Tuesday 19 July 2016

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 6:45 am

Hello all

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 6:48 am

Hello TC.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 6:52 am

Clanger Relentless Record (scratched) presents:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... rosceptics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Dire economic performance in the bel paese (beautiful country) has seen hundreds of thousands of Italians move to the UK, which was until recently held up as an example of how a nation should be run.

But in the post-referendum era, Brits in Italy receive sympathetic looks as concerned locals seek to understand how UK voters could have made such a drastic choice. “It’s a mistake for them,” says Luca Miccinilli, a shop worker in central Rome. “Maybe they never really felt European.”

The Italians must be as disappointed in us as I am.

Hopefully the March for Unity

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 93811.html

on July 30 will highlight that not all of "The British People" have the same absurd will.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 7:03 am

I would like everyone who voted leave to have to be directly informed of every bit of work being done to bring about our removal from Europe. And to be equally informed of work that has to be sidelined in order to accommodate this. I would like them equally to receive a running tab of how much this is costing.

There is so much crap to deal with, problems that Europe needs to work on together to address, that the UK position and the time and money it will have to spend on this, seem, essentially, criminal.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 7:13 am

David Davis needn’t worry about the “sheer generosity” of rights granted to EU nationals triggering a “surge in new arrivals”. One of the many things Mr Davis and his fellow Brexiteers don’t seem to understand is that it was the UK’s reputation as a tolerant and cosmopolitan society, light years ahead of most other European countries in terms of multiculturalism and mutual respect, that attracted many of us to make our lives here. By destroying this reputation, leave campaigners and voters have done more to curb future immigration from EU countries than the most draconian measures the new government will be able to impose.
Silke Lührmann
Swansea

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... s-of-trade" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 7:19 am

I noticed the Mail's headline today was about the Japanese "raid" on ARM.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 7:23 am

Theresa May
"Brexit means Brexit"
"The Union [of GB and N(] is very important to me"

Sorry love, but you can't have both.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 7:23 am

Debbie Abrahams ‏@Debbie_abrahams 10m10 minutes ago
Work is NOT the route out of poverty: an indictment on 6 yrs of Tory Govt http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8371" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 7:27 am

Experts say something different from politicians shock:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... 24bnPhilip" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Hammond, the chancellor, said that the deal showed that Britain “has lost none of its allure to international investors”, but industry leaders warned it was a setback for the country.

Experts, brexperts.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 7:30 am

Oh, and now: Politician changes direction of spin by 180 degrees shock

Last week, she said that the Government should be capable of stepping in when a foreign firm swoops for British businesses that are important to workers and communities. Today, Theresa May hailed the £24bn takeover of ARM Holdings by Japanese firm SoftBank
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 42556.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 7:32 am

"We are not expecting SoftBank to come in here and say this is the way we do business, and here are a lot of processes you have to follow. They look at us and they see we are running a successful, profitable business. The thesis behind this is the two of us working together to drive the technology forward," he said.

Someone is going to be disappointed.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 7:51 am

Keep bashing away TinyC. It's too important to let it drop.

Wales is set to really suffer, no one in government will promise to offset the end of EU funding here.
Not sure what left wing Leave voters thought would happen. I still don't understand their rationale.
West Wales, and the Valleys, needs the extra help it gets from the EU.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 8:01 am

tinyclanger2 wrote:
David Davis needn’t worry about the “sheer generosity” of rights granted to EU nationals triggering a “surge in new arrivals”. One of the many things Mr Davis and his fellow Brexiteers don’t seem to understand is that it was the UK’s reputation as a tolerant and cosmopolitan society, light years ahead of most other European countries in terms of multiculturalism and mutual respect, that attracted many of us to make our lives here. By destroying this reputation, leave campaigners and voters have done more to curb future immigration from EU countries than the most draconian measures the new government will be able to impose.
Silke Lührmann
Swansea
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... s-of-trade" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Since they sell us billions of pounds worth of goods per year more than we do them, it is they, not us, who will come off worst from any “trade war”. The UK is one of the biggest importers of goods from the EU, and they threaten us at their peril. If no deal were done at all and we just left, the outcome would be that we would have to pay a 4% tariff on the goods we sell to the EU. However, we could implement the same tariff on their goods and in effect be better off than we are now because we import more.

