If I ws a 14 yr old kid in Hackney or wherever Kids Company operated from, I'd be down Kids Company every week. So far as I can tell they were just giving away free cash ! Who wouldn't take it.
This Kids Company stuff is pathetic, I get they probably helped some people, but it is clearly not as many as they claimed, and it was in a way which was unsustainable at the very least, so while I can understand them being defensive about what they were about, how can they have an answer for the failings that are now so obvious? Would their solution have been the public through the government just continue to funnel money through them forevermore in ever increasing amounts despite all the obvious flaws in their organisation.
The thing that infuriates me is this tarnishes other, less trendy charities who are genuinely trying to help struggling young people. You can't just throw money at someone who is poorly educated or has a drug habit or has mental health issues; it might make you feel smug, but it does not help.
I've belatedly realised that I hate that woman. She is vile. *Huffs into a paper bag*.
And if you think of the amount of good the money wasted on this pretendy charity would have done if channelled to those who are really helping children with mental health problems, it makes you furious. Makes me furious anyway.
Any charity law experts here care to ponder the hypothetical question of whether a millionaire charity trustee could be held personally financially responsible for the abuse of charitable donations?
It may well be that, privately, Merkel wouldn't mind cutting Cameron a good deal, but Cameron is isn't really pushing for it and the EU is far more worried about contagion and encourager les autres.
This Kids Company stuff is pathetic, I get they probably helped some people, but it is clearly not as many as they claimed, and it was in a way which was unsustainable at the very least, so while I can understand them being defensive about what they were about, how can they have an answer for the failings that are now so obvious? Would their solution have been the public through the government just continue to funnel money through them forevermore in ever increasing amounts despite all the obvious flaws in their organisation.
The thing that infuriates me is this tarnishes other, less trendy charities who are genuinely trying to help struggling young people. You can't just throw money at someone who is poorly educated or has a drug habit or has mental health issues; it might make you feel smug, but it does not help.
I've belatedly realised that I hate that woman. She is vile. *Huffs into a paper bag*.
And if you think of the amount of good the money wasted on this pretendy charity would have done if channelled to those who are really helping children with mental health problems, it makes you furious. Makes me furious anyway.
MPs asking Camila Batmanghelidjh why Kids Company claimed to help 36k clients when local councils received only 1700 files after closure.
The 36K figure quoted by Kid.Co was debunked quite some time ago. – The true number of those that actually needed real help as opposed to those that were simply handed envelopes of cash, will I suspect never be known unless the committee can resort to water-boarding the slippery creature.
You and others should stop perverting the English language.
Scotland is not a "one party state". Such a description is correctly used to describe a country where no other party is allowed to stand, not where one party dominates.
As (admiittedly under barking mad FPTP) the Tories have a bigger majority at Westminster than the SNP at Holyrood, does anyone in the UK describe the UK as a one party state?-thought not.
It is such childish drivel that leads to the very dominance by the SNP that unionists so fear, so I suppose, though much irritated, I can take pleasure in such stupidity.
The idea that childish drivel leads to the dominance is nonsense, as the SNP and its supporters are certainly not above utilising childish drivel as well. That there is dominance is undeniable, and there are many factors at play there, but childish drivel is a reaction to the dominance, not a cause, or at least not a significant one. If it were, the SNP would themselves not be as dominant, as like all parties they engage in it and so would face a similar reaction.
Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.
If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.
I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.
Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.
Any charity law experts here care to ponder the hypothetical question of whether a millionaire charity trustee could be held personally financially responsible for the abuse of charitable donations?
A good read, but I'm not actually sure that all of the categories are that threatening to the tories.
A narrow win for Remain might be a problem in the EU ref, if the independence movement galvanises like it did in Scotland then we might see some defections to UKIP - but there may be some from Labour also.
For any of this to happen, UKIP needs to get it's act together and target their most captive audience - the CDE's of this world - not sure Farage is the right person to do this.
Sindy Ref - Looks like SNP are trying to reach out to No voters for Holyrood 2016, a move that say to me the another referendum is on the back burner until at least the 2020s.
Cuts - Yes they aren't nice and they particularly antagonise the far left, but I think as long as deficit reduction continues most people will continue to buy into the ideology. I suspect we may get some sort of concession in the Autumn statement to provide some transitional relief on tax credit cuts, taking the sting out of that subject.
Recession - This is the biggie for me. I don't really think the crisis from 2008 has been resolved. A combination of a lot of funny money pumping assets and a huge infrastructure project in China has given the impression that we have moved on from that era. However on many measures, the global economy is today even more imbalanced and fragile than it was in 2008. Personally, I rate the chances of a recession at least as deep as 2009 occurring in the next 12-18 months at around 60-70%. Hopefully the assets classes, such as property will be taken down properly this time as that will give us a better chance of properly recovering. However bad it gets, who will the electorate go with Cameron/Osborne or Corbyn/McDonnell.
In summary, I think unless major as yet unknown events occur that damage the tories, then they are near certainties for 2020. If Labour stays hard left, then 2025 is probably in the bag also, unless UKIP can capitalise on a close decision to REMAIN and switch their focus to the left of centre, where most of their natural supporters probably are.
MPs asking Camila Batmanghelidjh why Kids Company claimed to help 36k clients when local councils received only 1700 files after closure.
The 36K figure quoted by Kid.Co was debunked quite some time ago. – The true number of those that actually needed real help as opposed to those that were simply handed envelopes of cash, will I suspect never be known unless the committee can resort to water-boarding the slippery creature.
Picking apart the numbers in the public domain, it sounds as if they were helping a thousand or less, who were in genuine need of help. It's disgraceful when one thinks of what could have been done with that money. Blood boiling.
A murmur runs through the crowd, as the number sets in the minds of Malian viewers and listeners. It is whispered: "Now must go out to."
The suction effect of the German refugee policy is large in West Africa. In countries such as Mali or Niger the number of those who want to leave the country has risen rapidly. Exact figures are not available. In Bamako is spoken on every street corner on the details of the German refugee situation. A sure indicator of the renewed interest in Germany.
One of the MPs said they'd received evidence from a social services witness that some of the final 2000 clients handed over weren't in need of anything.
MPs asking Camila Batmanghelidjh why Kids Company claimed to help 36k clients when local councils received only 1700 files after closure.
The 36K figure quoted by Kid.Co was debunked quite some time ago. – The true number of those that actually needed real help as opposed to those that were simply handed envelopes of cash, will I suspect never be known unless the committee can resort to water-boarding the slippery creature.
Picking apart the numbers in the public domain, it sounds as if they were helping a thousand or less, who were in genuine need of help. It's disgraceful when one thinks of what could have been done with that money. Blood boiling.
