Friday 28th August 2015

Post by **refitman** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 7:09 am

Morning all.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 7:25 am

@HindleA

Perhaps I should have PM'd you, A, but if I'm going to put my big size 14 in it (don't believe a word of it, size doesn't matter. I would say that, wouldn't I?), I may as well do so in public so others may commiserate with you, but first I must stress that my depression was not because of the loss of my wife but this isn't about me even if I do recount some things that are. Hedging my bets I apologise in advance should I say anything untoward, trust me it shall not be meant. You may read as much as you like between the lines, I am not here to write a book neither do I want to continually repeat, "Let's leave it there".

I don't know whether or not you're religious, personally I'm not but my wife was to a certain extent so a Christian funeral it was. If offered the opportunity to speak, seize it. I had absolutely nothing prepared (I may have the gift of the gab compared to some so you may prepare something). There shall not be another chance. You'll know what to say when faced with those who attend. Nobody knows her better than you, so make it about her and her feelings toward them and the special relationship they shared. Try not to specify anybody in particular as you may leave others out; some family members and close friends may deserve a special mention though.

There is a void in your life and you're putting a brave face on things. People (I include myself) keep proffering nonsensical advice. Do not get upset they mean well. Changing the subject can help even if a little facile (sorry that's me talking now).

Sure you've had hard times and sure there are things for which you feel guilt, but you know what? They seem insignificant today, besides show me a couple who has not. Fond memories abound. She still inhabits my dreams from time to time.

There's lot's more I could say but let's leave at that. I've said far too much already.

Best wishes.

Edit: repositioned 'in it' before the brackets.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 7:35 am

Discussion on last nights 'One Show' around the Labour leadership election 'infiltrators' Featuring a UKIP 'supporter' who wanted to remain anonymous but was happy to be filmed and spoke to camera (doh!) of his patriotic duty and also a chat with Jayne Linney .... Starts at 2mins 40secs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... w-27082015

: ScreenShot00703.jpg (204.31 KiB) Viewed 8480 times

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 7:40 am

'And a good morning to the rest of you, It was probably going to be better than you imagined.

I've spent much of this morning scrambling about with cables. No matter how often I rebooted the router I could not get a connection. I thought one of the cat's had chewed the cable again, not a short one but the extension to ideally position the phone and router. I feel your pain since I've obviously succeeded now, nevertheless perhaps it's time for superfast broadband, besides it may actually be cheaper than what I pay. Businesses today do not value loyal customers but treat them as fodder and cash cows.

It must be this stock that Lord Freud referred to. Actually I was reading some DWP literature yesterday before the mortality figures were released and indeed even official documentation contained such terminology, albeit in parentheses (showing off now - no an everyday term in computing). Perhaps it was inserted in defence of such speak.

Btw Steve Bell must work from photographs, the likeness he captures of Cameron is nothing short of a miracle (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... rtoon-bell). Enjoy.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 8:00 am

How often do the One Show do political pieces ?

Someone at the BBC must be desperate to push the 'Labour in disarray' story.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 8:07 am

Never watched it in my life tbh yahyah, I only knew of that item as I follow Jayne Linney on twitter, who mentioned it - so i thought i would take a peep. I have suspicions that the 'Kipper in that piece isn't all they claim him to be, he must be an actor. No one could be that stupid surely?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 8:08 am

TobyLatimer wrote:Discussion on last nights 'One Show' around the Labour leadership election 'infiltrators' Featuring a UKIP 'supporter' who wanted to remain anonymous but was happy to be filmed and spoke to camera (doh!) of his patriotic duty and also a chat with Jayne Linney .... Starts at 2mins 40secs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... w-27082015

ScreenShot00703.jpg

So...appears on camera but doesn't want to be named?

Does he not think that someone out there might think "Oh, that's so-and-so...I'll let the Labour Party know"?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 8:10 am

Sorry, good morning too.

Utopian's post brought tears to my eyes, thank you, sharing those memories can't be easy.

& I'd like to repost part of Seeing Clearly's post from last night:
Good to see you around again SC.

'' It's the ethos under which we are living these days too, even once we are past the jobs stage, ask was painfully reminded today, in a very personal way when a close friend who has every reason to want to live decided not to want to. Thankfully not with any success.
I know from conversations across a broad range of people that ageing is also seen as having been substantially invaded by the same.

So today I am asking for all those in this country under the weight of this thinking to be central to any prayers, practice, or their secular equivalent.

Calls for a return to compassionate caring attitudes that are supportive of people struggling with life's tougher and more troubling effects.
And a request to base your thinking on what a good well functioning caring society would like like and to please please aim for it.
Mainly because we are all affected by this ethos, and to what degree we can only assess subjectively. As do people in their professional or working lives. There isn't just a left right shift, there's a commensurate right wrong shift too. And they talk of values.....''

A wonderful and humane suggestion.

Maybe I am just one of the dreamers YouGov identified as high among Corbyn voters.
Ed started a dialogue about what kind of Britain we needed.

At a time when every day literally hundreds of refugees may be dying at sea or in the back of lorries - can we not appeal to our fellow countryman for compassion rather than installing razor wire and calling in the troops ?

A strong, direct, unequivocal call for compassion - and for those suffering within our own country as much as those abroad - from our next Labour leader would be wonderful, as well as policies to directly help them.

