Thursday 13th August

[TechnicalEphemera]

I was wondering why the G left out Health as one of the topics they covered in their 'Who should I vote for as Labour leader?' article - which summarises the respective positions of the 4 candidates on a variety of areas.

Now I'm wondering if it was a deliberate omission - given that it's the really distinctive area for Andy Burnham - knowing they were going to come out in favour of Yvette Cooper. I can't understand why else they would ignore one of the major issues for our country and government - health and social care.

I know. I mean, Cooper? FFS. The lamest of lame ducks, the least interesting and active of the candidates, the most (small c) conservative... It beats me why anyone would want to vote for her. At least Kendall has a unique pitch, even if it is anathema to most Labour supporters.

Cooper has an excellent track record on economics, she should have been made shadow chancellor after the 2010 election.

Can't see much else to recommend her, but she might give a significant amount of grief to Cameron. Kendall couldn't lead the party any more than Corbyn can. Too narrow a support base in parliament (only slightly better than Corbyn's) with the added handicap she is too far away from the consensus.

[Tubby Isaacs]

She should have been Shadow Chancellor indeed. Balls was always handicapped by bollocks spouted by Right and Left about Brown, and had poor political judgement anyway.

[RogerOThornhill]

Wow, it really is starting early!

Jeremy Corbyn would cost British families £2,400 a year

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... -year.html

Writing for the Telegraph, Matthew Hancock, a Cabinet Office minister, says: "No matter who ends up in charge we have a Back to the Future Labour Party with every candidate wanting to take Britain for a ride back in time through more welfare spending, more borrowing and more taxes - which is exactly how they got us into a mess last time.

"Unsurprisingly the most anti-aspirational, anti-worker and damaging throwback of the lot - Jeremy Corbyn - has pledged to spend the most.

“Like most antiques his unfunded policies don't come cheap and a Corbyn premiership comes with a £42 billion price-tag which amounts to £2,400 for every working household.”

Matthew, do us a favour and just fuck off. Has he been taking sneering lessons from Cameron?

Until now the Tories have remained silent on the leadership crisis engulfing the Labour party.

Well, apart from Tim Loughton trying to pass himself off as a Labour supporter that is...

[TechnicalEphemera]

She should have been Shadow Chancellor indeed. Balls was always handicapped by bollocks spouted by Right and Left about Brown, and had poor political judgement anyway.

Poor choice by Miliband but one forced on him by the need to keep Balls on-side. The same consideration (keeping Balls in his place) was probably responsible for the stupidity of Alan Useless Johnson as SC.

Those two decisions may have cost him 2015.

[rebeccariots2]

George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 2h2 hours ago
Burnham wins the Mirror's endorsement: http://bit.ly/1J6NaaF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TechnicalEphemera]

Wow, it really is starting early!

Jeremy Corbyn would cost British families £2,400 a year

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... -year.html

Writing for the Telegraph, Matthew Hancock, a Cabinet Office minister, says: "No matter who ends up in charge we have a Back to the Future Labour Party with every candidate wanting to take Britain for a ride back in time through more welfare spending, more borrowing and more taxes - which is exactly how they got us into a mess last time.

"Unsurprisingly the most anti-aspirational, anti-worker and damaging throwback of the lot - Jeremy Corbyn - has pledged to spend the most.

“Like most antiques his unfunded policies don't come cheap and a Corbyn premiership comes with a £42 billion price-tag which amounts to £2,400 for every working household.”

Matthew, do us a favour and just fuck off. Has he been taking sneering lessons from Cameron?

Until now the Tories have remained silent on the leadership crisis engulfing the Labour party.

Well, apart from Tim Loughton trying to pass himself off as a Labour supporter that is...

Yep by the time of the election they will double that figure to 5k. Given the huge price tags associated with his policies it is like shooting fish in a barrel

[Tubby Isaacs]

Cooper can get properly stuck in too, in a way Miliband couldn't really.

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/ ... menon.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Corbyn right about austerity, but too easily discredited by what he says about the tax gap and monetary financing.

He's concentrating on economic ideas. I think Corbyn's easily discredited on other stuff too.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Anti-worker?

That's swiftboating.

And might not look very good if unemployment and wage growth carry on as they are.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Cooper didn't introduce the WCA- she was in charge for when the review was done, and seems to have made some (small) positive changes.

http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/wo ... thousands/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tubby Isaacs]

They haven't counted the cost of nationalizing electricity there, have they?

[RogerOThornhill]

They haven't counted the cost of nationalizing electricity there, have they?

It's all made up anyway - this is the silly season after all.

[tinyclanger2]

I can't help thinking that until the GBP stop believing the MSM (inc BBC), then any Labour leader is unelectable.

