Tuesday 18th August 2015

Post by **refitman** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 7:11 am

Morning all.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 8:06 am

Good Morning.

@HindleA

Thanks for the news regarding DWP's 27th August release of mortality figures but having followed your link fear they'll be less enightening than hoped, the descriptions make no mention of delay, adverse decisions or sanction even for the FOI requests. We shall see.

Call it my wandering mind if you like and now I may upset some people. IDS... See I already have but please bear with me, much better we direct our ire toward the real enemies. For all his incompetence and as much as I hate every fibre of his being, I actually believe he means well and may well have had his Damascene moment, but we have vastly differing views on tough love; his totally lack compassion. Remember that 'In praise of' article. Damn it, I forget to don my protective gear! Seriously though he did argue that the further £12bn of so-called 'welfare' cuts were not deliverable. Osborne is the true demon, IDS is his dim-witted batman. As for welfare, let's not forget George's definition as portrayed by his tax circular (now I really am biting my tongue or putting on mittens in this context).

Mike Brearley was on extratime this morning speaking of captaincy and mentioned the 90% luck and 10% skill quote and the importance of the 10% . I didn't fully catch it (sorry I just had to have some cricket reference) so cannot remember the exact words or who said it, but it got me pondering on Cameron's good fortune in the last two GEs. So where exactly is his 10%? It completely evades me. 'And on that note, I shudder to think of him (all three of them really). I had no idea I could harbour so much hatred toward another. Nevertheless regardless of Dave's Oxford First, I think him a slightly dim-witted placeman.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 8:29 am

''Myth of the baby boomers: how post-war generation doesn't have it so good
'Baby boomer' becoming ‘term of abuse’ used to sow division between generations, charities warn''
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -good.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Have seen too many people on the left using lazy assumptions about older people - hope they read this.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 8:30 am

& morning all.

Don't be away for too long Rob.
May I wear your hat in the meantime ?

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 8:31 am

@utopiandreams

I actually believe he means well and may well have had his Damascene moment, but we have vastly differing views on tough love; his totally lack compassion.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You are so wrong, possibly naive or unaware. It is nothing like 'tough love' People are needlessly dying.

I'm not very often gobsmacked by posts on here, but that is just so stupidly offensive, I don't quite know how to respond until I calm down a bit.

Ridiculous.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 8:50 am

''Andy Burnham would allow Labour candidates to stand in Northern Ireland
Labour leadership hopeful would support ‘immediate review’ of ban on official party candidates in Northern Ireland''
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... rn-ireland" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 9:02 am

Barry Sheerman ‏@BarrySheerman 2h2 hours ago
Should Corbyn supporting MPs fight by-elections? His policies are radically different than the manifesto we stood on in May?

Well that would go beyond the 'civil war' (as per the Hodges twitter conversation yesterday). Shakes head.

Oh - morning all.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 9:05 am

Good morfternoon.

@LadyCentauria

Thank you for the cartoon!

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 9:06 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Barry Sheerman ‏@BarrySheerman 2h2 hours ago
Should Corbyn supporting MPs fight by-elections? His policies are radically different than the manifesto we stood on in May?
Well that would go beyond the 'civil war' (as per the Hodges twitter conversation yesterday). Shakes head.

Oh - morning all.

They really do want to make the party implode. Argghh.

Sheerman....I nearly confused him with Michael Cashman [who is standing] when choosing the committee vote choice last night. Low blood sugar time is not the best time to vote.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 9:13 am

yahyah wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Barry Sheerman ‏@BarrySheerman 2h2 hours ago
Should Corbyn supporting MPs fight by-elections? His policies are radically different than the manifesto we stood on in May?
Well that would go beyond the 'civil war' (as per the Hodges twitter conversation yesterday). Shakes head.

Oh - morning all.

They really do want to make the party implode. Argghh.

Sheerman....I nearly confused him with Michael Cashman [who is standing] when choosing the committee vote choice last night. Low blood sugar time is not the best time to vote.

