Weekend Edition - Saturday/Sunday 22nd/23rd August

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 11:42 pm

Apologies,already mentioned.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 11:49 pm

I know it's the mail but you really do need to read this - hilarious.

Prime Minister Corbyn... and the 1,000 days that destroyed Britain: As this brilliant imagining of a Corbyn premiership reveals, Tories who gloat over Labour's woe should be careful what they wish for...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... h-for.html

Corbyn’s chief of staff Owen Jones – a princeling of the Far Left elite as the son of two members of Militant Tendency and the grandson of a Communist – declared that the people had taken back their country. The Red Flag was hung from the windows of No 10. Russell Brand kept his garbled verbosity in check for once and simply tweeted: ‘YEEESSSSSS!!!!’

What's rattled them - and the DT for that matter?

But perhaps the revellers should have paid more attention to the reason for Corbyn’s success. For it was the failure of even the mighty Chinese Communist Party to buck the laws of economics that had led to the China Crisis of 2016. The world’s second largest economy imploded, taking the rest of the world with it.

By the time the 2020 General Election came, the worst of the depression was over. But after four years of austerity and unemployment the electorate didn’t see it that way.

Ah...Allister Heath did a similar "we're in for a rocky time...but lets cut public spending anyway" piece in the DT.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 11:53 pm

Brutality of the Bedroom Tax exposed in disgraceful images of disabled man driven from home
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/br ... ul-6302099" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is such a dreadful story. This family have been kicked at every turn ... and to make matters worse the article ends by saying they should never have been put in this situation in the first place - they were wrongly denied help.

It's a story that should be told by every politician opposed to the bedroom tax at every opportunity to show the suffering caused and the complete fallacy of the so called aim of reducing overcrowding.

And in a final insult, their old home is now occupied by an elderly couple who are exempt from the tax while Rob and his family have been forced to move THREE times.

Rob suffers from cerebral palsy, epilepsy, double incontinence and has a mental age of four.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 12:21 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Brutality of the Bedroom Tax exposed in disgraceful images of disabled man driven from home
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/br ... ul-6302099" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is such a dreadful story. This family have been kicked at every turn ... and to make matters worse the article ends by saying they should never have been put in this situation in the first place - they were wrongly denied help.

It's a story that should be told by every politician opposed to the bedroom tax at every opportunity to show the suffering caused and the complete fallacy of the so called aim of reducing overcrowding.

And in a final insult, their old home is now occupied by an elderly couple who are exempt from the tax while Rob and his family have been forced to move THREE times.

Rob suffers from cerebral palsy, epilepsy, double incontinence and has a mental age of four.

Sickening, isn't it

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 12:46 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:I know it's the mail but you really do need to read this - hilarious.

Prime Minister Corbyn... and the 1,000 days that destroyed Britain: As this brilliant imagining of a Corbyn premiership reveals, Tories who gloat over Labour's woe should be careful what they wish for...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... h-for.html

Corbyn’s chief of staff Owen Jones – a princeling of the Far Left elite as the son of two members of Militant Tendency and the grandson of a Communist – declared that the people had taken back their country. The Red Flag was hung from the windows of No 10. Russell Brand kept his garbled verbosity in check for once and simply tweeted: ‘YEEESSSSSS!!!!’

What's rattled them - and the DT for that matter?

But perhaps the revellers should have paid more attention to the reason for Corbyn’s success. For it was the failure of even the mighty Chinese Communist Party to buck the laws of economics that had led to the China Crisis of 2016. The world’s second largest economy imploded, taking the rest of the world with it.

By the time the 2020 General Election came, the worst of the depression was over. But after four years of austerity and unemployment the electorate didn’t see it that way.
Ah...Allister Heath did a similar "we're in for a rocky time...but lets cut public spending anyway" piece in the DT.

Delusional ranting the whole piece. If I actually thought Corbyn could get 83% of the electoral youth to vote for him I would be leading the charge to the barricades.

