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

[citizenJA]

The Labour government returned in 1945 establishing the NHS is an astounding accomplishment.
Given US hegemony and paranoia of everything socialist it's nothing less than extraordinary.
The men and women of the Labour party made it happen.
That political determination isn't a myth, it's not gone or lost now, nothing stops men and women in the Labour party now from renewed dedication to socialist principles.

America had a left until the McCarthy witchhunts. I suspect the America of today wouldn't have been on the same side in WW2

The US didn't have a left in government at the end of WW2.

[Tizme1]

No, but as 1983 shows filling halls counts for sod all in elections. The challenge is reaching out to the swing voters not a relatively small number of activists. I see no evidence Corbyn is doing that, and his program doesn't look credible enough to me to achieve that.

This argument cuts no ice with me......I do not believe any of the other contenders can win either.

Your argument is predicated on the fact that the others actually stand a chance in 2020...I don't think they will at all

I am taking a risk but continuity with the other 3 sees no win.....[/quodes

A counsel of despair.

Please. Don't vote Corbyn.

SH,

As an outsider [to the Labour party], I can understand your viewpoint. I also understand the viewpoint of pro Corbyn Labour party members. Generally speaking, I don't buy all the Tory lite nonsense. However, there are some Labour MPs who do seem to be closer to Tory ideology than Labour. At what point would you consider the Labour party had gone too far to the right? Why can't you see that for some people, that point has already been reached? There are people on this forum who's views are probably closer to mine than to yours, and yet, you are in the same party. Don't you think you should try to accommodate them and respect them? After all, their opinion is of equal validity. Or don't you actually believe in democracy?

[Willow904]

Evening All

I still really really don't like this or any leadership contest and just regret that Ed has gone.

So, I'm still very much out of the loop and I'm sure this has already been covered. But what outcome does Cameron most fear? I read that Tories are signing up with Labour to vote Corbyn. But why would they? While I can see that Corbyn might struggle to win an election, there is no doubt he will be an outspoken and coherent critic of Cameron.

I suspect the outcome Cameron most fears is a continuity candidate who can unite the whole party behind them and move quickly to put together a strong and experienced shadow cabinet team to start holding his government to account without wasting any time on introspection or infighting.

I liked Ed too. He practised what he preached. He said he'd stand up to powerful vested interests on behalf of ordinary people and with Leveson he did just that and ultimately paid the price. If the voting public prefer being lied to by a slick PR man like Cameron to the honest integrity of a man like Ed who refused to be bounced into yet another ill advised middle eastern conflict, I really can't see them warming to the left-wing intellectualism of a seasoned university debater like Corbyn. Let's face it, if talking common sense is what gets you to no 10, Cameron would never have got there.

[frightful_oik]

Can I just make a few points on the leadership debate.

1) There will be gerrymandered seats, (via boundary changes), in 2020. The MSM will have a go at Labour whoever leads it. Indeed the more any putative leader looks like winning, the worse will the media behave. The Tories will not be challenged by the media either. In summary, it's going to be very difficult for any Labour leader to win in 2020.
2) However, most people aren't as geeky about politics as those that post on here. Most people I know aren't. They know that something's wrong because their living standards keep falling and their jobs are ever more insecure and their kids are getting shit or no jobs. This is expressed as a kind of radicalism of the form, 'we need something different - UKIP/Green/SNP/Plaid are different - we'll vote for them'. In other words, there is an appetite for radicalism.
3) A party should stand for something and fight to show people their way is better than the others' ways. It emphatically should not simply be about obtaining power for the sake of it. That is why many people sneer at Labour MPs as being all the same. Labour needs to decide what its values are when it elects a leader. Labour may have to wait for the public mood to swing for a radical change like it did in 1997. This could take years or could happen by Christmas. But when people are looking for an alternative to the Tories, Labour needs to be ready with a distinct offering. In my opinion, Labour lost the last election when Balls and Miliband announced 2 or 3 years ago that they were going to follow Tory policy on autserity pretty much exactly. That is not a distinct offering.
4) I'm sick of seeing crap Labour MPs hogging the TV and then being embarrassed by the merest hint of radicalism in their policies. Corbyn, whatever else anyone thinks of him, is the best communicator of the four candidates by a country mile.
5) If Corbyn wins, he will have won the support of the majority of the Labour party entitled to vote. I don't mind the Blairites offering alternative ideas but they need to demonstrate loyalty to their members.

Just a few random thoughts from someone who doesn't have a vote.

[Tizme1]

Evening All

I still really really don't like this or any leadership contest and just regret that Ed has gone.

So, I'm still very much out of the loop and I'm sure this has already been covered. But what outcome does Cameron most fear? I read that Tories are signing up with Labour to vote Corbyn. But why would they? While I can see that Corbyn might struggle to win an election, there is no doubt he will be an outspoken and coherent critic of Cameron.

I suspect the outcome Cameron most fears is a continuity candidate who can unite the whole party behind them and move quickly to put together a strong and experienced shadow cabinet team to start holding his government to account without wasting any time on introspection or infighting.

I liked Ed too. He practised what he preached. He said he'd stand up to powerful vested interests on behalf of ordinary people and with Leveson he did just that and ultimately paid the price. If the voting public prefer being lied to by a slick PR man like Cameron to the honest integrity of a man like Ed who refused to be bounced into yet another ill advised middle eastern conflict, I really can't see them warming to the left-wing intellectualism of a seasoned university debater like Corbyn. Let's face it, if talking common sense is what gets you to no 10, Cameron would never have got there.

I think you may well be right in your assessment of what Cameron fears most, but, that doesn't necessarily mean it's the thing he should fear most! Don't forget - he has terrible judgement.

[SpinningHugo]

This argument cuts no ice with me......I do not believe any of the other contenders can win either.

Your argument is predicated on the fact that the others actually stand a chance in 2020...I don't think they will at all

I am taking a risk but continuity with the other 3 sees no win.....[/quodes

A counsel of despair.

Please. Don't vote Corbyn.

SH,

As an outsider [to the Labour party], I can understand your viewpoint. I also understand the viewpoint of pro Corbyn Labour party members. Generally speaking, I don't buy all the Tory lite nonsense. However, there are some Labour MPs who do seem to be closer to Tory ideology than Labour. At what point would you consider the Labour party had gone too far to the right? Why can't you see that for some people, that point has already been reached? There are people on this forum who's views are probably closer to mine than to yours, and yet, you are in the same party. Don't you think you should try to accommodate them and respect them? After all, their opinion is of equal validity. Or don't you actually believe in democracy?

