Tuesday 19th January 2016

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 6:15 am

Morning all.

After the GE polling fiasco there's a slight acceptance by Laura Kuenssberg that the political journalists were concentrating on coalition ramifications instead of analysis of manifestos, especially the Conservatives.

Election 2015 polls: Why were they so wrong? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35347949" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 6:36 am

Good-morning, everyone.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 6:56 am

A long read regarding the Living Wage / Dividends payment idea put forward by Corbyn.

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/0 ... -wage.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A couple of other ramblings.

I notice that the Conservatives (Osborne especially) is cut a lot of slack regarding some of his policy ideas that he has to water down, row back slightly on. Initially these are portrayed as bold, an indication of him being a political chancellor, a reference to wrongfooting Labour is made by the political journalists and correspondents. Rarely is there a mention of whether such (initial) ideas are popular(or not) with the public. If his true aim was claiming half the cake despite his pronouncement to claim three quarters it's job well done.

For Labour, my gut feeling is that if they claim they want three quarters of the cake and row back to claiming half that the spin applied would be that they've still got plans to claim the quarter. Just you wait Joe Public.

Finally. Is it possible for an opposition to follow such a strategy? Do they have to be more rigid in their claimed intentions (irrespective of party) because they don't have control over the fluidity of government policies being implemented?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 7:25 am

General election opinion poll failure down to not reaching Tory voters
The long-awaited postmortem on behalf of the British Polling Council...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ory-voters" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Emerging findings across the industry point to a series of key groups who were underrepresented in the polling:

- The oldest voters: the over-70s, who broke heavily for the Tories, were not reflected in YouGov’s online internet
panels
- Young non-voters: the under-30s generally lean left, but very often fail to turn out on polling day. The pollsters,
however, reached an atypical bunch of youngsters, who were unusually engaged with politics and committed to
voting
- Busy voters: in the face-to-face British Social Attitudes survey, Labour was six points ahead among respondents
who answered the door at the first visit, whereas the Tories enjoyed an 11-point advantage among interviewees
that required between three and six home visits. Even after adjusting for social class and age, those easy-to-reach
voters are less Conservative than those “busy” respondents the pollsters have to work hard to chase.

(my bold)
Seriously? Pollsters visited houses six times in order to nab a voting intention?

The Sturgis review considered in detail a total of 27 polls from nine British
Polling Council members, across the short election campaign last year.

- In total this data contained 47,196 individual respondents.
It is a mark of how close a result the polls predicted that of these
respondents,
- 15,291 said they intended to vote Conservative,
statistically indistinguishable from the
- 15,368 who said they
would vote Labour.

Haven't gone below the line yet to check out how the story is panning out there.
Busy Tory voters? Younger voters polled following through voting Labour but other
young likely Labour voters didn't vote? But the pollsters happened to find the young
Labour voters who did go out and vote? What? These are the meagre reasons behind
the UK GE 2015 Polling Débâcle? I want a re-count of the whole UK 2015 GE, please.

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 7:42 am

Morning. I'm sure you will all be thrilled to note that Nick Robinson's spine still tingles when he recalls the 2015 exit poll.

I bet it does.

Hopefully we will be spared Laura telling us where it made her tingle.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 7:46 am

StephenDolan wrote:I notice that the Conservatives (Osborne especially) is cut a lot of slack regarding some of his policy ideas that he has to water down, row back slightly on. Initially these are portrayed as bold, an indication of him being a political chancellor, a reference to wrongfooting Labour is made by the political journalists and correspondents. Rarely is there a mention of whether such (initial) ideas are popular(or not) with the public. If his true aim was claiming half the cake despite his pronouncement to claim three quarters it's job well done.

For Labour, my gut feeling is that if they claim they want three quarters of the cake and row back to claiming half that the spin applied would be that they've still got plans to claim the quarter. Just you wait Joe Public.

Finally. Is it possible for an opposition to follow such a strategy? Do they have to be more rigid in their claimed intentions (irrespective of party) because they don't have control over the fluidity of government policies being implemented?

Yes.
That's my short answer to everything you've written, StephenDolan.
Osborne is an unpleasant failure we've the misfortune to find Chancellor of the UK.
His ideological fiscal game he plays with the UK economy is wrong and yet he's
never thoroughly made to take responsibility for his serial failures. He gets a free
ride in the press. What he have to do to get fired? I shudder to think.

Labour doesn't deserve the relentless bad press and inaccurate, incomplete portrayal
it receives in media. I've made it my business to study Labour MPs, councillors and
policy. What I find in reality isn't what's plastered on the front page and it's frightening.
Certain publications lean where ever they want, fine, yeah, but supposedly impartial news
outlets aren't being fair to Labour in general and that's dangerous to democracy. People
can't make appropriate judgements if they've not been given accurate information. I've
the good fortune to have time to study, most people don't.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 7:56 am

NonOxCol wrote:Morning. I'm sure you will all be thrilled to note that Nick Robinson's spine still tingles when he recalls the 2015 exit poll.