The notion of selfishness is being pushed by the right, by parts of the media, by capitalism with its vampire consumerism death grip. Time for a clear response.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 8:22 am

@yahyah

I wasn't about to thank you, tears were not my intention unless they be joyful. I thanked for the rest of your post. Indeed hearing of 50 in the back of a truck and this morning another 200 at sea. Where is this compassion you speak of? So again I come back to Steve Bell's depiction of Cameron, although if I'm honest I think he should leave the words to the commentators below the line. His artwork says it all, albeit I still managed my twopennyworth.

Edit rephrase 'leave off the words and leave that to ' to 'leave the words to the'. Perhaps I should treat my public comments no differently than I did on student scripts. Even then I could occasionally get it wrong.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 8:22 am

TobyLatimer wrote:Never watched it in my life tbh yahyah, I only knew of that item as I follow Jayne Linney on twitter, who mentioned it - so i thought i would take a peep. I have suspicions that the 'Kipper in that piece isn't all they claim him to be, he must be an actor. No one could be that stupid surely?

You haven't missed much.
We aren't watchers of it either, but have occasionally switched over to see what's on and then moaned about it ! Usual celebrity pap, with a bit of sort of public education/human interest stories thrown in.

That's what makes me think an overtly political story is odd for them.
Unless one of the Labour contenders has just written a book, or appeared on Strictly of course.

Post by **refitman** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 8:38 am

Re: The update to New Statesman's website, from yesterday. I don't think they have comments any more. Also, I think it looks like Huff Post.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 8:41 am

yahyah wrote:
TobyLatimer wrote:Never watched it in my life tbh yahyah, I only knew of that item as I follow Jayne Linney on twitter, who mentioned it - so i thought i would take a peep. I have suspicions that the 'Kipper in that piece isn't all they claim him to be, he must be an actor. No one could be that stupid surely?

You haven't missed much.
We aren't watchers of it either, but have occasionally switched over to see what's on and then moaned about it ! Usual celebrity pap, with a bit of sort of public education/human interest stories thrown in.

That's what makes me think an overtly political story is odd for them.
Unless one of the Labour contenders has just written a book, or appeared on Strictly of course.

Moreveaftering all...

There was, of course, the moment Matt Baker, at the end of an interview with Clouncy Funt in 2011, asked this....

[youtube]VbcACpriZ9s[/youtube]

...which Clouncy ignored and avoided in the manner to which we've become so accustomed.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 8:48 am

Have just gone to the Indie site, a children's charity set up a social experiment to see how
people in Britain would behave/feel if they were living in a situation like those Syrian people experience, with schools shutting, food and goods in short supply and at highly inflated prices etc.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 74454.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

''One mother, whose daughter’s school was shut in the experiment said: “I thought, why can’t my children go to school? I am getting emotional thinking about it. It made me realise that we do need to be aware, and make our children aware, of what is going on.”

Justin Forsyth, CEO of Save the Children, believes “if the average European citizen would not stand for being cut off from food, healthcare and schooling, why should Syrian families?”

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 9:01 am

@yahyah

'And now it is I that have tears in my eyes. Poignant stuff.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 9:06 am

utopiandreams wrote:@yahyah

'And now it is I that have tears in my eyes. Poignant stuff.

Tears water the heart.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 9:22 am

I have now voted in the Leadership Election....and I confirm that I am probably one of the 'dreaming entryist-fantasists'....following quite a lot of soul searching, I cast my votes thus...

1) Corbyn - Jaw-jaw is far better than war war, the stance on disability (supported by WOW petition etc), not pandering to MSM-Murkydochian 'validtruthism'

2) Burnham - relegated to No 2 following his continued attempt to justify the military action in Iraq (and therefore the absolute carnage that followed due to the Bush-ToryBlur-USMilitaryIndustrialComplex-MSM axis' total failure to plan for post-conflict infrastructure (although, of course, they knew exactly what they were doing))

....and for Deputy...

1) Watson - holding my nose a little bit, and very mindful of @Giselle97s' comments about him....but the anti-Murkydochian credentials are (atm) impeccable.

2) Eagle - I like what she says and how she says it.

...and my change of mind/heart to vote for Corbyn, I realised, is a little bit related to the anti-Corbynism both in the press and from certain member(s) here...to start from a position of 'they're all useless' about the party you support doesn't give me any confidence that, at the time it is needed the most, any opposition to Clouncy and his monstrous Murkydochians will be focusing on Tory crimes, rather than stabbing itself in the back to the derisive cheers of the Westmonster Elite.

Comments about 'Corbynomics' being 'rubbish' really just support the Towel-folder and his brand of Voodoonomics...which has been trashed by everyone outside the British MSM and political class.

If Labour really wanted to win and change things, they would be trying to attract the 35%+ of voters who don't vote, rather than lamely following the MSM script and kowtowing to the Tory Hegemony to pick up the scraps from ToryUKIPdom...and I believe(TM) Corbyn is the most likely to put the cats amongst the pigeons...and he also accepts that the next election could be sooner rather than later, and would be hastened by Clouncy and his omnishambolic cucking funtery being held properly to account...and as I've said before - to sit back, wait for 5 years while opining about the 'nothing' that can be done is, at best, disconnected from the reality that so many people face.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 9:32 am

I was going to remark on Lauren Mayberry's appearance on Channel 4 News last night, but surprise, surprise I couldn't remember her name, neither are Churches a group with which I'm familiar. Anyway I had my own observations and even cracked a joke at the time (about 4chan posters that is) but refrained from posting in case I offended anybody's sensibilities. I've been to the 4chan website in the past (don't ask) and some of the comments are despicable. There are times that I really do hate people.

