politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Antifrank: How the Conservatives will lose their hegemony

TheScreamingEagles said:

@MattSingh_: YouGov/Times (Holyrood FPTP):

SNP 51 (=)
CON 19 (+1)
LAB 21 (-1)
LIB 5 (+1)

Dates 9th-13th October
N=1,026
Writeup http://t.co/fC4PO7iE6e

Scott_P said:

JEO said:

What's the implication? That previously Kids Company provided them the money to pay off their drug debts?

This is indeed the inference...

Plato_Says said:

This is incredible stuff

Ronke Lawal ‏@ronkelawal 2m2 minutes ago
Yentob says some of the charity papers and information has been stolen!
WHAT?!!?!?!?

Cyclefree said:

John_M said:

kle4 said:

This Kids Company stuff is pathetic, I get they probably helped some people, but it is clearly not as many as they claimed, and it was in a way which was unsustainable at the very least, so while I can understand them being defensive about what they were about, how can they have an answer for the failings that are now so obvious? Would their solution have been the public through the government just continue to funnel money through them forevermore in ever increasing amounts despite all the obvious flaws in their organisation.

The thing that infuriates me is this tarnishes other, less trendy charities who are genuinely trying to help struggling young people. You can't just throw money at someone who is poorly educated or has a drug habit or has mental health issues; it might make you feel smug, but it does not help.

I've belatedly realised that I hate that woman. She is vile. *Huffs into a paper bag*.

And if you think of the amount of good the money wasted on this pretendy charity would have done if channelled to those who are really helping children with mental health problems, it makes you furious. Makes me furious anyway.

JPJ2 said:

MikeK

You and others should stop perverting the English language.

Scotland is not a "one party state". Such a description is correctly used to describe a country where no other party is allowed to stand, not where one party dominates.

As (admiittedly under barking mad FPTP) the Tories have a bigger majority at Westminster than the SNP at Holyrood, does anyone in the UK describe the UK as a one party state?-thought not.

It is such childish drivel that leads to the very dominance by the SNP that unionists so fear, so I suppose, though much irritated, I can take pleasure in such stupidity.

Sandpit said:

Any charity law experts here care to ponder the hypothetical question of whether a millionaire charity trustee could be held personally financially responsible for the abuse of charitable donations?

John_M said:

Sigh. At this point I just want to borrow Mr Dancer's enormo-haddock, or just simply fire the stupid baggage into the Sun.

If prosecutions don't follow this shambles, there is no justice in this country.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Cyclefree said:

John_M said:

kle4 said:

This Kids Company stuff is pathetic, I get they probably helped some people, but it is clearly not as many as they claimed, and it was in a way which was unsustainable at the very least, so while I can understand them being defensive about what they were about, how can they have an answer for the failings that are now so obvious? Would their solution have been the public through the government just continue to funnel money through them forevermore in ever increasing amounts despite all the obvious flaws in their organisation.

The thing that infuriates me is this tarnishes other, less trendy charities who are genuinely trying to help struggling young people. You can't just throw money at someone who is poorly educated or has a drug habit or has mental health issues; it might make you feel smug, but it does not help.

I've belatedly realised that I hate that woman. She is vile. *Huffs into a paper bag*.

And if you think of the amount of good the money wasted on this pretendy charity would have done if channelled to those who are really helping children with mental health problems, it makes you furious. Makes me furious anyway.

I'm angry too.

So much good Kids Company could have done.

ReggieCide said:

John_M said:

watford30 said:

Plato_Says said:

LIVE Kids Company leaders quizzed http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11932736/Watch-live-Kids-Company-leaders-questioned-by-MPs-on-how-taxpayers-money-was-used.html

Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.

If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.

I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.

Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.

