Wednesday 23rd September 2015

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 1:58 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/14/opini ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This still leaves the question of why Labour’s moderates have been so hapless. Consider the contrast with the United States, where deficit scolds dominated Beltway discourse in 2010-2011 but never managed to dictate the terms of political debate, and where mainstream Democrats no longer sound like Republicans-lite. Part of the answer is that the U.S. news media haven’t been as committed to fiscal fantasies, although that just pushes the question back a step.

Beyond that, however, Labour’s political establishment seems to lack all conviction, for reasons I don’t fully understand. And this means that the Corbyn upset isn’t about a sudden left turn on the part of Labour supporters. It’s mainly about the strange, sad moral and intellectual collapse of Labour moderates.

I must admit, one of the worst things that has happened since Ed resigned is all the Labour politicians lining up to say how Labour "overspent". Ed Miliband's refusal to admit to this lie in the run up to the election is one of the things that apparently harmed his campaign, but given he had gambled everything on honesty and integrity, he had little choice but to tell the truth, that Labour didn't "overspend". Latest polling shows little reaction to Corbyn's election as Labour leader. I wonder if this is why - because those who voted in May agreed with Ed Miliband that Labour didn't overspend and thus agree with Corbyn also, that austerity won't work because overspending was never the problem in the first place. This could suggest a more linear progression from Ed Miliband to Jeremy Corbyn than the media tends to suggest.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 2:06 pm

Willow904 wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/14/opini ... .html?_r=0
This still leaves the question of why Labour’s moderates have been so hapless. Consider the contrast with the United States, where deficit scolds dominated Beltway discourse in 2010-2011 but never managed to dictate the terms of political debate, and where mainstream Democrats no longer sound like Republicans-lite. Part of the answer is that the U.S. news media haven’t been as committed to fiscal fantasies, although that just pushes the question back a step.

Beyond that, however, Labour’s political establishment seems to lack all conviction, for reasons I don’t fully understand. And this means that the Corbyn upset isn’t about a sudden left turn on the part of Labour supporters. It’s mainly about the strange, sad moral and intellectual collapse of Labour moderates.
I must admit, one of the worst things that has happened since Ed resigned is all the Labour politicians lining up to say how Labour "overspent". Ed Miliband's refusal to admit to this lie in the run up to the election is one of the things that apparently harmed his campaign, but given he had gambled everything on honesty and integrity, he had little choice but to tell the truth, that Labour didn't "overspend". Latest polling shows little reaction to Corbyn's election as Labour leader. I wonder if this is why - because those who voted in May agreed with Ed Miliband that Labour didn't overspend and thus agree with Corbyn also, that austerity won't work because overspending was never the problem in the first place. This could suggest a more linear progression from Ed Miliband to Jeremy Corbyn than the media tends to suggest.

Tbf to Cooper she was firmly against this narrative post election, albeit late in the day when it came to the debates. Burnham on the other hand...

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 2:14 pm

Sky News ‏@SkyNews 39m39 minutes ago
Trio of Al Jazeera journalists jailed in Egypt are reportedly pardoned by President Sisi http://trib.al/JfY3KdK" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's very good news.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 2:16 pm

re the Labour public spending thing - I noticed that Toby Young touched on this in his "Why I'm a Conservative" piece he's just written for some new (as if we really needed another) thinktank/right wing grouping.

http://con4lib.com/toby-young-why-i-am-a-conservative/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The reason I support the cuts is because I think the state has become too big. Between 1998/99 and 2008/09, public expenditure increased by more than 50%, leaving Britain with a national debt of over a trillion pounds.

1. As % GDP spending in 98/99 was 37.3%. In 2008/9 it was...36.3%

1. Investment spending in 2008/9 was ramped up to try and mitigate the impact of the recession. 3m unemployment was forecast which didn't come about despite the worst recession since the 1930s.

2. Net debt in March 2009 was £724bn so that one is a straight lie.

The article is worth reading if only for the rather puzzling statements that he is now a Tory cheerleader (yeah, we know) and that he says "Politicians can never be trusted".

Bit odd that one...

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 2:33 pm

Sweets Way occupiers report violent clashes during mass eviction
Some take to roofs as enforcement officers use battering rams in large operation to remove activists from north London estate

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

What is happening?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 2:48 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:re the Labour public spending thing - I noticed that Toby Young touched on this in his "Why I'm a Conservative" piece he's just written for some new (as if we really needed another) thinktank/right wing grouping.

http://con4lib.com/toby-young-why-i-am-a-conservative/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The reason I support the cuts is because I think the state has become too big. Between 1998/99 and 2008/09, public expenditure increased by more than 50%, leaving Britain with a national debt of over a trillion pounds.
1. As % GDP spending in 98/99 was 37.3%. In 2008/9 it was...36.3%

1. Investment spending in 2008/9 was ramped up to try and mitigate the impact of the recession. 3m unemployment was forecast which didn't come about despite the worst recession since the 1930s.

2. Net debt in March 2009 was £724bn so that one is a straight lie.

The article is worth reading if only for the rather puzzling statements that he is now a Tory cheerleader (yeah, we know) and that he says "Politicians can never be trusted".