Seriously these guys need to lie down and take some sedatives to deal with the vast amount of coke they must have consumed.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 7:53 am

Is there a link anywhere to the letter from the 40 Economists? I want to see whether it is just the usual suspects (Blanchfliwer, Pettifor) and whether it says more than condemn austerity (is anything on people's qe and the tax gap)

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 8:23 am

SpinningHugo wrote:Is there a link anywhere to the letter from the 40 Economists? I want to see whether it is just the usual suspects (Blanchfliwer, Pettifor) and whether it says more than condemn austerity (is anything on people's qe and the tax gap)

Down the page here.

http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/ ... s-overhaul" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Blanchflower yes, Pettifor no.

The "usual suspects"? Good to see you're approaching this with an open mind as usual...

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 8:31 am

Met Office loses BBC weather forecasting contract

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34031785

: ScreenShot00682.jpg (221.43 KiB) Viewed 6731 times

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 8:32 am

I don't reckon much to the replacement ...

[youtube]GBbYmtL6UIk[/youtube]

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 8:42 am

TobyLatimer wrote:Met Office loses BBC weather forecasting contract

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34031785

ScreenShot00682.jpg

I can see this being used as the excuse to sell it off.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 8:57 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Is there a link anywhere to the letter from the 40 Economists? I want to see whether it is just the usual suspects (Blanchfliwer, Pettifor) and whether it says more than condemn austerity (is anything on people's qe and the tax gap)
Down the page here.

http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/ ... s-overhaul" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Blanchflower yes, Pettifor no.

The "usual suspects"? Good to see you're approaching this with an open mind as usual...

Thanks.

The letter itself is perfectly fine. Quite correct that Osborne's surplus plan is stupid, and the £13bn cuts to social security is wrong. Everyone should agree with that.

But, there is no mention at all of what is 'controversial' in Corbyn's plans : the tax gap stuff and people's QE. The list of signatories is also astonishingly thin. Lots from outside the UK, Mazzucato, Blanchflower, Keen and some odds and sods. Where is Pettifor?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 9:02 am

SpinningHugo wrote:Is there a link anywhere to the letter from the 40 Economists? I want to see whether it is just the usual suspects (Blanchfliwer, Pettifor) and whether it says more than condemn austerity (is anything on people's qe and the tax gap)

I've thanked you, SH, because it is an interesting question, no more than that however. If you really want it answering you shall have to provide a little more info. I did a search but have not come up with anything. There was one from 79 I think to the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -economics) in response to Osborne's Mansion House speech but that was back in June so probably not what you meant; perhaps Rot's link is what you seek.

Anyway Roger is right to criticise 'the usual suspects' when it comes to economic arguments there are so many claims and counter claims that how much credence you give to any particular economist depends on whether or not you agree. Like much else I guess. Personally I'm anti-austerity, which if I'm not mistaken you are too but cannot be sure.

Anyway whilst looking I came across an article, “Austerity”: The Demolition of the Welfare State and the Rise of the Zombie Economy by Scriptonite (http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2015/01 ... e-economy/) but is promoting a book and I know nothing of the author. Some of the comments btl from those who have read the book are interesting too.

Another paper by IMF staffers looks interesting, Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective (https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sd ... dn1513.pdf) but i've not read it yet.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 9:03 am

SpinningHugo wrote:Where is Pettifor?

She signed this one.

http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/ ... -necessity

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 9:08 am

Epic levels of SNP bullshit in this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-34029862

Basically iScotland would be financially destitute and implementing the sort of austerity that we have seen in Greece.

Looking to slash or raise spending by 10-20 billion (UK equivalent 100-200 billion).

So basically Labour the Lib Dems and even the Tories saved their bacon from SNP stupidity and they still vote SNP.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 9:13 am

utopiandreams wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Is there a link anywhere to the letter from the 40 Economists? I want to see whether it is just the usual suspects (Blanchfliwer, Pettifor) and whether it says more than condemn austerity (is anything on people's qe and the tax gap)
I've thanked you, SH, because it is an interesting question, no more than that however. If you really want it answering you shall have to provide a little more info. I did a search but have not come up with anything. There was one from 79 I think to the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -economics) in response to Osborne's Mansion House speech but that was back in June so probably not what you meant; perhaps Rot's link is what you seek.

