ECAQ[/youtube]

He's pretty nifty isn't he ?
Mr YahYah's got a fantastic Mississippi John Hurt version.
Great vocals on it.

Maybe we could have an FTN leader election music playlist ?

My choice would be 'Tossing & Turning' or the Zombies 'I Can't Make Up My Mind'.

Mine would be the wonderful "Little Boxes" by Malvina Reynolds, as popularised by Pete Seeger.

"There's a green one, and a pink one,
And a blue one, and a yellow one,
And they're all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same"

The song goes on to tell about the people in the boxes, who all turn out the same......SPADs, maybe?

I am now having considerable trouble distinguishing the parties from each other. We have the green ones, who can't do much; we have a pink one, which seems to have common ground with the blue one on a lot of the things that matter; we have the yellow one, which is disappearing up its' own fundament. There's a blue one from another country that veers between being tartan tories and a leftish opposition depending on what's being discussed; and there's a purple one behaving like the embarrassing drunk uncle at the wedding who gets carted off when he goes too far; and there are a few others of differing hues without much to say about anything.

Failing "Little Boxes", how about the Beatles' "Revolution" or the Super Furry Animals' "The man don't give a......"

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 9:39 am

Good morfternoon.

Andy Burnham vows to renationalise railways

Shadow health secretary vying for Labour leadership says it’s time to put passengers before profits
(Guardian)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... leadership

I'm now going to read it myself . . .

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 9:47 am

Oh - and there's a Politics Blog Readers' edition again today. The link is below for anyone who's interested.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... rs-edition

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 9:55 am

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

Andy Burnham vows to renationalise railways

Shadow health secretary vying for Labour leadership says it’s time to put passengers before profits
(Guardian)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... leadership

I'm now going to read it myself . . .

It turns out - although it's not in the story - that it's a pledge to let the public bid, as per the last manifesto:

https://twitter.com/andyburnhammp/statu ... 7677637632

I suppose this is good news if you liked the pledge to do so last time - I rather feel it's a re-announcement trying to look like something new, but I know other opinions apply. I prefer the "take them back when they lapse" approach (and did in May). I also think that we should be looking at the utilities as a priority, which is probably too far left for current mainstream tastes but important all the same.

I'll be trying to take my more snidey comments to The Other Place - I don't want to irritate people squabbling with Hugo, etc. I'd also recommend last night's Newsnight for their coverage of Kind's company and Letwin/Hancock's confidence. Oh, and the Corbyn interview which doesn't demand Tony Blair be tried ofr War Trials - it simply says there's things Blair is not telling us about some of his meetings (which is true, although the "confess" word used is unfortunate) and "if he committed a crime, he should be tried" which is (a) not the same as "he will be tried" and (b) is absolutely the case, whoever it is that is alleged to have committed one.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 10:01 am

onebuttonmonkey wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

Andy Burnham vows to renationalise railways

Shadow health secretary vying for Labour leadership says it’s time to put passengers before profits
(Guardian)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... leadership

I'm now going to read it myself . . .
It turns out - although it's not in the story - that it's a pledge to let the public bid, as per the last manifesto:

https://twitter.com/andyburnhammp/statu ... 7677637632

I suppose this is good news if you liked the pledge to do so last time - I rather feel it's a re-announcement trying to look like something new, but I know other opinions apply. I prefer the "take them back when they lapse" approach (and did in May). I also think that we should be looking at the utilities as a priority, which is probably too far left for current mainstream tastes but important all the same.

I'll be trying to take my more snidey comments to The Other Place - I don't want to irritate people squabbling with Hugo, etc. I'd also recommend last night's Newsnight for their coverage of Kind's company and Letwin/Hancock's confidence. Oh, and the Corbyn interview which doesn't demand Tony Blair be tried ofr War Trials - it simply says there's things Blair is not telling us about some of his meetings (which is true, although the "confess" word used is unfortunate) and "if he committed a crime, he should be tried" which is (a) not the same as "he will be tried" and (b) is absolutely the case, whoever it is that is alleged to have committed one.

Yes - it's (the railways story) hardly earth-shattering, is it?

Speaking of which - does Jeremy Corbyn have any interesting opinions on fracking? Yes, I'll look it up . .

Edited to add

I know he's generally not in favour but has he said anything on the subject of fracking recently?

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 10:08 am

Re. Kids Company - it's all very odd.

There were concerns about the financial management for some time - and my understanding is that a second grant for the charity of £3 Million (after an earlier one in April of £4.26 Million) would not be paid unless Batmangelidjh stood down.
Cameron - who called Batmangelidjh an example of his Big Society, and who is in serious awe of her - over-ruled his officials, and Downing Street ordered the first grant to be paid despite some reservations on how it would be spent.
The second grant was the subject of a rare request by a civil servant for a ministerial direction, because there were further concerns that the money would not be spent for its' intended purpose. Letwin and Hancock recommended it was paid.
Now we know that the charity was using this cash to pay its staff - some of whom hadn't been paid since May - so it all begs the questions what happened to the £4.26 Million they got in April and how have they got into so much trouble?

Batmangelidjh is now claiming that there is a witch hunt and she is being attacked by Cameron and other politicians in order to silence her criticisms of the lack of support from government for vulnerable children. I have no idea whether this is true.

She is considered by some to be very charismatic. Can't see it myself; but there's no doubt that she has done a lot of good. My difficulty with her, as with anyone who develops and/or encourages a following, is that people like her get so caught up in their own schtick that they lose the plot a bit sometimes. Maybe she has lost sight of what she's there to do.

