Friday 11th.September

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 7:32 am

Good morrow, Fledglings!

Our Inglorious Ronsealed Fishpointer General has decided that public services - notably, this time, prisons and children in care - are to be shaken up and more contracts should go to smaller businesses.

Nicholas Anagram at the G has reported that Cameron, who thinks government is "not unlike a business", intends to open up more of our public services to what he calls "new insurgent companies".

The Tories sooooo like that word, don't they? Do you think they actually know what it means? OED - insurgent - "rising in active revolt", "a person fighting against the government", "rebel", "revolutionary".

Osborne opined recently that people voting for Corbyn are insurgents; and now we have the Prime Minister wittering on about handing the care of vulnerable/difficult children to revolutionaries - or possibly someone whose small business is fighting against him.

What the actual fuck?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 7:46 am

The "What the actual fuck" Government ,a perfect description.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 7:48 am

I wonder if that is a form of Freudian slip by Cameron, invading forces to smash our publicly owned services, or is it a legitimate piece of business jargon ?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 7:48 am

@ephemerid

They're not just treasonous and dangerous fools but incompetent, treasonous and dangerous fools, ephe. I know there is much by design using Shock Doctrine tactics for which they deserve to be prosecuted. Nonetheless I find it hard to believe that even by their own measures they cause such chaos on everything that they touch. Meanwhile their rapacious greed knows no bounds. How the fuck do we get rid of them given public ignorance and the power of msm propaganda. 'And there was me thinking that social media shall be our saviour, or so I am told. Seeing is believing.

I only hope that Jeremy can inspire a large enough groundswell that can seize back democracy at the ballot box. I really do not want a revolution.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 8:11 am

That's why my I voted the way I did.
No time for shilly shallying, the next four years and eight months will be full on Tory attack on what civilised people hold dear.

If Corbyn wins, hopefully Labour people will unite behind him to point out that his views are no less radical than what the Tories are doing, just fairer.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 8:17 am

yahyah wrote:I wonder if that is a form of Freudian slip by Cameron, invading forces to smash our publicly owned services, or is it a legitimate piece of business jargon ?

Cameron doesn't understand business, he has just screwed up his jargon.

Businesses are not insurgent.

He means disruptive, which is business jargon.

Disruptive businesses are ones that hit an established market with new radical capabilities and methods. So Uber would be a classic example, Airbnb, and Apple (the original App Store).

Typically such businesses destroy huge amounts of value but create more.

Seems fairly unlikely in public services though, these are delivery focused projects, dealing with real people, often difficult cases (Mrs Smith can't use your iPad she is too frail) and with serious consequences if you screw up.

Well beyond the capability of small disruptive businesses. It is cover for more cash to big outsourcers.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 8:18 am

''BBC poll question on Welsh NHS in the run-up to the General Election breached code of conduct, regulator rules''
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... s-10031363" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

''The Market Research Society has ruled that the question, put by ICM on behalf of BBC Wales, breached its code of conduct on two separate counts.

ICM was in breach of rule 33(d) of the code of conduct relating to leading questions.

It also found ICM breached rule 33(a) of the code due to the lack of a clear audit trail for the way the wording of the question was arrived at in discussion with BBC Wales.
The MRS found that the breaches were “not minor, isolated or trivial”.

That poll conventiently handed ammunition to Labour's rivals in Wales.
There needs to be an official investigation into at the way polls are used to influence voters and headlines.

Too late now to repair the damage done to Welsh Labour at the election.
As was no doubt intended.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 8:20 am

yahyah wrote:That's why my I voted the way I did.
No time for shilly shallying, the next four years and eight months will be full on Tory attack on what civilised people hold dear.

If Corbyn wins, hopefully Labour people will unite behind him to point out that his views are no less radical than what the Tories are doing, just fairer.

Cruddas and Burnham are right on this I am afraid. Corbyn is going to shout loudly but will be completely ignored. I still haven't found anybody out there who thinks he isn't a disaster, and in most cases one they won't vote for. Labour members might unite behind him, but many voters will move on.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 8:27 am

Morning.

Definitely no time for shilly shallying.

Concentrix: Controversial US firm to be sole collector of court fines for Ministry of Justice
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 95671.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
... Concentrix is understood to be the only company being considered by the Government for a £675m contract to collect court fines. The deal would include pursuing those who are struggling to pay the contentious criminal courts charge – a fixed-fee penalty imposed on all convicts, irrespective of their means.