Can you imagine if MPs who subsequently supported different policies from the ones they campaigned on were forced to face another election ... virtually the entire Lib Dem party would have been facing re elections and pretty much all the Tories too during the last government. Crazy suggestion. This contest really isn't bringing much of the best in people.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 9:24 am

Fight or flight

http://www.ippr.org/juncture/fight-or-f ... bour-party" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 9:26 am

Piss ups. Breweries.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 9:29 am

SpinningHugo wrote:Piss ups. Breweries.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Those could be photocopies or scanner printouts - there's no unique identifier no is there ?

Oh, I get it now, is that why the Mail were telling us that Corbyn once owned a photocopier

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 9:33 am

yahyah wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Piss ups. Breweries.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Those could be photocopies or scanner printouts - there's no unique identifier no is there ?

Oh, I get it now, is that why the Mail were telling us that Corbyn once owned a photocopier

If you put the identifier up others can vote online with it.

As many have discovered.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/vot ... .rcdLXRxYQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 9:45 am

@TobyLatimer

I'm sorry, Toby, I know I spoke of protective cover but didn't mean to upset anyone, not like that anyway. 'And when I spoke of directing ire I meant toward Conservatives rather than all the in-fighting that's been going on here and elsewhere. Regarding IDS, before saying what I did I did stress my hating every fibre of his being and I no way think him less culpable than anybody else. It's just that I think him too thick to appreciate the realities he inflicts on people. I feel no such compunction toward Osborne and Cameron however who are pulling his strings. Believe me when I tell you I would like nothing miore than they all get their comeuppance for crimes against humanity.

To make myself even clearer, when I claimed JSA I was particularly depressed and constantly told to claim ESA, or DLA for that matter it was so severe. Nevertheless, call it a false pride thing if you like, I would not partially because I deemed the likes of my late wife and my daughter much more deserving. regardless of any NI I may have paid both as a worker and an employer over the years, and parttially because of my expectation I'd fail a WCA. As an aside I never claimed all the tax I could have because of the support my family has received. Anyway getting to my point, I always lived in fear of sanction and to be honest think that I, not just may but, would have committed suicide in such circumstances. There are two members of the DWP that I am especially grateful to for having saved me. Now that I no longer claim JSA and am therefore no longer under threat of sanction, my depression has finally passed.

Are you listening IDS, Dave and George? Fuck the lot of you. 'And sorry again if I've upset you Toby. I wish I'd not been out and put you at ease earlier.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 9:46 am

Good morfingtinoons afterbubbles....

I've been staying away, partly to avoid the constant anti-Corbynist derision ....and partly because I've been getting very damp under canvas on the Isle of Purbeck. To be clear....again....I am (I believe(TM)) precisely the sort of voter Labour should be trying to attract - a non-voter at heart (again - a Tory 'heartland' seat so my vote never actually counts) who started voting purely to be able to have an opinion without being told 'you don't count 'cos you don't vote' (TM - @rustyrockets) (by those unable to understand that not voting is a viable defendable position in the perversity that serves as the 'electoral process' in this 'democracy'), who voted FOR honesty and decency in public life by voting Labour for the first time because of Mr Ed...and find Corbyns' message a breath of fresh air - those who think the Tories will be laughing at a Corbyn win have not factored in Clouncy vs Corbyn in the House....idiots like Toady Dung and the toriesforCorbyn prove the lack of cognitive processing available to Torydom)...austerity is now, was then and always will be a lie - successive Governments have ignored the 'will of the majority' by selling anything and everything they can - the financial system has been supported to the detriment of the majority (worldwide) - 45% of the worlds' food production is wasted...and yet we have children starving (some of whom experience challenges through disability) in this country...so Corbyns message of hope for the future and that money and the MSM should not be running politics is very strong.

On IDS...I believe(TM) that he might believe(TM) he means well....but he's a Tory, and, as has been proven over and over again, a particularly dim version at that (to my mind there are 2 types of 'Tory' - those too stupid to understand their effect on others and those who fully understand the effect but are just downright nasty)...suffice to say, membership of the Tory party should automatically disqualify that person from doing anything other than possibly living for 3 months on social security (without access to any extraneous funds, especially those gained by theft from the public purse).