There's no doubt that there are serious financial issues. As to the investigations on other things, no comment. Wait and see....

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 10:16 am

What is Jeremy Corbyn's programme for government?

Energy

Energy companies would be renationalised. Mr Corbyn has said he would be "much happier" with a "regulated, publicly run service delivering energy supplies". There would be a moratorium on fracking, which Mr Corbyn has called "dangerous to the environment". (BBC News website - today's date)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33772024

Ah - a moratorium is good. No-one can accuse him of making a purely "emotional" decision not based on scientific research (which will presumably be carried out during the moratorium and will, no doubt, confirm most people's suspicions\scientific findings to date). Although I'm sure there'll be quite a queue of people waiting to accuse him of just that.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 10:41 am

@RobertSnozers

was aimed at the Daily Mail's 'DEATH TAX' headline, not at you.

Sorry.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 10:53 am

Overall its a fairly decent package from Burnham, even if not earth shattering.

I see that some in the MSM are now trying to push Cooper as the "stop Jezza" candidate. What has she come out with in comparison?

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 11:08 am

PorFavor wrote:
What is Jeremy Corbyn's programme for government?

Energy

Energy companies would be renationalised. Mr Corbyn has said he would be "much happier" with a "regulated, publicly run service delivering energy supplies". There would be a moratorium on fracking, which Mr Corbyn has called "dangerous to the environment". (BBC News website - today's date)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33772024

Ah - a moratorium is good. No-one can accuse him of making a purely "emotional" decision not based on scientific research (which will presumably be carried out during the moratorium and will, no doubt, confirm most people's suspicions\scientific findings to date). Although I'm sure there'll be quite a queue of people waiting to accuse him of just that.

Yesterday he was also saying he was personally against both the way it was being forced on people and the process itself. He wanted green investment, wind power, clean-burning coal - didn't mention nuclear. It wasn't a policy announcement, so it's not definitive.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 11:10 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Overall its a fairly decent package from Burnham, even if not earth shattering.

I see that some in the MSM are now trying to push Cooper as the "stop Jezza" candidate. What has she come out with in comparison?

I was going to ask the same thing - apart from being backed by Johnson, saying we can't go back to the 50s and saying we need a female leader, I've genuinely not seen anything from her. What, if anything, have I missed?

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 11:16 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Overall its a fairly decent package from Burnham, even if not earth shattering.

I see that some in the MSM are now trying to push Cooper as the "stop Jezza" candidate. What has she come out with in comparison?

How would we know, given that the media only report stuff from the two men ?

Seriously, how often has the~~Grunge~~ Graun written articles about Corbyn ?

How often has Corbyn been the interviewee or the subject of discussion on Newsnight ?

Kendall has been interviewed twice on the nightly ~~Corbyn news~~ Newsnight (must try to remember the name of the show), Burnham once but Cooper ? A big fat zero, zilch, nada, none !

Twitter is full of whines about BBC bias against Corbyn.

Biased against Corbyn ? Don't make me bloody choke !

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 11:17 am

Re that polling reported in the Graun and mentioned on here yesterday, it contains some of the most horrendously leading questions I have come across.

In particular, who is going to say "living within your means" is a *bad* thing?? Amazing that as many as 16% disagreed with that statement, tbh.

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 11:17 am

onebuttonmonkey wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Overall its a fairly decent package from Burnham, even if not earth shattering.

I see that some in the MSM are now trying to push Cooper as the "stop Jezza" candidate. What has she come out with in comparison?
I was going to ask the same thing - apart from being backed by Johnson, saying we can't go back to the 50s and saying we need a female leader, I've genuinely not seen anything from her. What, if anything, have I missed?

Her big thing is free childcare for all, I think. However, as the cost of childcare is one of the biggest rip offs in the country second only to the cost of elder care, I hope she's going to bring in some serious curbs, caps or public sector competition to make it work.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 11:36 am

pk1 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Overall its a fairly decent package from Burnham, even if not earth shattering.

I see that some in the MSM are now trying to push Cooper as the "stop Jezza" candidate. What has she come out with in comparison?
How would we know, given that the media only report stuff from the two men ?

Seriously, how often has the~~Grunge~~ Graun written articles about Corbyn ?

How often has Corbyn been the interviewee or the subject of discussion on Newsnight ?

Kendall has been interviewed twice on the nightly ~~Corbyn news~~ Newsnight (must try to remember the name of the show), Burnham once but Cooper ? A big fat zero, zilch, nada, none !

Twitter is full of whines about BBC bias against Corbyn.

Biased against Corbyn ? Don't make me bloody choke !

Don't usually disagree with you (and its great to have you posting here again) but the idea Kendall in particular hasn't had much MSM coverage doesn't really pass muster. In particular, one particular publication (once a "paper of record") has produced gushing puff pieces about her on an almost daily basis.

I have seen a fair amount of Cooper too, Alan Johnson's comments yesterday were pretty (over)hyped for example. But quite frankly, her campaign seems to be based on "say as little as possible and I might just slip through the middle whilst the others scrap it out".

For instance it is amazing, but true, that both Burnham and Corbyn have had more detailed economic plans set out than she has!

Was a AB-YC "floating voter" earlier in this contest, but pretty definitively decided for Andy now.

Stella for deputy, btw

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 12:16 pm

Fun Fact: For all that Burnham is positioning himself as working class Scouser in a tie, a quick comparison of his record V Corbyn against Cooper's record V Corbyn indicates that actually she's closer to Corbyn in terms of how they vote in the HoC.