Bit odd that one...

The position this person is taking isn't just or fair so is lying to make it work somehow. It doesn't work though. At all. It's disturbing reading from people who do this.

When I've worked with people who have dementia, I understand the nature of disease will cause communication difficulties and I'm fine with that because they're ill and my job is to keep them and others safe. Boundaries and expectations are defined and we cope.

I can't work with people as colleagues or accept authority figures in responsible positions when they're irrational and undiagnosed.

martinson · Post by **martinson** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 2:56 pm

Good afternoon everyone. I don't post often and indeed you haven't heard from me since the election but I've been hovering of late. I own up to voting for Jeremy Corbyn and Angela Eagle primarily because I couldn't face another 5 years of what seemed like Labour prevarication over many issues by mostly senior Labour MPs. I felt I want someone to take the Tories head on with ideas and conviction even if I don't agree with everything. I am sure Jeremy Corbyn has energised the Labour Party which I actually only joined last year because of Ed Miliband, whom I rated highly. As evidence of Jeremy Corbyn's appeal I copy below a couple of unsolicited messages I've received recently from a family acquaintance who is a Consultant in the NHS;

'I think I might love Jeremy Corbyn. It's such a relief to hear someone sensible and kind who doesn't buy into the bullshit. Brilliant interview with Jon Snow. I am going to join the Labour Party today'

And after a couple of exchanges;

'Absolutely. It's about kindness, compassion and integrity. The wearing the right clothes stuff is a load of crap. Vast majority of people don't care. Some of the most well respected and learned professors in the world regularly wear odd socks, jackets with holes in and egg on their tie. Nobody gives a shit because what they say, and the way they say it is the important thing. It's a relief.'

For what it's worth I honestly believe that's the effect he has on sensible people who are not really interested in politics but find it is now intruding into their lives and work.

For those on here who are suffering from cancer or know of someone ( don't we all? ) this same acquaintance said to me ;

'...many people die with cancer but very few die of cancer. In most cases it can be managed these days with good care and medication such that quality of life is maintained..' I wish you and yours all the best.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 3:01 pm

Good ;

Corbyn confirms for the first time that he will assert his authority on this subject. He tells the New Statesman’s George Eaton: “It’s what I’ve put forward as leader and I’ve made that very clear . . . We will now oppose completely the Welfare Reform Bill

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk ... rikes-back" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

: ScreenShot00821.jpg (52.5 KiB) Viewed 10471 times

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 3:07 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:re the Labour public spending thing - I noticed that Toby Young touched on this in his "Why I'm a Conservative" piece he's just written for some new (as if we really needed another) thinktank/right wing grouping.

http://con4lib.com/toby-young-why-i-am-a-conservative/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The reason I support the cuts is because I think the state has become too big. Between 1998/99 and 2008/09, public expenditure increased by more than 50%, leaving Britain with a national debt of over a trillion pounds.
1. As % GDP spending in 98/99 was 37.3%. In 2008/9 it was...36.3%

1. Investment spending in 2008/9 was ramped up to try and mitigate the impact of the recession. 3m unemployment was forecast which didn't come about despite the worst recession since the 1930s.

2. Net debt in March 2009 was £724bn so that one is a straight lie.

The article is worth reading if only for the rather puzzling statements that he is now a Tory cheerleader (yeah, we know) and that he says "Politicians can never be trusted".

Bit odd that one...

Few people make me vomit quite as copiously as Toby Young. I'd like to take issue with his claim that Reagan reduced taxes, however - what he did was rebalance them onto consumption rather than earning.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/stat ... es-during/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let’s start by noting that if you recall Reagan as tax cutter, your memory is good. Reagan campaigned in 1980 on reducing taxes. During his administration, the top income tax rate decreased from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1986.

But to combat a rising deficit and debt burden, Reagan also approved increased taxes.

In 1982, The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by $3.3 billion.

In 1983, Reagan signed off on legislation to raise payroll taxes and tax Social Security benefits for some higher earners.

In 1984, the Deficit Reduction Act included increases in taxes on estates and distilled spirits and ended some business tax breaks, to the tune of $18 billion per year.

In 1985, Reagan signed legislation making permanent a 16-cent federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, then worth about $2.4 billion a year.

In 1986, the Tax Reform Act lowered the top income tax bracket from 50 percent to 28 percent. To pay for the reductions, however, the legislation closed a number of tax loopholes.

In 1987, Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that extended the telephone excise tax and eliminated a real estate tax deduction loophole.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 3:09 pm

"Care workers should stop spending as little as five minutes with the hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people who rely on their help and stay for at least half an hour, government advisers are urging."

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

Stop not compensating care workers for their work.

Forgive the snippy sentence above but I didn't care for the tone of the article. There was more concern about the arduous "Osborne wage", a non-living wage, was going to have to be paid to care workers soon. Perhaps the person quoted didn't mean it like that but it sounded as though they begrudged that pittance.

Edited to add my thoughts about the comments below the line.