Cyclefree said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Cyclefree said:

John_M said:

kle4 said:

This Kids Company stuff is pathetic, I get they probably helped some people, but it is clearly not as many as they claimed, and it was in a way which was unsustainable at the very least, so while I can understand them being defensive about what they were about, how can they have an answer for the failings that are now so obvious? Would their solution have been the public through the government just continue to funnel money through them forevermore in ever increasing amounts despite all the obvious flaws in their organisation.

The thing that infuriates me is this tarnishes other, less trendy charities who are genuinely trying to help struggling young people. You can't just throw money at someone who is poorly educated or has a drug habit or has mental health issues; it might make you feel smug, but it does not help.

I've belatedly realised that I hate that woman. She is vile. *Huffs into a paper bag*.

And if you think of the amount of good the money wasted on this pretendy charity would have done if channelled to those who are really helping children with mental health problems, it makes you furious. Makes me furious anyway.

I'm angry too.

So much good Kids Company could have done.

Children with mental health issues need expert care not hugs or money from someone with no qualifications in this field. Someone with OCD, for instance, can find being touched extremely upsetting. Her so-called therapeutic skills are as likely to have made people worse rather than better.

The harm is not just the money wasted by this organisation and the opportunities lost for others but the harm done to "clients" by the wrong solutions to their problems.

Casino_Royale said:

ReggieCide said:

John_M said:

watford30 said:

Plato_Says said:

LIVE Kids Company leaders quizzed http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11932736/Watch-live-Kids-Company-leaders-questioned-by-MPs-on-how-taxpayers-money-was-used.html

Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.

If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.

I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.

Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.

Turns out we mistook her loud clothes, and even louder voice, as charisma and competence.

Shame, because back in the day I was convinced Kids Company was A Good Thing.

Just goes to show that none of us ever knows what's really going on, until everyone knows.

david_herdson said:

Cyclefree said:

I second what others have said about a really excellent and thoughtful article from Antifrank.

I think the Tories do need to beware of complacency and hubris. Just because some of us think Corbyn is a dangerous loon and Labour a party seemingly unable to get out of bed without falling over does not mean that the voters will necessarily think so, particularly if things get tough for them individually and the Tories react with smug disdain.

I would say that there are two issues for the Tories: -

(1) who follows Cameron. He is clearly an advantage for them. Osborne has grown on me but I'm not sure - yet - whether he is a PM. Hammond and May seem dull. Boris is flaky and his time is over. So who else? Javid's main claim seems to be that he the son of an immigrant which seems a bit of a pathetic claim for leadership, frankly; about as compelling as saying you're an ex-Army officer.

(2) How the Tories deliver on the promises made in Cameron's speech - particularly re helping those at the bottom. If it's all words and no action and if the tax credit cuts start to bite and hurt then this could be a very real problem. Those who are well off or reasonably so do not need beating up and spitting at - which seems to be the Labour approach - but nor do they need to be cossetted. The Tories need to focus like a laser on helping those at the bottom end who are doing or trying to do the right thing and who need a helping hand, an opportunity to make the most of their lives as they want. If they do that or make a good start to doing that then that will surely help them beat off or overcome other problems.

They can do no worse than read Antifrank's analysis and think now about how they're going to deal with the issues identified. Saying that Corbyn et al are a shambles won't be enough. They need to say what they are doing and how they're going to approach the challenges of the future and help the rest of us to. The voters can make the comparisons for themselves.

Show rather than tell.

Actually, saying that Corbyn & Co are a shambles probably will be enough. That's the medium-term risk for the Tories because such a situation and such an attitude - complacency and entitlement - is precisely what ended up with the car-crash of 1997 last time. If repeated, with UKIP now in the mix as well, 2020 would still be a grudging win against an unelectable opposition but 2025 could be a disaster.

Williamz said:

Pulpstar said:

If I ws a 14 yr old kid in Hackney or wherever Kids Company operated from, I'd be down Kids Company every week. So far as I can tell they were just giving away free cash ! Who wouldn't take it.

which is exactly what their own financial controller accused them of a month or so ago. I think she was based in west country and couldn't believe they just handed out £20 notes to anyone who turned up.

