Weekend Edition - Saturday/Sunday 15th/16th August

[yahyah]

Lee Waters ‏@Amanwy 2m2 minutes ago
It is not anti-wealth to say those who have more should help those who do not - says Gordon Brown

Peter Jukes ‏@peterjukes 2m2 minutes ago
"It's not anti market to say that markets can only survive with values and markets need morals" says Brown

[refitman]

http://www.trusselltrust.org/stats
growth in foodbank use.
Not going to cheer us up but at least a different topic.

So - more than a million.

Trussell Trust make it clear that the figures are not unique users, but the amount of 3-day food parcels given out last year.
It's still a staggering amount. That's 3,252,012 days' worth of basic foodstuffs.
Some of those parcels will be for more than one person; some of the recipients will be "hardworkingfamilies"(TM).

TT supplies, according to the last figures I could find from last year, 29% of all emergency food aid in the UK.

The rest is made up of - other food banks; independent food banks; LA vouchers or supermarket cards issued in place of hardship payments; cooked meals supplied by hostels, charities, churches, temples, mosques, gurdwaras, others; food parcels from Oxfam, Save The Children, and the Red Cross.

On top of that, there is an unknown number of people reliant on family and/or friends to keep them fed.

How has it come to this? The UK is one of the richest countries in the world. This is a national disgrace.

Yeah, but if you offer free food, people are going to take it.

/Tory

[rebeccariots2]

Is anyone else thinking what the hell is this sudden new fangled use of the word 'intervention' about? Surely 'intervention' in political terms is generally used for things like war - intervening in Syria, Libya and the like? How to ramp up a situation through your messaging ... point 1 of the foundation course?

[ephemerid]

I think we all need to be mindful of other people's feelings when posting. Please be aware that it is harder to get across meaning in the written word than spoken. As much as possible we should avoid pejorative language, including using "mad bastards" to describe sets of supporters.

Indeed, Refitman.

Which is why I and others have asked for us all to do that very thing several times.

If someone as prickly as me - and, dare I say, our friend yahyah (ducks) - have had to ask repeatedly, without naming names, for just that with no discernible result, then I hope you will forgive me pointing out to one of those guilty of much of it how much it grates.

yahyah - I have no intention of leaving. I just thought I might get the sack. Having been very (justifiably in my view) rude to Hugo.

Note to Hugo - I will not apologise. I meant every word of it.

OK, chaps - as you were.....

[rebeccariots2]

tom bradby ‏@tombradby 5m5 minutes ago
Just watched an elderly man commit suicide in Greece by driving his car off the harbour wall in Rafina.

tom bradby ‏@tombradby 4m4 minutes ago
Dived in, tried to help, couldn't get him out. Completely shocking.

This has really got to me.

[howsillyofme1]

I find it interesting to have Kubler-Ross curve discussed here as I am on a change management course tomorrow

I know people turn off when 'change management' is discussed but some of it is very interesting and makes sense. It is just companies and elsewhere are very bad at doing it as changing things requires understanding of why you need to change and also what you want to change to

Labour needs to change and in order to do so either those in the party understand that themselves or they need some disruption.

Miliband was very close to making change that was relatively painless but lots of the establishment wanted to keep on the track that the post-Blair 'modernisers' (I am sorry but I spit when I see that word) wanted to carry on in following the Tories and letting them set the agenda

Now we are too late to have an incremental change....we need a major disruption and it seems this leadership election is it.....after it hopefully the party will be on a road to a clearer future

The current path will only lead to oblivion I think

I was also like to say that Blair was not a bad leader and he did much good and we must not repudiate all he did, remembering the chaos he was left with - he succumbed to hubris though and has moved further from reality in every year since. Brown was a bad leader but is a fantastic intellect and it is a shame he did not realise this himself - he still is deserving of a lot of respect. He could really be a powerful support to the party

[yahyah]

Us, prickly ? Never Ephie.

Maybe not the best time to publish that pic of us both ?

[ephemerid]

Yeah, but if you offer free food, people are going to take it.
/Tory

Indeed.

I'll be hanging around at the Co-Op on Monday to see if the bakery is throwing out any old custard tarts.

If I get some, I'll be looking for some "mad bastards" to throw them at. No, akshully, I won't throw them.
I'll get right up to their no-doubt slavering ham-like chops and do a full-frontal SPLATTTTT!!!!!!! as they say in the comics.

Obviously, to get the full effect you have to really grind the pie into their mush.

So yeah, I'll take that. If there aren't any, I'll have to make do with mud.
We've got lots of mud in Wales.

[howsillyofme1]

tom bradby ‏@tombradby 5m5 minutes ago
Just watched an elderly man commit suicide in Greece by driving his car off the harbour wall in Rafina.

tom bradby ‏@tombradby 4m4 minutes ago
Dived in, tried to help, couldn't get him out. Completely shocking.

This has really got to me.

