It's only gone 10am & already we have 3 bits of news
•81% of NHS Hospitals Unsafe •Affordable Housing Halved •20% fall in Living Standards
Corbyns fault presumably
Could cite you these - would be helpful, because they look like bollocks. eg 20% fall in living standards seems impossible given a nicely growing economy and population growth 0.6% - living standards are rising quite fast! Who is deciding if a hosptial is unsafe? Affordable housing that was there is still there - it's just occupied. So do you mean new build? Do you mean currently available for rent? What's driving supply and demand? Supply is increasing but demand is growing faster - so there is a pressure. How does immigration play into this? Are Owen Jones and McMao your data sources?
CQC, HM GOV, IFS
Link ? I am not of course suggestion that there is some small print or selective reading going on, but you can't be too careful these days.
Nah I would be wasting my time you are in typical PB Tory denial so no amount of independent evidence would convince.
Maybe. As I understand it he was asked about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign. He maintains he met with the Russian ambassador in his capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and that he had had similar meetings with 25 other ambassadors, so I guess it comes down to whether he can produce evidence, such as a letter or instruction, that such was the nature of the meeting, or his opponents can prove that they were not.
Jeff Sessions was asked under oath in a Senate committee about communications between the Trump campaign and Russia, when he said he had had no communications. It turns out he did have a private meeting with the Russian ambassador while he was part of that campaign. His defence is that he didn't discuss the Trump campaign. If you believe that or don't have any proof to the contrary, it comes down to what you understand by the word "communications" in that context. I think he's skating on very thin ice but will survive.
He shouldn't. This is the chief law officer in the US. I know Trump supporters think that words don't matter, but the reality is that the law is just that: words. If words don't matter - particularly those made under oath and subject to penalties for perjury; words spoken by the chief law officer of the US - then there is no law.
In Sessions' own words:
On Nixon’s resignation in the face of impeachment in 1974, Sessions said: “I hope we haven't sent a message that’s not as clear,” he said, “that clever people can sometimes get ahead by spinning and not telling the truth. That worries me.”
Sessions on Bill Clinton’s Monica Lewinsky obfuscation (nb voting in the Senate to convict Clinton of perjury)… “I sort of assumed perjury occurred, but I want to read what was said, what the established fact is, and decide how clear that is and whether or not there is any wriggle room or realistic defense there," Sessions said in 1998. Back then, the senator described perjury as a “big-time issue,” adding, “I have no doubt that perjury qualifies under the Constitution as a high crime. It goes to the heart of the judicial system.”
It's only gone 10am & already we have 3 bits of news
•81% of NHS Hospitals Unsafe •Affordable Housing Halved •20% fall in Living Standards
Corbyns fault presumably
Could cite you these - would be helpful, because they look like bollocks. eg 20% fall in living standards seems impossible given a nicely growing economy and population growth 0.6% - living standards are rising quite fast! Who is deciding if a hosptial is unsafe? Affordable housing that was there is still there - it's just occupied. So do you mean new build? Do you mean currently available for rent? What's driving supply and demand? Supply is increasing but demand is growing faster - so there is a pressure. How does immigration play into this? Are Owen Jones and McMao your data sources?
CQC, HM GOV, IFS
Link ? I am not of course suggestion that there is some small print or selective reading going on, but you can't be too careful these days.
The IFS calculated that average household incomes will be 18% lower in 2021-22 than could have been reasonably expected in 2007-08, before the global financial crisis took hold of the economy. It means a childless couple would be about £5,900 a year worse off than they might otherwise have been, rising to £8,300 for a couple with two young children.
So what you meant to say was that in 4-5 years time we could be 20% worse off than we might have been if the Great Financial Crisis hadn't happened. Hold the press!
As an indication of the cost of the reckless economic policies of the last government that is not without interest but to suggest that it shows an increase in poverty is just mendacious.
According to the CQC’s state of hospitals report, published on Thursday, 81% of the 136 non-specialist trusts were deemed to be inadequate or to require improvement for safety, while 11% of hospital trusts were given the lowest rating for safety.
Not not unsafe at all, requiring improvement.
If Milne ever wants his old job back perhaps you should apply.
I have quite a few student friends living in Gorton, so I'll be reporting back on events there.
My prediction is an impressive Lab to Lib Dem swing in that seat as Sir Gerald Kaufman's personal vote unwinds, and the Lib Dems get a Brexit boost, but a Lab hold.
Labour 10,000 45% (-22) Lib Dem 5,500 25% (+21) Cons 2,800 13% (+3) Green 1,700 8% (-2) UKIP 900 4% (-4)
He's proposing people earning over £1 million per annum publish their tax returns.
So he's only gone and published, inter alia, his tax return, replete with his full address, NI number, his unique tax reference number, and his employer reference.
If he doesn't become the victim of identity theft and/or fraud, it'll be a miracle.
Not the first time he has f##ked up when trying to pull a silly stunt over his tax return!
This is something David H has been saying for a while, and these figures look similar to the proportions he calculated on the back of an envelope, IIRC. If I'm remembering correctly then bravo that man.
It's only gone 10am & already we have 3 bits of news
•81% of NHS Hospitals Unsafe •Affordable Housing Halved •20% fall in Living Standards
Corbyns fault presumably
Could cite you these - would be helpful, because they look like bollocks. eg 20% fall in living standards seems impossible given a nicely growing economy and population growth 0.6% - living standards are rising quite fast! Who is deciding if a hosptial is unsafe? Affordable housing that was there is still there - it's just occupied. So do you mean new build? Do you mean currently available for rent? What's driving supply and demand? Supply is increasing but demand is growing faster - so there is a pressure. How does immigration play into this? Are Owen Jones and McMao your data sources?
CQC, HM GOV, IFS
Link ? I am not of course suggestion that there is some small print or selective reading going on, but you can't be too careful these days.
Nah I would be wasting my time you are in typical PB Tory denial so no amount of independent evidence would convince.
It's only gone 10am & already we have 3 bits of news
•81% of NHS Hospitals Unsafe •Affordable Housing Halved •20% fall in Living Standards
Corbyns fault presumably
Could cite you these - would be helpful, because they look like bollocks. eg 20% fall in living standards seems impossible given a nicely growing economy and population growth 0.6% - living standards are rising quite fast! Who is deciding if a hosptial is unsafe? Affordable housing that was there is still there - it's just occupied. So do you mean new build? Do you mean currently available for rent? What's driving supply and demand? Supply is increasing but demand is growing faster - so there is a pressure. How does immigration play into this? Are Owen Jones and McMao your data sources?
CQC, HM GOV, IFS
Link ? I am not of course suggestion that there is some small print or selective reading going on, but you can't be too careful these days.
Nah I would be wasting my time you are in typical PB Tory denial so no amount of independent evidence would convince.
The report doesn't support a claim of a 20% drop in living standards under this government.
It seems a bit unfair for you to blame the current government for the recession of 2008/09 in any case.
Significantly, it seems, the focus has now shifted from blaming councils for delaying plans, through a cumbersome planning system, to blaming builders and developers for sitting on large land banks once planning permission has been granted. Why, for instance, when around 270,000 homes are annually given planning permission, are only half that number being built?
I realise I'm being really thick but how can the top line ever be a higher percentage than both the second and third lines?
I think it could happen if there were some who were Not Lab 2005 - Lab 2010 - Not Lab 2015, provided they were of sufficient number and split the right way in Leave/Remain terms.
I realise I'm being really thick but how can the top line ever be a higher percentage than both the second and third lines?
I think it could happen if there were some who were Not Lab 2005 - Lab 2010 - Not Lab 2015, provided they were of sufficient number and split the right way in Leave/Remain terms.
I suppose. It doesn't sound awfully likely but I guess that is a possibility.
Mr. F, the IFS has some special ways of describing things. Criticising an early Osborne budget for being regressive due to planned cuts to welfare, when the cuts were due to a forecast decline in unemployment, was a particularly fine example.
This morning's Red Box email says Mrs May is likely to hold a reshuffle in September.
Clearly she's not learned from Dave's good practice.
Liz Truss is on her way out, so it ain't all bad.
Good, if there is one section of public sector workers that have been badly treated - it ain't the Doctors, it ain't the teachers, it is the prison officers. Severely under appreciated by the government and also underpaid too by the sounds of things.
I'd say in terms of pay and conditions private soldiers in the army have it alot worse. Average prison officer pay is a smidgeon over 21k. Privates a smidgeon under 20k. But the terms and conditions in the army are much more demanding.
But they also often include free bed & board. It's demanding, but it's a good way to save for a deposit as well.
According to the CQC’s state of hospitals report, published on Thursday, 81% of the 136 non-specialist trusts were deemed to be inadequate or to require improvement for safety, while 11% of hospital trusts were given the lowest rating for safety.
Not not unsafe at all, requiring improvement.
If Milne ever wants his old job back perhaps you should apply.
Safety is inadequate or require improvement in 81& of cases
Safety only good enough in 19% of cases.
Spin it as you like.
Perhaps you would be better blaming Corbyn for this sad state of affairs.
If i wanted to spin I would say 81% of hospitals now judged the same or worse for safety as Stafford at the time of that disgrace.