I've downloaded their voting records from the Public Whip and created a table of their agreement against each subject since 1997.

Kendall screws the exercise as she wasn't even around for many of the votes

5 subjects where Cooper disagrees with Burnham:
Allowing Protesting near Parliament (B. Significantly More against)
No Parliamentary Authority needed for War (B. Significantly more against)
Police and Crime Commissioners - (B. More in favour)
Nuclear Power - (B. More in favour)
No polls clash with MP Election Referendum (B. More in favour)

5 subjects where Cooper disagrees with Corbyn
Referendum on Lisbon Treaty (Corbyn for, Cooper against)
Not ratify Lisbon Treaty (Corbyn for, Cooper against)
Foundation hospitals (Cooper in favour, Corbyn against)
Iraq 2003, for the invasion (Cooper in favour, Corbyn against)
University and education fees should be free (Cooper in favour, Corbyn against)

5 subjects where Burnham disagrees with Corbyn
Referendum on Lisbon Treaty (Corbyn for, Burnham against)
Not ratify Lisbon Treaty (Corbyn for, Burnham against)
Foundation hospitals (Burnham in favour, Corbyn against)
Iraq 2003, for the invasion (Burnham in favour, Corbyn against)
Allowing Protesting near Parliament (Corbyn for, Burnham against)

Is there anyway to upload files to the site?

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 12:31 pm

And due to my amazing looking skills, here it is.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 12:50 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
gilsey wrote:@RobertSnozers

was aimed at the Daily Mail's 'DEATH TAX' headline, not at you.

Sorry.
Thanks.

The whole 'Death Tax' thing, IIRC, probably came from Andy Coulson - there were some all-party talks on sorting the mess in social care (which, tbh, Labour should have dealt with years before, but you can't have everything) which the Tories pulled out of for narrow political advantage. They had a 'Labour's Death Tax' poster with a tombstone on it.

I don't have a problem with people wanting to pass some of their wealth on to their children (or other loved ones or charities for that matter), nor do I have a problem with the redistributive urge to take some of what's no longer any use to the dead to spend on the living. What I do object to is a system that's essentially based on ability to pay and not need. We rightly throw up our hands in horror at people in the US bankrupting themselves to pay for healthcare, yet we essentially allow the same thing for social care in the UK. And the wealthy still get an inheritance (even more of one thanks to Osborne) while just about everyone else gets to watch everything they've worked for in their life ebbing away in their last years. Moreover, as others pointed out last night, there is currently a big disconnect between health and social care which can't really be fixed until the two systems are essentially working together. If that's achieved, funding them differently makes little sense, and once true integration is achieved, there should be significant savings anyway.

I totally agree.

As I think I said the other day, I have more sympathy with those who would like to be left with something to pass on
than I do with those who think it is their right to have an inheritance - which I simply class as greed and an unpleasant "waiting for people to die" outlook.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 1:11 pm

DonutHingeParty wrote:Fun Fact: For all that Burnham is positioning himself as working class Scouser in a tie, a quick comparison of his record V Corbyn against Cooper's record V Corbyn indicates that actually she's closer to Corbyn in terms of how they vote in the HoC.

I've downloaded their voting records from the Public Whip and created a table of their agreement against each subject since 1997.

Kendall screws the exercise as she wasn't even around for many of the votes

5 subjects where Cooper disagrees with Burnham:
Allowing Protesting near Parliament (B. Significantly More against)
No Parliamentary Authority needed for War (B. Significantly more against)
Police and Crime Commissioners - (B. More in favour)
Nuclear Power - (B. More in favour)
No polls clash with MP Election Referendum (B. More in favour)

5 subjects where Cooper disagrees with Corbyn
Referendum on Lisbon Treaty (Corbyn for, Cooper against)
Not ratify Lisbon Treaty (Corbyn for, Cooper against)
Foundation hospitals (Cooper in favour, Corbyn against)
Iraq 2003, for the invasion (Cooper in favour, Corbyn against)
University and education fees should be free (Cooper in favour, Corbyn against)

5 subjects where Burnham disagrees with Corbyn
Referendum on Lisbon Treaty (Corbyn for, Burnham against)
Not ratify Lisbon Treaty (Corbyn for, Burnham against)
Foundation hospitals (Burnham in favour, Corbyn against)
Iraq 2003, for the invasion (Burnham in favour, Corbyn against)
Allowing Protesting near Parliament (Corbyn for, Burnham against)

Is there anyway to upload files to the site?

I think Corbyn has the luxury of being nowhere near the collective responsibility of government. I don't really think you can use a ministers voting record as a guide to their beliefs. I imagine when he was making his way up the greasy pole in opposition Blair voted for some pretty left wing policies.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 1:17 pm

I know this has already been covered, but the more I read this tweet, the more it irritates me. I know it's only a tweet trying to grab attention but, well, I mean, what words mean matters. And, whoever wins, I want to see the party let go its feverish grasp of furiously empty adjectives and banal management-speak of late. Whatever the policy, can it just be expressed plainly? So, a grumble:

Andy Burnham ‏@andyburnhammp 15h15 hours ago
Time to tell it as it is: rail privatisation just hasn't worked. As Labour Leader, I will pursue a policy of progressive re-nationalisation.

1) If you're going to open a tweet with "time to tell it as it is" then why does his own tweet then not tell us his response for what it is? It directly gives an impression he's doing a straightforward renationalisation, when all he's allowing is for the public to bid.