I'd better not express my own feelings on Lauren, especially at my age nevertheless if I were a kid I doubt they'd be any different. Sorry who is being the misogynist now? I haven't read the article yet but notice that the Independent has this: Chvrches singer Lauren Mayberry responds to misogynistic 4chan abuse over new music video 'Leave a Trace' (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 61034.html).

Edit: i've been to the 4chan website.
Edit: removed repetition even if differently expressed.
Edit: rereading this perhaps I had better express my feelings. Go for it girl, don't let the idiots put you off.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 9:50 am

@Lonewolfie

I admit I keep wavering, but then haven't a vote. Yesterday I suggested favouring Burnham even though I prefer Corbyn's idealism but after posting started thinking of Trident and war. However life is a paradox some things need to be fought, ISIL for example need annihilating. Nuclear arms though, what's the point? Time to get rid. I know there are some who disagree and speak of a balance of power. Indeed I have myself threatened more than I would do but not at such high cost, besides our enemies are amongst us. That's not me doing a Maggie btw.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 10:19 am

Must be a slow news day if the confirmation of previously announced figures counts as "Breaking news"...

At first I thought these were new figures but then realised, no, it's simply the ONS updating the last ones.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 10:24 am

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

Tragic case study in the Guardian. We need a few more of these in the press in general to counterbalance the slew of "Benefits Street" propaganda. The last para stood out:

“Nobody wants to see people exploiting the welfare system. But we don’t want a system which leaves people by the wayside. The way it works is crude and it’s cruel, and seems deliberately designed to get the weak and vulnerable off benefits to save money. It’s people who can’t fight back who are the victims.”

This is the bit that really needs putting across to those worried about benefit fraudsters and scroungers - it's not the fraudsters and scroungers who are affected by the draconian measures brought in by DWP. They know the system inside out and know how to work it. They aren't put off by the "assault course" of bureaucracy and are only caught by specialist investigators. I just wish there was a way to get people to understand this. BTW whatever happened to income support? Am I going mad, or didn't income support use to fill in the gaps to ensure people who didn't qualify for other benefits always had a basic income so they wouldn't starve? I don't understand how people are just being left with nothing when a claim for a particular benefit has failed. How do the government justify that as a deliberate policy?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 10:45 am

utopiandreams wrote:@Lonewolfie

I admit I keep wavering, but then haven't a vote. Yesterday I suggested favouring Burnham even though I prefer Corbyn's idealism but after posting started thinking of Trident and war. However life is a paradox some things need to be fought, ISIL for example need annihilating. Nuclear arms though, what's the point? Time to get rid. I know there are some who disagree and speak of a balance of power. Indeed I have myself threatened more than I would do but not at such high cost, besides our enemies are amongst us. That's not me doing a Maggie btw.

I would like to see the scaling back of nuclear weapons and the UK has to be involved with that, but I'm absolutely against making it a high profile issue and dis-arming unilaterally with a flourish in the full gaze of the entire world. It makes us vulnerable. Much better to downscale Trident when it is renewed and keep the level of our nuclear arsenal top secret. There really is no need to broadcast to the world how well or not you are armed, keep them guessing. But then I've always been one for compromise, often appreciating both sides of an argument and coming down somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, the middle appears to be out of fashion. The recent fad for extremes, on both sides, worries me. The lack of willingness to compromise of various political groups and their supporters doesn't bode well. I remember watching a news report about the protests about the building of a mosque in a public square in Istanbul and one of the protesters interviewed made a very good point about the drawbacks of majority rule. What if just over half the population want to follow an extreme route that the other half doesn't? Western-style democracy works well enough when a country has a shared cultural outlook and voters are choosing between a selection of similar parties which will all stick to generally accepted social norms, but what if one half of a country wants to impose socially unacceptable restrictions or freedoms on the other? The idea of winning a majority shouldn't mean you can do whatever you want and sod those who didn't vote for it and yet that's what it is becoming. Present government doesn't seem to be held back by public opinion in the way previous governments were. A factor in that is the demise of a free press. Our media is now a propaganda machine that creates public opinion to suit our Tory government. I just don't know how you fight that.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 10:52 am

Noting LW post above, and each to their own - I thought this was worthy of some consideration.

If Labour really wanted to win and change things, they would be trying to attract the 35%+ of voters who don't vote, rather than lamely following the MSM script and kowtowing to the Tory Hegemony to pick up the scraps from ToryUKIPdom..

I don't think anybody is necessarily suggesting the second part of the paragraph, but the 35% bit is interesting.

- what percentage of that 35% are hardened non voters, i.e. They have no interest in politics and never will, or don't function in a way that will allow them to ever engage.

- of the rest, what percentage if engaged would vote for a left wing party. I would suggest that this is not a group that calculates who would win an election before deciding to vote. So why don't they already vote Green, a very credible radical left wing party at the last election.

- how many of the rest are not predisposed to the left, this group are the UKIP types who don't bother to vote but mouth off in the pub, or the Tories who just can't be bothered to register or get out of bed.

- how many vote in safe seats and for losing parties and just can't be bothered.

- in marginals if turnout is higher this number will be smaller where it actually counts.