Is it just me, or has he misunderstood who pays the tariffs, and regardless of that it's still a daft argument?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 8:13 am

tinybgoat wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:
David Davis needn’t worry about the “sheer generosity” of rights granted to EU nationals triggering a “surge in new arrivals”. One of the many things Mr Davis and his fellow Brexiteers don’t seem to understand is that it was the UK’s reputation as a tolerant and cosmopolitan society, light years ahead of most other European countries in terms of multiculturalism and mutual respect, that attracted many of us to make our lives here. By destroying this reputation, leave campaigners and voters have done more to curb future immigration from EU countries than the most draconian measures the new government will be able to impose.
Silke Lührmann
Swansea
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... s-of-trade" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Since they sell us billions of pounds worth of goods per year more than we do them, it is they, not us, who will come off worst from any “trade war”. The UK is one of the biggest importers of goods from the EU, and they threaten us at their peril. If no deal were done at all and we just left, the outcome would be that we would have to pay a 4% tariff on the goods we sell to the EU. However, we could implement the same tariff on their goods and in effect be better off than we are now because we import more.
Is it just me, or has he misunderstood who pays the tariffs, and regardless of that it's still a daft argument?

I'm not an expert (so you can listen to me!) but it sounds like "wibble" to me. Surely tariffs on imports is, in effect, a consumer tax on UK residents in the form of higher prices? We import from 27 EU countries, while 27 EU countries will face only tariffs from one, us.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 8:26 am

This is what Hilary Benn was referring to on radio 4 just now

http://www.liliangreenwood.co.uk/lilian ... ty_members" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I thought it shocking.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 8:36 am

There is no doubt for me that there are substantial failings on all sides in the Labour leadership debacle.

But what is invariably needed in these situations is for all sides to sit down together, to listen to each other and to compromise. It's not rocket science. Continued attacks by one side on the other will only lead to fracture. And history tells us that won't work out well.

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 8:39 am

Good morning all.
The Male Online's take on the Trident vote

: 2016-07-19_083753.jpg (218.38 KiB) Viewed 8192 times

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 8:43 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:There is no doubt for me that there are substantial failings on all sides in the Labour leadership debacle.

But what is invariably needed in these situations is for all sides to sit down together, to listen to each other and to compromise. It's not rocket science. Continued attacks by one side on the other will only lead to fracture. And history tells us that won't work out well.

What compromise is available?

Watson tried, and failed. Many on here kept on saying that there were rules for a challenge and that they should be invoked. Now they are.

One side want Corbyn gone. The other side don't.

Corbyn will, without doubt, win, and next year we'll go through this again.

The next year will be painful in the extreme. The shadow shadow cabinet is extremely thin. 81%+ of MPs want their leader in the Commons gone.

There is not going to be a split. Instead the fight over Labour will continue, with Corbyn and supporters seeking deselections, while the MPs continue to try to remove him.

On and on it will go. With each side blaming the other.

Don't elect a leader with no Parliamentary support is the lesson. Or, at least elect a competent one.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 8:53 am

Another lesson to be learnt. Don't launch a coup if you can't manage to carry it off, and if you do then find a better candidate than Eagle.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 9:08 am

yahyah wrote:Another lesson to be learnt. Don't launch a coup if you can't manage to carry it off, and if you do then find a better candidate than Eagle.

Again, all the accounts from MPs themselves indicate that there was no "coup", if by that you mean planned conspiracy. They might all be lying of course, but I don't think so.

The trigger was the EU referendum and Corbyn's calls on the day after to invoke art 50 immediately. I am pretty sure a large majority of Labour MPs had the same reaction to that that I did. They'd had enough.

They may also all be just making up the stories of hopeless incompetence. That is of course possible. Again, I doubt it myself.

You're right though that Labour has the same problem it had that led to Corbyn's election. In ordinary times a 'soft' left candidate should have been able to win the leadership, as Ed Miliband did. Such a position is one the wings of the party can rally around. Unfortunately, there has not been a competent charismatic person to appeal to the base and the public. Miliband was poor, Burnham patently hopeless. It has to be a man, I am sorry to say, as I don't think Labour will elect a woman.

So, you're right, their problem is not having a more charismatic alternative.

