Thursday 27th August

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 5:40 am

Good morning everyone.

-----------------------------------------------------
HindleA - you are in my thoughts.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 6:07 am

@HindleA

I'm pleased your wife had as comfortable an end as hoped. I appreciate you have much to do and would rather not dwell on things. I trust you have the support of good friends and family. Best wishes, my thoughts are with you.

Postscript: the good memories are the best, nothing and nobody can deprive you of them.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 6:14 am

The Labour Party is now using canvassing data to check the voting histories of new members/supporters.
Having originally decided not to use this internal canvass data, it seems the plan has changed.
This is apparently because the ABC candidates' campaign teams have requested more checks.

I think there are some real issues with this.

Changing the rules while the vote is going on is bad enough; but using information given on the doorstep for one purpose, but retaining it for another purpose, is certainly a breach of trust and possibly a breach of data protection rules unless the person canvassed gave permission for the data to be used later in this way. I suspect that the new plan to phone people identified as possible infiltrators from this data is a way of getting round this; but Labour now risks accusations of abuse of its' own processes.

Canvassing data is very limited too - where I live now, Labour did a lot of doorstep canvassing (I should know, I did a lot of it) but we had nobody from any of the other parties. There will be places where Labour did not canvass; and if there are new members/supporters from such areas, will they be allowed to vote without checks or excluded because they cannot be checked? Canvassing data does not prove that anyone who said they would vote in a certain way actually did so. There must be places like ultra-safe Tory seats where no canvassing took place so no checks on data can be made on new members/supporters - what happens to their votes?

Tom Dowling has a piece in the G about a letter Labour is sending out to people, which explains how the recipient can report someone who does not share Labour values. Rosie Collington has a piece in the Indy on this - and if you report someone and they are found to be unsatisfactory you can, and I quote, "...be called a "Star" by the Compliance Unit".

I am finding all of this very distasteful at best, and bordering on McCarthyism at worst.

This leadership election is now becoming a farce. If I think back to the beginning, it seems to me that as soon as it became possible that Corbyn could win, the Labour machine panicked - it wants one of the ABC candidates (all of whose campaigns are behaving as though their man or woman has the god-given right to be leader) and it has been an unedifying spectacle watching Labour tinkering with an agreed process just because it looks like it is not going to get the result it wanted and expected.

Thanks to all these shenanigans, if the vote is very close whoever wins will be dogged by questions of legitimacy. Beyond silly.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 6:35 am

I've just noticed that Breakfast TV is to have something about how to deal with domestic abuse as a concerned bystander. I'm not sure whether I'll catch it, but am sure there must be a better way of handling it than issuing threats, somewhat easy in my case as I felt sure it hadn't escalated to physical harm. There's also psychological abuse, which may be fraught with even more difficulty.

Edit: replace worried with concerned.
Postscript: just caught it and no, I didn't find very enlightening. It is particularly difficult to address.

Post by **refitman** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 7:11 am

Thoughts are with you today Adrian.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 7:15 am

Sorry folks just logged in with an afterthought on tortoise. He does have a name (belongs to my youngest actually) but I merely call him tortoise since my granddaughter. She gives him a closely supervised bath every time she visits. Okay I guess gesture has a part to play, every morning before feeding I get down before him, duck down my head then stretch it out whilst calling and lifting it, two or three times. At least I can get up again these days. He then follows me.

I've now noticed his response at other times when I call. He does spend quite a lot of time between my feet if they're not raised up in a cross legged position. Always the way with animals, I guess. Give them something they want and they'll love you for it. I'm off now so shall leave you all to the more serious matters of the day.

Edit: inserted missing word. That's one way to improve your typing speed.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 7:26 am

Due today - DWP figures on deaths of benefit recipients (which will be as informative as a blank piece of paper if published at all) and the latest net migration figures (expected to show near-record increases)

Not actually due today (having been delayed until after the election, then delayed again while Parliament sat, then delayed again during recess) is the dissolution honours list.
When Cameron originally delayed his honours list, there were fears of scandals due to some likely recipients (Straw, Rifkind) being given honours after the cash-for-access affair in February; the speculation in the media was that this was one of the reasons for the wait.