2) If you're going to open a tweet with "time to tell it as it is" then this implication it's a new, honest policy is deliberately at odds with "how it is". The fact is that this was already the policy at the last election.

3) If you're going to open a tweet with "time to tell it as it is" then how come you're using the word progressive to mean "I'll allow them to bid but butt out if the companies screw us on bidding. And let's not mention how much unnecessary bidding will cost"? After all, telling it like it is doesn't mean "using a buzzword to misrepresent an outcome you are apparently trying to change.

4) If you accept his assertion that "rail privatisation just hasn't worked" (which I do) then how does his proposition of potentially letting franchises stay in private hands after rebidding address that?

Secondly, I had a look at that Cruddas piece in the Graun and it really does look like a load of tosh. I mean, loaded questions and happy data narratives. I'm not saying people don't like austerity or that they do. I'm just saying the questions used to establish it can meaningfully do nothing of the sort.

Must dash - I need to comfort my dictionary which just had a look on Twitter and appears to be sobbing. I can't think why...

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 1:31 pm

onebuttonmonkey wrote:I know this has already been covered, but the more I read this tweet, the more it irritates me. I know it's only a tweet trying to grab attention but, well, I mean, what words mean matters. And, whoever wins, I want to see the party let go its feverish grasp of furiously empty adjectives and banal management-speak of late. Whatever the policy, can it just be expressed plainly? So, a grumble:

<blockquote>Andy Burnham ‏@andyburnhammp 15h15 hours ago
Time to tell it as it is: rail privatisation just hasn't worked. As Labour Leader, I will pursue a policy of progressive re-nationalisation.</blockquote>

1) If you're going to open a tweet with "time to tell it as it is" then why does his own tweet then not tell us his response for what it is? It directly gives an impression he's doing a straightforward renationalisation, when all he's allowing is for the public to bid.

2) If you're going to open a tweet with "time to tell it as it is" then this implication it's a new, honest policy is deliberately at the odds that "how it is" includes the fact that this was already the policy at the last election.

3) If you're going to open a tweet with "time to tell it as it is" then how come you're using the word progressive to mean "I'll allow them to bid but butt out if the companies screw us on bidding. And let's not mention how much unnecessary bidding will cost"? After all, telling it like it is doesn't mean "using a buzzword to misrepresent a pre-existing idea".

4) If you accept his assertion that "rail privatisation just hasn't worked" (which I do) then how does his proposition of potentially letting franchises stay in private hands after rebidding address that?

Secondly, I had a look at that Cruddas piece in the Graun and it really does look like a load of tosh. I mean, loaded questions and happy data narratives. I'm not saying people don't like austerity or that they do. I'm just saying the questions used to establish it can meaningfully do nothing of the sort.

Must dash - I need to comfort my dictionary which just had a look on Twitter and appears to be sobbing. I can't think why...

Progressive - adjective
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
a progressive community.
3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4. (initial capital letter) of or relating to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5. going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.
6. noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progressive" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Its clear you don't want Andy Burnham as leader but nit picking to this depth about the words he uses is not really helpful.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 1:46 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote:I know this has already been covered, but the more I read this tweet, the more it irritates me. I know it's only a tweet trying to grab attention but, well, I mean, what words mean matters. And, whoever wins, I want to see the party let go its feverish grasp of furiously empty adjectives and banal management-speak of late. Whatever the policy, can it just be expressed plainly? So, a grumble:

<blockquote>Andy Burnham ‏@andyburnhammp 15h15 hours ago
Time to tell it as it is: rail privatisation just hasn't worked. As Labour Leader, I will pursue a policy of progressive re-nationalisation.</blockquote>

1) If you're going to open a tweet with "time to tell it as it is" then why does his own tweet then not tell us his response for what it is? It directly gives an impression he's doing a straightforward renationalisation, when all he's allowing is for the public to bid.

2) If you're going to open a tweet with "time to tell it as it is" then this implication it's a new, honest policy is deliberately at the odds that "how it is" includes the fact that this was already the policy at the last election.

3) If you're going to open a tweet with "time to tell it as it is" then how come you're using the word progressive to mean "I'll allow them to bid but butt out if the companies screw us on bidding. And let's not mention how much unnecessary bidding will cost"? After all, telling it like it is doesn't mean "using a buzzword to misrepresent a pre-existing idea".

4) If you accept his assertion that "rail privatisation just hasn't worked" (which I do) then how does his proposition of potentially letting franchises stay in private hands after rebidding address that?

Secondly, I had a look at that Cruddas piece in the Graun and it really does look like a load of tosh. I mean, loaded questions and happy data narratives. I'm not saying people don't like austerity or that they do. I'm just saying the questions used to establish it can meaningfully do nothing of the sort.

Must dash - I need to comfort my dictionary which just had a look on Twitter and appears to be sobbing. I can't think why...
Progressive - adjective
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
a progressive community.
3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4. (initial capital letter) of or relating to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5. going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.
6. noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progressive" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Its clear you don't want Andy Burnham as leader but nit picking to this depth about the words he uses is not really helpful.

To be fair, words like "progressive" are a personal irritant. I'm used to hearing "progressive" and "modernising" used to mean "going in the direction we prefer" which is conflated with going forward without saying who for. The march to the right has been billed as "progress" but I'd argue, for many, they have felt like they were going backwards. So maybe that's my problem (see also "robust" (translation: something flimsy said loudly and with a confidence it in no way embodies); "reform" (used to imply positive change when, in fact, a reform is only as positive or negative as the details of the actual change) and so on).