Hugo posted a very interesting link to an article analysing the impact of turnout on elections and suggesting the idea that there is a vast untapped resource of left wing voters out there is a bit of a myth. I think if you look at the landscape, and bear in mind elections are decided in about 20% of constituencies you might find the numbers are small and the effort required to get them would be better deployed elsewhere (the old 80/20 rule).

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 10:59 am

Labour should be trying to win more support amongst people who didn't vote last time, yes.

But to cite a figure of 35% greatly exaggerates the possible gains. There are about 20-25% of the electorate who will never vote in almost any concievable circumstances unless we bring in compulsory voting (and examples like Australia show *that* would be unlikely to benefit the left significantly)

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 11:17 am

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Noting LW post above, and each to their own - I thought this was worthy of some consideration.

If Labour really wanted to win and change things, they would be trying to attract the 35%+ of voters who don't vote, rather than lamely following the MSM script and kowtowing to the Tory Hegemony to pick up the scraps from ToryUKIPdom..
I don't think anybody is necessarily suggesting the second part of the paragraph, but the 35% bit is interesting.

- what percentage of that 35% are hardened non voters, i.e. They have no interest in politics and never will, or don't function in a way that will allow them to ever engage.

- of the rest, what percentage if engaged would vote for a left wing party. I would suggest that this is not a group that calculates who would win an election before deciding to vote. So why don't they already vote Green, a very credible radical left wing party at the last election.

- how many of the rest are not predisposed to the left, this group are the UKIP types who don't bother to vote but mouth off in the pub, or the Tories who just can't be bothered to register or get out of bed.

- how many vote in safe seats and for losing parties and just can't be bothered.

- in marginals if turnout is higher this number will be smaller where it actually counts.

Hugo posted a very interesting link to an article analysing the impact of turnout on elections and suggesting the idea that there is a vast untapped resource of left wing voters out there is a bit of a myth. I think if you look at the landscape, and bear in mind elections are decided in about 20% of constituencies you might find the numbers are small and the effort required to get them would be better deployed elsewhere (the old 80/20 rule).

I favour the rather unpopular position of compulsory voting - and also an education system to teach critical thinking in a secular environment - and money out of politics - and anything but FPTP....but, as I say, that's a 'loony' unpopular view....because that would mean anyone who has the capacity to understand politics and how it affects them would vote...and it might just include all of the 55%-60% who consistently poll (I know - polls are b******s....but it's what we have) in support of renationalising energy, water, the trains, buses, NHS etc etc...yet we're told that a mere 24% of the available vote presents the opportunity for an even smaller proportion of the population to do whatever they like and not have to explain why.

For my part, I believe(TM) that there is a large number who don't vote precisely because of the way the system works...and that, as it is for myself, in any 'safe seat' a vote against is a waste of time and effort.

@AK - I was trying to express the difference between trying to gain some of the 24% who vote Tory vs gaining some of the 35% who don't vote - and what seems to have transpired through the LLE as to be the 'target' for Labour...how big a share of the 35% would need to vote Labour to change things? Many people are like me and gave up on Labour as soon as Tory Blur was elected - the Iraq War (which would not have happened without the support of the Tories...it was not 'Labours' War in Iraq) didn't help....cosying up to Murkydochia didn't help....the introduction of ATOS and the neo-liberal anti-human agenda didn't help...which is, I believe, where Corbyn steps in...he's just not 'one of them' and never has been.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 11:36 am

Lonewolfie wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Noting LW post above, and each to their own - I thought this was worthy of some consideration.

If Labour really wanted to win and change things, they would be trying to attract the 35%+ of voters who don't vote, rather than lamely following the MSM script and kowtowing to the Tory Hegemony to pick up the scraps from ToryUKIPdom..
I don't think anybody is necessarily suggesting the second part of the paragraph, but the 35% bit is interesting.

- what percentage of that 35% are hardened non voters, i.e. They have no interest in politics and never will, or don't function in a way that will allow them to ever engage.

- of the rest, what percentage if engaged would vote for a left wing party. I would suggest that this is not a group that calculates who would win an election before deciding to vote. So why don't they already vote Green, a very credible radical left wing party at the last election.

- how many of the rest are not predisposed to the left, this group are the UKIP types who don't bother to vote but mouth off in the pub, or the Tories who just can't be bothered to register or get out of bed.

- how many vote in safe seats and for losing parties and just can't be bothered.

- in marginals if turnout is higher this number will be smaller where it actually counts.

Hugo posted a very interesting link to an article analysing the impact of turnout on elections and suggesting the idea that there is a vast untapped resource of left wing voters out there is a bit of a myth. I think if you look at the landscape, and bear in mind elections are decided in about 20% of constituencies you might find the numbers are small and the effort required to get them would be better deployed elsewhere (the old 80/20 rule).
I favour the rather unpopular position of compulsory voting - and also an education system to teach critical thinking in a secular environment - and money out of politics - and anything but FPTP....but, as I say, that's a 'loony' unpopular view....because that would mean anyone who has the capacity to understand politics and how it affects them would vote...and it might just include all of the 55%-60% who consistently poll (I know - polls are b******s....but it's what we have) in support of renationalising energy, water, the trains, buses, NHS etc etc...yet we're told that a mere 24% of the available vote presents the opportunity for an even smaller proportion of the population to do whatever they like and not have to explain why.

For my part, I believe(TM) that there is a large number who don't vote precisely because of the way the system works...and that, as it is for myself, in any 'safe seat' a vote against is a waste of time and effort.

