FlyTheNest

Morning all.

Morning.

Naughtie interviewing Burnham now on Radio 4.

Andy Burnham's video, launching his manifesto:
[youtube]t9ouB7yjd08[/youtube]
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Surprise, surprise. This is what worried me.
If I do finally vote for Corbyn it isn't because I want Labour to become an offshoot of the Greens, there were reasons why I wouldn't vote for them and this sort of thing is one of the reasons.


''Labour leadership: 100 Green Party candidates have joined party in latest evidence of 'entryism'

A trawl of Green candidates in this May’s general and local elections by Labour officials found that about 4 per cent of them have applied to join Labour since then. Between 100 and 150 Greens have had their applications rejected.''
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 41692.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They should be getting rid of their own useless leaders Bennett & Bartolotti instead of poking their nose in another party's business.

RobertSnozers wrote:

yahyah wrote:Surprise, surprise. This is what worried me.
If I do finally vote for Corbyn it isn't because I want Labour to become an offshoot of the Greens, there were reasons why I wouldn't vote for them and this sort of thing is one of the reasons.


''Labour leadership: 100 Green Party candidates have joined party in latest evidence of 'entryism'

A trawl of Green candidates in this May’s general and local elections by Labour officials found that about 4 per cent of them have applied to join Labour since then. Between 100 and 150 Greens have had their applications rejected.''
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 41692.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They should be getting rid of their own leader useless leaders Bennett & Bartolotti instead of poking their nose in another party's business.

To be fair, they could presumably be returning Labour supporters?

If the 'about 4%' of Green candidates were prepared to stand up and ask to be elected for the Greens in May, and presumably shovelled out some amount of anti-Labour s*** along the way - how can they suddenly sign up as people who support Labour and don't belong to organisations that oppose Labour ? Shows just how strong their commitment to the Green Party actually was, if they are being actually honest, which isn't a given.

Morning all.

I confess to not knowing where I stand on the 'entryism' stuff re voting for the new Labour leader. I like the attempt to widen the democratic base re the vote. On the other hand I think some longstanding Labour members have a point when they ask why someone who maybe didn't vote let along work hard on behalf of Labour at the last election can pay a reduced rate (less than their membership fees) and get the same rights to vote.

Aaarrrgh. Why does Labour present me with these conflicts?

Enough of that. I obviously need my toast. And it's still raining. Correction - it's not just raining, it's pissing down.

RobertSnozers wrote:

yahyah wrote:Surprise, surprise. This is what worried me.
If I do finally vote for Corbyn it isn't because I want Labour to become an offshoot of the Greens, there were reasons why I wouldn't vote for them and this sort of thing is one of the reasons.


''Labour leadership: 100 Green Party candidates have joined party in latest evidence of 'entryism'

A trawl of Green candidates in this May’s general and local elections by Labour officials found that about 4 per cent of them have applied to join Labour since then. Between 100 and 150 Greens have had their applications rejected.''
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 41692.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They should be getting rid of their own leader useless leaders Bennett & Bartolotti instead of poking their nose in another party's business.

To be fair, they could presumably be returning Labour supporters?

That could be true.

Given the membership was over 210k (based on the figures in the article) prior to the election, Corbyn winning with everyone 'new' voting for him isn't a guarantee of victory.

Irrespective of the outcome, hopefully this process has shown where the centre of the Big Tent needs to be pitched. Not in the traditional perception of what is classed as the middle of political policy.

'Why does Labour present me with these conflicts ?'

Indeed. In my darker moments I've thought of resigning my membership so I don't have to vote, but that would be a cop-out.

I like much of what Corbyn says but am not fond of a lot of people who are banging the drum for him.

And on another note...

@Spinning Hugo.

Rejoice Hugo, Bake Off is back - one of those few programmes that you rate on the BBC. I thought of you as the contestants worried away at their Black Forest gateaux in the gentle light of the tent. I had a little tinkle of Russ Conway playing in my head. Poor Dorret, baker of the first catastrophe cake.

Re the other topic - Corbyn / Blair slurs. I think both 'sides' need to shut up - equally unwise comments made. I'm not in the business of judging whose comments are worse or less bad than the other. I wish I could ignore the lot of them - but the MSM and commentators make that impossible.

