Friday 7th August 2015

[AnatolyKasparov]

Hodges has been (by his standards) relatively sensible during this contest - despite sporting a "Vote Corbyn" twibbon on his Twitter avatar

He gave up on Kendall some time ago (getting accused of "betrayal" by the Liz diehards for doing so) and is now sort of backing Cooper. His latest piece in the DT actually takes a pop at the ultra-Blairites, though he is careful to balance that with the usual invective against Jezza and his supporters.

Thing to remember about DFH is that he is at heart an opportunist - not an ideologue like Rentoul, Aaronovitch, Collins et al. Doesn't makes him any less ridiculous much of the time, but it is still useful to know where he is coming from

True. It's hard to pin down any kind of principle that might allow someone to work for both a Trade Union and support the Boris 'n' Lynton show.

Rentoul is a weird one. I'm normally dismissive of the attitude that Blairite = Tory, but he has gone on record saying he'd prefer Cameron as PM to Miliband or Corbyn, so you can't argue with that assessment really

The ultra "fringe" of Blairism is loyal to Blair (or, more correctly, their idealised and rather distorted picture of him) rather than Labour though.

Another example in the media, David Aaronovitch, actually voted LibDem in May.

[ohsocynical]

To mark 100 days of the first Conservative government in nearly 20 years, HuffPost UK is running 100 Days of Dave, a special series of blog posts from grassroots campaigners to government ministers, single parents to first-year students, reflecting on what's worked and what hasn't, whilst looking for solutions to the problems we still face

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/paul-wa ... _hp_ref=uk

[ohsocynical]

Jeremy Corbyn Will Win Labour Leadership Race, Predicts Tessa Jowell

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08 ... 44194.html

[DonutHingeParty]

In other news, The Spectator commissions Jonathan King to write a blog entitled

Edward Heath wasn’t gay. Trust me, I tried – and failed – to seduce him

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... educe-him/

And what red-blooded homosexual could ever turn down the delicious Jonathan King?

In similar news, Sally Meaghan from my French class in year 10 was obviously a lesbian.

[refitman]

In other news, The Spectator commissions Jonathan King to write a blog entitled

Edward Heath wasn’t gay. Trust me, I tried – and failed – to seduce him

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... educe-him/

And what red-blooded homosexual could ever turn down the delicious Jonathan King?

In similar news, Sally Meaghan from my French class in year 10 was obviously a lesbian.

I don't know what to make of this article. Isn't the current issue around Heath whether or not he abused children? What on earth does his gender preference have to do with it?

Also, why are they publishing articles by King, considering his convictions?

[AngryAsWell]

Newsreader Defends Migrants, Tears Into 'Racist Little Nobodies' On Air

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08 ... _hp_ref=uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A bit more of this wouldn't go amiss

[LadyCentauria]

Reappearance of information for WRAG group and sanctions


"The people in this fact sheet are not real"


https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ns#history" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mwahahahah!
I almost don't believe I've actually seen that admission!

[AngryAsWell]

Why is Corbyn winning? Because Ed Miliband's not standing
There is no candidate speaking to the centre of the party - and that leaves a vacumn for Jeremy Corbyn, argues Neil James.

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

[ohsocynical]

London’s money-laundering enablers face crackdown

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a421beac-3ce7 ... d2152.html

Interesting. But who from. Cameron? Osborne?

[AngryAsWell]

I've come back to this a few time, just why are Whitehall computers editing Wikipedia ?

http://www.channel4.com/news/a-year-in- ... arriors?00" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Edit to add the witter feed that monitors edits

https://twitter.com/WhitehallEdits" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[yahyah]

I've come back to this a few time, just why are Whitehall computers editing Wikipedia ?

http://www.channel4.com/news/a-year-in- ... arriors?00" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Edit to add the witter feed that monitors edits

https://twitter.com/WhitehallEdits" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whoever it is doesn't seem a fan of Cameron -
''An edit added David Cameron's majority Conservative government to a list of right-wing dictatorships, ranking him alongside figures including Spanish ultranationalist General Franco.''

[AngryAsWell]

Jeremy Corbyn's bill for nationalising energy sector costed by City at £185bn
City analysts say regulatory hurdles for Labour leadership runner’s ambition to nationalise energy sector would see minimum £124bn bill

Seems a bit excessive?