...and, as ever, apologies again if the ramble is unintelligible - I'm blaming some new technology with a different keyboard and screen ('cos I've got to blame something)

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 10:03 am

TobyLatimer wrote:@utopiandreams

I actually believe he means well and may well have had his Damascene moment, but we have vastly differing views on tough love; his totally lack compassion.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You are so wrong, possibly naive or unaware. It is nothing like 'tough love' People are needlessly dying.

I'm not very often gobsmacked by posts on here, but that is just so stupidly offensive, I don't quite know how to respond until I calm down a bit.

Ridiculous.

I thanked for the post because in the context of Osborne being more responsible for the current viscious state of welfare than IDS I think it's spot on. Osborne is wielding the purse strings to effect political rather than economic change. As a result, I can't help but feel eventually he will mess up economically because his political goals aren't compatible with a successful economy.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 10:03 am

Thanks, Lonewolfie. This...

Lonewolfie wrote:... On IDS...I believe(TM) that he might believe(TM) he means well....but he's a Tory, and, as has been proven over and over again, a particularly dim version at that (to my mind there are 2 types of 'Tory' - those too stupid to understand their effect on others and those who fully understand..

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 10:11 am

yahyah wrote:''Andy Burnham would allow Labour candidates to stand in Northern Ireland
Labour leadership hopeful would support ‘immediate review’ of ban on official party candidates in Northern Ireland''
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... rn-ireland" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Would that be as straightforward as he is trying to make it seem?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 10:19 am

Anyway, have I ever mentioned that I can lack tact? It seems we have an example on our hands, so I shall retreat somewhat ungraciously. For today, anyway.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 11:03 am

IMHO The Government knew/know they are inflicting harm,any pretence otherwise is not even attended to in their own impact assessments.IDS is not the brightest,but not so much to lack the ability to understand at that very basic level.He thinks it is necessary,as do many others.That this is the case and that an array of people from a broad spectrum still maintain he is decent "does my head in" for want of a better phrase.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 11:09 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Barry Sheerman ‏@BarrySheerman 2h2 hours ago
Should Corbyn supporting MPs fight by-elections? His policies are radically different than the manifesto we stood on in May?
Well that would go beyond the 'civil war' (as per the Hodges twitter conversation yesterday). Shakes head.

Oh - morning all.

Barry Sheerman is one of a literal handful of MPs I wouldn't be that sad to see go if JC wins. Total and absolute arse and always has been.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 11:12 am

This looks interesting. Whether it survives future 'efficiency savings' is another matter.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/off- ... technology" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 11:17 am

Tonight on ITV at 2100 there is School Swap - The Class Divide. I mention it merely because the state school involved, Bemrose, is the alma mater of one frightful oik. May have to watch on itv-player.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 11:22 am

@utopiandreams

The Easterhouse conversion was no such thing.A PR stunt,to the extent of purposefully setting the scene prior to the cameras rolling,in reality is what it was.He converted to having the same view as he had before.Like many myths it is nigh impossible to dispel and has become an ever present part of the narrative,trying to dispel it only gives it more credence,on that note.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 11:24 am

Must admit I rather bought in to the Easterhouse thing for a while. Just goes to show......

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 11:30 am

Maybe I am cynical,to be fair but looking at previous speeches,not dissimilar.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 11:42 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Must admit I rather bought in to the Easterhouse thing for a while. Just goes to show......

I remember Portillo living as a single parent for a week and admitting that although he could stay within budget in the short term, any large outlay such as a new pair of shoes would be a struggle. For me, the worst of the Tory party is coming out under Cameron and Osborne and IDS is a case in point. They are enabling his worst tendencies, not least a staggering degree of incompetence, denial of factual evidence and a disconnect of what is said to be happening and what is actually happening in reality. We could do with a few more Tory MPs, like Portillo, who might feel uncomfortable about being associated with such things and a few less privileged toffs like Rees-Mogg who are so disconnected from their actions they have no shame in making money by pushing cigarettes and fracking in developing countries with few regulations to protect those who will be adversely affected.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 11:43 am

@utopiandreams

I actually believe he means well and may well have had his Damascene moment, but we have vastly differing views on tough love; his totally lack compassion.