This Kids Company stuff is pathetic, I get they probably helped some people, but it is clearly not as many as they claimed, and it was in a way which was unsustainable at the very least, so while I can understand them being defensive about what they were about, how can they have an answer for the failings that are now so obvious? Would their solution have been the public through the government just continue to funnel money through them forevermore in ever increasing amounts despite all the obvious flaws in their organisation.
The thing that infuriates me is this tarnishes other, less trendy charities who are genuinely trying to help struggling young people. You can't just throw money at someone who is poorly educated or has a drug habit or has mental health issues; it might make you feel smug, but it does not help.
I've belatedly realised that I hate that woman. She is vile. *Huffs into a paper bag*.
And if you think of the amount of good the money wasted on this pretendy charity would have done if channelled to those who are really helping children with mental health problems, it makes you furious. Makes me furious anyway.
I'm angry too.
So much good Kids Company could have done.
Children with mental health issues need expert care not hugs or money from someone with no qualifications in this field. Someone with OCD, for instance, can find being touched extremely upsetting. Her so-called therapeutic skills are as likely to have made people worse rather than better.
The harm is not just the money wasted by this organisation and the opportunities lost for others but the harm done to "clients" by the wrong solutions to their problems.
I think this is one area where the government needs to focus.
It's improving... long way to go
Twas always thus. Two things on this. As almost the last house in a suburb who missed the choice of (immediate neighbourhood deprivation 9) school for my son by about 50yds, eventually considering and somewhat nervously sending him to a (immediate neighbourhood deprivation 1) school with an improving and almost identical GCSE pass rate in the 70s. The deprived school's one line answer to how they had done it was 'good use of the pupil premium' and we have been impressed so far. The school will never attract the popularity of the leafier school, despite much smaller class sizes, simply by virtue of where you have to drive through to get there and we remain nervous and monitor things closely. My point - the pupil premium has been excellent and should continue to drive improvement in equality of opportunity.
Secondly, a downside. Home ownership is well and good, but in making it a holy grail, decent tenant rights in the rented sector should not and cannot be abandoned. The lack of stability in private rented housing is one of the biggest killers of educational opportunity I see in 2015. I see so many of the more deprived kids in schools leading an increasingly peripatetic existence, disappearing from one school to the next, to the next as rentals expire (I'm not talking about the ones on an expulsion merry-go-round here), that I cannot imagine it is not a significant skewing of the playing field.
Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.
If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.
I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.
Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.
Turns out we mistook her loud clothes, and even louder voice, as charisma and competence.
Shame, because back in the day I was convinced Kids Company was A Good Thing.
Just goes to show that none of us ever knows what's really going on, until everyone knows.
This is one of the most persuasive pieces I've read on the EU refernedum. Jenkins argues that by voting "No" we could get something similar to the deal that Cameron was originally going for:
Afua Hirsch Verified account @afuahirsch 2m2 minutes ago Hearing about child victim of paedophile gang who apparently lived w #kidscompany key worker- sounds unorthodox to say least @CommonsPACAC
This Kids Company stuff is pathetic, I get they probably helped some people, but it is clearly not as many as they claimed, and it was in a way which was unsustainable at the very least, so while I can understand them being defensive about what they were about, how can they have an answer for the failings that are now so obvious? Would their solution have been the public through the government just continue to funnel money through them forevermore in ever increasing amounts despite all the obvious flaws in their organisation.
The thing that infuriates me is this tarnishes other, less trendy charities who are genuinely trying to help struggling young people. You can't just throw money at someone who is poorly educated or has a drug habit or has mental health issues; it might make you feel smug, but it does not help.
I've belatedly realised that I hate that woman. She is vile. *Huffs into a paper bag*.
And if you think of the amount of good the money wasted on this pretendy charity would have done if channelled to those who are really helping children with mental health problems, it makes you furious. Makes me furious anyway.
This Kids Company stuff is pathetic, I get they probably helped some people, but it is clearly not as many as they claimed, and it was in a way which was unsustainable at the very least, so while I can understand them being defensive about what they were about, how can they have an answer for the failings that are now so obvious? Would their solution have been the public through the government just continue to funnel money through them forevermore in ever increasing amounts despite all the obvious flaws in their organisation.
The thing that infuriates me is this tarnishes other, less trendy charities who are genuinely trying to help struggling young people. You can't just throw money at someone who is poorly educated or has a drug habit or has mental health issues; it might make you feel smug, but it does not help.
I've belatedly realised that I hate that woman. She is vile. *Huffs into a paper bag*.
And if you think of the amount of good the money wasted on this pretendy charity would have done if channelled to those who are really helping children with mental health problems, it makes you furious. Makes me furious anyway.
I'm angry too.
So much good Kids Company could have done.
Children with mental health issues need expert care not hugs or money from someone with no qualifications in this field. Someone with OCD, for instance, can find being touched extremely upsetting. Her so-called therapeutic skills are as likely to have made people worse rather than better.
The harm is not just the money wasted by this organisation and the opportunities lost for others but the harm done to "clients" by the wrong solutions to their problems.
I'd put it this way: the way that Kids Company was managed does not inspire confidence in them providing appropriate support to vulnerable people.
This Kids Company stuff is pathetic, I get they probably helped some people, but it is clearly not as many as they claimed, and it was in a way which was unsustainable at the very least, so while I can understand them being defensive about what they were about, how can they have an answer for the failings that are now so obvious? Would their solution have been the public through the government just continue to funnel money through them forevermore in ever increasing amounts despite all the obvious flaws in their organisation.
The thing that infuriates me is this tarnishes other, less trendy charities who are genuinely trying to help struggling young people. You can't just throw money at someone who is poorly educated or has a drug habit or has mental health issues; it might make you feel smug, but it does not help.
I've belatedly realised that I hate that woman. She is vile. *Huffs into a paper bag*.
And if you think of the amount of good the money wasted on this pretendy charity would have done if channelled to those who are really helping children with mental health problems, it makes you furious. Makes me furious anyway.
I'm angry too.
So much good Kids Company could have done.
Children with mental health issues need expert care not hugs or money from someone with no qualifications in this field. Someone with OCD, for instance, can find being touched extremely upsetting. Her so-called therapeutic skills are as likely to have made people worse rather than better.
The harm is not just the money wasted by this organisation and the opportunities lost for others but the harm done to "clients" by the wrong solutions to their problems.
She's a complete charlatan, likely wrecking others lives, with crank pottery medical practices that could have been lifted straight from some of the experimental mental hospitals of the early 20th Century. Just shameful.
I second what others have said about a really excellent and thoughtful article from Antifrank.
I think the Tories do need to beware of complacency and hubris. Just because some of us think Corbyn is a dangerous loon and Labour a party seemingly unable to get out of bed without falling over does not mean that the voters will necessarily think so, particularly if things get tough for them individually and the Tories react with smug disdain.