Given the media's obsession with the Labour leadership contest, and probably a few headlines associated with the honours, I suspect the latter is happening today to deflect attention from the death and migration figures.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 7:27 am

@HindleA,
Sincere condolences , thinking of you.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 7:55 am

Thoughts with you Adrian, and your family, x

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 8:04 am

: Corbyn.jpg (103.86 KiB) Viewed 6866 times

http://newsthump.com/2015/08/17/jeremy- ... my-corbyn/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hard to know what really is satire nowadays

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 8:12 am

If I have time later I'm going to ring Labour Party to ask the Compliance Unit to consider Dan Hodges and his anti-Labour activities.

MsChin · Post by **MsChin** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 8:18 am

@AHindle
My thoughts are with you and your family.
xx

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 8:21 am

Please do yahyah.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 8:27 am

: ScreenShot006.jpg (111.93 KiB) Viewed 6854 times

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danho ... ing-boris/

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 8:31 am

Morning All and, yes, thinking of you Adrian.

Business brands UK migration target ‘bizarre and unachievable’

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f0e0ebe4-4c1b ... z3jzwvjT3v" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (which I can't access)

Well it was there in the sodding manifesto, which "Business" people largely supported.

This must be a behind the scenes plan to drop the target, because Business says so.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 8:35 am

He ought to be disqualified for giving succour to the opposition and making money from bringing the Labour party bad publicity.

Just to be clear, it is not his choice of vote I have an issue with, it is that he is allowed one at all.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 8:40 am

Mmm....but what if his application to vote was a deliberate stunt ?
He may be hoping to be 'verified' out and then he can spend years making money whilst whining about 'Labour purges'.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 9:07 am

Will be holding you in my thoughts today HindleA - as will many of us here. Your deeply moving message made me feel peace was there. I so hope that is a comforting and lasting memory.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 9:09 am

Interesting how YouGov present this, rather than in a more neutral way, 'How Labour leadership voters see themselves & the world' for example.

YouGov ‏@YouGov 43m43 minutes ago
“You may say that I’m a dreamer”: inside the mindset of Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters – http://y-g.co/1K6y8US" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Others are using it to say Corbyn supporters are 'paranoid fantasists'.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 9:11 am

Kevin Maguire ‏@Kevin_Maguire 27m27 minutes ago
Cameron announcing dodgy peers to bury his own bad immigration news is the Tories urinating on themselves. Going well

Have I missed some more immigration figures going in the 'wrong' direction for the Tories?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 9:14 am

To be announced today RR.
Guardian will be live blogging.

Lovely & sunny here, can't quite believe it. Hope you are getting the same and get to some of your gardening clients.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 9:21 am

Popped back for a few minutes and visited the AS Blog at the G. Here's what I posted to Andrew with a correction to my obligatory typo.

I'm sorry to be picky, Andrew, but according to the DWP site they are publishing mortality figures after claiming a benefit, which is not quite the same as losing one. I expect you of all people not to be duped by government language. I doubt they shall be as informative as requested. I also prefer the term allowance for what it's worth.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 9:27 am

'Moaning' ex-Tory MP bags SIX jobs after quitting parliament over expenses row
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mo ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's about Tory MPs who have bagged jobs with firms they had official business with whilst they were in government ....

I love the last sentence of the report which manages to do the exact opposite of what it says.

'There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing'.

Or is that just in my mind?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 9:29 am

At least he's giving us advance warning.

Simon Danczuk ‏@SimonDanczuk 16m16 minutes ago
Looking forward to being on @BBCAnyQuestions tomorrow at 8pm with @billybragg @OborneTweets & Priti Patel - should be fun!