I am not sure why you think I am not accommodating and respecting people. Of course the views of all of us are deserving of equal respect (but they are not equally valid as a matter of logic - somebody here is badly wrong.) I don't swear or call others idiots or anything of that kind.

And of course I believe in democracy.

One of the things democracy entails is strenuously arguing for your viewpoint.

Indeed, this becomes a moral duty if you are sure, as I am, that one choice would be catastrophic for the UK left.

[Willow904]

Evening All

I still really really don't like this or any leadership contest and just regret that Ed has gone.

So, I'm still very much out of the loop and I'm sure this has already been covered. But what outcome does Cameron most fear? I read that Tories are signing up with Labour to vote Corbyn. But why would they? While I can see that Corbyn might struggle to win an election, there is no doubt he will be an outspoken and coherent critic of Cameron.

I suspect the outcome Cameron most fears is a continuity candidate who can unite the whole party behind them and move quickly to put together a strong and experienced shadow cabinet team to start holding his government to account without wasting any time on introspection or infighting.

I liked Ed too. He practised what he preached. He said he'd stand up to powerful vested interests on behalf of ordinary people and with Leveson he did just that and ultimately paid the price. If the voting public prefer being lied to by a slick PR man like Cameron to the honest integrity of a man like Ed who refused to be bounced into yet another ill advised middle eastern conflict, I really can't see them warming to the left-wing intellectualism of a seasoned university debater like Corbyn. Let's face it, if talking common sense is what gets you to no 10, Cameron would never have got there.

I think you may well be right in your assessment of what Cameron fears most, but, that doesn't necessarily mean it's the thing he should fear most! Don't forget - he has terrible judgement.

Ha! Very true.

[SpinningHugo]

Lengthy interview with Corbyn in FT

https://t.co/x8pmQXiXsw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nato out etc.

[ephemerid]

Evening All

I still really really don't like this or any leadership contest and just regret that Ed has gone.

So, I'm still very much out of the loop and I'm sure this has already been covered. But what outcome does Cameron most fear? I read that Tories are signing up with Labour to vote Corbyn. But why would they? While I can see that Corbyn might struggle to win an election, there is no doubt he will be an outspoken and coherent critic of Cameron.

Hello Lovely Paul - nice to see you!

I don't think even Cameron knows what outcome he most fears. He's more scared of his own backbenchers than anyone else.

Whoever gets the job, Cameron will have an army of SPADs and speechwriters preparing the jokes right now.

In the vanishingly unlikely event Kendall wins, he will capitalise on her inexperience and right-ish stance. Invite her to his benches...
He will attack Burnham on expenses, MidStaffs, "continuity-Miliband" etc.etc. and accuse him of weakness. All totally unfair, but Burnham isn't, IMHO, strong enough to withstand a barrage like that. Unless he has (well) hidden depths.
I think He would attack Cooper on Balls/expenses/immigration/whatever - but he'd have to be careful, because I can't see her standing for any sexism. After all, she sees it when it's not even there....
Those latter two are very experienced, and thus a known quantity. Cameron, Osborne, and the assorted panoply of hecklers know exactly which buttons to press - they were in opposition to them for some time and they know how to wind them up. It nearly always works - and in the absence of any real left-wing policies (again, just my opinion) he could make her look a bit silly. She's very feisty and very able, but she hasn't got enough to counter his performances at the despatch box. I despise him and all he stands for, but I have to admit however grudgingly that he can be very effective. He is the heir to Blair after all.

Cameron has no idea what Corbyn is about, I reckon. He doesn't get his politics and he doesn't understand his support. Cameron is not, for all his education, a particularly intelligent man. He is very easily wrong-footed on anything he hasn't been briefed on in advance.
He can make all his little jokes about Corbyn, but I think he - and the Tories generally - are rattled.
If Corbyn does his usual thing and patiently persists with what he is saying until he gets an answer to his questions, he may not be judged as the "winner" at PMQs, say, but he will show Cameron up as the bully he is. Some here think that PMQs doesn't count for much, but I think it does. It's shown on BBC News when there's a bit of a scrap, and people who otherwise wouldn't dream of watching politics programmes catch these exchanges at teatime and it matters how leaders come across.

I think Cameron fears what he doesn't understand. He sure as hell doesn't "get" Corbyn. And as Corbyn has never been on the front bench he is as much of an unknown quantity to Cameron in a leadership role as he is to the rest of us.
Cameron may have large parts of the media on his side; but the outrage when certain sections of it attacked Ed Miliband's father suggests to me that even people who read the Mail and the Sun are not the pushovers the Tory press barons think they are. Brits don't like bullies as a rule, and if Cameron tries that on with Corbyn he's on a hiding to nothing.

We won't find out until we find out!

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Thanks for the replies guys

[ephemerid]

"I am not sure why you think I am not accommodating and respecting people"
Really?

"Of course the views of all of us are deserving of equal respect"
Yes, they are.

"But they are not equally valid as a matter of logic - somebody here is badly wrong"
Opinion only.

" I don't swear or call others idiots or anything of that kind"
True.

"And of course I believe in democracy"
OK

"One of the things democracy entails is strenuously arguing for your viewpoint. Indeed, this becomes a moral duty if you are sure, as I am, that one choice would be catastrophic for the UK left"
Good grief.

Has it occurred to you, dear Hugo, that by claiming that arguing for one's viewpoint is a "moral duty", you have now set yourself - and not for the first time - above those who don't?
This is precisely the sort of ridiculous statement you have a habit of indulging in when your relentless arguments fail to elicit the reponse you seem to want - viz: that we agree with you.

I absolutely and totally believe that it is my "moral duty" to insist that you listen to my opinion that all drugs scheduled as Class A under the Misuse of Drugs Act are decriminalised and legalised for purchase under licence forthwith.
It is my moral duty - not because I can provide evidence that proves I am right, nor because there are alternatives to that scenario - but because I am sure that not listening to my opinion would be catastrophic to all drug users everywhere.

Now, if I said that, even with my belief that I know more about drugs than you do, you would not allow me to claim moral ground.

So you can occupy your little camp on your high moral ground. Take a blanket and a friend. It gets cold and lonely up there.

[Tizme1]

SH,

As an outsider [to the Labour party], I can understand your viewpoint. I also understand the viewpoint of pro Corbyn Labour party members. Generally speaking, I don't buy all the Tory lite nonsense. However, there are some Labour MPs who do seem to be closer to Tory ideology than Labour. At what point would you consider the Labour party had gone too far to the right? Why can't you see that for some people, that point has already been reached? There are people on this forum who's views are probably closer to mine than to yours, and yet, you are in the same party. Don't you think you should try to accommodate them and respect them? After all, their opinion is of equal validity. Or don't you actually believe in democracy?[/quote]

Spinning Hugo response;

"I am not sure why you think I am not accommodating and respecting people. Of course the views of all of us are deserving of equal respect (but they are not equally valid as a matter of logic - somebody here is badly wrong.) I don't swear or call others idiots or anything of that kind.