More than 50 magistrates have quit in recent weeks in opposition to the charge in England and Wales. Critics say it encourages poor people to plead guilty, because the fee can be up to 10 times higher if they are convicted after pleading not guilty.

The choice of Concentrix to collect court debts has surprised many, given its performance in a contract with HM Revenue and Customs to pursue fraud and error detection. The Independent revealed earlier this year that Concentrix had sent speculative letters to thousands of people on low incomes accusing them of cheating on their tax credits. ...

Could there be any more obvious action to belie a government attitude that all those in receipt of benefits are undeserving shysters ....?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 8:28 am

Have done a bit of online searching, and a lot of results show insurgent used about companies.

There is a website showing 'Ten characteristics of insurgent companies' but my security package puts a question mark against the site so I don't know what they are.
The FT used it about banking in 2010.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 8:35 am

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
yahyah wrote:That's why my I voted the way I did.
No time for shilly shallying, the next four years and eight months will be full on Tory attack on what civilised people hold dear.

If Corbyn wins, hopefully Labour people will unite behind him to point out that his views are no less radical than what the Tories are doing, just fairer.
Cruddas and Burnham are right on this I am afraid. Corbyn is going to shout loudly but will be completely ignored. I still haven't found anybody out there who thinks he isn't a disaster, and in most cases one they won't vote for. Labour members might unite behind him, but many voters will move on.

You may believe Cruddas and Burnham are right.
They may be right, they may be wrong, & more importantly they may try their best to ensure their predictions appear to be right.

And, again it is interesting that you say you haven't found anyone who thinks he isn't a disaster. You aren't everyone.
I've met people who say the opposite, a mix of middle class high earners - a solicitor, a soft ware company owner, a book shop owner, and a lady on the supermarket till, who think he will be a good thing for Labour, and the way politics should be going.
I don't extrapolate that out to mean I am definitely right though.

For all your voters who you say will move away, I counter you with the notion that some voters will drift back to Labour.

Who is right ? Who knows, neither of us have divine right to be correct, or can predict the future.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 8:40 am

And if people who call themselves Labour supporters go round shouting 'Fire' they can only blame themselves if voters decide to run from a Corbyn led Labour party.

But being proved right seems to be the important factor here, like the Hodges of this world, doesn't it ? Rather than wanting to see the country fight the Tories, not partly appease them.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 8:50 am

No we cannot predict the future,and indeed our perceptions are skewed by the milieux (sorry) we inhabit.What you can do though ,is look at historical precedent amplified by less advantageous conditions that facillitate generalised support for a particular perspective.The "tipping point" remains as imaginery as ever.Some may feel good about themselves for a time but cheer it on to electoral oblivion.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 8:50 am

I've seemingly and somewhat surprisingly posted this in the Thursday thread that was still open in another tab so am copying and pasting here, But first I shall just add that I posted a few comments in the early hours, not that I expect you're bothered...

Another idle thought that came to me whilst doing other stuff and pondering matters as you do, possibly another for ephe and her catalogue of the anomalies of social security under IDS, Osborne and Cameron. Forgive me for repeating myself yet again but this government do not do Impact Assessments in any normal understanding of the term; impacts are classified as N/A no matter what they be. Belief in 'doing the right thing' trumps all regardless of the consequence.

Imagine if you shall a young worker or possibly unemployed living at home with parent(s) in social housing who also receive housing benefit because of their own status, possibly disabled, you know people unaffected by the Under Occupancy Penalty, but nevertheless affected they be. Not an unlikely scenario you may think.

Said youngster is either flying the nest for work or partner and may even be having a child. They cannot claim an allowance because, albeit adult they're considered too young so presumably they are already in or just starting work. Mum and Dad meanwhile are subjected to penalty because a bedroom is no longer in use. No matter you hear IDS say, they didn't receive full HB because of the non-dependant living there so what's the difference? Well I shall tell you, IDS, nobody else is now contributing toward the housing cost, get it?

Meanwhile said youngster(s) work had been terminated, they are no longer required but cannot claim any allowances. They cannot eat, they cannot pay their rent. What to do? Better go back to Mum and Dads. What they haven't a spare room any more they've moved because they couldn't afford it. Wtf!