I bet it does.

Hopefully we will be spared Laura telling us where it made her tingle.

I'd be fine with Robinson's tingling spine and Laura's sensations if it meant country and people were competently led. No joking around, Nick R., I guess it's okay for you and yours for the time being. Through no fault of their own, too many people are living lives unduly harsh, careers eroded, talent underutilised for personal and societal benefit because of right-wing leadership without honour, justice or capacity to lead the UK well. I don't support Labour as if it's sport. I support Labour because it's the political party in a position to do far better leading people and country. It was a mistake not returning a Labour government in 2015. I wish I were wrong.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 8:00 am

NonOxCol wrote:Morning. I'm sure you will all be thrilled to note that Nick Robinson's spine still tingles when he recalls the 2015 exit poll.

I bet it does.

Hopefully we will be spared Laura telling us where it made her tingle.

Radio 4 told us this morning how Robinson, ex-Murdochite James Harding, Jeremy Vine, & Dimbelby all were stunned to hear the exit poll giving the Tories a majority.

Can't believe there weren't a few broad smiles, and champagne put on ice for later consumption.
There were probably whoops of joy.
Ok, it meant they had to scrabble around to change some of their news presentation of the results, but can't imagine even one of them feeling a heavy heart to hear that Labour had lost.

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 8:11 am

"Busy Tories" is rather insidiously becoming a thing, isn't it?

My thanks to the polling companies for legitimising a lazy stereotype.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 8:17 am

NonOxCol wrote:"Busy Tories" is rather insidiously becoming a thing, isn't it?

My thanks to the polling companies for legitimising a lazy stereotype.

Rather dog whistle isn't it ?

'Busy' Tories as opposed to idle, inactive, lazy, unemployed Labour types who are at home ?

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 8:46 am

Good morning, all.

Having read Frank Filed's Civitas paper, I remain astounded that some people think he is the fount of all wisdom and knowledge on benefits.
This paper is about in-work benefits only. It's rubbish.

He thinks that "Efforts to get people off out-of-work benefits have produced considerable successes". Really?
He thinks that the non-working poor shouldn't end up the working poor.
Earth to Frank - too late, that's exactly what has already happened.

He also thinks that payment-by-results for Work Programme providers should be "recalibrated" to help people who face "the steepest barriers to work" and he wants "early referrals to the new Work and Health Programme".
Earth to Frank - the PBR is already more generous for the hardest-to-help and the new programme is Health and Work not the reverse.

He says "The conditionality attached to the receipt of benefit may have made work an easier option"
Earth to Frank - it has always been "easier" to work and be paid than to claim a pittance and be sanctioned.

There's a bit more of this bilge, dressed up as research when it's just (badly formed) opinion. He goes on to offer a 5-point plan, which he says will "build around the revolutionary idea that the chancellor has introduced ......... namely of introducing a National Living Wage".
Earth to Frank - everyone but you can see what a joke that is.

He has a moan about Universal Credit, but focuses on the missing support for council tax and free school meals - as if that was the only issue.
Earth to Frank - UC is a fucking car crash for ALL claimants.

Finally, he opines that this "5 point plan" will begin the process of "transferring the responsibility for lower earners' welfare to employers (WTF?) and the Department for Business, innovation, and Skills, and away from DWP and HMRC".
Earth to Frank - it is already the responsibility of employers to pay decent wages. They just won't.

Along with all this, he wants tax credits and other support to be confined to people with children. So the singles can starve, presumably.

Nowhere does he say that, actually, many of the people with "the steepest barriers to work" have them because they are sick or disabled or have caring responsibilities 24/7.

He might as well be a Tory.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 9:20 am

Nick Robinson ‏@bbcnickrobinson 2h2 hours ago
Polls best way to test national mood - even if flawed. Lesson of last election is don't allow journalism to be dictated by polls #r4today

Morning.

That's one we ought to save for posterity maybe. Will probably need to wheel it out at regular intervals to remind ourselves, others and Robinson / The Beeb what he said when they revert to type before every election.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 9:27 am

Ben Bradshaw ‏@BenPBradshaw 1h1 hour ago
Commentariat too relaxed re pollsters' failure. Affected result. Election dominated by hung parliament talk instead of likely Tory majority.