I would say that there are two issues for the Tories: -
(1) who follows Cameron. He is clearly an advantage for them. Osborne has grown on me but I'm not sure - yet - whether he is a PM. Hammond and May seem dull. Boris is flaky and his time is over. So who else? Javid's main claim seems to be that he the son of an immigrant which seems a bit of a pathetic claim for leadership, frankly; about as compelling as saying you're an ex-Army officer.
(2) How the Tories deliver on the promises made in Cameron's speech - particularly re helping those at the bottom. If it's all words and no action and if the tax credit cuts start to bite and hurt then this could be a very real problem. Those who are well off or reasonably so do not need beating up and spitting at - which seems to be the Labour approach - but nor do they need to be cossetted. The Tories need to focus like a laser on helping those at the bottom end who are doing or trying to do the right thing and who need a helping hand, an opportunity to make the most of their lives as they want. If they do that or make a good start to doing that then that will surely help them beat off or overcome other problems.
They can do no worse than read Antifrank's analysis and think now about how they're going to deal with the issues identified. Saying that Corbyn et al are a shambles won't be enough. They need to say what they are doing and how they're going to approach the challenges of the future and help the rest of us to. The voters can make the comparisons for themselves.
Show rather than tell.
Actually, saying that Corbyn & Co are a shambles probably will be enough. That's the medium-term risk for the Tories because such a situation and such an attitude - complacency and entitlement - is precisely what ended up with the car-crash of 1997 last time. If repeated, with UKIP now in the mix as well, 2020 would still be a grudging win against an unelectable opposition but 2025 could be a disaster.
Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.
If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.
I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.
Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.
Turns out we mistook her loud clothes, and even louder voice, as charisma and competence.
Shame, because back in the day I was convinced Kids Company was A Good Thing.
Just goes to show that none of us ever knows what's really going on, until everyone knows.
Questions were asked. They were ignored. And she used lawyers. Her CV was full of holes. Obvious ones. No-one checked her professional qualifications. Apparently. Why the hell not?
It is amazing the number of times someone gets found out, everyone runs round wondering how this could have happened and someone - usually someone like me - sits down and reads the CV or other starting documents and finds all the clues, lies - sometimes extraordinarily obvious ones - that were there. And which were overlooked because people did not want to sweat the small stuff, were too dazzled and believed what they wanted to believe. And that's long before the person has soared to dizzy heights.
If someone is not honest about basic stuff, about small unimportant details, why on earth would you think that they would be honest about big important stuff?
I second what others have said about a really excellent and thoughtful article from Antifrank.
I think the Tories do need to beware of complacency and hubris. Just because some of us think Corbyn is a dangerous loon and Labour a party seemingly unable to get out of bed without falling over does not mean that the voters will necessarily think so, particularly if things get tough for them individually and the Tories react with smug disdain.
I would say that there are two issues for the Tories: -
(1) who follows Cameron. He is clearly an advantage for them. Osborne has grown on me but I'm not sure - yet - whether he is a PM. Hammond and May seem dull. Boris is flaky and his time is over. So who else? Javid's main claim seems to be that he the son of an immigrant which seems a bit of a pathetic claim for leadership, frankly; about as compelling as saying you're an ex-Army officer.
(2) How the Tories deliver on the promises made in Cameron's speech - particularly re helping those at the bottom. If it's all words and no action and if the tax credit cuts start to bite and hurt then this could be a very real problem. Those who are well off or reasonably so do not need beating up and spitting at - which seems to be the Labour approach - but nor do they need to be cossetted. The Tories need to focus like a laser on helping those at the bottom end who are doing or trying to do the right thing and who need a helping hand, an opportunity to make the most of their lives as they want. If they do that or make a good start to doing that then that will surely help them beat off or overcome other problems.
They can do no worse than read Antifrank's analysis and think now about how they're going to deal with the issues identified. Saying that Corbyn et al are a shambles won't be enough. They need to say what they are doing and how they're going to approach the challenges of the future and help the rest of us to. The voters can make the comparisons for themselves.
Show rather than tell.
Actually, saying that Corbyn & Co are a shambles probably will be enough. That's the medium-term risk for the Tories because such a situation and such an attitude - complacency and entitlement - is precisely what ended up with the car-crash of 1997 last time. If repeated, with UKIP now in the mix as well, 2020 would still be a grudging win against an unelectable opposition but 2025 could be a disaster.
One always creates a hostage to fortune, but the balance of probabilities is that the Conservatives get another term in 2020.
After that, who the heck knows? As the old tale has it, the King might die, I might die, the horse might learn to sing. Labour are the party who are dealing with existential threats, not the Conservatives.
If I ws a 14 yr old kid in Hackney or wherever Kids Company operated from, I'd be down Kids Company every week. So far as I can tell they were just giving away free cash ! Who wouldn't take it.
which is exactly what their own financial controller accused them of a month or so ago. I think she was based in west country and couldn't believe they just handed out £20 notes to anyone who turned up.
This Kids Company stuff is pathetic, I get they probably helped some people, but it is clearly not as many as they claimed, and it was in a way which was unsustainable at the very least, so while I can understand them being defensive about what they were about, how can they have an answer for the failings that are now so obvious? Would their solution have been the public through the government just continue to funnel money through them forevermore in ever increasing amounts despite all the obvious flaws in their organisation.
The thing that infuriates me is this tarnishes other, less trendy charities who are genuinely trying to help struggling young people. You can't just throw money at someone who is poorly educated or has a drug habit or has mental health issues; it might make you feel smug, but it does not help.
I've belatedly realised that I hate that woman. She is vile. *Huffs into a paper bag*.
And if you think of the amount of good the money wasted on this pretendy charity would have done if channelled to those who are really helping children with mental health problems, it makes you furious. Makes me furious anyway.
I'm angry too.
So much good Kids Company could have done.
Children with mental health issues need expert care not hugs or money from someone with no qualifications in this field. Someone with OCD, for instance, can find being touched extremely upsetting. Her so-called therapeutic skills are as likely to have made people worse rather than better.
The harm is not just the money wasted by this organisation and the opportunities lost for others but the harm done to "clients" by the wrong solutions to their problems.
I'd put it this way: the way that Kids Company was managed does not inspire confidence in them providing appropriate support to vulnerable people.
Where was the charity commission? I like the idea on non govt non beauraucratic organisations that are close to an issue and spend money wisely. But where is the commission in this instance.? Small decent charities have to jump through silly hoops, yet this one blunders its way over everyone. Do we need the current charity regulations are they fit for real purpose.
If I ws a 14 yr old kid in Hackney or wherever Kids Company operated from, I'd be down Kids Company every week. So far as I can tell they were just giving away free cash ! Who wouldn't take it.
which is exactly what their own financial controller accused them of a month or so ago. I think she was based in west country and couldn't believe they just handed out £20 notes to anyone who turned up.