Of course this is just an imaginary scenario that has no bearing on Tory reality, that intangible concept we're told of most days. 'And even where it is real it's only anecdotal so not worth considering hence the N/A under social impact. I understand now, IDS et al, you really do not give a shit what hardships you may inflict on others. Of course you shall collect no data whatsoever that may possibly indicate any such scale. Numbers are merely what you say they are.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 8:53 am

Morning All

Cameron and Osborne are scared make no mistake.

I didn't give Corbyn my first choice but if he wins make no mistake I'm right behind him. It will cease to be politics as usual and will become the politics of the street, the demonstration, of Twitter. A chance to rail against the Westminster bubble, the BBC, the media, the Queen. To call this hideous government by its real name. To be heard at last.

Are the Brits up for it? Who knows....

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 8:55 am

HindleA wrote:No we cannot predict the future,and indeed our perceptions are skewed by the milieux (sorry) we inhabit.What you can do though ,is look at historical precedent amplified by less advantageous conditions that facillitate generalised support for a particular perspective.The "tipping point" remains as imaginery as ever.Some may feel good about themselves for a time but cheer it on to electoral oblivion.

& some may push the party to electoral oblivion to prove themselves correct about how Corbyn would be a disaster for Labour.

I wrote in my post 'If Corbyn wins, hopefully Labour people will unite behind him to point out that his views are no less radical than what the Tories are doing, just fairer.''

It appears there will be scads of Labour supporters and MPs queuing up to tell the right wing media the opposite of that. Indeed, they are doing it already.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 8:57 am

yahyah wrote:I wonder if that is a form of Freudian slip by Cameron, invading forces to smash our publicly owned services, or is it a legitimate piece of business jargon ?

Neither, yahyah - it's his ignorance showing again, IMHO.

This man has had the best education money can buy; he got a First in PPE from Brasenose, a top Oxford college - yet he was unable to explain what Magna Carta meant when asked by David Letterman; he described Britain as "the junior partner" to the US during the Battle Of Britain (which happened a year before the US joined WW2); he said China was the reason why we must renew Trident (that went down like a lead balloon); he described Turkey as a good political influence in the ME as Iran has a nuclear weapon (as yet there is no proof that it has) which makes absolutely no sense at all (unless he expects the Turks to take on Iran in some unspecified fashion); he accused Pakistan of "looking both ways" on terrorism, which resulted in Pakistani officials refusing to talk to our intelligence services; even the Telegraph wondered if he was turning into a British Dubya.

Downing Street invariably issues a statement explaining that the PM "mis-spoke" with a fulsome apology involving a non-apology along the lines of the PM was tired/speaking off the cuff/badly briefed/etc. and explaining what he really meant.
Before the election, he made some very silly gaffes - he said "his" team was West Ham when he meant Aston Villa, and got the date of the election wrong - and described the election as "career-defining", a Freudian slip if there ever was one.....

All politicians make gaffes. Cameron is not unique in that. But some of his are so stupid - eg. "Gaza is a prison camp" - it beggars belief.
For someone as well-educated as he is - though obviously not very learned - it's a bit poor.

As for "insurgent" small businesses, he probably means "emergent". Though I would not be displeased should the odd insurgent do what insurgents do and fight the incumbent government......

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 8:58 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Morning All

Cameron and Osborne are scared make no mistake.

I didn't give Corbyn my first choice but if he wins make no mistake I'm right behind him. It will cease to be politics as usual and will become the politics of the street, the demonstration, of Twitter. A chance to rail against the Westminster bubble, the BBC, the media, the Queen. To call this hideous government by its real name. To be heard at last.

Are the Brits up for it? Who knows....

My husband always says ask a Yorkshireman if you want to hear sense spoken.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 8:59 am

@TechnicalEphemera

I do hear you, TE, but out there? We tend to associate with like minded folk or don't really discuss religion or politics with all that we meet; dangerous ground with a stranger as I recently discovered myself. So who exactly are all these folk out there? You have obviously found a few in here, haven't you. Do they not also belong to the big out there? Bear in mind I'm still a disenchanted political animal whose party abandoned him so have taken no part in 'your' leadership vote so feel able to pose the question without raising your hackles I hope. It's certainly not meant to anyway.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 9:00 am

@HindleA

Hello there HindleA. This isn't a get at you but I just wanted to make it clear that I didn't vote Corbyn and then expect to feel good about myself as per your post.