- Major pension reforms to reduce the discrepancy between public and private sector pensions - Changes to unemployment benefit to allow employees who resign to claim benefit under some circumstances - Reduction of taxes on housing - No change to retirement age and amounts (Fillon is advocating an increase in retirement ages) - Elimination of the special pension deal for parliamentarians - Banning politicians from employing their relatives [I wonder why that one sneaked in!!] - Reduction in public-sector jobs by 120,000 but also hiring 4,000 more teachers and 10,000 police officers (especially for anti-terrorism duties) - Banning mobile phones in schools completely - Scrappage incentives for heavily-polluting vehicles - An infrastructure investment programme concentrating on green energy projects - Large cuts in public spending, keeping the deficit at 3% - Allowing married couples to choose to be taxed separately rather than as a household
It's a sort of half-way house between Hollande and Fillon.
- Major pension reforms to reduce the discrepancy between public and private sector pensions - Changes to unemployment benefit to allow employees who resign to claim benefit under some circumstances - Reduction of taxes on housing - No change to retirement age and amounts (Fillon is advocating an increase in retirement ages) - Elimination of the special pension deal for parliamentarians - Banning politicians from employing their relatives [I wonder why that one sneaked in!!] - Reduction in public-sector jobs by 120,000 but also hiring 4,000 more teachers and 10,000 police officers (especially for anti-terrorism duties) - Banning mobile phones in schools completely - Scrappage incentives for heavily-polluting vehicles
It's a sort of half-way house between Hollande and Fillon.
Banning mobile phones in schools!? Whats that about?
Has anybody yet done an analysis of the possible gains and losses for this years locals on May 4th?
Labour could lose control — (ignoring by-elections since 2013) — of the only two county councils they control in Notts and Derbyshire. (Excludes Durham which is unitary). In Notts Labour are defending a 9 vote majority in a ward in Ken Clarke's constituency.
- Major pension reforms to reduce the discrepancy between public and private sector pensions - Changes to unemployment benefit to allow employees who resign to claim benefit under some circumstances - Reduction of taxes on housing - No change to retirement age and amounts (Fillon is advocating an increase in retirement ages) - Elimination of the special pension deal for parliamentarians - Banning politicians from employing their relatives [I wonder why that one sneaked in!!] - Reduction in public-sector jobs by 120,000 but also hiring 4,000 more teachers and 10,000 police officers (especially for anti-terrorism duties) - Banning mobile phones in schools completely - Scrappage incentives for heavily-polluting vehicles
It's a sort of half-way house between Hollande and Fillon.
Banning mobile phones in schools!? Whats that about?
Teachers shouldn't have to be wasting time policing children telling them not to use their phones. I imagine the problem is pretty serious these days with the ubiquity of smartphones. Far too easy to get distracted by social media, games etc (or perhaps PB even!). Disrupts the lessons for everyone. They should definitely be banned in schools.
No idea if Macron is proposing it for that reason though!
Teachers shouldn't have to be wasting time policing children telling them not to use their phones. I imagine the problem is pretty serious these days with the ubiquity of smartphones. Far too easy to get distracted by social media, games etc (or perhaps PB even!). Disrupts the lessons for everyone. They should definitely be banned in schools.
No idea if Macron is proposing it for that reason though!
Yes, I think that's it. He's actually proposing not just that they should be banned in class, but not allowed on the premises at all.
Thinking about Fillon, what is the PB consensus on the ongoing scandals dogging him?
Has the nature of the scandal been blown out of proportion, is it entirely justified, is it a witch hunt from the left, fake news from Russia to help Le Pen etc?
This morning's Red Box email says Mrs May is likely to hold a reshuffle in September.
Clearly she's not learned from Dave's good practice.
Liz Truss is on her way out, so it ain't all bad.
Good, if there is one section of public sector workers that have been badly treated - it ain't the Doctors, it ain't the teachers, it is the prison officers. Severely under appreciated by the government and also underpaid too by the sounds of things.
I'd say in terms of pay and conditions private soldiers in the army have it alot worse. Average prison officer pay is a smidgeon over 21k. Privates a smidgeon under 20k. But the terms and conditions in the army are much more demanding.
But they also often include free bed & board. It's demanding, but it's a good way to save for a deposit as well.
Free bed and board is only provided when on operations, so currently not very often for most of the troops and only then for those not provided with married quarters (on which, I think, rent still has to be paid and the family fed out of wages).
In the early seventies the armed forces were given a big pay rise following an independent review. But that increase was top-sliced as a contribution to accommodation and meals, which had until then been provided free. Roll forward twenty odd years and the government decided that armed forces members should pay for their accommodation and meals but did not restore to their wages the amount that was already being taken. Service personnel are thus being charged twice.
That said the pay for a young single bod (i.e. most service people) is pretty good, lots of beer vouchers. Once they get a bit older and promoted a couple of times to become the senior NCOs to become the backbone on which all three services depend then the pay, terms of service and quality of accommodation become far less attractive and retention becomes a big issue. The RN has especially big problems in this area and there are times when ships cannot put to sea because there are not the skilled senior people available.
Mr. G, might it take a day or two for the impact to register?
It is a rolling poll, so only a third of todays poll result was done yesterday, so any change registered is unlikely to be massive. However, I would have thought there would have been some negative reaction amongst the third polled yesterday, if he can hold on to that 21% for the next two days, then I would say he has ridden this particular storm.
Teachers shouldn't have to be wasting time policing children telling them not to use their phones. I imagine the problem is pretty serious these days with the ubiquity of smartphones. Far too easy to get distracted by social media, games etc (or perhaps PB even!). Disrupts the lessons for everyone. They should definitely be banned in schools.
No idea if Macron is proposing it for that reason though!
Yes, I think that's it. He's actually proposing not just that they should be banned in class, but not allowed on the premises at all.
LOL at the banning mobile phones in schools policy. I don't see that one working.
At my school the mobile issue was solved very simply: phones were expected to be put at the back of your locker during lessons, and if you were caught with your phone then it was confiscated. There were no issues with people using their phones en masse during lessons.
Has anybody yet done an analysis of the possible gains and losses for this years locals on May 4th?
Labour could lose control — (ignoring by-elections since 2013) — of the only two county councils they control in Notts and Derbyshire. (Excludes Durham which is unitary). In Notts Labour are defending a 9 vote majority in a ward in Ken Clarke's constituency.
Thanks Andy. Here's hoping. Will be very hard for Corbyn to find an excuse for losing those two great counties. Losing a remote seat in the middle of nowhere might be considered unfortunate. Losing two first-class cricket counties in the heart of the nation, downright negligent.
According to the CQC’s state of hospitals report, published on Thursday, 81% of the 136 non-specialist trusts were deemed to be inadequate or to require improvement for safety, while 11% of hospital trusts were given the lowest rating for safety.
Not not unsafe at all, requiring improvement.
If Milne ever wants his old job back perhaps you should apply.
Safety is inadequate or require improvement in 81& of cases
Safety only good enough in 19% of cases.
Spin it as you like.
Perhaps you would be better blaming Corbyn for this sad state of affairs.
If i wanted to spin I would say 81% of hospitals now judged the same or worse for safety as Stafford at the time of that disgrace.
The fact that few people are aware of it is testament to Corbyn's hopeless leadership skills.
LOL at the banning mobile phones in schools policy. I don't see that one working.
At my school the mobile issue was solved very simply: phones were expected to be put at the back of your locker during lessons, and if you were caught with your phone then it was confiscated. There were no issues with people using their phones en masse during lessons.
According to the CQC’s state of hospitals report, published on Thursday, 81% of the 136 non-specialist trusts were deemed to be inadequate or to require improvement for safety, while 11% of hospital trusts were given the lowest rating for safety.
Not not unsafe at all, requiring improvement.
If Milne ever wants his old job back perhaps you should apply.
Safety is inadequate or require improvement in 81& of cases
Safety only good enough in 19% of cases.
Spin it as you like.
Perhaps you would be better blaming Corbyn for this sad state of affairs.
If i wanted to spin I would say 81% of hospitals now judged the same or worse for safety as Stafford at the time of that disgrace.
The fact that few people are aware of it is testament to Corbyn's hopeless leadership skills.
Yes, the official opposition these days is just the right wing of the Tory party keeping May on her toes. Hence their relative success so far on hard brexit.
Labour's irrelevance means no one is talking about these issues.
@kle4 I didn't say that all those who disagreed with me were right-wing. You've just mentioned this place is right-leaning: well that is what it was a comment on.
Secondly, I didn't say you were right-wing specifically either.
Thirdly, I didn't typify the alternative view as a right-wing together either. It was in response to someone who wasn't engaging with my argument at all by providing an alternative view, but dismissed my argument entirely. The dismissive attitude, and the idea that my alternative view should not be put forward was what caused the 'right-wing get together comment.' I thought that was fairly obvious, given that in my exchanges with you I never actually characterised your disagreement with me as 'right-wing'. Nor did I ever explicitly define terms of this debate in ideological terms. Your reply to me is filled with accusations of things I never actually said.
Nor did I said that my argument wasn't my opinion. The difference is, is that I did not dismiss all other arguments, but I tried to make my case. (And again I'm not accusing YOU of dismissing my opinion).