Burnham's manifesto document:

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/th ... 1438791117" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Got my tv eye on you .... hard to believe this was 33 years ago [youtube]mOAJ9G4iytU[/youtube]

yahyah wrote:Burnham's manifesto document:

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/th ... 1438791117" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He mentions buses!

yahyah wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:

yahyah wrote:Surprise, surprise. This is what worried me.
If I do finally vote for Corbyn it isn't because I want Labour to become an offshoot of the Greens, there were reasons why I wouldn't vote for them and this sort of thing is one of the reasons.


''Labour leadership: 100 Green Party candidates have joined party in latest evidence of 'entryism'

A trawl of Green candidates in this May’s general and local elections by Labour officials found that about 4 per cent of them have applied to join Labour since then. Between 100 and 150 Greens have had their applications rejected.''
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 41692.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They should be getting rid of their own leader useless leaders Bennett & Bartolotti instead of poking their nose in another party's business.

To be fair, they could presumably be returning Labour supporters?

If the 'about 4%' of Green candidates were prepared to stand up and ask to be elected for the Greens in May, and presumably shovelled out some amount of anti-Labour s*** along the way - how can they suddenly sign up as people who support Labour and don't belong to organisations that oppose Labour ? Shows just how strong their commitment to the Green Party actually was, if they are being actually honest, which isn't a given.

And most unforgivably of all, parroted the "Labour signed up to £30 billion of cuts" BIG LIE

One of Bennett's many missteps was to turn the Greens into a much more overtly anti-Labour organisation, tbh.

yahyah wrote:Burnham's manifesto document:

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/th ... 1438791117" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Contains the things from the Miliband era I moaned about on here

(i) Scraoppng lower minimum wage for the young. A sure fire way of increasing youth unemployment (which is bad as it is). Osborne'nomics. The est way of helping the poor is to give them money.

(ii) Rail 'nationalisation'.

Rail was nationalised back in 2002. and so this makes little sense. What he seems to mean is the same policy as in the 205 manifesto: allow Network Rail to bid for franchises. I have no serious problem with that.

The one good suggestion is that companies should have the same rail livery. I agree with that as the competition is in the bidding process for franchises, not competition for customers (who have no choice).

(iii) The usual pro-producer stuff on education and health. that we are used to from Burnham. He is anti-choice for poor people.

(iv) Rent 'regulation' wahatever that means. 2nd or 1st gen controls Andy?

and, for me, the clincher,

(v) No fees and a graduate tax. Will this undea idea never die? We know it is impractical, and still it comes back.

I really cannot comprehend why the left is so obsessed with iving out free University eduucation.

*It is not a common good shared by all.* It is not like healthcare or secondary education. It disproportionately benefits the children of the wealthy and people who go on to be wealthy. make the beneficiaries pay. It is much better to get them pay through a loan system (with very generous repayment terms: and no payments at all if our income is too low) becaue it means

1. we can charge EU stuents which otherwise we cannot (see Scotland)
and
2. We can recover the money if people take this nice generous state funded benefit and choose to earn lots of money outside the UK with it.

The left should be cheering both the 2002 rail settlement, and the way we fund Universities. We did this. they are great civilized achievement.

Bo doubt lots on here will like Burnham's policy offer. I of course on't. But notice how similar, indeed nearly identical, it is to the platform Miliband stood on in 2010.

SpinningHugo wrote: (iii) The usual pro-producer stuff on education and health. that we are used to from Burnham. He is anti-choice for poor people.

Sorry, that's bollocks as far as education is concerned.

The only way you'll veer get true choice is for every school to have as much spare capacity so that any parent who wants to send their kid to a particular school can do so.

Ultimately schools have always been the ones who choose not parents.

Free schools are increasingly being set up by academy chains - local community groups and parents are very much the minority. And the proportion of good or outstanding free schools is less than the national average.

Stick to what you know eh? Which isn't education.

Manchester 'Oyster card' in chaos as contractor admits it cannot deliver
George Osborne’s northern powerhouse suffers fresh blow as Transport for Greater Manchester severs contract with firm hired to install smart ticketing
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... powerhouse" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... Now Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) has torn up its contract with Atos, the firm it hired in 2012 to design and build the system, after it became apparent the contractor cannot deliver what it promised.

In a statement to councillors obtained by the Manchester Evening News, TfGM and Atos said: “TfGM contracted Atos in 2012 to design, build and operate a smart ticketing system for Greater Manchester to be rolled out initially on Metrolink and with options to roll the system out subsequently to bus and rail.