George I-made-my-name-up-to-sound-posher Smith believes all manner of things.

He "means well" in a similar vein to the eugenicists - whose ideas many of the politicians we applaud today (eg.Beveridge) subscribed to.
He "means well" in the same way that aristocrats let their tenants stay as long they could work but chucked them out when they couldn't.

When he says - and I quote directly - "If you have been on Incapacity Benefit for more than two years you are more likely to die than come off it", he means that people on IB are claiming for far too long and should be working, not that IB long-term claimants are actually ill and often very seriously ill.
When he says - and I quote directly - "Currently one million part-time workers want to work more hours -sanctioning clients who cannot increase their hours seems to be both unworkable and unfair", he means that he will design a system (the ridiculous Universal Credit) which does precisely that.

This is my favourite IDS quote, and demonstrates how thick he actually is - "The public thinks that homelessness is about not having any accommodation to go to". "The public", of course, are irredeemably thick in his warped imagination. If they are poor.

Places like Easterhouse - where he claims he had his Paul-esque conversion and saw the light - was originally built with no shops, no recreational facilities, no transport links; it became a dumping-ground of poor people who were then cut off from the city and any real chances of gainful employment.

As a result of this divine revelation, he now insists that work will set the poor free. Yes, he really has said that. His minister describes long-term poorly people as "stock". His minions echo his mantras like the yes-men/women they are. Morons.

Then we have the lies.
Hundreds of them. His CV, his education, his work experience, his policies, his basis for why he is where he is.
He lies about the figures his own department produces.
He lies about the figures the ONS says he misrepresents.
He lies about the "success" of his programmes.
He lies about targets and league tables.
He lies about sanctions, charges, and fines.
He lies about the progress of his vanity projects.

It is a feature of psychopathy/sociopathy that the person who has it will lie, cheat, deflect and manipulate to get their way.
Smith is one such in my opinion.
He doesn't care how many people suffer or die as a direct result of his policies. He will blame someone else.
He doesn't care if his projects are failing, he'll blame someone else and get someone new to do is bidding.

He may well have no insight into this, and he may truly believe that he "means well".
Personally, I don't accept that.
As he would say.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 11:45 am

http://benefitscroungingscum.blogspot.c ... h-for.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 12:05 pm

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

Disabled teenagers are easily lost in a welfare state cut to the bone
Frances Ryan

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 12:52 pm

@ephemerid et al

Sorry I couldn't resist one more peek and I do agree with much that has been said, especially his callous lies. I still maintain he actually believes he's performing the greater good but is too damn thick and uncaring to appreciate the harm he does. I am not making an apology for him and you, ephe, as much as anyone must have seen some of the ire I've directed his way. Nevertheless how someone so thick and misguided as he, could be in such a position is completely beyond me, and one with such devastating results. 'And wasn't it Mummy who spoke of a price worth paying? I'd probably agree if it were they who paid the price. It's at times like these that I wish I believed in karma. Not in the next life however, he deserves his comeuppance today, but please do not forget Cameron's and Osborne's role in this.

May I just add one final point, something I've said before. We could have claimed DLA (and ICA for my wife) once our daughter reached two years of age, but we didn't; she was our responsibility as parents. Admittedly had we really been struggling financially we would have. 'And so it was when she was about ten and a full year after my wife suffered a stroke we did make such claim. Even so I'd immediately given up work to care for them and struggled to make my living at home. As I say it was over a year later when we addressed just how long my wife's recovery would likely take, not to mention how untenable things were with the caring demands placed upon me, before we claimed any DLA.

Wtf was Cameron thinking being as he repeatedly believes such benefits are unaffordable for others? Even then Fat Dave, as soon as I was able I retrained and began working from home yet again. Please don't misunderstand me, people should and must claim assistance where it is needed and I would never ever begrudge them. I for one am grateful that I live in a civilised country and truly despair at your dismantling of it.