As for your last question: because politicians do stupid things. It was a dumb thing for May to do, but it was hardly the crime of the century. If I disliked a politician over this one thing, then I'd probably hate most of them, given they have all made silly comments over the years. Indeed I didn't actually intend to get into a heated argument over this. A similar observation in regard to May's comment was made previously, and funnily enough there wasn't all that much debate about it. Yet there is now....
Really, if people are going to disagree with me, disagree with me on things I actually say. This is not the first time on this site that criticisms have been brought my way on statements I've never said.
I mat have been a bit oversensitive at perceived criticism and I apologise for that.
If I am a Labour Leaver in the North in 2005 but move to London & stop voting Labout in 2012, then I contribute to the North in the first & third lines of the table, but London in the second line.
I understand that. But if 61% of group A voted Leave and 61% of group B voted Leave, how did 65% of Groups A and B vote Leave?
Some of group b voted labour 2015?
I see, yes. That seems slightly likelier because Labour's vote share did rise in 2015. If so, Ed Miliband was a Remain magnet before the fact.
No. If I'm understanding you correctly.
Lab, shamefully, opposed the referendum. They should have supported it and vociferously advocated Remain (of course not an option under Jezza as he is not of that opinion). As they did and didn't and didn't EdM cannot be considered a Remain anything.
LOL at the banning mobile phones in schools policy. I don't see that one working.
At my school the mobile issue was solved very simply: phones were expected to be put at the back of your locker during lessons, and if you were caught with your phone then it was confiscated. There were no issues with people using their phones en masse during lessons.
Anecdote alert
In 2010 my Dad was teaching and one of the pupils had her headphones on, plugged into her mobile. He asked her to take them out
Next minute he looked over and she had them on again, so he asked her to take them out again
Next time he looked, she had them on & was asleep. He made a 'sshhhh' sign to the class and said 'be quiet, she's sleeping'... & her mate reported him as racist for making fun of her lips because she was black.
- Major pension reforms to reduce the discrepancy between public and private sector pensions - Changes to unemployment benefit to allow employees who resign to claim benefit under some circumstances - Reduction of taxes on housing - No change to retirement age and amounts (Fillon is advocating an increase in retirement ages) - Elimination of the special pension deal for parliamentarians - Banning politicians from employing their relatives [I wonder why that one sneaked in!!] - Reduction in public-sector jobs by 120,000 but also hiring 4,000 more teachers and 10,000 police officers (especially for anti-terrorism duties) - Banning mobile phones in schools completely - Scrappage incentives for heavily-polluting vehicles
It's a sort of half-way house between Hollande and Fillon.
Banning mobile phones in schools!? Whats that about?
Teachers shouldn't have to be wasting time policing children telling them not to use their phones. I imagine the problem is pretty serious these days with the ubiquity of smartphones. Far too easy to get distracted by social media, games etc (or perhaps PB even!). Disrupts the lessons for everyone. They should definitely be banned in schools.
No idea if Macron is proposing it for that reason though!
A national policy banning mobile phones in schools (presumably not for teachers?) is ridiculous. It should be up to schools to decide how and if they want to deal with this.
But you have inadvertently answered my question. Its probably a vote winner with certain elements of the population and means he seems 'common sense' for the culturally conservative.
It's only gone 10am & already we have 3 bits of news
•81% of NHS Hospitals Unsafe •Affordable Housing Halved •20% fall in Living Standards
Corbyns fault presumably
Yes, for failing to hold the government to account on those as is his job.
PB Tory Responsibility index
Government circa 0%
Last Labour Government/ Corbyn circa 100% depending on circumstances.
That's called politics. Brown once blamed thE last tory government for some thing 13 years after it was ousted. Labour will face the same from the Tories. How credible such deflections are depend on the opposition leader and general reasonableness.
He shouldn't. This is the chief law officer in the US. I know Trump supporters think that words don't matter, but the reality is that the law is just that: words. If words don't matter - particularly those made under oath and subject to penalties for perjury; words spoken by the chief law officer of the US - then there is no law.
In Sessions' own words:
On Nixon’s resignation in the face of impeachment in 1974, Sessions said: “I hope we haven't sent a message that’s not as clear,” he said, “that clever people can sometimes get ahead by spinning and not telling the truth. That worries me.”
Sessions on Bill Clinton’s Monica Lewinsky obfuscation (nb voting in the Senate to convict Clinton of perjury)… “I sort of assumed perjury occurred, but I want to read what was said, what the established fact is, and decide how clear that is and whether or not there is any wriggle room or realistic defense there," Sessions said in 1998. Back then, the senator described perjury as a “big-time issue,” adding, “I have no doubt that perjury qualifies under the Constitution as a high crime. It goes to the heart of the judicial system.”
Interesting quotes. I think in a standard court, Jeff Sessions would be at risk of a perjury charge. A congressional hearing is a political event. As long as you can keep your partisans on board you can usually get round any standard misdemeanors. Jeff Sessions should be OK if he can come up with an explanation the Republicans can sign up to, however far fetched.
Edit and in a similar vein, Tony Blair would likely be in serious trouble if he had put forward a commercial prospectus on the same lines as his case for war with Iraq. Political standards are lower, when you might expect them to be higher.
@kle4 I didn't say that all those who disagreed with me were right-wing. You've just mentioned this place is right-leaning: well that is what it was a comment on.
Secondly, I didn't say you were right-wing specifically either.
Thirdly, I didn't typify the alternative view as a right-wing together either. It was in response to someone who wasn't engaging with my argument at all by providing an alternative view, but dismissed my argument entirely. The dismissive attitude, and the idea that my alternative view should not be put forward was what caused the 'right-wing get together comment.' I thought that was fairly obvious, given that in my exchanges with you I never actually characterised your disagreement with me as 'right-wing'. Nor did I ever explicitly define terms of this debate in ideological terms. Your reply to me is filled with accusations of things I never actually said.
Nor did I said that my argument wasn't my opinion. The difference is, is that I did not dismiss all other arguments, but I tried to make my case. (And again I'm not accusing YOU of dismissing my opinion).
As for your last question: because politicians do stupid things. It was a dumb thing for May to do, but it was hardly the crime of the century. If I disliked a politician over this one thing, then I'd probably hate most of them, given they have all made silly comments over the years. Indeed I didn't actually intend to get into a heated argument over this. A similar observation in regard to May's comment was made previously, and funnily enough there wasn't all that much debate about it. Yet there is now....
Really, if people are going to disagree with me, disagree with me on things I actually say. This is not the first time on this site that criticisms have been brought my way on statements I've never said.
I mat have been a bit oversensitive at perceived criticism and I apologise for that.
@kle4 I didn't say that all those who disagreed with me were right-wing. You've just SNIP
Really, if people are going to disagree with me, disagree with me on things I actually say. This is not the first time on this site that criticisms have been brought my way on statements I've never said.
I mat have been a bit oversensitive at perceived criticism and I apologise for that.
The PB apology is a rare and priceless beast. I actually apologised to @SeanT the other day, which he very graciously accepted!
- Major pension reforms to reduce the discrepancy between public and private sector pensions - Changes to unemployment benefit to allow employees who resign to claim benefit under some circumstances - Reduction of taxes on housing - No change to retirement age and amounts (Fillon is advocating an increase in retirement ages) - Elimination of the special pension deal for parliamentarians - Banning politicians from employing their relatives [I wonder why that one sneaked in!!] - Reduction in public-sector jobs by 120,000 but also hiring 4,000 more teachers and 10,000 police officers (especially for anti-terrorism duties) - Banning mobile phones in schools completely - Scrappage incentives for heavily-polluting vehicles
It's a sort of half-way house between Hollande and Fillon.
Banning mobile phones in schools!? Whats that about?
Teachers shouldn't have to be wasting time policing children telling them not to use their phones. I imagine the problem is pretty serious these days with the ubiquity of smartphones. Far too easy to get distracted by social media, games etc (or perhaps PB even!). Disrupts the lessons for everyone. They should definitely be banned in schools.
No idea if Macron is proposing it for that reason though!
A national policy banning mobile phones in schools (presumably not for teachers?) is ridiculous. It should be up to schools to decide how and if they want to deal with this.
But you have inadvertently answered my question. Its probably a vote winner with certain elements of the population and means he seems 'common sense' for the culturally conservative.
Yes and No. Schools need to have the confidence that the national government will support them in their "no phone" policy should they choose to adopt it. If they feel that the first time a parent or child makes a fuss they will be instructed by the equivalent of the LEA to drop the policy because of the bad publicity, they wont bother.
A national policy banning mobile phones in schools (presumably not for teachers?) is ridiculous. It should be up to schools to decide how and if they want to deal with this.
This is France we're talking about. Unless things have changed since I lived there, they even have laws regulating the order in which seats on buses should be offered to the vulnerable (mutilés de guerre taking priority over mutilés civiles, who in turn trump pregnent women, all carefuly documented and posted in every bus). Sadly I never saw an occasion where the full pecking order was played out. In fact I never saw anyone give up their seat to anyone.
Below is verbatim the message from the CQC about the state of hospitals report: What we found
Most hospitals are delivering good quality care and looking after patients well. Our reports highlighted many examples of how hospitals are improving and continuing to improve the quality of care they offer, even though there are constraints. We encourage trusts to follow this good practice to improve their own services.