Ben Bradshaw ‏@BenPBradshaw 12m12 minutes ago
Until the pollsters spend enough to produce accurate forecasts we must subtract 3% from @UKLabour & add 3% to the Tories in every poll.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 9:29 am

Sophy Ridge ‏@SophyRidgeSky 7m7 minutes ago
Zac Goldsmith launches his campaign to be London Mayor, saying his "absolute priority" is fixing the housing crisis

Sophy Ridge ‏@SophyRidgeSky 2m2 minutes ago
Zac Goldsmith says Sadiq Khan is "a caricature machine politician" who is "Jeremy Corbyn's candidate"

Nice.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 9:30 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Sophy Ridge ‏@SophyRidgeSky 7m7 minutes ago
Zac Goldsmith launches his campaign to be London Mayor, saying his "absolute priority" is fixing the housing crisis

Sophy Ridge ‏@SophyRidgeSky 2m2 minutes ago
Zac Goldsmith says Sadiq Khan is "a caricature machine politician" who is "Jeremy Corbyn's candidate"
Nice.

Stay classy Zac.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 9:36 am

Teacher recruitment ‘a mess’ as every school slugs it out for itself
Abandoning government control of teacher supply has caused shortages in some regions and subjects and a surplus in others – just as pupil numbers soar
http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... -shortages" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... Recruitment for subjects such as geography, RE, maths and physics are falling short of government targets. “We just aren’t attracting enough teachers to meet future demand and to compensate for those leaving before they should,” says Howson. The policy landscape is, he claims, “a mess”.

The decision taken by the former education secretary Michael Gove to relinquish central government responsibility for teacher supply in 2011 now looks increasingly flawed, especially in the light of last week’s revelations about the chronic shortage of school places. Prof Chris Husbands, who recently moved from being director of the UCL Institute of Education to vice-chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University, another large teacher education provider, explains: “The government largely abandoned the national teacher supply model. So it has no clear idea how many teachers it needs as it has by and large abandoned planning. It assumes schools can predict their supply needs, but they can’t. That’s the strategy that is not working.”

A diversification of teacher training routes with a strong preference for school-based schemes, such as School Direct – to which candidates apply directly – rather than university-based courses, also appears to be failing. The government dictates the number of training places in each subject, but there is little central direction about where they are taken up. This year’s recruitment round, for 2016 entry, resulted in a situation where the highly rated Cambridge University history PGCE course almost folded overnight, because the national allocation for history trainees had been filled before the university had started to offer places...

But don't worry folks. It's all alright really because the government won't 'recognise' this situation. And Nicky Morgan is setting up a website for parents worried about radicalisation. That'll solve everything.

Dog whistle being applied to everything.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 10:07 am

I remember the tingle I felt when I read the result of the first exit poll. It was roughly the same as the one I had the first time I watched "Don't Look Now" when the little girl in the shiny red raincoat turned out to be the wrinkle-faced dwarf woman who promptly stabbed Donald Sutherland in the neck. Pretty much the same outcome, too.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 10:42 am

The polls aren't the problem, it's what the media does with them.

All the routine internet and phone polls are good for is tracking changes in sentiment in the groups they represent, not entirely useless but almost so, given that relatively small numbers of people actually change their minds about anything.

If they don't have a proper random sample the result is rubbish and the media should report it as such. Some hope.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 11:02 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Ben Bradshaw ‏@BenPBradshaw 1h1 hour ago
Commentariat too relaxed re pollsters' failure. Affected result. Election dominated by hung parliament talk instead of likely Tory majority.

Ben Bradshaw ‏@BenPBradshaw 12m12 minutes ago
Until the pollsters spend enough to produce accurate forecasts we must subtract 3% from @UKLabour & add 3% to the Tories in every poll.

Aren't the pollsters effectively doing what he says now?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 11:12 am

ephemerid wrote:Good morning, all.

Having read Frank Filed's Civitas paper, I remain astounded that some people think he is the fount of all wisdom and knowledge on benefits.
This paper is about in-work benefits only. It's rubbish.

He thinks that "Efforts to get people off out-of-work benefits have produced considerable successes". Really?
He thinks that the non-working poor shouldn't end up the working poor.
Earth to Frank - too late, that's exactly what has already happened.

He also thinks that payment-by-results for Work Programme providers should be "recalibrated" to help people who face "the steepest barriers to work" and he wants "early referrals to the new Work and Health Programme".
Earth to Frank - the PBR is already more generous for the hardest-to-help and the new programme is Health and Work not the reverse.

He says "The conditionality attached to the receipt of benefit may have made work an easier option"
Earth to Frank - it has always been "easier" to work and be paid than to claim a pittance and be sanctioned.

There's a bit more of this bilge, dressed up as research when it's just (badly formed) opinion. He goes on to offer a 5-point plan, which he says will "build around the revolutionary idea that the chancellor has introduced ......... namely of introducing a National Living Wage".
Earth to Frank - everyone but you can see what a joke that is.