Anyway Roger is right to criticise 'the usual suspects' when it comes to economic arguments there are so many claims and counter claims that how much credence you give to any particular economist depends on whether or not you agree. Like much else I guess. Personally I'm anti-austerity, which if I'm not mistaken you are too but cannot be sure.

Anyway whilst looking I came across an article, “Austerity”: The Demolition of the Welfare State and the Rise of the Zombie Economy by Scriptonite (http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2015/01 ... e-economy/) but is promoting a book and I know nothing of the author. Some of the comments btl from those who have read the book are interesting too.

Another paper by IMF staffers looks interesting, Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective (https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sd ... dn1513.pdf) but i've not read it yet.

No problem at all with the ant-Osborne letters. That is mainstream economics. Osborne's surplus plan makes no sense at all. It is pure politics.

But, you won't find many mainstream people backing Corbynomics. That Observer letter is worded so as not to do so, and the signatories are people like Steve Keen.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 9:18 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Is there a link anywhere to the letter from the 40 Economists? I want to see whether it is just the usual suspects (Blanchfliwer, Pettifor) and whether it says more than condemn austerity (is anything on people's qe and the tax gap)
Down the page here.

http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/ ... s-overhaul" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Blanchflower yes, Pettifor no.

The "usual suspects"? Good to see you're approaching this with an open mind as usual...

Thanks.

The letter itself is perfectly fine. Quite correct that Osborne's surplus plan is stupid, and the £13bn cuts to social security is wrong. Everyone should agree with that.

But, there is no mention at all of what is 'controversial' in Corbyn's plans : the tax gap stuff and people's QE. The list of signatories is also astonishingly thin. Lots from outside the UK, Mazzucato, Blanchflower, Keen and some odds and sods. Where is Pettifor?

So there's nothing wrong with the letter, some of what it says is something everyone should agree with.

Perhaps the reason why they don't mention what is "controversial" is because they don't think it actually IS controversial?

I have to say that a list of 40 economists isn't what I'd call "astonishingly thin". There are forty of them. Only ten from outside the UK.
Evidently they all agree with the contents of the letter, or they wouldn't have signed it.

Those contents include the statement "We are not all supporters of Jeremy Corbyn" and "His opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics, even backed by the conservative IMF". They go on to say that their aim is to clarify where the extremism lies in economic policy in the UK, and it is their view that it does not lie with Corbyn's policies.

That's all it says. Maybe some of them might have views on specific policies, but they're not in this letter - and there's no reason why they should be. The aim of the 40 economists is to clarify economic extremism. They opine that Corbyn's policies are not extremist.

(So do I)

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 9:19 am

Following on from the IMF staffers' paper, here's the executive summary. I hope it's correctly formatted. It does stress that it is the opinion of the authors and does not represent IMF policy.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

“We should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base.” Andrew Jackson

Widening income inequality is the defining challenge of our time. In advanced economies, the gap between the rich and poor is at its highest level in decades. Inequality trends have been more mixed in emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs), with some countries experiencing declining inequality, but pervasive inequities in access to education, health care, and finance remain. Not surprisingly then, the extent of inequality, its drivers, and what to do about it have become some of the most hotly debated issues by policymakers and researchers alike. Against this background, the objective of this paper is two-fold.

First, we show why policymakers need to focus on the poor and the middle class. Earlier IMF work has shown that income inequality matters for growth and its sustainability. Our analysis suggests that the income distribution itself matters for growth as well. Specifically, if the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth. The poor and the middle class matter the most for growth via a number of interrelated economic, social, and political channels.