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ctor-185bn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ohsocynical]

Jeremy Corbyn's bill for nationalising energy sector costed by City at £185bn
City analysts say regulatory hurdles for Labour leadership runner’s ambition to nationalise energy sector would see minimum £124bn bill

Seems a bit excessive?

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ctor-185bn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For sure they're not going to give us the true figures. It wouldn't be in their interest to do that. I wonder how many are going to get suckered in though?

[utopiandreams]

Watchdog asks DWP for 'objective and impartial' sanctions statements: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... jobseekers

[ohsocynical]

We mustn't forget with Dave's Big Society said to have breathed its last because of the Kids charity shut down, that somewhere, huge sums of tax payers money went missing via other charities run by his mates.
The Independent were running an investigation into it, but that, as with so many Tory money disappearing schemes, seems to have died the death.

[utopiandreams]

Victory for affordable housing as court throws out 'insane' government policy: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign ... ent-policy

In a damning verdict on the vacant building credit, he [Mr Justice Holgate] said: “No consideration was given to the lack of information on the impact of this policy change, notwithstanding the advice given by officials that this was necessary.”

This reminds me of the rolling out of landlords checking of immigration status, only there the trials proved ineffective and discriminatory.

[TechnicalEphemera]

You've made the point better than I did.

If we do borrow money, better it goes where it's most needed and that's not on a weapons system.

However standing on a platform of unilateral nuclear disarmament is a political death wish. Besides by the next election a decision will have been taken so it will become a grandiose and futile policy gesture.

In fact the correct solution was probably a cheaper alternative to Trident or a scaled back Trident.

Not really. There are no viable cheaper alternatives to Trident, and not having continuous at-sea deterrent effectively means no deterrent at all. It really is all or nothing. And having Polaris and then Trident didn't stop British interests and territories being attacked, so I'm not convinced it is justified. All the stuff about a seat on the UN Security Council is not relevant. You don't maintain control over the most destructive force on the planet just for membership of an international club.

The point is, is it the vote-loser it was in 1983. I don't think it has anything like that power any more.

Really, it was a vote loser in 87 as well. The only government in history to willingly give up nukes is.......

Ukraine.

How is that working out for them?

Corbyn will be hammered repeatedly on this. It is even more toxic now than before as it will be argued we are a target for terrorism and having a deterrent effectively keeps the state sponsors of terrorism in line.

There are actually plenty of cheaper alternatives to Trident by the way. Land based missiles for example.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Five local council byelections yesterday - all in Scotland and all confirming the current Nat hegemony:

South Lanarkshire - SNP hold, though with a swing of over 15% since 2012 when they and Labour split the four seats here (even though the latter easily polled more votes overall) and a similar movement since a 2013 by-election when Labour took one of the SNP vacancies. At least their opponents will take some heart that the SNP were actually made to go to transfers with this one as they fell short of half the vote, not that usual an event these days. Of the rest, the Tories (who took the last seat here in 2007) remained in a distant third with little change on the last two contests but still some way ahead of the others - Greens stood after sitting the last two out but scored a relatively modest 3%, still enough to beat (in order) the Scottish Christian Party, UKIP (just 1%, less than half their by-election showing) LibDems and lastly the Pirate Party (0.3%)

Glasgow - no fewer than four contests here; the first was an SNP gain from the Greens in a division which split 1SNP/1Lab/1Green in 2012, and it saw the smallest Lab-SNP swing of the day (though still around 13%) as the Nats fell a handful of votes short of winning on the first round. Greens actually advanced since last time despite their seat loss, beating the Tories who were also up slightly. LibDems, who won a seat here in 2007, declined further to less than 3%; UKIP just beating TUSC (a rare foray north of the border) into last. The other three results were all SNP holds but with the now customary hefty swings; the first was in a division which split 2Lab/1SNP/1Grn in 2012 and a 20% Lab-SNP swing still saw the Nats fall a bit short of half the vote and need transfers - Greens remained a respectable third and increased their vote, followed by Tories who were little changed. LibDem, UKIP and a "Libertarian" candidate (just 0.4%) brought up the rear. The other two saw outright SNP wins in the first round - the first (which split 2Lab/2SNP last time, even though Labour were clearly ahead in votes - the Sheridan-inspired offshoot Solidarity took a seat here in 2007 but they seem pretty much dead now) had a swing to the SNP of over 21% - Tories a very distant third with 6% (still up a bit on three years ago) followed by Greens, UKIP and LibDems in that order. The final result (a division which split 2Lab/1SNP in the last two elections) saw the biggest pro-SNP swing of all - almost exactly 25%. Tories got less than 5% but still managed both third place and an improvement on 2012 - followed by UKIP who (maybe surprisingly) just managed to beat the Greens, then an Indy and finally the LibDems with just 0.7%.