“Although the system is currently operational for use by our 500,000 concessionary card holders, after a considerable period of delay it has become clear that Atos cannot deliver the smart ticketing system as contracted...

Do I need to say more?

I can't stop myself. Why the f... do governments keep on awarding contracts to the same omnipresent private companies that repeatedly fail to deliver or are found to have huge flaws in their delivery which profit them and take from the taxpayer? Atos, Capita, Serco ...

I notice that Jonathan Simons was tweeting furiously about academies and free schools right now as you would expect but also tweeted this yesterday:

Jonathan Simons ‏@PXEducation Aug 4
Great post from @alexbigham on what Labour should think about on education and its general approach to the topic http://www.labourteachers.org.uk/non-te ... lexbigham/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

http://www.labourteachers.org.uk/non-te ... lexbigham/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Alex Bigham works for ARK schools...but I wonder whether Simons read down as far as here?

Academisation has been controversial, and the evidence is mixed to its effectiveness now the programme has been diluted and lost its original focus on improving schools that are inadequate. But at least it is a plan. But such a solution is a creature of its time. We need to embrace educational reform that will match the needs of our economy today, without lapsing into the lazy clichés of 21st century skills.

Well it might be a plan but if the evidence is mixed - and it is as recognised by almost everyone apart from the DfE- why on earth is it continuing to happen?

RobertSnozers wrote:Adam Smith Institute: Britain Needs More Slums

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/planning- ... ore-slums/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I honestly don't know what to say to this. Is it satire?

RogerOThornhill wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote: (iii) The usual pro-producer stuff on education and health. that we are used to from Burnham. He is anti-choice for poor people.

Sorry, that's bollocks as far as education is concerned.

The only way you'll veer get true choice is for every school to have as much spare capacity so that any parent who wants to send their kid to a particular school can do so.

Ultimately schools have always been the ones who choose not parents.

Free schools are increasingly being set up by academy chains - local community groups and parents are very much the minority. And the proportion of good or outstanding free schools is less than the national average.

Stick to what you know eh? Which isn't education.

I very much agree that the current system doesn't work.FWIIW.

Willow904 wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:Adam Smith Institute: Britain Needs More Slums

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/planning- ... ore-slums/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I honestly don't know what to say to this. Is it satire?

I followed the link through to young Theo's own website and read some of his other articles. I can't make him out, to be honest.


Good morfternoon, everyone.

RogerOThornhill wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote: (iii) The usual pro-producer stuff on education and health. that we are used to from Burnham. He is anti-choice for poor people.

Sorry, that's bollocks as far as education is concerned.

The only way you'll veer get true choice is for every school to have as much spare capacity so that any parent who wants to send their kid to a particular school can do so.

Ultimately schools have always been the ones who choose not parents.

Free schools are increasingly being set up by academy chains - local community groups and parents are very much the minority. And the proportion of good or outstanding free schools is less than the national average.

Stick to what you know eh? Which isn't education.

It is bollocks on health as well. What does choice mean for Joe public in health exactly?

Free markets simply do not work in healthcare, those that argue they do are either paid by private healthcare or hope to be paid by private healthcare.

RobertSnozers wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:Adam Smith Institute: Britain Needs More Slums

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/planning- ... ore-slums/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I honestly don't know what to say to this. Is it satire?

I did check the date.

If any if the Blairite undead try to tell you that the original purpose for the Labour Party no longer exists, show them this.

Well said.
Good-morning, everyone - excellent posts from everyone.

I'm busier than usual & also trying to solve technical challenges - that's the only thing preventing me from reading & thanking everyone here. I've installed a new operating system on the computer I use & working out preferences, tweaks - still Linux, of course.

Chris Bryant MP ‏@RhonddaBryant 10m10 minutes ago
Funny how things go. Despite being a Plaid member @esthernagle has registered as a labour supporter! Does that mean she too has lied?

Chris Bryant MP ‏@RhonddaBryant 9m9 minutes ago
To be clear @Esthernagle was a Plaid candidate at the last council elections. So has she really joined Labour or is she just lying?

Edited to add the second tweet.

(v) No fees and a graduate tax. Will this undea idea never die? We know it is impractical, and still it comes back.

I really cannot comprehend why the left is so obsessed with iving out free University eduucation.