@MrJacHart: Clear from Camila Batmanghelidjh's evidence that she's never been questioned about her role or work before. Astonishing stuff. #kidscompany
....Now, I hope David Cameron's conference speech focus on social reform is real, but it looks like their only actual plan is to devolve the mess above to higher profile scapegoat mayors in the (often Labour) cities. Effectively their plan for cuts is simply that which is already starting to bear fruit in the Tory advance in Wales. That the effects of cuts could actually be used to strengthen the Tory position is one referenced by Don Brind quoting Jim McMahon in his most recent thread and, even in my advocating that the Labour centre take up the devolution challenge with relish, I noted that it could not be more a trap if it had Acme written on it.
There seem to be several strands to GO's general strategy. I particularly like the one which seeks, where possible, to place the burden of raising money on those who spend the money. I think this has legs in many places and is already causing some twitching in the SNP and some local councils.
I didn't think English councils were asking for FFA? Is the plan then to re-cast or dump funding formulae totally? I note in slight contradiction to my previous line on this thread that plenty of Tory areas are lining up for devolution (e.g. Cheshire, non-metro Surrey/Sussex), but such a fundamental re-org is a chance to look again at funding.
The basic problem with apothecation is that it is [total rubbish]. All that 'we will raise xxx from mansion tax to fund yyy ridiculously specific thing' leaves me totally cold. Getting the sources of tax to exactly match the destinations of tax is so brain dead, either as a straw man for additional spending or for cuts, that I can't fathom the popularity it has.
This Kids Company stuff is pathetic, I get they probably helped some people, but it is clearly not as many as they claimed, and it was in a way which was unsustainable at the very least, so while I can understand them being defensive about what they were about, how can they have an answer for the failings that are now so obvious? Would their solution have been the public through the government just continue to funnel money through them forevermore in ever increasing amounts despite all the obvious flaws in their organisation.
The thing that infuriates me is this tarnishes other, less trendy charities who are genuinely trying to help struggling young people. You can't just throw money at someone who is poorly educated or has a drug habit or has mental health issues; it might make you feel smug, but it does not help.
I've belatedly realised that I hate that woman. She is vile. *Huffs into a paper bag*.
And if you think of the amount of good the money wasted on this pretendy charity would have done if channelled to those who are really helping children with mental health problems, it makes you furious. Makes me furious anyway.
I'm angry too.
So much good Kids Company could have done.
Children with mental health issues need expert care not hugs or money from someone with no qualifications in this field. Someone with OCD, for instance, can find being touched extremely upsetting. Her so-called therapeutic skills are as likely to have made people worse rather than better.
The harm is not just the money wasted by this organisation and the opportunities lost for others but the harm done to "clients" by the wrong solutions to their problems.
I'd put it this way: the way that Kids Company was managed does not inspire confidence in them providing appropriate support to vulnerable people.
Where was the charity commission? I like the idea on non govt non beauraucratic organisations that are close to an issue and spend money wisely. But where is the commission in this instance.? Small decent charities have to jump through silly hoops, yet this one blunders its way over everyone. Do we need the current charity regulations are they fit for real purpose.
Well said. The whole charity sector is ripe for reform if it is to be the embodiment of Cameron's famous Big Society.
Smaller charities doing local community work need to be encouraged, but they need to be kept small and their trustees need to understand their responsibilities.
Let's start with the prosecution of the two idiots currently trying to explain themselves to Parliament.
Richard Burgon and Camilla Batmanghelidjh. A marriage made in Heaven? I only suggest it in case we ever feel the world might run dangerously short of stupidity in the future.
How the SNP, National Socialists in all but name and demeanour, are clamping tight a one party state.
Centralising, illiberal, catastrophic: the SNP’s one-party state For years, the Scottish government has used the independence argument to avoid proper scrutiny. That has to stop
Another cretin who knows nothing of Scotland pontificates on a pathetic article by a unionist halfwit. You absolute turnip who do you think votes them in.
@MrJacHart: Clear from Camila Batmanghelidjh's evidence that she's never been questioned about her role or work before. Astonishing stuff. #kidscompany
It's probably the most stringent and probing questioning Yentob's faced in a long while too.
Actually, saying that Corbyn & Co are a shambles probably will be enough. That's the medium-term risk for the Tories because such a situation and such an attitude - complacency and entitlement - is precisely what ended up with the car-crash of 1997 last time. If repeated, with UKIP now in the mix as well, 2020 would still be a grudging win against an unelectable opposition but 2025 could be a disaster.
This is exactly correct. We will win in 2020 because Labour are such a disaster. However, the difference between an endorsed win from the public and a grudging one matters massively. 2025 could definitely be a 1997 if people are fed up with Tory rule.
In a way it's an opportunity. The party has the chance of thinking ten years ahead, rather than the 4-5 historically. We need to look at the long term social changes that could threaten Conservative governance. For me, there are four main ones:
- The speed of immigration is faster than integration, increasing the segment of the population that does not feel much of an emotional connection with conservative British traditions. - The immigration we get is low-income, and naturally sides with the left on economic matters. - Housing costs continue to climb, meaning there are far fewer owner-occupiers, and many that are are stuck in a small two-bed without the space to have a few kids. This will mean fewer people feel a stake in the existing social order, and be more likely to side with radicals. - Inequality continues to climb, and the top 10% become economically and culturally less and less alike to the broader population. If they maintain or increase the dominance over our MP base, then people naturally feel alienated from them.
@faisalislam: Every single SNP manifesto until now for Scottish elections: 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011 offered a guaranteed referendum http://t.co/FSsmX2ejkQ
but not this one.
Onwards to victory (if there is a substantial change in public opinion that manifests itself in a clear and consistent opinion poll lead and we think can win) !
You sometimes think the SNP needs to be saved from itself. It certainly needs to be saved from the vociferous Nationalist partisans on social media who regard any criticism of the Scottish Government as biblical heresy. The problem is that many members seem to believe that the independence movement belongs to the SNP, and that Yes supporters should automatically support the party leadership.
There's been a lively debate recently in the wider independence movement about the SNP's privatisation policies. The independence supporting video blogger, Stephen Paton, has pointed out that the SNP hasn’t exactly been bending over backwards to keep water services out of private hands. But even to mention his his name is to invite a storm of criticism from the guardians of Nationalist rectitude
Ha Ha Ha , SNP have made themselves popular with the public by implementing good policies, deliberately and keep getting voted back in , Tories say it is a crime and SNP=BAD.
@MrJacHart: Clear from Camila Batmanghelidjh's evidence that she's never been questioned about her role or work before. Astonishing stuff. #kidscompany
It's probably the most stringent and probing questioning Yentob's faced in a long while too.