Even the worst critics of Corbyn - e.g. Phil Collins on Newsnight last night - fully admitted that the other three candidates failed to inspire confidence and hope and offer much of anything to Labour supporters or the wider country for that matter.

Feeling better about myself was nowhere in the picture whoever I voted for. The choice was not an easy or lighthearted one.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 9:05 am

Please do not take personally It wasn't written very well; no direct linkage between vote and feeling good was intended.More a generalised feeling,I will feel good,until cold reality hits.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 9:09 am

Agree with that Rebecca.

It's been a rotten couple of months having to go over and over it again and again.
It's been discussed for hours a day here in my home.
We even thought of doing a spreadsheet/graph to compare the pros and cons.

But, having gone from probably voting Cooper, to Burnham, then settling for Corbyn almost reluctantly the idea of feeling good never came into it. It'd be pain whoever wins.

Do I have a little of that normal human emotion of hope and a wish for something better, yes I do.

If there had been a really good candidate further to the centre I'd have voted for them as the siren call of don't scare the horses has always resonated with me in the past.
There wasn't.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 9:10 am

@ephemerid

It surely cannot be missed by those around him how lacking in nouse he be, or to put it plainly what an idiot he is. This is why I can see no more than a placeman doing his paymasters' bidding. Of course in his world he is the great 'I am' and bloody good at it too. In our world however he is an embarrassment to the nation and doing us all untold harm.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 9:14 am

@rebeccariots2

Yeah but wasn't Zoe Williams good, rr2... and held her own? She struck a chord with me anyway.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 9:16 am

I can only go by my experience.The same arguments repeatedly endlessly.Non believers accused of betrayal,impurity to the sacred cause.Any dissension is blatant undermining,but in reality,a planted excuse if "this time" has the same result as all the others.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 9:21 am

Talking of "learned" - m'learnd friend (best mate) and I had a chat the other day.

She has always been a leftie (a lot of barristers are, funnily enough) and has voted for Corbyn. She has been incandescent with rage on the loss of legal aid and the new charges for pleas. She says she's as angry now about what's happening in her profession as she was back when we were A&E colleagues in the late 80s and all our cleaning and supplies were outsourced.

One of her current colleagues is an ex-doctor, and he worked on the class compensation suit for Iraq 1 servicemen affected by chemical exposure; he is vehemently anti-Tory and she says he's voted for Corbyn too.
Show has his own business in event production for years, but he reckons he'd rather have paid more taxes when he was in business to have better public services - mind you, he's been a red-in-tooth-and-claw leftie all his life.

Whether he wins or not, in just my circle of friends, some very clever and experienced people are actually pretty left-wing. It's not all just youngsters and the usual suspects who are voting for him.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 9:24 am

utopiandreams wrote:@rebeccariots2

Yeah but wasn't Zoe Williams good, rr2... and held her own? She struck a chord with me anyway.

I hope she's going to write some more supportive stuff now ... she got very critical before the election. I think she voted for or endorsed the Greens - or is my memory completely wrong on that?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 9:28 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
yahyah wrote:
HindleA wrote:No we cannot predict the future,and indeed our perceptions are skewed by the milieux (sorry) we inhabit.What you can do though ,is look at historical precedent amplified by less advantageous conditions that facillitate generalised support for a particular perspective.The "tipping point" remains as imaginery as ever.Some may feel good about themselves for a time but cheer it on to electoral oblivion.
& some may push the party to electoral oblivion to prove themselves correct about how Corbyn would be a disaster for Labour.

I wrote in my post 'If Corbyn wins, hopefully Labour people will unite behind him to point out that his views are no less radical than what the Tories are doing, just fairer.''

It appears there will be scads of Labour supporters and MPs queuing up to tell the right wing media the opposite of that. Indeed, they are doing it already.
I am absolutely terrified of this. It happened to Ed and it shows every sign that it would happen under Corbyn. Why can't people give him a chance rather than broadcasting this soothsaying doom and gloom? Don't they realise they're handing ammunition to the Tories? It wasn't Tories bashing Ed that drove the acres of news coverage, it was Labour figures.