It never occurred to me that someone was paying the care worker for time the care worker wasn't providing i.e., paying for an hour and the care worker staying only five minutes. Yes, it can happen. I don't think that's what the article meant but the commentator's below the line have mentioned this and it's fair. It's not the whole story but I concede it could happen.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 3:21 pm

Tim Farron accuses Cameron of trying to capitalise on picture of drowned boy (Guardian)

Well, David Cameron has form on that sort of thing. He's even been known to exploit the misfortune of his "nearest and dearest".

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 3:22 pm

citizenJA wrote:... Enforce environmental legislation for a clean atmosphere...

Which brings me neatly onto diesels and VW with their shenanigans, JA. I have always wondered why diesels were considered more environmentally friendly than petrol engines, not that either are exactly good. I've always reacted to diesel fumes and indeed put on my air-con and keep well back when following them in traffic although I haven't particularly noticed VWs being any the worse. Has it been established whether or not it also applies to Europe?

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 3:32 pm

citizenJA wrote:
"Care workers should stop spending as little as five minutes with the hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people who rely on their help and stay for at least half an hour, government advisers are urging."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... ve-minutes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Stop not compensating care workers for their work.

Forgive the snippy sentence above but I didn't care for the tone of the article. There was more concern about the arduous "Osborne wage", a non-living wage, was going to have to be paid to care workers soon. Perhaps the person quoted didn't mean it like that but it sounded as though they begrudged that pittance.

Was there not also a ECHR ruling that travel time=work time, if your work is not on a fixed site? Those poor sods in the care sector can spend half their day travelling from one appointment to the next for which, at present, they are not paid; with the number of Tories with their fingers in this particularly sticky pie (including the good Lord Ashcroft) I can see them fighting that ruling.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 3:43 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
"Care workers should stop spending as little as five minutes with the hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people who rely on their help and stay for at least half an hour, government advisers are urging."

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

Stop not compensating care workers for their work.

Forgive the snippy sentence above but I didn't care for the tone of the article. There was more concern about the arduous "Osborne wage", a non-living wage, was going to have to be paid to care workers soon. Perhaps the person quoted didn't mean it like that but it sounded as though they begrudged that pittance.

Was there not also a ECHR ruling that travel time=work time, if your work is not on a fixed site? Those poor sods in the care sector can spend half their day travelling from one appointment to the next for which, at present, they are not paid; with the number of Tories with their fingers in this particularly sticky pie (including the good Lord Ashcroft) I can see them fighting that ruling.

Yes, I loved that recent ruling!

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

"...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.”'

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

(my bold)

I don't own an automobile and don't drive.
That is one of the reasons I'm not currently working as a care worker.
The thought that some private sector care outfit makes underpaid workers effectively donate not only their own time, but their own vehicle, maintenance, fuel and insurance to their private sector care company is enough to have me with pitchfork in hand. I can't begin to express here my indignation and rage at such treatment. Apologies for the foaming at the mouth and probable grammar mistakes.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 4:02 pm

It seems I put my foot in it yet again earlier today. So happy was I with my new clothes that I bought last week that I popped back for another pair of jeans and new top today as well as the obligatory socks and undies. Whilst waiting for service at the checkouts I was rather hoping I would be served by the rather attractive lady I had noticed last week. Quite something for me even though I deserve slating for this but I rarely find ladies of a similar age particularly appealing; buries head more in self-preservation than shame albeit the latter is far more deserved.

Luckily she was ready when I headed the queue so on greeting her I quickly asked had she used to have red hair. Indeed she had and I had recognised her as she had me, a fellow parent when our kids were at primary school and indeed from the same village for many more years.

'And so it was that we chatted about family and much, much more besides. Sod those waiting behind there were other assistants to deal with them. Indeed I also told her how much I used to fancy her. There was my mistake!

"Used to, what's with the used to?" Of course I quickly remedied the situation with my usual plain speech, however my regret was then forgetting to enquire when was her knocking off time. Of course I jest, I really didn't forget. No, no I really am jesting, neither did I ask.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 4:03 pm

utopiandreams wrote:
citizenJA wrote:... Enforce environmental legislation for a clean atmosphere...
Which brings me neatly onto diesels and VW with their shenanigans, JA. I have always wondered why diesels were considered more environmentally friendly than petrol engines, not that either are exactly good. I've always reacted to diesel fumes and indeed put on my air-con and keep well back when following them in traffic although I haven't particularly noticed VWs being any the worse. Has it been established whether or not it also applies to Europe?

I know little.
It was a decision made by industry and politicians in the 90's that turned the UK (and the rest of Europe) into diesel-fuelled automobiles. Someone involved may have acted nobly but I'm not finding enough information to say. Probably rascals the lot.
Diesel used in the US was mostly for freight trucks, at least in California, the state I'm most familiar with. Cars not so much.
Regarding US diesel fuel costs, diesel fuel production methods, emissions, deregulation of California freight hauling industry, transport industry, auto industry and fossil fuel use matters in general - I know a little, not a lot. Political decisions made with industry, often not in the best interests of the people, the environment or long-term prospects of those two aren't clear to me and others may know more.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 4:04 pm

I'm not sure the problem with the Labour "moderates" was intellectual, really. They seem to have IPPR coming out of their ears, and they've plenty that they can point to in government they did well.