At least I see some anger being directed where it's due and apologies again if I've overly upset anyone. Not enough to remove my post though, especially as Toby has thanked me for the apology. Cheers, although I may just lurk before the day is out.

Edit: now can someone please change the subject.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 12:57 pm

Wow.

DWP admits making up quotes by 'benefit claimants' saying sanctions helped them

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 60351.html

In one example, titled "Sarah's story", a jobseeker is quoted as being "really pleased" that a cut to her benefits supposedly encouraged her to re-draft her CV.

"It's going to help me when I'm ready to go back to work," the fabricated quote reads.

Another, by a benefit claimant supposedly called "Zac", details the sanctions system working well.

But in response to a freedom of information request by the Welfare Weekly website the DWP said the quotes were not actually real cases and that the photos were not of real claimants.

Whoever put that together needs to be sacked.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 1:05 pm

@RogerOThornhill

Yeah I've heard of that before, Roger, and immediately thought of the testimonials on Shapps' former website. Some crew Dave has gathered himself., Spawn of Maggie!

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 1:07 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:Morning. Might give today a miss if we're going to have the now-customary slew of get-Corbyn posts (and I say that as someone still very much thinking of giving Burnham my first preference). It's not as though we've heard any new criticisms in the last month, just the old ones endlessly repackaged and repeated. Moreover, I'm not sure it's persuading anyone.

Have to largely agree - we know where certain posters here stand in (not) supporting JC, there is no need for them to recycle the same offerings endlessly.

As a fellow non-supporter I wouldn't mind so much if they had any effect in winning people round, but of course they won't any more than the mostly cack handed and tone deaf interventions by Labour "grandees" have done more generally

Quite simply, people aren't going to be scared into not supporting Corbyn. But they might, even now, be *persuaded*.

(and Burnham's latest speech was an attempt to do exactly that, no surprise it has been described as "pandering" by the usual suspects)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 1:14 pm

The Labour leadership contender Andy Burnham has accused factions on the right of the party of “circling the wagon” of rival Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign, saying their public criticisms of the most leftwing candidate risk dividing the party. (Guardian)

Er - isn't it "circling the wagons?" Which is, surely, a defensive move rather than an offensive one (the latter meaning being what I assume the speaker is intending to convey).

(That's not me simply being pedantic. Well, it sort of is, but since it seems to be a big "theme for the day" I wonder why more care wasn't taken to get the language correct. Oh, you know what I mean . . . . Actually, that's probably what Andy Burnham thought!)

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 1:22 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:Morning. Might give today a miss if we're going to have the now-customary slew of get-Corbyn posts (and I say that as someone still very much thinking of giving Burnham my first preference). It's not as though we've heard any new criticisms in the last month, just the old ones endlessly repackaged and repeated. Moreover, I'm not sure it's persuading anyone.
Have to largely agree - we know where certain posters here stand in (not) supporting JC, there is no need for them to recycle the same offerings endlessly.

As a fellow non-supporter I wouldn't mind so much if they had any effect in winning people round, but of course they won't any more than the mostly cack handed and tone deaf interventions by Labour "grandees" have done more generally

Quite simply, people aren't going to be scared into not supporting Corbyn. But they might, even now, be *persuaded*.

(and Burnham's latest speech was an attempt to do exactly that, no surprise it has been described as "pandering" by the usual suspects)

Brilliant, so anyone who puts up any argument against Corbyn is recycling the same old pap, that could be turned on it's head with those who support him too.

I'm out of here, when you start laying down what is posted it's time to say toodle pip.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 1:22 pm

utopiandreams wrote:Thanks, Lonewolfie. This...

Lonewolfie wrote:... On IDS...I believe(TM) that he might believe(TM) he means well....but he's a Tory, and, as has been proven over and over again, a particularly dim version at that (to my mind there are 2 types of 'Tory' - those too stupid to understand their effect on others and those who fully understand..

There's a third type of Tory, those who understand the effect on others and pretend they don't.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 1:25 pm

Aaaagh. WATO doing an interview with Neil Kinnock ... then talking to him about having to take on Militant .... and after that segueing into comparing fighting Militant with the Corbyn surge with a dollop of Peter Kellner poll alerts for extra fear / non reality factor.

