Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

The Page 3 Girls:

The government does no run the Chilcot enquiry. The only power it had was whether to have the enquiry and when it started. Those choices were solely those of the last Labour government. Since that point, neither the last or present government have had any influence or control over Chilcot. It is later than expected because it was not allowed to start by the previous government.

Haze,

But the Tory Elite, some of your friends have been in power nearly 5 years, for crew who thought they could walk on water they are drowning.

Who is holding up the Paedophile inquiry!

What was the responsibility of Maggie for the files being "buried"?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Is Ed Miliband an unlucky general?


A slew of positive economic data gives Ed Miliband an upwards struggle

Napoleon, it is said, wanted lucky generals.

Now Ed Miliband’s troops wonder whether their commander breaks too many mirrors.

For four and a half years, the Labour leader has set out the case to rewire the British economy to make average earners better off.

Oppositions pray for bad news, and a run of positive economic data, the Tories say, has holed their case for radical change below the waterline.

David Cameron at Prime Minister’s Question time yesterday:

"The fact of the matter is that he told us there would be no growth, and we have had growth; he told us there would be no jobs, and we have had jobs; he told us there would be a cost of living crisis, and we have got inflation at 0.5%."
He added:
"He is wrong about everything."
Mr Miliband replied:
"The Prime Minister thinks everything is hunky-dory. Did he even notice this week the report that came out that said that half of all families where one person is in full-time work cannot make ends meet at the end of the month?"
"You can work hard and play by the rules, but in Cameron’s Britain you still cannot pay the bills—that is the reality."
It has seemed that as the economic tide turns, in the Commons at least Ed Miliband has been forced to fight on an ever-shrinking battlefield.
Return of the dole queue
Back in October 2010, weeks after being elected as leader and as Osborne set out the cuts to come, Ed Miliband warned of mass unemployment due to a “too far, too fast” programme of cuts. He told the CBI:
“I do fear that the path the government is pursuing is a gamble with growth and jobs.
They have a programme which will lead to the disappearance of a million private and public sector jobs but no credible plan to replace them.
And their refusal to accept that a deficit reduction plan has to be sensitive to changing economic circumstances needlessly makes the British economy a hostage to fortune.
Time will tell whether they turn out to be right.”
Alas, Miliband – along with many eminent economists - was not.
Job numbers are up 1.75 million since the election. The surprise of the downturn was how employers chose to cut pay over job numbers, and then how quickly employment rose as the economy picked up. The unemployment rate stands at 5.8 per cent, down from 8 per cent in 2010.
Ed Balls dismissed as “complete fantasty” the idea that the 400,000 job losses planned could be absorbed by the private sector. He was not alone.
Since then, new private sector jobs have outweighed state losses by five to one.
No growth
From 2010 until mid 013, Labour’s line of attack was obvious: month after month of anaemic expansion. The Tories, Labour told a diminished Osborne, had “choked off growth and risk causing permanent damage to our economy.”
The IMF agreed. Downgrading forecasts, its chief economist said the Chancellor was “playing with fire” with a course of cuts.
Then, in spring 2013, the economy roared back to life. Latest annualised figures put growth at 2.4 per cent.
Last week, the IMF’s head said the British recover was “exactly the sort of result” she would like to see with the UK “leading in a very eloquent and convincing way in the European Union”.
A cost of living crisis
As growth kicked in, Labour defly pivoted onto the so-called “cost of living crisis”.
For six years, from mid 2008, inflation outstripped wages almost every month. Pay packets got smaller compared to bills every week. The post-war world of ever-increasing living standards had slipped horribly into reverse.
Some argued it was the inevitable consequence of a major recession. Miliband argued it was the product of the disappearance of high-quality jobs and a system stacked against the middle classes.
Is it all over?
In September 2011 the consumer price index stood at 5.2 per cent. Now, off tumbling oil prices and a supermarket price war, it is at 0.5 per cent – troubling for economists, but a major boost to family finances. Pay has now outstripped prices for two months running for the first time since 2010.
An energy market rampant
Ed Miliband pulled the rug from under the Tories with a pledge to freeze energy prices for two years if he won the General Election. The policy was presented as a bill in an ice cub.
Cameron denounced the price fix as “Marxist” – and then scrambled to match it. The polling was through the roof – as was the reaction from focus groups.
Oil prices have since collapsed, and British Gas has cut prices by five per cent. Others are expected to follow suit. But they warn that the risk of future interventions is discouraging steeper cuts.
Team Miliband are not surprised: the most cuts are pre-election “gaming”; the warnings of black-outs and high prices self-interested sabre rattling.
But the Tories claim Labour’s “freeze” would have locked prices at record highs – a claim Labour deny, pointing to the small print of the policy.
Where to fight now?
As the recovery steams ahead, and the Tories stick doggedly to the mantra of the “long term economic plan”, Ed Miliband has shifted his pitch onto the “1930s-style” cuts to come and the impact this will have on the NHS.
Despite Tory pledges to ringfence funding, the treasured health service cannot exist in its current form unless Miliband wins in May, the argument goes. A slew of bad health data helps.
Does the flow of good news kill the case for Ed?
Labour would tell you no, for two reasons.
One, because after the best part of a decade of job losses and squeeze, cynical voters simply do not feel better off, and do not know about, believe in or recognise the charts of the Office for National Statistics. The debates goes on whether the new jobs are "real", or low-paid, casual labour.
And even if they did, it would not matter, because a month or year of data does not invalidate a project on a far grander scale: to give the state a far greater role in “ordering” the economy, to change the way industry behaves and the job prospects of workers for thirty or forty decades.
The price freeze was, they argue, essentially a device to jolt voters in realising that the rules of the market could be redrawn to their benefit. £30 off a bill is not - to use a Miliband refrain - the "big change we need in our country".
And yet: a general election is little over a hundred days away. Oppositions who form governments need momentum, a dominance over the field of debate - and luck.