I think there's a politics-wide reliance on these horrible, misused, dirtily shifty words. And regardless: I don't see a halfway fudge that omits several critical details as progress, though, I see it as "a restatement of something already suggested in a way that tries to make him look more "progressive" than this idea is." Because the point remains that what Burnham has said on this is not equal to what it means. I don't see how progressive changes that. If his solution may lead to costly bidding that fails to achieve the stated outcome, how is that improvement?

I'm not advancing this as a "don't vote for Andy" point - I prefaced it exactly with that. But I do think words matter. And I do wish all politicians would use them more accurately.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 1:58 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote:I know this has already been covered, but the more I read this tweet, the more it irritates me. I know it's only a tweet trying to grab attention but, well, I mean, what words mean matters. And, whoever wins, I want to see the party let go its feverish grasp of furiously empty adjectives and banal management-speak of late. Whatever the policy, can it just be expressed plainly? So, a grumble:

<blockquote>Andy Burnham ‏@andyburnhammp 15h15 hours ago
Time to tell it as it is: rail privatisation just hasn't worked. As Labour Leader, I will pursue a policy of progressive re-nationalisation.</blockquote>

1) If you're going to open a tweet with "time to tell it as it is" then why does his own tweet then not tell us his response for what it is? It directly gives an impression he's doing a straightforward renationalisation, when all he's allowing is for the public to bid.

2) If you're going to open a tweet with "time to tell it as it is" then this implication it's a new, honest policy is deliberately at the odds that "how it is" includes the fact that this was already the policy at the last election.

3) If you're going to open a tweet with "time to tell it as it is" then how come you're using the word progressive to mean "I'll allow them to bid but butt out if the companies screw us on bidding. And let's not mention how much unnecessary bidding will cost"? After all, telling it like it is doesn't mean "using a buzzword to misrepresent a pre-existing idea".

4) If you accept his assertion that "rail privatisation just hasn't worked" (which I do) then how does his proposition of potentially letting franchises stay in private hands after rebidding address that?

Secondly, I had a look at that Cruddas piece in the Graun and it really does look like a load of tosh. I mean, loaded questions and happy data narratives. I'm not saying people don't like austerity or that they do. I'm just saying the questions used to establish it can meaningfully do nothing of the sort.

Must dash - I need to comfort my dictionary which just had a look on Twitter and appears to be sobbing. I can't think why...
Progressive - adjective
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
a progressive community.
3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4. (initial capital letter) of or relating to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5. going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.
6. noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progressive" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Its clear you don't want Andy Burnham as leader but nit picking to this depth about the words he uses is not really helpful.

If taken to extremes, it could be argued any talk of renationalising the railways is misleading, given a large chunk was already renationalised by the last Labour government.
As someone whose financial circumstances over the years has meant I'm as likely to be travelling by National Express as by train, I'm actually finding the whole rail obsesssion a rather niche topic, of interest mostly to middle class London commuters.
Hopefully the topic will move onto housing soon. The one truly big error of the last Labour government was to allow house prices to balloon. It may not have been possible to see the financial crash coming, but house price inflation was right in front of them, yet they sanguinely ignored it. Osborne is deliberately stoking the housing bubble. How would a Labour government make housing more affordable without causing a damaging crash?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 2:03 pm

onebuttonmonkey wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote:I know this has already been covered, but the more I read this tweet, the more it irritates me. I know it's only a tweet trying to grab attention but, well, I mean, what words mean matters. And, whoever wins, I want to see the party let go its feverish grasp of furiously empty adjectives and banal management-speak of late. Whatever the policy, can it just be expressed plainly? So, a grumble:

<blockquote>Andy Burnham ‏@andyburnhammp 15h15 hours ago
Time to tell it as it is: rail privatisation just hasn't worked. As Labour Leader, I will pursue a policy of progressive re-nationalisation.</blockquote>

1) If you're going to open a tweet with "time to tell it as it is" then why does his own tweet then not tell us his response for what it is? It directly gives an impression he's doing a straightforward renationalisation, when all he's allowing is for the public to bid.

2) If you're going to open a tweet with "time to tell it as it is" then this implication it's a new, honest policy is deliberately at the odds that "how it is" includes the fact that this was already the policy at the last election.

3) If you're going to open a tweet with "time to tell it as it is" then how come you're using the word progressive to mean "I'll allow them to bid but butt out if the companies screw us on bidding. And let's not mention how much unnecessary bidding will cost"? After all, telling it like it is doesn't mean "using a buzzword to misrepresent a pre-existing idea".

4) If you accept his assertion that "rail privatisation just hasn't worked" (which I do) then how does his proposition of potentially letting franchises stay in private hands after rebidding address that?

Secondly, I had a look at that Cruddas piece in the Graun and it really does look like a load of tosh. I mean, loaded questions and happy data narratives. I'm not saying people don't like austerity or that they do. I'm just saying the questions used to establish it can meaningfully do nothing of the sort.

Must dash - I need to comfort my dictionary which just had a look on Twitter and appears to be sobbing. I can't think why...
Progressive - adjective
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
a progressive community.
3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4. (initial capital letter) of or relating to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5. going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.
6. noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progressive" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Its clear you don't want Andy Burnham as leader but nit picking to this depth about the words he uses is not really helpful.
To be fair, words like "progressive" are a personal irritant. I'm used to hearing "progressive" and "modernising" used to mean "going in the direction we prefer" which is conflated with going forward without saying who for. The march to the right has been billed as "progress" but I'd argue, for many, they have felt like they were going backwards. So maybe that's my problem (see also "robust" (translation: something flimsy said loudly and with a confidence it in no way embodies); "reform" (used to imply positive change when, in fact, a reform is only as positive or negative as the details of the actual change) and so on).