Looking at the people who took votes from them- Salmond, Farage- I certainly don't see much in the way of intellect. Nor indeed from Corbyn, who as I keep saying, isn't left with all that much once you take out the non-happening people's QE and the fantasy extra tax receipts.

Not being clearly opposed to austerity was a big mistake, which Salmond and Corbyn haven't made, to their credit. As was Harman's attempted "coup" on social security cuts. But I think lots of it was that they just look and sound pretty much like Cameron and Clegg, and didn't really offer many straightforward reasons to vote for them. Salmond's done that effectively, even if you take out the nationalism. Whether Scotland's doing any better than under the mushy Lab-Lib Coalition is of course a different question.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 4:06 pm

On the question Labour "overspending", I can't believe the trouble this has caused them. All they had to do was point out that Osborne supported the spending plans.

Which would leave- what? Osborne claiming Labour went on a spree after 2008? Unless you think George W Bush was a free spending lefty too, that's surely untenable.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 4:31 pm

Oh how glorious to see Scotland top of the table and what a game!

Edit to add: Manners, woman! G'day

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 5:39 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:On the question Labour "overspending", I can't believe the trouble this has caused them. All they had to do was point out that Osborne supported the spending plans.

Which would leave- what? Osborne claiming Labour went on a spree after 2008? Unless you think George W Bush was a free spending lefty too, that's surely untenable.

Labour should have been much more assertive about that. To be fair, the job was made incredibly difficult by the way the media assisted the Tories and LibDems in their attacks. For instance, I remember an exchange on Any Questions which seemed fairly typical. Tim (not very nice but certainly bit dim) Montgomerie was doing usual 'clearing up Labour's mess' shtick. Labour persons interjects. Montgomerie talks over her by loudly droning in extremely patronising tone, 'I know you don't like hearing that, but that is the case,' Labour person again tries to defend their record, whereupon Dimbleby Junior jumps in to change the topic. Hence the impression, to the uninformed, that Labour person was wrong and they were right.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 5:49 pm

Hadn't noticed this one until Warwick Mansell tweeted about it. Interesting that the CEO of the New Schools network wants parents to be able to sack the HT if things are going wrong but being part of the decision about who actually runs the school? Well...

South Yorkshire parents want answers over academy sponsor pulling out

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/mai ... -1-7276611

PARENTS of pupils at a South Yorkshire primary are demanding answers over the sudden withdrawal of the academy’s sponsor after its executive head and head of school left after just over a week’s notice.

Sandhill Multi-Academy Trust wrote to parents of Brookfield Primary Academy, in Swinton, on Thursday May 14 to inform them about the departures which took place the following week.

The letter said it had decided to withdraw from Brookfield following talks with the Department for Education and the regional schools commissioner - a new role created to provide local decision making over academies.

It told parents Wakefield City Academies Trust were taking over and a meeting would take place with the new management to allow parents to ask questions.

However it did not say why Sandhill was withdrawing.

and

When asked why it was withdrawing from Brookfield the trust referred The Yorkshire Post to the regional schools commissioner. Decisions for academies in South Yorkshire are made by the commissioner for the East Midlands and Humber Jenny Bexon-Smith. A Department for Education spokesman said: “Sandhill Multi-Academy Trust has recently decided they will no longer sponsor Brookfield Primary Academy. We have chosen Wakefield City Academies Trust (WCAT) as our preferred choice to take over. They are a successful sponsor with a track record of driving up standards.”

i.e. "Sod off parents, it has nothing to do with you"

Isn't localism great?

NB the trust who is giving up converted to academy status on 1st Dec 2013 and picked up this one on 1st Jan 2014...did they find out they couldn't cope? Not surprised that the RSC doesn't want to admit that - looks like a failure of the initial decision. Ad we can't have admit to that now can we?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 5:55 pm

Ye gods, what have they done with the Independent website ?
It's horrendous.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 6:03 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:On the question Labour "overspending", I can't believe the trouble this has caused them. All they had to do was point out that Osborne supported the spending plans.

Which would leave- what? Osborne claiming Labour went on a spree after 2008? Unless you think George W Bush was a free spending lefty too, that's surely untenable.

You're making a reasonable and common mistake.
You're using logic.
Humans are irrational and easily persuaded to act contrary to their interests.
Tories and power people have more money than god.
You don't think they use their power to keep it?
Fair means or foul, preferably foul, that's right-wing fascist 101.
You notice how much fear there is in the headlines?
Did some place on the earth get recently get sucked into the timeless void leaving everyone who used to live there traipsing through Europe?
The wars and displacement activities the sojourning people seen in images are real.
They have been real for years now.
Completely irresponsible journalism.
Images of real people (I love them, want to help them) are being used to maximise anxiety, create distraction and alarm an already daunted population being made to pay for mistakes we didn't make.