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 9:31 am

yahyah wrote:Interesting how YouGov present this, rather than in a more neutral way, 'How Labour leadership voters see themselves & the world' for example.

YouGov ‏@YouGov 43m43 minutes ago
“You may say that I’m a dreamer”: inside the mindset of Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters – http://y-g.co/1K6y8US" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Others are using it to say Corbyn supporters are 'paranoid fantasists'.

I make no secret of the fact, yahyah. However I still lean toward Andy, not that I have a vote, with one proviso. He appoints Jeremy in a high profile position where he may continue to enthuse and inspire, providing of course that he takes the party leftwards and supports PR, no matter the scaremongering of the Tory press. It seems there are powerful enemies even if their propaganda is somewhat diminished these days. Not enough though, you've only got to look around and see how many religiously read those rags, besides they're online too and telly ain't much better.

Edit: inserted 'Not enough though' for clarity.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 9:34 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:... 'There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing'. ...

That merely translates as within the law, rr2. Whether right and proper is an entirely different matter. I don't think it needs stating where I stand.

Edits: fixed quote

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 9:36 am

@ HindleA

I'm thinking of you. Take care.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 9:38 am

Good morfternoon.

@AngryAsWell

Belated happy birthday wishes for yesterday.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 9:40 am

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

immigration-statistics-rise-record-levels

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 9:41 am

330'000. That's rather a lot of "tens of thousands". Time to dust off the "blame Labour" handbook for ministerial interviews.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 9:41 am

"We will keep our ambition of delivering annual net migration in the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands."

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 9:42 am

Net migration to UK was estimated 330,000 in year to March - highest figure on record, ONS says http://bbc.in/1PVEtRM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 9:43 am

Orf out now. See you later.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 9:44 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Net migration to UK was estimated 330,000 in year to March - highest figure on record, ONS says http://bbc.in/1PVEtRM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How many manifesto entries have been trashed already?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 9:51 am

Wow.

Net long-term international migration = +330,000 (up 94,000 from YE March 2014), in the year ending (YE) March 2015.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration ... -2015.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is now higher than the year to March 2005 after which it started to fall...how's that target of "tens of thousands" going Dave?

I can see the old "Yeah but no but yeah but...the growing economy!" excuse coming out.

Edit - knew I should have refreshed the page...sorry.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 9:55 am

Also, the numbers coming in looking for work have risen sharply since 2010.

y/e march 2010.....66k
y/e march 2015....107k

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 9:57 am

They're out: Mortality Statistics: Employment and Support Allowance, Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ib-sda.pdf).

No doubt ephe shall cast her keen eye over them, I shan't be examining them till later I'm afraid.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 10:22 am

Is operation Squirrel in action at the G? I find no other explanation for the prominence given to the sad, but inevitable, deaths of two people in a shooting incident in America. If you allow the general population access to firearms this stuff happens - lots.

Dan Hodges will almost certainly not be getting a vote in the Labour leadership election, the difference between him and certain anti Labour union leaders being he wont brag about it because he needs to pretend Labour people care what he says.

Canvassing details and data protection is interesting, however the records are given to a single party for the use of identifying supporters. It isn't given for a specific election. Since the information is being used to identify supporters then strictly speaking it is within its legitimate use.

Canvass returns will probably only be used if a voter indicated that they were strongly against the party, even then it is dubious because it isn't that accurate.

It would still have been better to dump any members/supporters from the vote if they joined after GE+1 month and refund any who complained. The current system can be seen as partial and Corbyn is almost certain to win anyway ( if he doesn't conspiracy theorists will love it).

If Labour still had a proper qualifying period for voting, specifically put in to foil far left infiltration, this wouldn't be an issue. However Corbyn might still win under that system because there is no doubt the membership is moving to the left, that isn't entryism it is evolution. In the same way the Tory membership is moving rightwards, they just wouldn't put Peter Bone on the ballot.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 10:24 am

TobyLatimer wrote:@HindleA,
Sincere condolences , thinking of you.