He has a moan about Universal Credit, but focuses on the missing support for council tax and free school meals - as if that was the only issue.
Earth to Frank - UC is a fucking car crash for ALL claimants.

Finally, he opines that this "5 point plan" will begin the process of "transferring the responsibility for lower earners' welfare to employers (WTF?) and the Department for Business, innovation, and Skills, and away from DWP and HMRC".
Earth to Frank - it is already the responsibility of employers to pay decent wages. They just won't.

Along with all this, he wants tax credits and other support to be confined to people with children. So the singles can starve, presumably.

Nowhere does he say that, actually, many of the people with "the steepest barriers to work" have them because they are sick or disabled or have caring responsibilities 24/7.

He might as well be a Tory.

I posted this on my local Labour party FB page. Our local agent is very impressed with your writing. He asked if you had tried getting a dialogue going with Frank Field? If you did, he'd be very interested in his responses ...
I said there seemed to be a lack of interest, and you were pretty disgusted with policy or lack of it, and had recently resigned because you were fed up with the antics of some MPs.

I hope you don't mind that I did that. You write so clearly and passionately about DWP and health issues and we have a couple of local members who I suspect are so right wing, they're liable to disappear off the side of the page.

The other day because I posted a link to a decent article in the Morning Star, one of them felt obliged to inform me it was - gasp - a communist paper...

I replied the Mail, Telegraph etc were right wing. What was his point? No answer yet.

Maeght · Post by **Maeght** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 11:25 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Teacher recruitment ‘a mess’ as every school slugs it out for itself
Abandoning government control of teacher supply has caused shortages in some regions and subjects and a surplus in others – just as pupil numbers soar
http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... -shortages" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... Recruitment for subjects such as geography, RE, maths and physics are falling short of government targets. “We just aren’t attracting enough teachers to meet future demand and to compensate for those leaving before they should,” says Howson. The policy landscape is, he claims, “a mess”.

The decision taken by the former education secretary Michael Gove to relinquish central government responsibility for teacher supply in 2011 now looks increasingly flawed, especially in the light of last week’s revelations about the chronic shortage of school places. Prof Chris Husbands, who recently moved from being director of the UCL Institute of Education to vice-chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University, another large teacher education provider, explains: “The government largely abandoned the national teacher supply model. So it has no clear idea how many teachers it needs as it has by and large abandoned planning. It assumes schools can predict their supply needs, but they can’t. That’s the strategy that is not working.”

A diversification of teacher training routes with a strong preference for school-based schemes, such as School Direct – to which candidates apply directly – rather than university-based courses, also appears to be failing. The government dictates the number of training places in each subject, but there is little central direction about where they are taken up. This year’s recruitment round, for 2016 entry, resulted in a situation where the highly rated Cambridge University history PGCE course almost folded overnight, because the national allocation for history trainees had been filled before the university had started to offer places...
But don't worry folks. It's all alright really because the government won't 'recognise' this situation. And Nicky Morgan is setting up a website for parents worried about radicalisation. That'll solve everything.

Dog whistle being applied to everything.

I am an ex -teacher and an ex- teacher trainer (secondary) but have been retired for some years. Nevertheless I still feel outraged by the incompetence of the government during the last few years.

I agree completely with Prof Chris Husbands - “The government largely abandoned the national teacher supply model. So it has no clear idea how many teachers it needs as it has by and large abandoned planning. It assumes schools can predict their supply needs, but they can’t. That’s the strategy that is not working.”

In fact I think things are probably worse than is set out in the article.

I’m not at all surprised that the Schools Direct scheme appears to be failing. This is precisely because schools, unless they are big and have spare capacity + teachers who actually want to do it long term, do not actually have the time to organise everything. If you don’t believe me just go into a large secondary school (at least 1000 pupils); preferably on a wet morning at break time, near the end of term.

University departments have the expertise and the experience and they pass this on to new teacher trainers who actually have to be good teachers, despite what people who were at school many years ago say. Furthermore they have been running partnership schemes with schools for about 20 years. No University dept. does courses where the students are not in school for at least 50% of the time. A PGCE these days is really hard work.

If I were a conspiracy theorist I would be ruminating on whether the people who changed teacher training are the same ones who want all schools to be academies i.e. centralise/ semi- privatise everything and then try to control what’s said about it. And don’t get me started on ‘teachers just need to learn on the job like apprentices’.
But I tend to think it’s all probably a c*** up as usual.

Please excuse any inaccuracies or exaggerations. Many of the comments BTL on this article just made me mad!

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 11:32 am

StephenDolan wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Sophy Ridge ‏@SophyRidgeSky 7m7 minutes ago
Zac Goldsmith launches his campaign to be London Mayor, saying his "absolute priority" is fixing the housing crisis

Sophy Ridge ‏@SophyRidgeSky 2m2 minutes ago
Zac Goldsmith says Sadiq Khan is "a caricature machine politician" who is "Jeremy Corbyn's candidate"
Nice.
Stay classy Zac.