The PLP will now try Smith. Let us see how he does. This year at least, Corbyn will crush him. But it shows courage to stand. And then we wait another year.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 9:19 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
tinybgoat wrote: Is it just me, or has he misunderstood who pays the tariffs, and regardless of that it's still a daft argument?
I'm not an expert (so you can listen to me!) but it sounds like "wibble" to me. Surely tariffs on imports is, in effect, a consumer tax on UK residents in the form of higher prices? We import from 27 EU countries, while 27 EU countries will face only tariffs from one, us.
I don't know much about this but I would assume that import duty can end up being paid by UK consumers through higher prices being passed on, or by importers taking a smaller profit, or a bit of both. There are presumably export tariffs to consider as well, where EU companies pay their own governments for the privilege of selling to the UK, which would both restrict the amount of goods exported to us, and put up the price.

My understanding of import tariffs is that they are principally a means of restricting imports rather than a means of raising money. I'd have thought they were fundamentally contrary to the kind of free market ideology Davis et al stand for.

Thanks (Robert & Willow).
I keep hearing the argument "but we import more from them than they do from us..", but hadn't seen tariffs mentioned before.

I think for import tariffs, a lot of our imports from EU are luxury goods & probably couldn't be easily replaced with home produce or non eu imports, so would tend to cause price rises or reduced profit.
Suspect that our exports, might be hit harder, although in short-term weak pound might mask this.

& I hadn't considered export duties.

frog222 · Post by **frog222** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 9:20 am

TC2 5.52am 's quote

Brits in Italy receive sympathetic looks as concerned locals seek to understand how UK voters could have made such a drastic choice.

The same for Brits in France . When it was still fresh, some local people were as much in visible shock as many of us . All were very solicitous towards me, in sympathy .

If I had a vote ( I've been away 39years), I'd have voted Corbyn the last time, and actually not regretted it, but this time I'd go for Smith even if that's a lost cause against the enthusiasts. My first impression was of a typical slimy career politician , but I was too swayed by the initial onslaught of propaganda against him.

25° already and rising fast !

Post by **adam** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 9:23 am

From the graun

Open TV viewing figures plunge by 75% in first year of Sky Sports coverage

The bbc highlights programme had better viewing figures - by about 400,000 - than the peak viewing on Sky.

Cricket sold their rights to Sky, just after the 2005 Ashes series when kids were bringing cricket gear into school and taking over the yard. Since then we can't even get students together for an organised school team, never mind them choosing to follow the sport. Golf has different uptake issues, obviously, but it's just another example of what a terrible pall Sky brings to the national mood over what should be really strong community-minded behaviour over televised sport.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 9:33 am

adam wrote:From the graun

Open TV viewing figures plunge by 75% in first year of Sky Sports coverage

The bbc highlights programme had better viewing figures - by about 400,000 - than the peak viewing on Sky.

Cricket sold their rights to Sky, just after the 2005 Ashes series when kids were bringing cricket gear into school and taking over the yard. Since then we can't even get students together for an organised school team, never mind them choosing to follow the sport. Golf has different uptake issues, obviously, but it's just another example of what a terrible pall Sky brings to the national mood over what should be really strong community-minded behaviour over televised sport.

Sky is going to kill formula 1. It needs a lot of money, which means sponsorship, which means an audience and Sky just can't attract the numbers. As many of the teams are based in the UK, there are a lot of technical jobs relying on it. If Sky can't even support elite sports properly, there's no hope for the Olympics legacy, is there, with an ever growing paywall for access to any kind of sports viewing.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 9:38 am

Worth listening to.

http://gmmuk.com/why-wasnt-this-speech- ... eam-media/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 9:42 am

It would appear that, in the same way we had "spontaneous" resignations from the Shadow Cabinet, we are now getting a daily bulletin from one of those ex-shadow ministers on why they had to go and why they were unsupported and why Corbyn is crap.

How many will there be today, I wonder?

June 26th. Margaret Greenwood said this on Twitter: "I'm backing @jeremycorbyn - he's shown real leadership forcing u-turns on cuts to disabled, working tax credits, and police #keepcorbyn".
Her constituency is Wirral West, and her CLP is one of 90 or so which expressed full confidence in Corbyn in a recent vote. Now here she is, moaning that Corbyn is not supportive.

This is getting really silly now. Yesterday, "Saving Labour" sent emails to its supporters asking them to forward the message to 5 other people in an attempt to recruit more £25 supporters to topple Corbyn. No preferred candidate is specified - as long as it's not Corbyn.
Lest we forget - this was set up by an ex-Labour MP who has made a mint out of NHS contracts, who was described by the Guardian's Red Box as a turncoat having been a rabid anti-Kinnock Bennite then resurfacing as a Blair poodle, and who has done very nicely out of New Labour.