@AK - I was trying to express the difference between trying to gain some of the 24% who vote Tory vs gaining some of the 35% who don't vote - and what seems to have transpired through the LLE as to be the 'target' for Labour...how big a share of the 35% would need to vote Labour to change things? Many people are like me and gave up on Labour as soon as Tory Blur was elected - the Iraq War (which would not have happened without the support of the Tories...it was not 'Labours' War in Iraq) didn't help....cosying up to Murkydochia didn't help....the introduction of ATOS and the neo-liberal anti-human agenda didn't help...which is, I believe, where Corbyn steps in...he's just not 'one of them' and never has been.

It's an annoying point, but you can't change the system to a better one without first winning with the system we have now. That's where my focus is and I believe you do it from the bottom, not the top. We need to win the London Mayoral election, do well in the Welsh and Scottish Assembly elections and do a hell of a lot better in local elections. If you have a really good local Labour councillor, it is my opinion you are far more likely to give a prospective Labour MP a chance. The Libdems didn't lose Bath just because of Clegg and the Coalition, they also lost Bath because they did a hopeless job as leaders of Bath and NE Somerset council. A lot of turmoil and change at the top won't help focus at the bottom. I would much rather a continuity candidate right now. The only sliver of silver lining is that the deputy leader contenders are much more impressive than the leadership contenders. I'm not a fan of Watson, but I do rate his abilities. If he can help Labour's success at local level it will be a start.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 11:37 am

That'll teach me, back to Wordpad or whatever. I'd just done a long reply in the editor, much longer than usual despite being constantly interrupted. I finally complete it and hit Submit... I have to login again! All gone and it was of utmost importance too.

The shower beckons, my boiler has finally been repaired and I'm off out shortly. Cheers.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 11:47 am

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08 ... 47968.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

'Fit For Work' Figures: 7 People Who Died After Having Their Benefits Taken Away

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 11:50 am

Silly me, I should have thought of repeated back keys...

@TechnicalEphemera

I hear what you say of the 35% non-voters, but do you really think that they are hardened, TE. Some may be, others are simply ignorant or feel government always wins so what's the difference? Corbyn however has inspired, enthused and motivated many people that were simply not being reached. Personally I say much more of this is needed and change shall only come about if enough engage and join a growing groundswell.

There is far too much partisan politics for my taste, besides no one church has all the answers. I think Labour being the greater of the left wing parties is our only hope of defeating the Tory hegemony. Whether or not you disapprove of Greens or I of Blairites is not the issue, which is why it pains me to see so much hostility expressed even in fora like this. As I said immediately after the election Labour must and had better reach out. However they must fully get behind PR so that individual voters' choices have meaning or would you rather more of the same?

I don't believe either of the ladies standing have such bearing, besides they've both said they cannot work with Jeremy. Of the other two... well there is something to be said of each and they have both spoken of power emanating from grassroots and of reaching out. We simply cannot afford to skip the chance... and quite frankly we should all put much more faith in our young. Of course they have lessons to learn, it is our duty to teach assuming we have something worthwhile to pass on, but let us not write them off. Let us show them how important their vote can be.

Sorry this may be a ramble I've had the heating engineer here, don't ask about how long it has all taken. So no proof reading, which is nothing new but after constant interruptions maybe I should even more than usual, but far more importantly the shower beckons and I'm going out shortly. Of course, you really needed to know that.

A very late edit: replace approve with disapprove.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 12:01 pm

Exclusive: just one pupil hits GCSE benchmark at free school

https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/br ... ree-school

A free school has spoken of its “disappointment” after just one of its students hit the government’s benchmark of five good GCSE including English and maths.

It means that records will show that at Robert Owen Academy, a 14-19 free school in Hereford, only 4 per cent of its cohort met the target in this summer’s GCSE results.

Although full national statistics have yet to be released, Robert Owen’s GCSE grades are likely to place it among the very lowest achievers in the country.

The school has had three principals since opening and was judged “inadequate” by Ofsted in May.

Robert Owen's grades were among a string of underwhelming results published by free schools last week, including three in Suffolk of which only one managed to hit the benchmark of 40 per cent of students gaining five A* to Cs including English and maths.

Interesting reaction from the DfE...

A DfE spokesperson said: “Free schools are at the heart of the government’s plan to deliver real social justice by ensuring pupils from all backgrounds have access to a world class education. Free Schools are more likely to be rated ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted than other state schools, they are providing thousands of parents with more choice and are helping to drive up standards across the country.

It used to be Good or Outstanding...until the time when that measure fell below the other schools so they've changed the rhetoric.

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 12:06 pm

Morning all, and HindleA if you are reading this my deepest commiserations - loss like you've suffered is painful no matter what the circumstances.

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but the government has followed up the remarkably unsuccessful badger cull (cost approx £3,300 per badger) by extending it into Dorset!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34084352" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 12:10 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Exclusive: just one pupil hits GCSE benchmark at free school

https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/br ... ree-school

A free school has spoken of its “disappointment” after just one of its students hit the government’s benchmark of five good GCSE including English and maths.

It means that records will show that at Robert Owen Academy, a 14-19 free school in Hereford, only 4 per cent of its cohort met the target in this summer’s GCSE results.

Although full national statistics have yet to be released, Robert Owen’s GCSE grades are likely to place it among the very lowest achievers in the country.