And from me, too. Take care of yourself.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 10:39 am

The You Gov poll is depressing, the figure to worry about is the far right, and note how far from it the figure on the far left is.

Incidentally this really is alarming.

Most of Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters (51%) agree with the statement that “the United States is the greatest single threat to world peace”, compared to just 36% of Andy Burnham’s supporters, 18% of Yvette Cooper’s supporters and 15% of Liz Kendall’s. The continuing influence of the Iraq War as an issue is palpable in these numbers.

It suggests people (who gave that response whoever they support) have a very tenuous grip on reality. Although 51% is really only just most.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 10:50 am

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Is operation Squirrel in action at the G? I find no other explanation for the prominence given to the sad, but inevitable, deaths of two people in a shooting incident in America. If you allow the general population access to firearms this stuff happens - lots.

Dan Hodges will almost certainly not be getting a vote in the Labour leadership election, the difference between him and certain anti Labour union leaders being he wont brag about it because he needs to pretend Labour people care what he says.

Canvassing details and data protection is interesting, however the records are given to a single party for the use of identifying supporters. It isn't given for a specific election. Since the information is being used to identify supporters then strictly speaking it is within its legitimate use.

Canvass returns will probably only be used if a voter indicated that they were strongly against the party, even then it is dubious because it isn't that accurate.

It would still have been better to dump any members/supporters from the vote if they joined after GE+1 month and refund any who complained. The current system can be seen as partial and Corbyn is almost certain to win anyway ( if he doesn't conspiracy theorists will love it).

If Labour still had a proper qualifying period for voting, specifically put in to foil far left infiltration, this wouldn't be an issue. However Corbyn might still win under that system because there is no doubt the membership is moving to the left, that isn't entryism it is evolution. In the same way the Tory membership is moving rightwards, they just wouldn't put Peter Bone on the ballot.

I agree. I'm surprised by all the fuss, really. Canvassing returns have merely been added to the list of checks available for vetting people who already have a query over their sincerity, as far as I can tell. That's not a change of the rules. The rule has always been that you must share Labour's aims and values. It's not that Labour are vetting people that is unusual, it's the level of reporting of the process. As I commented on CIF yesterday, other parties have ejected members based on things they have posted on Facebook, Ukip spring to mind. I don't recall any complaints about that. The reason the numbers of excluded people seem quite high has more to do with the fact that the number of people applying to be Labour members and supporters is unusually high. Which is a good thing, surely. The cut off for qualifying for a vote by joining as a member or registered supporter should have been when the nominations for the ballot closed. That was Labour's big mistake and I don't know who was responsible for that decision. The whole electoral process was extended to allow the unions more time to sign up affiliated members, but as these are people who had already paid via the political levy, I see no reason why the unions couldn't keep putting their lists together after other avenues had closed, it would still be consistent with a policy of all joining fees to be paid before ballots closed. Even so, it's mostly stirring by the media and I get very fed up with comments attacking Labour for an electoral process which is a bit messy rather than praising them for their bravery in attempting to inspire more people to get involved in politics. It's worked.

I still want Burnham to win, though. I think what Labour desperately needs right now is some continuity of direction instead of yet another change, that may or may not work. Voters liked many of Ed's policies, they may not like Corbyn's - it feels like starting all over again and as such will take twice as long to develop and successfully communicate.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 11:04 am

DWP has published both sets of figures.

The 10-page report, in response to FOI requests, doesn't (as expected) answer the requests.

The first response refers to a request that DWP provide the total number of claimants who died after a WCA since May 2010.
What DWP has provided is something else.
The response gives 3 years of figures, which takes us up to 2013, thus not giving any information on how the Mandatory Reconsideration system has affected claimants. The figures are not of claimants who died following a WCA but of those who died following a final decision from DWP.
Such a decision could be - after the first WCA; after the old-style reconsideration; after a full appeal and tribunal hearing - and bear in mind that some claimants may have gone through this performance several times in that 3 years (I did).
Just over 2 million got a decision (or many people had several) and of the total just over 40,000 died.

