Mr. K, whilst Evans is a good candidate for UKIP, I'd be flabbergasted were she actually to win.
I'd rate her chances at better than 50-1 though.
It's an AV vote, so UKIP has to be in the first two. It also has to be transfer friendly from the third, fourth and fifth placed parties.
UKIP is transfer unfriendly from LibDems, and Green. It is transfer friendly from Conservatives.
Therefore you need to have Suzanne Evans outpolling the Conservatives to get into the last two, otherwise UKIP is without a chance.
I'd need 125-1, to put money on. And am happy to take bets at 65-1.
It's SV, not AV. If there were only three serious candidates in it, that shouldn't make much practical difference. Were there to be a fourth, however, the transfer game becomes far more complex.
The Kids Company decision would have been a very difficult one to take. Clearly they had little to no internal audit or management systems which controlled the money. Equally clearly they do help a lot of extremely deprived kids who would suffer greatly if their support was withdrawn overnight without any transitional provision.
In these circumstances I can well understand why Civil Servants felt obligated to give the advice that they did and I can equally understand why Ministers decided that a grant to facilitate restructuring was worth the risk.
It is a good example of a more general problem. We don't like our Charities to be professionalised with well paid managers soaking up a lot of the funds we feel should be going to the front line. On the other hand Charities that are so beholden to the public purse have to account for how the money is spent and to operate performance indicators that show the taxpayer is getting value for money. It's a conundrum.
The government are / were in a no win situation having got so involved with Kids Company. As soon as there was talk of not giving this money, the likes of the Guardian were all over this saying evil heartless Tories / Cameron ditching people, pulling the rug out and letting down lots of vulnerable kids. Now the decision to give the money (with string attached, that have been ignored) is being used to directly bash Cameron.
Ed Miliband was urged by pollsters and focus groups to tread a different path on issues such as immigration, the deficit and welfare as early as 2010, it has emerged.
A memo leaked to the Guardian reveals the party was considered as being “on the side of the undeserving – particularly the workshy and immigrants” by key groups of voters.
Mr Miliband's former chief pollster James Morris wrote the memo based on focus groups conducted over six years.
The leaking of the memo could be seen as a warning to supporters of left-wing leadership hopeful Jeremy Corbyn.
The Kids Company decision would have been a very difficult one to take. Clearly they had little to no internal audit or management systems which controlled the money. Equally clearly they do help a lot of extremely deprived kids who would suffer greatly if their support was withdrawn overnight without any transitional provision.
In these circumstances I can well understand why Civil Servants felt obligated to give the advice that they did and I can equally understand why Ministers decided that a grant to facilitate restructuring was worth the risk.
It is a good example of a more general problem. We don't like our Charities to be professionalised with well paid managers soaking up a lot of the funds we feel should be going to the front line. On the other hand Charities that are so beholden to the public purse have to account for how the money is spent and to operate performance indicators that show the taxpayer is getting value for money. It's a conundrum.
Charities should not receive taxpayer's money, it is not the role of govt to decide what's best for people, its the right of the individual. Plenty of people are making very good money out of charities, I find it obscene.
Before you look at these - put down your cup of tea first.
Are these the worst e-fits ever? Police admit they've helped catch just ONE criminal in three years – and when they look like this it's hardly surprising
The Kids Company decision would have been a very difficult one to take. Clearly they had little to no internal audit or management systems which controlled the money. Equally clearly they do help a lot of extremely deprived kids who would suffer greatly if their support was withdrawn overnight without any transitional provision.
In these circumstances I can well understand why Civil Servants felt obligated to give the advice that they did and I can equally understand why Ministers decided that a grant to facilitate restructuring was worth the risk.
It is a good example of a more general problem. We don't like our Charities to be professionalised with well paid managers soaking up a lot of the funds we feel should be going to the front line. On the other hand Charities that are so beholden to the public purse have to account for how the money is spent and to operate performance indicators that show the taxpayer is getting value for money. It's a conundrum.
I think a charity which is so beholden to the public purse is not really a charity at all. If it gets money from the public purse it should be properly accounted for. Arguably, the money should go to those parts of the public sector which do help deprived children but which don't have flamboyant heads appearing at parties with celebrities and blowing their own trumpet.
If you're going to restructure an entity, you get in experts to do the restructuring. You don't give money on a vague promise to those people who have caused the problem in the first place. That's what the financial experts were looking at doing and they turned away. That alone should have told Ministers that handing out cash willy nilly was not a good idea.
More to the point, is there actual real evidence of the help given to these extremely deprived children? As opposed to claims. There have been some quite alarming stories and stories of help given which don't really add up and which don't fit with what people have seen when they've gone there.
And, finally, for all the talk about helping children, the charity itself is now withdrawing its help to those children virtually overnight having ensured that staff are paid. That is a curious priority. It will be the public sector which will need to pick up the pieces.
What evidence did those two Ministers have which gave them the confidence to overrule the advice from their civil servants and give a Ministerial direction? That's one question I'd be asking those Ministers.
Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.
When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?
Mr. K, whilst Evans is a good candidate for UKIP, I'd be flabbergasted were she actually to win.
I'd rate her chances at better than 50-1 though.
It's an AV vote, so UKIP has to be in the first two. It also has to be transfer friendly from the third, fourth and fifth placed parties.
UKIP is transfer unfriendly from LibDems, and Green. It is transfer friendly from Conservatives.
Therefore you need to have Suzanne Evans outpolling the Conservatives to get into the last two, otherwise UKIP is without a chance.
I'd need 125-1, to put money on. And am happy to take bets at 65-1.
Pedant Alert - but technically it isn't AV, it's SV - which means that not only does UKIP need to be in the top 2, but also people that are transferring to you need to guess that you will be...
That is a very good point.
It's not going to help UKIP.
Nevertheless the central point is still that UKIP would need to outpoll the Tories in a place where the Tories do much better than UKIP and with (it seems like) a perfectly valid candidate.
Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.
When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?
Cammo just loves giving aid, usually to the undeserved. And now £3 million down the drain. Could it be a new way to bung wealth to supporters? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33787201
Before you start slagging off the Tories you would do well to look in your own back yard.
Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.
When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?
Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.
When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?
Doesn't renationalisation of the railways enjoy popular cross party support among the electorate?
Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.
When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?
I don't know. It would certainly be cheaper to run the railways directly, on the assumption that they would be a vertically integrated entity and cut out a lot of the additional paperwork involved in the current 'structure'.
At the same time, it would mean taking Network Rail's debts onto the official government balance sheet. While they are in practice there already, of course, it wouldn't exactly look good. Plus, what little is left of the Department of Transport probably wouldn't be equal to the task of running it efficiently (it took BR around 35 years to make a decent fist of it, after all, under a much more effective bureaucracy).
To be honest, I don't think there is any good solution to the current problems facing the railway network. Renationalisation isn't ideal - but the status quo isn't likely to be tenable for much longer either (too costly and inefficient) so it might be a good option at least as a temporary measure.