This shows it is not a game all this politics thing....I fear our leadership see everything as a game and are not interested in the human cost. As long as their pals in the media declare them as being clever and winning then that is all it matters to them!

[ohsocynical]

Picking up the tv in another room there was one of those appalling property programmes on

In it we have some one working in a fairly low paid with a daughter out of work who is moving from Surrey to Yorkshire and has a budget of £375000 for a property

This is what makes my blood boil a bit - you can work hard go to university get a good job at above average wage but if you have never owned a property or live in a less desirable area then you are massively wealth disadvantaged against those who come from certain areas and inherit either wealth like that from parents or from huge capital gains in property without any tax being paid......

Inheritance tax and, I know it is controversial, but a Capital Gains tax on house sales may need to be put in place to cover a lot more unearned gains such as these!

The usual argument against is jealousy (and yes I wish it was me but like the vast majority of the population it wasn't) and blocking aspiration (whatever this means!)

I see where you are coming from, and I certainly support inheritance tax and would lower the threshold.

But some of the supposed massive gains when selling one's property can be not all they seem.

We sold up and downsized to pay off our mortgage etc.
But if you added up all the mortgage payments we'd made in the past [sometimes at double figure interest rates and certainly never at the all time low % now], money spent in repairs, maintenance, re-decorating etc. then the unearned gain isn't quite as rosy as it appears.

Agree. Our original mortgage was taken out in '66. It was a joint mortgage so due to my parents age, therefore was only for fifteen years. [In those days your mortgage had to finish at retirement age.

My dad worked it out. Five years to repay the sum borrowed, and ten years of interest. We never remortgaged, and every month hook or by crook found our share. Never missed a payment. And there were quite a few times I went to bed hungry.

Didn't have a car until Mr Ohso was in his late thirties. Never had a holiday unless mum and dad bankrolled it as a family holiday. Clothed the family from jumble sales and replaced household items via second hand shops.

So at the end of our life we're sitting on around £140,000. Asset rich, cash poor and the council will soon have their grubby mitts on the asset if we should become unable to look after ourselves.

I can honestly say owning a home when you reach your old age without a sizeable pension for upkeep, or to pay for your care, is a poison chalice.

[howsillyofme1]

I think we all need to be mindful of other people's feelings when posting. Please be aware that it is harder to get across meaning in the written word than spoken. As much as possible we should avoid pejorative language, including using "mad bastards" to describe sets of supporters.

Indeed, Refitman.

Which is why I and others have asked for us all to do that very thing several times.

If someone as prickly as me - and, dare I say, our friend yahyah (ducks) - have had to ask repeatedly, without naming names, for just that with no discernible result, then I hope you will forgive me pointing out to one of those guilty of much of it how much it grates.

yahyah - I have no intention of leaving. I just thought I might get the sack. Having been very (justifiably in my view) rude to Hugo.

Note to Hugo - I will not apologise. I meant every word of it.

OK, chaps - as you were.....

I must admit I try to be good but I do like poking the odd wasp's nest every now and again

I live in a foreign culture and we Brits are laughed at for a lack of directness and ambiguity in what we mean. I must admit we can be overly cautious of offending people. I don't mind offending people as long as I try to remain polite. Offence is very personal and something that offends one person will not offend another

If I offend I am sorry but I will apologise in advance on the understanding I will not stop being direct and occasionally pushing the boundaries

I am sorry we have seen people leave but I personally do not understand it....the community we represent is diverse and no-one has all the answers and we will not agree all the time

Remember all we are of the left....we see the complexity in things and the difficulty in achieving progress....the Tories are the ones that can only deal with simple explanations......whether it is down to a lack of intellect or a better grasp of the capabilities of the British people is difficult to tell

[howsillyofme1]

Picking up the tv in another room there was one of those appalling property programmes on

In it we have some one working in a fairly low paid with a daughter out of work who is moving from Surrey to Yorkshire and has a budget of £375000 for a property

This is what makes my blood boil a bit - you can work hard go to university get a good job at above average wage but if you have never owned a property or live in a less desirable area then you are massively wealth disadvantaged against those who come from certain areas and inherit either wealth like that from parents or from huge capital gains in property without any tax being paid......

Inheritance tax and, I know it is controversial, but a Capital Gains tax on house sales may need to be put in place to cover a lot more unearned gains such as these!

The usual argument against is jealousy (and yes I wish it was me but like the vast majority of the population it wasn't) and blocking aspiration (whatever this means!)

I see where you are coming from, and I certainly support inheritance tax and would lower the threshold.

But some of the supposed massive gains when selling one's property can be not all they seem.

We sold up and downsized to pay off our mortgage etc.
But if you added up all the mortgage payments we'd made in the past [sometimes at double figure interest rates and certainly never at the all time low % now], money spent in repairs, maintenance, re-decorating etc. then the unearned gain isn't quite as rosy as it appears.

Agree. Our original mortgage was taken out in '66. It was a joint mortgage so due to my parents age, therefore was only for fifteen years. [In those days your mortgage had to finish at retirement age.