The second response is to a request for ALL figures of people who have died broken down into 5 categories - the idea being to establish how many might have been grouped inappropriately.
DWP has chosen to give only the figures that apply to people whose deaths occurred "at the same time" as they "flowed off" the benefit - in other words, people whose claims were closed BECAUSE they died.
81,140 people claiming IB/SDA/ESA died - and came off benefits at the same time, obviously - between December 2011 and February 2014.
That's 26 months, 3,120 a month.
Obviously, this tells us nothing about any claimants who got a fit-for-work decision and died not claiming ESA, claiming JSA, or not claiming any benefit at all.

The other document - which is the one DWP likes - shows age-standardised mortality rates from 2003 to 2013.
The point of this is to illustrate that, over time, there has been a slight reduction in the mortality rates in the general population which is echoed in the benefit-claiming population. Which stands to reason.

Mike Sivier is responding to this, Show tells me as I write, so I'll have a look at that later.

From what I can see, though, we are not much further on in finding out how many people die after being grouped inappropriately or taken off sickness and/or disability benefits.

Laters!

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 11:08 am

Just had a few minutes for quick scan of the ESA, IB, SDA mortality figures for 12 months, sorry still limited for time so without the figures shall just say they were not very illuminating. What I did notice in crude terms was that approx 0.1% of IB/SDA off-flows due to death (the only thing they record, I'm guessing they have no records of the casualties for other reasons) were classed as fit for work (failed WCA) and approx. 4% for ESA.

There's also Mortality statistics: out-of-work benefit claimants, March 2003 to February 2014 (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... ruary-2014), which shall no doubt be misleading. Just look at the dates! That I'm afraid may be one for this evening.

Postscript: as I was writing this I noticed that some the dates in the first doc do not tally, which is why I haven't quoted actual figures.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 11:09 am

ephemerid wrote:DWP has published both sets of figures.

The 10-page report, in response to FOI requests, doesn't (as expected) answer the requests.

The first response refers to a request that DWP provide the total number of claimants who died after a WCA since May 2010.
What DWP has provided is something else.
The response gives 3 years of figures, which takes us up to 2013, thus not giving any information on how the Mandatory Reconsideration system has affected claimants. The figures are not of claimants who died following a WCA but of those who died following a final decision from DWP.
Such a decision could be - after the first WCA; after the old-style reconsideration; after a full appeal and tribunal hearing - and bear in mind that some claimants may have gone through this performance several times in that 3 years (I did).
Just over 2 million got a decision (or many people had several) and of the total just over 40,000 died.

The second response is to a request for ALL figures of people who have died broken down into 5 categories - the idea being to establish how many might have been grouped inappropriately.
DWP has chosen to give only the figures that apply to people whose deaths occurred "at the same time" as they "flowed off" the benefit - in other words, people whose claims were closed BECAUSE they died.
81,140 people claiming IB/SDA/ESA died - and came off benefits at the same time, obviously - between December 2011 and February 2014.
That's 26 months, 3,120 a month.
Obviously, this tells us nothing about any claimants who got a fit-for-work decision and died not claiming ESA, claiming JSA, or not claiming any benefit at all.

The other document - which is the one DWP likes - shows age-standardised mortality rates from 2003 to 2013.
The point of this is to illustrate that, over time, there has been a slight reduction in the mortality rates in the general population which is echoed in the benefit-claiming population. Which stands to reason.

Mike Sivier is responding to this, Show tells me as I write, so I'll have a look at that later.

From what I can see, though, we are not much further on in finding out how many people die after being grouped inappropriately or taken off sickness and/or disability benefits.

Laters!

How is the impatient patient?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 11:12 am

Adrian: So sorry.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 11:20 am

TechnicalEphemera wrote:The You Gov poll is depressing, the figure to worry about is the far right, and note how far from it the figure on the far left is.