ReggieCide said:

Pro_Rata said:

....Now, I hope David Cameron's conference speech focus on social reform is real, but it looks like their only actual plan is to devolve the mess above to higher profile scapegoat mayors in the (often Labour) cities. Effectively their plan for cuts is simply that which is already starting to bear fruit in the Tory advance in Wales. That the effects of cuts could actually be used to strengthen the Tory position is one referenced by Don Brind quoting Jim McMahon in his most recent thread and, even in my advocating that the Labour centre take up the devolution challenge with relish, I noted that it could not be more a trap if it had Acme written on it.

There seem to be several strands to GO's general strategy. I particularly like the one which seeks, where possible, to place the burden of raising money on those who spend the money. I think this has legs in many places and is already causing some twitching in the SNP and some local councils.

flightpath01 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Cyclefree said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Cyclefree said:

John_M said:

kle4 said:

This Kids Company stuff is pathetic, I get they probably helped some people, but it is clearly not as many as they claimed, and it was in a way which was unsustainable at the very least, so while I can understand them being defensive about what they were about, how can they have an answer for the failings that are now so obvious? Would their solution have been the public through the government just continue to funnel money through them forevermore in ever increasing amounts despite all the obvious flaws in their organisation.

The thing that infuriates me is this tarnishes other, less trendy charities who are genuinely trying to help struggling young people. You can't just throw money at someone who is poorly educated or has a drug habit or has mental health issues; it might make you feel smug, but it does not help.

I've belatedly realised that I hate that woman. She is vile. *Huffs into a paper bag*.

And if you think of the amount of good the money wasted on this pretendy charity would have done if channelled to those who are really helping children with mental health problems, it makes you furious. Makes me furious anyway.

I'm angry too.

So much good Kids Company could have done.

Children with mental health issues need expert care not hugs or money from someone with no qualifications in this field. Someone with OCD, for instance, can find being touched extremely upsetting. Her so-called therapeutic skills are as likely to have made people worse rather than better.

The harm is not just the money wasted by this organisation and the opportunities lost for others but the harm done to "clients" by the wrong solutions to their problems.

I'd put it this way: the way that Kids Company was managed does not inspire confidence in them providing appropriate support to vulnerable people.

Where was the charity commission?
I like the idea on non govt non beauraucratic organisations that are close to an issue and spend money wisely. But where is the commission in this instance.? Small decent charities have to jump through silly hoops, yet this one blunders its way over everyone. Do we need the current charity regulations are they fit for real purpose.

MikeK said:

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/centralising-illiberal-catastrophic-the-snps-one-party-state/

How the SNP, National Socialists in all but name and demeanour, are clamping tight a one party state.

Centralising, illiberal, catastrophic: the SNP’s one-party state
For years, the Scottish government has used the independence argument to avoid proper scrutiny. That has to stop

Scott_P said:

Yentob "There was no conflict of interest with the BBC"

Why did the BBC never interview you?

"We thought there might be a conflict of interest"

Scott_P said:

You sometimes think the SNP needs to be saved from itself. It certainly needs to be saved from the vociferous Nationalist partisans on social media who regard any criticism of the Scottish Government as biblical heresy. The problem is that many members seem to believe that the independence movement belongs to the SNP, and that Yes supporters should automatically support the party leadership.

There's been a lively debate recently in the wider independence movement about the SNP's privatisation policies. The independence supporting video blogger, Stephen Paton, has pointed out that the SNP hasn’t exactly been bending over backwards to keep water services out of private hands. But even to mention his his name is to invite a storm of criticism from the guardians of Nationalist rectitude

Plato_Says said:

Batman claiming the charity was well run until the evil Daily Mail brought it down.

.

Scott_P said:

How have you decided this was a failing charity?

Because it went bust...

kle4 said:

Plato_Says said:

Batman claiming the charity was well run until the evil Daily Mail brought it down.

.

Scott_P said:

How have you decided this was a failing charity?