But we also found that some trusts have blind spots about the quality of care they are delivering in a particular core service, even in some trusts rated good overall.
All hospitals told us that patient safety was their top priority, but too often they did not have an effective safety culture or reliable systems to ensure this. Many of the inefficiencies we saw can be avoided, such as hospital acquired infections, or are caused by poorly coordinated care.
The overarching message from our inspections is that effective leadership delivers high-quality care. In hospitals rated good or outstanding, the trust boards had worked hard to create a culture where staff felt valued and empowered to suggest improvements and question poor practice. Where the culture was based around the needs and safety of patients, staff at all levels understood their role in making sure that patients were always put first.
Is the really key takeaway from this that 'Most hospitals are delivering good quality care and looking after patients well' and to do this well you need to focus on patients not providers - or is it that 81% of hospitals are 'unsafe'? (When the 81% is either inadequate or require some improvement - so not necessarily unsafe at all).
I think there is an open goal on social care provision and how that impacts healthcare provision these days. This statistic is selective and misleading.
He shouldn't. This is the chief law officer in the US. I know Trump supporters think that words don't matter, but the reality is that the law is just that: words. If words don't matter - particularly those made under oath and subject to penalties for perjury; words spoken by the chief law officer of the US - then there is no law.
In Sessions' own words:
On Nixon’s resignation in the face of impeachment in 1974, Sessions said: “I hope we haven't sent a message that’s not as clear,” he said, “that clever people can sometimes get ahead by spinning and not telling the truth. That worries me.”
Sessions on Bill Clinton’s Monica Lewinsky obfuscation (nb voting in the Senate to convict Clinton of perjury)… “I sort of assumed perjury occurred, but I want to read what was said, what the established fact is, and decide how clear that is and whether or not there is any wriggle room or realistic defense there," Sessions said in 1998. Back then, the senator described perjury as a “big-time issue,” adding, “I have no doubt that perjury qualifies under the Constitution as a high crime. It goes to the heart of the judicial system.”
Interesting quotes. I think in a standard court, Jeff Sessions would be at risk of a perjury charge. A congressional hearing is a political event. As long as you can keep your partisans on board you can usually get round any standard misdemeanors. Jeff Sessions should be OK if he can come up with an explanation the Republicans can sign up to, however far fetched.
Edit and in a similar vein, Tony Blair would likely be in serious trouble if he had put forward a commercial prospectus on the same lines as his case for war with Iraq. Political standards are lower, when you might expect them to be higher.
I think he can plausibly claim he was discussing with the ambassador in his role as a member of the Armed Services Committee in the way that he had similar discussions with 25 other ambassadors over the preceding months. Smelly ? Yes. Hard to prove otherwise ? Very.
Fillon getting summonsed is bad for him. Le Pen getting her immunity removed is good for her. Both of these are live issues and will come with further developments.
I don't understand why Fillon is accusing the left of being behind his judicial problems. But in any case, his narrative is weak. If his wife didn't do a large amount of work for him, then he was dishonest in claiming that she did and he is still being dishonest by not admitting it. Yesterday he chose not to concentrate on the message "I didn't do it". He focused on "They're out to get me". His body language was awful - licking his lips all the time, with wide open eyes, and even doing a Clintonian "that woman" act at one point. This affair is not going to win him any votes, and in my opinion he has very little chance of winning the presidency.
Le Pen's narrative is strong and clear, and it comes across well in response to the violent videos affair. Personally I think it is disgusting for anyone to publish such videos, whoever they are, and that people who choose to watch them are sick, but politicians look at things differently. Her message says that she stands up against ISIS, including against stab-in-the-back journalists who don't realise the gravity of the fight. It says the EU don't realise either, and that they are standing on some kind of "letter of the law" to try to bring down a politician who is trying to defend France. Her message says France needs her. It says she is Joan of Arc. The videos issue (unlike the EU parliamentary payments) is not associated with any question of possible dishonesty, and her campaign must be absolutely jumping for joy about it.
A national policy banning mobile phones in schools (presumably not for teachers?) is ridiculous. It should be up to schools to decide how and if they want to deal with this.
This is France we're talking about. Unless things have changed since I lived there, they even have laws regulating the order in which seats on buses should be offered to the vulnerable (mutilés de guerre taking priority over mutilés civiles, who in turn trump pregnent women, all carefuly documented and posted in every bus). Sadly I never saw an occasion where the full pecking order was played out. In fact I never saw anyone give up their seat to anyone.
We have similar guidelines don't we on disabled > prams on buses? A law does seem way OTT though
According to the CQC’s state of hospitals report, published on Thursday, 81% of the 136 non-specialist trusts were deemed to be inadequate or to require improvement for safety, while 11% of hospital trusts were given the lowest rating for safety.
Not not unsafe at all, requiring improvement.
If Milne ever wants his old job back perhaps you should apply.
Safety is inadequate or require improvement in 81& of cases
Safety only good enough in 19% of cases.
Spin it as you like.
Perhaps you would be better blaming Corbyn for this sad state of affairs.
If i wanted to spin I would say 81% of hospitals now judged the same or worse for safety as Stafford at the time of that disgrace.
Perhaps that says more about the state of the inspection regime at the time of Stafford than about genuine relative quality between now and then?
A national policy banning mobile phones in schools (presumably not for teachers?) is ridiculous. It should be up to schools to decide how and if they want to deal with this.
This is France we're talking about. Unless things have changed since I lived there, they even have laws regulating the order in which seats on buses should be offered to the vulnerable (mutilés de guerre taking priority over mutilés civiles, who in turn trump pregnent women, all carefuly documented and posted in every bus). Sadly I never saw an occasion where the full pecking order was played out. In fact I never saw anyone give up their seat to anyone.
We have similar guidelines don't we on disabled > prams on buses? A law does seem way OTT though
Wasn't there some big hoo-ha recently when someone refused to move for a pram or a wheelchair or somesuch?
Nothing written down in UK law AFAIK but of course IANAL.
- Major pension reforms to reduce the discrepancy between public and private sector pensions - Changes to unemployment benefit to allow employees who resign to claim benefit under some circumstances - Reduction of taxes on housing - No change to retirement age and amounts (Fillon is advocating an increase in retirement ages) - Elimination of the special pension deal for parliamentarians - Banning politicians from employing their relatives [I wonder why that one sneaked in!!] - Reduction in public-sector jobs by 120,000 but also hiring 4,000 more teachers and 10,000 police officers (especially for anti-terrorism duties) - Banning mobile phones in schools completely - Scrappage incentives for heavily-polluting vehicles
It's a sort of half-way house between Hollande and Fillon.
Banning mobile phones in schools!? Whats that about?
Teachers shouldn't have to be wasting time policing children telling them not to use their phones. I imagine the problem is pretty serious these days with the ubiquity of smartphones. Far too easy to get distracted by social media, games etc (or perhaps PB even!). Disrupts the lessons for everyone. They should definitely be banned in schools.
No idea if Macron is proposing it for that reason though!
A national policy banning mobile phones in schools (presumably not for teachers?) is ridiculous. It should be up to schools to decide how and if they want to deal with this.
But you have inadvertently answered my question. Its probably a vote winner with certain elements of the population and means he seems 'common sense' for the culturally conservative.
Yes and No. Schools need to have the confidence that the national government will support them in their "no phone" policy should they choose to adopt it. If they feel that the first time a parent or child makes a fuss they will be instructed by the equivalent of the LEA to drop the policy because of the bad publicity, they wont bother.
Actually having googled it looks like it's about concern of radiation risks?
In any case... Banning phones in schools is not supporting school leaders... It's removing their decision making power. Some schools may want to allow phones but would be prevented from doing so.
A national policy banning mobile phones in schools (presumably not for teachers?) is ridiculous. It should be up to schools to decide how and if they want to deal with this.
This is France we're talking about. Unless things have changed since I lived there, they even have laws regulating the order in which seats on buses should be offered to the vulnerable (mutilés de guerre taking priority over mutilés civiles, who in turn trump pregnent women, all carefuly documented and posted in every bus). Sadly I never saw an occasion where the full pecking order was played out. In fact I never saw anyone give up their seat to anyone.
We have similar guidelines don't we on disabled > prams on buses? A law does seem way OTT though
Wasn't there some big hoo-ha recently when someone refused to move for a pram or a wheelchair or somesuch?
Nothing written down in UK law AFAIK but of course IANAL.
It did seem to me that it was asking bus drivers to exercise the wisdom of Solomon, in order to determine whether a pregnant woman was more or less deserving than a disabled man.
He shouldn't. This is the chief law officer in the US. I know Trump supporters think that words don't matter, but the reality is that the law is just that: words. If words don't matter - particularly those made under oath and subject to penalties for perjury; words spoken by the chief law officer of the US - then there is no law.
In Sessions' own words:
On Nixon’s resignation in the face of impeachment in 1974, Sessions said: “I hope we haven't sent a message that’s not as clear,” he said, “that clever people can sometimes get ahead by spinning and not telling the truth. That worries me.”