And of course I believe in democracy.

One of the things democracy entails is strenuously arguing for your viewpoint.

Indeed, this becomes a moral duty if you are sure, as I am, that one choice would be catastrophic for the UK left.[/quote]

My response

I personally find your style of commenting somewhat abrasive at times. However that doesn't matter - the fact that a number of Labour party members on here have said they find your comments disrespectful or dismissive of their views should matter to you though, and give you pause for thought.

We all have our opinions as to what may or may not happen who ever is elected as Labour party leader. And they are just that - opinions. Therefore they are all equally valid. Lets imagine for a moment that my Polly-Anna view from the other day comes true. Does that mean I was right all along and everyone else was wrong? Or does it just mean that circumstances panned out that way? * In other words, as Donald Rumsfeld said "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know". Or as Harold MacMillan may or may not have said "events dear boy, events".

Can you not see that people who hold an opposing view to you, hold it just as strongly, and believe it to be correct, every bit as much as you hold your view to be correct? The strength of an opinion doesn't mean it is right. Have you ever been out door knocking [in the political sense]? If so, surely you will have found that the most entrenched views are those held by many Ukippers. Does that mean we should acquiesce to their world [or more to the point - 'English'] view?

As to believing in democracy, you have indicated that if Corbyn wins, you will leave the Labour party. Is that democratic? Granted, some Corbyn supporters [not on here] have suggested they'd leave the Labour party if their man doesn't win. I'd question their commitment to democracy and to the Labour party every bit as much as I'm questioning yours.

* go "via the void" to a parallel universe at almost any point in history and one simple change in circumstances could change our whole world. Which gives me the excuse to post and drool over this;

[ephemerid]

Hope you all have a good night.

I'm off to bed now.

Hoping Show is back home tomorrow, and that all goes well with his last tests etc.

Hugs to all who have poorly loved ones right now - you are in my thoughts and meditations.

[SpinningHugo]

"I am not sure why you think I am not accommodating and respecting people"
Really?

"Of course the views of all of us are deserving of equal respect"
Yes, they are.

"But they are not equally valid as a matter of logic - somebody here is badly wrong"
Opinion only.

" I don't swear or call others idiots or anything of that kind"
True.

"And of course I believe in democracy"
OK

"One of the things democracy entails is strenuously arguing for your viewpoint. Indeed, this becomes a moral duty if you are sure, as I am, that one choice would be catastrophic for the UK left"
Good grief.

Has it occurred to you, dear Hugo, that by claiming that arguing for one's viewpoint is a "moral duty", you have now set yourself - and not for the first time - above those who don't?
This is precisely the sort of ridiculous statement you have a habit of indulging in when your relentless arguments fail to elicit the reponse you seem to want - viz: that we agree with you.

I absolutely and totally believe that it is my "moral duty" to insist that you listen to my opinion that all drugs scheduled as Class A under the Misuse of Drugs Act are decriminalised and legalised for purchase under licence forthwith.
It is my moral duty - not because I can provide evidence that proves I am right, nor because there are alternatives to that scenario - but because I am sure that not listening to my opinion would be catastrophic to all drug users everywhere.

Now, if I said that, even with my belief that I know more about drugs than you do, you would not allow me to claim moral ground.

So you can occupy your little camp on your high moral ground. Take a blanket and a friend. It gets cold and lonely up there.

Ephemerir

I am not sure you have followed my point

If your reason told you that the victory of Jeremy Corbyn will lead to peace and prosperity for all, then it is also your moral duty to argue for that. My reason tells me the opposite.

So no, I am not setting myself above you.

As I say, I think you are best off ignoring me. Best for everyone.

[SpinningHugo]

Tizme1

Political parties are associations. We can choose to join or leave as we like. If you are a member of a club that votes to expel women, your decision to leave is not undemocratic. It is a recognition that you are in the wrong club.

If Labour elect Corbyn by a large majority, I will be in the wrong club, and so leave. How is that an affront to democracy? I would not be seeking to overturn the decision. Rather I'd be recognising it, and exercising my choice to go, as anyone may. ( As indeed I did a decade ago over Iraq.) I'd be reluctant, but there we are

On doorstopping, yes I've done lots of that.

[Tonibel]

Evening All

I still really really don't like this or any leadership contest and just regret that Ed has gone.

So, I'm still very much out of the loop and I'm sure this has already been covered. But what outcome does Cameron most fear? I read that Tories are signing up with Labour to vote Corbyn. But why would they? While I can see that Corbyn might struggle to win an election, there is no doubt he will be an outspoken and coherent critic of Cameron.

Hello Lovely Paul - nice to see you!

I don't think even Cameron knows what outcome he most fears. He's more scared of his own backbenchers than anyone else.

Whoever gets the job, Cameron will have an army of SPADs and speechwriters preparing the jokes right now.

In the vanishingly unlikely event Kendall wins, he will capitalise on her inexperience and right-ish stance. Invite her to his benches...
He will attack Burnham on expenses, MidStaffs, "continuity-Miliband" etc.etc. and accuse him of weakness. All totally unfair, but Burnham isn't, IMHO, strong enough to withstand a barrage like that. Unless he has (well) hidden depths.
I think He would attack Cooper on Balls/expenses/immigration/whatever - but he'd have to be careful, because I can't see her standing for any sexism. After all, she sees it when it's not even there....
Those latter two are very experienced, and thus a known quantity. Cameron, Osborne, and the assorted panoply of hecklers know exactly which buttons to press - they were in opposition to them for some time and they know how to wind them up. It nearly always works - and in the absence of any real left-wing policies (again, just my opinion) he could make her look a bit silly. She's very feisty and very able, but she hasn't got enough to counter his performances at the despatch box. I despise him and all he stands for, but I have to admit however grudgingly that he can be very effective. He is the heir to Blair after all.

Cameron has no idea what Corbyn is about, I reckon. He doesn't get his politics and he doesn't understand his support. Cameron is not, for all his education, a particularly intelligent man. He is very easily wrong-footed on anything he hasn't been briefed on in advance.
He can make all his little jokes about Corbyn, but I think he - and the Tories generally - are rattled.
If Corbyn does his usual thing and patiently persists with what he is saying until he gets an answer to his questions, he may not be judged as the "winner" at PMQs, say, but he will show Cameron up as the bully he is. Some here think that PMQs doesn't count for much, but I think it does. It's shown on BBC News when there's a bit of a scrap, and people who otherwise wouldn't dream of watching politics programmes catch these exchanges at teatime and it matters how leaders come across.