Crosby's baleful influence.

I wonder whether it might actually backfire - Goldsmith is degraded by resorting to gutter politics. He's always seemed like a bit of a throwback to when the Tories weren't a bunch of lying, amoral spivs. I still wouldn't have voted for him but he didn't appear to be a total slimeball.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 11:35 am

There is also the point that being labelled as "Jeremy Corbyn's candidate" might not be such a bad thing in this election?

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 11:39 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:There is also the point that being labelled as "Jeremy Corbyn's candidate" might not be such a bad thing in this election?

Yes, given that London is generally more left wing - and possibly a bit more sophisticated compared to the UK as a whole - trying to portray Corbyn as the big bad bogeyman isn't going to be that effective. Corbyn's calm and reasonable demeanour is winning people over.

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 11:42 am

Michelle Dorrell, the Question Time tax credits lady, is going to speak at a Momentum event with John McDonnell.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01 ... 16000.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 11:48 am

ephemerid wrote:Good morning, all.

Having read Frank Filed's Civitas paper, I remain astounded that some people think he is the fount of all wisdom and knowledge on benefits.
This paper is about in-work benefits only. It's rubbish.

He thinks that "Efforts to get people off out-of-work benefits have produced considerable successes". Really?
He thinks that the non-working poor shouldn't end up the working poor.
Earth to Frank - too late, that's exactly what has already happened.

He also thinks that payment-by-results for Work Programme providers should be "recalibrated" to help people who face "the steepest barriers to work" and he wants "early referrals to the new Work and Health Programme".
Earth to Frank - the PBR is already more generous for the hardest-to-help and the new programme is Health and Work not the reverse.

He says "The conditionality attached to the receipt of benefit may have made work an easier option"
Earth to Frank - it has always been "easier" to work and be paid than to claim a pittance and be sanctioned.

There's a bit more of this bilge, dressed up as research when it's just (badly formed) opinion. He goes on to offer a 5-point plan, which he says will "build around the revolutionary idea that the chancellor has introduced ......... namely of introducing a National Living Wage".
Earth to Frank - everyone but you can see what a joke that is.

He has a moan about Universal Credit, but focuses on the missing support for council tax and free school meals - as if that was the only issue.
Earth to Frank - UC is a fucking car crash for ALL claimants.

Finally, he opines that this "5 point plan" will begin the process of "transferring the responsibility for lower earners' welfare to employers (WTF?) and the Department for Business, innovation, and Skills, and away from DWP and HMRC".
Earth to Frank - it is already the responsibility of employers to pay decent wages. They just won't.

Along with all this, he wants tax credits and other support to be confined to people with children. So the singles can starve, presumably.

Nowhere does he say that, actually, many of the people with "the steepest barriers to work" have them because they are sick or disabled or have caring responsibilities 24/7.

He might as well be a Tory.

I can only thank you and HindleA for comments on this report. I took most of last night to read it and came to the same cpnclusion, and was bewildered that others could not see it too. Even when talking of Tax Credits I could see not sympathy for the really low paid, only a determination that they should find more work by whatever means. He does not address the anomalies at the top end. No mention either of the difference between sickness and disability or the crossover either. No acknowlegement of the role of carers, paid and unpaid, and while he doens't mention the word scroungers, theres enough on strivers to make me feel rather sick.

And then the report says, more or less, do these things and the problem is, for sure, solved, whatever, and there is no need for UC. It is magical thinking!

I 'm seeing first hand in my family the results of these heinous things, there must be thousands upon thousands doing the same why isn't he calling the Tories out, not on the failure of their grandiose ideas, but the devastation those ideas are having on real peoples lives. It's a nice little acceptably semi-critical bit of eyewash that the Tories will wholly ignore unless it suits them and they want to win some brownie points. Forget about the real human consequences, lets talk statistics like the big boys do. He is cold as ice on this,and tbh I never really saw him as any different.

I know nothing about his co-author, but don't feel I want to.

They both still think you can cure things like missing limbs, cognitive loss, intractable chronic conditions, cancers, through work, brutal assessment regimes, and just a tad less punishment. There is no compassion or empathy. I guess I am showing my anger.

Post by **refitman** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 11:51 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:There is also the point that being labelled as "Jeremy Corbyn's candidate" might not be such a bad thing in this election?

Yes. They seem to have forgotten Islington is in London.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 11:58 am

StephenDolan wrote:Morning all.

After the GE polling fiasco there's a slight acceptance by Laura Kuenssberg that the political journalists were concentrating on coalition ramifications instead of analysis of manifestos, especially the Conservatives.