(1) I don't so obviously I'm on the "wrong" side of the argument.
Err.. your link shows the opposite - that it is supported by less than 50% of the population, and certainly many less than favour rail nationalisation.
Charities should not receive taxpayer's money, it is not the role of govt to decide what's best for people, its the right of the individual. Plenty of people are making very good money out of charities, I find it obscene.
It was stated by the BBC that £800k of the £3 million they were given went straight to paying the wage bill...
I think a charity which is so beholden to the public purse is not really a charity at all. If it gets money from the public purse it should be properly accounted for. Arguably, the money should go to those parts of the public sector which do help deprived children but which don't have flamboyant heads appearing at parties with celebrities and blowing their own trumpet.
If you're going to restructure an entity, you get in experts to do the restructuring. You don't give money on a vague promise to those people who have caused the problem in the first place. That's what the financial experts were looking at doing and they turned away. That alone should have told Ministers that handing out cash willy nilly was not a good idea.
More to the point, is there actual real evidence of the help given to these extremely deprived children? As opposed to claims. There have been some quite alarming stories and stories of help given which don't really add up and which don't fit with what people have seen when they've gone there.
And, finally, for all the talk about helping children, the charity itself is now withdrawing its help to those children virtually overnight having ensured that staff are paid. That is a curious priority. It will be the public sector which will need to pick up the pieces.
What evidence did those two Ministers have which gave them the confidence to overrule the advice from their civil servants and give a Ministerial direction? That's one question I'd be asking those Ministers.
These are all valid questions and I don't know enough about the activities of the Charity to answer them.
I agree that the fundamental problem is the idea that Charities can operate as arms of the State without the accountability of the State for public money when they become dependent on public funds. Publically funding the "third sector" is fraught with these kind of risks. OTOH it might be argued that that third sector is more flexible, more imaginative, better at encouraging volunteers and can, on occasion, have better motivations.
I think it is clear that the money was paid to prevent the closure that is now occurring. It has failed. Whether this is because the situation was already terminal and was misjudged or false promises were given we do not yet know.
This is a daft idea - as is the Tory idea for LHAs.
I would have said the more serious question is, 'where are you going to build 60,000 homes a year in London?' Because although I don't know London that well, I am struggling to see how it could be achieved. Where's the physical space for such a number?
240,000 across the country isn't unachievable - it's been exceeded multiple times, indeed - but it wouldn't be easy with planning regulations and particularly the appeals system as they are at the moment. So presumably he would want/need to reform that as well, but if he is saying how he would do that, I can't see it in the article.
Maybe a little bit of lack of experience piloting legislation showing?
I think a charity which is so beholden to the public purse is not really a charity at all. If it gets money from the public purse it should be properly accounted for
Indeed. And yet we don't demand that from e.g. the recipients of much of our foreign aid or from the EU to whom we pay vast sums every year. Funnily enough, there is massive corruption and waste as a result...
Charities should not receive taxpayer's money, it is not the role of govt to decide what's best for people, its the right of the individual. Plenty of people are making very good money out of charities, I find it obscene.
It was stated by the BBC that £800k of the £3 million they were given went straight to paying the wage bill...
How many people's wage bill and for how long? If that is a one or two months wage bill they are either employing a huge number of people or a few are being paid City-style salaries. The IR will know of course, unless something funny has been going on with regard to that side as well.
Charities should not receive taxpayer's money, it is not the role of govt to decide what's best for people, its the right of the individual. Plenty of people are making very good money out of charities, I find it obscene.
It was stated by the BBC that £800k of the £3 million they were given went straight to paying the wage bill...
I rest my case. That is the equivalent of company in the private sector's annual wage bill if they're employing around 35 people. I'm interested to know what period of time that £800k covers and how many staff members.
Charities should not receive taxpayer's money, it is not the role of govt to decide what's best for people, its the right of the individual. Plenty of people are making very good money out of charities, I find it obscene.
It was stated by the BBC that £800k of the £3 million they were given went straight to paying the wage bill...
Well any cash that went straight to Batman's account as part of that £800k should head back immediately to Gov't coffers.
Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.
When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?
Doesn't renationalisation of the railways enjoy popular cross party support among the electorate?
I don't know but even if it did so what?
There is no money left. We have to choose between the good things we want to do (assuming it is a good thing which is of course highly debatable) and this should not be in any sane politician's top 100.
Labour have to adapt to the post Brown impoverished State. And that means forgetting the wish list and concentrating the available funds where they are most needed.
Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.
When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?
Doesn't renationalisation of the railways enjoy popular cross party support among the electorate?
I don't know but even if it did so what?
There is no money left. We have to choose between the good things we want to do (assuming it is a good thing which is of course highly debatable) and this should not be in any sane politician's top 100.
Labour have to adapt to the post Brown impoverished State. And that means forgetting the wish list and concentrating the available funds where they are most needed.
Panic measure by Burnham. Looks like he has seen some private polling. I'm hoping Cooper doesn't try and match him.
(1) I don't so obviously I'm on the "wrong" side of the argument.
Err.. your link shows the opposite - that it is supported by less than 50% of the population, and certainly many less than favour rail nationalisation.
You are quite right to criticise my use of the word "majority". It is of course a "plurality". It still does not change the fact that significantly more people are in favour of capital punishment than are for it. (And I repeat that I am not one of those for it).
The substantive point remains - which you have ducked.
@MichaelLCrick: Kids Company also big problem for Labour too. Lab Govt first funded them, & Harman bid defender. May may it hard for proper Commons scrutiny
I think a charity which is so beholden to the public purse is not really a charity at all. If it gets money from the public purse it should be properly accounted for. Arguably, the money should go to those parts of the public sector which do help deprived children but which don't have flamboyant heads appearing at parties with celebrities and blowing their own trumpet.
If you're going to restructure an entity, you get in experts to do the restructuring. You don't give money on a vague promise to those people who have caused the problem in the first place. That's what the financial experts were looking at doing and they turned away. That alone should have told Ministers that handing out cash willy nilly was not a good idea.
More to the point, is there actual real evidence of the help given to these extremely deprived children? As opposed to claims. There have been some quite alarming stories and stories of help given which don't really add up and which don't fit with what people have seen when they've gone there.
And, finally, for all the talk about helping children, the charity itself is now withdrawing its help to those children virtually overnight having ensured that staff are paid. That is a curious priority. It will be the public sector which will need to pick up the pieces.
What evidence did those two Ministers have which gave them the confidence to overrule the advice from their civil servants and give a Ministerial direction? That's one question I'd be asking those Ministers.
I think it is clear that the money was paid to prevent the closure that is now occurring. It has failed. Whether this is because the situation was already terminal and was misjudged or false promises were given we do not yet know.