I think Cameron fears what he doesn't understand. He sure as hell doesn't "get" Corbyn. And as Corbyn has never been on the front bench he is as much of an unknown quantity to Cameron in a leadership role as he is to the rest of us.
Cameron may have large parts of the media on his side; but the outrage when certain sections of it attacked Ed Miliband's father suggests to me that even people who read the Mail and the Sun are not the pushovers the Tory press barons think they are. Brits don't like bullies as a rule, and if Cameron tries that on with Corbyn he's on a hiding to nothing.

We won't find out until we find out!

Thanks Ephe. I agree with all of that.
I hope Corbyn will be a unifying influence in leftish British politics. He seems to be more interested in cooperation than division ((and if he can talk to Hamas he can surely talk to the SNP). I would like to think that he might enable a coalition, even if unofficial, of the left.
I'm still a very big fan of Ed. (Ed's?). I am glad he has steered clear of the fray and I would love to see him in Corbyns shadow cabinet. And is the Milibeard a hint of support?
And lest we forget, if a week is a long time in politics, the best part of five years is a lifetime.

[refitman]

Ephemerir

I am not sure you have followed my point

If your reason told you that the victory of Jeremy Corbyn will lead to peace and prosperity for all, then it is also your moral duty to argue for that. My reason tells me the opposite.

So no, I am not setting myself above you.

As I say, I think you are best off ignoring me. Best for everyone.

Hugo, it would be polite to spell people's names properly. It has been requested in the past.

[citizenJA]

Hope you all have a good night.

I'm off to bed now.

Hoping Show is back home tomorrow, and that all goes well with his last tests etc.

Hugs to all who have poorly loved ones right now - you are in my thoughts and meditations.

Goodnight, Ephemerid.
Give my love to Show.
xx
cJA

[TechnicalEphemera]

As Mr Snozzers keeps asking for evidence allow me to turn it round a bit. Can somebody, anybody provide me with some evidence that the UK is prepared to turn sharp left and elect a radical left wing Labour Party, as opposed to say a centre left or centrist social democratic Labour Party along the lines of Ed Miliband.

I have looked and this is what I see. We have had an election where faced with a choice between an alliance of centre left, centre, and radical left (if you take SNP at face value) parties the public voted in large numbers for right wing and extreme right wing parties. UKIP massively out-polled the Greens, who absolutely were a credible radical left wing party for disaffected Labour voters to turn to. In fact in as much as this constituency exists and is motivated to vote the Greens specifically targeted it. As far as I can tell the centre seems to have jumped sharp right to keep the left out (although this may not be clear to them that this is what they have done).

Opinion polls state the reason people didn't vote Labour was because they weren't trusted on the economy and they were seen as soft on welfare. I have seen a favourable poll for Corbyn as Labour leader over his rivals but it was based on playing a few samples of them to what looks suspiciously like a focus group.

I am also starting to get fed up with the abuse for expressing a different viewpoint.

Oh by the way - nice to see you Paul.

[AngryAsWell]

Evening All

I still really really don't like this or any leadership contest and just regret that Ed has gone.

So, I'm still very much out of the loop and I'm sure this has already been covered. But what outcome does Cameron most fear? I read that Tories are signing up with Labour to vote Corbyn. But why would they? While I can see that Corbyn might struggle to win an election, there is no doubt he will be an outspoken and coherent critic of Cameron.

"Who should I vote for in the Labour leadership election?"

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng- ... yn-kendall" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A bit old and not fully representative of what all the candidates have said - but a small overview.
As to who Cameron fears? Not sure - but have a good idea that it's not a man.

[rebeccariots2]

IAIN DUNCAN SMITH TO REVEAL MAJOR PLANS TO TOUGHEN UP SICKNESS BENEFIT
Work and Pensions Secretary says the current testing system is too "simplistic"
http://www.sunnation.co.uk/iain-duncan- ... s-benefit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Iain Duncan Smith will tomorrow unveil major new plans to toughen up sickness benefit in a bid to get up to a million back to work.

The Work and Pensions Secretary is to change the assessment regime so it helps people just parked on handouts back into a job.

A major area ministers will focus on in the new push is mental health, which accounts for 48% of the 2.32m currently getting Employment and Support Allowance – the main sickie handout – and is rising.

‘WORK CAN KEEP PEOPLE HEALTHY’

In a speech tomorrow, Mr Duncan Smith will confess incapacity is an area of welfare that the government “haven’t focused on enough” as he insists “work is good for your health”...

I feel sick.

[citizenJA]

Goodnight, everyone.
love
cJA

[Tizme1]

Tizme1

Political parties are associations. We can choose to join or leave as we like. If you are a member of a club that votes to expel women, your decision to leave is not undemocratic. It is a recognition that you are in the wrong club.

If Labour elect Corbyn by a large majority, I will be in the wrong club, and so leave. How is that an affront to democracy? I would not be seeking to overturn the decision. Rather I'd be recognising it, and exercising my choice to go, as anyone may. ( As indeed I did a decade ago over Iraq.) I'd be reluctant, but there we are

On doorstopping, yes I've done lots of that.

Frankly my dear - I think you've been in the wrong club for some time. The game's up - I don't think the Labour rank and file members are going to allow their party to be taken further to the right. I don't know your age SH but I'd guess back in Thatcher's day, you'd have had more in common with the Tory 'wets' than with the Labour party. Or maybe back then you had more belief in principles.

Btw, why do you insist on misspelling ephemerid's name? It's clearly deliberate. If it wasn't, you'd take extra care given she has raised it with you a number of times. Can you not see it is rude and dismissive? A typo or misspelling is one thing, a deliberate insult is another.

[refitman]

IAIN DUNCAN SMITH TO REVEAL MAJOR PLANS TO TOUGHEN UP SICKNESS BENEFIT
Work and Pensions Secretary says the current testing system is too "simplistic"
http://www.sunnation.co.uk/iain-duncan- ... s-benefit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Iain Duncan Smith will tomorrow unveil major new plans to toughen up sickness benefit in a bid to get up to a million back to work.

The Work and Pensions Secretary is to change the assessment regime so it helps people just parked on handouts back into a job.

A major area ministers will focus on in the new push is mental health, which accounts for 48% of the 2.32m currently getting Employment and Support Allowance – the main sickie handout – and is rising.