I appreciate that Thangam Debbonaire was not well treated (even if, as has been reported, she was the victim of a mistake) while going through her cancer treatment; but I still feel that she took her time to let us all know about it.
Margaret Greenwood is something else - she was supportive of Corbyn (another Tweet from July 13th says "Thanks to @jeremycorbyn for support in chamber#NHSbill2016") but all of a sudden he's useless.

Who's next?

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 9:44 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
yahyah wrote:Another lesson to be learnt. Don't launch a coup if you can't manage to carry it off, and if you do then find a better candidate than Eagle.
Indeed. Astonishing that having launched the coup, which had clearly been planned for some time (so much so that the plans were published in the media weeks before), and on its failure to cause Corbyn to step down, they had nothing whatsoever to back it up with. Does anyone seriously believe that this was a spontaneous uprising?

Interesting how many people are now repeating Eagle's line that they tried to serve Corbyn, but x,y, or z event proved to them that he could not lead. (These are, in some cases, people who didn't resign at the Iraq war, but hey). Almost as though they felt they had to prove their good faith to angry members of their local party.

Competence.

Exactly.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 10:06 am

Today's 'all peers' meeting with Govt on @SouthernRailUK fiasco has been cancelled ... due to the shortage of a Rail Minister in Commons

#Labour Peers

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 10:11 am

Michael Crick

Michael Foster's legal action to overturn Labour NEC decision to put Corbyn on ballot paper without 51 nominations, to be heard next Tuesday

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 10:12 am

HindleA wrote:Today's 'all peers' meeting with Govt on @SouthernRailUK fiasco has been cancelled ... due to the shortage of a Rail Minister in Commons

#Labour Peers

Is that better, or worse, than simply having "the wrong sort of" rail minister, do you reckon?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 10:13 am

Good morfternoon.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 10:13 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:There is no doubt for me that there are substantial failings on all sides in the Labour leadership debacle.

But what is invariably needed in these situations is for all sides to sit down together, to listen to each other and to compromise. It's not rocket science. Continued attacks by one side on the other will only lead to fracture. And history tells us that won't work out well.
What compromise is available?

Watson tried, and failed. Many on here kept on saying that there were rules for a challenge and that they should be invoked. Now they are.

One side want Corbyn gone. The other side don't.

Corbyn will, without doubt, win, and next year we'll go through this again.

The next year will be painful in the extreme. The shadow shadow cabinet is extremely thin. 81%+ of MPs want their leader in the Commons gone.

There is not going to be a split. Instead the fight over Labour will continue, with Corbyn and supporters seeking deselections, while the MPs continue to try to remove him.

On and on it will go. With each side blaming the other.

Don't elect a leader with no Parliamentary support is the lesson. Or, at least elect a competent one.

That's rea;y not how its going to happen,if you think that you are delusional...

Corbyn is likely to win the contest by a huge margin according to Te Times poll. The NEC is likely to be overwhelmingly left wing and supportive. At that point deselection rules will be change and the split will happen. The 20-30 whigs will leave and after shouting a lot about how awfully mean Corbyn and his followers are, they will be wiped out in the next election.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 10:27 am

Good-morning, everyone.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 10:32 am

Temulkar wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:There is no doubt for me that there are substantial failings on all sides in the Labour leadership debacle.

But what is invariably needed in these situations is for all sides to sit down together, to listen to each other and to compromise. It's not rocket science. Continued attacks by one side on the other will only lead to fracture. And history tells us that won't work out well.
What compromise is available?

Watson tried, and failed. Many on here kept on saying that there were rules for a challenge and that they should be invoked. Now they are.

One side want Corbyn gone. The other side don't.

Corbyn will, without doubt, win, and next year we'll go through this again.

The next year will be painful in the extreme. The shadow shadow cabinet is extremely thin. 81%+ of MPs want their leader in the Commons gone.

There is not going to be a split. Instead the fight over Labour will continue, with Corbyn and supporters seeking deselections, while the MPs continue to try to remove him.

On and on it will go. With each side blaming the other.

Don't elect a leader with no Parliamentary support is the lesson. Or, at least elect a competent one.
That's rea;y not how its going to happen,if you think that you are delusional...