I think there's a politics-wide reliance on these horrible, misused, dirtily shifty words. And regardless: I don't see a halfway fudge that omits several critical details as progress, though, I see it as "a restatement of something already suggested in a way that tries to make him look more "progressive" than this idea is." Because the point remains that what Burnham has said on this is not equal to what it means. I don't see how progressive changes that. If his solution may lead to costly bidding that fails to achieve the stated outcome, how is that improvement?

I'm not advancing this as a "don't vote for Andy" point - I prefaced it exactly with that. But I do think words matter. And I do wish all politicians would use them more accurately.

I've resorted to the dictionary a few times because 'buzz' words haven't felt right.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 2:10 pm

onebuttonmonkey wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote:I know this has already been covered, but the more I read this tweet, the more it irritates me. I know it's only a tweet trying to grab attention but, well, I mean, what words mean matters. And, whoever wins, I want to see the party let go its feverish grasp of furiously empty adjectives and banal management-speak of late. Whatever the policy, can it just be expressed plainly? So, a grumble:

<blockquote>Andy Burnham ‏@andyburnhammp 15h15 hours ago
Time to tell it as it is: rail privatisation just hasn't worked. As Labour Leader, I will pursue a policy of progressive re-nationalisation.</blockquote>

1) If you're going to open a tweet with "time to tell it as it is" then why does his own tweet then not tell us his response for what it is? It directly gives an impression he's doing a straightforward renationalisation, when all he's allowing is for the public to bid.

2) If you're going to open a tweet with "time to tell it as it is" then this implication it's a new, honest policy is deliberately at the odds that "how it is" includes the fact that this was already the policy at the last election.

3) If you're going to open a tweet with "time to tell it as it is" then how come you're using the word progressive to mean "I'll allow them to bid but butt out if the companies screw us on bidding. And let's not mention how much unnecessary bidding will cost"? After all, telling it like it is doesn't mean "using a buzzword to misrepresent a pre-existing idea".

4) If you accept his assertion that "rail privatisation just hasn't worked" (which I do) then how does his proposition of potentially letting franchises stay in private hands after rebidding address that?

Secondly, I had a look at that Cruddas piece in the Graun and it really does look like a load of tosh. I mean, loaded questions and happy data narratives. I'm not saying people don't like austerity or that they do. I'm just saying the questions used to establish it can meaningfully do nothing of the sort.

Must dash - I need to comfort my dictionary which just had a look on Twitter and appears to be sobbing. I can't think why...
Progressive - adjective
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
a progressive community.
3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4. (initial capital letter) of or relating to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5. going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.
6. noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progressive" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Its clear you don't want Andy Burnham as leader but nit picking to this depth about the words he uses is not really helpful.
To be fair, words like "progressive" are a personal irritant. I'm used to hearing "progressive" and "modernising" used to mean "going in the direction we prefer" which is conflated with going forward without saying who for. The march to the right has been billed as "progress" but I'd argue, for many, they have felt like they were going backwards. So maybe that's my problem (see also "robust" (translation: something flimsy said loudly and with a confidence it in no way embodies); "reform" (used to imply positive change when, in fact, a reform is only as positive or negative as the details of the actual change) and so on).

I think there's a politics-wide reliance on these horrible, misused, dirtily shifty words. And regardless: I don't see a halfway fudge that omits several critical details as progress, though, I see it as "a restatement of something already suggested in a way that tries to make him look more "progressive" than this idea is." Because the point remains that what Burnham has said on this is not equal to what it means. I don't see how progressive changes that. If his solution may lead to costly bidding that fails to achieve the stated outcome, how is that improvement?

I'm not advancing this as a "don't vote for Andy" point - I prefaced it exactly with that. But I do think words matter. And I do wish all politicians would use them more accurately.

"Making a difference". I love that one. I'm just off to toss a brick through my neighbour's front window. That should make a difference . . .

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 2:11 pm

Willow904 wrote: If taken to extremes, it could be argued any talk of renationalising the railways is misleading, given a large chunk was already renationalised by the last Labour government.

As someone whose financial circumstances over the years has meant I'm as likely to be travelling by National Express as by train, I'm actually finding the whole rail obsesssion a rather niche topic, of interest mostly to middle class London commuters.

Hopefully the topic will move onto housing soon. The one truly big error of the last Labour government was to allow house prices to balloon. It may not have been possible to see the financial crash coming, but house price inflation was right in front of them, yet they sanguinely ignored it. Osborne is deliberately stoking the housing bubble. How would a Labour government make housing more affordable without causing a damaging crash?

As a regular rail user in the north and in no way a commuter, I'm mildly exercised about the railways as is anyone I know who uses them (I'm sure some disagree; I'm not saying everyone here is unhappy). Corbyn was right yesterday when he said that, if you wanted to see the history of infrastructure and spending on the railways, all you needed to do was get on a nice new train, and get to London. And then get on a less nice train and go north. And the further you went, the worse it got. That's my experience, too. There's a huge gap between the north and south and electrification is the least that should happen and could be done for a fraction of some of the swankier, southern projects. HS2 seems like the wrong prioirity too late and too expensive, but who knows.