‘WORK CAN KEEP PEOPLE HEALTHY’

In a speech tomorrow, Mr Duncan Smith will confess incapacity is an area of welfare that the government “haven’t focused on enough” as he insists “work is good for your health”...

I feel sick.

"arbeit macht frei" springs to mind...

[Tizme1]

Tizme1

Political parties are associations. We can choose to join or leave as we like. If you are a member of a club that votes to expel women, your decision to leave is not undemocratic. It is a recognition that you are in the wrong club.

If Labour elect Corbyn by a large majority, I will be in the wrong club, and so leave. How is that an affront to democracy? I would not be seeking to overturn the decision. Rather I'd be recognising it, and exercising my choice to go, as anyone may. ( As indeed I did a decade ago over Iraq.) I'd be reluctant, but there we are

On doorstopping, yes I've done lots of that.

Frankly my dear - I think you've been in the wrong club for some time. The game's up - I don't think the Labour rank and file members are going to allow their party to be taken further to the right. I don't know your age SH but I'd guess back in Thatcher's day, you'd have had more in common with the Tory 'wets' than with the Labour party. Or maybe back then you had more belief in principles.

Btw, why do you insist on misspelling ephemerid's name? It's clearly deliberate. If it wasn't, you'd take extra care given she has raised it with you a number of times. Can you not see it is rude and dismissive? A typo or misspelling is one thing, a deliberate insult is another.

Interesting that you refer to 'doorstopping' rather than door knocking btw SH. Typo or Freudian slip?

[gilsey]

I don't endorse Corbynomics. The People's QE and tax gap stuff is the worst kind of "free ponies" politics.

It is true that at the zlb and with poor productivity, borrowing more to invest at this point make sense. So to that extent I agree with the 40 Economists (and indeed Keegan).

But, like them, that doesn't mean I endorse Corbyn. Far from it.

My bold.

So is another of the leadership candidates advocating this? I haven't heard them do so.
Seems to me, if borrowing to invest is the right policy, Corbyn's the man.

You shouldn't cherry pick the one and only reasonable part of his programme and say "there wecp are then."

Further, there is an enormous difference between the economic policies I think are sensible, and what Labour needs to say to win. On the latter, whatvit needs to establish, and has spent 5 years not bothering to do, is establish an image of stern fiscal rectitude

Again, and for the avoidance of doubt, the main problem with Corbyn is with the substance of his proposals. That he will lose is a second order consideration, and cannot be proven.

You shouldn't tell me what I should think.

I think economics is very important.
Three candidates have nothing to say on the subject.
One does.
Labour are in opposition, no need to write the next manifesto now. For all we know, people's QE might be just the ticket in 2020.

As for stern fiscal rectitude, we could do with some of that from the current government, chucking money away on their pet schemes and delegating cuts to local government.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I think economics is very important.
Three candidates have nothing to say on the subject.
One does.
Labour are in opposition, no need to write the next manifesto now. For all we know, people's QE might be just the ticket in 2020.

As for stern fiscal rectitude, we could do with some of that from the current government, chucking money away on their pet schemes and delegating cuts to local government.

The other candidates are trying to keep their powder dry. Don't mistake that for having nothing to contribute on economics. Lots of it's boring, and a matter of details. Brown was very good at that, hence the good performance of the economy.

[Tizme1]

As Mr Snozzers keeps asking for evidence allow me to turn it round a bit. Can somebody, anybody provide me with some evidence that the UK is prepared to turn sharp left and elect a radical left wing Labour Party, as opposed to say a centre left or centrist social democratic Labour Party along the lines of Ed Miliband.

I have looked and this is what I see. We have had an election where faced with a choice between an alliance of centre left, centre, and radical left (if you take SNP at face value) parties the public voted in large numbers for right wing and extreme right wing parties. UKIP massively out-polled the Greens, who absolutely were a credible radical left wing party for disaffected Labour voters to turn to. In fact in as much as this constituency exists and is motivated to vote the Greens specifically targeted it. As far as I can tell the centre seems to have jumped sharp right to keep the left out (although this may not be clear to them that this is what they have done).

Opinion polls state the reason people didn't vote Labour was because they weren't trusted on the economy and they were seen as soft on welfare. I have seen a favourable poll for Corbyn as Labour leader over his rivals but it was based on playing a few samples of them to what looks suspiciously like a focus group.

I am also starting to get fed up with the abuse for expressing a different viewpoint.

Oh by the way - nice to see you Paul.

Firstly just let me say, I don't think for the main part that Corbyn is advocating radically left ideas [set aside 'foreign policy' for the moment, which is contentious]. There isn't much in what he says that is so very far removed from what Tony Blair was saying in 1994!

The 'centre' has moved to the right. My children are all anti Tory. And yet they accept as given the lack of employee rights for instance. Labour are the main left wing party. They [you?] need to stop giving ground to the Tories. Opinion polls can be wrong as we know, but even if they are right that people didn't vote Labour because they were seen as soft on welfare, does that mean Labour were soft on welfare when they were in government? Does it mean we have to go back to judging who the 'deserving poor' are? Or should we just redouble our efforts to cut through the bullshit?

Do we [on the left] have to keep tacking right to keep up with Tory policies, or has the time come to come out fighting - all guns blazing? And indeed, is left/right a false distinction now when we consider Ukip, SNP, Plaid, and even us Greens!

[ephemerid]

"I am not sure why you think I am not accommodating and respecting people"
Really?

"Of course the views of all of us are deserving of equal respect"
Yes, they are.

"But they are not equally valid as a matter of logic - somebody here is badly wrong"
Opinion only.

" I don't swear or call others idiots or anything of that kind"
True.

"And of course I believe in democracy"
OK

"One of the things democracy entails is strenuously arguing for your viewpoint. Indeed, this becomes a moral duty if you are sure, as I am, that one choice would be catastrophic for the UK left"
Good grief.

Has it occurred to you, dear Hugo, that by claiming that arguing for one's viewpoint is a "moral duty", you have now set yourself - and not for the first time - above those who don't?
This is precisely the sort of ridiculous statement you have a habit of indulging in when your relentless arguments fail to elicit the reponse you seem to want - viz: that we agree with you.

I absolutely and totally believe that it is my "moral duty" to insist that you listen to my opinion that all drugs scheduled as Class A under the Misuse of Drugs Act are decriminalised and legalised for purchase under licence forthwith.
It is my moral duty - not because I can provide evidence that proves I am right, nor because there are alternatives to that scenario - but because I am sure that not listening to my opinion would be catastrophic to all drug users everywhere.

Now, if I said that, even with my belief that I know more about drugs than you do, you would not allow me to claim moral ground.