Sessions on Bill Clinton’s Monica Lewinsky obfuscation (nb voting in the Senate to convict Clinton of perjury)… “I sort of assumed perjury occurred, but I want to read what was said, what the established fact is, and decide how clear that is and whether or not there is any wriggle room or realistic defense there," Sessions said in 1998. Back then, the senator described perjury as a “big-time issue,” adding, “I have no doubt that perjury qualifies under the Constitution as a high crime. It goes to the heart of the judicial system.”
Interesting quotes. I think in a standard court, Jeff Sessions would be at risk of a perjury charge. A congressional hearing is a political event. As long as you can keep your partisans on board you can usually get round any standard misdemeanors. Jeff Sessions should be OK if he can come up with an explanation the Republicans can sign up to, however far fetched.
Edit and in a similar vein, Tony Blair would likely be in serious trouble if he had put forward a commercial prospectus on the same lines as his case for war with Iraq. Political standards are lower, when you might expect them to be higher.
I think he can plausibly claim he was discussing with the ambassador in his role as a member of the Armed Services Committee in the way that he had similar discussions with 25 other ambassadors over the preceding months. Smelly ? Yes. Hard to prove otherwise ? Very.
Apparently the other committee members including chairman McCain didn't meet with russian ambassador.
In any case... I agree that it's too hard to prove and he will be okay I think.
What the Dems really want is an independent investigation I think without Sessions in charge of it. There too I think they will be disappointed. After Ken Starr...Surely no president in their right mind would ever agree to that again... Especially not Trump who is a long long way from squeeky clean and above board.
It's only gone 10am & already we have 3 bits of news
•81% of NHS Hospitals Unsafe •Affordable Housing Halved •20% fall in Living Standards
Corbyns fault presumably
Actually yes. If we had a Labour leader with any authority this would be leading the news.
As with Brexit if Corbyn was involved nobody could hear him.
You seriously believe that whether a Labour leader can successfully decide what leads the news is up to the personal qualities of the Labour leader?
Which specific news organs do you have in mind? Torygraph? Reuters? BBC? Daily Mail? The Sun? The Evening Standard?
It is up to all politicians to create an agenda for their own sphere of interest and to generate national debate. A LotO should have that ability in spades.
- Major pension reforms to reduce the discrepancy between public and private sector pensions - Changes to unemployment benefit to allow employees who resign to claim benefit under some circumstances - Reduction of taxes on housing - No change to retirement age and amounts (Fillon is advocating an increase in retirement ages) - Elimination of the special pension deal for parliamentarians - Banning politicians from employing their relatives [I wonder why that one sneaked in!!] - Reduction in public-sector jobs by 120,000 but also hiring 4,000 more teachers and 10,000 police officers (especially for anti-terrorism duties) - Banning mobile phones in schools completely - Scrappage incentives for heavily-polluting vehicles
It's a sort of half-way house between Hollande and Fillon.
Banning mobile phones in schools!? Whats that about?
Teachers shouldn't have to be wasting time policing children telling them not to use their phones. I imagine the problem is pretty serious these days with the ubiquity of smartphones. Far too easy to get distracted by social media, games etc (or perhaps PB even!). Disrupts the lessons for everyone. They should definitely be banned in schools.
No idea if Macron is proposing it for that reason though!
A national policy banning mobile phones in schools (presumably not for teachers?) is ridiculous. It should be up to schools to decide how and if they want to deal with this.
But you have inadvertently answered my question. Its probably a vote winner with certain elements of the population and means he seems 'common sense' for the culturally conservative.
We visit schools, colleges, universities, and have visits to our station everyday, by various local community groups. We waste the first 10 minutes of every session trying to get kids and young adults to take their ear phones out and get off their mobiles. It's very hard to then treat them as adults during the rest of the session when they're forever trying to take selfies and posting on social media. It's an epidemic. I just hope school is not as bad.
Banning phones in schools is not supporting school leaders... It's removing their decision making power. Some schools may want to allow phones but would be prevented from doing so.
Microwave phones really are dangerous, but it's a bit rich of schools to say so when so many have had masts installed on their sites for money.
Banning phones sounds like a damned good idea. Sitting like a gumbie picking your phone isn't great for getting educated.
A national policy banning mobile phones in schools (presumably not for teachers?) is ridiculous. It should be up to schools to decide how and if they want to deal with this.
This is France we're talking about. Unless things have changed since I lived there, they even have laws regulating the order in which seats on buses should be offered to the vulnerable (mutilés de guerre taking priority over mutilés civiles, who in turn trump pregnent women, all carefuly documented and posted in every bus). Sadly I never saw an occasion where the full pecking order was played out. In fact I never saw anyone give up their seat to anyone.
We have similar guidelines don't we on disabled > prams on buses? A law does seem way OTT though
Wasn't there some big hoo-ha recently when someone refused to move for a pram or a wheelchair or somesuch?
Nothing written down in UK law AFAIK but of course IANAL.
Yeah you're right. I think at the time I thought disabled should trump pram.
Has anybody yet done an analysis of the possible gains and losses for this years locals on May 4th?
Labour could lose control — (ignoring by-elections since 2013) — of the only two county councils they control in Notts and Derbyshire. (Excludes Durham which is unitary). In Notts Labour are defending a 9 vote majority in a ward in Ken Clarke's constituency.
Thanks Andy. Here's hoping. Will be very hard for Corbyn to find an excuse for losing those two great counties. Losing a remote seat in the middle of nowhere might be considered unfortunate. Losing two first-class cricket counties in the heart of the nation, downright negligent.
Lol.
The battle of the May elections will be on spinning the results. Will the London media report on the English results - which shouldn't be too disastrous for Labour because they'll win most of the metro-mayoralties and are starting at a low base in the council elections as they're in more Tory-leaning areas - or will they report the GB results i.e. including Wales and Scotland.
In England, as last year, it's quite possible Labour's losses will be measured in the two digits: not great by any stretch of the imagination but not a disaster either. By contrast, Scottish Labour could lose 60-70% of their councillors if the Holyrood / Westminster VI is a guide, which would equate to a net -200 people. They might also end up as not the largest party in any council.
If the figures are given across GB, it will look a *lot* worse for Lab (and a lot better for Con) than if it's England-only.
Fillon getting summonsed is bad for him. Le Pen getting her immunity removed is good for her. Both of these are live issues and will come with further developments.
I don't understand why Fillon is accusing the left of being behind his judicial problems. But in any case, his narrative is weak. If his wife didn't do a large amount of work for him, then he was dishonest in claiming that she did and he is still being dishonest by not admitting it. Yesterday he chose not to concentrate on the message "I didn't do it". He focused on "They're out to get me". His body language was awful - licking his lips all the time, with wide open eyes, and even doing a Clintonian "that woman" act at one point. This affair is not going to win him any votes, and in my opinion he has very little chance of winning the presidency.
Le Pen's narrative is strong and clear, and it comes across well in response to the violent videos affair. Personally I think it is disgusting for anyone to publish such videos, whoever they are, and that people who choose to watch them are sick, but politicians look at things differently. Her message says that she stands up against ISIS, including against stab-in-the-back journalists who don't realise the gravity of the fight. It says the EU don't realise either, and that they are standing on some kind of "letter of the law" to try to bring down a politician who is trying to defend France. Her message says France needs her. It says she is Joan of Arc. The videos issue (unlike the EU parliamentary payments) is not associated with any question of possible dishonesty, and her campaign must be absolutely jumping for joy about it.
He blames the left because he has to try and deflect the blame away from himself, somewhere. Those faithful to Fillon will happily blame the left. It is shoring up the support of those who have remained loyal to him.
Similarly Le Pen's video affair will play out well with her supporters. However, the average floating voter will share your disgust. It will shore up her loyal support, but not help her gain a great deal of additional support.
The RN has especially big problems in this area and there are times when ships cannot put to sea because there are not the skilled senior people available.
One of the root causes of this issue in the RN is the lack of a USN style 'up or out' policy for officers. There are officers who hit the limit of their capacities quite early in their careers then hang around on the same rank for, in some cases, decades. In my last RN posting I was 38 year old Lt Cdr and one of my subordinates was a 47 year old Lt! So they end up with a large cohort of aged, expensive and undermotivated junior officers sucking up resources that could be better employed elsewhere.
A national policy banning mobile phones in schools (presumably not for teachers?) is ridiculous. It should be up to schools to decide how and if they want to deal with this.
This is France we're talking about. Unless things have changed since I lived there, they even have laws regulating the order in which seats on buses should be offered to the vulnerable (mutilés de guerre taking priority over mutilés civiles, who in turn trump pregnent women, all carefuly documented and posted in every bus). Sadly I never saw an occasion where the full pecking order was played out. In fact I never saw anyone give up their seat to anyone.
We have similar guidelines don't we on disabled > prams on buses? A law does seem way OTT though
Wasn't there some big hoo-ha recently when someone refused to move for a pram or a wheelchair or somesuch?
Nothing written down in UK law AFAIK but of course IANAL.
Yeah you're right. I think at the time I thought disabled should trump pram.
It's astonishing how many people on public transport have to be asked to move for someone who obviously needs help (and then do so with very bad grace). When my other half was still using a wheelchair for longer journeys, I once had to enlist help from a bus driver to get a very fit young man with a folding bicycle to give up the space allotted for securing a wheelchair.