Pretty much the same for all senior people in non-elected positions or positions that do not have regular public accountability built into them. That's why putting too much faith in "business leaders'" abilities to lead the In and Our referendum campaigns is a bit of a stretch. They don't like it up them.
On topic: As always antifrank makes a good argument, but as others have pointed out it's not the whole story; there are countervailing reasons for thinking that the Conservative position is pretty good overall. On balance, as things stand at the moment, a Conservative-led or Conservative majority government in 2020 looks very likely.
On the other side of the coin, I think antifrank has forgotten one very nasty minefield which the government has to get through in the next few months: the likely approval of the third runway at Heathrow.
Yes, that makes sense - in the same way a house made of straw was a perfectly fine house if not for that nasty breeze that came along and blew it away.
Honestly, what kind of defence is that? You don't collapse that spectacularily just because someone is out to get you - unless you are indeed riddled with flaws and one push will knock you over.
I second what others have said about a really excellent and thoughtful article from Antifrank.
I think the Tories do need to beware of complacency and hubris. Just because some of us think Corbyn is a dangerous loon and Labour a party seemingly unable to get out of bed without falling over does not mean that the voters will necessarily think so, particularly if things get tough for them individually and the Tories react with smug disdain.
I would say that there are two issues for the Tories: -
(1) who follows Cameron. He is clearly an advantage for them. Osborne has grown on me but I'm not sure - yet - whether he is a PM. Hammond and May seem dull. Boris is flaky and his time is over. So who else? Javid's main claim seems to be that he the son of an immigrant which seems a bit of a pathetic claim for leadership, frankly; about as compelling as saying you're an ex-Army officer.
(2) How the Tories deliver on the promises made in Cameron's speech - particularly re helping those at the bottom. If it's all words and no action and if the tax credit cuts start to bite and hurt then this could be a very real problem. Those who are well off or reasonably so do not need beating up and spitting at - which seems to be the Labour approach - but nor do they need to be cossetted. The Tories need to focus like a laser on helping those at the bottom end who are doing or trying to do the right thing and who need a helping hand, an opportunity to make the most of their lives as they want. If they do that or make a good start to doing that then that will surely help them beat off or overcome other problems.
They can do no worse than read Antifrank's analysis and think now about how they're going to deal with the issues identified. Saying that Corbyn et al are a shambles won't be enough. They need to say what they are doing and how they're going to approach the challenges of the future and help the rest of us to. The voters can make the comparisons for themselves.
Show rather than tell.
Actually, saying that Corbyn & Co are a shambles probably will be enough. That's the medium-term risk for the Tories because such a situation and such an attitude - complacency and entitlement - is precisely what ended up with the car-crash of 1997 last time. If repeated, with UKIP now in the mix as well, 2020 would still be a grudging win against an unelectable opposition but 2025 could be a disaster.
Yentob just got pwned about his involvement in Camilla BBC intv. He *mislead* the panel.
Toby Blume @tobyblume 1m1 minute ago suggestions that Yentob acted inappropriately in BBC role - 'standing behind TV producer'. #kidscompany 'if it was intimidating i regret it'
Moore's Monocle @NoMoreEds 1m1 minute ago Yentob now admits standing by producer during Batman interview.
Yes, that makes sense - in the same way a house made of straw was a perfectly fine house if not for that nasty breeze that came along and blew it away.
Honestly, what kind of defence is that? You don't collapse that spectacularily just because someone is out to get you - unless you are indeed riddled with flaws and one push will knock you over.
@MrJacHart: Clear from Camila Batmanghelidjh's evidence that she's never been questioned about her role or work before. Astonishing stuff. #kidscompany
It's probably the most stringent and probing questioning Yentob's faced in a long while too.
Pretty much the same for all senior people in non-elected positions or positions that do not have regular public accountability built into them. That's why putting too much faith in "business leaders'" abilities to lead the In and Our referendum campaigns is a bit of a stretch. They don't like it up them.
VoteLeave is headed by Matthew Elliott, a seasoned activist. BSE appointed a business leader, and already seem to be suffering from it.
This is one of the most persuasive pieces I've read on the EU refernedum. Jenkins argues that by voting "No" we could get something similar to the deal that Cameron was originally going for:
Yes, that makes sense - in the same way a house made of straw was a perfectly fine house if not for that nasty breeze that came along and blew it away.
Honestly, what kind of defence is that? You don't collapse that spectacularily just because someone is out to get you - unless you are indeed riddled with flaws and one push will knock you over.
You and others should stop perverting the English language.
Scotland is not a "one party state". Such a description is correctly used to describe a country where no other party is allowed to stand, not where one party dominates.
As (admiittedly under barking mad FPTP) the Tories have a bigger majority at Westminster than the SNP at Holyrood, does anyone in the UK describe the UK as a one party state?-thought not.
It is such childish drivel that leads to the very dominance by the SNP that unionists so fear, so I suppose, though much irritated, I can take pleasure in such stupidity.
The idea that childish drivel leads to the dominance is nonsense, as the SNP and its supporters are certainly not above utilising childish drivel as well. That there is dominance is undeniable, and there are many factors at play there, but childish drivel is a reaction to the dominance, not a cause, or at least not a significant one. If it were, the SNP would themselves not be as dominant, as like all parties they engage in it and so would face a similar reaction.
KLE4 it is called good governance and they are doing it deliberately, people are surprised and ever more vote for them as a result which makes the useless lying no use unionist parties wail and gnash their teeth all the more. People are not being taken in by the guff written by halfwits like Tomkins, Dugdale, McTernan and those other unionist halfwits, they know they are lying now and always. Just lucky the unionists did not have FPTP in Holyrood or all those losers vying for consolation list seats would be on the dole where they belong.
I second what others have said about a really excellent and thoughtful article from Antifrank.
I think the Tories do need to beware of complacency and hubris. Just because some of us think Corbyn is a dangerous loon and Labour a party seemingly unable to get out of bed without falling over does not mean that the voters will necessarily think so, particularly if things get tough for them individually and the Tories react with smug disdain.
I would say that there are two issues for the Tories: -
(1) who follows Cameron. He is clearly an advantage for them. Osborne has grown on me but I'm not sure - yet - whether he is a PM. Hammond and May seem dull. Boris is flaky and his time is over. So who else? Javid's main claim seems to be that he the son of an immigrant which seems a bit of a pathetic claim for leadership, frankly; about as compelling as saying you're an ex-Army officer.
(2) How the Tories deliver on the promises made in Cameron's speech - particularly re helping those at the bottom. If it's all words and no action and if the tax credit cuts start to bite and hurt then this could be a very real problem. Those who are well off or reasonably so do not need beating up and spitting at - which seems to be the Labour approach - but nor do they need to be cossetted. The Tories need to focus like a laser on helping those at the bottom end who are doing or trying to do the right thing and who need a helping hand, an opportunity to make the most of their lives as they want. If they do that or make a good start to doing that then that will surely help them beat off or overcome other problems.