The school has had three principals since opening and was judged “inadequate” by Ofsted in May.

Robert Owen's grades were among a string of underwhelming results published by free schools last week, including three in Suffolk of which only one managed to hit the benchmark of 40 per cent of students gaining five A* to Cs including English and maths.
Interesting reaction from the DfE...

A DfE spokesperson said: “Free schools are at the heart of the government’s plan to deliver real social justice by ensuring pupils from all backgrounds have access to a world class education. Free Schools are more likely to be rated ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted than other state schools, they are providing thousands of parents with more choice and are helping to drive up standards across the country.
It used to be Good or Outstanding...until the time when that measure fell below the other schools so they've changed the rhetoric.

I'm not sure having a high number of outstanding schools makes up for having schools which don't make the grade at all. It just makes the successes look accidental, rather than a consequence of the system. And letting children down completely is a much bigger deal than all the state schools which are accused of failing to be better than 'average' as if it's even possible for all schools to be better than average. I just feel very sorry for the parents and children who probably had no choice but to attend these experimental schools, because there was no room elsewhere or it was the only one they could get transport to. I fear the victims of this latest Tory majority government are going to start stacking up pretty quickly now Coalition policies are starting to feed through.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 12:28 pm

Willow904 wrote: I'm not sure having a high number of outstanding schools makes up for having schools which don't make the grade at all. It just makes the successes look accidental, rather than a consequence of the system. And letting children down completely is a much bigger deal than all the state schools which are accused of failing to be better than 'average' as if it's even possible for all schools to be better than average. I just feel very sorry for the parents and children who probably had no choice but to attend these experimental schools, because there was no room elsewhere or it was the only one they could get transport to. I fear the victims of this latest Tory majority government are going to start stacking up pretty quickly now Coalition policies are starting to feed through.

Well quite. It's all about having adequate oversight. Back in 2005 Labour put a requirement on all schools to have a School Improvement Partner appointed by the LA who came in every term and just kept a decent check on what was going on. Gove got rid iof that requirement and made it optional. Given that it costs money I;m sure some schools simply got rid of theirs. We didn't as we find it useful to have an external view on us.

The ones they ought to be looking at very closely are the ones in Norfolk with dire results which Ofsted rated as Good. How did that happen?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 12:37 pm

Put simply its not a question of Labour winning over presently Tory voters in "swing" seats *or* looking to non-voters/other parties supporters instead.

To win back power - certainly to form a durable election winning coalition - they need to do both. Is that easy? Of course it isn't, its hellishly hard.

But think of the struggles the party had to establish itself as a major political force, and then to win and keep power subsequently. People didn't give up because things were a bit difficult then, they kept at it until they achieved results. Part of the problem is that a certain sort of Labourite (the PPE-SPAD nexus especially) has become spoilt and lazy after the Blair years.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 1:55 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Noting LW post above, and each to their own - I thought this was worthy of some consideration.

If Labour really wanted to win and change things, they would be trying to attract the 35%+ of voters who don't vote, rather than lamely following the MSM script and kowtowing to the Tory Hegemony to pick up the scraps from ToryUKIPdom..
I don't think anybody is necessarily suggesting the second part of the paragraph, but the 35% bit is interesting.

- what percentage of that 35% are hardened non voters, i.e. They have no interest in politics and never will, or don't function in a way that will allow them to ever engage.

- of the rest, what percentage if engaged would vote for a left wing party. I would suggest that this is not a group that calculates who would win an election before deciding to vote. So why don't they already vote Green, a very credible radical left wing party at the last election.

- how many of the rest are not predisposed to the left, this group are the UKIP types who don't bother to vote but mouth off in the pub, or the Tories who just can't be bothered to register or get out of bed.

- how many vote in safe seats and for losing parties and just can't be bothered.

- in marginals if turnout is higher this number will be smaller where it actually counts.

Hugo posted a very interesting link to an article analysing the impact of turnout on elections and suggesting the idea that there is a vast untapped resource of left wing voters out there is a bit of a myth. I think if you look at the landscape, and bear in mind elections are decided in about 20% of constituencies you might find the numbers are small and the effort required to get them would be better deployed elsewhere (the old 80/20 rule).

This is one of the worst, and most persistent, misunderstandings of how UK elections work that besets Corbyn supporters.

High turnouts don't help Labour. Exactly the opposite.

http://www.ncpolitics.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 2:18 pm

Except that in May it is obvious that the Tories *disproportionately* got their vote out compared to all other parties but the SNP.

The same polls that predicted a near dead heat in the popular vote also said turnout would be in the 70-75% range.

This was a major reason for their "failure".

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 2:35 pm

Good afternoon, everyone.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 2:38 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Except that in May it is obvious that the Tories *disproportionately* got their vote out compared to all other parties but the SNP.

The same polls that predicted a near dead heat in the popular vote also said turnout would be in the 70-75% range.

This was a major reason for their "failure".

I don't think this is 'obvious' at all, no. The idea that we can copy their tactics, presumably by hiring an even more expensive American to tell us the bleeding obvious, seems to me to be laughable.

The 'non-voter' myth is just like the 'progressive majority' myth that bedeviled Labour in the 80s. It springs from the same over-optimism and naivety.

Another form of it is the idea that if we try really really hard, and really really make the arguments that didn't work last time, we'll win. We see that a lot in the hustings, with the selectorate complaining that arguments weren't made, or Tory lies not addressed. Unfortunately, they were. By the best set of politicians of the left we have, give or take.