We work at our endeavours in society making civilisation in exchange for currency.
It's not a perfect system but there's dignity in the exchange, at least there should be.
Dave doesn't know anything about that, does he?
So Dave must burn a £50 note in front of someone without one.
It's all he has and that was given to him, he did absolutely nothing to earn it and that is what he is celebrating!
Look at what I've got!
He's no idea who he is; just a sickening dread at bottom.
Projecting onto another fear creating hatred and contempt.
You're nobody, Dave, you're somebody, you're just like everyone.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 6:09 pm

nickyinnorfolk wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:On the question Labour "overspending", I can't believe the trouble this has caused them. All they had to do was point out that Osborne supported the spending plans.

Which would leave- what? Osborne claiming Labour went on a spree after 2008? Unless you think George W Bush was a free spending lefty too, that's surely untenable.
Labour should have been much more assertive about that. To be fair, the job was made incredibly difficult by the way the media assisted the Tories and LibDems in their attacks. For instance, I remember an exchange on Any Questions which seemed fairly typical. Tim (not very nice but certainly bit dim) Montgomerie was doing usual 'clearing up Labour's mess' shtick. Labour persons interjects. Montgomerie talks over her by loudly droning in extremely patronising tone, 'I know you don't like hearing that, but that is the case,' Labour person again tries to defend their record, whereupon Dimbleby Junior jumps in to change the topic. Hence the impression, to the uninformed, that Labour person was wrong and they were right.

[url] http://www.screenonline.org.uk/people/i ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; [URL]

In 1971, he was caught up in another storm following the broadcast of the documentary 'Yesterday's Men' (tx. 17/6/1971), in the 24 Hours strand (BBC, 1965-72), which satirised a Labour Party defeated in the previous year's general election and featured an interview with Harold Wilson in which Dimbleby questioned the ex-prime minister on the profits of his memoirs. Following objections from Wilson, cuts were made, but the programme still drew strong charges of anti-Labour bias (the BBC's defence was not helped by the appearance, in the same slot the following evening, of a considerably friendlier analysis of the Conservatives, entitled
'Mr Heath's Quiet Revolution'). Since then, Dimbleby has been a paragon of impartiality, to the extent that even friends and close colleagues have declared themselves entirely unsure which political party, if any, might win his vote.

I'd always presumed Dimbleby to be Tory,
and seeing as he was in Bullingdon club (only found out yesterday), was even more surprised to find that some people think he's left wing.

Am I missing something?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 6:13 pm

nickyinnorfolk wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:On the question Labour "overspending", I can't believe the trouble this has caused them. All they had to do was point out that Osborne supported the spending plans.

Which would leave- what? Osborne claiming Labour went on a spree after 2008? Unless you think George W Bush was a free spending lefty too, that's surely untenable.
Labour should have been much more assertive about that. To be fair, the job was made incredibly difficult by the way the media assisted the Tories and LibDems in their attacks. For instance, I remember an exchange on Any Questions which seemed fairly typical. Tim (not very nice but certainly bit dim) Montgomerie was doing usual 'clearing up Labour's mess' shtick. Labour persons interjects. Montgomerie talks over her by loudly droning in extremely patronising tone, 'I know you don't like hearing that, but that is the case,' Labour person again tries to defend their record, whereupon Dimbleby Junior jumps in to change the topic. Hence the impression, to the uninformed, that Labour person was wrong and they were right.

I think two things came (rather unfortunately) together.

Miliband and his team didn't want to spend loads of time defending the past Labour government as it might have undermined his desire to be a "fresh start" and get people looking to the future not raking over the past. That was clearly over-optimistic (even if it is always easy to be wise after the event with these things)

And, of course, some at least of the "Blairite continuity" faction pretty much endorsed the line that Labour "spent too much" (not least because it was a chance to slag off Brown, never underestimate how much that *really* matters to Ren-tool and his ilk) and that they had to "live within their means" in future. Thus massively reinforcing the meme that governments run their spending budgets just like the average household, and Labour ignored this and instead "maxed out the national credit card" (a line gleefully repeated by many LibDems, btw - despite the supposed "Keynesian" credentials of Cable et al)

Thus we had Hameron waving about *that* wretched note during this year's GE campaign, and almost certainly winning votes by doing so

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 6:22 pm

tinybgoat wrote:
nickyinnorfolk wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:On the question Labour "overspending", I can't believe the trouble this has caused them. All they had to do was point out that Osborne supported the spending plans.