[Tizme1]

If you're suggesting Labour and Greens join up against the Tories in a similar tactical pact as previously happened with the Libdems, I could definitely see some mileage in that. Only a unified left block vote can oust the Tories in the SW. They managed an MEP apiece in the EU elections and I was happy to get both of them instead of the Ukip and Libdem. The only high point of late gor the left.

Pretty much yes. Caroline Lucas suggested Labour and the Greens should work together where possible and some Labour MPs seem to be amenable to that. As I've said before, I'm something of a 'watermelon' but tbh, many Greens are. Especially more recent members. Locally a number of our newer members are ex Labour. But equally, a number are ex Lib dem. And there's a fair smattering of never joined any party before members. At the same time, I know and am friends with many local Labour members and Councillors who told me privately that they agreed with our GE candidate more than the Labour candidate [though natch they voted for the Labour candidate]. So, there clearly is the potential for agreement. I can see positive outcomes from such an arrangement.

Nice to see you Tizme, and this comment is music to my ears. We (that is, the left) have to get over this antagonism and work together (and I don't mean 'everyone should shut up and support Labour').

Thanks Robert S, Tbh I have always been in favour of a 'consensus' approach. Back in May, I was at both the GE count, and the local election count. Not to mention campaigning on election day. It was an incredibly gruelling 36 hours or so without sleep. Made all the harder when we saw the exit polls and knew the Tories had won. The only two bright spots for me personally were Caroline's increased majority, and locally [in my own ward] the election of a Labour Councillor who actually is a really decent and committed chap, after years of bloody Lib dems. I couldn't have been more pleased at his election if he'd been a Green. Luckily the press missed me hugging him, and his wife! On the other hand, I wouldn't have given a damn if they had caught it. A good candidate is a good candidate, regardless of what label is attached to them.

[TechnicalEphemera]

I can't help thinking that until the GBP stop believing the MSM (inc BBC), then any Labour leader is unelectable.

No, because of events dear boy (TM SuperMac).

But you have to be credible as that fantastic MM post above sets out.

[LadyCentauria]

Evening all,

Thank you for your responses to my post at the weekend. I intended to post again later but had computer problems. And then the last few days I've had a friend staying. I've now caught up on posts many of which have been really thought provoking. Two in particular really got me musing. Firstly one from yahyah about the possibility of Tories and people from the right, paying their £3 in the hope of destroying the Labour party from that angle.

As I've said previously, as a party [locally] we haven't discussed this. But I got to wondering what might have happened if we had. Knowing the local members, I think they take the same view as me - we shouldn't get involved in the democratic process of another party. But being cynical, there could have been two other positions;

1) Vote for the candidate who's views are most closely aligned to ours.
2) Vote for the most right wing candidate in the hope it would drive more people away from Labour and towards us.

As I say we had no such discussion but if we had and those options were suggested, I'd have argued against both. And if there'd been support for 2) I think I probably would have had to consider leaving the party.

On to musing number two. TE I believe suggested that if the Tories run such a scheme and there was the chance to vote IDS as their leader and get them out of power that way, people might go for it. I wouldn't. But I got to wondering about it from the opposite angle. What if there were such a scheme in the Tory party and, they had an old fashioned Tory standing who was on the left of the Tory party. Might non Tory people join and vote for him/her in order to try and drag the Tories a little more left? Or I suppose I should say centre. Well, I'm sure you know what I mean.

Good to see you again - hope having your friend to stay made up for the having of computer problems! Re TE's suggestion: I'm registered to vote in London and so could, if I wished, join the Tory 'Open Primary' scheme to vote in their Mayoral Candidate election (a repeat of the same OP scheme that got Boris selected!) I'm not going to take up that option and didn't last time, either. But if my CLP proposed that we should get involved in it I'd be horrified and furious - and would speak and vote against it. It'd certainly make me reconsider my membership. Same if the Tories held an OP for their next leader. Even were it in my mind to be méchant, IDS would be the last person I'd vote for - he's still far too popular amongst Tories and their electorate; and this time, with his 'success' in creating UC and being 'tough on shirkers, scroungers, malingerers, and migrants,' might even win Eurgh! I'm shuddering at the very thought!

[RogerOThornhill]

It must be very confusing being a Tory.

Firstly, Tory supporters seem to be really enthusiastic about having Corbyn elected as Labour leader to the extent of signing up to vote for him. This includes one Tory MP.

But now, Hancock comes out with figures that are presumably designed to put people away from voting Corbyn. If it's meant for the general public then it's about 4 years or more too early.

Very odd.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Kendall calls for a "Stop Corbyn" pact.

I thought that you stopped X by having transferable votes, but never mind.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 54622.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TechnicalEphemera]

Kendall calls for a "Stop Corbyn" pact.

I thought that you stopped X by having transferable votes, but never mind.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 54622.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Beats me too.

[SpinningHugo]

It must be very confusing being a Tory.

Firstly, Tory supporters seem to be really enthusiastic about having Corbyn elected as Labour leader to the extent of signing up to vote for him. This includes one Tory MP.