Election 2015 polls: Why were they so wrong? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35347949" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I haven't time to go back and check them all, but I know that Ashcroft's marginal poll for NE Somerset was bang on, so if he managed to ask the right people, how come the others didn't? The Ashcroft marginal polls looked good for Labour about a year out, but when he went back in the run up to the election there had been a big swing in the Tories' favour. The Indy ref and ensuing conference season was disastrous for Labour, with a strong sense it was falling away, strong enough for rumours of a leadership challenge. The polls failed to reflect this. I suggest anyone in polling who knew their stuff would have seen what was happening in Ashcrofts marginals polls, put that together with a series of difficulties for Labour and would have been able to at least suspect their national polls weren't giving the whole picture - but all the pollsters are Tories and would have been happy to publish dodgy polls that made left wing voters complacent and right wing voters worried enough to get off their butts.

I had a stressful day in store the day after election day, so needed a good night's sleep. I was listening to the news just before the polls closed and they were just about to release the exit polls, when I suddenly decided it would be better not to know as I'd be up all night fretting. A presentiment? Maybe. I'd been worried since the Libdems lost their longstanding South West MEP. I knew they'd be wiped out by the Tories in the south and wasn't sure if Labour would benefit from a Libdem collapse further north. My point being, I'm not a polling expert, yet I had read at least some of the signs of what eventually happened. I refuse to believe the experts failed to see it coming, they just weren't motivated to question polls that suited their agenda.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 12:01 pm

Flip chart Rick on self-employment, worth a read as usual.
https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.c ... ge-closer/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
One of the comments BTL makes ephe's point about the implications of UC.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 12:18 pm

Morning all.

Had a meeting of our teaching alliance this morning looking at future developments.

The subject of governance came up and the EAct abolishing local governing bodies was mentioned by our HT (who I emailed last night about it).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35347602

Jaws dropped. Eyes widened.

"Can they do that?" asks one senior HT i.e. are they allowed to

"Oh yes"

Interesting times ahead given Cameron's wish that all schools become academies by 2020 - I can foresee some opposition on the grounds of "Why would we want to be in a chain that would do that to us?"

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 12:37 pm

Sun Corbyn Marr Show Smears Busted
Among the audience watching The Andy Marr Show (tm) last Sunday was the Sun’s deputy political editor Steve Hawkes, although his purpose was not to impart information to the paper’s unfortunate readers, but generate knocking copy from the host’s interview with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2016/ ... usted.html

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 12:43 pm

OhSo - of course I don't mind.
You must feel free to re-post any of my stuff anywhere you like - consider this my informed consent!

I see no point in attempting any dialogue with Field. I take the view that he buys into the myth that he is an expert, and I think he's arrogant.
He really doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.....

Before the GE, when Labour members were asked to submit policy ideas to the Your Britain website, I did so (with many others).
I got a good response from a few people; there were some people on various policy committees etc. (not MPs) who said they'd pass on the comments; the idea was that we would be informed if any of our ideas were then put forward for further discussion.
Like many others who contributed in this way, there was no follow up at all. I don't think that this is because the ideas were useless; I don't think it's because people lower down in the heirarchy didn't try; I think it's because the top bods at the time were engaged in a cosmetic exercise and there was no real intention to consider (let alone act on) ideas put forward by ordinary members.

After the GE, during the leadership election, and since, we have witnessed some real arrogance at what was then the top of the party.
That's why I don't believe that the Your Britain thing was ever serious.
Ed himself was probably very keen - but he was a busy guy and a lot of things got left to others. After he went, the petulance and sulking was appalling; I have zero interest in engaging with people who were part of that.

Field is a law unto himself, a legend in his own lunchtime, and being the Chair of the W&P Select Committee has just inflated his self-image.

I'll be watching Smith and Abrahams with interest; they are people who could be good - if they are willing to listen.

We have to get away from this idea that workworkworkworkwork is the only thing that alleviates poverty.
A properly functioning social security system does that too - and we will be waiting a very long time for that if Field has anything to do with it.
We need a living wage now; we need rent controls now; we need a massive housebuilding programme now; we need to stop beating up the poor.

I have been living the nightmare of being dependent on benefits for some time. I am like millions of others in my dread of the brown envelope.
I have zero prospect of ever being in paid employment again, and thanks to pension changes I have to put up with this for another 6 years.

Frank Field and the Labour "moderates" with their shiny suits and their resignations and their stroppiness in not getting the top job because they happen to be female...whatever......have no idea what it's like to be me. They do not represent my interests any more than the Tories do.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 12:44 pm

Sorry to hear that Glenn Frey of the Eagles has died.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 12:54 pm

Ashcroft may have got NE Somerset right in his polling, but many of his other constituency surveys were way off (a few even *over*stated the actual Tory performance)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 1:14 pm

Good morfternoon.