Soddem and G'Daffy both made fatal errors in trying to dump the $ as the oil price standard.....Putin is heading along the same road to dumping the dolla.

See any connections?

I did like the following:

"The absence of a Page Three girl on Monday and Tuesday coincided with the report in Tuesday's Times, which is a fellow News UK title, that the Sun had decided to quietly drop the (Page 3) feature.

The Times said it understood that News Corp executive chairman Rupert Murdoch had signed off the decision.

In its latest edition, the Times puts the record straight, saying its sister paper had "made a clean breast of it and admitted there's still some nudes to report". "

Good point Fred........

Fred1new Send an email to Fred1new View Fred1new's profile - 22 Jan 2015 12:24 - 55537 of 55540

Haze,

But the Tory Elite, some of your friends have been in power nearly 5 years, for crew who thought they could walk on water they are drowning.

Who is holding up the Paedophile inquiry!

What was the responsibility of Maggie for the files being "buried"?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

their is going to be a lot of shocks in the coming election

No mention here of Farage looking to dump UKIP for the House of Lords.
2517

And if Cameron stays in he's gonna be nursing one sore arse!

That wont be a problem Shortie, he's ex public skool.

Former Home Secretary Leon Brittan Dies

Hmmm? Now we will never know.....

On the other hand, now that he cant sue...

Typical isnt it, we know what the hold up was now.

Sleazy Tories.

CON 33%, LAB 34%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 14%, GRN 8% .............yougov

‘Jobs Revival’ In Spotlight As Most Of Those Who Lose Benefits Fail To Find Work
Posted by Steven Preece - Jan 21, 2015

Coalition claims that it has presided over a jobs revival have come under fresh scrutiny with research showing that as few as a fifth of the 2 million jobless people whose benefit has been taken away are known to have found work.

The research, due to be presented at a Commons select committee inquiry into welfare sanctions on Wednesday, suggests that hundreds of thousands are leaving jobseeker’s allowance because of benefit sanctions without finding employment, though the report’s authors decline to provide an exact figure.

Written by academics at the University of Oxford and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, the report raises questions about why so many of those losing their benefit then disappear from the welfare system – possibly to rely on food banks.

Prof David Stuckler, of Oxford University, said that benefit sanctions “do not appear to help people return to work. There is a real concern that sanctioned persons are disappearing from view. What we need next is a full cost-benefit analysis that looks not just narrowly at employment but possibly at hidden social costs of sanctions.