But now, Hancock comes out with figures that are presumably designed to put people away from voting Corbyn. If it's meant for the general public then it's about 4 years or more too early.

Very odd.

If you are a Tory then you should be conflicted.

First the prospects for the Tory party are much better. Victory is greatly improved, and you have more room to do what you want without worrying about the opposition.

Second the prospects for the country are put at risk. It isn't impossible that Corbyn could win. We could have a dramatic economic or political crisis. They happen, and the government could see its popularity sharply decline. Corbyn as PM is not impossible. It s about, say 15/1, but that is not far-fetched. Strange things happen in politics (Corbyn was 200/1 plus to win). A Corbyn led government would be very radical, and Tories would not like it.

So, from their perspective, the reaction will depend upon how risk averse they are. The prospect of defeat becomes dramatically more improbable, but the consequence of it much more dramatic.

I don't think there are many more than say 18 MPs who really want Corbyn as leader, and so he would have to show extraordinary management skills to lead the party to victory, even if he were viable in other respects.

[HindleA]

Personally,I don't hold any more grudge against particular Labour politicians because they happened to be Ministers at the DWP.The narrative was set in the 80's "Tories put millions on the sick to hide unemployment" which still continues to this day in a sort of bipartisan agreement to blame the other party of the same.The result was inevitable,all those quilty of propagandising this overblown myth ,are culpable to some agree.No one seemed to notice that IDS,admitted that sick/disabled people receive JSA with the obvious logical and irrefutabe truth people on IB/ESA are really fucking ill.Apologies for swearing.

[LadyCentauria]

Not UK news but I'm pleased to read (on the BBC Red Button news pages) that Conneticut's Supreme Court, which abolished the death-penalty for 'new crimes only' four years ago, has ruled the entire death-penalty 'unconstitutional' and commuted all death-row prisoners' sentences to life-imprisonment. Conneticut had only carried out one execution since 1976 - and, now, 'only' thirty-one of the USA's fifty States maintain the death-penalty.

[LadyCentauria]

@danesclose: Congratulations to your twins on their A-level successes. I hope they enjoy both their academic- and social-lives at their chosen university/ies - and to you, a peaceful and deep night's sleep

[LadyCentauria]

Voting in the Scottish Labour Leadership Elections close at midday tomorrow/later/Friday - with the results to be announced at an event in Stirling, on Saturday. The candidates are Kezia Dugdale MSP and Ken Macintosh MSP. A new Deputy Leader is also being elected and the candidates are Richard Baker MSP, Alex Rowley MSP and Gordon Matheson, leader of Glasgow Council. The electorate comprises around 15,000 party members and approx. 6,000 affiliated- and registered-members.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-33911963

[ephemerid]

Cooper didn't introduce the WCA- she was in charge for when the review was done, and seems to have made some (small) positive changes.

http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/wo ... thousands/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ESA was introduced in October 2008 when James Purnell was in charge at DWP, for new claims only; the numbers claiming ESA were quite low and excluded long-term IB claimants who made up the bulk of sickness benefit claimants at the time.
Cooper was the Chief Secretary of the Treasury at the time, and happily waved through the money for the "reforms".

Cooper introduced ESA for IB claimants, 1.5 Million of them, despite being aware by then of the inherent unfairness of the test and despite the concerns of GPs, disability groups/charities; she is responsible for the national roll-out of ESA for all claimants.

The review did not address the test, change the parameters of the test, or make any positive changes to the test; what it did was suggest improvements to the way claimants were supported into work. Cooper is on the record as saying that ESA claimants, irrespective of what their illness or functional disability might be, should be expected to move into work after 2 years on benefits - and she expected to see the majority of long-term IB claimants subjected to the WCA put on to JSA.
Cooper also changed the Access to Work funding, putting more responsibility on employers to pay for adjustments; without addressing discrimination in the workplace, this had the effect of putting fewer people with health problems into work. The various schemes she wanted to implement did not happen as Labour lost office, but none of them did anything to address the WCA itself.
Cooper also brought in a much tougher regime for WRAG claimants - what was supposed to be "personalised support" from an adviser was in reality nothing more than an opportunity to impose conditions on the claimants, subject to sanctions.

She may not have introduced ESA for the original tranche of new claimants - but she brought it in for the majority of claimants even though it was known by then that the WCA was not fit for purpose, and the few changes she made to ESA rules made matters worse.

The article you link to does not actually suggest that the review was positive. Cooper said this - as quoted in the article - "This is a 'something for something' approach which gives people more help alongside a responsibility to take it up so that no-one who is fit for work is left to a life on benefits". The difficulty being that many of the people tested were not actually fit for work, and the roll-out to IB claimants she is responsible for has blighted the lives of many people, forcing them into jobsearch conditionality they simply cannot comply with.