I can see no possible use or practicality in this comparison / supposed equivalence.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 1:26 pm

yahyah wrote:
utopiandreams wrote:Thanks, Lonewolfie. This...

Lonewolfie wrote:... On IDS...I believe(TM) that he might believe(TM) he means well....but he's a Tory, and, as has been proven over and over again, a particularly dim version at that (to my mind there are 2 types of 'Tory' - those too stupid to understand their effect on others and those who fully understand..

There's a third type of Tory, those who understand the effect on others and pretend they don't.

Yes - watch out for those - there are a lot of them and they leave telltale slime trails.

Stagger Lee · Post by **Stagger Lee** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 1:30 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Wow.

DWP admits making up quotes by 'benefit claimants' saying sanctions helped them

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 60351.html

In one example, titled "Sarah's story", a jobseeker is quoted as being "really pleased" that a cut to her benefits supposedly encouraged her to re-draft her CV.

"It's going to help me when I'm ready to go back to work," the fabricated quote reads.

Another, by a benefit claimant supposedly called "Zac", details the sanctions system working well.

But in response to a freedom of information request by the Welfare Weekly website the DWP said the quotes were not actually real cases and that the photos were not of real claimants.

Whoever put that together needs to be sacked.

Someone junior was probably tasked with putting a positive spin on the cuts and came up with these as an example of how it could be done. One of the big bosses liked the look of it and got is published as a genuine story. The junior bod will get the flack and the senior manager will get a bonus.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 1:33 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:Morning. Might give today a miss if we're going to have the now-customary slew of get-Corbyn posts (and I say that as someone still very much thinking of giving Burnham my first preference). It's not as though we've heard any new criticisms in the last month, just the old ones endlessly repackaged and repeated. Moreover, I'm not sure it's persuading anyone.
Have to largely agree - we know where certain posters here stand in (not) supporting JC, there is no need for them to recycle the same offerings endlessly.

As a fellow non-supporter I wouldn't mind so much if they had any effect in winning people round, but of course they won't any more than the mostly cack handed and tone deaf interventions by Labour "grandees" have done more generally

Quite simply, people aren't going to be scared into not supporting Corbyn. But they might, even now, be *persuaded*.

(and Burnham's latest speech was an attempt to do exactly that, no surprise it has been described as "pandering" by the usual suspects)

Brilliant, so anyone who puts up any argument against Corbyn is recycling the same old pap, that could be turned on it's head with those who support him too.

I'm out of here, when you start laying down what is posted it's time to say toodle pip.

TBF I don't think that's what AK was saying letsskip. There have been some posts that have been on the same tack for some considerable time - pretty one note - re Corbyn simply being 'unelectable'. I think AK was pointing out that other, more persuasive, arguments are required and might actually work where this one note hasn't so far and is very unlikely to in the future.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 1:34 pm

PorFavor wrote:
The Labour leadership contender Andy Burnham has accused factions on the right of the party of “circling the wagon” of rival Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign, saying their public criticisms of the most leftwing candidate risk dividing the party. (Guardian)
Er - isn't it "circling the wagons?" Which is, surely, a defensive move rather than an offensive one (the latter meaning being what I assume the speaker is intending to convey).

(That's not me simply being pedantic. Well, it sort of is, but since it seems to be a big "theme for the day" I wonder why more care wasn't taken to get the language correct. Oh, you know what I mean . . . . Actually, that's probably what Andy Burnham thought!)

Well at least he didn't accuse them of squaring the wagon

I still don't know who to vote for

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 1:36 pm

Yes, that is what I was saying. Surprised anybody could read it any other way, tbh.

(then again, given the current febrile state of things, maybe I'm not)

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 1:38 pm

One thing I can be sure of is I'll still be a Labour member whatever the outcome.

Actually, if Liz Kendall won it would be touch and go

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 1:39 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
The Labour leadership contender Andy Burnham has accused factions on the right of the party of “circling the wagon” of rival Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign, saying their public criticisms of the most leftwing candidate risk dividing the party. (Guardian)
Er - isn't it "circling the wagons?" Which is, surely, a defensive move rather than an offensive one (the latter meaning being what I assume the speaker is intending to convey).