So you can occupy your little camp on your high moral ground. Take a blanket and a friend. It gets cold and lonely up there.

Ephemerir

I am not sure you have followed my point

If your reason told you that the victory of Jeremy Corbyn will lead to peace and prosperity for all, then it is also your moral duty to argue for that. My reason tells me the opposite.

So no, I am not setting myself above you.

As I say, I think you are best off ignoring me. Best for everyone.

For the fifth time in less than 10 days you have misspelt and/or chosen not to check the spelling of my username.
I can only assume that this is deliberate now.

You may not be sure that I haven't followed your point. I am. I simply batted it back in kind and in another context.
Once again, this is very patronising stuff.

I am aware that you think I am best off ignoring you. You have opined this more than once.
You do not know what's best for me.

You certainly don't know what's best for anyone, let alone everyone.

If you will insist on behaving like a patronising berk and continue to be so rude and dismissive, I'll call you out on it.

That, dear Hugo, is what is best for me. So I'll keep doing it as and when I see fit. Or Refitman tells me to stop.

[Tubby Isaacs]

IAIN DUNCAN SMITH TO REVEAL MAJOR PLANS TO TOUGHEN UP SICKNESS BENEFIT
Work and Pensions Secretary says the current testing system is too "simplistic"
http://www.sunnation.co.uk/iain-duncan- ... s-benefit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Iain Duncan Smith will tomorrow unveil major new plans to toughen up sickness benefit in a bid to get up to a million back to work.

The Work and Pensions Secretary is to change the assessment regime so it helps people just parked on handouts back into a job.

A major area ministers will focus on in the new push is mental health, which accounts for 48% of the 2.32m currently getting Employment and Support Allowance – the main sickie handout – and is rising.

‘WORK CAN KEEP PEOPLE HEALTHY’

In a speech tomorrow, Mr Duncan Smith will confess incapacity is an area of welfare that the government “haven’t focused on enough” as he insists “work is good for your health”...

I feel sick.

Hang on, what does he mean "hasn't focussed on enough"?

He brought in a new test and retested everybody.

[Tubby Isaacs]

As Mr Snozzers keeps asking for evidence allow me to turn it round a bit. Can somebody, anybody provide me with some evidence that the UK is prepared to turn sharp left and elect a radical left wing Labour Party, as opposed to say a centre left or centrist social democratic Labour Party along the lines of Ed Miliband.

I have looked and this is what I see. We have had an election where faced with a choice between an alliance of centre left, centre, and radical left (if you take SNP at face value) parties the public voted in large numbers for right wing and extreme right wing parties. UKIP massively out-polled the Greens, who absolutely were a credible radical left wing party for disaffected Labour voters to turn to. In fact in as much as this constituency exists and is motivated to vote the Greens specifically targeted it. As far as I can tell the centre seems to have jumped sharp right to keep the left out (although this may not be clear to them that this is what they have done).

Opinion polls state the reason people didn't vote Labour was because they weren't trusted on the economy and they were seen as soft on welfare. I have seen a favourable poll for Corbyn as Labour leader over his rivals but it was based on playing a few samples of them to what looks suspiciously like a focus group.

I am also starting to get fed up with the abuse for expressing a different viewpoint.

Oh by the way - nice to see you Paul.

Firstly just let me say, I don't think for the main part that Corbyn is advocating radically left ideas [set aside 'foreign policy' for the moment, which is contentious]. There isn't much in what he says that is so very far removed from what Tony Blair was saying in 1994!

The 'centre' has moved to the right. My children are all anti Tory. And yet they accept as given the lack of employee rights for instance. Labour are the main left wing party. They [you?] need to stop giving ground to the Tories. Opinion polls can be wrong as we know, but even if they are right that people didn't vote Labour because they were seen as soft on welfare, does that mean Labour were soft on welfare when they were in government? Does it mean we have to go back to judging who the 'deserving poor' are? Or should we just redouble our efforts to cut through the bullshit?

Do we [on the left] have to keep tacking right to keep up with Tory policies, or has the time come to come out fighting - all guns blazing? And indeed, is left/right a false distinction now when we consider Ukip, SNP, Plaid, and even us Greens!

Who's suggesting tacking Right, apart from Liz Kendall, who is losing very badly?

"People's QE", the exaggerated tax gap, and the stuff about "corporate welfare" is way different to Labour before. The energy policy is also pretty distinct.

I think that basically none of it happens. People's QE is vetoed by the Bank, and not much extra tax revenue shows up. And the energy policy is ruled out as too expensive by the Treasury.

[RogerOThornhill]

Hang on, what does he mean "hasn't focussed on enough"?

He brought in a new test and retested everybody.

It means "It didn't work so we'll try something else but can't admit that our first approach failed".

[Tubby Isaacs]

As a tangent, been reading around the subject on rail a bit. I see Labour went for a 1 year rail fare freeze, paid for by scrapping some road schemes. Not bad, though perhaps better if they'd ear marked the money for rail investment.

This old fave Lib Dem wasn't impressed because one of the roads was in his constituency.

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Lab ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

David Laws, Liberal Democrat candidate for Yeovil, who has long campaigned for the road to be improved, said all the traffic-busting benefits generated on the A303 will be lost because of a log-jam caused by not dualling the A358. The schools minister, a key adviser to Nick Clegg, told the Western Morning News the A358 would not be ditched if Labour and the Lib Dems enter power-sharing after the election.

He said: "This just goes to show Labour doesn't care about the South West and understands nothing of the region's transport needs. This just confirms what most people know about Labour – they are happy to take money out of the South West and send it to their own back-yard."

It's top pay for a national freeze on rail fares, you ignoramus. National. ie in the South West too.

(And I'm not sure that a Lib Dem, with all their far flung seats (at the time) ought to have got into the subject of areas being "subsidized")

(to be clear, it's right to give more to poor and distant places)

[Tubby Isaacs]

Hang on, what does he mean "hasn't focussed on enough"?

He brought in a new test and retested everybody.

It means "It didn't work so we'll try something else but can't admit that our first approach failed".

... because that would beg questions about how much it had all cost.

[ephemerid]

As Mr Snozzers keeps asking for evidence allow me to turn it round a bit. Can somebody, anybody provide me with some evidence that the UK is prepared to turn sharp left and elect a radical left wing Labour Party, as opposed to say a centre left or centrist social democratic Labour Party along the lines of Ed Miliband.