Which would leave- what? Osborne claiming Labour went on a spree after 2008? Unless you think George W Bush was a free spending lefty too, that's surely untenable.
Labour should have been much more assertive about that. To be fair, the job was made incredibly difficult by the way the media assisted the Tories and LibDems in their attacks. For instance, I remember an exchange on Any Questions which seemed fairly typical. Tim (not very nice but certainly bit dim) Montgomerie was doing usual 'clearing up Labour's mess' shtick. Labour persons interjects. Montgomerie talks over her by loudly droning in extremely patronising tone, 'I know you don't like hearing that, but that is the case,' Labour person again tries to defend their record, whereupon Dimbleby Junior jumps in to change the topic. Hence the impression, to the uninformed, that Labour person was wrong and they were right.
[url] http://www.screenonline.org.uk/people/i ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; [URL]
In 1971, he was caught up in another storm following the broadcast of the documentary 'Yesterday's Men' (tx. 17/6/1971), in the 24 Hours strand (BBC, 1965-72), which satirised a Labour Party defeated in the previous year's general election and featured an interview with Harold Wilson in which Dimbleby questioned the ex-prime minister on the profits of his memoirs. Following objections from Wilson, cuts were made, but the programme still drew strong charges of anti-Labour bias (the BBC's defence was not helped by the appearance, in the same slot the following evening, of a considerably friendlier analysis of the Conservatives, entitled
'Mr Heath's Quiet Revolution'). Since then, Dimbleby has been a paragon of impartiality, to the extent that even friends and close colleagues have declared themselves entirely unsure which political party, if any, might win his vote.
I'd always presumed Dimbleby to be Tory,
and seeing as he was in Bullingdon club (only found out yesterday), was even more surprised to find that some people think he's left wing.

Am I missing something?

David Dimbleby certainly strikes me as not concealing his Tory sentiments. His little brother Jonathan does Any Questions, but he's pretty much the same politically.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 6:29 pm

I once spent a Saturday lunchtime with a clock and a chart with the names of the Any Questions panel on it as I listened.

I timed each panellist, and how long they were allowed to speak.
Can't remember who the Labour person was now, but they were, surprise surprise, interrupted more frequently, and for longer, by Dimbleby.

Sounds a little sad now doesn't it

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 6:29 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
nickyinnorfolk wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:On the question Labour "overspending", I can't believe the trouble this has caused them. All they had to do was point out that Osborne supported the spending plans.

Which would leave- what? Osborne claiming Labour went on a spree after 2008? Unless you think George W Bush was a free spending lefty too, that's surely untenable.
Labour should have been much more assertive about that. To be fair, the job was made incredibly difficult by the way the media assisted the Tories and LibDems in their attacks. For instance, I remember an exchange on Any Questions which seemed fairly typical. Tim (not very nice but certainly bit dim) Montgomerie was doing usual 'clearing up Labour's mess' shtick. Labour persons interjects. Montgomerie talks over her by loudly droning in extremely patronising tone, 'I know you don't like hearing that, but that is the case,' Labour person again tries to defend their record, whereupon Dimbleby Junior jumps in to change the topic. Hence the impression, to the uninformed, that Labour person was wrong and they were right.
I think two things came (rather unfortunately) together.

Miliband and his team didn't want to spend loads of time defending the past Labour government as it might have undermined his desire to be a "fresh start" and get people looking to the future not raking over the past. That was clearly over-optimistic (even if it is always easy to be wise after the event with these things)

And, of course, some at least of the "Blairite continuity" faction pretty much endorsed the line that Labour "spent too much" (not least because it was a chance to slag off Brown, never underestimate how much that *really* matters to Ren-tool and his ilk) and that they had to "live within their means" in future. Thus massively reinforcing the meme that governments run their spending budgets just like the average household, and Labour ignored this and instead "maxed out the national credit card" (a line gleefully repeated by many LibDems, btw - despite the supposed "Keynseian" credentials of Cable et al)

Thus we had Hameron waving about *that* wretched note during this year's GE campaign, and almost certainly winning votes by doing so

And yet, despite Labour supposedly spending all the money, Osborne has been able to pull one tax cut bunny after another out of his magic money tree hat, without a single "hang on a minute, how does the UK balance the budget by reducing its income?" from the press. It's the lack of consistency in the false narrative that really reveals the inbuilt bias. The Tories are propped up with simplistic propaganda, but if Labour tries to wield a similar simplicity to put its message across, suddenly the media remembers it understands complex economics and that "we all know government budgets don't work like household finances".

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 6:32 pm

Sending love to Mr. & Mrs. Ohso

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 6:35 pm

Ed Hollinghurst ‏@EdHollinghurst 5m5 minutes ago Kensington, London
Proud to have been involved in the launch of the new @Independent website. #drupal

Roisin O'Connor ‏@Roisin_OConnor 40m40 minutes ago
The new @Independent website is pretty fit http://independent.co.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jon StoneVerified account ‏@joncstone 43m43 minutes ago
reeeeeally pleased with the new @independent website http://www.independent.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lisa MarkwellVerified account ‏@lisamarkwell 43m43 minutes ago
Click it while it's hot! The ace new http://independent.co.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; website is live... Much kudos to the digital team for such sleekness

Am I living in an alternate universe ?
Am I the only living human being who stills views the net on a lap top and not a phone ?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 6:45 pm

Allison Pearson actually complained that the Any Questions audience last week were too biased ... there were clearly far too many left wingers apparently. She didn't like the responses they gave her answers - one shouted Rubbish as far as I can remember and they generally made clear their disapproval of what she was saying.

Jonathan Dimbleby has just been on Radio 4 explaining that the BBC doesn't pick audiences for AQ - it's like Gardeners Question Time in that they are invited by different communities so it's up to that community who turns up. And then he said he had some sympathy for Allison because she wasn't a politician and therefore not as robust as them ... apparently they are well used to such behaviour - like water off a ducks back.