(That's not me simply being pedantic. Well, it sort of is, but since it seems to be a big "theme for the day" I wonder why more care wasn't taken to get the language correct. Oh, you know what I mean . . . . Actually, that's probably what Andy Burnham thought!)
Well at least he didn't accuse them of squaring the wagon

I still don't know who to vote for

Neither do I - although I'm leaning Corbyn-wards and have been for some time.

It's great to hear from you! I hope all is well.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 1:42 pm

PorFavor wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
PorFavor wrote: Er - isn't it "circling the wagons?" Which is, surely, a defensive move rather than an offensive one (the latter meaning being what I assume the speaker is intending to convey).

(That's not me simply being pedantic. Well, it sort of is, but since it seems to be a big "theme for the day" I wonder why more care wasn't taken to get the language correct. Oh, you know what I mean . . . . Actually, that's probably what Andy Burnham thought!)
Well at least he didn't accuse them of squaring the wagon

I still don't know who to vote for
Neither do I - although I'm leaning Corbyn-wards and have been for some time.

It's great to hear from you! I hope all is well.

It is thanks PorFavor. As ever, I'm hating this contest so hesitate to join the discussion much. BUT, I have appreciated reading the views of fellow posters here. So thanks to all

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 1:48 pm

Why has the party allowed such a long period for the vote to take place ?
Surely two weeks would have been long enough ?

Not sure I can cope with the wait, and the acrimony, particularly here.
If we, as fellow members/supporters are falling out, what chance of showing a strong united front to the country.

I admit I bridled yesterday when one of my vote choices was commented on in a way I thought was negative.
Yes, I agree some may find Tom Watson a strange choice but my decision was made because he received a huge number of branch nominations, which hopefully means he may be in a position to get people enthused, his manifesto was detailed and I think he's a tough operator.
To me Corbyn and Watson would be on the job of tackling the Tories.

On voting Corbyn I have abandoned what always seemed the pragmatic choice, that of being more centrist. It means going out on a limb, and balancing on that wobbly branch with a huge drop underneath is undoubtedly an uncomfortable place to be.

I'm sorry if that offends some, but we all have our beliefs, fears, ways of expressing things.
It would be ironic if this democratic process ripped us apart when we have survived a lot already here.

I have OCD, the 'not knowing' of things can literally make me ill if I am not careful.
It's pushing all our buttons, even those who don't have that way of viewing the world.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 1:58 pm

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

I know small L liberals may not agree, but surely there should be an offence of deliberately cheating to try and wreck the democratic process of a political party one does not support?
A few of these tossers up in front of the magistrates may stop them in future.

Post by **refitman** » Tue 18 Aug, 2015 2:06 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:Morning. Might give today a miss if we're going to have the now-customary slew of get-Corbyn posts (and I say that as someone still very much thinking of giving Burnham my first preference). It's not as though we've heard any new criticisms in the last month, just the old ones endlessly repackaged and repeated. Moreover, I'm not sure it's persuading anyone.
Have to largely agree - we know where certain posters here stand in (not) supporting JC, there is no need for them to recycle the same offerings endlessly.

As a fellow non-supporter I wouldn't mind so much if they had any effect in winning people round, but of course they won't any more than the mostly cack handed and tone deaf interventions by Labour "grandees" have done more generally

Quite simply, people aren't going to be scared into not supporting Corbyn. But they might, even now, be *persuaded*.

(and Burnham's latest speech was an attempt to do exactly that, no surprise it has been described as "pandering" by the usual suspects)

Brilliant, so anyone who puts up any argument against Corbyn is recycling the same old pap, that could be turned on it's head with those who support him too.

I'm out of here, when you start laying down what is posted it's time to say toodle pip.

I think that's a bit harsh. Some people (Hugo in particular) seem to be bringing up the same content repeatedly, hoping for a different response. Plus it's all attack. I'm sure people would be open to different information and, in particular, positive items about the other candidates.