Second, we investigate what explains the divergent trends in inequality developments across advanced economies and EMDCs, with a particular focus on the poor and the middle class. While most existing studies have focused on advanced countries and looked at the drivers of the Gini coefficient and the income of the rich, this study explores a more diverse group of countries and pays particular attention to the income shares of the poor and the middle class—the main engines of growth. Our analysis suggests that

 Technological progress and the resulting rise in the skill premium (positives for growth and productivity) and the decline of some labor market institutions have contributed to inequality in both advanced economies and EMDCs. Globalization has played a smaller but reinforcing role. Interestingly, we find that rising skill premium is associated with widening income disparities in advanced countries, while financial deepening is associated with rising inequality in EMDCs, suggesting scope for policies that promote financial inclusion.

 Policies that focus on the poor and the middle class can mitigate inequality. Irrespective of the level of economic development, better access to education and health care and well-targeted social policies, while ensuring that labor market institutions do not excessively penalize the poor, can help raise the income share for the poor and the middle class.

 There is no one-size-fits-all approach to tackling inequality. The nature of appropriate policies depends on the underlying drivers and country-specific policy and institutional settings. In advanced economies, policies should focus on reforms to increase human capital and skills, coupled with making tax systems more progressive. In EMDCs, ensuring financial deepening is accompanied with greater financial inclusion and creating incentives for lowering informality would be important. More generally, complementarities between growth and income equality objectives suggest that policies aimed at raising average living standards can also influence the distribution of income and ensure a more inclusive prosperity.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 9:22 am

As if the MOS article wasn't hilarious enough...

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 9:27 am

Steve Keen.

In 2010, the Real World Economics Group gave him an award for predicting the crash.

Just saying.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 9:28 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:As if the MOS article wasn't hilarious enough...

One would almost welcome the gulags the right are threatening will happen if Corbyn wins.

Toby Young should be one of the first ~~up against the wall~~, oops sorry, forced to attend political re-education classes.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 9:29 am

ephemerid wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote: Down the page here.

http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/ ... s-overhaul" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Blanchflower yes, Pettifor no.

The "usual suspects"? Good to see you're approaching this with an open mind as usual...

Thanks.

The letter itself is perfectly fine. Quite correct that Osborne's surplus plan is stupid, and the £13bn cuts to social security is wrong. Everyone should agree with that.

But, there is no mention at all of what is 'controversial' in Corbyn's plans : the tax gap stuff and people's QE. The list of signatories is also astonishingly thin. Lots from outside the UK, Mazzucato, Blanchflower, Keen and some odds and sods. Where is Pettifor?

So there's nothing wrong with the letter, some of what it says is something everyone should agree with.

Perhaps the reason why they don't mention what is "controversial" is because they don't think it actually IS controversial?

I have to say that a list of 40 economists isn't what I'd call "astonishingly thin". There are forty of them. Only ten from outside the UK.
Evidently they all agree with the contents of the letter, or they wouldn't have signed it.

Those contents include the statement "We are not all supporters of Jeremy Corbyn" and "His opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics, even backed by the conservative IMF". They go on to say that their aim is to clarify where the extremism lies in economic policy in the UK, and it is their view that it does not lie with Corbyn's policies.

That's all it says. Maybe some of them might have views on specific policies, but they're not in this letter - and there's no reason why they should be. The aim of the 40 economists is to clarify economic extremism. They opine that Corbyn's policies are not extremist.

(So do I)

No. That is quite wrong.

The bits of Corbynomics I highlighted are the parts that are contrary to the mainstream and that you'd have difficulty getting someone even as leftwing as Blanchflower to sign up to even as an option if he wanted to hold on to any credibility.

So, the letter is bland, doesn't endorse Corbyn, and is signed by people from the third tier.

Which seems about right.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 9:31 am

Can't remember and am not going to trawl back as I'm off swimming but did we see the Skidelsky take on Corbynomics?

http://www.skidelskyr.com/site/article/ ... seriously/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Argument against People'sQE seems to be that we don't need it since we can borrow long-term at very low rates. If the debate leads in this direction then maybe Corbyn might have get some credit in steering the debate away from the "all borrowing is wrong" line.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 9:34 am

ephemerid wrote:Steve Keen.

In 2010, the Real World Economics Group gave him an award for predicting the crash.

Just saying.

A believer in MMT.