Corbyn is likely to win the contest by a huge margin according to Te Times poll. The NEC is likely to be overwhelmingly left wing and supportive. At that point deselection rules will be change and the split will happen. The 20-30 whigs will leave and after shouting a lot about how awfully mean Corbyn and his followers are, they will be wiped out in the next election.

Well, we'll see won#t we? We have both made verifiable predictions as to the future and one at least will be wrong. I think the PLP is more cohesive than you do.Current events are not attributable to 20 Blairite bastards. Neither Smith nor Eagle are in that category.

I wasn't for the avoidance of doubt, making a prediction longer than for the next year. In the next year

(i) Corbyn wins

and

(ii) no split

Both of our claims are predicated on (i) being true, which I think it is possible may not be. The likelihood of a split I put close to zero, though I wouldn't describe you as 'delusional', just mistaken in the kind of way common with people of your views.

I'll be the first to admit if I am proved wrong of course. I am sure you will be too.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 10:33 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:There is no doubt for me that there are substantial failings on all sides in the Labour leadership debacle.

But what is invariably needed in these situations is for all sides to sit down together, to listen to each other and to compromise. It's not rocket science. Continued attacks by one side on the other will only lead to fracture. And history tells us that won't work out well.
What compromise is available?

Watson tried, and failed. Many on here kept on saying that there were rules for a challenge and that they should be invoked. Now they are.

One side want Corbyn gone. The other side don't.

Corbyn will, without doubt, win, and next year we'll go through this again.

The next year will be painful in the extreme. The shadow shadow cabinet is extremely thin. 81%+ of MPs want their leader in the Commons gone.

There is not going to be a split. Instead the fight over Labour will continue, with Corbyn and supporters seeking deselections, while the MPs continue to try to remove him.

On and on it will go. With each side blaming the other.

Don't elect a leader with no Parliamentary support is the lesson. Or, at least elect a competent one.

As I've said previously there are some excellent non-Corbynista female MPs in the Shadow Cabinet - Abrahams, Rayner & Thornberry are my favourites - I'd love to hear from them more.

fedup59 · Post by **fedup59** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 10:41 am

Morning all

Thanks for the various links over the last few days I've found them helpful in trying to get my head around what is happening in the Labour party. To some extent I've given up on trying to understand anything meaningful about the post coronation government. Apparently now that cameron has swanned off into his post PM identity the continued non critique will provide the gung ho narrative of the greatness of Britain.

I wondered at the weekend how the PLP might try to meet the members in that space called compromise and how they might explain why their knowledge of how terrible corbyn is as a leader should supercede what members think. The explanations emerging now make it all seem that it was just too, too difficult.

For me these explanations raise a couple of key questions. Firstly if it was so terrible why did they keep it a secret, as I assume they must have, from their own CLPs? Secondly, even if for some reason they decided not to let their CLPs know over the previous 9 months, why didn't they explain at the time of the no confidence vote?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 10:42 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:[

As I've said previously there are some excellent non-Corbynista female MPs in the Shadow Cabinet - Abrahams, Rayner & Thornberry are my favourites - I'd love to hear from them more.

Although this is a qualitative claim, I think we'll see over the course of the next year whether it is true that Corbyn has unearthed some hidden gems so as to construct a viable shadow cabinet.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 11:06 am

In the spirit of friendship and fairness,a few anagrams of Corbynista(there are far "worse" ones)

Binary cost,as crib Tony,Tsar by icon.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 11:09 am

Excuse me for interrupting what seems to be turning into Fly The Nest (Let's Discuss Corbyn) Haven but this was flagged up earlier.

Lilac Sky Academy Trust: The end of the Road

http://www.kentadvice.co.uk/peters-blog ... -road.html

One of the very worst academy chains operating in Kent in my view, as illustrated many times elsewhere on this website is Lilac Sky Academy Trust (LLSAT), founded by Mr Trevor Averre-Beeson in 2009. It therefore comes as no surprise to learn that the Academies operation of Lilac Sky is to be closed down by the Regional Schools Commissioner, all the schools to be passed over to other chains, with parents being quietly informed on academy websites. The Chair of the Academy Trust has already gone, to be replaced by a new Interim Chair.

but looks who's involved...