My dad worked it out. Five years to repay the sum borrowed, and ten years of interest. We never remortgaged, and every month hook or by crook found our share. Never missed a payment. And there were quite a few times I went to bed hungry.

Didn't have a car until Mr Ohso was in his late thirties. Never had a holiday unless mum and dad bankrolled it as a family holiday. Clothed the family from jumble sales and replaced household items via second hand shops.

So at the end of our life we're sitting on around £140,000. Asset rich, cash poor and the council will soon have their grubby mitts on the asset if we should become unable to look after ourselves.

I can honestly say owning a home when you reach your old age without a sizeable pension for upkeep, or to pay for your care, is a poison chalice.

I am happy to stand corrected - my view is too simplistic, but I still think there is something perverse in this situation. I suppose it is linked to the disparity of asset value to the other parts of our wealth generating capability such as work. Perhaps attacking the input variables rather than the output is the best approach

[HindleA]

I claim ownership of "mad bastard" I have been called it for many a long year and consistently,along with "as weird as a nine bob note" which shows my vintage.Any usage outwith specific reference to myself may very well result in recourse to legal action.You have been warned.

Love and kisses.

[howsillyofme1]

I claim ownership of "mad bastard" I have been called it for many a long year and consistently,along with "as weird as a nine bob note" which shows my vintage.Any usage outwith specific reference to myself may very well result in recourse to legal action.You have been warned.

Love and kisses.

Thanks for that MB...

I must admit I am often called 'charming'. I say something and then someone looks at me and says 'charming!'. Fills me up every time

[yahyah]

& I was dubbed 'The mad Italian' at work. Could not possibly comment on the accuracy.

[ephemerid]

I find it interesting to have Kubler-Ross curve discussed here as I am on a change management course tomorrow

I know people turn off when 'change management' is discussed but some of it is very interesting and makes sense. It is just companies and elsewhere are very bad at doing it as changing things requires understanding of why you need to change and also what you want to change to

Labour needs to change and in order to do so either those in the party understand that themselves or they need some disruption.

Miliband was very close to making change that was relatively painless but lots of the establishment wanted to keep on the track that the post-Blair 'modernisers' (I am sorry but I spit when I see that word) wanted to carry on in following the Tories and letting them set the agenda

Now we are too late to have an incremental change....we need a major disruption and it seems this leadership election is it.....after it hopefully the party will be on a road to a clearer future

The current path will only lead to oblivion I think

I was also like to say that Blair was not a bad leader and he did much good and we must not repudiate all he did, remembering the chaos he was left with - he succumbed to hubris though and has moved further from reality in every year since. Brown was a bad leader but is a fantastic intellect and it is a shame he did not realise this himself - he still is deserving of a lot of respect. He could really be a powerful support to the party

I studied change management when doing a post-qual DipN. It was fascinating stuff.

It came in really useful when I was working for the DAAT - my job was to set up a county-wide network of carers/parents/children and concerned others of people who misuse substances.
The people I was trying to support were only resistant to change on a personal behavioural level, and that was treatable with the right therapy side-by-side with their addict - which is where the issues were. Trying to convince the PCT to fund such treatment, despite all the research that shows it works for both parties, was hard enough; trying to convince MH services that I wasn't treading on their toes but doing something very specialised was even harder.
Of all the people most likely to support the changes I brought in were the police - which surprised me - and for them, family problems due to drug/alcohol abuse is not some theory discussed at length in meetings or debated endlessly with a psychotherapist, they are what they have in their faces every single day.

The only real barrier to change, IMHO, is that bringing in something new leads people to assume that what they're doing now is wrong.
A lot of the time it isn't that people are doing anything wrong, there's just a new piece of information or a new technology that will force change upon them sooner or later, and they might as well learn about it.
Of course, sometimes what people have been doing IS wrong in the light of the new information - and that's why to dismiss Corbyn and the people who support him, pretending that the times we are in now are the same as they were in 1997 or 1983, is to spectacularly miss the appeal of a move to the left.
People are finally cottoning on to what life will become for many people under the Tories; some are coming back to Labour after disenchantment with New Labour; some, like me, have become more politicised or radicalised by personal experience of the worst the Tories can do. The support is mixed, I think.

What you say about incremental change is very interesting - and I agree with you that it's far too late. I like to think that Ed could and would have moved Labour further to the left over time; some of his ideas certainly suggested that to me.
We have heard people say, over decades, that many and various things will be done "if you elect me". We have heard people say more recently that they have to get "power" (it's office, you wallies) before they can get anything done.

This is risible. If not being in government can't get things done, why didn't we go to war in Syria when Cameron fancied a Falklands Moment? Oppositions can and do effect change, if only through prevention.
And that's what we need now. A serious, thoughtful, and united opposition against the Tories. Not abstentions and promises, not more of the same and we'll sort it all out when we're in government. No thanks.