This would take a long time to explain, but I think there are very good reasons why Keen is not mainstream (though he does embody an important challenge to it.)

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 9:36 am

Potential Labour leader brought up in nice house shocker.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... -born.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 9:36 am

I must say that it's good to know we have an expert on here who knows which tier economists belong to in the hierarchy and isn't just dismissing someone purely on the basis of what he supports....

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 9:46 am

Now here is a bit of really good news, and close to home for me too. Caught a snippet on the news but the site was playing up with only the index page working. Reboot both laptop and router and now I can provide a direct link, Derbyshire Wildlife Trust completes its first season of badger vaccinations (http://www.derbyshirewildlifetrust.org. ... ccinations)

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 9:46 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:I must say that it's good to know we have an expert on here who knows which tier economists belong to in the hierarchy and isn't just dismissing someone purely on the basis of what he supports....

Look at the list.

I doubt the editor of Red Pepper qualified as third tier.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 9:51 am

I'm sorry but I cannot fathom why Toby Young gets the exposure that he does. Every time I see him I think, "Where are the baby wipes, does he need changing?"

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 9:52 am

Can't see the Opinium political poll, including questions about who you would vote for in the leadership election, in the Observer.

If anyone spots it, please could you link it here ?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 10:03 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:How could I have missed this corker from a few days ago? The worst I've read so far ... and that's saying something.

Ed Miliband Didn't Just Lose Us The Election - He Killed the Labour Party Stone Dead
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/paul-bl ... mg00000067" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So you can only be a 'genuine Labour supporter' if you think Corbyn shouldn't win the contest?

This steaming pile of ordure was written by a "PR guru and media podcast presenter".

Seriously, he might just as well have "PARASITE" tattooed on his forehead

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 10:05 am

Eric Ashby was a near neighbour of my parents when they lived in the New Forest so for your enjoyment: http://www.newforestgateway.org/TVFilm/ ... dgers.aspx

Postscript: I am bookmarking this for a later showing to my daughter and granddaughter. Forget youth, I can highly recommend it to all, not that Cameron's forefinger would stop twitching though (am putting my mittens on again, I see. It is Sunday morning after all).

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 10:10 am

Morning!

Thousands of new doctors opt for a better life abroad
Disillusioned medics are quitting the NHS and heading for countries such as Australia
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... ife-abroad" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Osbornomics and Untoric work their mainstream, perverse magic yet again.

This'll help get the NHS training and staff costs bill down, eh. Waiting lists and agency costs are just bound to tumble. Don't worry - we can always import yet more of the doctors they've already trained up overseas ... oh hang on ...

(It rained ALL NIGHT - and it's still raining now. Not woken up with the joys ...)

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 10:12 am

Given how much I'd been going on I was a little reluctant to mention Sunday Morning Live however for the main part it does seem a reasonable discussion on drugs and not the typical sensationalist one. I'm not sure that Human Rights is the correct argument however.

Postscript: the magistrate (I think) is somewhat reactionary. I'm bloody glad the stipendiary I came before on three occasions was somewhat more understanding even engaging in a conversation about law and its societal impact compared to alcohol (I was tee-total then). I couldn't lie when asked if I had learned my lesson and would give up; I did try but such words would not come out. The arresting officers were flabbergasted, especially when he terminated the discussion with a modest fine. I have to be honest and say I felt rather smug and laughed at them when they challenged my audacity outside the courts.

Post by **refitman** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 10:18 am

William Keegan worth a read, as usual.

jeremy-corbyn-reminded-labour-austerity-must-be-opposed

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

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 10:37 am

refitman wrote:William Keegan worth a read, as usual.

jeremy-corbyn-reminded-labour-austerity-must-be-opposed

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

Thank you. I needed this good read as an antidote to so much of the other stuff on offer.

Students of the cynical, shifty but politically adept (so far) chancellor know that his approach has been to acquiesce, in opposition, in what the Labour government did, then to try to move the so-called “centre ground” to the right when he himself arrived in government.