He shouldn't. This is the chief law officer in the US. I know Trump supporters think that words don't matter, but the reality is that the law is just that: words. If words don't matter - particularly those made under oath and subject to penalties for perjury; words spoken by the chief law officer of the US - then there is no law.
In Sessions' own words:
On Nixon’s resignation in the face of impeachment in 1974, Sessions said: “I hope we haven't sent a message that’s not as clear,” he said, “that clever people can sometimes get ahead by spinning and not telling the truth. That worries me.”
Sessions on Bill Clinton’s Monica Lewinsky obfuscation (nb voting in the Senate to convict Clinton of perjury)… “I sort of assumed perjury occurred, but I want to read what was said, what the established fact is, and decide how clear that is and whether or not there is any wriggle room or realistic defense there," Sessions said in 1998. Back then, the senator described perjury as a “big-time issue,” adding, “I have no doubt that perjury qualifies under the Constitution as a high crime. It goes to the heart of the judicial system.”
Interesting quotes. I think in a standard court, Jeff Sessions would be at risk of a perjury charge. A congressional hearing is a political event. As long as you can keep your partisans on board you can usually get round any standard misdemeanors. Jeff Sessions should be OK if he can come up with an explanation the Republicans can sign up to, however far fetched.
Edit and in a similar vein, Tony Blair would likely be in serious trouble if he had put forward a commercial prospectus on the same lines as his case for war with Iraq. Political standards are lower, when you might expect them to be higher.
I think he can plausibly claim he was discussing with the ambassador in his role as a member of the Armed Services Committee in the way that he had similar discussions with 25 other ambassadors over the preceding months. Smelly ? Yes. Hard to prove otherwise ? Very.
I understand his private meeting with the Russian ambassador to be in addition to general discussions with ambassadors including the Russian ambassador. But that's not the issue. The question is whether a meeting is a communication. If he had said he had had no meetings with the Russians that would be a clear perjury. In the part of the hearing about communications between the Trump campaign and Russia he said he had had no communications without revealing he had had a private meeting while part of the campaign.
On the issue of how many candidates the TV channel TF1 should invite to its presidential debate, Dupont-Aignan, currently polling sixth, who hasn't been invited, has got a response from the Higher Audovisual Council (Conseil Supérieur de L'Audiovisuel), a regulator.
The CSA has no authority to decide what gets or doesn't get broadcast - they only act after the event - but still.
They say inviting only some of the candidates is up to TF1, but "it falls on the channel to watch out that its choice doesn't breach the principle of treating all the candidates equitably".
LOL at the banning mobile phones in schools policy. I don't see that one working.
At my school the mobile issue was solved very simply: phones were expected to be put at the back of your locker during lessons, and if you were caught with your phone then it was confiscated. There were no issues with people using their phones en masse during lessons.
At the school my wife teaches at (bog standard comprehensive on the Sussex coast) a ban on phones has been in place since September. It applies to any use on the school grounds apart from some lessons where the internet is used. Seems not to have caused too much fuss after the initial furore. Stopping bullying was the major motive I think.
I understand his private meeting with the Russian ambassador to be in addition to general discussions with ambassadors including the Russian ambassador. But that's not the issue. The question is whether a meeting is a communication. If he had said he had had no meetings with the Russians that would be a clear perjury. In the part of the hearing about communications between the Trump campaign and Russia he said he had had no communications without revealing he had had a private meeting while part of the campaign.
Sarah Isgur Flores told NBC News that Sessions did have a conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak last year. The meeting was first reported by The Washington Post.
But she said "there was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer" because Sessions was asked during the hearing about "communications between Russia and the Trump campaign" and not about meetings he took as a member of the Armed Services Committee.
Yep. It's like snowflakes suddenly realising we need voting reform, only after their side loses, annoying those who wanted it all along.
To answer your question from last night, Ben Tre was the place in the Vietnam war of which a US Major said: "'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it".
Hence Ben Tre Brexiter, of which Mr Vance seems a prime example.
Work and Pensions Secretary Damian Green floated a scenario whereby ministers are regularly assessed and set development goals, on which their future progress will depend.
“The real revolution for politicians would be to say: ‘We’re going to treat you like a manager in a company, and we’re to have development programmes and you’re going to have training and you’re going to be assessed regularly and in an objective way and your future progress will depend on that',” the senior minister told the Institute for Government.
Work and Pensions Secretary Damian Green floated a scenario whereby ministers are regularly assessed and set development goals, on which their future progress will depend.
“The real revolution for politicians would be to say: ‘We’re going to treat you like a manager in a company, and we’re to have development programmes and you’re going to have training and you’re going to be assessed regularly and in an objective way and your future progress will depend on that',” the senior minister told the Institute for Government.
You cannot run a government like a business for the same reason that you cannot run a business like a government. Democracy does not work that way. (Arguably, far too many businesses *are* run with excessive considerations of internal politics but that's a different matter!)
So, you can't set Ministers objectives, identify their skills, their strengths to build on or weaknesses to address and measure their progress and review.
Why not?
Of course you can. But the first error is in assuming that a minister's job is in managing their departmental brief. It isn't just that. A minister needs political skills as much as administrative ones, and a program of the type mooted seems unlikely to address political skills.
Secondly, but relatedly, a prime minister may want to appoint people to his or her government for reasons other than soundness at the dispatch box. Some people are too important / powerful to leave out.
A national policy banning mobile phones in schools (presumably not for teachers?) is ridiculous. It should be up to schools to decide how and if they want to deal with this.
This is France we're talking about. Unless things have changed since I lived there, they even have laws regulating the order in which seats on buses should be offered to the vulnerable (mutilés de guerre taking priority over mutilés civiles, who in turn trump pregnent women, all carefuly documented and posted in every bus). Sadly I never saw an occasion where the full pecking order was played out. In fact I never saw anyone give up their seat to anyone.
We have similar guidelines don't we on disabled > prams on buses? A law does seem way OTT though
Wasn't there some big hoo-ha recently when someone refused to move for a pram or a wheelchair or somesuch?
Nothing written down in UK law AFAIK but of course IANAL.
Yeah you're right. I think at the time I thought disabled should trump pram.
It's astonishing how many people on public transport have to be asked to move for someone who obviously needs help (and then do so with very bad grace). When my other half was still using a wheelchair for longer journeys, I once had to enlist help from a bus driver to get a very fit young man with a folding bicycle to give up the space allotted for securing a wheelchair.
I hear this kind of story a lot... And consequently am slightly paranoid about missing the chance to offer someone my seat on public transport.
I know a few female friends who have taken a seat out of embarrassment when the person offering thought incorrectly they were pregnant.
The RN has especially big problems in this area and there are times when ships cannot put to sea because there are not the skilled senior people available.
One of the root causes of this issue in the RN is the lack of a USN style 'up or out' policy for officers. There are officers who hit the limit of their capacities quite early in their careers then hang around on the same rank for, in some cases, decades. In my last RN posting I was 38 year old Lt Cdr and one of my subordinates was a 47 year old Lt! So they end up with a large cohort of aged, expensive and undermotivated junior officers sucking up resources that could be better employed elsewhere.
Mr Ace, I was thinking of senior rates rather than the wardroom but I am astonished that the RN has abandoned the Up or Out policy that held for much of modern times and still does, I think, in the army and possibly the Crabs (though who knows what that lot get up to in the privacy of their own aerodromes).
A 47 year old doing a job that someone in their late 20s should be doing, and would be doing doing better (energy, enthusiasm, motivation), is crackers and certainly wouldn't be tolerated in the infantry. One wonders what lead to this daft policy, a desire to cut training costs?
Off-topic: has anyone been following the @newdawn1997 Twitter account? Tracking all the events in the lead-up to the '97 election.
It's quite striking that, even though we all assume that election was a foregone conclusion, there seemed to be a LOT of uncertainty leading up to it. There's been lots of newspaper articles saying how the Tories might still win it, or that Labour would only scrape in by the skin of their teeth. It's only been in the last few days (after the Wirral South byelection at the end of February 1997) that some commentators are starting to realise that Labour could actually get a landslide.
LOL at the banning mobile phones in schools policy. I don't see that one working.
At my school the mobile issue was solved very simply: phones were expected to be put at the back of your locker during lessons, and if you were caught with your phone then it was confiscated. There were no issues with people using their phones en masse during lessons.
Why don't you see it working ?
I can see kids secretly sneaking in their phones.
@midwinter If it's been done to stop bullying, I understand. Although with social media being the way it is, bullying can still occur off the school premises. I do wonder whether kids really are leaving their phones at home, or whether they are just successfully hiding them though, in regard to your wife's school.
@kle4 You don't have to apologise! I just wanted to make myself clear that I wasn't trying to demonise you or anything like it. It was just a genuine disagreement on the May thing. I think at that time as well I was feeling a bit overwhelmed. I apologise if I offended you, or anything like that.
A national policy banning mobile phones in schools (presumably not for teachers?) is ridiculous. It should be up to schools to decide how and if they want to deal with this.