*It is not a common good shared by all.* It is not like healthcare or secondary education. It disproportionately benefits the children of the wealthy and people who go on to be wealthy. make the beneficiaries pay. It is much better to get them pay through a loan system (with very generous repayment terms: and no payments at all if our income is too low) becaue it means

1. we can charge EU stuents which otherwise we cannot (see Scotland)
and
2. We can recover the money if people take this nice generous state funded benefit and choose to earn lots of money outside the UK with it.

Can we? Genuine question, as student loan repayments are recovered through payroll deductions.

http://labourlist.org/2015/08/andy-burn ... oll-finds/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When Labour supporters were asked which of the four candidates they would vote to be the next Labour leader if they had a vote in the election the results read as follows:

Burnham 39%, Jeremy Corbyn 24% , YvetteCooper 22%, Liz Kendall 15%.

Labour party members are clearly to the left of the parliamentary party, but are they also to the left of Labour voters in general? Could be a real problem for Labour if Corbyn wins.

Green voters prefer Corbyn by a large margin – Burnham 13%, Corbyn 32%, Cooper 6%, Kendall. 9%.

Just as there is no point in Labour aping the Tories when such inclined people have the real Tories to vote for, I am equally wary of aping the Greens for the same reason. These people may prefer Corbyn, but I suspect they will still vote Green regardless. Labour needs a party that represents its own voters, not other peoples' voters, as a base to win over wider support. It needs to start from where the 9m people who just voted Labour start from or it risks losing them too.

RobertSnozers wrote:The current system is crap. We're told debt is evil, and then we tell poor kids that they'll have debt forever but don't worry, they'll never have to pay it off because they'll still be poor.

Couldn't agree more.

Good to see you back citizen. Well sort of back by the sound of it. We are also having endless IT problems but that's mainly caused by the population here massively increasing for 8 weeks or so - rainy weather - and the IT infrastructure not having anything like the capacity to deal with the demands on it.

I see press reports re how everyone's lifestyle and habits are changing with the advent of 4G and despair. We'd love a mobile signal - never mind what G it is. And reliable internet of a reasonable speed. Is that too much to ask? It seems it is.

yahyah wrote:Surprise, surprise. This is what worried me.
If I do finally vote for Corbyn it isn't because I want Labour to become an offshoot of the Greens, there were reasons why I wouldn't vote for them and this sort of thing is one of the reasons.


''Labour leadership: 100 Green Party candidates have joined party in latest evidence of 'entryism'

A trawl of Green candidates in this May’s general and local elections by Labour officials found that about 4 per cent of them have applied to join Labour since then. Between 100 and 150 Greens have had their applications rejected.''
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 41692.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They should be getting rid of their own useless leaders Bennett & Bartolotti instead of poking their nose in another party's business.

Yesterday I read somewhere on Twitter that to join a political party when belonging to another was illegal.

rebeccariots2 wrote:Good to see you back citizen. Well sort of back by the sound of it. We are also having endless IT problems but that's mainly caused by the population here massively increasing for 8 weeks or so - rainy weather - and the IT infrastructure not having anything like the capacity to deal with the demands on it.

I see press reports re how everyone's lifestyle and habits are changing with the advent of 4G and despair. We'd love a mobile signal - never mind what G it is. And reliable internet of a reasonable speed. Is that too much to ask? It seems it is.

Crap/no mobile signal but excellent 4G where I live. Odd.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote: (iii) The usual pro-producer stuff on education and health. that we are used to from Burnham. He is anti-choice for poor people.

Sorry, that's bollocks as far as education is concerned.
The only way you'll veer get true choice is for every school to have as much spare capacity so that any parent who wants to send their kid to a particular school can do so.

Ultimately schools have always been the ones who choose not parents.

Free schools are increasingly being set up by academy chains - local community groups and parents are very much the minority. And the proportion of good or outstanding free schools is less than the national average.

Stick to what you know eh? Which isn't education.

It is bollocks on health as well. What does choice mean for Joe public in health exactly?

Free markets simply do not work in healthcare, those that argue they do are either paid by private healthcare or hope to be paid by private healthcare.

(my bold)

Correct. I lived in the USA some years ago. Health care provision & delivery there is expensive, not cost effective, incoherently provided & millions of people living in the US are prevented from living a healthy life due to the unaffordable cost of healthcare.

From the local (city, county, state) level on up to the national (federal level), people (individuals, families) navigate on their own, typically reliant on an employer, paying for costly healthcare insurance, most of that cost paid for by the employee, that insurance often pays a fraction of total healthcare expense the individual has to pay for to complete "the sale" - that is, pay the healthcare provider bill. Insane expenditures for the simplest medical procedures are common.