But honestly, I also think housing and the utilities are far more important. Housing has been a scandal for 35 years and I, too, think the last Labour government wilfully ignored it. I don't think there is a way to build housing without popping the bubble but surely the bubble has to be lanced? The more it goes on, the worse it gets. The more we need to go through that pop, the harder it is to do it. Is there an answer to how to avoid a crash?

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 2:14 pm

Willow904 wrote: Hopefully the topic will move onto housing soon. The one truly big error of the last Labour government was to allow house prices to balloon. It may not have been possible to see the financial crash coming, but house price inflation was right in front of them, yet they sanguinely ignored it. Osborne is deliberately stoking the housing bubble. How would a Labour government make housing more affordable without causing a damaging crash?

You have put your finger on the reason I'll never rate GB as Chancellor. 'Prudence' and 'No More Boom and Bust', while presiding over the mother of all house price booms. That's what I thought at the time, now I suppose Osborne's boom is even more remarkable, given the recessionary backdrop.

I don't think it would be possible to build the houses we need without a crash, basically that's why we're not building them. Homeowners vote.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 2:18 pm

Did Corbyn advocate renationalising water? Someone should ask Burnham about that. Then we'd get more of a flavour of where he stands. Or whether the UK government should be investing in UK nuclear power instead of the Chinese government (we'd still need the French government to build them, of course, because we don't know how anymore, but strangely I'm more comfortable with that)?
It's the press which is obsessed with the railways, isn't it? Not the Labour leadership contenders. I just realised that.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 2:21 pm

onebuttonmonkey wrote: As a regular rail user in the north and in no way a commuter, I'm mildly exercised about the railways as is anyone I know who uses them (I'm sure some disagree; I'm not saying everyone here is unhappy).

I was reasonably happy with the railways as far as my personal experience is concerned right up until the east coast franchise went to Virgin. Travelling north as I usually do, I used to have a choice, no more.

On the rare occasions I go south, it's Grand Central for me.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 2:27 pm

Willow904 wrote:Did Corbyn advocate renationalising water? Someone should ask Burnham about that. Then we'd get more of a flavour of where he stands. Or whether the UK government should be investing in UK nuclear power instead of the Chinese government (we'd still need the French government to build them, of course, because we don't know how anymore, but strangely I'm more comfortable with that)?
It's the press which is obsessed with the railways, isn't it? Not the Labour leadership contenders. I just realised that.

The leadership manifesto's are out tomorrow (I think) so more will be reviled ....maybe

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 2:28 pm

gilsey wrote:
Willow904 wrote: Hopefully the topic will move onto housing soon. The one truly big error of the last Labour government was to allow house prices to balloon. It may not have been possible to see the financial crash coming, but house price inflation was right in front of them, yet they sanguinely ignored it. Osborne is deliberately stoking the housing bubble. How would a Labour government make housing more affordable without causing a damaging crash?
You have put your finger on the reason I'll never rate GB as Chancellor. 'Prudence' and 'No More Boom and Bust', while presiding over the mother of all house price booms. That's what I thought at the time, now I suppose Osborne's boom is even more remarkable, given the recessionary backdrop.

I don't think it would be possible to build the houses we need without a crash, basically that's why we're not building them. Homeowners vote.

I think "no more boom and bust" was based on the assumption that government can keep spending money into the economy as long as inflation remains low. If inflation rises, government responds by raising taxation and/or reducing spending. I believe Brown's mistake was to assume that as long as overall inflation was low, taxation and spending levels were fine. I do wonder if housing inflation was ever properly taken into account. i.e. the theory was sound, but the numbers being used to implement it weren't.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 2:32 pm

AngryAsWell wrote: The leadership manifesto's are out tomorrow (I think) so more will be reviled ....maybe

Ha! Is that a typo or a prediction? Or both?

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 2:34 pm

PorFavor wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote: The leadership manifesto's are out tomorrow (I think) so more will be reviled ....maybe
Ha! Is that a typo or a prediction? Or both?

Auto spell check - helps (normally) with my dyslexia - epic fail this time

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 2:35 pm

PorFavor wrote: "Making a difference". I love that one. I'm just off to toss a brick through my neighbour's front window. That should make a difference . . .

May I be the first to congratulate you on your innovative and progressive programme of much needed aperture reform. Aspirational voters will be sure to be attracted to such a bold, modernising, radical approach to the circulation of environmental factors - it's time for those living in the past to end their glazing-madness and recognise the market opportunities that are presented in your direct, robust reform proposal.

Edit: typo, changed repeated "approach", fixed quote

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 2:35 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
Willow904 wrote:Did Corbyn advocate renationalising water? Someone should ask Burnham about that. Then we'd get more of a flavour of where he stands. Or whether the UK government should be investing in UK nuclear power instead of the Chinese government (we'd still need the French government to build them, of course, because we don't know how anymore, but strangely I'm more comfortable with that)?
It's the press which is obsessed with the railways, isn't it? Not the Labour leadership contenders. I just realised that.
The leadership manifesto's are out tomorrow (I think) so more will be reviled ....maybe

The leadership manifesto's are out tomorrow (I think) so more will be reviled....maybe

Appropriate typo....

edit: must refresh page before typing

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 2:36 pm

Willow904 wrote:
gilsey wrote:
Willow904 wrote: Hopefully the topic will move onto housing soon. The one truly big error of the last Labour government was to allow house prices to balloon. It may not have been possible to see the financial crash coming, but house price inflation was right in front of them, yet they sanguinely ignored it. Osborne is deliberately stoking the housing bubble. How would a Labour government make housing more affordable without causing a damaging crash?
You have put your finger on the reason I'll never rate GB as Chancellor. 'Prudence' and 'No More Boom and Bust', while presiding over the mother of all house price booms. That's what I thought at the time, now I suppose Osborne's boom is even more remarkable, given the recessionary backdrop.