They can do no worse than read Antifrank's analysis and think now about how they're going to deal with the issues identified. Saying that Corbyn et al are a shambles won't be enough. They need to say what they are doing and how they're going to approach the challenges of the future and help the rest of us to. The voters can make the comparisons for themselves.
Show rather than tell.
I agree with much of the article and the above. I would mainly challenge the analysis about the impact of the EUref. Although there will probably be much heat in the debate, I don't think the Tories are as exposed to the issue now as they used to be. The saving grace IS the the EUref. The electorate will decide and even a 49/51 decision will be decisive. I can't see that whichever side loses they can legitimately make mischief. The people will have spoken and it's clearly understood that they won't be asked again. There is a risk that Dave's position may be compromised but he seems pretty canny about these kind of things and I don't see him coming on strong if it all looks too close to tell. I can even see him being lukewarm about leaving if that looks like a good favourite.
Much water to pass under the bridge yet, but Dave seems in control at present.
Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.
If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.
I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.
Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.
Turns out we mistook her loud clothes, and even louder voice, as charisma and competence.
Shame, because back in the day I was convinced Kids Company was A Good Thing.
Just goes to show that none of us ever knows what's really going on, until everyone knows.
Tories are always easily fooled by big gobbed egoistic self seeking individuals like this. They assume the bovine manure is competence, just look at their MP's.
Toby Blume @tobyblume 2m2 minutes ago Yentob just said that there were civil servants placed in #kidscompany to help with fundraising. Did anyone know that? who sanctioned it?
Sebastian Payne Verified account @SebastianEPayne 2m2 minutes ago This gets more incredible: Alan Yentob says the government gave #kidscompany £3 million to “get out of the government’s hair"
This Kids Company stuff is pathetic, I get they probably helped some people, but it is clearly not as many as they claimed, and it was in a way which was unsustainable at the very least, so while I can understand them being defensive about what they were about, how can they have an answer for the failings that are now so obvious? Would their solution have been the public through the government just continue to funnel money through them forevermore in ever increasing amounts despite all the obvious flaws in their organisation.
The thing that infuriates me is this tarnishes other, less trendy charities who are genuinely trying to help struggling young people. You can't just throw money at someone who is poorly educated or has a drug habit or has mental health issues; it might make you feel smug, but it does not help.
I've belatedly realised that I hate that woman. She is vile. *Huffs into a paper bag*.
And if you think of the amount of good the money wasted on this pretendy charity would have done if channelled to those who are really helping children with mental health problems, it makes you furious. Makes me furious anyway.
I'm angry too.
So much good Kids Company could have done.
Children with mental health issues need expert care not hugs or money from someone with no qualifications in this field. Someone with OCD, for instance, can find being touched extremely upsetting. Her so-called therapeutic skills are as likely to have made people worse rather than better.
The harm is not just the money wasted by this organisation and the opportunities lost for others but the harm done to "clients" by the wrong solutions to their problems.
Except, it is not just the money wasted in the past, but the cost going forward. These kids are now going to sue for their life having being screwed over by charlatans posing as professionals. Kerching!!!
This Kids Company stuff is pathetic, I get they probably helped some people, but it is clearly not as many as they claimed, and it was in a way which was unsustainable at the very least, so while I can understand them being defensive about what they were about, how can they have an answer for the failings that are now so obvious? Would their solution have been the public through the government just continue to funnel money through them forevermore in ever increasing amounts despite all the obvious flaws in their organisation.
The thing that infuriates me is this tarnishes other, less trendy charities who are genuinely trying to help struggling young people. You can't just throw money at someone who is poorly educated or has a drug habit or has mental health issues; it might make you feel smug, but it does not help.
I've belatedly realised that I hate that woman. She is vile. *Huffs into a paper bag*.
And if you think of the amount of good the money wasted on this pretendy charity would have done if channelled to those who are really helping children with mental health problems, it makes you furious. Makes me furious anyway.
I'm angry too.
So much good Kids Company could have done.
Children with mental health issues need expert care not hugs or money from someone with no qualifications in this field. Someone with OCD, for instance, can find being touched extremely upsetting. Her so-called therapeutic skills are as likely to have made people worse rather than better.
The harm is not just the money wasted by this organisation and the opportunities lost for others but the harm done to "clients" by the wrong solutions to their problems.
I'd put it this way: the way that Kids Company was managed does not inspire confidence in them providing appropriate support to vulnerable people.
Where was the charity commission? I like the idea on non govt non beauraucratic organisations that are close to an issue and spend money wisely. But where is the commission in this instance.? Small decent charities have to jump through silly hoops, yet this one blunders its way over everyone. Do we need the current charity regulations are they fit for real purpose.
There are a multitude of these types of groups gorging off the taxpayer nowadays, mostly run by ex government, public service or their chums types. Filling their boots for a second time at public expense, it is a con.
The point about the weakness of opponents is very true. People still don't, in the main, fully subscribe to the main philosophies of the tories. Witness just this week the surveys showing a majority of people wanting to jack up corporation tax for example - not just on the banks, but as a a general plan. (These people clearly didn't notice the Irish budget this week, or the way they have turned their economy round). Cake-and-eat-it policies go down well.
Labour need only a slightly less left wing, slightly more credible leader to be electable in bad economic circumstances and facing a potentially divided tory party if the EU thing blows up again. Muddle-headed fuzzy left policies can depressingly be really popular as long as they avoid being properly "loony" left and are sold by people who look the part.
Labour need to persuade only about 1 in 6 or 1 in 8 non-voters to turn out and vote for them, and about 1 in 10 tories to switch and they could win.
Sebastian Payne Committee appears to have given up on Batmanghelidjh, focusing on Yentob. Neither of them appear to be accepting any blame #kidscompany
Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.
If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.
I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.
Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.
Turns out we mistook her loud clothes, and even louder voice, as charisma and competence.
Shame, because back in the day I was convinced Kids Company was A Good Thing.
Just goes to show that none of us ever knows what's really going on, until everyone knows.
Tories are always easily fooled by big gobbed egoistic self seeking individuals like this. They assume the bovine manure is competence, just look at their MP's.
Is that why the SNP lead Scottish Government handed cash to it's 'cronies' at T in the Park?
This is one of the most persuasive pieces I've read on the EU refernedum. Jenkins argues that by voting "No" we could get something similar to the deal that Cameron was originally going for:
I don't think Leave would mean we automatically 'Leave' inside two years.
It would mean shit hitting the fan inside the EU and a desperate scrabble to find a compromise that would allow us to stay.