“If, as we’re finding, people are out of work but without support – disappeared from view – there’s a real danger that other services will absorb the costs, like the NHS, possibly jails and food support systems, to name a few. Sanctions could be costing taxpayers more.”

However, the Department for Work and Pensions, which is expected to hail a further rise in UK employmenton Wednesday, countered that it was proud that 1 million jobless people were now subject to the “claimant commitment”, which sets out tougher requirements on the jobless to find work or risk losing their benefit payments.

Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, said: “It is only right that in return for government support – and in return for their benefits – jobseekers are expected to do all they can to find work. Although on benefits, they still have a job: the job is to get back into work.

“The claimant commitment, which is deliberately set to mimic a contract of employment, makes this expectation explicit. It has created a real change in attitudes. Already more than a million people have signed up to – and are benefiting from – this new jobseeking regime.”

The Oxford-based research showed that between June 2011 and March 2014, more than 1.9m sanctions were imposed on people receiving jobseeker’s allowance (JSA), with 43% of those sanctioned subsequently ceasing to try to claim the benefit. Only 20% of those who left gave as their stated reason that they had found work.

The Department for Work and Pensions conducts no systematic research into what happens to those sanctioned, so the new findings start to fill an evidential gap in what has been one of the biggest but least publicised changes to the welfare system since the government came to power.

The 1.9m benefit removals between June 2011 and March 2014 represent a 40% increase compared with the previous seven years. The figures are based on official monthly and quarterly data from databases covering UK local authorities between 2005 and 2014.

The highly emotive dispute about a central aspect of government welfare reform centres on whether jobcentre staff, driven by senior management, are following arbitrary and poorly communicated rules that punish not just the feckless but some of the most vulnerable in society, including mentally ill and disabled people. Many independent witnesses have urged the DWP inquiry at least to suspend the sanctions regime for those claiming employment support allowance, the main disability benefit .

Study author Dr Rachel Loopstra, from Oxford University, said: “The data did not give us the full picture of why sanctioned people have stopped claiming unemployment benefit. We can say, however, that there was a large rise in the number of people leaving JSA for reasons that were not linked to employment in association with sanctioning. On this basis, it appears that the punitive use of sanctions is driving people away from social support.”

The study also shows widespread variation in how local authorities used sanctions. In Derby, Preston, Chorley and Southampton, researchers found particularly high rates of people being referred for sanctions. In some months, more than 10% of claimants in these areas were sanctioned – the highest rates nationwide.

Co-author Prof Martin McKee, from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said: “There is a need for a cost-benefit analysis of sanctioning, looking at it not just in narrow terms of unemployment benefit, but also the bigger picture, focusing on employment, health, and other social costs.”

He added: “The coalition government has embarked upon an unprecedented experiment to reform social security. I hope policymakers will be informed by these findings and see the value of investigating the consequences.”

Separate evidence in front of the DWP select committee inquiry includes witness statements from former jobcentre staff suggesting senior management threaten staff if they do not take a harsh approach to claimants. There is also cumulative evidence that many of those sanctioned have little or no knowledge of why they are being punished.

The main union representing jobcentre staff, PCS – also due to give evidence on Wednesday to the select committee inquiry – suggests: “While there is considerable anecdotal evidence about the inappropriate use of sanctions, there is a lack of empirical evidence. We believe that DWP should publish a more detailed breakdown of sanctions, and specifically more detailed explanations as to why they were imposed. PCS’s survey of our adviser members showed that 61% had experienced pressure to refer claimants to sanctions where they believed it may be inappropriate to do so.”

DWP select committee inquiry member Debbie Abrahams said: “This government has developed a culture in which Jobcentre Plus advisers are expected to sanction claimants using unjust, and potentially fraudulent, reasons in order get people “off-flow”. This creates the illusion the government is bringing down unemployment.”

The government counters that its policies are turning the UK into the jobs factory of Europe, and dismisses the idea that the unemployment figures are being subverted by sanctions.

Perhaps, Leon saw and earlier posting.

-====----===-

Risible PMQs performance is no win for Cameron21/01/2014


The face is red but the heart is black: Cameron’s strategy is now one of false arguments and ignoring the questions put to him.