Because it went bust...

Yes, that makes sense - in the same way a house made of straw was a perfectly fine house if not for that nasty breeze that came along and blew it away.

Honestly, what kind of defence is that? You don't collapse that spectacularily just because someone is out to get you - unless you are indeed riddled with flaws and one push will knock you over.

JEO said:

This is one of the most persuasive pieces I've read on the EU refernedum. Jenkins argues that by voting "No" we could get something similar to the deal that Cameron was originally going for:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/14/eu-europe-britain-vote-no-cameron-reform-deal?CMP=share_btn_tw

kle4 said:

JPJ2 said:

MikeK

You and others should stop perverting the English language.

Scotland is not a "one party state". Such a description is correctly used to describe a country where no other party is allowed to stand, not where one party dominates.

As (admiittedly under barking mad FPTP) the Tories have a bigger majority at Westminster than the SNP at Holyrood, does anyone in the UK describe the UK as a one party state?-thought not.

It is such childish drivel that leads to the very dominance by the SNP that unionists so fear, so I suppose, though much irritated, I can take pleasure in such stupidity.

The idea that childish drivel leads to the dominance is nonsense, as the SNP and its supporters are certainly not above utilising childish drivel as well. That there is dominance is undeniable, and there are many factors at play there, but childish drivel is a reaction to the dominance, not a cause, or at least not a significant one. If it were, the SNP would themselves not be as dominant, as like all parties they engage in it and so would face a similar reaction.

Cyclefree said:

I second what others have said about a really excellent and thoughtful article from Antifrank.

I think the Tories do need to beware of complacency and hubris. Just because some of us think Corbyn is a dangerous loon and Labour a party seemingly unable to get out of bed without falling over does not mean that the voters will necessarily think so, particularly if things get tough for them individually and the Tories react with smug disdain.

I would say that there are two issues for the Tories: -

(1) who follows Cameron. He is clearly an advantage for them. Osborne has grown on me but I'm not sure - yet - whether he is a PM. Hammond and May seem dull. Boris is flaky and his time is over. So who else? Javid's main claim seems to be that he the son of an immigrant which seems a bit of a pathetic claim for leadership, frankly; about as compelling as saying you're an ex-Army officer.

(2) How the Tories deliver on the promises made in Cameron's speech - particularly re helping those at the bottom. If it's all words and no action and if the tax credit cuts start to bite and hurt then this could be a very real problem. Those who are well off or reasonably so do not need beating up and spitting at - which seems to be the Labour approach - but nor do they need to be cossetted. The Tories need to focus like a laser on helping those at the bottom end who are doing or trying to do the right thing and who need a helping hand, an opportunity to make the most of their lives as they want. If they do that or make a good start to doing that then that will surely help them beat off or overcome other problems.

They can do no worse than read Antifrank's analysis and think now about how they're going to deal with the issues identified. Saying that Corbyn et al are a shambles won't be enough. They need to say what they are doing and how they're going to approach the challenges of the future and help the rest of us to. The voters can make the comparisons for themselves.

Show rather than tell.

Casino_Royale said:

ReggieCide said:

John_M said:

watford30 said:

Plato_Says said:

LIVE Kids Company leaders quizzed http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11932736/Watch-live-Kids-Company-leaders-questioned-by-MPs-on-how-taxpayers-money-was-used.html

Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.

If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.

I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.

Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.

Turns out we mistook her loud clothes, and even louder voice, as charisma and competence.

Shame, because back in the day I was convinced Kids Company was A Good Thing.

Just goes to show that none of us ever knows what's really going on, until everyone knows.

Cyclefree said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Cyclefree said:

John_M said:

kle4 said:

This Kids Company stuff is pathetic, I get they probably helped some people, but it is clearly not as many as they claimed, and it was in a way which was unsustainable at the very least, so while I can understand them being defensive about what they were about, how can they have an answer for the failings that are now so obvious? Would their solution have been the public through the government just continue to funnel money through them forevermore in ever increasing amounts despite all the obvious flaws in their organisation.