Corbyn will form a cabinet if he wins, and if those too precious to work with him take their experience and skills to the back benches then they do not care about this country as much as they say they do.
If that cabinet puts people in that many may not have heard of, that's only because those people haven't had a chance because their faces didn't fit and/or they wouldn't kowtow to the prevailing orthodoxy.

This could be good.....

[Willow904]

Although I've decided to vote for Andy Burnham because I think he has the right qualities to successfully lead Labour and I'm really hoping he will win, there are some elements of the Jeremy Cornyn saga that I tend to bear in mind. Firstly his being on the ballot and looking likely to win isn't a failure of the electoral system introduced by Ed. Labour MPs had control over who made it on the ballot. Although some, like Beckett, may regret it now, I still think they did the right thing for the right reasons. Those on the left of the party needed a voice, members needed a genuine plurality of choice. If anyone doubts the positives, just look at the rising membership - the Tories would prefer to see an ever shrinking Labour party with falling membership like their own, not a resurgent and unpredictable force. Finally, whoever is elected as leader will have to prove themselves. If Corbyn isn't up to it, as some claim, if Labour loses bye elections and trails in the polls, then he will be out. So I fail to understand the panic in some quarters. We have 5 years to get it right, there are some great new names coming through and as more powers are devolved locally there is a lot Labour can do to help make people's lives better between now and 2020, starting with winning the London mayoral election.

Anyway, just a few thoughts to help with perspective. I am fortunate to be served by two excellent local Labour councillors in an otherwise very Tory area, so I maybe understand more than most just how much difference even small Labour successes can make to ordinary people. It's not just about leadership and central government, it's about spreading Labour values everywhere we can, whenever we can and we can only do that by working together.

[PorFavor]

Gordon Brown made a very good speech.

However, would Jeremy Corbyn winning, and then back-pedalling a bit, be more likely to achieve his (GB's) ambitions than any of the other candidates? I'm thinking he would be. After all, he's less likely to upset people in the PLP by tacking "right" (shorthand) than would any of the others if (unlikely (in my view)) they tacked "left". Or am I over-thinking this?

Whether Jeremy Corbyn is a viable PM is, to me, highly questionable - but he could prepare the ground for someone else. (Yes, I know - who? But time may reveal a suitable "someone else".)

Edited - bracket related

[howsillyofme1]

Gordon Brown made a very good speech.

However, would Jeremy Corbyn winning, and then back-pedalling a bit, be more likely to achieve his (GB's) ambitions than any of the other candidates? I'm thinking he would be. After all, he's less likely to upset people in the PLP by tacking "right" (shorthand) than would any of the others if (unlikely (in my view)) they tacked "left". Or am I over-thinking this?

Whether Jeremy Corbyn is a viable PM is, to me, highly questionable - but he could prepare the ground for someone else. (Yes, I know - who? But time may reveal a suitable "someone else").

Brown always seem to do good speeches...also glad to see that he didn't go in on Corbyn with both feet

I doubt much he says is actually wrong about Corbyn, but as you say it is seeing the framework we are in. I think any attempt to sideline Corbyn if he doesn't win will be very tempting to the right but would be a massive mistake. Corbyn, as far as I can see, hasn't really over-promised and put himself into a corner

I think it is the idea of a Corbyn that is more appealing than any actual policies.

As Riff Raff sang:

'It's just a jump the left, and then a step to the right'

Sums it up for me

[PorFavor]

Gordon Brown made a very good speech.

However, would Jeremy Corbyn winning, and then back-pedalling a bit, be more likely to achieve his (GB's) ambitions than any of the other candidates? I'm thinking he would be. After all, he's less likely to upset people in the PLP by tacking "right" (shorthand) than would any of the others if (unlikely (in my view)) they tacked "left". Or am I over-thinking this?

Whether Jeremy Corbyn is a viable PM is, to me, highly questionable - but he could prepare the ground for someone else. (Yes, I know - who? But time may reveal a suitable "someone else").

Brown always seem to do good speeches...also glad to see that he didn't go in on Corbyn with both feet

I doubt much he says is actually wrong about Corbyn, but as you say it is seeing the framework we are in. I think any attempt to sideline Corbyn if he doesn't win will be very tempting to the right but would be a massive mistake. Corbyn, as far as I can see, hasn't really over-promised and put himself into a corner

I think it is the idea of a Corbyn that is more appealing than any actual policies.

As Riff Raff sang:

'It's just a jump the left, and then a step to the right'

Sums it up for me

I suppose what I'm really trying to decide is what is the best place to "jump" off from, policy-wise!



Edited to add

Thanks for clarifying my thoughts - at least I now know what my question is.

[HindleA]

Sadly,it looks likely that I have lost my bet with my classmates that I would be PM before I was 55.On the bright side I have completely lost contact with all of them.Even more sad though I was serious.In my defence I got diverted by ...reality.

[howsillyofme1]

Gordon Brown made a very good speech.