It smells a bit like blackmail, frankly. But I suspect the answer is a mixture of your two coupled with the government not seeking cast-iron assurances before the money was paid. Amateurish, if so. The Charity Commission should have been all over this.
Maybe we should have a new rule for charities. Just as marble halls etc in a bank or other company can be a sign of trouble - hubris/over-extending followed by collapse, maybe charities where the founder is more well-known than the work and spends a lot of time with journalists and celebrities should be a sign that we are in Wizard of Oz-land.
Another aspect are the more notorious fake charities, who are simply lobby groups. Their deliberate use by HMG to distance themselves from unpopular policies - by funding a third party to advocate for them, as a supposedly *independent* voice.
I haven't seen their PR machines so often since Labour lost in 2010. Those organisations really were a mendacious misuse of taxpayer money.
I think a charity which is so beholden to the public purse is not really a charity at all. If it gets money from the public purse it should be properly accounted for. Arguably, the money should go to those parts of the public sector which do help deprived children but which don't have flamboyant heads appearing at parties with celebrities and blowing their own trumpet.
If you're going to restructure an entity, you get in experts to do the restructuring. You don't give money on a vague promise to those people who have caused the problem in the first place. That's what the financial experts were looking at doing and they turned away. That alone should have told Ministers that handing out cash willy nilly was not a good idea.
More to the point, is there actual real evidence of the help given to these extremely deprived children? As opposed to claims. There have been some quite alarming stories and stories of help given which don't really add up and which don't fit with what people have seen when they've gone there.
And, finally, for all the talk about helping children, the charity itself is now withdrawing its help to those children virtually overnight having ensured that staff are paid. That is a curious priority. It will be the public sector which will need to pick up the pieces.
What evidence did those two Ministers have which gave them the confidence to overrule the advice from their civil servants and give a Ministerial direction? That's one question I'd be asking those Ministers.
These are all valid questions and I don't know enough about the activities of the Charity to answer them.
I agree that the fundamental problem is the idea that Charities can operate as arms of the State without the accountability of the State for public money when they become dependent on public funds. Publically funding the "third sector" is fraught with these kind of risks. OTOH it might be argued that that third sector is more flexible, more imaginative, better at encouraging volunteers and can, on occasion, have better motivations.
I think it is clear that the money was paid to prevent the closure that is now occurring. It has failed. Whether this is because the situation was already terminal and was misjudged or false promises were given we do not yet know.
Charities should not receive taxpayer's money, it is not the role of govt to decide what's best for people, its the right of the individual. Plenty of people are making very good money out of charities, I find it obscene.
It was stated by the BBC that £800k of the £3 million they were given went straight to paying the wage bill...
I rest my case. That is the equivalent of company in the private sector's annual wage bill if they're employing around 35 people. I'm interested to know what period of time that £800k covers and how many staff members.
Its a state sponsored racket.
It appears, from the context, to be one month: "Kids Company's July payroll was two days later than usual whilst we waited for a grant from the Cabinet Office to arrive."
It seems rather a lot for one presumably quite small charity in three fairly tightly-defined areas.
Charities should not receive taxpayer's money, it is not the role of govt to decide what's best for people, its the right of the individual. Plenty of people are making very good money out of charities, I find it obscene.
It was stated by the BBC that £800k of the £3 million they were given went straight to paying the wage bill...
The Kid’s Company receives ~£5m annually from Government funds, when the charity found themselves in financial difficulty last July and were on the brink of going bankrupt, they approached HMG for an extra £3m on the premise of downsizing and restructuring which did not entail wages IMRC.
Must admit to being baffled why despite receiving the necessary funding it claimed was needed to keep it afloat, it appears they will close down anyway. – I can quite understand why HMG would rather not have the collapse of such a high profile charity on its hands, but now is the time for the fraud squad to take a closer look me thinks.
Charities should not receive taxpayer's money, it is not the role of govt to decide what's best for people, its the right of the individual. Plenty of people are making very good money out of charities, I find it obscene.
It was stated by the BBC that £800k of the £3 million they were given went straight to paying the wage bill...
I rest my case. That is the equivalent of company in the private sector's annual wage bill if they're employing around 35 people. I'm interested to know what period of time that £800k covers and how many staff members.
Charities should not receive taxpayer's money, it is not the role of govt to decide what's best for people, its the right of the individual. Plenty of people are making very good money out of charities, I find it obscene.
It was stated by the BBC that £800k of the £3 million they were given went straight to paying the wage bill...
The Kid’s Company receives ~£5m annually from Government funds, when the charity found themselves in financial difficulty last July and were on the brink of going bankrupt, they approached HMG for an extra £3m on the premise of downsizing and restructuring which did not entail wages IMRC.
Must admit to being baffled why despite receiving the necessary funding it claimed was needed to keep it afloat, it appears they will close down anyway. – I can quite understand why HMG would rather not have the collapse of such a high profile charity on its hands, but now is the time for the fraud squad to take a closer look me thinks.
Expanded too far, too fast? Cash flow issues. Classic small/medium business issue?
But I can't find numbers of employees. A lot may of course be part-time or highly-qualified, but at the same time I'm still blinking at those numbers on the monthly wage bill.
Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.
When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?
I am very dissappointed that Burnham has not made any promise of an owl for every voter.
But I can't find numbers of employees. A lot may of course be part-time or highly-qualified, but at the same time I'm still blinking at those numbers on the monthly wage bill.
Found it at last - apparently last year they had 495 employees plus north of 9,000 volunteers
Charities should not receive taxpayer's money, it is not the role of govt to decide what's best for people, its the right of the individual. Plenty of people are making very good money out of charities, I find it obscene.
It was stated by the BBC that £800k of the £3 million they were given went straight to paying the wage bill...
The Kid’s Company receives ~£5m annually from Government funds, when the charity found themselves in financial difficulty last July and were on the brink of going bankrupt, they approached HMG for an extra £3m on the premise of downsizing and restructuring which did not entail wages IMRC.
Must admit to being baffled why despite receiving the necessary funding it claimed was needed to keep it afloat, it appears they will close down anyway. – I can quite understand why HMG would rather not have the collapse of such a high profile charity on its hands, but now is the time for the fraud squad to take a closer look me thinks.
Expanded too far, too fast? Cash flow issues. Classic small/medium business issue?
It would appear so, at least according to an article I read in the Guardian last month. – The charity got caught in a wave of publicity when it became the celebrity charity du jour and income rocketed to £25m PA. – looks like that bubble may have now burst.
Charities should not receive taxpayer's money, it is not the role of govt to decide what's best for people, its the right of the individual. Plenty of people are making very good money out of charities, I find it obscene.
It was stated by the BBC that £800k of the £3 million they were given went straight to paying the wage bill...
Well any cash that went straight to Batman's account as part of that £800k should head back immediately to Gov't coffers.
If the Government or the Charity Commission had any sense, they'd be in court now getting freezing orders against all Kids Company bank accounts, including those of the founder and those working for it - until every penny has been accounted for. That's what the Government Legal Service is there for.