I am personally lucky in my life. The Tories don't hurt me or my loved ones much. Adopting charge of the light brigade tactics against them, when we have just seen repeatedly that that doesn't work, still fills me with deep gloom.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 2:41 pm

Thousands of people have been left without their salaries because of an IT glitch at HSBC that means employers who use its business banking accounts cannot make payments.

Some 275,000 individual payments failed to go through on Friday leaving potentially hundreds of thousands of people without their pay checks on the Friday before the bank holiday weekend.

The bank has suffered a problem with the electronic payments system its business banking customers use to make, among other things, salary payments.

“None of our 150 staff have been paid, which before a long weekend is a disaster,” the owner of one business told the Guardian. “HSBC is very non-committal as to whether any monies will clear between now and Tuesday when the banks reopen, and it’s causing a huge concern for our young workforce who were relying on their pay before the bank holiday.”

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/a ... ithout-pay" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

'Non-committal' is HSBC

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 2:43 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Except that in May it is obvious that the Tories *disproportionately* got their vote out compared to all other parties but the SNP.

The same polls that predicted a near dead heat in the popular vote also said turnout would be in the 70-75% range.

This was a major reason for their "failure".

'And what section of society were the least likely to vote and the most left leaning, Anatoly, hence I speak of the young. Much more of this Tory gobernance (now that is one typo that can stand!) then what exactly have they to look forward to? Of course it was all our fault we allowed Maggie free reign; I forget who mentioned Royal Assent (LoneWolfie was it? Sorry if I'm wrong) but there is one who took the Royal Prerogative a step too far. 'And of course we all vote Conservative, do we not?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 3:42 pm

Good morfternnon.

Having said, recently, that I rarely venture below the line over at the Guardian I'm going to be perverse and reproduce here the following (long) post - which I've shamelessly lifted from the Guardian Politics Blog (where it's a very slow day and, because of that, is quite bearable):

croydonslacker
3h ago
8 9

Floating Voters – Who Are They?

As a talking point for a Friday afternoon: The Labour leadership debate has emphasised the undeniable need for Labour to attract floating voters away from the Tories, with the implicit assumption that this means occupying the middle ground as that is where these voters political opinions and policies are, but is this the case?

Personally I can understand tribal voters, of left or right and maybe even tribal LibDems if such things exist, I can understand passionate Green supporters and even hard-line euro sceptics voting UKIP. Equally it’s easy to see why some voters, disillusioned with a party they previously supported might not be motivated to vote at all. But I suspect I am not alone in, being relatively committed politically myself, struggling to get into the headspace of the regular voter who, in the nicest possible way, can’t make up their fucking mind!!!

Clearly this demonstrates my own shortcomings more than anything so, in a fit of self-improvement, I shall try to understand these strange indecisive individuals. What can we say of their minds and world view and more importantly their decision process in the voting booth? Idle speculation follows:

1. There is an element of social permission to their voting. That is they likely vote the way their friends and acquaintances do. The many valid criticisms aside it seems fair to suggest that Blair, or the social currents surrounding him, made it okay to vote labour for many people who previously wouldn’t in a way that Brown and Milliband didn’t or couldn’t. Equally the shy Tory phenomenon would seem to be an inverted version of this, where some voters feeling they shouldn’t admit to supporting them as its socially unacceptable.

2. It is assumed that they vote in their own self-interest, hence parties target them with tax cuts and similar bribes. I’m personally a bit suspicious about this because my mental image of the swing voter isn’t somebody who will necessarily notice the relatively modest £10 - £20 a month gain from your typical tax cutting budget. Maybe I am wrong or maybe the feel good, “I’m on the side of hard working families”, factor from the announcement is more important than the actual impact?

3. They want a prime minister who looks the part. So they prefer the patrician Cameron to the geeky Milliband. I would like to think this isn’t a key consideration but this might be wishful thinking. Counterpoint, they apparently prefer “lightweight” (copyright Obama, B. POTUS) Cameron to internationally respected "I saved the world Economy" Brown.

4. They aren’t political obsessives. So they probably don’t follow Guardian political blogs, rant at Question time or write to their MP (not that I would do any of these things) and so probably make their decision based on broad impressions rather than detailed analysis of different competing policies. One might draw the conclusion that they will vote in preference for the appearance of competence rather than specific policies which isn’t going to do Labour any favours going forward.

5. They feel like they should vote but have a low opinion of politicians and political parties (like everybody else probably). The conclusion from this is that they especially dislike ideologues and conversely prefer anti-politicians who you could have a drink with, Boris, Nigel etc. (actually I’m struggling to think of any other examples which seems like a mark against this). Further the implicit assumption is that they don’t see themselves as political and correlate the imagined political centre with least ideological / most pragmatic, there’s right and wrong on both sides, position.

6. They are socially liberal but fiscally conservative. Probably quite different to 30 years ago the implication is that swing voters favour Gay marriage for example, hence Cameron’s de-nastification agenda. As an assumption this seems to over generalise unhelpfully. For example if we take support for asylum seekers or acknowledging that there are some advantages to inward migration as socially liberal it seems reasonable to assume that floating voters are more conservative on these issues and on welfare etc. Maybe they are socially liberal as long as it doesn’t cost money. I suspect a better formulation would be about fairness but would still be inchoate and contradictory.