Was anybody else dismayed to see media commentator after media commentator blithely commenting that this week’s Prime Minister’s Questions was, for example, an “easy win” for David Cameron (George Eaton, New Statesman), with Guardian political correspondent Andrew Sparrow tweeting, “Verdict from the Twitter commentariat – Unanimous for Cameron”?

It offends this writer’s sense of Britishness and fair play. If Cameron won, he did so by evasion, false argument, and perverting the facts.

Let’s go through the leaders’ exchange together, using the BBC live blog and Hansard for reference.

The first thing mentioned by Ed Miliband was the Iraq Inquiry – he called for its findings to be published as soon as possible. Then he changed subject, pointing out that the Coalition government will be the first to leave office with living standards lower than when they came into power.

David Cameron did not answer the question but went back to Mr Miliband’s comment about the inquiry instead. He said he too wants to see the Iraq Inquiry published as soon as possible – but it would have been ready years ago if the previous Labour government had set the inquiry up sooner, as the Conservatives and others had wanted.

sponsorsThis not true. Labour’s position on it is that the inquiry was set up at the appropriate time – after hostilities in Iraq had ended. In any case, we are now in the sixth year since the inquiry was established (in November 2009); most of the delays have taken place under the Coalition Government led by David Cameron. The reason currently being given for the delay, by inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot, is that witnesses need an opportunity to respond to any criticisms of them that have been made.

This blog wishes to point out that Mr Cameron himself is also partly responsible for delays in this matter. The Guardian reported in November 2013: “The Cabinet Office is resisting requests from the Iraq inquiry… for ‘more than 130 records of conversations’ between Tony Blair, his successor, Gordon Brown, and then-US President George W Bush to be made public. In a letter to David Cameron, published on the inquiry’s website, the committee’s chairman, Sir John Chilcot, disclosed that ’25 notes from Mr Blair to President Bush’ and ‘some 200 cabinet-level discussions’ were also being withheld.

“The standoff between the inquiry and Sir Jeremy Heywood, the cabinet secretary, has been going on for five months and has meant that the [process] in which politicians and officials are warned that they will be criticised in the report, is on hold. As a result, a date for the final publication of the report has yet to be agreed, more than four years after the inquiry started. ”

That’s a delay directly attributable to David Cameron and his government. It would have been more accurate if he had said the inquiry’s report would have been ready years ago if Mr Cameron himself had not done everything he could to hinder it.

Back to today: Ed Miliband noted that Mr Cameron made no mention of the economy in his reply, and pointed out that people are £1,600 a year worse off since 2010. According to the BBC blog: “David Cameron says Labour has no apology for not launching the Iraq Inquiry earlier – before launching into a defence of the coalition’s economic record. He says Mr Miliband is wrong about everything.”

In fact he raised the alleged drop in unemployment and rise in wages recorded by the ONS (and debunked on this blog earlier today). His mention of tax reductions as a defence against the “£1,600 a year worse off” claim is ridiculous as it shows how lightly his government has taken its self-described reason for being – reducing the deficit. This is not going to happen under a government that doesn’t want to take taxes.

Cameron’s claim that there is no cost of living crisis because inflation is at 0.5 per cent is a silly ‘excluded middle’ false argument; just because the headline level of inflation is low, that does not mean people are not struggling to make ends meet – especially when they have to deal with measures brought in by Cameron’s government like the Bedroom Tax, that have nothing to do with inflation and everything to do with Tory neoliberal ideology.

Mr Miliband stood his ground: Cameron has raised taxes on ordinary families, raised VAT, cut tax credits. Wages are down; taxes are up – and a report by the Joseph Rowntree foundation has shown that half of all families where one person is in full-time work cannot make ends meet at the end of the month.

“You can work hard and play by the rules, but in Cameron’s Britain you still cannot pay the bills—that is the reality,” he said – and it’s strong stuff.

Cameron’s response was feeble. He claimed that more than 30 million people are now in work – but we know that this is partly due to the rise in the population, and most of the jobs are zero-hours, part-time or temporary, meaning that Mr Miliband is right; families are struggling to pay the bills. His repeated reference to the ONS statistics – which were discredited within minutes of having been published, is risible. Cameron was making an ‘argument by selective observation’ – what he was saying was factually accurate, but he was deliberately failing to put all the facts before us.