Don't put yourself up as a commentator / panellist then Allison love ... if you aren't prepared for any disagreement with your views. How ridiculous.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 6:49 pm

citizenJA wrote:
HindleA wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... d-montague

Housing association chief: ‘2.5m homes built – we’re doing a good job’
David Montague, head of one of the biggest housing associations, defends his sector against attacks from the government
Thank goodness.
David Orr's unabashed support of Tory policy in a CIF article yesterday was awful (link posted below).

http://www.theguardian.com/housing-netw ... ent-future" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I just read the article and the few comments below the line.
I'm puzzled.
Montague seems a decent man doing an excellent job but I don't understand the relationship between the housing association he heads and the government.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 6:53 pm

tinybgoat wrote:... I'd always presumed Dimbleby to be Tory,
and seeing as he was in Bullingdon club (only found out yesterday), was even more surprised to find that some people think he's left wing.

Am I missing something?

I don't think you are, tiny. He's certainly no champagne socialist now, is he?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 6:59 pm

Tom Newton Dunn ‏@tnewtondunn 3h3 hours ago
A Blairite MP tells me a big chunk of the 62,000 who've joined Labour under Corbyn are Blairites trying to get their party back. Who knows.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 7:02 pm

@AnatolyKasparov

Possibly the worst of the many volte faces (can you just put an 's' on the end of that?) that LibDems displayed in 2010 wasn't the tuition fees debacle but adoption of Osborne's budget contrary to all they had said prior to the election. Of course as I tried to tell them, albeit had in reality already given them up, the final straw was passage of the Health and Welfare Reform Act some two years later.

I felt more than a little peeved to be told my support of over 40 years was no longer wanted. I am no more forgiving today.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 7:04 pm

Sweets Way occupiers report violent clashes during mass eviction
Protesters take to roofs as enforcement officers use battering rams in operation to remove activists from north London estate
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... ion-london" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The case of the final tenant, Mostafa Aliverdipour, who is severely disabled and refusing to leave because he believes the replacement home he is being offered is not appropriate, is expected to be heard in court on Wednesday afternoon.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 7:08 pm

It failed."House holding out" is the last I heard.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 7:10 pm

HindleA wrote:It failed."House holding out" is the last I heard.

That's depressing if he lost. But what does 'house holding out' mean? I'm confused.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 7:13 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:...
The case of the final tenant, Mostafa Aliverdipour, who is severely disabled and refusing to leave because he believes the replacement home he is being offered is not appropriate, is expected to be heard in court on Wednesday afternoon.

I don't remember, was it you that mentioned this earlier, rr2? Typical though in Toryland, what use is a hearing after exercising the eviction warrant?

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 7:42 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
"Care workers should stop spending as little as five minutes with the hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people who rely on their help and stay for at least half an hour, government advisers are urging."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... ve-minutes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Stop not compensating care workers for their work.

Forgive the snippy sentence above but I didn't care for the tone of the article. There was more concern about the arduous "Osborne wage", a non-living wage, was going to have to be paid to care workers soon. Perhaps the person quoted didn't mean it like that but it sounded as though they begrudged that pittance.
Was there not also a ECHR ruling that travel time=work time, if your work is not on a fixed site? Those poor sods in the care sector can spend half their day travelling from one appointment to the next for which, at present, they are not paid; with the number of Tories with their fingers in this particularly sticky pie (including the good Lord Ashcroft) I can see them fighting that ruling.

I'm pretty sure that the ECHR ruling only related to initial and final journeys of the day, ie., from home to first location and from final location to home, not for all travel time between jobs. It was about people who used to go to their local work depot to start the day and then return there at the end of the day, in which case their paid day would start and end at the dept, but who now travel straight to the first job.

Edit because @cJA got there first. As I would have known had I checked later posts - just one post later, to be precise...

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 7:47 pm

The Fabian Society ‏@thefabians 19m19 minutes ago
"Corbyn's win was a visceral reaction to four political and organisational challenges Labour failed to face up to..." http://bit.ly/1L61q6k" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's a lot that rings true for me in this piece.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 7:58 pm

Another unhelpful 'intervention' - this time in Wales. Why is it I'm only hearing / seeing reports of this inevitable civil war from certain MPs and former MPs / advisers of a previous era but none, as far as I am aware, from those supporting Corbyn or the majority who want to give him some time and are prepared to listen and work towards a unified approach.

Civil war within the Labour Party is inevitable following Jeremy Corbyn's election as leader, a former Foreign Office minister has said.
Kim Howells said Labour must reconcile its differences to have a chance of winning the 2020 general election.
Despite Mr Corbyn's landslide win, Mr Howells said winning the votes of the wider electorate is a different matter.
Welsh Labour said: "The party is united in our aim to deliver another Labour government in Wales next year."
Asked how he would respond to recent events if he were still an MP, Mr Howells told BBC Wales' Week in Week Out programme: "I'd be bitterly opposed to the current leadership of the Labour Party.
"I'd be saying things that I believe about the need to win political power and a bunch of old Trotskyites are not going win political power."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-34331389" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good to see some sense from Huw Irranca Davies in response to this. Don't think I want to watch this programme tonight though. Will probably just make me angry to see more needless stirring.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 8:10 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
There was a third factor, of which the exchange someone set out above is an example, which is that it took the broadcast media, and the BBC in particular, far too long to adjust to coalition politics. For the best part of a year, on any political panel debate programme, it was so common to have a Tory and a LibDem who would 'tag team' against Labour, and the broadcasters effectively let it happen.