Yup - the 'moderates' are going to be extremely loud and critical (as they were through much of Ed's leadership) of everything and then turn around and blame others in the party for the 'Labour in chaos' headlines and label. Lessons have not been learned in that respect.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 9:39 am

Similarly,I will not offence of all manner of accusations for not following the chosen path.Of course,you get behind whomever is leader.Ammunition to the Tories is indeed the point.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 10:14 am

@RobertSnozers

It doesn't just apply to government departments or fragmentation, Robert, but to larger businesses or corporations seeking services from elsewhere too. Possibly alright for one-offs but should there be any future dependency or demand for essential services then small does not cut it. The continued existence in the marketplace or as much guarantee as is possible may be more of a deciding factor than cost or the quality of goods or services themselves.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 10:28 am

@RobertSnozers

Following on from my previous argument and maybe you're more familiar in this quarter, if my understanding of your previous role with the NHS be correct. Could this be why the same usual suspects continue to get government contracts despite their prior failings? I know I keep pointing to crony capitalism or corruption by another name but I feel there has to be another reason otherwise why hasn't it stopped? This isn't a partisan issue, after all.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 10:36 am

I picked this up from a twitter link last night, James Meadway of the New Economics Foundation
Corbynomics: where next.
https://medium.com/@james.meadway/corby ... 139af74c52" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It's quite a long read and difficult to summarise but some may find it interesting, and depressing at times. A couple of snippets, first his summary

It’s ended up rather long so, for the truly pressed, here is a very quick summary — the last section of the main texts lists some suggestions for policies:

1. Keynesianism is not enough. The weaknesses of the UK economy require measures that will address its serious structural flaws. There are no quick fixes.

2. Austerity is not the product of ideology alone, but hard-wired into the kind of economy we now live in.

3. Structural reforms are the only means by which a socially just anti-austerity economic policy can be delivered. Corbyn’s campaign offers the opportunity to create a base of popular support for a comprehensive anti-austerity programme.

Austerity in Britain, as supported by the government, the media, and the Labour rightwing, is the product not merely of bad ideas. It is, rather, hard-wired into the kind of economy we now live in. Once it is conceded — and all mainstream sides concede this — that financial services, whatever public opprobrium they attract, must remain the leading element of our economy, the economic strategy becomes clear. Maintaining a critical hub (arguably the critical hub) of the global financial system requires a domestic state prepared to stand behind it.

We are heading, on this basis for a crash. And it is the risk of crash, and the necessity of maintaining a lean state able to deal with its consequences, that enforces austerity. As the Conservative chair of public administration committee put it, our “national borrowing capacity” to deal with a further crash from a “vulnerable and exposed” financial system has been significantly reduced, post-crash. Austerity means clearing a space to deal with the next one.

This, to repeat a point, is the dirty truth of austerity in the UK. We are locked into the steady disintegration of the labour movement’s historic achievements because that is what this economy, as presently structured, can deliver. The mainstream of politics then becomes little more than a contest over who will manage the process of destruction most efficiently; unsurprisingly, it is the Conservatives who are the most plausible candidates to carry it out, as the 2015 result confirmed. If these are the terms of the debate, 2020 will be merely more of the same.

my bold.

Thought provoking stuff.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 10:40 am

gilsey wrote:I picked this up from a twitter link last night, James Meadway of the New Economics Foundation
Corbynomics: where next.
https://medium.com/@james.meadway/corby ... 139af74c52" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It's quite a long read and difficult to summarise but some may find it interesting, and depressing at times. A couple of snippets, first his summary
It’s ended up rather long so, for the truly pressed, here is a very quick summary — the last section of the main texts lists some suggestions for policies:

1. Keynesianism is not enough. The weaknesses of the UK economy require measures that will address its serious structural flaws. There are no quick fixes.

2. Austerity is not the product of ideology alone, but hard-wired into the kind of economy we now live in.

3. Structural reforms are the only means by which a socially just anti-austerity economic policy can be delivered. Corbyn’s campaign offers the opportunity to create a base of popular support for a comprehensive anti-austerity programme.

Austerity in Britain, as supported by the government, the media, and the Labour rightwing, is the product not merely of bad ideas. It is, rather, hard-wired into the kind of economy we now live in. Once it is conceded — and all mainstream sides concede this — that financial services, whatever public opprobrium they attract, must remain the leading element of our economy, the economic strategy becomes clear. Maintaining a critical hub (arguably the critical hub) of the global financial system requires a domestic state prepared to stand behind it.