Miss Cyclefree, read the other day that Batmanetc was on £90,000 a year.
Reminds me of Fagin's song: "Charity's fine, subscribe to mine..."
That really is a City-style salary.
It really is amazing how many people fall over and over again for plausible and fluent bullsh*tters or shysters or people-who-have-great-ideas-but-couldn't-organise-getting-out-of-their-own-bed.
Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.
When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?
I am very dissappointed that Burnham has not made any promise of an owl for every voter.
There's still time. That one last push Ural waiting for...
This is a daft idea - as is the Tory idea for LHAs.
Just imagine. Applies to every private rental that is more than 6 months Market reduces all rents to 5 months. Large chunk of market stops renting and rental rates rise. Corbyn retaliates with rent freezes. more rental properties withdrawn and left idle or sold. Big market growth in rental to corporates for them to sublet to their employees.... Property left in domestic rental gets run down just like 60s and 70s..... More demand for social housing due to evictions etc.
Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.
When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?
Doesn't renationalisation of the railways enjoy popular cross party support among the electorate?
I don't know but even if it did so what?
There is no money left. We have to choose between the good things we want to do (assuming it is a good thing which is of course highly debatable) and this should not be in any sane politician's top 100.
Labour have to adapt to the post Brown impoverished State. And that means forgetting the wish list and concentrating the available funds where they are most needed.
It's not a binary choice between a socialist paradise public operator where you get £700 a week to sit in an automated train cabin or the whole thing sits in the private sector. There is a middle ground where Infrastructure (which has to include railways) is run as a public good, not on a socialist model, but by government and provides the best value to the national economy.
In the middle ground, which you find in the more grown up countries of Northern Europe, you get far cheaper, more cost effective services which do not burden the public finances.
Re-nationalisation need not cost a single penny, in fact if done properly should be significantly cheaper to both government and traveller.
Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.
When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?
I am very dissappointed that Burnham has not made any promise of an owl for every voter.
There's still time. That one last push Ural waiting for...
It's not a binary choice between a socialist paradise public operator where you get £700 a week to sit in an automated train cabin or the whole thing sits in the private sector. There is a middle ground where Infrastructure (which has to include railways) is run as a public good, not on a socialist model, but by government and provides the best value to the national economy.
TBH, I never liked her. The grandstanding flamboyance and regular slot on QT made me wonder. All a bit too much like a personality cult. Dressing as she did felt like a deliberate ploy to use fears of *racism* to her advantage/silence anyone who didn't agree.
And since her disparaging comments about the mental health of her detractors, it appears that she's stooping to the lowest use of her professional qualifications = to cast her critics as ill or fantacists - certainly not to be taken seriously.
If you're going to restructure an entity, you get in experts to do the restructuring. You don't give money on a vague promise to those people who have caused the problem in the first place. That's what the financial experts were looking at doing and they turned away. That alone should have told Ministers that handing out cash willy nilly was not a good idea.
More to the point, is there actual real evidence of the help given to these extremely deprived children? As opposed to claims. There have been some quite alarming stories and stories of help given which don't really add up and which don't fit with what people have seen when they've gone there.
And, finally, for all the talk about helping children, the charity itself is now withdrawing its help to those children virtually overnight having ensured that staff are paid. That is a curious priority. It will be the public sector which will need to pick up the pieces.
What evidence did those two Ministers have which gave them the confidence to overrule the advice from their civil servants and give a Ministerial direction? That's one question I'd be asking those Ministers.
I think it is clear that the money was paid to prevent the closure that is now occurring. It has failed. Whether this is because the situation was already terminal and was misjudged or false promises were given we do not yet know.
It smells a bit like blackmail, frankly. But I suspect the answer is a mixture of your two coupled with the government not seeking cast-iron assurances before the money was paid. Amateurish, if so. The Charity Commission should have been all over this.
Maybe we should have a new rule for charities. Just as marble halls etc in a bank or other company can be a sign of trouble - hubris/over-extending followed by collapse, maybe charities where the founder is more well-known than the work and spends a lot of time with journalists and celebrities should be a sign that we are in Wizard of Oz-land.
Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.
When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?
Doesn't renationalisation of the railways enjoy popular cross party support among the electorate?
I don't know but even if it did so what?
There is no money left. We have to choose between the good things we want to do (assuming it is a good thing which is of course highly debatable) and this should not be in any sane politician's top 100.
Labour have to adapt to the post Brown impoverished State. And that means forgetting the wish list and concentrating the available funds where they are most needed.
Re-nationalisation need not cost a single penny, in fact if done properly should be significantly cheaper to both government and traveller.
How? Is this just like the thefts govts did in the past?
It's the old story...wherever there is free money being handed around (by the state or private individuals), gangs of hangers-on and leeches will materialise
Not sure why Burnham thinks this is the right strategy.
Corbyn supporters aren't going to change their 1st pref vote to Andy because he's taken on some of his policies, he'll still be seen as "flip-flopper" and "abstainer". It's highly unlikely that JC's 2nd preferences will come into play.
If anything, it's Kendall 2nd prefs that Burnham needs, to keep him ahead of Cooper. From that perspective, this leftward shift makes no sense.
Batmanandsoforth getting cash from various governments reminds me of Zhuge Liang's comments on officials [I wouldn't've remembered, but I only read it yesterday], to the effect that individuals must be chosen for offices, not offices for individuals.
Much the same applies to government funding. Shows that PR nonsense and knowing how to kick up a fuss can get you what you want.
Who rattled Mr Wiseman's cage ? It was quite pleasant here earlier. It must be a early in the day there are a few well qualified members of the forum he hasn't called (in a round about way) either a liar or an idiot yet.
Not sure why Burnham thinks this is the right strategy.
Corbyn supporters aren't going to change their 1st pref vote to Andy because he's taken on some of his policies, he'll still be seen as "flip-flopper" and "abstainer". It's highly unlikely that JC's 2nd preferences will come into play.
If anything, it's Kendall 2nd prefs that Burnham needs, to keep him ahead of Cooper. From that perspective, this leftward shift makes no sense.
" THE SNP is facing criticism after it emerged that members will not get a say over a possible second independence referendum at the party's upcoming conference.
The draft agenda for the SNP conference in October includes no mention of a potential repeat vote, as reported by The Herald on Monday, or last year's historic poll.
Jim Sillars, the former SNP deputy leader, told website CommonSpace that he knew motions regarding another referendum had been tabled by local branches. What makes it on to the agenda is decided by a party committee.
He said: "Why the committee has not approved them for discussion at the conference is a mystery to me"."
OooooooooH another Tory "SNP Bad" pathetic whinge.
Charities should not receive taxpayer's money, it is not the role of govt to decide what's best for people, its the right of the individual. Plenty of people are making very good money out of charities, I find it obscene.