The northern powerhouse and manifesto promises about electrification? Forget it! The casual way in which he reneged within days on the Conservative manifesto “commitment” to impose a ceiling on old people’s bills in care homes was outrageous. The attack on the poor in his budget – on which the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies provided chapter and verse – was so brazen that someone had to come out fighting, and that someone was Jeremy Corbyn.

That last para makes my blood boil. They way the Tories are getting away with completely reneging on these big election promises. The opposition should be stating that case as clearly and emphatically as Keegan is.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 10:39 am

refitman wrote:William Keegan worth a read, as usual.

jeremy-corbyn-reminded-labour-austerity-must-be-opposed

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

Thanks for the link. The final two paragraphs just about encapsulate the situation for me -

Corbyn has been good at analysing many of the ills of modern society – ills that are aggravated by Osborne’s plans. But there is a difference between attacking unnecessary cuts and making spending commitments that can easily be ridiculed by the official machine.

Among the unnecessary cuts are those to public sector investment, where projects such as rail electrification have been scaled down. If there is one thing that really infuriates most economists, it is the idea that austerity is required in order not to cheat future generations. The truth is that it is cutting back on public sector investment, which can be financed at negligible interest rates, that actually penalises future generations. (Guardian)

Decisions, decisions . . . . .

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 10:42 am

Good morfternoon.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 10:48 am

Bumboils.

Re the edit above - I removed an extra "s". I think people are entitled to know what I've altered - hence my boring explanations. But since I never know when the "edit alert" thingy is on or not, I chanced getting away with such a minor amendment without the usual tedious explanation. So now you've all been subjected to a longer than usual tedious explanation . . . .

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 10:49 am

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

And in reverse order......god moaning, Por.

We now have a cracking (and crackling) thunderstorm overhead. I love it.
All the windows open and lovely fresh clean air on the way......

To all -
Many thanks for all the good wishes for Show.
He's up an about on sticks (they gave him a wheeled zimmer but he was such a liability they took it back) and is doing well.
Possibly home tomorrow if the consultant agrees.

(Do I want him back? On sticks? erm........)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 10:53 am

@ephemerid

Hello, there! Good to hear your news of Show.

The rain's lashing down here. No thunder, though - quite muggy.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 10:54 am

TobyLatimer wrote:Met Office loses BBC weather forecasting contract

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34031785

ScreenShot00682.jpg

Perhaps they're giving the contract to the Express's forecasters...

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 10:57 am

PorFavor wrote:Bumboils.

Re the edit above - I removed an extra "s". I think people are entitled to know what I've altered - hence my boring explanations. But since I never know when the "edit alert" thingy is on or not, I chanced getting away with such a minor amendment without the usual tedious explanation. So now you've all been subjected to a longer than usual tedious explanation . . . .

Tell me about it, PorFavor, my mistake is rarely proof reading my edits, which adds insult to injury. You'd think I'd have learned by now. I ought to apologise if too quick with retorts, I'm going silent for some time now. Enjoy the peace.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 11:00 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning!

Thousands of new doctors opt for a better life abroad
Disillusioned medics are quitting the NHS and heading for countries such as Australia
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... ife-abroad" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Osbornomics and Untoric work their mainstream, perverse magic yet again.

This'll help get the NHS training and staff costs bill down, eh. Waiting lists and agency costs are just bound to tumble. Don't worry - we can always import yet more of the doctors they've already trained up overseas ... oh hang on ...

(It rained ALL NIGHT - and it's still raining now. Not woken up with the joys ...)

Mmm. Well the Aussies voted in a rabid Conservative who is busy wrecking the country. Good luck if they're going there. Out of the frying pan ...

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 11:03 am

SpinningHugo wrote:is signed by people from the third tier.

What's the definition of a first tier economist then? One who works for Goldman Sachs?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 11:03 am

Anne McGuire ‏@AnneMcGuire97 1m1 minute ago
Have Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall got the looks for a leadership contest? http://specc.ie/1EcKt7z" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . What year are we living in again?

I could only manage a hysterical, unbelieving snort when I saw this ... but Charles Moore really has written it, and the Spectator really has published it.