The academy is being handed over to ‘Turner Schools’ along with Morehall Academy, also in Folkestone. There is little information available about this organisation, but: “Jo Saxton, Ph.D. is founder of Turner Schools, a new MAT dedicated to improving outcomes in East and North Kent, and is a Trustee of NSN, the charity that helps people set-up new state funded schools. Until recently Jo was Chief Executive of Future Academies, the MAT chaired by Lord Nash, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Schools, and Jo remains a Director of the Trust”. Turner Schools has also been reported as being interested in taking over the controversial Spires Academy in Canterbury.

and what's worse...

Other Lilac Sky Academies
In Kent, these are Thistle Hill Primary on the Isle of Sheppey, Principal Ms Averre, and Richmond Primary in Sheerness, both to pass to Stour Academy Trust, see letter. There are also four primary academies in East Sussex, Hailsham and Newhaven, new build one form entry academies opened in September 2015, White House Academy new build one form entry primary opened September 2014; and Marshlands Academy, served with a Government Pre-Termination Warning in November 2015, because of unacceptably low standards.

So a year after 4 new schools opened, the trust is being shut down?

thatchersorphan · Post by **thatchersorphan** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 11:15 am

Bulk data collection only lawful in serious crime cases, ECJ preliminary finding https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... ht-serious" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 11:18 am

I have done a really really stupid thing - I got my Greenwoods mixed up!

See, this is what happens when you try to be as competent as the chickencoup.

Apologies.

Margaret Greenwood still supports Corbyn as does her CLP.

Lilian (LILIAN< Ephe!!!!)Greenwood's speech makes a few points that are interesting but not many have picked up on.
Nottingham South CLP nominated Corbyn for the leadership in 2015.
Nottingham South voted for Leave. In one of her wards, Clifton South, 67% voted for Brexit.

Her main problems are - the timing of the reshuffle interfered with a campaign about rail fares and took the spotlight off it, apparently; her support of HS2 was undermined by a comment Corbyn made in an interview with his local paper; she was miffed when 2 frontbenchers weren't ticked off for voting against the whip; she claims her campaign on rail was undermined; and she disapproves of his 5-day holiday.

If cabinet or shadow cabinet ministers threw in the towel every time a leader passed a comment that went against general policy, there would have to be reshuffles on a daily basis. Cameron did this all the time.

I'm a bit sick of hearing how people "really really tried" to make it work.
I really really don't think they did.
It's all Corbyn's fault.
Always.

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

SpinningHugo wrote:This is what Hilary Benn was referring to on radio 4 just now

http://www.liliangreenwood.co.uk/lilian ... ty_members" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I thought it shocking.

Its not good, no.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 11:20 am

Just back from the hospital where I saw two chaps in Serco uniform escorting a prisoner, so I asked whether they would prefer working in the public sector or for Serco. No prizes for guessing the answer. Just another reason to hate our Tory overlords since we're likely paying more for less.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 11:22 am

Last night's YouGov poll of Labour members was taken before Smith had launched his campaign, which is I think a bit naughty.

I now have no doubt that he has more potential to win over people than Eagle.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 11:27 am

thatchersorphan wrote:Bulk data collection only lawful in serious crime cases, ECJ preliminary finding https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... ht-serious" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hopeless reporting from the Graun. It is the Advocate General's report. It is not a judgment or ruling of the ECJ. Usually, but not always the ECJ takes the same view.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 11:38 am

Anyone that's been following DAG this morning on the Brexit case will have just seen this...

frog222 · Post by **frog222** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 11:41 am

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 93811.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Article 50 is already "paused" .

What are the bookmakers quoting on 'not this year', 'not next year', 'never' etc ?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 11:41 am

Oops!

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 11:42 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Last night's YouGov poll of Labour members was taken before Smith had launched his campaign, which is I think a bit naughty.

I now have no doubt that he has more potential to win over people than Eagle.

Interesting snippet from that poll.

Among the pre-September 2015 members, Corybn would lose. He now overwhelmingly wins because of people who have joined since.

So the problem for the PLP is that although they can persuade enough of those who previously voted Corbyn that they mad a mistake, they are more than outweighed by those who have joined enthused by Corbyn's leadership.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 19 Jul, 2016 11:51 am

@SH

Agree with you about the G, Hugo, the headline and opening paragraph at least although it does make that clear later on. Speaking of the G has anybody noticed how repetitive some articles are, especially when they quote someone elucidating the very thing that has just been said. 'And did anybody see that piece by Archie Bland on Corbyn banging on about nukes? I've no idea how that got past the editor unless it were some parody that went completely above my head.