It was stated by the BBC that £800k of the £3 million they were given went straight to paying the wage bill...
Well any cash that went straight to Batman's account as part of that £800k should head back immediately to Gov't coffers.
If the Government or the Charity Commission had any sense, they'd be in court now getting freezing orders against all Kids Company bank accounts, including those of the founder and those working for it - until every penny has been accounted for. That's what the Government Legal Service is there for.
Miss Cyclefree, read the other day that Batmanetc was on £90,000 a year.
Reminds me of Fagin's song: "Charity's fine, subscribe to mine..."
That really is a City-style salary.
It really is amazing how many people fall over and over again for plausible and fluent bullsh*tters or shysters or people-who-have-great-ideas-but-couldn't-organise-getting-out-of-their-own-bed.
Re-nationalisation need not cost a single penny, in fact if done properly should be significantly cheaper to both government and traveller.
How? Is this just like the thefts govts did in the past?
In the specific case of the UK Railways, the private operators own NOTHING. The rolling stock is not owned by them, the infrastructure is not owned by them. Re-nationalisation of UK Railways is probably the most trivial nationalisation I could imagine because it can be done costlessly every time a franchise expires.
But I can't find numbers of employees. A lot may of course be part-time or highly-qualified, but at the same time I'm still blinking at those numbers on the monthly wage bill.
Love the phrase 'Limited confidence' - that's a bit like the 'satisfactory' OFSTED rating !
Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.
When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?
I am very dissappointed that Burnham has not made any promise of an owl for every voter.
There's still time. That one last push Ural waiting for...
ooooh what a hoot.
Knowing my luck, my free owl will have a torn knee....
Not sure why Burnham thinks this is the right strategy.
Corbyn supporters aren't going to change their 1st pref vote to Andy because he's taken on some of his policies, he'll still be seen as "flip-flopper" and "abstainer". It's highly unlikely that JC's 2nd preferences will come into play.
If anything, it's Kendall 2nd prefs that Burnham needs, to keep him ahead of Cooper. From that perspective, this leftward shift makes no sense.
Andy Burnham is trying to win a few more first preferences from those who would otherwise choose Jeremy Corbyn. If we work on the basis that the current running order for first preferences is roughly:
1. Jeremy Corbyn 2= Andy Burnham 2= Yvette Cooper 4 Liz Kendall
Andy Burnham is in serious danger of going out on the second round as Yvette Cooper scoops up most of Liz Kendall's second preferences. If Andy Burnham can get a few more first preferences from Jeremy Corbyn, he increases his chances of seeing off Yvette Cooper before getting into the head-to-head with Jeremy Corbyn, while making the gap between Jeremy Corbyn and himself to overcome in the final round that much smaller.
The sudden closure of the Kids Company is rather symptomatic of charities that rely on volunteers but use funds to pay their professionals very well. However, Letwin and Hancock could have spoiled any reputations they have left.
That Mirror article is from 2013. It just mentions "Research by economists" not saying who, but if it is the whippersnappers at the New Economics Foundation they fail on the economics. The Mirror's happy recollections about Mick Jagger etc may be enjoyable for their readership, but that is all. I was analysing and forecasting the UK economy at the OECD at the time, and I can assure you that we were seen as a basket case by other countries.
New economics is a concept where money grows on trees, all government spending is investment and we should have income tax rates of 99% on high earners.
In the specific case of the UK Railways, the private operators own NOTHING. The rolling stock is not owned by them, the infrastructure is not owned by them. Re-nationalisation of UK Railways is probably the most trivial nationalisation I could imagine because it can be done costlessly every time a franchise expires.
The infrastructure is owned by Network Rail, which is sort of not-quite-a-QUANGO, but the rolling stock is owned by ROSCOs, who are privately owned (mostly with banks behind them, as I understand it). So they would have to be bought out.
The franchises all end at different points (annoyingly) so there would have to be varying levels of compensation for short-termination.
The question is, would that money be well spent? That requires us to know what the railways would be like 5-10 years from now - but as I said, I guess it would probably be a bit cheaper in the long run, and it may become necessary.
However, as @handandmouse says, it's difficult to see what Burnham hopes to actually gain from it. Those in favour of renationalisation are probably trending towards Corbyn anyway, and it's the other candidates he needs to start wooing. Maybe he's just not brilliant at strategy?
The sudden closure of the Kids Company is rather symptomatic of charities that rely on volunteers but use funds to pay their professionals very well. However, Letwin and Hancock could have spoiled any reputations they have left.
Ian Jack's essay on railways and nationalisation is a marvel. It is - genuinely - much more interesting and beautifully written than it sounds. I found it fascinating and gripping. It was written to explain the Hatfield train crash but covers so much more.
It can be found in "The Country formerly known as Great Britain". The essay itself is called "The 12.10 to Leeds."
The whole book is good with some wonderful essays in it.
That Mirror article is from 2013. It just mentions "Research by economists" not saying who, but if it is the whippersnappers at the New Economics Foundation they fail on the economics. The Mirror's happy recollections about Mick Jagger etc may be enjoyable for their readership, but that is all. I was analysing and forecasting the UK economy at the OECD at the time, and I can assure you that we were seen as a basket case by other countries.
New economics is a concept where money grows on trees, all government spending is investment and we should have income tax rates of 99% on high earners.
Not sure why Burnham thinks this is the right strategy.
Corbyn supporters aren't going to change their 1st pref vote to Andy because he's taken on some of his policies, he'll still be seen as "flip-flopper" and "abstainer". It's highly unlikely that JC's 2nd preferences will come into play.
If anything, it's Kendall 2nd prefs that Burnham needs, to keep him ahead of Cooper. From that perspective, this leftward shift makes no sense.
Andy Burnham is trying to win a few more first preferences from those who would otherwise choose Jeremy Corbyn. If we work on the basis that the current running order for first preferences is roughly:
1. Jeremy Corbyn 2= Andy Burnham 2= Yvette Cooper 4 Liz Kendall
Andy Burnham is in serious danger of going out on the second round as Yvette Cooper scoops up most of Liz Kendall's second preferences. If Andy Burnham can get a few more first preferences from Jeremy Corbyn, he increases his chances of seeing off Yvette Cooper before getting into the head-to-head with Jeremy Corbyn, while making the gap between Jeremy Corbyn and himself to overcome in the final round that much smaller.
Undoubtedly my experience can only be generalised so far, being as it is derived mostly from social media, but the division that has developed between JC and "anyone but Corbyn" makes me think the numbers prepared to switch at this point will be minimal.
It's not a binary choice between a socialist paradise public operator where you get £700 a week to sit in an automated train cabin or the whole thing sits in the private sector. There is a middle ground where Infrastructure (which has to include railways) is run as a public good, not on a socialist model, but by government and provides the best value to the national economy.
*cough*Prestwick*cough*
C'mon then , tell us what is wrong with Prestwick. Costs a lot less than the charity fiddles we see down south and provides real jobs in a real community. You really are snidey so and so. Also costs a lot less than Glasgow and Edinburgh airports get as well.