Please understand this fully, appreciate that currently the UK's NHS still manages to provide a superior level of healthcare for all the people in a way nonexistent in the USA.

President Obama may have done the best he could do with his legislation, I don't know. Regardless of his role, I can't blame one person for the US healthcare system. I do blame those powerful enough to do something better but don't & won't.

US government subsidised healthcare provision for people over the age of sixty-five (I'm uncertain the exact age people become eligible) has demonstrated well enough the USA is capable of cutting the crap & provide all their people with affordable healthcare. Even that subsidy for older people in the US isn't as good as healthcare provision & delivery compared to other wealthy nations. But it's demonstrated affordable healthcare delivery can be done in the US. Leadership in that country has made the decision not to provide affordable, adequate & comprehensive healthcare for all the people. A disgraceful, senseless choice made.

Willow904 wrote:http://labourlist.org/2015/08/andy-burn ... oll-finds/

When Labour supporters were asked which of the four candidates they would vote to be the next Labour leader if they had a vote in the election the results read as follows:

Burnham 39%, Jeremy Corbyn 24% , YvetteCooper 22%, Liz Kendall 15%.

Labour party members are clearly to the left of the parliamentary party, but are they also to the left of Labour voters in general? Could be a real problem for Labour if Corbyn wins.

Green voters prefer Corbyn by a large margin – Burnham 13%, Corbyn 32%, Cooper 6%, Kendall. 9%.

Just as there is no point in Labour aping the Tories when such inclined people have the real Tories to vote for, I am equally wary of aping the Greens for the same reason. These people may prefer Corbyn, but I suspect they will still vote Green regardless. Labour needs a party that represents its own voters, not other peoples' voters, as a base to win over wider support. It needs to start from where the 9m people who just voted Labour start from or it risks losing them too.

Completely agree, Labour can't "out-Green" the Greens or "out-Nat" the SNP any more than it can "out-Tory" the Tories.

What it needs is a distinctive platform with wide appeal - do that and those fabled "swing voters" in Nuneaton and Swindon might notice too.

Of course, easier said than done.......

Welsh council rejects plans for new opencast coal mine
Green groups offer legal support to Caerphilly council after mining company Miller Argent threatens to sue them for costs
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -coal-mine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... Miller Argent CEO Neil Brown last week week wrote to Caerphilly councillors threatening to try to recover “substantial” costs from the financially vulnerable council if they voted down the mine.

“Your officers have highlighted the potential for a substantial award of costs against the council. Please ask yourself what services could be provided by the council with that money?”...

I think threatening is the correct adjective for the tone of that letter. This is the kind of activity that terrifies me for the future ... democracy made powerless by lack of funds to match big business.

rebeccariots2 wrote:Good to see you back citizen. Well sort of back by the sound of it. We are also having endless IT problems but that's mainly caused by the population here massively increasing for 8 weeks or so - rainy weather - and the IT infrastructure not having anything like the capacity to deal with the demands on it.

I see press reports re how everyone's lifestyle and habits are changing with the advent of 4G and despair. We'd love a mobile signal - never mind what G it is. And reliable internet of a reasonable speed. Is that too much to ask? It seems it is.

Thank you, RR2!

I ask the following question to my partner last night with weeping, red eyes due to the strain of programming the computer & monitor watching all day: Should leave the computer I use intentionally hobbled, limping, slow, generally unpleasant to look at or leave on for very long in order to get in & get out as quickly as possible?

No, I'll have to install timed notifications & ask someone to bodily remove me from in front of the computer to take me out for more rambling walks, even if it's pissing down rain.

Afternoon

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

Public sector workers to lose right to have union fees deducted from wages


And a response:

Government’s union membership changes are aimed at undermining public service workers’ rights

http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2015/08/go ... um=twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For filing under "if it looks like a pig, smells like a pig, grunts like a pig then it probably is a pig.

Programme on the, what looks like, unbelievably generous deal, that West Ham Utd got for the purchase of the Olympic stadium on BBC 1 London tonight at 7pm then after on IPlayer.

I will not make definitive accusations on the basis of one article or before seeing the programme but it looks like a reward to Baroness Brady (a director of said club) for services rendered. Of course boneheaded Boris is involved!