This is France we're talking about. Unless things have changed since I lived there, they even have laws regulating the order in which seats on buses should be offered to the vulnerable (mutilés de guerre taking priority over mutilés civiles, who in turn trump pregnent women, all carefuly documented and posted in every bus). Sadly I never saw an occasion where the full pecking order was played out. In fact I never saw anyone give up their seat to anyone.
We have similar guidelines don't we on disabled > prams on buses? A law does seem way OTT though
Wasn't there some big hoo-ha recently when someone refused to move for a pram or a wheelchair or somesuch?
Nothing written down in UK law AFAIK but of course IANAL.
Yeah you're right. I think at the time I thought disabled should trump pram.
It's astonishing how many people on public transport have to be asked to move for someone who obviously needs help (and then do so with very bad grace). When my other half was still using a wheelchair for longer journeys, I once had to enlist help from a bus driver to get a very fit young man with a folding bicycle to give up the space allotted for securing a wheelchair.
I hear this kind of story a lot... And consequently am slightly paranoid about missing the chance to offer someone my seat on public transport.
I know a few female friends who have taken a seat out of embarrassment when the person offering thought incorrectly they were pregnant.
In Hungary, where the public are much more censorious of such behaviour, I just stand on public transport. It involves fewer stressful social decisions.
Sorry to say that I thought the discussion on the Podcast was far too Brexit obsessed again. No apparent recognition of the minor role played by the issue in the two by elections at all.
The banning mobile phones in schools thing, i think, would have been a reasonable solution 5 or 10 years ago.
The world has now moved on a bit. In the future, pretty much every device will be connected in some way and a policy/law like this will have bizarre, stupid consequences.
Smarter more flexible technology policies at the school level is the better solution.
Also from that 1997 Twitter account: there was a poll the other day which surprisingly gave the Tory government a 15% lead on the Economy, contrary to the claims that whichever party leads on the economy always wins the election. Although that same poll gave Labour MASSIVE leads on issues like Health, Education, Unemployment, etc.:
A national policy banning mobile phones in schools (presumably not for teachers?) is ridiculous. It should be up to schools to decide how and if they want to deal with this.
This is France we're talking about. Unless things have changed since I lived there, they even have laws regulating the order in which seats on buses should be offered to the vulnerable (mutilés de guerre taking priority over mutilés civiles, who in turn trump pregnent women, all carefuly documented and posted in every bus). Sadly I never saw an occasion where the full pecking order was played out. In fact I never saw anyone give up their seat to anyone.
We have similar guidelines don't we on disabled > prams on buses? A law does seem way OTT though
Wasn't there some big hoo-ha recently when someone refused to move for a pram or a wheelchair or somesuch?
Nothing written down in UK law AFAIK but of course IANAL.
Yeah you're right. I think at the time I thought disabled should trump pram.
It's astonishing how many people on public transport have to be asked to move for someone who obviously needs help (and then do so with very bad grace). When my other half was still using a wheelchair for longer journeys, I once had to enlist help from a bus driver to get a very fit young man with a folding bicycle to give up the space allotted for securing a wheelchair.
The banning mobile phones in schools thing, i think, would have been a reasonable solution 5 or 10 years ago.
The world has now moved on a bit. In the future, pretty much every device will be connected in some way and a policy/law like this will have bizarre, stupid consequences.
Smarter more flexible technology policies at the school level is the better solution.
A national policy banning mobile phones in schools (presumably not for teachers?) is ridiculous. It should be up to schools to decide how and if they want to deal with this.
This is France we're talking about. Unless things have changed since I lived there, they even have laws regulating the order in which seats on buses should be offered to the vulnerable (mutilés de guerre taking priority over mutilés civiles, who in turn trump pregnent women, all carefuly documented and posted in every bus). Sadly I never saw an occasion where the full pecking order was played out. In fact I never saw anyone give up their seat to anyone.
We have similar guidelines don't we on disabled > prams on buses? A law does seem way OTT though
Wasn't there some big hoo-ha recently when someone refused to move for a pram or a wheelchair or somesuch?
Nothing written down in UK law AFAIK but of course IANAL.
Yeah you're right. I think at the time I thought disabled should trump pram.
It's astonishing how many people on public transport have to be asked to move for someone who obviously needs help (and then do so with very bad grace). When my other half was still using a wheelchair for longer journeys, I once had to enlist help from a bus driver to get a very fit young man with a folding bicycle to give up the space allotted for securing a wheelchair.
I hear this kind of story a lot... And consequently am slightly paranoid about missing the chance to offer someone my seat on public transport.
I know a few female friends who have taken a seat out of embarrassment when the person offering thought incorrectly they were pregnant.
I suppose unfortunately in this day and age I am still old fashioned enough to think I should offer my seat because they are a lady rather than because they are pregnant.
LOL at the banning mobile phones in schools policy. I don't see that one working.
At my school the mobile issue was solved very simply: phones were expected to be put at the back of your locker during lessons, and if you were caught with your phone then it was confiscated. There were no issues with people using their phones en masse during lessons.
Anecdote alert
In 2010 my Dad was teaching and one of the pupils had her headphones on, plugged into her mobile. He asked her to take them out
Next minute he looked over and she had them on again, so he asked her to take them out again
Next time he looked, she had them on & was asleep. He made a 'sshhhh' sign to the class and said 'be quiet, she's sleeping'... & her mate reported him as racist for making fun of her lips because she was black.
Well, obviously her mate shouldn't have done that to your dad. She makes it harder for people who genuinely do suffer instances of racism.
At the school I went to, the phone would have been confiscated straight away with no questions asked. You wouldn't have even been asked to take your headphones out or put your phone away. In fact I think had a case like that occurred at my old school the girl would have been asked to leave the class.
Comments
Le Pen has had her immunity removed by the EU Parliament:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39141391
This is the chief law officer in the US. I know Trump supporters think that words don't matter, but the reality is that the law is just that: words.
If words don't matter - particularly those made under oath and subject to penalties for perjury; words spoken by the chief law officer of the US - then there is no law.
In Sessions' own words:
On Nixon’s resignation in the face of impeachment in 1974, Sessions said:
“I hope we haven't sent a message that’s not as clear,” he said, “that clever people can sometimes get ahead by spinning and not telling the truth. That worries me.”
Sessions on Bill Clinton’s Monica Lewinsky obfuscation (nb voting in the Senate to convict Clinton of perjury)…
“I sort of assumed perjury occurred, but I want to read what was said, what the established fact is, and decide how clear that is and whether or not there is any wriggle room or realistic defense there," Sessions said in 1998. Back then, the senator described perjury as a “big-time issue,” adding, “I have no doubt that perjury qualifies under the Constitution as a high crime. It goes to the heart of the judicial system.”
According to the CQC’s state of hospitals report, published on Thursday, 81% of the 136 non-specialist trusts were deemed to be inadequate or to require improvement for safety, while 11% of hospital trusts were given the lowest rating for safety.
Not not unsafe at all, requiring improvement.
If Milne ever wants his old job back perhaps you should apply.
How to turn a majority into an irrelevance Pt 1
Lib Dem 5,500 25% (+21)
Cons 2,800 13% (+3)
Green 1,700 8% (-2)
UKIP 900 4% (-4)
Others 1,100 5%
Turnout 31%
They are percentages.
Despite Fillons problems yesterday, he is steady on 21% in todays Opinionway poll and closes the gap on Macron (down 1%) to just 2 points.
http://presicote.factoviz.com/index/more/id/qoo_lew_1
It seems a bit unfair for you to blame the current government for the recession of 2008/09 in any case.
Significantly, it seems, the focus has now shifted from blaming councils for delaying plans, through a cumbersome planning system, to blaming builders and developers for sitting on large land banks once planning permission has been granted. Why, for instance, when around 270,000 homes are annually given planning permission, are only half that number being built?
So not actually the government at all.
Really BJO!
Some of group a didn't vote labour 2005?
Basically my guess is that the top line is more than just the other 2 combined
Mr. F, the IFS has some special ways of describing things. Criticising an early Osborne budget for being regressive due to planned cuts to welfare, when the cuts were due to a forecast decline in unemployment, was a particularly fine example.
Safety only good enough in 19% of cases.
Spin it as you like.
Perhaps you would be better blaming Corbyn for this sad state of affairs.
If i wanted to spin I would say 81% of hospitals now judged the same or worse for safety as Stafford at the time of that disgrace.
There's an overall churn taking place so the voters are not fixed. Why should there be a A > B + C relationship, or vice versa.
As with Brexit if Corbyn was involved nobody could hear him.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/elections/presidentielles/2017/03/02/35003-20170302ARTFIG00051-emmanuel-macron-precise-son-programme.php
Key points:
- Major pension reforms to reduce the discrepancy between public and private sector pensions
- Changes to unemployment benefit to allow employees who resign to claim benefit under some circumstances
- Reduction of taxes on housing
- No change to retirement age and amounts (Fillon is advocating an increase in retirement ages)
- Elimination of the special pension deal for parliamentarians
- Banning politicians from employing their relatives [I wonder why that one sneaked in!!]
- Reduction in public-sector jobs by 120,000 but also hiring 4,000 more teachers and 10,000 police officers (especially for anti-terrorism duties)
- Banning mobile phones in schools completely
- Scrappage incentives for heavily-polluting vehicles
- An infrastructure investment programme concentrating on green energy projects
- Large cuts in public spending, keeping the deficit at 3%
- Allowing married couples to choose to be taxed separately rather than as a household
It's a sort of half-way house between Hollande and Fillon.