The sudden closure of the Kids Company is rather symptomatic of charities that rely on volunteers but use funds to pay their professionals very well. However, Letwin and Hancock could have spoiled any reputations they have left.
I've yet to get into the details of this. But I'm wondering why ministers are involved at all in the details of an individual charity?
Because the charity tricked/lied to them about the use of a grant of £3m.
Olly Letwin duped - say it ain't so !
I'd expect more from Hancock however, he'll need to sharpen up if he wants the SPAD Chancellor job under George.
How do these cretinous turnips ever manage to get into a position of power , other than due to being fags at certain schools
Maybe they trusted the promises from kids company's board?
That letter from Sir Humphrey Richard makes it perfectly clear he thinks it is a very bad idea ! This calls Letwin and Hancock's judgement into severe question.
Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.
When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?
The sudden closure of the Kids Company is rather symptomatic of charities that rely on volunteers but use funds to pay their professionals very well. However, Letwin and Hancock could have spoiled any reputations they have left.
I've yet to get into the details of this. But I'm wondering why ministers are involved at all in the details of an individual charity?
Because the charity tricked/lied to them about the use of a grant of £3m.
Olly Letwin duped - say it ain't so !
I'd expect more from Hancock however, he'll need to sharpen up if he wants the SPAD Chancellor job under George.
How do these cretinous turnips ever manage to get into a position of power , other than due to being fags at certain schools
Maybe they trusted the promises from kids company's board?
That letter from Sir Humphrey Richard makes it perfectly clear he thinks it is a very bad idea ! This calls Letwin and Hancock's judgement into severe question.
When it boils down to it, he's saying
1) We gave them money on condition they did certain things they promised to do.
2) They haven't done them.
3) Now they want more money and are promising to make the changes again.
So clearly he felt there was an issue there on credibility and broken promises.
Not a huge fan of Civil Servants but it doesn't seem unreasonable to say 'they've broken one set of promises, they might break another'.
Not sure why Burnham thinks this is the right strategy.
Corbyn supporters aren't going to change their 1st pref vote to Andy because he's taken on some of his policies, he'll still be seen as "flip-flopper" and "abstainer". It's highly unlikely that JC's 2nd preferences will come into play.
If anything, it's Kendall 2nd prefs that Burnham needs, to keep him ahead of Cooper. From that perspective, this leftward shift makes no sense.
Andy Burnham is trying to win a few more first preferences from those who would otherwise choose Jeremy Corbyn. If we work on the basis that the current running order for first preferences is roughly:
1. Jeremy Corbyn 2= Andy Burnham 2= Yvette Cooper 4 Liz Kendall
Andy Burnham is in serious danger of going out on the second round as Yvette Cooper scoops up most of Liz Kendall's second preferences. If Andy Burnham can get a few more first preferences from Jeremy Corbyn, he increases his chances of seeing off Yvette Cooper before getting into the head-to-head with Jeremy Corbyn, while making the gap between Jeremy Corbyn and himself to overcome in the final round that much smaller.
Undoubtedly my experience can only be generalised so far, being as it is derived mostly from social media, but the division that has developed between JC and "anyone but Corbyn" makes me think the numbers prepared to switch at this point will be minimal.
I don't think many will switch either (though a few nervous Corbynites might be tempted back from the dark side). But that's Andy Burnham's logic and it probably indicates that he's panicking.
Not sure why Burnham thinks this is the right strategy.
Corbyn supporters aren't going to change their 1st pref vote to Andy because he's taken on some of his policies, he'll still be seen as "flip-flopper" and "abstainer". It's highly unlikely that JC's 2nd preferences will come into play.
If anything, it's Kendall 2nd prefs that Burnham needs, to keep him ahead of Cooper. From that perspective, this leftward shift makes no sense.
Andy Burnham is trying to win a few more first preferences from those who would otherwise choose Jeremy Corbyn. If we work on the basis that the current running order for first preferences is roughly:
1. Jeremy Corbyn 2= Andy Burnham 2= Yvette Cooper 4 Liz Kendall
Andy Burnham is in serious danger of going out on the second round as Yvette Cooper scoops up most of Liz Kendall's second preferences. If Andy Burnham can get a few more first preferences from Jeremy Corbyn, he increases his chances of seeing off Yvette Cooper before getting into the head-to-head with Jeremy Corbyn, while making the gap between Jeremy Corbyn and himself to overcome in the final round that much smaller.
Undoubtedly my experience can only be generalised so far, being as it is derived mostly from social media, but the division that has developed between JC and "anyone but Corbyn" makes me think the numbers prepared to switch at this point will be minimal.
Is it possible to bet on the order of elimination (rather than 1st prefs)?
In the specific case of the UK Railways, the private operators own NOTHING. The rolling stock is not owned by them, the infrastructure is not owned by them. Re-nationalisation of UK Railways is probably the most trivial nationalisation I could imagine because it can be done costlessly every time a franchise expires.
The infrastructure is owned by Network Rail, which is sort of not-quite-a-QUANGO, but the rolling stock is owned by ROSCOs, who are privately owned (mostly with banks behind them, as I understand it). So they would have to be bought out.
The franchises all end at different points (annoyingly) so there would have to be varying levels of compensation for short-termination.
The question is, would that money be well spent? That requires us to know what the railways would be like 5-10 years from now - but as I said, I guess it would probably be a bit cheaper in the long run, and it may become necessary.
However, as @handandmouse says, it's difficult to see what Burnham hopes to actually gain from it. Those in favour of renationalisation are probably trending towards Corbyn anyway, and it's the other candidates he needs to start wooing. Maybe he's just not brilliant at strategy?
As I initially said it is not a binary choice between immediate full public ownership and the old days of British Rail and the private operators of today. Take the ideology out of your thinking.
There is no need for early terminations unless voluntarily done by the operator with no compo, otherwise just let them expire, none are longer than 10 years.
There is no immediate requirement for a change in rolling stock ownership either. They continue to be leased as they are today and the decision made on the ownership of new and replacement stock.
The bottom line is that it is the most utterly trivial nationalisation imaginable eith no inherent cost requirements. So the argument people like DavidL have put forward that it is somehow unaffordable is bollocks.
It is actually a huge opening for the Tories. They could renationalise the rail as part of a strategy which includes full automation and driverless trains while whacking the Unions with much more realistic wage levels in the industry. They would get huge public support, costs would plummet and so would fares.
It's not a binary choice between a socialist paradise public operator where you get £700 a week to sit in an automated train cabin or the whole thing sits in the private sector. There is a middle ground where Infrastructure (which has to include railways) is run as a public good, not on a socialist model, but by government and provides the best value to the national economy.