We are heading, on this basis for a crash. And it is the risk of crash, and the necessity of maintaining a lean state able to deal with its consequences, that enforces austerity. As the Conservative chair of public administration committee put it, our “national borrowing capacity” to deal with a further crash from a “vulnerable and exposed” financial system has been significantly reduced, post-crash. Austerity means clearing a space to deal with the next one.

This, to repeat a point, is the dirty truth of austerity in the UK. We are locked into the steady disintegration of the labour movement’s historic achievements because that is what this economy, as presently structured, can deliver. The mainstream of politics then becomes little more than a contest over who will manage the process of destruction most efficiently; unsurprisingly, it is the Conservatives who are the most plausible candidates to carry it out, as the 2015 result confirmed. If these are the terms of the debate, 2020 will be merely more of the same.
my bold.

Thought provoking stuff.

Depressing too.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 10:47 am

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
yahyah wrote:That's why my I voted the way I did.
No time for shilly shallying, the next four years and eight months will be full on Tory attack on what civilised people hold dear.

If Corbyn wins, hopefully Labour people will unite behind him to point out that his views are no less radical than what the Tories are doing, just fairer.
Cruddas and Burnham are right on this I am afraid. Corbyn is going to shout loudly but will be completely ignored. I still haven't found anybody out there who thinks he isn't a disaster, and in most cases one they won't vote for. Labour members might unite behind him, but many voters will move on.

If you want somebody who has had a *truy* disastrous leadership election, then Cruddas fits the bill.

That amazingly slanted question on austerity - surely one of the most shamelessly biased in polling history - pretty much sums him up now.

A true "Emperor's clothes" experience - he has used highfalutin jargon and dropped the names of various "thinkers" to conceal that he has nothing original to say.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 10:50 am

With respect, my view of Corbyn is not based on what I consider to be arbitrary distinctions between left/right,that I am castigated in all manner of name calling,despite zero knowledge of my views,beyond that,further, questioned as to my real intentions and insinuations that I actively want my worst fears realised to prove myself correct,somewhat disheartening.Of course ,the reverse is equally true.I do not call myself anything,others project on to me,for what ends I have no idea,only they know.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 10:52 am

G'day! Only ~~ten minutes~~ a while 'til we find out who has won the job as Labour candidate for Mayor of London. (Yep, I know the rest of the country is perched on the edge of their seats in anticipation...)
Edit to add: Maybe not 'til 12.30 - must be the 'event' that starts at 11.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 11:08 am

I think a lot like that too, or at any rate used to. Which raises the question of why Cruddas has been so awful since the GE?

He doesn't seem to "get" what is actually going on at all.......

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 11:21 am

Good-morning, everyone.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 11:29 am

Union wins travelling time case in European court
British trade unions welcome ruling against Spanish company, saying home care workers could see benefits

[European court of justice ruling]

"The case was brought by a Spanish trade union against Tyco, a multinational fire and security company which closed its network of regional offices in Spain in 2011. Staff now travel from home to install security systems, with the first appointment of the day sometimes three hours’ drive away, time currently treated by the company as a “rest period”, the judges noted.

They ruled this was unfair as Tyco had previously viewed the start of the working day as being the moment staff arrived at their regional office, from where they were given a list of appointments for the day.

The judgment said: “During the necessary travelling time – which generally cannot be shortened – the workers are therefore not able to use their time freely and pursue their own interests. The fact that the workers begin and finish the journeys at their homes stems directly from the decision of their employer to abolish the regional offices and not from the desire of the workers themselves.”

Making staff “bear the burden of their employer’s choice” could be contrary to the EU’s working time directive, which lays down rules on rest periods and maximum working hours, the court said.

Dave Prentis, general secretary of the Unison union in Britain, said the ruling was “bound to have a significant impact in the UK, particularly on home care workers”.'

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/s ... pean-court" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The enforcement of this ruling will be implemented. I'm happy with the outcome of this case. Unions do matter, collective bargaining and solidarity among workers work.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 11:32 am

Morning all.

Interesting bit in the Ofsted report on one academy trust.

Ofsted tells CfBT it grew too quickly

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/ofsted-tells-c ... o-quickly/

Now, there is of course, two sides to this...