I am increasingly of the opinion that the leadership contest needs immediate intervention to:

Roll the eligible voters back to GE+1 month.

Dump the 35K union registrations

Refund every genuine applicant their 3 pounds and apologise profusely.

In the old days you had a years qualifying as a member to stop this sort of thing.

If Corbyn wins on the basis of genuine Labour members good luck to him.

citizenJA wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote: Sorry, that's bollocks as far as education is concerned.
The only way you'll veer get true choice is for every school to have as much spare capacity so that any parent who wants to send their kid to a particular school can do so.

Ultimately schools have always been the ones who choose not parents.

Free schools are increasingly being set up by academy chains - local community groups and parents are very much the minority. And the proportion of good or outstanding free schools is less than the national average.

Stick to what you know eh? Which isn't education.

It is bollocks on health as well. What does choice mean for Joe public in health exactly?

Free markets simply do not work in healthcare, those that argue they do are either paid by private healthcare or hope to be paid by private healthcare.

(my bold)

Correct. I lived in the USA some years ago. Health care provision & delivery there is expensive, not cost effective, incoherently provided & millions of people living in the US are prevented from living a healthy life due to the unaffordable cost of healthcare.

From the local (city, county, state) level on up to the national (federal level), people (individuals, families) navigate on their own, typically reliant on an employer, paying for costly healthcare insurance, most of that cost paid for by the employee, that insurance often pays a fraction of total healthcare expense the individual has to pay for to complete "the sale" - that is, pay the healthcare provider bill. Insane expenditures for the simplest medical procedures are common.

Please understand this fully, appreciate that currently the UK's NHS still manages to provide a superior level of healthcare for all the people in a way nonexistent in the USA.

President Obama may have done the best he could do with his legislation, I don't know. Regardless of his role, I can't blame one person for the US healthcare system. I do blame those powerful enough to do something better but don't & won't.

US government subsidised healthcare provision for people over the age of sixty-five (I'm uncertain the exact age people become eligible) has demonstrated well enough the USA is capable of cutting the crap & provide all their people with affordable healthcare. Even that subsidy for older people in the US isn't as good as healthcare provision & delivery compared to other wealthy nations. But it's demonstrated affordable healthcare delivery can be done in the US. Leadership in that country has made the decision not to provide affordable, adequate & comprehensive healthcare for all the people. A disgraceful, senseless choice made.

Fewer and fewer companies in the US, are providing health insurance for their employees these days. When the bank crisis hit over there a lot of companies quit the scheme.
It was the equivalent of a cut in pay because it was around $80 a month (I think my daughter said) for the workers to get their own basic insurance cover. Many didn't because they couldn't afford it.

She works for a big company that makes crisps and snacks. They don't do employee health insurance. She is only covered by her husbands Veterans health scheme and that was downsized a couple of years back.

ScarletGas wrote:For filing under "if it looks like a pig, smells like a pig, grunts like a pig then it probably is a pig.

Programme on the, what looks like, unbelievably generous deal, that West Ham Utd got for the purchase of the Olympic stadium on BBC 1 London tonight at 7pm then after on IPlayer.

I will not make definitive accusations on the basis of one article or before seeing the programme but it looks like a reward to Baroness Brady (a director of said club) for services rendered. Of course boneheaded Boris is involved!

Well if it's the same sort of deal that sold off the Olympic Village to the Saudi's then without a doubt, it oinks.

RobertSnozers wrote:

PorFavor wrote:

Willow904 wrote: I honestly don't know what to say to this. Is it satire?

I followed the link through to young Theo's own website and read some of his other articles. I can't make him out, to be honest.


Good morfternoon, everyone.

I did the same after you said that - I was expecting a fanatical free-market evangelist, but what little I saw was rather more nuanced.

He's dead wrong on slums though.

I saw this on Twitter this morning and posted it over at The Other Place. It's a staggering piece and I couldn't work him out, either. He genuinely seems to be saying people want to choose to live in "proper" slums. As if anyone is saying:

"I wish I could choose to live in a slum! Curse you, anti-hovel legislation! Only squalor can set us free!"

The right have these outliers that have been part of easing politics that way for 40 years now. Hell, old Milton Friedman started off as one. Set something outrageous as a possibility, watch as those in government with a sympathetic ear make a compromise with it which is still ridiculous but seems sensible by false comparison. Bingo. Now all we have is talk of the Holy Grail Choice in places where the consumerist model doesn't meaningfully apply.