However, would Jeremy Corbyn winning, and then back-pedalling a bit, be more likely to achieve his (GB's) ambitions than any of the other candidates? I'm thinking he would be. After all, he's less likely to upset people in the PLP by tacking "right" (shorthand) than would any of the others if (unlikely (in my view)) they tacked "left". Or am I over-thinking this?

Whether Jeremy Corbyn is a viable PM is, to me, highly questionable - but he could prepare the ground for someone else. (Yes, I know - who? But time may reveal a suitable "someone else").

Brown always seem to do good speeches...also glad to see that he didn't go in on Corbyn with both feet

I doubt much he says is actually wrong about Corbyn, but as you say it is seeing the framework we are in. I think any attempt to sideline Corbyn if he doesn't win will be very tempting to the right but would be a massive mistake. Corbyn, as far as I can see, hasn't really over-promised and put himself into a corner

I think it is the idea of a Corbyn that is more appealing than any actual policies.

As Riff Raff sang:

'It's just a jump the left, and then a step to the right'

Sums it up for me

I suppose what I'm really trying to decide is what is the best place to "jump" off from, policy-wise!

I am looking for a bit of courage from Burnham.....go left and be aggressive against the Tories. Major anti-austerity speech and speak a lot about his main area of expertise......the NHS. If he wins then he makes sure there is a good left wing representation in the cabinet....not sure Corbyn would want it himself but there will be others

We have to remember the 2015 manifesto was pretty good but it needs some working to make it look radical and there has to be more focus on clear messages.


I repeat, any SC member of MP who repeats the 'Labour spent to much' or any indication the Tories are right in their approach should be hammered.....if Osborne rails back from austerity like he did last time then shout it loud from the rooftops and get some of the sympathetic economists out there rubbishing austerity as a policy..there is no shortage of them

[howsillyofme1]

Sadly,it looks likely that I have lost my bet with my classmates that I would be PM before I was 55.On the bright side I have completely lost contact with all of them.Even more sad though I was serious.In my defence I got diverted by ...reality.

Shame you would be much better than the current incumbent!

[refitman]

Sadly,it looks likely that I have lost my bet with my classmates that I would be PM before I was 55.On the bright side I have completely lost contact with all of them.Even more sad though I was serious.In my defence I got diverted by ...reality.

Dunno, get posting furiously on here and you might make it

[howsillyofme1]

Sadly,it looks likely that I have lost my bet with my classmates that I would be PM before I was 55.On the bright side I have completely lost contact with all of them.Even more sad though I was serious.In my defence I got diverted by ...reality.

Dunno, get posting furiously on here and you might make it

Just looked and I am a bloody minister........woo hoo.

Can I choose which department.....?

[ohsocynical]

http://www.trusselltrust.org/stats
growth in foodbank use.
Not going to cheer us up but at least a different topic.

So - more than a million.

Trussell Trust make it clear that the figures are not unique users, but the amount of 3-day food parcels given out last year.
It's still a staggering amount. That's 3,252,012 days' worth of basic foodstuffs.
Some of those parcels will be for more than one person; some of the recipients will be "hardworkingfamilies"(TM).

TT supplies, according to the last figures I could find from last year, 29% of all emergency food aid in the UK.

The rest is made up of - other food banks; independent food banks; LA vouchers or supermarket cards issued in place of hardship payments; cooked meals supplied by hostels, charities, churches, temples, mosques, gurdwaras, others; food parcels from Oxfam, Save The Children, and the Red Cross.

On top of that, there is an unknown number of people reliant on family and/or friends to keep them fed.

How has it come to this? The UK is one of the richest countries in the world. This is a national disgrace.

Sadly it's deliberate. They are instead of the State. And while we have Tories in Government it will never be reversed.

[refitman]

Sadly,it looks likely that I have lost my bet with my classmates that I would be PM before I was 55.On the bright side I have completely lost contact with all of them.Even more sad though I was serious.In my defence I got diverted by ...reality.

Dunno, get posting furiously on here and you might make it

Just looked and I am a bloody minister........woo hoo.

Can I choose which department.....?

The choice it yours, but I would suggest silly walks - they have the largest offices (need the space to practise).

[ohsocynical]

I think we all need to be mindful of other people's feelings when posting. Please be aware that it is harder to get across meaning in the written word than spoken. As much as possible we should avoid pejorative language, including using "mad bastards" to describe sets of supporters.

Please can I still use unladylike language when referring to Tories?

[refitman]

I think we all need to be mindful of other people's feelings when posting. Please be aware that it is harder to get across meaning in the written word than spoken. As much as possible we should avoid pejorative language, including using "mad bastards" to describe sets of supporters.

Please can I still use unladylike language when referring to Tories?

Oh, that's fine. Don't worry.

[ohsocynical]

I find it interesting to have Kubler-Ross curve discussed here as I am on a change management course tomorrow

I know people turn off when 'change management' is discussed but some of it is very interesting and makes sense. It is just companies and elsewhere are very bad at doing it as changing things requires understanding of why you need to change and also what you want to change to

Labour needs to change and in order to do so either those in the party understand that themselves or they need some disruption.