*cough*Prestwick*cough*
C'mon then , tell us what is wrong with Prestwick. Costs a lot less than the charity fiddles we see down south and provides real jobs in a real community. You really are snidey so and so. Also costs a lot less than Glasgow and Edinburgh airports get as well.
The benchmark for public spending in Scotland is the 'Spin Doctor'.
Does Prestwick cost more or less than Sturgeon's little helpers?
It's not a binary choice between a socialist paradise public operator where you get £700 a week to sit in an automated train cabin or the whole thing sits in the private sector. There is a middle ground where Infrastructure (which has to include railways) is run as a public good, not on a socialist model, but by government and provides the best value to the national economy.
*cough*Prestwick*cough*
C'mon then , tell us what is wrong with Prestwick. Costs a lot less than the charity fiddles we see down south and provides real jobs in a real community. You really are snidey so and so. Also costs a lot less than Glasgow and Edinburgh airports get as well.
Prestwick has seen passenger numbers fall from 2.4 million to 900,000. Glasgow has almost 8 million passengers a year. Prestwick has a grand total of 1 passenger company using it. Glasgow has 25 if seasonal schedules are included.
It is easy to run an airport cheaply when no one uses it.
Am I right to think a dual forecast is any order, and a straight forecast in the order given?
Straight forecast is in the order specified. Reverse forecast is in either order. Dual forecast was a Tote bet in either order but iirc was scrapped and replaced by the Tote exacta. Tote exacta is in the order specified.
I only say because Ladbrokes will give me a "dual forecast" on the Premier League - at shorter odds than their straight forecast, which would make sense...
Yes, dual forecast = forecast in either order.
It's similar to a reverse forecast except that it's one bet at one price (whereas a £5 reverse forecast is actually 2 x £5 bets, struck/settled at different prices).
The sudden closure of the Kids Company is rather symptomatic of charities that rely on volunteers but use funds to pay their professionals very well. However, Letwin and Hancock could have spoiled any reputations they have left.
I've yet to get into the details of this. But I'm wondering why ministers are involved at all in the details of an individual charity?
Because the charity tricked/lied to them about the use of a grant of £3m.
Olly Letwin duped - say it ain't so !
I'd expect more from Hancock however, he'll need to sharpen up if he wants the SPAD Chancellor job under George.
How do these cretinous turnips ever manage to get into a position of power , other than due to being fags at certain schools
Maybe they trusted the promises from kids company's board?
That letter from Sir Humphrey Richard makes it perfectly clear he thinks it is a very bad idea ! This calls Letwin and Hancock's judgement into severe question.
It certainly does which is why the Government should be getting freezing orders/injunctions and the rest of it to ensure that there is at least a chance of some of the money being repaid. If they're not - unless there is a bloody good reason why not - they're only compounding the original error.
A worthwhile opposition that wasn't located in its own lower colon should be asking some tough forensic questions.
The sudden closure of the Kids Company is rather symptomatic of charities that rely on volunteers but use funds to pay their professionals very well. However, Letwin and Hancock could have spoiled any reputations they have left.
I've yet to get into the details of this. But I'm wondering why ministers are involved at all in the details of an individual charity?
Because the charity tricked/lied to them about the use of a grant of £3m.
Olly Letwin duped - say it ain't so !
I'd expect more from Hancock however, he'll need to sharpen up if he wants the SPAD Chancellor job under George.
How do these cretinous turnips ever manage to get into a position of power , other than due to being fags at certain schools
Maybe they trusted the promises from kids company's board?
LOL, yes just what an intelligent person would do when , some loser turns up and tells you they have squandered the £5M you gave them not long ago but if you just give them another £3M it will be just fine. Of course you would trust them against all your advisers advice, why would you not.
The sudden closure of the Kids Company is rather symptomatic of charities that rely on volunteers but use funds to pay their professionals very well. However, Letwin and Hancock could have spoiled any reputations they have left.
I've yet to get into the details of this. But I'm wondering why ministers are involved at all in the details of an individual charity?
Because the charity tricked/lied to them about the use of a grant of £3m.
Olly Letwin duped - say it ain't so !
I'd expect more from Hancock however, he'll need to sharpen up if he wants the SPAD Chancellor job under George.
How do these cretinous turnips ever manage to get into a position of power , other than due to being fags at certain schools
Maybe they trusted the promises from kids company's board?
LOL, yes just what an intelligent person would do when , some loser turns up and tells you they have squandered the £5M you gave them not long ago but if you just give them another £3M it will be just fine. Of course you would trust them against all your advisers advice, why would you not.
They didn't just hand them £3m, did they? They imposed plenty of conditions.
Comments
Prediction: Nigel Farage will not be in the TV debates at the next General Election
kerihw @kerihw
Feel like we'd learn a lot more about Labour candidates over a few episodes of Come Dine With Me.
See more at: https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/ed-miliband-was-urged-change-tack-deficit-early-2010#sthash.7OUEmq2E.dpuf
Cooper = Kinnock; Kendall = Hattersly maybe ;p
If you're going to restructure an entity, you get in experts to do the restructuring. You don't give money on a vague promise to those people who have caused the problem in the first place. That's what the financial experts were looking at doing and they turned away. That alone should have told Ministers that handing out cash willy nilly was not a good idea.
More to the point, is there actual real evidence of the help given to these extremely deprived children? As opposed to claims. There have been some quite alarming stories and stories of help given which don't really add up and which don't fit with what people have seen when they've gone there.
And, finally, for all the talk about helping children, the charity itself is now withdrawing its help to those children virtually overnight having ensured that staff are paid. That is a curious priority. It will be the public sector which will need to pick up the pieces.
What evidence did those two Ministers have which gave them the confidence to overrule the advice from their civil servants and give a Ministerial direction? That's one question I'd be asking those Ministers.
Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.
When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?
Nevertheless the central point is still that UKIP would need to outpoll the Tories in a place where the Tories do much better than UKIP and with (it seems like) a perfectly valid candidate.
Matt Hancock's career prospects don't look quite so rosey this morning.
5-2 for next C o E ?
No thanks !
It's just so stupid and fantastical.
At the same time, it would mean taking Network Rail's debts onto the official government balance sheet. While they are in practice there already, of course, it wouldn't exactly look good. Plus, what little is left of the Department of Transport probably wouldn't be equal to the task of running it efficiently (it took BR around 35 years to make a decent fist of it, after all, under a much more effective bureaucracy).
To be honest, I don't think there is any good solution to the current problems facing the railway network. Renationalisation isn't ideal - but the status quo isn't likely to be tenable for much longer either (too costly and inefficient) so it might be a good option at least as a temporary measure.
Says the serial clickbait repost offender and delusional extreme right 'swing voter'
http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media-centre/latest-press-releases/bsa-32-support-for-death-penalty.aspx
(1) I don't so obviously I'm on the "wrong" side of the argument.