Editing to add ... this is how crap, utterly crap it is.

I sense that the right woman leader to win a general election for Labour today would conform to one of two physical types. She would either be a more lower-middle-class version of Clare Balding — reassuring, competent, well-rounded, possibly lesbian — or more provocative and sassy, like the wonderful one with a strong northern accent whose name I have forgotten who talks about money and business on BBC Breakfast. Her feminism would be of the ‘Show, don’t tell’ variety.

Spectator really showing its colours.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 11:07 am

Good-morning, everyone.

Tizme1 · Post by **Tizme1** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 11:12 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Robert Hutton ‏@RobDotHutton 1h1 hour ago
Robert Hutton retweeted Philip Cowley
"Technically, I am still a member of the Green party."

Philip Cowley
‏@philipjcowley
Man who is in party A denied vote for leader of party B should not really be a story... http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 65967.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
The article linked to - by the Green member who doesn't feel they are really a proper member - reads as so self indulgent I thought it was a parody at first. But no - it's real.

Morning all,

Yes it does read like a parody doesn't it? Let me say first of all, I disagree with him - Green party members should not have the right to vote in the Labour party leadership election. Having let the stupidity of his comments wash over me, the main line that stood out for me was "Yet I feel that Labour should be my natural home". This I think is the nub of the issue. Many left leaning people have voted for Labour on occasions over the years because they were seen as the best chance to beat the tories [indeed many started out either as members of the Labour party, or natural Labour party supporters]. This is particularly so with Greens as we are a smaller party and were until recently, even smaller in numbers than the lib dems. In terms of elected representatives of course, we still are.

So, some of us still at times feel Labour should be our party. It isn't though. We made that choice when we joined the Greens. If after the leadership election, the Labour party are heading in a direction that Greens feel they can support, then they are free to vote Labour. And indeed if they really feel at that stage that the Labour party are speaking for them, they are free to leave the Greens, join Labour, and help. And even vote in future internal Labour party matters.

Many of you argued that Green Party members should vote Labour in May, and some Green party members and supporters did just that. I can understand the reasoning for that. But it doesn't give us the right to vote on internal Labour party matters. We will have our chance to vote and offer our support for Labour [if we choose to do so] in future elections. Whether that's locals, EU, Mayoral, General etc. In the meantime, we can try and work with our Labour party friends and colleagues where ever possible.

I did find his claim that his wife has had her vote rejected some what disconcerting. If he is correct in his assessment of why, it displays a very sexist attitude.

Tizme1 · Post by **Tizme1** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 11:17 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Green Facebook Friend.jpg
Interesting argument being used here. And they appear to be saying they've been told by the Greens it's OK to vote in the Labour leadership.

Totally disagree. We can vote Labour if we choose in external elections - that as ever is a matter for the individual. And the Green party have not given members the go ahead to vote in the Labour leadership elections. Quite the contrary.

Tizme1 · Post by **Tizme1** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 11:23 am

yahyah wrote:Mm. I was trying to learn to love Greens. But wanting their organic cake and to eat it as well ?

Keep trying yahyah. There's good and bad [and somewhere in between] folk in the Green party, just as there is in Labour. Some of our local Labour party members are lovely. Some are awful. Naturally all Watford Green Party members are paragons of virtue.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sun 23 Aug, 2015 11:25 am

Morfters m'dears. Glad to hear that @Show is up and about - hope he's home to @ephe tomorrow and that he doesn't cause trouble with his sticks

I was wondering, along with @gilsey how one is to know to which tier any particular economist belongs? Do they publish league tables?

Cross (to put it mildly!) to hear that the Met Office is losing the contract to provide weather forecasting services to the BBC and that it seems the bidding will only be open to other commercial providers. I hope that that is not the case and that the Met Office will be able to bid. Whichever news channel I happen to be watching, I flick back to the BBC for an MO forecast because the others have none of the detail and little of the accuracy. It might make them cheaper but is quality not important? And if Osborne & Pals are thinking of selling the MO off, wo'n't its value be sorely depleted if it is no longer associated with the BBC?