Miliband was very close to making change that was relatively painless but lots of the establishment wanted to keep on the track that the post-Blair 'modernisers' (I am sorry but I spit when I see that word) wanted to carry on in following the Tories and letting them set the agenda

Now we are too late to have an incremental change....we need a major disruption and it seems this leadership election is it.....after it hopefully the party will be on a road to a clearer future

The current path will only lead to oblivion I think

I was also like to say that Blair was not a bad leader and he did much good and we must not repudiate all he did, remembering the chaos he was left with - he succumbed to hubris though and has moved further from reality in every year since. Brown was a bad leader but is a fantastic intellect and it is a shame he did not realise this himself - he still is deserving of a lot of respect. He could really be a powerful support to the party

I studied change management when doing a post-qual DipN. It was fascinating stuff.

It came in really useful when I was working for the DAAT - my job was to set up a county-wide network of carers/parents/children and concerned others of people who misuse substances.
The people I was trying to support were only resistant to change on a personal behavioural level, and that was treatable with the right therapy side-by-side with their addict - which is where the issues were. Trying to convince the PCT to fund such treatment, despite all the research that shows it works for both parties, was hard enough; trying to convince MH services that I wasn't treading on their toes but doing something very specialised was even harder.
Of all the people most likely to support the changes I brought in were the police - which surprised me - and for them, family problems due to drug/alcohol abuse is not some theory discussed at length in meetings or debated endlessly with a psychotherapist, they are what they have in their faces every single day.

The only real barrier to change, IMHO, is that bringing in something new leads people to assume that what they're doing now is wrong.
A lot of the time it isn't that people are doing anything wrong, there's just a new piece of information or a new technology that will force change upon them sooner or later, and they might as well learn about it.
Of course, sometimes what people have been doing IS wrong in the light of the new information - and that's why to dismiss Corbyn and the people who support him, pretending that the times we are in now are the same as they were in 1997 or 1983, is to spectacularly miss the appeal of a move to the left.
People are finally cottoning on to what life will become for many people under the Tories; some are coming back to Labour after disenchantment with New Labour; some, like me, have become more politicised or radicalised by personal experience of the worst the Tories can do. The support is mixed, I think.

What you say about incremental change is very interesting - and I agree with you that it's far too late. I like to think that Ed could and would have moved Labour further to the left over time; some of his ideas certainly suggested that to me.
We have heard people say, over decades, that many and various things will be done "if you elect me". We have heard people say more recently that they have to get "power" (it's office, you wallies) before they can get anything done.

This is risible. If not being in government can't get things done, why didn't we go to war in Syria when Cameron fancied a Falklands Moment? Oppositions can and do effect change, if only through prevention.
And that's what we need now. A serious, thoughtful, and united opposition against the Tories. Not abstentions and promises, not more of the same and we'll sort it all out when we're in government. No thanks.

Corbyn will form a cabinet if he wins, and if those too precious to work with him take their experience and skills to the back benches then they do not care about this country as much as they say they do.
If that cabinet puts people in that many may not have heard of, that's only because those people haven't had a chance because their faces didn't fit and/or they wouldn't kowtow to the prevailing orthodoxy.

This could be good.....

My bold.

The new intake of MPs might be worth considering. Too new to have become cynical or jaded. And according to reports more left leaning than previous 'newbies'.

[ohsocynical]

I think we all need to be mindful of other people's feelings when posting. Please be aware that it is harder to get across meaning in the written word than spoken. As much as possible we should avoid pejorative language, including using "mad bastards" to describe sets of supporters.

Please can I still use unladylike language when referring to Tories?

Oh, that's fine. Don't worry.

[TobyLatimer]

I think we all need to be mindful of other people's feelings when posting. Please be aware that it is harder to get across meaning in the written word than spoken. As much as possible we should avoid pejorative language, including using "mad bastards" to describe sets of supporters.

Please can I still use unladylike language when referring to Tories?

If I feel a bit 'sweary' coming on, I just watch this (from the people who created Wallis & Gromit) a few times to get it out of my system

[youtube]UF-6M06lPZo[/youtube]

[ohsocynical]

I see where you are coming from, and I certainly support inheritance tax and would lower the threshold.

But some of the supposed massive gains when selling one's property can be not all they seem.

We sold up and downsized to pay off our mortgage etc.
But if you added up all the mortgage payments we'd made in the past [sometimes at double figure interest rates and certainly never at the all time low % now], money spent in repairs, maintenance, re-decorating etc. then the unearned gain isn't quite as rosy as it appears.

Agree. Our original mortgage was taken out in '66. It was a joint mortgage so due to my parents age, therefore was only for fifteen years. [In those days your mortgage had to finish at retirement age.

My dad worked it out. Five years to repay the sum borrowed, and ten years of interest. We never remortgaged, and every month hook or by crook found our share. Never missed a payment. And there were quite a few times I went to bed hungry.