Whats that about?
Edit: that and isam's explanation. It's tricky - B & C are not subsets of A even though they look that way on the surface.
Seems like Fillon has a very loyal 21% who have swallowed his victimisation defence, hook, line and sinker.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nottinghamshire_County_Council_election,_2013#West_Bridgford_Central_.26_South
No idea if Macron is proposing it for that reason though!
Has the nature of the scandal been blown out of proportion, is it entirely justified, is it a witch hunt from the left, fake news from Russia to help Le Pen etc?
In the early seventies the armed forces were given a big pay rise following an independent review. But that increase was top-sliced as a contribution to accommodation and meals, which had until then been provided free. Roll forward twenty odd years and the government decided that armed forces members should pay for their accommodation and meals but did not restore to their wages the amount that was already being taken. Service personnel are thus being charged twice.
That said the pay for a young single bod (i.e. most service people) is pretty good, lots of beer vouchers. Once they get a bit older and promoted a couple of times to become the senior NCOs to become the backbone on which all three services depend then the pay, terms of service and quality of accommodation become far less attractive and retention becomes a big issue. The RN has especially big problems in this area and there are times when ships cannot put to sea because there are not the skilled senior people available.
At my school the mobile issue was solved very simply: phones were expected to be put at the back of your locker during lessons, and if you were caught with your phone then it was confiscated. There were no issues with people using their phones en masse during lessons.
Labour's irrelevance means no one is talking about these issues.
If I am a Labour Leaver in the North in 2005 but move to London & stop voting Labout in 2012, then I contribute to the North in the first & third lines of the table, but London in the second line.
Lab, shamefully, opposed the referendum. They should have supported it and vociferously advocated Remain (of course not an option under Jezza as he is not of that opinion). As they did and didn't and didn't EdM cannot be considered a Remain anything.
In 2010 my Dad was teaching and one of the pupils had her headphones on, plugged into her mobile. He asked her to take them out
Next minute he looked over and she had them on again, so he asked her to take them out again
Next time he looked, she had them on & was asleep. He made a 'sshhhh' sign to the class and said 'be quiet, she's sleeping'... & her mate reported him as racist for making fun of her lips because she was black.
It should be up to schools to decide how and if they want to deal with this.
But you have inadvertently answered my question. Its probably a vote winner with certain elements of the population and means he seems 'common sense' for the culturally conservative.
Edit and in a similar vein, Tony Blair would likely be in serious trouble if he had put forward a commercial prospectus on the same lines as his case for war with Iraq. Political standards are lower, when you might expect them to be higher.
What we found
Most hospitals are delivering good quality care and looking after patients well. Our reports highlighted many examples of how hospitals are improving and continuing to improve the quality of care they offer, even though there are constraints. We encourage trusts to follow this good practice to improve their own services.
But we also found that some trusts have blind spots about the quality of care they are delivering in a particular core service, even in some trusts rated good overall.
All hospitals told us that patient safety was their top priority, but too often they did not have an effective safety culture or reliable systems to ensure this. Many of the inefficiencies we saw can be avoided, such as hospital acquired infections, or are caused by poorly coordinated care.
The overarching message from our inspections is that effective leadership delivers high-quality care. In hospitals rated good or outstanding, the trust boards had worked hard to create a culture where staff felt valued and empowered to suggest improvements and question poor practice. Where the culture was based around the needs and safety of patients, staff at all levels understood their role in making sure that patients were always put first.
Is the really key takeaway from this that 'Most hospitals are delivering good quality care and looking after patients well' and to do this well you need to focus on patients not providers - or is it that 81% of hospitals are 'unsafe'? (When the 81% is either inadequate or require some improvement - so not necessarily unsafe at all).
I think there is an open goal on social care provision and how that impacts healthcare provision these days. This statistic is selective and misleading.
Le Pen getting her immunity removed is good for her.
Both of these are live issues and will come with further developments.
I don't understand why Fillon is accusing the left of being behind his judicial problems. But in any case, his narrative is weak. If his wife didn't do a large amount of work for him, then he was dishonest in claiming that she did and he is still being dishonest by not admitting it. Yesterday he chose not to concentrate on the message "I didn't do it". He focused on "They're out to get me". His body language was awful - licking his lips all the time, with wide open eyes, and even doing a Clintonian "that woman" act at one point. This affair is not going to win him any votes, and in my opinion he has very little chance of winning the presidency.
Le Pen's narrative is strong and clear, and it comes across well in response to the violent videos affair. Personally I think it is disgusting for anyone to publish such videos, whoever they are, and that people who choose to watch them are sick, but politicians look at things differently. Her message says that she stands up against ISIS, including against stab-in-the-back journalists who don't realise the gravity of the fight. It says the EU don't realise either, and that they are standing on some kind of "letter of the law" to try to bring down a politician who is trying to defend France. Her message says France needs her. It says she is Joan of Arc. The videos issue (unlike the EU parliamentary payments) is not associated with any question of possible dishonesty, and her campaign must be absolutely jumping for joy about it.
A law does seem way OTT though
Nothing written down in UK law AFAIK but of course IANAL.
In any case... Banning phones in schools is not supporting school leaders... It's removing their decision making power. Some schools may want to allow phones but would be prevented from doing so.
Which specific news organs do you have in mind? Torygraph? Reuters? BBC? Daily Mail? The Sun? The Evening Standard?
Even endless Brexit stories are better.
What is there for the media not to like in that story
In any case... I agree that it's too hard to prove and he will be okay I think.
What the Dems really want is an independent investigation I think without Sessions in charge of it. There too I think they will be disappointed. After Ken Starr...Surely no president in their right mind would ever agree to that again... Especially not Trump who is a long long way from squeeky clean and above board.
Banning phones sounds like a damned good idea. Sitting like a gumbie picking your phone isn't great for getting educated.
The battle of the May elections will be on spinning the results. Will the London media report on the English results - which shouldn't be too disastrous for Labour because they'll win most of the metro-mayoralties and are starting at a low base in the council elections as they're in more Tory-leaning areas - or will they report the GB results i.e. including Wales and Scotland.
In England, as last year, it's quite possible Labour's losses will be measured in the two digits: not great by any stretch of the imagination but not a disaster either. By contrast, Scottish Labour could lose 60-70% of their councillors if the Holyrood / Westminster VI is a guide, which would equate to a net -200 people. They might also end up as not the largest party in any council.
If the figures are given across GB, it will look a *lot* worse for Lab (and a lot better for Con) than if it's England-only.
Similarly Le Pen's video affair will play out well with her supporters. However, the average floating voter will share your disgust. It will shore up her loyal support, but not help her gain a great deal of additional support.
Rosberg visited the Mercedes garage yesterday. Chatted with Bottas. Then today, Hamilton's car developed an electrical fault.
Coincidence?
[Yes].
The CSA has no authority to decide what gets or doesn't get broadcast - they only act after the event - but still.
They say inviting only some of the candidates is up to TF1, but "it falls on the channel to watch out that its choice doesn't breach the principle of treating all the candidates equitably".
Sarah Isgur Flores told NBC News that Sessions did have a conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak last year. The meeting was first reported by The Washington Post.
But she said "there was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer" because Sessions was asked during the hearing about "communications between Russia and the Trump campaign" and not about meetings he took as a member of the Armed Services Committee.
Think he will weasel out.
Hence Ben Tre Brexiter, of which Mr Vance seems a prime example.
Secondly, but relatedly, a prime minister may want to appoint people to his or her government for reasons other than soundness at the dispatch box. Some people are too important / powerful to leave out.
I know a few female friends who have taken a seat out of embarrassment when the person offering thought incorrectly they were pregnant.
A 47 year old doing a job that someone in their late 20s should be doing, and would be doing doing better (energy, enthusiasm, motivation), is crackers and certainly wouldn't be tolerated in the infantry. One wonders what lead to this daft policy, a desire to cut training costs?
It's quite striking that, even though we all assume that election was a foregone conclusion, there seemed to be a LOT of uncertainty leading up to it. There's been lots of newspaper articles saying how the Tories might still win it, or that Labour would only scrape in by the skin of their teeth. It's only been in the last few days (after the Wirral South byelection at the end of February 1997) that some commentators are starting to realise that Labour could actually get a landslide.
@midwinter If it's been done to stop bullying, I understand. Although with social media being the way it is, bullying can still occur off the school premises. I do wonder whether kids really are leaving their phones at home, or whether they are just successfully hiding them though, in regard to your wife's school.
@kle4 You don't have to apologise!
The world has now moved on a bit. In the future, pretty much every device will be connected in some way and a policy/law like this will have bizarre, stupid consequences.
Smarter more flexible technology policies at the school level is the better solution.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5vepVgWUAASMPk.jpg:large
Who'd have thunk it?
I don't want to be connected to everything.
At the school I went to, the phone would have been confiscated straight away with no questions asked. You wouldn't have even been asked to take your headphones out or put your phone away. In fact I think had a case like that occurred at my old school the girl would have been asked to leave the class.