Six contests - in England, Scotland and Wales! - next week.

[rebeccariots2]

I'm having to grit my teeth to continue listening to Toby Young on Any Questions. Mind you ... by the sound of the audience response to him, most of them are too.

[HindleA]

My sister in law and niece are there.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Jeremy Corbyn's bill for nationalising energy sector costed by City at £185bn
City analysts say regulatory hurdles for Labour leadership runner’s ambition to nationalise energy sector would see minimum £124bn bill

Seems a bit excessive?

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ctor-185bn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

'They would, wouldn't they?'

Of course it would cost £124bn if not more.

You have to purchase the companies from their current owners. Because these companies are very profitable organisations with loads of infrastructure they are very valuable.

And in return for spending 124bn of tax payers money what practical benefits would be delivered?

Zip, maybe if you are lucky a 20% reduction on fuel bills (WAG economic estimate).

[howsillyofme1]

TE

I don't agree

I have yet to see the assumptions on what the figures are based (the most important factor and the most forgotten in calculations....asuuming that.....)

Also the Government can do a compulsory purchase at whatever value they want...it may not be a desirable outcome but ir seems to me no more outlandish than the ridiculous valuation given in this half-baked assessment

Funny that the Government can shot all over the poor without any concern and talk about firing anyone that opposes them (tube drivers anyone) but balks at challenging the rich

I expected better from you TE...I agree Corbyn is not the ideal victor in the Labour leadership race but to agree with this laughable valuation is not becoming!

[rebeccariots2]

For anyone worried about the 'entryists' ... little snippet re the newly joined members in our branch. Several of them were already Labour supporters and had actually helped us out canvassing ... they just hadn't joined up. All of them have been rung up by the branch Chair or Sec and had a chat about what they would like or not like to be involved in.

Of course - these are fully signed up members not the £3 ers. But then our branch also nominated Corbyn ... and the mood at the meeting I last went to where the majority attending were longterm members was definitely pro Corbyn.

Having just listened to Toby Young talking absolute crap about joining up as a £3 er ... but slating all the 'entryists' who weren't him and doing it for such grand reasons apparently ... and Bonnie Greer giving him hell over his interference in another party's business (she called him a 'wrecker') ... I felt the need to cleanse my system with that snippet of information.

[howsillyofme1]

However standing on a platform of unilateral nuclear disarmament is a political death wish. Besides by the next election a decision will have been taken so it will become a grandiose and futile policy gesture.

In fact the correct solution was probably a cheaper alternative to Trident or a scaled back Trident.

Not really. There are no viable cheaper alternatives to Trident, and not having continuous at-sea deterrent effectively means no deterrent at all. It really is all or nothing. And having Polaris and then Trident didn't stop British interests and territories being attacked, so I'm not convinced it is justified. All the stuff about a seat on the UN Security Council is not relevant. You don't maintain control over the most destructive force on the planet just for membership of an international club.

The point is, is it the vote-loser it was in 1983. I don't think it has anything like that power any more.

Really, it was a vote loser in 87 as well. The only government in history to willingly give up nukes is.......

Ukraine.

How is that working out for them?

Corbyn will be hammered repeatedly on this. It is even more toxic now than before as it will be argued we are a target for terrorism and having a deterrent effectively keeps the state sponsors of terrorism in line.

There are actually plenty of cheaper alternatives to Trident by the way. Land based missiles for example.

and what, pray tell, will these missiles protect us from?

Terrorism, asymmetric warfare, cybercrime

Nuclear weapons have lost any validity from a deterrent point of view, especially for the minor nuclear powers

Reminds me of a bit of cock waving to be honest!

I can understand, barely, the reasoning of the 80s but in 2015 - is nuclear warfare our biggest threat, or even one that registers. Such big, cumbersome and outdated weaponry!

[Tubby Isaacs]

Trident isn't even independent. At least the French nukes are.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Trident isn't even independent. At least the French nukes are.

Trident is independent. However the US could stop servicing it which would be an issue.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Trident isn't even independent. At least the French nukes are.

Trident is independent. However the US could stop servicing it which would be an issue.

The US won't service it if there's any sign that it'll be used in a way they don't approve.