The trust, which runs 19 schools, was described in the report as having taken on “too many academies too quickly”. Its expansion was said to lack strategy and, as a result, “standards are too low”.

But Chris Tweedale, chief executive of CfBT Schools Trust, speaking exclusively to Schools Week, said that the quick increase in the number of schools was a product of the government’s then-policy of encouraging academy sponsorship.

“In the early days it was ‘quantity, quantity, quantity’ and then Lord Nash came into the department and it changed overnight to ‘quality, quality, quality’.”

I assume that we will at some point get a DfE spokesman admit that "Yeah, we made mistakes and we want to apologise to all of those parents with pupils in failing schools because we expanded some chains far too quickly".

We will won't we?

Edit - should have added that Nash was appointed in Jan 2013 so that's about 2-3 years of "quantity, quantity, quantity"...

Edit II - of course there was a trust who had to give 8 schools back at the beginning of this year because they couldn't cope with the geographical spread...same reason - too many, too quickly just to get the numbers up.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 11:49 am

RobertSnozers wrote:... A further issue is that companies like Serco and McKinsey, which does a huge amount of consultancy work for the NHS (usually of the 'borrowing-my-watch-and-telling-me-the-time' variety) were put in charge of a number of the Commissioning Support Units that were set up in the wake of the Lansley white paper, so they have the inside track in a lot of cases.

Quite so, Robert, when it came to the Health and Social Care Bill 2010 subsequently 2010-12 and then Act 2012, I remember your arguments constantly being derided by ignoramuses in the other place. Having once challenged, I can't remember his name, on knowing nothing of what he spoke started looking for myself. Bloody hell it was difficult too with every other sentence containing changes and references to previous Acts without full quotes.

If this is how they're presented before the House it's no wonder that large tranches actually went unread by our so-called honourable members. Perhaps I didn't have what is, the Lords for example seemed to go through it line by line and even then, no names because you know who they were, gave us bland assurances that the odd change of word offered adequate protection from the ensuing attack. Thank God I could look to you for more in depth analysis of the consequences. That was then that I in no uncertain terms categorically told Clegg and Shirley that no matter the electoral losses already incurred there was no going back after the bill's passage.

Excuse my rambling because I'm writing as well as listening to 'turtle watch', news in other words and holding a conversation too so this is what it is and I thank you again for let's say our and no doubt others fight back then. Not that it made the slightest difference in the grand scheme of things. Oh well it's no wonder I felt miserable.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 12:11 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
yahyah wrote:I wonder if that is a form of Freudian slip by Cameron, invading forces to smash our publicly owned services, or is it a legitimate piece of business jargon ?
Cameron doesn't understand business, he has just screwed up his jargon.

Businesses are not insurgent.

He means disruptive, which is business jargon.

Disruptive businesses are ones that hit an established market with new radical capabilities and methods. So Uber would be a classic example, Airbnb, and Apple (the original App Store).

Typically such businesses destroy huge amounts of value but create more.

Seems fairly unlikely in public services though, these are delivery focused projects, dealing with real people, often difficult cases (Mrs Smith can't use your iPad she is too frail) and with serious consequences if you screw up.

Well beyond the capability of small disruptive businesses. It is cover for more cash to big outsourcers.
My understanding was that government departments had tried using smaller businesses to provide services for them before, but it proved hopelessly impractical. Smaller companies don't have the supply chain, the economies of scale, the ability to provide the same thing to government specs across different parts of the country, and in turn makes it harder for the department to manage lots of small contracts rather than a few big ones. The result is that only a few companies have the ability to respond to big government contracts, and they are the usual suspects - G4S, Serco, Capita etc.

Wasn't a fair bit made of small IT companies winning contracts?

Seems like a very odd area to choose. Why this and not, say, small butchers supplying meat? Meat is meat, after all, much more so than IT is IT.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 12:14 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

Interesting bit in the Ofsted report on one academy trust.

Ofsted tells CfBT it grew too quickly

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/ofsted-tells-c ... o-quickly/

Now, there is of course, two sides to this...

The trust, which runs 19 schools, was described in the report as having taken on “too many academies too quickly”. Its expansion was said to lack strategy and, as a result, “standards are too low”.