The thing that infuriates me is this tarnishes other, less trendy charities who are genuinely trying to help struggling young people. You can't just throw money at someone who is poorly educated or has a drug habit or has mental health issues; it might make you feel smug, but it does not help.

I've belatedly realised that I hate that woman. She is vile. *Huffs into a paper bag*.

And if you think of the amount of good the money wasted on this pretendy charity would have done if channelled to those who are really helping children with mental health problems, it makes you furious. Makes me furious anyway.

I'm angry too.

So much good Kids Company could have done.

Children with mental health issues need expert care not hugs or money from someone with no qualifications in this field. Someone with OCD, for instance, can find being touched extremely upsetting. Her so-called therapeutic skills are as likely to have made people worse rather than better.

The harm is not just the money wasted by this organisation and the opportunities lost for others but the harm done to "clients" by the wrong solutions to their problems.

Casino_Royale said:

JEO said:

This is one of the most persuasive pieces I've read on the EU refernedum. Jenkins argues that by voting "No" we could get something similar to the deal that Cameron was originally going for:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/14/eu-europe-britain-vote-no-cameron-reform-deal?CMP=share_btn_tw

I don't think Leave would mean we automatically 'Leave' inside two years.

It would mean shit hitting the fan inside the EU and a desperate scrabble to find a compromise that would allow us to stay.

Of course, expect BSE to deny this: it's in their interests to maximise perception of risk.

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

ReggieCide said:

John_M said:

watford30 said:

Plato_Says said:

LIVE Kids Company leaders quizzed http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11932736/Watch-live-Kids-Company-leaders-questioned-by-MPs-on-how-taxpayers-money-was-used.html

Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.

If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.

I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.

Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.

Turns out we mistook her loud clothes, and even louder voice, as charisma and competence.

Shame, because back in the day I was convinced Kids Company was A Good Thing.

Just goes to show that none of us ever knows what's really going on, until everyone knows.

Questions were asked. They were ignored. And she used lawyers. Her CV was full of holes. Obvious ones. No-one checked her professional qualifications. Apparently. Why the hell not?

It is amazing the number of times someone gets found out, everyone runs round wondering how this could have happened and someone - usually someone like me - sits down and reads the CV or other starting documents and finds all the clues, lies - sometimes extraordinarily obvious ones - that were there. And which were overlooked because people did not want to sweat the small stuff, were too dazzled and believed what they wanted to believe. And that's long before the person has soared to dizzy heights.

If someone is not honest about basic stuff, about small unimportant details, why on earth would you think that they would be honest about big important stuff?

watford30 said:

malcolmg said:

Casino_Royale said:

ReggieCide said:

John_M said:

watford30 said:

Plato_Says said:

LIVE Kids Company leaders quizzed http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11932736/Watch-live-Kids-Company-leaders-questioned-by-MPs-on-how-taxpayers-money-was-used.html

Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.

If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.

I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.

Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.

Turns out we mistook her loud clothes, and even louder voice, as charisma and competence.

Shame, because back in the day I was convinced Kids Company was A Good Thing.

Just goes to show that none of us ever knows what's really going on, until everyone knows.

Tories are always easily fooled by big gobbed egoistic self seeking individuals like this. They assume the bovine manure is competence, just look at their MP's.

Is that why the SNP lead Scottish Government handed cash to it's 'cronies' at T in the Park?

Plato_Says said:

Two senior staff signed NDAs on leaving - that smacks of something not right straight away.

Williamz said:

Pulpstar said:

If I ws a 14 yr old kid in Hackney or wherever Kids Company operated from, I'd be down Kids Company every week. So far as I can tell they were just giving away free cash ! Who wouldn't take it.

which is exactly what their own financial controller accused them of a month or so ago. I think she was based in west country and couldn't believe they just handed out £20 notes to anyone who turned up.