I'm pretty sure that right up to the election on QT they had both a Tory and LibDem.

I forget who it was but there was an analysis of Right/Left/Centre QT guests this year but that ignored the fact that for much of the time, the LibDem was simply parroting the Coalition line.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 8:29 pm

UtopianFireman ‏@UtopianFireman 27 mins27 minutes ago

Labour Party membership is today 358,000. That's a rise of 157,000 full members since May. Not all down to Corbyn, but still.... Wow.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 8:38 pm

yahyah wrote:Ye gods, what have they done with the Independent website ?
It's horrendous.

It's certainly different. But my eyes quite like it.

We are currently trialling our new-look independent.co.uk website - please send any feedback to beta@independent.co.uk

I wonder whether or not they'll take as much notice of feedback as the Graun does...

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 9:21 pm

yahyah wrote:Ed Hollinghurst ‏@EdHollinghurst 5m5 minutes ago Kensington, London
Proud to have been involved in the launch of the new @Independent website. #drupal

Roisin O'Connor ‏@Roisin_OConnor 40m40 minutes ago
The new @Independent website is pretty fit http://independent.co.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jon StoneVerified account ‏@joncstone 43m43 minutes ago
reeeeeally pleased with the new @independent website http://www.independent.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lisa MarkwellVerified account ‏@lisamarkwell 43m43 minutes ago
Click it while it's hot! The ace new http://independent.co.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; website is live... Much kudos to the digital team for such sleekness

Am I living in an alternate universe ?
Am I the only living human being who stills views the net on a lap top and not a phone ?

Far from it. Well, there's me at least

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 10:02 pm

utopiandreams wrote:@AnatolyKasparov

Possibly the worst of the many volte faces (can you just put an 's' on the end of that?) that LibDems displayed in 2010 wasn't the tuition fees debacle but adoption of Osborne's budget contrary to all they had said prior to the election. Of course as I tried to tell them, albeit had in reality already given them up, the final straw was passage of the Health and Welfare Reform Act some two years later.

I felt more than a little peeved to be told my support of over 40 years was no longer wanted. I am no more forgiving today.

The plural of volte-face is volte-face - well, it is in French because it derives from Italian. I'm not surprised you don't feel any more forgiving now than then. I've never been a Lib/LibDem supporter but still felt every one of their demi-tours like a blow to the stomach.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 10:18 pm

utopiandreams wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:...
The case of the final tenant, Mostafa Aliverdipour, who is severely disabled and refusing to leave because he believes the replacement home he is being offered is not appropriate, is expected to be heard in court on Wednesday afternoon.
I don't remember, was it you that mentioned this earlier, rr2? Typical though in Toryland, what use is a hearing after exercising the eviction warrant?

The eviction warrants for this morning were against the squatters and activists who were there. Mr. Aliverdipour and his family were, I'm pretty sure, the last remaining tenants on the estate.

Am I the only person who's been here for the past couple of hours? Hope everyone's ok and that nothing's happened to the planet...
Edit to add: Ah, clearly not...

WelshIan · Post by **WelshIan** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 10:25 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Another unhelpful 'intervention' - this time in Wales. Why is it I'm only hearing / seeing reports of this inevitable civil war from certain MPs and former MPs / advisers of a previous era but none, as far as I am aware, from those supporting Corbyn or the majority who want to give him some time and are prepared to listen and work towards a unified approach.

Civil war within the Labour Party is inevitable following Jeremy Corbyn's election as leader, a former Foreign Office minister has said.
Kim Howells said Labour must reconcile its differences to have a chance of winning the 2020 general election.
Despite Mr Corbyn's landslide win, Mr Howells said winning the votes of the wider electorate is a different matter.
Welsh Labour said: "The party is united in our aim to deliver another Labour government in Wales next year."
Asked how he would respond to recent events if he were still an MP, Mr Howells told BBC Wales' Week in Week Out programme: "I'd be bitterly opposed to the current leadership of the Labour Party.
"I'd be saying things that I believe about the need to win political power and a bunch of old Trotskyites are not going win political power."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-34331389" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good to see some sense from Huw Irranca Davies in response to this. Don't think I want to watch this programme tonight though. Will probably just make me angry to see more needless stirring.

Kim Howells in May:

"If the Labour party doesn't come up with fresh thinking, with some radical analysis of what's going on in society and what people need out of society, it could well dwindle to a very small number of MPs."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-32863727" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obviously not the radical analysis that he wanted, even if Corbyn's stance is not 'fresh thinking' although it is new to a lot of people.

Good evening all.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Wed 23 Sep, 2015 11:10 pm

Hello again, @Welshian - good to see you hereabouts