[AngryAsWell]

TE

I don't agree

I have yet to see the assumptions on what the figures are based (the most important factor and the most forgotten in calculations....asuuming that.....)

Also the Government can do a compulsory purchase at whatever value they want...it may not be a desirable outcome but ir seems to me no more outlandish than the ridiculous valuation given in this half-baked assessment

Funny that the Government can shot all over the poor without any concern and talk about firing anyone that opposes them (tube drivers anyone) but balks at challenging the rich

I expected better from you TE...I agree Corbyn is not the ideal victor in the Labour leadership race but to agree with this laughable valuation is not becoming!

They are based on the current share price.

[quoteThey assumed that the shares are bought at current prices and not at any higher price, which might be expected from a takeover, to calculate an enterprise value – the debt and equity – for the companies. For companies which are not directly listed on the market and are part of bigger groups – such as EDF or E.ON – the analysts have used valuations of just the UK operations.][/quote]

As for compulsory purchase of foreign owned assets at a lower than market price, how do you think the French will take that? Looking at a massive breach in international relations. Not to mention stock market crash as other countries lose faith in the UK as a place to invest.

[TechnicalEphemera]

TE

I don't agree

I have yet to see the assumptions on what the figures are based (the most important factor and the most forgotten in calculations....asuuming that.....)

Also the Government can do a compulsory purchase at whatever value they want...it may not be a desirable outcome but ir seems to me no more outlandish than the ridiculous valuation given in this half-baked assessment

Funny that the Government can shot all over the poor without any concern and talk about firing anyone that opposes them (tube drivers anyone) but balks at challenging the rich

I expected better from you TE...I agree Corbyn is not the ideal victor in the Labour leadership race but to agree with this laughable valuation is not becoming!

Why is 124bn laughable. These companies have huge assets and their market cap is pretty decent. Back in 2002 Eon bought Powergen for over 8 billion. Going to be worth a load more by now. We exist in the single market, we are not going to be able to force companies to sell other than at a premium. This will be hugely expensive, but hey let's knock a chunk off and say £100 billion. Doesn't make it any less daft.

I get the whole starry eyed socialism thing about Corbyn, and to be fair he has at least stopped the stupid grovelling to big business that was previously going on (hint it will always vote Tory if they have a chance of winning). However he isn't even the most popular candidate amongst Labour voters and he is utterly hopeless outside of that.

Maybe if the UK had suffered the sort of dislocation Spain and Greece had it would be different. However it hasn't, the idea that the disposessed are ready to rise up and sweep Labour to power just isn't credible. Especially given how bad the young and students are at bothering to vote, and noting much of Labours working class vote switched to UKIP.

I don't think it is unreasonable to point out his policy on defence is likely to be a huge vote loser and his economic policy unaffordable. Sure he says some smart stuff as well but nobody will notice that.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Trident isn't even independent. At least the French nukes are.

Trident is independent. However the US could stop servicing it which would be an issue.

The US won't service it if there's any sign that it'll be used in a way they don't approve.

But we could probably keep it running.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Yes, I think the figure for renationalizing the whole lot is going to be pretty huge.

http://news.sky.com/story/1426134/edf-e ... 25-percent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

EDF, just one of the "Big 6", having a fairly bad year and making £649m profits.

I'd go down the route of toughening up Ofgem, I think.

[Tubby Isaacs]

This is good. Bit about handing out cash to teenagers really caught my eye.

http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/finance/i ... ds_company" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kids Company was always an unusual organisation. It was off by its own in a sector which is commonly collegiate. It made its own rules. So we don’t actually know whether it was effective at helping children – though the stories from former service users seem to suggest it had at least some success.


Its methods appear to be unusual – they reportedly included handing out cash to teenagers, significant amounts at a time – and there is little independent verification of the number of kids it actually worked with. A lot of people who’ve been involved with the charity have claimed its numbers are exaggerated, or just plain made up.
The charity speaks of collecting data and being subject to external investigation, but I can say from trying to scrutinise it that it does not make it clear what’s going on.

I am not a child services expert, so I can only say that it may be that its services are fantastic – the logic behind their methods is certainly apparent, and I found myself drawn by its ideology – a holistic hub-and-spoke mechanism in which each child had a key worker assigned to them, and that key worker drew on all the support services needed to help them.
I also understood the charity’s anger at statutory services. They paint a picture of a disconnected infrastructure which required children to have complex interactions with multiple individuals, and abandoned them on their eighteenth birthday. I can’t speak for the truth of it, but I certainly found the picture they painted to be plausible.