Sadiq Khan winning in London will be bad news for the Labour Party

Two guesses . . . .

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 1:22 pm

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

Sadiq Khan winning in London will be bad news for the Labour Party
Two guesses . . . .

El Beardo?

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 1:22 pm

And now.......the NAO report on local provision for hardship.......

This, in contrast to the Field/Forsey offering, is, like, a real report!

When the coalition government effectively abolished Crisis Loans and Community Care grants, many of us predicted that by giving the responsibility for such provision to LAs would lead to a postcode lottery - and Lo! It came to pass.....

On the plus side - the NAO has reported that more deprived areas have had better funding for this than the better-off areas.

On the minus side - well, where to start?

The report says that 78% of all councils underspent their first tranche of funding in 2013/14. The reasons varied, but it's just as well that they did, because the subsequent years have shown a fall in central funding (as predicted) and some councils use their underspends to cover the loss.

There's a lot of information in this report - as you would expect from the NAO - but what bothers me most about it comes at the end.
After various criticisms of how DWP managed the transition and how councils are failing in certain aspects of it, the report says this - "People who sought help through crisis loans and community care grants could now be getting help from other public services or charities, or turning to credit providers for finance to meet short-term needs" and "As a result of changes in the support available, peoples' short-term needs may be going unmet, which could result in greater costs to the public sector if their problems escalate". No shit, Sherlock.

Some councils will give you a fridge. But you have to get a food bank voucher from them before you can put anything in it.
Some councils will give you a pre-paid supermarket card. But they'll not give you the cash you need to pay a bill or get a bus.
Some councils will only help if your benefits are means-tested. So tough luck if you're on conts-based JSA on a sanction.

Since 2010, statutory homelessness has increased by 55% overall, with more than 100,000 children in temporary accommodation.
Since 2010, the Trussell Trust alone has issued more than 2.5 Million emergency food parcels.

Most of this can be attributed to changes in social security - whether it's out-of-work benefits, in-work benefits, council tax charges, bedroom tax, changes to the hours of qualification for tax credits, increased and more punitive sanctions, mandatory recons and the wait for appeal with no benefit, charges, fines, the long wait for a first Universal Credit, the 7-day wait for a first JSA registration, delays, and cock-ups......

It's a mess. The NAO couches its' language carefully (and does not mention most of the stuff that I think are the cause of most of the increased poverty and hardship we are seeing now) but clearly there are some serious problems with local hardship provision.

Still, IDS has announced that all those people on ESA who are not as ill as they think they are should be doing work for 10 hours that will be found for them. Where will that be, I wonder? A workhouse?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 1:23 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Ashcroft may have got NE Somerset right in his polling, but many of his other constituency surveys were way off (a few even *over*stated the actual Tory performance)

Thanks. I had a vague feeling the others showed Tory swings as well but didn't know how accurate they were. Still, it does highlight how he got very different results from his polling. The really suspicious thing about the national polls was that they were all wrong in exactly the same way, just as they were in 2010 with the Libdems being over estimated by everyone. Was that because of "lazy Labour"? No, of course not. Back in 2010 Labour voters turned out in higher numbers than predicted. I stand by my assessment that the report on why the polls got it wrong is complete hogwash. I was randomly phone polled on my mobile in the run up to the election - they tried 3 times before I was free to do a survey. Am I really to believe such a survey only found lazy Labour voters and no motivated Tories? The polls need much bigger samples and more oversight if they are to win back trust.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 1:26 pm

Bigger samples don't actually make much difference, in themselves.

Quite a few surveys in the last parliament were rushed out on the cheap, however.

And there is a persistent suspicion that certain polling companies were often more interested in sensational results than accurate ones........

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 1:59 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Bigger samples don't actually make much difference, in themselves.

Quite a few surveys in the last parliament were rushed out on the cheap, however.

And there is a persistent suspicion that certain polling companies were often more interested in sensational results than accurate ones........[/quote
http://www.robertniles.com/stats/margin.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sometimes you'll see polls with anywhere from 600 to 1,800 people, all promising the same margin of error. That's because pollsters often want to break down their poll results by the gender, age, race or income of the people in the sample. To do that, the pollster needs to have enough women, for example, in the overall sample to ensure a reasonable margin or error among just the women. And the same goes for young adults, retirees, rich people, poor people, etc. That means that in order to have a poll with a margin of error of five percent among many different subgroups, a survey will need to include many more than the minimum 400 people to get that five percent margin in the overall sample.

Pollsters understand this stuff. They'll have known if they weren't sampling enough over 75s to get the magic 3% margin of error for that subgroup to make their poll credible. As you say, they didn't care, which is why I suggest bigger samples, stricter oversight and higher standards for official polls is clearly necessary to prevent them influencing voting intention rather than reflecting it.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 2:01 pm

What do you think of this, AK?