Of course, expect BSE to deny this: it's in their interests to maximise perception of risk.
That is the Leave campaign's best argument, that there is an inbuilt mechanism for leaving with two years of negotiations, but we need to say we want to leave to activate it. If Cameron gets stonewalled by his European colleagues, it may well be his position too.
I agree with David Herdson that Corbyn's toxicity (to the majority of voters) probably ensures a win for the Conservatives in 2020, regardless.
The Conservatives will obviously suffer from mid-term unpopularity, as almost all governments do. They could be polling in the low 30s or high 20s. But, I imagine that most of those disillusioned voters will go over to UKIP, not Labour, as they did in the period 2013-15.
Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.
If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.
I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.
Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.
Turns out we mistook her loud clothes, and even louder voice, as charisma and competence.
Shame, because back in the day I was convinced Kids Company was A Good Thing.
Just goes to show that none of us ever knows what's really going on, until everyone knows.
Questions were asked. They were ignored. And she used lawyers. Her CV was full of holes. Obvious ones. No-one checked her professional qualifications. Apparently. Why the hell not?
It is amazing the number of times someone gets found out, everyone runs round wondering how this could have happened and someone - usually someone like me - sits down and reads the CV or other starting documents and finds all the clues, lies - sometimes extraordinarily obvious ones - that were there. And which were overlooked because people did not want to sweat the small stuff, were too dazzled and believed what they wanted to believe. And that's long before the person has soared to dizzy heights.
If someone is not honest about basic stuff, about small unimportant details, why on earth would you think that they would be honest about big important stuff?
People won't even look at the evidence, let alone examine and ignore the facts, if it might shed doubt on what they want to believe.
Cameron wanted to believe Kids Company was a totem of the big society. So did I.
I am somewhat surprised at the negatvity towards the economy, with people thinking that a recession will occur next year. Infaltion is zero, record employment, very low oil price, very high confidence, restaurants booming, government spending falling. You could see the last recession 4 years before it happened. I just dont see one happening next year.
Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.
If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.
I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.
Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.
Turns out we mistook her loud clothes, and even louder voice, as charisma and competence.
Shame, because back in the day I was convinced Kids Company was A Good Thing.
Just goes to show that none of us ever knows what's really going on, until everyone knows.
Tories are always easily fooled by big gobbed egoistic self seeking individuals like this. They assume the bovine manure is competence, just look at their MP's.
Is that why the SNP lead Scottish Government handed cash to it's 'cronies' at T in the Park?
You pathetic excuse for a human being , they gave money to a company that was holding a major music event. Dribble somewhere else please.
Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.
If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.
I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.
Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.
Turns out we mistook her loud clothes, and even louder voice, as charisma and competence.
Shame, because back in the day I was convinced Kids Company was A Good Thing.
Just goes to show that none of us ever knows what's really going on, until everyone knows.
Tories are always easily fooled by big gobbed egoistic self seeking individuals like this. They assume the bovine manure is competence, just look at their MP's.
Is that why the SNP lead Scottish Government handed cash to it's 'cronies' at T in the Park?
You pathetic excuse for a human being , they gave money to a company that was holding a major music event. Dribble somewhere else please.
Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.
If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.
I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.
Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.
Turns out we mistook her loud clothes, and even louder voice, as charisma and competence.
Shame, because back in the day I was convinced Kids Company was A Good Thing.
Just goes to show that none of us ever knows what's really going on, until everyone knows.
If I ws a 14 yr old kid in Hackney or wherever Kids Company operated from, I'd be down Kids Company every week. So far as I can tell they were just giving away free cash ! Who wouldn't take it.
which is exactly what their own financial controller accused them of a month or so ago. I think she was based in west country and couldn't believe they just handed out £20 notes to anyone who turned up.
Crikey - has any other (Neccessary) public service been hit that hard ?
That does look like an overdone level of cut. I'd have thought other stuff should take a hit before this.
It's a curious intervention because my understanding is that the police budgets haven't yet been set for the coming years. The Chief Constable may be laying down a marker to make sure he gets what he wants.
Comments
Don't they know who he is?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receptive_aphasia
Ronke Lawal @ronkelawal 2m2 minutes ago
Yentob says some of the charity papers and information has been stolen!
WHAT?!!?!?!?
I do feel some sympathy for Batmanmadjelly. The psychological trauma of falling into a paint factory must be extreme.
Bullshittosis is probably the correct term.
So it will be shit.
So much good Kids Company could have done.
I think the charity is now in the hands of a liquidator, which therefore has powers to bring actions in the name of the charity.
If prosecutions don't follow this shambles, there is no justice in this country.
A narrow win for Remain might be a problem in the EU ref, if the independence movement galvanises like it did in Scotland then we might see some defections to UKIP - but there may be some from Labour also.
For any of this to happen, UKIP needs to get it's act together and target their most captive audience - the CDE's of this world - not sure Farage is the right person to do this.
Sindy Ref - Looks like SNP are trying to reach out to No voters for Holyrood 2016, a move that say to me the another referendum is on the back burner until at least the 2020s.
Cuts - Yes they aren't nice and they particularly antagonise the far left, but I think as long as deficit reduction continues most people will continue to buy into the ideology. I suspect we may get some sort of concession in the Autumn statement to provide some transitional relief on tax credit cuts, taking the sting out of that subject.
Recession - This is the biggie for me. I don't really think the crisis from 2008 has been resolved. A combination of a lot of funny money pumping assets and a huge infrastructure project in China has given the impression that we have moved on from that era. However on many measures, the global economy is today even more imbalanced and fragile than it was in 2008. Personally, I rate the chances of a recession at least as deep as 2009 occurring in the next 12-18 months at around 60-70%. Hopefully the assets classes, such as property will be taken down properly this time as that will give us a better chance of properly recovering. However bad it gets, who will the electorate go with Cameron/Osborne or Corbyn/McDonnell.
In summary, I think unless major as yet unknown events occur that damage the tories, then they are near certainties for 2020. If Labour stays hard left, then 2025 is probably in the bag also, unless UKIP can capitalise on a close decision to REMAIN and switch their focus to the left of centre, where most of their natural supporters probably are.
But I wonder if there are other charges that could be considered (perhaps over the use of public money? or in relation to charities?)
The suction effect of the German refugee policy is large in West Africa. In countries such as Mali or Niger the number of those who want to leave the country has risen rapidly. Exact figures are not available. In Bamako is spoken on every street corner on the details of the German refugee situation. A sure indicator of the renewed interest in Germany.
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article147568341/Merkels-Willkommensruf-hallt-bis-nach-Westafrika.html&edit-text=&act=url
(Sorry about the poor translation.)
There are 340 million people in West Africa.
The harm is not just the money wasted by this organisation and the opportunities lost for others but the harm done to "clients" by the wrong solutions to their problems.