One of the dangers of treating the left as an automatic no-no for so long is the lack of lefty outliers to balance it. *sigh*

Well, having seen Burnham's pitch it looks as if he's just the next regeneration of the later, more desperate determined, Milliband.

I've not seen a policy of his that wouldn't have sat with the pessimistic Milliband vision of "Like them, but a bit better,"

Although, to be fair, he was less hostile to the prospect of working with the Snippers.

onebuttonmonkey wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:

PorFavor wrote: I followed the link through to young Theo's own website and read some of his other articles. I can't make him out, to be honest.


Good morfternoon, everyone.

I did the same after you said that - I was expecting a fanatical free-market evangelist, but what little I saw was rather more nuanced.

He's dead wrong on slums though.

I saw this on Twitter this morning and posted it over at The Other Place. It's a staggering piece and I couldn't work him out, either. He genuinely seems to be saying people want to choose to live in "proper" slums. As if anyone is saying:

"I wish I could choose to live in a slum! Curse you, anti-hovel legislation! Only squalor can set us free!"

The right have these outliers that have been part of easing politics that way for 40 years now. Hell, old Milton Friedman started off as one. Set something outrageous as a possibility, watch as those in government with a sympathetic ear make a compromise with it which is still ridiculous but seems sensible by false comparison. Bingo. Now all we have is talk of the Holy Grail Choice in places where the consumerist model doesn't meaningfully apply.

One of the dangers of treating the left as an automatic no-no for so long is the lack of lefty outliers to balance it. *sigh*

The kid* who wrote this bills himself as a "recovering Lib Dem" it shows, too obviously.


* Patronising yes, it's meant to be.

ScarletGas wrote:... I will not make definitive accusations on the basis of one article or before seeing the programme but it looks like a reward to Baroness Brady (a director of said club) for services rendered...!

Exactly my thoughts too, ScarletGas, when I caught the news clip but thought her name was Karen, albeit probably won't iPlayer it (not on in my region).

Edit: I suppose that should be iPlay it.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:I am increasingly of the opinion that the leadership contest needs immediate intervention to:

Roll the eligible voters back to GE+1 month.

Dump the 35K union registrations

Refund every genuine applicant their 3 pounds and apologise profusely.

In the old days you had a years qualifying as a member to stop this sort of thing.

If Corbyn wins on the basis of genuine Labour members good luck to him.

The election has to proceed on the basis it was set out - anything else would be an absolute disaster for the way the party looks. Seriously, the fallout from that - "you didn't like the way the result would go so you canned it". It would be shambolic and wrong. For better or worse, this was the way we said we would do it, so let's do it.

Qualifying periods stop the party responding to genuine upsurges in support. Times have changed. A party that doesn't take account of that is stuck in the past.

Do I like the registered supporters scheme? Not really. Join or don't join, offer a bigger discount for some people, sure. But it is open to abuse. That said, I know friends who are close to the party who wouldn't think of joining, but they've seen what's going on and have been engaged enough to join as supporters. They'll possibly upgrade later, they might not. I like the way a simple one-off fee gets them more involved even if the system is blatantly abusable.

As for the union registered voters? Why shouldn't they vote? I had a tiny automatic union vote years ago in 1994. Now, if people want to opt in, they can and they should and there's not a problem with that. If you think the "wrong kind" of people are being enrolled that way, get involved and enrol people who are more "your sort". But affiliated unions have a place.

It isn't ideal right now but it's better than it's ever been before and can be improved later. We'll see how much influence these other groups had later. Kicking out these new members or supporters - or stripping them of rights to vote that helped persuade them to join - as if they all weren't genuine or entitled to have a voice would do more damage than any number of false applicants. We're a party for our members. And we should keep our word.

Off Topic.

Had my shingles jab today...

http://www.snappytv.com/tc/731563/205742" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This whole Kids Company thing is kicking off a bit. Lots of bitching and accusations on all sides. It's like when different factions of the mob fall out, waiting to see who'll be the last man standing. Hard to know what to make of it.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... st-cartoon

Today's Rowson Cartoon. Check out the names on the hunting rifle at the bottom of the drawing.

Willow904 wrote:http://www.snappytv.com/tc/731563/205742

This whole Kids Company thing is kicking off a bit. Lots of bitching and accusations on all sides. It's like when different factions of the mob fall out, waiting to see who'll be the last man standing. Hard to know what to make of it.