Are you a swing voter (probably not see point 4 above)? Tell me why I’m wrong or even better how you decide who to vote for. Bonus Question, what would make you vote for the Labour party?

The post poses more questions than answers - but I thought it posed many of the right questions. Although what anyone can do to reconcile all the differing "needs" of all those different groupings is a hard question to answer (ie without the Labour Party being totally anodyne (which won't work), someone's going to take umbrage. But which group\s can safely be ignored\upset\whatever, if only pro tem, during an election campaign?)

For what it's worth, I know nothing about the pedigree of the original poster, one croydonslacker. But thanks to him\her for the thought food.

Edited to add

I'll even unbend sufficiently as to grant them forgiveness for spelling "Miliband" incorrectly!

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 3:49 pm

Oh - weather update -

It's bright, breezy, and sunny here. With an alarming and distinct autumnal tang to the air.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 3:53 pm

I don't find this in any way surprising -

'Vast social cleansing' pushes tens of thousands of families out of London

Data shows that the numbers claiming free school meals has dropped by almost a third in some boroughs, suggesting areas are becoming preserves of the rich (Guardian)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... -of-london

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 4:02 pm

Cameron's raw deal: PM and wife could have been swimming in SEWAGE during Cornwall trip

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/601435 ... e-Samantha

Well, well, well. There is a God.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 4:06 pm

I cannot remember who queried a better way to conduct WCAs (TE perhaps) and thanked ephe and myself for our responses. I spoke of the equivalent assessment for DLA at least when it were under the DHSS umbrella and that an appointed doctor examined the claimant in their home. True it may be better to ask those that can to attend a designated place, but not enforce it upon disabled or ill people. Furthermore should they require additional information beyond that provided with an application for support then the onus was not placed solely on the claimant. The department gathered the facts.

I know I speak of DLA as opposed to ESA, so may be speaking at cross purposes, but my daughter has herself been subject to a WCA early this year and thankfully classified as unfit for work. I'm not sure whether or not that was for PIP.

Sorry if already linked, but here's yet another example of DWP cruelty under IDS: 'My mother's death was hastened by long delay in processing her benefits' (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... r-benefits).

The DWP told the Guardian that its sympathy was with the Drury family but indicated that its files said it had proved difficult to assess her claim. “It’s important that people supply sufficient evidence – including medical evidence – when making a claim, as it could affect their benefit entitlement. That is why we contacted Ms Drury several times to try and gather further evidence. People also have the right to ask for a reconsideration of their case or appeal if they don’t agree with a decision.”

Can't our parliamentary representatives, no matter what party, hold IDS, Osborne and Cameron personally responsible for such cruelty and force them to resign or pass a vote of no confidence. They should be working for the benefit of the nation... and this is not it!

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 4:17 pm

PorFavor wrote:I don't find this in any way surprising -

'Vast social cleansing' pushes tens of thousands of families out of London

Data shows that the numbers claiming free school meals has dropped by almost a third in some boroughs, suggesting areas are becoming preserves of the rich (Guardian)
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... -of-london

Preserve of the rich is a bit strong. Unless ethnic minority Londoners are doing much better than anyone's ever thought.

What's happened is the enforced departure of the poor not in social housing.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 4:21 pm

PorFavor wrote:Oh - weather update -

It's bright, breezy, and sunny here. With an alarming and distinct autumnal tang to the air.

Have you seen the weather forecast for the SE on Sunday?

Bracknell is right on the far edge of it, so I'm hoping we come off fairly lightly.

It's always wet here on Bank Holiday weekend, because of the Reading Pop Festival...

One thing you can say about our young. They're hardy little souls....

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 4:22 pm

@Tubby Isaacs

What social housing, Tubby? There shan't be any by the end of this parliament.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 4:26 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Oh - weather update -

It's bright, breezy, and sunny here. With an alarming and distinct autumnal tang to the air.
Have you seen the weather forecast for the SE on Sunday? Bracknell is right on the far edge of it, so I'm hoping we come off fairly lightly.

It's always wet here on Bank Holiday weekend, because of the Reading Pop Festival...

One thing you can say about our young. They're hardy little souls....

Mercy, mercy, mercy, mercy...

Train strike misery for west of England, Wales – and Reading festival

First Great Western workers’ industrial action over new trains set to cause disruption over bank holiday weekend
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... g-festival" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 5:01 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
Cameron's raw deal: PM and wife could have been swimming in SEWAGE during Cornwall trip

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/601435 ... e-Samantha
Well, well, well. There is a God.

It seems I was right after all, Steve Bell was working from photographs, ohso. I'd rather not see the other one. I also note that Dave did not get the memo, perhaps I can oblige.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 28 Aug, 2015 5:09 pm

citizenJA wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Oh - weather update -

It's bright, breezy, and sunny here. With an alarming and distinct autumnal tang to the air.
Have you seen the weather forecast for the SE on Sunday? Bracknell is right on the far edge of it, so I'm hoping we come off fairly lightly.

It's always wet here on Bank Holiday weekend, because of the Reading Pop Festival...

One thing you can say about our young. They're hardy little souls....
Mercy, mercy, mercy, mercy...
Train strike misery for west of England, Wales – and Reading festival

First Great Western workers’ industrial action over new trains set to cause disruption over bank holiday weekend
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... g-festival" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They'll not let that put them off. They'll be spread out along the M4, clad in black bin liners holding up bits of cardboard with their destination, and thumbing lifts.