I don't think it would be possible to build the houses we need without a crash, basically that's why we're not building them. Homeowners vote.
I think "no more boom and bust" was based on the assumption that government can keep spending money into the economy as long as inflation remains low. If inflation rises, government responds by raising taxation and/or reducing spending. I believe Brown's mistake was to assume that as long as overall inflation was low, taxation and spending levels were fine. I do wonder if housing inflation was ever properly taken into account. i.e. the theory was sound, but the numbers being used to implement it weren't.

He should have stepped in when the first 100% mortgages were offered, never mind when the 125% ones were introduced. Would have slowed things back down considerably.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 2:58 pm

gilsey wrote:
Willow904 wrote: Hopefully the topic will move onto housing soon. The one truly big error of the last Labour government was to allow house prices to balloon. It may not have been possible to see the financial crash coming, but house price inflation was right in front of them, yet they sanguinely ignored it. Osborne is deliberately stoking the housing bubble. How would a Labour government make housing more affordable without causing a damaging crash?
You have put your finger on the reason I'll never rate GB as Chancellor. 'Prudence' and 'No More Boom and Bust', while presiding over the mother of all house price booms. That's what I thought at the time, now I suppose Osborne's boom is even more remarkable, given the recessionary backdrop.

I don't think it would be possible to build the houses we need without a crash, basically that's why we're not building them. Homeowners vote.

You are doing GB a disservice.

The house price boom was a side effect of a decade of prosperity and historically low interest rates. Labour tried to offset this by ramping up stamp duty to prevent property speculation as per the 90s, and they were to a degree successful in that. They did at least avoid the house price crash of the early 90s and when a mini correction happened negative equity was largely avoided.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 3:02 pm

I'm wondering about what pk1 said about the coverage Corbyn is getting.

I've asked Newsnight to tell me how often each of the candidates has appeared on the regular show (not the hustings) since May. If I get a reply, I'll tell you what they say.
I wonder if people ask to go on or if they get invited or both. It could be something really simple like certain people being on holiday, or people turning down a chance to appear.
I also think it's possible that as a "news" programme (yes, I know), the fact that Corbyn's all over the UK every day doing speeches and whatnot that he's getting more coverage.
He seems to making the news, and whether that's because he's a novelty or whatever I don't know.

The G has run many articles on Corbyn but in fact most of them have not been supportive. Some of them have been scathing.

I've looked through the candidates' events listings on their websites or wherever I can find the info.
Burnhams' website tells me there are no events near me or within a 100 mile radius; Kendall's has no information at all - and in both cases, you have to sign up as a supporter to get any more information.
Coopers' website has a list - a very long list - of phone bank events but not much else; some of these events have a note saying that X number of people have signed up for it, usually single figures.
What I can't find is lists of speeches and hustings for them - apart from the scheduled hustings, all I can find are interviews with the press that have already happened, and speeches that have already been reported on.

Corbyn's site only shows the upcoming events for the nest few days - but the rallies and Q&As include RSVPs. Thursday in Norwich, a rally, 1,545 RSVPs; Friday another one in Bradford, 425 RSVPs; Saturday morning a Q&A in Doncaster (439), and a rally in Leeds later (846).
He has been all over the place and shows no sign of flagging. He is also speaking to packed halls, standing room only in some cases.

The press are not generally known in recent years - and I include the BBC in this - to be particularly impartial. Maybe Corbyn (and Burnham to a lesser degree) is making the headlines more often because he's doing so much and there's a lot to report on.
I have to say that - even allowing for the fact that I am supporting Corbyn's bid - the other campaigns have been a bit lacklustre. Burnham picking up speed now; but Kendall seems to make a hash of things wherever she turns up, and I am not aware of any major speech or policy announcement Cooper has made in recent days. We had a campaign leaflet delivered from her team the other day, and I can't for the life of me understand how someone who is serious about their campaign could produce something so vague and lacking in real content.

I can understand the frustration of those who don't support Corbyn too see so little from the others and perhaps (depending on your view) a bit too much of Corbyn. But is there any evidence that any of the others are holding rallies on a daily basis and packing 'em to the rafters?
If there is, I'd love to see it. It's not a good contest if the participants aren't doing much contesting, is it? I'd rather they were all slugging it out.
I'm not sure I want a leader who isn't prepared to fight for what they believe in.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 3:05 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
The leadership manifesto's are out tomorrow (I think) so more will be reviled ....maybe

Lovely - more will indeed be reviled, AAW! (I know, it was a typo)

BTW - did you see my response to your EMA post?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 3:14 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
Willow904 wrote:Did Corbyn advocate renationalising water? Someone should ask Burnham about that. Then we'd get more of a flavour of where he stands. Or whether the UK government should be investing in UK nuclear power instead of the Chinese government (we'd still need the French government to build them, of course, because we don't know how anymore, but strangely I'm more comfortable with that)?
It's the press which is obsessed with the railways, isn't it? Not the Labour leadership contenders. I just realised that.
The leadership manifesto's are out tomorrow (I think) so more will be reviled ....maybe

Well, on past form Kendall's might be

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 05 Aug, 2015 3:21 pm

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

"One in six jobseekers have allowance stopped each year"