The claim that people in work are seeing their pay rise by four per cent seems to be an outright lie. Even the ONS could only support a rise of 1.8 per cent.

“If we had listened to [Mr Miliband], none of these things would have happened,” blustered Cameron. “If we had listened to Labour, it would be more borrowing, more spending, more debt: all the things that got us into a mess in the first place.” How does he know that? He doesn’t. It’s another false argument – an ad hominem (attacking Mr Miliband, rather than his argument), also an ‘appeal to widespread belief’, as many people still seem to believe that Labour will borrow more and create more debt (despite repeated evidence that Labour will do nothing of the sort) and that the economy is safer with the Conservatives (even though their own rampant borrowing has nearly doubled the National Debt), and a non sequitur – it doesn’t follow that, if the Tories had listened to Labour, none of the favourable outcomes he listed would have happened.

Mention of borrowing prompted Mr Miliband to point out that the Coalition Government has failed on the deficit – accurately. According to his original preductions, Chancellor George Osborne should have reduced the deficit to around £37 billion per year by now – instead it stands between £90 billion and £100 billion.

Mr Miliband’s claim that executive pay has increased by 21 per cent in the last year alone, meaning the recovery is only for a few at the top, is also accurate. Spread among the workforce as a whole and coupled with the small pay rises they have received, the average may be 1.8 per cent – but most people aren’t enjoying any sudden increase in prosperity. Are you?

Cameron’s response: “The right honourable Gentleman criticises me on the deficit—he is the man who could not even remember the deficit.” Another ad hominem, and another non sequitur. What does Mr Miliband’s lapse of memory in a speech from last year have to do with today’s statistics?

Mr Miliband’s last question was about David Cameron’s decision not to take part in televised election debates if the Green Party is excluded. If he is so confident about the economy, why is he “chickening out”?

Again, Cameron did not even answer the question. Instead he quoted Christine LaGarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, in support of his claim that the UK economy is improving. That discussion was over. Why did he have nothing to say about the TV debates? It’s a simple change of subject but, again, it’s no argument against what Mr Milband was saying.

So let’s tot up the Prime Minister’s score – did he win or lose? Let’s see: Iraq inquiry – lose; economy – lose; employment – lose; wages – lose; deficit – lose; TV debates – lose.

The moral of the story: You don’t have to win any argument if enough people are willing to say you did.

or you could bore them into submission by fillibustering
however, that risks the audience just walking away - as here

Iraq Inquiry rules re-written to prevent embarrassment – Michael Meacher MP22/01/2015

Remember yesterday’s article, in which Vox Political demonstrated that David Cameron was wrong to claim Labour had delayed the report of the Iraq Inquiry because he was guilty of the same thing? Michael Meacher agrees. He writes:

What makes it all the more scandalous is not that more time is needed to complete the report (it has been completed), but rather that those criticised in the report have been given the option of indefinitely delaying its publication as a result of being given prior access to what it says about them and then being allowed endlessly to prevaricate by haggling over every detail they don’t like. On a matter that affects the whole nation and has left an abiding imprint of deep shame, this is outrageous.

sponsorsWho, and on what authority, introduced this so-called Maxwellisation process? It has in fact no constitutional foundation except to protect political decision-makers once the tide of public opinion has turned against them.

There is to be a parliamentary debate and vote on the publication of the Chilcot report on 29th of this month. If then there were a majority in favour of publication before the election, the Chilcot committee should be expected to accept that as reflecting the will of the public, and act to abide by that decision. But this is another area where the Establishment has laid down rules for its own convenience.

The government will simply say, as it has done over 20 times on such occasions during this Parliament, that this is merely an advisory vote and it can be simply ignored.

Mr Meacher also wrote: Cameron has tried to wash his hands of it by saying that he is not responsible and the inquiry is independent [but this]doesn’t wash. He closed down the Gibson inquiry into alleged UK involvement in US rendition when it became clear that its revelations could be highly embarrassing to the UK authorities, so there is no question that he could set a time limit for the Chilcot inquiry if he really wanted to.