Secondly, a downside. Home ownership is well and good, but in making it a holy grail, decent tenant rights in the rented sector should not and cannot be abandoned. The lack of stability in private rented housing is one of the biggest killers of educational opportunity I see in 2015. I see so many of the more deprived kids in schools leading an increasingly peripatetic existence, disappearing from one school to the next, to the next as rentals expire (I'm not talking about the ones on an expulsion merry-go-round here), that I cannot imagine it is not a significant skewing of the playing field.
Shame, because back in the day I was convinced Kids Company was A Good Thing.
Just goes to show that none of us ever knows what's really going on, until everyone knows.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/14/eu-europe-britain-vote-no-cameron-reform-deal?CMP=share_btn_tw
Hearing about child victim of paedophile gang who apparently lived w #kidscompany key worker- sounds unorthodox to say least @CommonsPACAC
Rob McDowall MEA @robmcd85 1m1 minute ago
I've never heard 'order, order' being shouted so much during a committee meeting #kidscompany
It is amazing the number of times someone gets found out, everyone runs round wondering how this could have happened and someone - usually someone like me - sits down and reads the CV or other starting documents and finds all the clues, lies - sometimes extraordinarily obvious ones - that were there. And which were overlooked because people did not want to sweat the small stuff, were too dazzled and believed what they wanted to believe. And that's long before the person has soared to dizzy heights.
If someone is not honest about basic stuff, about small unimportant details, why on earth would you think that they would be honest about big important stuff?
Yentob going peak W1A here
After that, who the heck knows? As the old tale has it, the King might die, I might die, the horse might learn to sing. Labour are the party who are dealing with existential threats, not the Conservatives.
I like the idea on non govt non beauraucratic organisations that are close to an issue and spend money wisely. But where is the commission in this instance.? Small decent charities have to jump through silly hoops, yet this one blunders its way over everyone. Do we need the current charity regulations are they fit for real purpose.
Because it went bust...
The basic problem with apothecation is that it is [total rubbish]. All that 'we will raise xxx from mansion tax to fund yyy ridiculously specific thing' leaves me totally cold. Getting the sources of tax to exactly match the destinations of tax is so brain dead, either as a straw man for additional spending or for cuts, that I can't fathom the popularity it has.
I'm watching this through my fingers - it's excruciating.
Smaller charities doing local community work need to be encouraged, but they need to be kept small and their trustees need to understand their responsibilities.
Let's start with the prosecution of the two idiots currently trying to explain themselves to Parliament.
Why did the BBC never interview you?
"We thought there might be a conflict of interest"
In a way it's an opportunity. The party has the chance of thinking ten years ahead, rather than the 4-5 historically. We need to look at the long term social changes that could threaten Conservative governance. For me, there are four main ones:
- The speed of immigration is faster than integration, increasing the segment of the population that does not feel much of an emotional connection with conservative British traditions.
- The immigration we get is low-income, and naturally sides with the left on economic matters.
- Housing costs continue to climb, meaning there are far fewer owner-occupiers, and many that are are stuck in a small two-bed without the space to have a few kids. This will mean fewer people feel a stake in the existing social order, and be more likely to side with radicals.
- Inequality continues to climb, and the top 10% become economically and culturally less and less alike to the broader population. If they maintain or increase the dominance over our MP base, then people naturally feel alienated from them.
Surely, it can't be real.
Oh wait...
but not this one.
Onwards to victory (if there is a substantial change in public opinion that manifests itself in a clear and consistent opinion poll lead and we think can win) !
Ha Ha Ha , SNP have made themselves popular with the public by implementing good policies, deliberately and keep getting voted back in , Tories say it is a crime and SNP=BAD.
On the other side of the coin, I think antifrank has forgotten one very nasty minefield which the government has to get through in the next few months: the likely approval of the third runway at Heathrow.
Honestly, what kind of defence is that? You don't collapse that spectacularily just because someone is out to get you - unless you are indeed riddled with flaws and one push will knock you over.
Toby Blume @tobyblume 1m1 minute ago
suggestions that Yentob acted inappropriately in BBC role - 'standing behind TV producer'. #kidscompany 'if it was intimidating i regret it'
Moore's Monocle @NoMoreEds 1m1 minute ago
Yentob now admits standing by producer during Batman interview.
WOW.
It would mean shit hitting the fan inside the EU and a desperate scrabble to find a compromise that would allow us to stay.
Of course, expect BSE to deny this: it's in their interests to maximise perception of risk.
It must have been quite a sight with Yentob in there too.
Much water to pass under the bridge yet, but Dave seems in control at present.
http://www.lancashire.police.uk/campaigns/changes-to-police-funding/chief-constable-steve-finnigan-s-full-message-to-the-people-of-lancashire-about-the-proposed-cuts-and-what-they-will-mean-for-residents.aspx
Toby Blume @tobyblume 2m2 minutes ago
Yentob just said that there were civil servants placed in #kidscompany to help with fundraising. Did anyone know that? who sanctioned it?
Sebastian Payne Verified account @SebastianEPayne 2m2 minutes ago
This gets more incredible: Alan Yentob says the government gave #kidscompany £3 million to “get out of the government’s hair"
The point about the weakness of opponents is very true. People still don't, in the main, fully subscribe to the main philosophies of the tories. Witness just this week the surveys showing a majority of people wanting to jack up corporation tax for example - not just on the banks, but as a a general plan. (These people clearly didn't notice the Irish budget this week, or the way they have turned their economy round). Cake-and-eat-it policies go down well.
Labour need only a slightly less left wing, slightly more credible leader to be electable in bad economic circumstances and facing a potentially divided tory party if the EU thing blows up again. Muddle-headed fuzzy left policies can depressingly be really popular as long as they avoid being properly "loony" left and are sold by people who look the part.
Labour need to persuade only about 1 in 6 or 1 in 8 non-voters to turn out and vote for them, and about 1 in 10 tories to switch and they could win.
Committee appears to have given up on Batmanghelidjh, focusing on Yentob. Neither of them appear to be accepting any blame #kidscompany
The Conservatives will obviously suffer from mid-term unpopularity, as almost all governments do. They could be polling in the low 30s or high 20s. But, I imagine that most of those disillusioned voters will go over to UKIP, not Labour, as they did in the period 2013-15.
Cameron wanted to believe Kids Company was a totem of the big society. So did I.
Alan Yentob: Has your charity been going for 20 years?
@bernardjenkin: My charity has been going for 400 years, actually
#kidscompany
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/611267/Fiona-Hyslop-T-in-The-Park-promoters-paid-over-1M-for-party
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/park-boss-geoff-ellis-hits-6612763
That does look like an overdone level of cut. I'd have thought other stuff should take a hit before this.