Didn't have a car until Mr Ohso was in his late thirties. Never had a holiday unless mum and dad bankrolled it as a family holiday. Clothed the family from jumble sales and replaced household items via second hand shops.

So at the end of our life we're sitting on around £140,000. Asset rich, cash poor and the council will soon have their grubby mitts on the asset if we should become unable to look after ourselves.

I can honestly say owning a home when you reach your old age without a sizeable pension for upkeep, or to pay for your care, is a poison chalice.

I am happy to stand corrected - my view is too simplistic, but I still think there is something perverse in this situation. I suppose it is linked to the disparity of asset value to the other parts of our wealth generating capability such as work. Perhaps attacking the input variables rather than the output is the best approach

There's never a simple answer. What is good for one, doesn't necessarily mean it's good for another.

There was a newspaper article the other day about why more elderly people weren't downsizing.
It reckoned stamp duty added to the costs of selling and buying a home put people off. Plus the fact that if they put the proceeds in the bank it wouldn't earn much if any interest, whereas if they stayed put, the house value kept rising and there'd be more to pass on.

They could do what Mr Ohso and I plan on which is renting sheltered accommodation but it's quite true about the lack of bank interest. It would be just as easy to keep the money in a tin under the bed and it'll soon go if I have to live on my pension.

Luckily my son and daughter aren't looking for a sizeable inheritance. I'd love to be able to though. They deserve it.

There doesn't seem to be a win, win when you hit old age, unless you're very rich.

[ohsocynical]

Lee Waters ‏@Amanwy 2m2 minutes ago
It is not anti-wealth to say those who have more should help those who do not - says Gordon Brown

Peter Jukes ‏@peterjukes 2m2 minutes ago
"It's not anti market to say that markets can only survive with values and markets need morals" says Brown

I've been reading Ruskin's 'Unto This Last' recently, and it provides a way of thinking about the economy that's very relevant to today. In fact, in view of all the fawning over 'wealth creators', Ruskin reminds us that wealth (or capital) is useless without labour. In fact, it is no longer wealth.

Thus, suppose any person to be put in possession of a large estate of fruitful land, with rich beds of gold in its gravel, countless herds of cattle in its pastures; houses, and gardens, and storehouses full of useful stores; but suppose, after all, that he could get no servants? In order that he may be able to have servants, some one in his neighbourhood must be poor, and in want of his gold—or his corn. Assume that no one is in want of either, and that no servants are to be had. He must, therefore, bake his own bread, make his own clothes, plough his own ground, and shepherd his own flocks. His gold will be as useful to him as any other yellow pebbles on his estate. His stores must rot, for he cannot consume them. He can eat no more than another man could eat, and wear no more than another man could wear. He must lead a life of severe and common labour to procure even ordinary comforts; he will be ultimately unable to keep either houses in repair, or fields in cultivation; and forced to content himself with a poor man's portion of cottage and garden, in the midst of a desert of waste land, trampled by wild cattle, and encumbered by ruins of palaces, which he will hardly mock at himself by calling "his own."

Seems to me that everyone functioning in the economy is a 'wealth creator'.

Very, very true. I always thought along the lines of:

If there was a terrible event; it was start again, and every man for himself, the rich would be in a right pickle.

[PorFavor]

Lancashire fracking debate: 'they are changing the laws to suit themselves' (Guardian)

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... themselves

[Willow904]

Lee Waters ‏@Amanwy 2m2 minutes ago
It is not anti-wealth to say those who have more should help those who do not - says Gordon Brown

Peter Jukes ‏@peterjukes 2m2 minutes ago
"It's not anti market to say that markets can only survive with values and markets need morals" says Brown

I've been reading Ruskin's 'Unto This Last' recently, and it provides a way of thinking about the economy that's very relevant to today. In fact, in view of all the fawning over 'wealth creators', Ruskin reminds us that wealth (or capital) is useless without labour. In fact, it is no longer wealth.

Thus, suppose any person to be put in possession of a large estate of fruitful land, with rich beds of gold in its gravel, countless herds of cattle in its pastures; houses, and gardens, and storehouses full of useful stores; but suppose, after all, that he could get no servants? In order that he may be able to have servants, some one in his neighbourhood must be poor, and in want of his gold—or his corn. Assume that no one is in want of either, and that no servants are to be had. He must, therefore, bake his own bread, make his own clothes, plough his own ground, and shepherd his own flocks. His gold will be as useful to him as any other yellow pebbles on his estate. His stores must rot, for he cannot consume them. He can eat no more than another man could eat, and wear no more than another man could wear. He must lead a life of severe and common labour to procure even ordinary comforts; he will be ultimately unable to keep either houses in repair, or fields in cultivation; and forced to content himself with a poor man's portion of cottage and garden, in the midst of a desert of waste land, trampled by wild cattle, and encumbered by ruins of palaces, which he will hardly mock at himself by calling "his own."