No, the future of opinion polling is not going back to door knocking – it must be online, and more specifically mobile. YouGov has an online panel who answer regular surveys in exchange for cash and prizes (600,000 people in the UK) including plenty of non-political people who simply do it for the money. Because we have detailed profile data on all of them we can identify the non-political ones and make sure to include enough of them in future election surveys. Random samples of strangers – telephone or face to face – can never make this adjustment and so are vulnerable to effects they can’t even measure.

That's YouGov.

I think it's bollocks, personally.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 2:04 pm

Not convinced myself, either.

Though I will say in YouGov's defence that they were closest to getting the 2012 London Mayor and 2014 Euro Elections right - before the collective GE failure.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 2:08 pm

Trouble is they believe their own myths and misuse of conflation.They view a fluid situation as static(of course this fluidity has been made more static by their own policies)The long term sick/disabled remain so ,over 95% I believe,despite repeated attempts to prove otherwise,their repeated misportrayal a despicable stain on humanity,a collusion I despair of.Many charities would collapse without voluntary input by the sick/disabled,apparently doing nothing and of course such a description to those facing a daily battle just to get through the day,well I have no existing language for my contempt.

Post by **refitman** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 2:09 pm

Ooh, I don't think this will help with their credibility.

Guardian’s Nick Watt lined up for Newsnight role

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/gu ... ight-role/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While a BBC spokesman says that discussions are still ongoing and no decision has been made, Watt would certainly make for an interesting hire. While hiring another Guardian journalist for the role would no doubt fuel accusations of left-wing bias at the BBC, the appointment could also manage to upset the Corbynistas too. ‘Let’s just say Nick isn’t really in there with the Corbyn wing of the Grauniad,’ one observer diplomatically notes.

They've got one of those? Where have they been hiding it?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 2:14 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
Sun Corbyn Marr Show Smears Busted
Among the audience watching The Andy Marr Show (tm) last Sunday was the Sun’s deputy political editor Steve Hawkes, although his purpose was not to impart information to the paper’s unfortunate readers, but generate knocking copy from the host’s interview with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2016/ ... usted.html

Thanks, ohso, I've just linked your article in response to someone at the G who replied to an earlier comment I'd made about Matthew Hancock's appearance on the Daily Politics Show. I hadn't responded as a waste of proverbial breath but the detail in the article seemed pertinent. Thanks.

@ID6219391

True enough. But he's not advocated empty subs and surrendering territory has he?

I didn't reply to you earlier, ID6219391, as I saw the supposed exchange to which you refer on the Andrew Marr Show and that is not what was said. I supposed jumping to your own conclusions must be par for the course so why bother? Anyway I have just been alerted to the following, Sun Corbyn Marr Show Smears Busted, which explains what I had heard. Please tell me you weren't simply repeating something you read in the Scum.

Either way I strongly suggest you actually listen to what is said and not edited highlights before passing comment.

Shall catch up in a bit.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 2:16 pm

There should be a warning before you click on the Live G blog - that photo of Lord Strathclyde is something else.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 2:29 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

Sadiq Khan winning in London will be bad news for the Labour Party
Two guesses . . . .

As I say, quite the conundrum. And it’s one that many Labour activists – as well as Labour MPs and staffers – are struggling with. “It’s crazy” one Labour MP confides to me. “The decent people of my constituency and I have to act out this charade. We keep talking to each other about fighting hard for Sadiq, and secretly we’re all thinking 'but I hope he loses’.”
Right Daud.

If true, this is horrendous.

It's al-Hadyuz and the Telegraph though, so the chances of it being true...

Why on earth would they want him to lose? What's the 'theory' behind that assertion? That if Khan wins it will boost Corbyn and that's obviously the end of the world - never mind how damaging for the Labour party and people of London that would be? That they'd really rather have Goldsmith - well, if so, words fail me.

Extremely warped 'reasoning' when people seem to think further decline of the party will actually be beneficial in some way ... they must have some kind of future Saviour dream going on.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 2:33 pm

Crap. I've just discovered I've been channelling Dan Hodges! Here he is in the Telegraph saying very similar things about the election polling as I have. Hopefully it's just a passing affliction......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... eated.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 2:41 pm

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

Labour has never polled as badly at this point after election since Second World War

.....or has it?

Seriously, they publish this on the same day a report comes out on why pollsters got it so wrong? It's beyond satire.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 19 Jan, 2016 2:46 pm

Willow904 wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... d-War.html
Labour has never polled as badly at this point after election since Second World War
.....or has it?

Seriously, they publish this on the same day a report comes out on why pollsters got it so wrong? It's beyond satire.

The polling got it wrong by underestimating Tories...