I have looked and this is what I see. We have had an election where faced with a choice between an alliance of centre left, centre, and radical left (if you take SNP at face value) parties the public voted in large numbers for right wing and extreme right wing parties. UKIP massively out-polled the Greens, who absolutely were a credible radical left wing party for disaffected Labour voters to turn to. In fact in as much as this constituency exists and is motivated to vote the Greens specifically targeted it. As far as I can tell the centre seems to have jumped sharp right to keep the left out (although this may not be clear to them that this is what they have done).

Opinion polls state the reason people didn't vote Labour was because they weren't trusted on the economy and they were seen as soft on welfare. I have seen a favourable poll for Corbyn as Labour leader over his rivals but it was based on playing a few samples of them to what looks suspiciously like a focus group.

I am also starting to get fed up with the abuse for expressing a different viewpoint.

Oh by the way - nice to see you Paul.

I don't think there IS any evidence support a radical left-wing agenda - but I think there's more support for change than before.

UKIP got 4 million votes. Some of their manifesto was actually not all that right-wing. Their supporters - however deluded I think they are on immigration - seemed to take a view that Farage was genuine and they were quite keen on his ordinary bloke schtick. We know that's not real, but I don't think some of the supporters were as right-wing as many think.
The SNP - even though I personally support the right of the Scots to self-determination - IMHO, did so well in the GE because of the Labour involvement in the IndyRef shenanigans. If they'd left Cameron to sort it out and Labours big guns in Scotland hadn't rescued the country for him, they might not have done so well. I think many Scots hate Labour for that.

When you add up all the votes from all the parties who are either of the left - or who presented themselves as such for the GE - I think there is an appetite for anti-austerity politics. If that's all Corbyn had, it probably wouldn't be enough; but when his fellow candidates aren't even obviously offering any change on anything much at all, and he's coming up with ideas which are new to anyone who can't remember 1997 and the hope that came with it, I think it's no wonder that he's getting support from young people.
But that's not the whole story either - a lot of older people who do remember 1997 and what went before it are supporting him too.

I don't think there's any evidence beyond the polls- and polls aren't accurate - but there isn't any for the others either, TBF.

I would also like to say that I don't think there is abuse for people who have a differing view - there is a lot of impassioned argument, and I don't see any abuse here from either side.
What I and others are seeing, though, is dismissive rudeness from a particular quarter, which is very much in character elsewhere.
I'm aware that you may not agree!

[LadyCentauria]

IAIN DUNCAN SMITH TO REVEAL MAJOR PLANS TO TOUGHEN UP SICKNESS BENEFIT
Work and Pensions Secretary says the current testing system is too "simplistic"
http://www.sunnation.co.uk/iain-duncan- ... s-benefit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Iain Duncan Smith will tomorrow unveil major new plans to toughen up sickness benefit in a bid to get up to a million back to work.

The Work and Pensions Secretary is to change the assessment regime so it helps people just parked on handouts back into a job.

A major area ministers will focus on in the new push is mental health, which accounts for 48% of the 2.32m currently getting Employment and Support Allowance – the main sickie handout – and is rising.

‘WORK CAN KEEP PEOPLE HEALTHY’

In a speech tomorrow, Mr Duncan Smith will confess incapacity is an area of welfare that the government “haven’t focused on enough” as he insists “work is good for your health”...

I feel sick.

Me too. More Arbeit macht frei from Dumkopf Schmidt, who thinks there are yet another million ill-and/or-disabled folk he can force into work via a combination of cruelty and wishful-thinking, who claims he hasn't focused on incapacity for too long! How long is too long? The whole thirty-seven days since the HoC rose for there jolly-hols? And as for him calling the kettle 'simplistic' and his fawning press casually tossing the words 'sickie-handout' into the lexicon to sit alongside scrounger, skiver, and fake - words that he and his ilk have already tarnished far too many good people with to the delight of those who join in with his laughter and cheering at news of loss of life and loss of security.

I will do my damnedest to out-live him and to see him disgraced!

[Tizme1]

As Mr Snozzers keeps asking for evidence allow me to turn it round a bit. Can somebody, anybody provide me with some evidence that the UK is prepared to turn sharp left and elect a radical left wing Labour Party, as opposed to say a centre left or centrist social democratic Labour Party along the lines of Ed Miliband.

I have looked and this is what I see. We have had an election where faced with a choice between an alliance of centre left, centre, and radical left (if you take SNP at face value) parties the public voted in large numbers for right wing and extreme right wing parties. UKIP massively out-polled the Greens, who absolutely were a credible radical left wing party for disaffected Labour voters to turn to. In fact in as much as this constituency exists and is motivated to vote the Greens specifically targeted it. As far as I can tell the centre seems to have jumped sharp right to keep the left out (although this may not be clear to them that this is what they have done).

Opinion polls state the reason people didn't vote Labour was because they weren't trusted on the economy and they were seen as soft on welfare. I have seen a favourable poll for Corbyn as Labour leader over his rivals but it was based on playing a few samples of them to what looks suspiciously like a focus group.

I am also starting to get fed up with the abuse for expressing a different viewpoint.

Oh by the way - nice to see you Paul.

Firstly just let me say, I don't think for the main part that Corbyn is advocating radically left ideas [set aside 'foreign policy' for the moment, which is contentious]. There isn't much in what he says that is so very far removed from what Tony Blair was saying in 1994!

The 'centre' has moved to the right. My children are all anti Tory. And yet they accept as given the lack of employee rights for instance. Labour are the main left wing party. They [you?] need to stop giving ground to the Tories. Opinion polls can be wrong as we know, but even if they are right that people didn't vote Labour because they were seen as soft on welfare, does that mean Labour were soft on welfare when they were in government? Does it mean we have to go back to judging who the 'deserving poor' are? Or should we just redouble our efforts to cut through the bullshit?

Do we [on the left] have to keep tacking right to keep up with Tory policies, or has the time come to come out fighting - all guns blazing? And indeed, is left/right a false distinction now when we consider Ukip, SNP, Plaid, and even us Greens!

Who's suggesting tacking Right, apart from Liz Kendall, who is losing very badly?

"People's QE", the exaggerated tax gap, and the stuff about "corporate welfare" is way different to Labour before. The energy policy is also pretty distinct.

I think that basically none of it happens. People's QE is vetoed by the Bank, and not much extra tax revenue shows up. And the energy policy is ruled out as too expensive by the Treasury.

The Labour party have been tacking right for some years. Remember Mandelson's oft misquoted phrase "we're intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich - as long as they pay their taxes"? Why do you think the second part of that sentence is mostly forgotten now?

Because the Labour hierarchy themselves have forgotten.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Remember Mandelson's oft misquoted phrase "we're intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich - as long as they pay their taxes"? Why do you think the second part of that sentence is mostly forgotten now?