Incidentally this really is alarming.

Most of Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters (51%) agree with the statement that “the United States is the greatest single threat to world peace”, compared to just 36% of Andy Burnham’s supporters, 18% of Yvette Cooper’s supporters and 15% of Liz Kendall’s. The continuing influence of the Iraq War as an issue is palpable in these numbers.
It suggests people (who gave that response whoever they support) have a very tenuous grip on reality. Although 51% is really only just most.

Which is why Corbyn's proposal to make a full apology for the Iraq mess may not be a bad thing.

Doesn't matter how long ago it was now, the boil still needs lancing (Chilcot might help there, as well)

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 11:21 am

PorFavor wrote:... How is the impatient patient?

Perhaps I shouldn't butt in but he is posting in the other place, PorFavor, so I wished him well. I only say in case you also wish to pop over and do likewise. I haven't been reading btl so don't know what he said.

Postscript: he has replied to my previous comment (as above) mentioning Sivier's response to the figures: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/08/2 ... rs-100000/.

Edit; inserted 'previous' to my postscript.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 11:28 am

From AS blog

The Institute of Directors has criticised the government for having a migration target (getting net migration below 100,000) which it describes as “bizarre and unachievable”. This is from Simon Walker, the IoD’s director general.

There is a sensible and mature debate to be had about the costs and benefits of immigration. At the moment, however, the whole issue is being poisoned by the government’s adherence to their bizarre and unachievable net migration target. By announcing policies on the hoof every time figures are released, the government betrays its lack of a long term plan on migration ...

Businesses recognise the public’s concerns over immigration and on the pressure it can place on local communities, schools, housing and public services. The IoD supports British Future’s call for a comprehensive immigration review, based on evidence and expert advice.

Always good to see the IoD criticising the govt.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 11:46 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:The You Gov poll is depressing, the figure to worry about is the far right, and note how far from it the figure on the far left is.

Incidentally this really is alarming.

Most of Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters (51%) agree with the statement that “the United States is the greatest single threat to world peace”, compared to just 36% of Andy Burnham’s supporters, 18% of Yvette Cooper’s supporters and 15% of Liz Kendall’s. The continuing influence of the Iraq War as an issue is palpable in these numbers.
It suggests people (who gave that response whoever they support) have a very tenuous grip on reality. Although 51% is really only just most.
Which is why Corbyn's proposal to make a full apology for the Iraq mess may not be a bad thing.

Doesn't matter how long ago it was now, the boil still needs lancing (Chilcot might help there, as well)

I don't think it is a good thing either, to a large degree Miliband already did it in 2010 by admitting Labour got it wrong on Iraq (much to the irritation of his brother).

Also is Corbyn going to apologise for removing Saddam and his murderous sons, and for preventing a Sunni Shia civil war (until Cameron screwed it up with Syria).

I guess Chilcot will make it more topical, but nobody outside a small activist community views Iraq as a live political issue. He also needs to be careful how he does it, the UK was not fundamentally responsible for the war (it would have happened without us) and a great deal of good was done by UK armed forces on the ground. Also it could be argued only the UK government can apologise for Iraq ( if the Tory party had voted against Blair would have lost by a landslide).

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 27 Aug, 2015 11:47 am

utopiandreams wrote:
PorFavor wrote:... How is the impatient patient?
Perhaps I shouldn't butt in but he is posting in the other place, PorFavor, so I wished him well. I only say in case you also wish to pop over and do likewise. I haven't been reading btl so don't know what he said.

Postscript: he has replied to my previous comment (as above) mentioning Sivier's response to the figures: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/08/2 ... rs-100000/.

Edit; inserted 'previous' to my postscript.

Hello. Thanks for the information. I have been over to Andrew Sparrow's blog - but I rarely venture below the line these days. In fact, above the line is becoming impossible with all the repeats. Frequently, many paragraphs appear four times in succession. It's too much like hard work.

Edited to move the word "frequently"