It's all getting nasty now, Willow.

I've been trying to find out exactly what KC does with these young people it supports. Apparently they do a thing called "psychotherapeutic scaffolding" which is the sort of psycho-babble touchy-feely bollock-speak I heard so much of from addiction treatment providers when I worked for the DAAT.
As far as I know, there were no residential or fostering services involved; as far as I know, the kids had homes to go to however dysfunctional they might have been; and I gather that a lot of the support involved leisure activities of all sorts combined with weekly gifts of money for many of the "clients".

We know that since April, KC has had 2 grants from government, one for £4.26M and another for £3M. Ms.Batmangelidjh has said there was another recent donation of a further £3M. There may well have been more, as she has a lot of very wealthy celebrities giving money to her charity on a regular basis.
Suppose it's "just" £10 Million - over a period of 4 months, with 6,000 kids, that works out at £1,733 per child or about £5k a year. That sort of money would pay for a years' fostering for 300 children in need of safe parenting, or residential care for a year for 75 troubled young adolescents.

If the young people KC dealt with were so dysfunctional or troubled, they would already have had some involvement from medical or social services. Despite lurid headlines, the number of children who are seriously neglected remains quite low.
I wonder how many of them, as well as getting their support from KC, already had case workers or other support in place - support that we pay for on top of what was going to KC. It all amounts to a lot of public money.

When Ms.Batmangelidjh set up KC in 1996, the picture was very different. We know that many statutory services had suffered from years of neglect; there was very little investment in the housing estates many of these kids come from; and although things remain far from perfect, the overall rate of substantiated child abuse and neglect has actually fallen by 20% in the past 20 years.
Labour had a lot to do with that - by improving housing, health, and social care. What KC is dealing with 20 years on is a very different scenario, and I can't help feeling that they have got carried away by their own myths, Ms.Batmangelidjh especially.

There is no question that she has done a lot of good, and there is no question that many of the young people using KC have gone on to do well - but I can't help wondering how much more good could have been done by mainstream services had they been funded so handsomely by the tens of millions KC received from taxpayers and the many tens of millions more that came from supporters.

At a time when social services and other areas that impinge on child health and development are being cut to the bone, when the social security system is leaving parents in vulnerable situations with no option other than to queue at food banks, it seems ridiculous to me that millions of taxpayers money is being diverted so that a few (and it really IS a few) kids can have some psychotherapeutic scaffolding and a bit of pocket money.

Follow the money. I daresay we may never find out what all this si about. I just hope the staff owed wages got paid.

ephemerid wrote: I daresay we may never find out what all this si about.

Given the personal intervention of certain politicians, I too very much doubt we will...

utopiandreams wrote:

ScarletGas wrote:... I will not make definitive accusations on the basis of one article or before seeing the programme but it looks like a reward to Baroness Brady (a director of said club) for services rendered...!

Exactly my thoughts too, ScarletGas, when I caught the news clip but thought her name was Karen, albeit probably won't iPlayer it (not on in my region).

Edit: I suppose that should be iPlay it.

Tis the very same. She was ennobled (I think that's the right word) a couple of years ago.

Our esteemed Prime Minister seems to have developed a penchant (mesmerised seems to be the word of the day....) for ladies of a certain age with an "interesting" history. This years version is the "classy" Lady Michelle Mone.

By the way I take it he is now on holiday....Yet to see any fishpointing.Imagine what the press would say if a Lefty PM took time off during a crisis invoking Cobra meetings!

ScarletGas wrote:

utopiandreams wrote:

ScarletGas wrote:... I will not make definitive accusations on the basis of one article or before seeing the programme but it looks like a reward to Baroness Brady (a director of said club) for services rendered...!

Exactly my thoughts too, ScarletGas, when I caught the news clip but thought her name was Karen, albeit probably won't iPlayer it (not on in my region).

Edit: I suppose that should be iPlay it.

Tis the very same. She was ennobled (I think that's the right word) a couple of years ago.

Our esteemed Prime Minister seems to have developed a penchant (mesmerised seems to be the word of the day....) for ladies of a certain age with an "interesting" history. This years version is the "classy" Lady Michelle Mone.

By the way I take it he is now on holiday....Yet to see any fishpointing.Imagine what the press would say if a Lefty PM took time off during a crisis invoking Cobra meetings!

Our Dave proves time and time again that there's not much under the thatch.