Because the Labour hierarchy themselves have forgotten.

Really? So Gordo and Ed Balls could have had a load more hospitals, schools, rail lines etc and didn't think it was worth collecting the money?

They did, btw, promise a review into HMRC in the election, and set target of reducing tax avoidance by £7bn a year. But Corbyn's going to do better?

[Tubby Isaacs]

If that's all Corbyn had, it probably wouldn't be enough; but when his fellow candidates aren't even obviously offering any change on anything much at all, and he's coming up with ideas which are new to anyone who can't remember 1997 and the hope that came with it, I think it's no wonder that he's getting support from young people.

Anyone can come up with ideas. The Lib Dems used to be the great ones for that. They went into government and most of it was chucked away. Not just because the Tories had them in a headlock because the greater scrutiny would have killed them.

As I say, I think the Corbyn stuff goes nowhere in government.

[LadyCentauria]

...
As for stern fiscal rectitude, ...

I read that as 'stern rectal fistitude' - of which I think this Government needs to to be on the receiving end, however much some of them might think they'd enjoy it...

[Tizme1]

Remember Mandelson's oft misquoted phrase "we're intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich - as long as they pay their taxes"? Why do you think the second part of that sentence is mostly forgotten now?

Because the Labour hierarchy themselves have forgotten.

Really? So Gordo and Ed Balls could have had a load more hospitals, schools, rail lines etc and didn't think it was worth collecting the money?

They did, btw, promise a review into HMRC in the election, and set target of reducing tax avoidance by £7bn a year. But Corbyn's going to do better?

They had 13 years in power. 13 years in which they did many good things. But, they also failed to do many things. Hence I'm not interested in what they 'promised' to do when it came to an election. Like all political promises [including from Greens], I'll take that with a huge pint of salt.

Most people vote emotionally Tubby. I'm trying to convey some of that emotion to you as I understand it.

[Tubby Isaacs]

More rail, as a tangent. You know those promises the Tories chucked into the manifesto (uncosted) to get out the vote and then be negotiated away "reluctantly" in forming a Coalition?

One such promise was "Norwich in 90" and "Ipswich in 60". Chloe Smith and Ben Gummer made a lot of it, and how their "hard work" had got it on the agenda.

http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/conse ... _1_3843813" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But Mr Gummer claimed that if Labour did bring in legislative changes, its plans for the railway would be “put at risk”.

Adding: “In fact, it would not just be put at risk, it would not happen. It has to start in 2016, if we are to succeed. We have one window here.”

Has to start in 2016? One window?

Looking fwd to you explaining to your constituents that, yes, it isn't happening in 2016, but it's happening soon, honest.

(It hasn't been decided yet, but signs on rail budget not good).

[Tubby Isaacs]

Remember Mandelson's oft misquoted phrase "we're intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich - as long as they pay their taxes"? Why do you think the second part of that sentence is mostly forgotten now?

Because the Labour hierarchy themselves have forgotten.

Really? So Gordo and Ed Balls could have had a load more hospitals, schools, rail lines etc and didn't think it was worth collecting the money?

They did, btw, promise a review into HMRC in the election, and set target of reducing tax avoidance by £7bn a year. But Corbyn's going to do better?

They had 13 years in power. 13 years in which they did many good things. But, they also failed to do many things. Hence I'm not interested in what they 'promised' to do when it came to an election. Like all political promises [including from Greens], I'll take that with a huge pint of salt.

Most people vote emotionally Tubby. I'm trying to convey some of that emotion to you as I understand it.

I'm emotional too!

I don't know how far Corbyn's going to get with his promises though. He's basically promising more of everything without ordinary people paying more tax.

[utopiandreams]

I've not looked yet to see if anyone else has noticed, but Benefits shakeup aims to force more disabled people into jobs (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... -into-jobs). As we've already observed Thursday's mortality figures are likely to be less than illuminating but what sort of beliefs does IDS possess? No profanity can express my thoughts!

This had better be main stream news all over the media, even so I'm not sure I can look at what may exist btl. This madness has got to stop!

[TechnicalEphemera]

I would also like to say that I don't think there is abuse for people who have a differing view - there is a lot of impassioned argument, and I don't see any abuse here from either side.
What I and others are seeing, though, is dismissive rudeness from a particular quarter, which is very much in character elsewhere.
I'm aware that you may not agree!

Lots of good stuff in that response which if I get chance I will return to. However on this specific point, I wouldn't have made the point if I didn't see an issue.

I like Hugo he is interesting, I recognise there are people who disagree, but his behaviour here is quite different to other forums he is often deleted from. But outside of that I would like to make this point.

Can we try and refrain on this board from making judgements as to people's personality, background or morals. People may say things that differ from what AN Other would think, but just because it offends AN Others values does not mean a person has committed some sort of moral or behavioural transgression. Obviously if the person explicitly calls AN Other an idiot then retaliation is fair game at least until the mods step in.

On another point can we explicitly bar AN Other reading my above post it is clear to
me now that it is obviously all their fault.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Hang on, what does he mean "hasn't focussed on enough"?

He brought in a new test and retested everybody.

It means "It didn't work so we'll try something else but can't admit that our first approach failed".

... because that would beg questions about how much it had all cost.

Bollocks isn't it, the current system is already massively letting down people with mental health issues and IDS wants to make it worse.

For what £2.50 in savings which he can piss away on yet more UC rework.

[LadyCentauria]

I've not looked yet to see if anyone else has noticed, but Benefits shakeup aims to force more disabled people into jobs (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... -into-jobs). As we've already observed Thursday's mortality figures are likely to be less than illuminating but what sort of beliefs does IDS possess? No profanity can express my thoughts!

This had better be main stream news all over the media, even so I'm not sure I can look at what may exist btl. This madness has got to stop!

Perhaps IDS' 'thinking' (such as he is capable of!) is that throwing this 'meat' out to the press with a bang means they'll ignore the 'bones' hidden within the statistics which will trickle out, just in time for the Bank Holiday weekend, with a whimper. The press and the media will be giving the August 'silly-season' one last push - with Back To School specials for 'balance' - and repeats, by then; and will be mostly manned by interns and juniors...

[LadyCentauria]

Now, this is interesting (for which, read 'odd') - the final paragraph of one of the article linked to by @utopiandreams:

A DWP spokesman declined to discuss the figures in Duncan Smith’s speech or release further details. A spokesman said: “This isn’t a policy announcement; it’s the start of a conversation.”

Could it be that at least some of the DWP spokespeople are attempting to somewhat distance themselves from their boss and his proclamations?

[HindleA]

"The main sickie handout " What a fucking evil paper that rag is.