But Chris Tweedale, chief executive of CfBT Schools Trust, speaking exclusively to Schools Week, said that the quick increase in the number of schools was a product of the government’s then-policy of encouraging academy sponsorship.

“In the early days it was ‘quantity, quantity, quantity’ and then Lord Nash came into the department and it changed overnight to ‘quality, quality, quality’.”
I assume that we will at some point get a DfE spokesman admit that "Yeah, we made mistakes and we want to apologise to all of those parents with pupils in failing schools because we expanded some chains far too quickly".

We will won't we?

Edit - should have added that Nash was appointed in Jan 2013 so that's about 2-3 years of "quantity, quantity, quantity"...

Edit II - of course there was a trust who had to give 8 schools back at the beginning of this year because they couldn't cope with the geographical spread...same reason - too many, too quickly just to get the numbers up.

The NAO said the same thing about free schools.

Purpose was always to push system as far as it could go in one term, rather than to improve schools the most.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 12:21 pm

How to be an optimist in the face of so many vocal pessimists? Prove the buggers wrong.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 12:22 pm

Looks as though Sadiq Khan will be Labour's candidate for London Mayor - announcement in 10 mins.

Well that will blow a hole in that "Corbyn will give cabinet posts to Diane Abbott and Sadiq Khan" froth then won't it? Always fairly risible since Khan quit the shadow cabinet in May to focus on this.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 12:23 pm

The Assisted Dying Bill is being debated now, and my hope is that it will not pass any further.

Keir Starmer has reminded the House of the guidelines for this which he drew up as DPP and which have applied for 5 years - they are: that the criminal law should not be used against relatives who assist a person to die when that person has given clear indications that they no longer want to live; and that strong safeguards must exist to ensure that people are not pressurised or encouraged to ask for help to end their lives.
He also said that he personally oversaw 80 such cases, and in only one was there a decision made to prosecute.

I think that the existing legislation and guidelines are fine as they are. I am absolutely against a formal acceptance of assisted dying. I take the view that there are currently sufficient protections against vulnerable people being persuaded into being helped to die, and the burden of proof for people who assist others to die (with the likelihood of prosecution if they don't fulfil it) is high enough to prevent serious abuse. I doubt there would be many people who would risk a charge of murder or unlawful killing unless they were absolutely sure they could prove that the person they assist in dying had consistently made it clear that they wanted to die.

Within existing guidelines there is scope for clinicians to use whatever analgesia or sedation a patient needs to make them as comfortable as possible. Doctors can, and do, administer very high doses of drugs to people in severe pain or whose illness makes them very confused or restless.
It is not, IMHO, appropriate to change the law in order to make their job even harder than it already is or to leave them open to pressure - whether that comes from the patient, the family, or the state.

(On a less serious note, I wish La Dorres would stop claiming to be a nurse - she might have done some training at some point, but she has never been registered with the NMC in any of her names.)

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 12:29 pm

Mohammed Abbas ‏@MohammedAbbas79 13m13 minutes ago
Nonononononono: Saudi Arabia responds to refugee crisis - by offering to build Germany 200 mosques http://ind.pn/1O3mJpn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pretty staggering offer ...

They should be offering shelter and support for refugees in Saudi itself. If they really won't do that ... then offer to build 200 housing schemes - or housing and schools and hospitals etc in Germany.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 12:29 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Looks as though Sadiq Khan will be Labour's candidate for London Mayor - announcement in 10 mins.

Well that will blow a hole in that "Corbyn will give cabinet posts to Diane Abbott and Sadiq Khan" froth then won't it? Always fairly risible since Khan quit the shadow cabinet in May to focus on this.

Not too much wrong with Khan, apart from occasional foot in mouth syndrome. Jowell was just insipid in my mind.

I will come back to lots of other stuff here when I am not on the company dollar. I will however note FT may have used it but I have never heard anybody in business use insurgent and I spend an amusing amount of time talking to the sorts of people who you might expect to use such a word. I therefore maintain it is not in common use.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 12:32 pm

Sam Macrory ‏@sammacrory 3m3 minutes ago
Whoops. PM caught on mic in Leeds: 'We just thought people in Yorkshire hated everyone else.We didn't realise they hated each other so much'

A bit more Yorkshire for us ...

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 11 Sep, 2015 12:33 pm

Looks like Khan has won by a big margin.