Seems to me that everyone functioning in the economy is a 'wealth creator'.

Very, very true. I always thought along the lines of:

If there was a terrible event; it was start again, and every man for himself, the rich would be in a right pickle.

End of the bronze age in Britain is believed to be just such a social shift. Bronze and the people who owned it became worthless as sheer survival became a struggle, poss due to climate change. Those who controlled the grain wielded the power. Bronze hoards were left where they were buried. All within a generation. It's what I think of every time someone mentions peak oil or rising sea levels - change is often very sudden and frequently violent.

[ohsocynical]

Very, very true. I always thought along the lines of:

If there was a terrible event; it was start again, and every man for himself, the rich would be in a right pickle.

You may be right, and in a perverse way, I hope you are, but the last chapter of The Shock Doctrine offers the depressing possibility that the rich are already beginning to secure themselves in their gated communities so they will be insulated when the world goes to shit.

Gated communities aren't much good without heat, light, sewage, or someone to bring their food.

[HindleA]

Chain smoking and cloth cap wearing compulsory on public transport..just working on my manifesto.

[ohsocynical]

The rich are such idiots. They don't realise quite how dependent their cosseted life style is on workers on low wages.

Edited because my brain stopped working....

[ohsocynical]

Chain smoking and cloth cap wearing compulsory on public transport..just working on my manifesto.

But no spitting. I can't vote for you if you allow spitting.

[HindleA]

Summary execution for all fish pointers.I am aiming for a (a bit) benign dictatorship.

[HindleA]

Ohsocynical to become a No spitting czar.

[HindleA]

On arm bandit machines to be replaced by one armed bandits.

[ohsocynical]

Ohsocynical to become a No spitting czar.

I shall base my grab for power wholly on that platform.

[ohsocynical]

All swimming pools and jacuzzis to be filled in and planted with vegetables.

[tinyclanger2]

Sadly,it looks likely that I have lost my bet with my classmates that I would be PM before I was 55.On the bright side I have completely lost contact with all of them.Even more sad though I was serious.In my defence I got diverted by ...reality.

I try to avoid that as much as possible. It's not good for you.

[utopiandreams]

Sadly,it looks likely that I have lost my bet with my classmates that I would be PM before I was 55.On the bright side I have completely lost contact with all of them.Even more sad though I was serious.In my defence I got diverted by ...reality.

I try to avoid that as much as possible. It's not good for you.

Reality. Isn't that something Tory government ministers keep going on about? Not something I recognise tbh.

[utopiandreams]

Lancashire fracking debate: 'they are changing the laws to suit themselves' (Guardian)

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... themselves

I can't remember who provided the link btl, PorFavor, I opened earlier but have only just started reading it, What's Killing the Babies of Vernal, Utah?: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/fea ... h-20150622

Sensationalist or not, it's certainly cause for concern. Presumably it's safer now than what I've read so far but gated communities won't be enough for such short sighted fools. I saw something else yesterday (maybe in the G) about mining for minerals around the world these days. Frightening doesn't even begin to describe it. I was also watching something on Quest about Icelandic volcanoes whilst eating my tea and the possible consequences of global warming.

Why should I worry? We've already surpassed my youthful expectations of nuclear armageddon. Oh yeah, think of the kids. 'And on a tangential note, what is it that Tories keep saying of tomorrow's debt that we're leaving the next generation while they're busily burdening them with more and more today. Oh well I guess none of it shall be repaid.

Edit: Presumably it's safer now...

[ohsocynical]

Germany's hypocrisy over Greece water privatisation
Germany has been criticised for pushing Greece to sell off its water utilities when many of Europe’s largest cities, including Berlin, are buying back theirs

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable- ... are_btn_tw

So taking back control of utilities isn't entirely a pipe dream?

[TechnicalEphemera]

I think we all need to be mindful of other people's feelings when posting. Please be aware that it is harder to get across meaning in the written word than spoken. As much as possible we should avoid pejorative language, including using "mad bastards" to describe sets of supporters.

Indeed, Refitman.

Which is why I and others have asked for us all to do that very thing several times.

If someone as prickly as me - and, dare I say, our friend yahyah (ducks) - have had to ask repeatedly, without naming names, for just that with no discernible result, then I hope you will forgive me pointing out to one of those guilty of much of it how much it grates.

yahyah - I have no intention of leaving. I just thought I might get the sack. Having been very (justifiably in my view) rude to Hugo.

Note to Hugo - I will not apologise. I meant every word of it.

OK, chaps - as you were.....

I saw nothing in Hugo's posts that justified your response. Hugo doesn't like Corbyn much and feels the need to point out Corbyn's downsides. I don't think he called anybody here mad, he was referring to a group of people identified by an opinion poll.

I can assure you he is not alone in the world in believing Labour has lost its collective marbles. My rather left wing friend used even more colourful language. So really he should be permitted to carry on expressing his opinions without being subjected to attack for expressing them.

One side in this debate is massively misreading public opinion, time will tell which one.