I agree that the fundamental problem is the idea that Charities can operate as arms of the State without the accountability of the State for public money when they become dependent on public funds. Publically funding the "third sector" is fraught with these kind of risks. OTOH it might be argued that that third sector is more flexible, more imaginative, better at encouraging volunteers and can, on occasion, have better motivations.
I think it is clear that the money was paid to prevent the closure that is now occurring. It has failed. Whether this is because the situation was already terminal and was misjudged or false promises were given we do not yet know.
240,000 across the country isn't unachievable - it's been exceeded multiple times, indeed - but it wouldn't be easy with planning regulations and particularly the appeals system as they are at the moment. So presumably he would want/need to reform that as well, but if he is saying how he would do that, I can't see it in the article.
Maybe a little bit of lack of experience piloting legislation showing?
Indeed. And yet we don't demand that from e.g. the recipients of much of our foreign aid or from the EU to whom we pay vast sums every year. Funnily enough, there is massive corruption and waste as a result...
Its a state sponsored racket.
There is no money left. We have to choose between the good things we want to do (assuming it is a good thing which is of course highly debatable) and this should not be in any sane politician's top 100.
Labour have to adapt to the post Brown impoverished State. And that means forgetting the wish list and concentrating the available funds where they are most needed.
Reminds me of Fagin's song: "Charity's fine, subscribe to mine..."
It still does not change the fact that significantly more people are in favour of capital punishment than are for it. (And I repeat that I am not one of those for it).
The substantive point remains - which you have ducked.
Maybe we should have a new rule for charities. Just as marble halls etc in a bank or other company can be a sign of trouble - hubris/over-extending followed by collapse, maybe charities where the founder is more well-known than the work and spends a lot of time with journalists and celebrities should be a sign that we are in Wizard of Oz-land.
I haven't seen their PR machines so often since Labour lost in 2010. Those organisations really were a mendacious misuse of taxpayer money.
It seems rather a lot for one presumably quite small charity in three fairly tightly-defined areas.
Don't let that Welshman wind you up so much.
He's just an intellectual bully.
Must admit to being baffled why despite receiving the necessary funding it claimed was needed to keep it afloat, it appears they will close down anyway. – I can quite understand why HMG would rather not have the collapse of such a high profile charity on its hands, but now is the time for the fraud squad to take a closer look me thinks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11784458/In-2015-Labour-should-not-be-thinking-about-nationalisation.html
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445933/20150626_Request_for_Ministerial_Direction_-_RH_to_OL_and_MH.pdf
But I can't find numbers of employees. A lot may of course be part-time or highly-qualified, but at the same time I'm still blinking at those numbers on the monthly wage bill.
@BBCNormanS: Gordon Brown took "a personal interest" in funding of @KidsCompanyUK -former Labour adviser
http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1068298&SubsidiaryNumber=0
(hope that works as a URL)
£800k for a month's wages?
I'll lay 100/1 this is front page of the Guardian tomorrow.
It really is amazing how many people fall over and over again for plausible and fluent bullsh*tters or shysters or people-who-have-great-ideas-but-couldn't-organise-getting-out-of-their-own-bed.
Applies to every private rental that is more than 6 months
Market reduces all rents to 5 months.
Large chunk of market stops renting and rental rates rise.
Corbyn retaliates with rent freezes.
more rental properties withdrawn and left idle or sold.
Big market growth in rental to corporates for them to sublet to their employees....
Property left in domestic rental gets run down just like 60s and 70s.....
More demand for social housing due to evictions etc.
In the middle ground, which you find in the more grown up countries of Northern Europe, you get far cheaper, more cost effective services which do not burden the public finances.
Re-nationalisation need not cost a single penny, in fact if done properly should be significantly cheaper to both government and traveller.
And since her disparaging comments about the mental health of her detractors, it appears that she's stooping to the lowest use of her professional qualifications = to cast her critics as ill or fantacists - certainly not to be taken seriously.
Urgh.
Corbyn supporters aren't going to change their 1st pref vote to Andy because he's taken on some of his policies, he'll still be seen as "flip-flopper" and "abstainer". It's highly unlikely that JC's 2nd preferences will come into play.
If anything, it's Kendall 2nd prefs that Burnham needs, to keep him ahead of Cooper. From that perspective, this leftward shift makes no sense.
Much the same applies to government funding. Shows that PR nonsense and knowing how to kick up a fuss can get you what you want.
Anyway, off for a bit.
(Hope that works - should start at 20 minutes 50 seconds)
1. Jeremy Corbyn
2= Andy Burnham
2= Yvette Cooper
4 Liz Kendall
Andy Burnham is in serious danger of going out on the second round as Yvette Cooper scoops up most of Liz Kendall's second preferences. If Andy Burnham can get a few more first preferences from Jeremy Corbyn, he increases his chances of seeing off Yvette Cooper before getting into the head-to-head with Jeremy Corbyn, while making the gap between Jeremy Corbyn and himself to overcome in the final round that much smaller.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/05/bbc-denies-alan-yentob-influenced-newsnight-kids-company-report
The franchises all end at different points (annoyingly) so there would have to be varying levels of compensation for short-termination.
The question is, would that money be well spent? That requires us to know what the railways would be like 5-10 years from now - but as I said, I guess it would probably be a bit cheaper in the long run, and it may become necessary.
However, as @handandmouse says, it's difficult to see what Burnham hopes to actually gain from it. Those in favour of renationalisation are probably trending towards Corbyn anyway, and it's the other candidates he needs to start wooing. Maybe he's just not brilliant at strategy?
It can be found in "The Country formerly known as Great Britain". The essay itself is called "The 12.10 to Leeds."
The whole book is good with some wonderful essays in it.
You really are snidey so and so. Also costs a lot less than Glasgow and Edinburgh airports get as well.
1) We gave them money on condition they did certain things they promised to do.
2) They haven't done them.
3) Now they want more money and are promising to make the changes again.
So clearly he felt there was an issue there on credibility and broken promises.
Not a huge fan of Civil Servants but it doesn't seem unreasonable to say 'they've broken one set of promises, they might break another'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33784926
Welling, London, England
Bollocks ! Means we can't deport him anywhere ><
There is no need for early terminations unless voluntarily done by the operator with no compo, otherwise just let them expire, none are longer than 10 years.
There is no immediate requirement for a change in rolling stock ownership either. They continue to be leased as they are today and the decision made on the ownership of new and replacement stock.
The bottom line is that it is the most utterly trivial nationalisation imaginable eith no inherent cost requirements. So the argument people like DavidL have put forward that it is somehow unaffordable is bollocks.
It is actually a huge opening for the Tories. They could renationalise the rail as part of a strategy which includes full automation and driverless trains while whacking the Unions with much more realistic wage levels in the industry. They would get huge public support, costs would plummet and so would fares.
Does Prestwick cost more or less than Sturgeon's little helpers?
It is easy to run an airport cheaply when no one uses it.
A worthwhile opposition that wasn't located in its own lower colon should be asking some tough forensic questions.