What they haven’t done, though, is prove it. They say they have released studies, been scrutinised by academics, and collect lots of data. Not much, though, finds its way into the public domain, and that which does comes with a colourful human-interest story attached.

[rebeccariots2]

Joseph Rowntree Fdn. ‏@jrf_uk 6h6 hours ago
New blog: Benefit cap is failing to tackle the cause of high benefits, says @KatieSchmuecker http://bit.ly/1MVwSTF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...The Summer Budget announced a lowering of the cap from April next year, bringing it down to £23,000 in London and £20,000 outside of London. This will increase substantially the number of families that will see their benefits capped. Indeed, analysis by the National Housing Federation indicates the effects will be felt acutely in the social rented as well as the (generally more expensive) private rented sector. They find couples with three children will hit the cap across the UK, finding themselves around £40 a week short of the money they would need to cover the rent on a three-bedroom housing association house in the North and Midlands (and around £50 short of a four-bedroom house).

This gets to the heart of the problem with the benefit cap: it tackles a symptom – that some out-of-work people have high benefit claims – rather than the cause, which is the fact that housing is expensive in many parts of the UK. This government’s housing policy so far has emphasised wider home ownership, with ambitions to increase the number of ‘starter homes’ and plans to extend the right to buy. What is missing is a complementary strategy to increase the supply of genuinely affordable social housing, so that families don’t have to end up in the more expensive (and less secure) private rented sector. Between 2010 and 2015, the generosity of Housing Benefit was reduced by £2 billion, yet the overall Housing Benefit bill still increased by £1billion as a result of rents rising faster than earnings and more people living in the private rented sector claiming Housing Benefit...

[Tubby Isaacs]

Corruption, if true.

A multimillionaire Tory donor was involved in the campaign to persuade ministers to give a £3m grant to the troubled charity Kids Company against the advice of civil servants, The Independent has learnt.

James Lupton, who is the Conservatives’ co-treasurer and donated more than £1m to the party last year, is understood to have met with ministers on behalf of the charity as its financial woes deepened.

Following the discussions, Cabinet Office ministers Oliver Letwin and Matthew Hancock took the controversial decision to overrule their most senior civil servants and “direct” that they award Kids Company a £3m restructuring grant. But the charity announced its closure on Wednesday after finding itself short of funds amid claims of financial mismanagement.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 44400.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RogerOThornhill]

This is from tomorrow's FT.



Caught in two minds probably - didn't want to be the one accused of bringing down a popular charity but now looks an idiot as they've folded less than a week after he gave them £3m.

[Tubby Isaacs]

This is from tomorrow's FT.



Caught in two minds probably - didn't want to be the one accused of bringing down a popular charity but now looks an idiot as they've folded less than a week after he gave them £3m.

This doesn't sound too different to what Lutfur Rahman was accused of...

[rebeccariots2]

I'm in more than two minds about the whole Kids Company saga ... I think it will need a bit of time and calm before some sense can be made of the various claims and counter claims ... and some kind of understanding reached about what where the real weaknesses and strengths of the organisation and the motives and actions of those involved in its folding. There are too many fingers pointing at all kinds of different views and allegations at the moment.

Having worked in the charity / third sector for a lengthy period I can see many of the same clashes and tensions that have always been around re organisations that work in a different way from the statutory services and ways of measuring and reporting outcomes and outputs etc. I have some sympathy with some of the statements that CB has made about their work and the need for it.

But where I can't support her is in the lack of building up the necessary reserves to pay staff / cover redundancies etc. Her arguments re this were way off beam - it's a basic that a charitable organisation needs to ensure they have enough to cover such liabilities - it's not a popular line for charities to have on their accounts (people don't necessarily like to think charities have funds in the kitty and are asking them for more) but it is necessary. In the interview I heard she tried to explain this lack of accruing the necessary reserves as being because children and young people were 'pouring' through their doors and they couldn't turn them away - so they just kept on meeting the ever growing demand. That is again a well known and well debated challenge for charities. Many of them feel they have to reach a point where they can't just keep on responding to all demands - unless there is additional funding to cover it from either the state or other sources. Sadly those that do keep on responding limitlessly often end up being weakened and unable to sustain good services and management - perhaps failing - and are allowing the state off the hook.

[LadyCentauria]

Friday's Rowson - this time on the Republican and Conservative leadership races:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... es-cartoon