Blah Blah

It might EDhistory. We'll have to wait and see. It's kind of the way Osborne operates though. He looks for ways to cut but does it in a way that LAs end up being blamed if those cuts have impacts. It's the same with the HA RTB2 deal. The responsibility is with HAs to replace homes sold in equal numbers. Osborne knows they will have problems finding land etc and most certainly won't be able to replace like for like. If they fail, he will argue it isn't his fault etc etc. Nowhere in all of this is a contingency for where the numbers don't add up. A good example is the number of people subject to Bedroom Tax because their LA has nowhere to move them to. A reasonable amendment would be to exempt those people, but instead he delivers inadequate funds for discretionary payments to help those affected. So he can say he is acknowledging and acting on the problem, when he knows full well he's not providing enough funding and LAs will either have to leave people out, or claw money from elsewhere. It's a really tough time for LAs and especially LAs with high proportions of elderly, disabled and unemployed. Edited to add that there is one change that hasn't been picked up, probably because many (including myself) didn't know exactly what it meant. Osborne was always going to recoup money from somewhere after abandoning tax credits. https://speye.wordpress.com/2015/11/25/bedroom-tax-single-people-mass-evictions-for-disability-csr2-closure-of-all-womens-refuges/ If you are under 35, with no dependents, and you become unemployed from April of next year, you should be worried.

Yes, but if the devolving of council tax benefit to LAs is anything to go by, it will mean a reduced pot for provision. Having said, Council Tax Benefit to the over 65s were protected, forcing LAs to reduce the amount of CT benefit to everyone else. Definitely something to watch though. And Southwark already does have it's own internally section to administer Housing Benefits (and Council Tax) anyway.

I thought the Mao book was hilarious personally :D There are many things to come before the next General Election. London Mayor and local elections (which will tell us if opinion polls are any more credible than they weren't in the General Election). There's the Europe Referendum, a traditional Tory bust up. And eyes are on the Chinese economy. If it crashes, that could be just the disaster to elevate Corbyn and McDonell. That is of course, if Corbyn can hang on beyond 18 months.

I think it has suprised people. He's not only backed down on tax credits, he also left other welfare streams largely alone. Personally I think it shows there was never any need to attack tax credits in the first place, especially as Universal Credit removes them and by 2020, everyone will be under that system anyway. Higher wages are the way to tackle welfare dependency of those in work. Something could be done on rents as well to help with that. There's always a crossover line Uncleglen where it becomes debatable as to the value in work vs welfare. Governments always have difficulty with this area. I don't accept though, given the level of unemployment that any employer can't find full time staff. And if someone 'chooses' welfare over work, then that is a problem with their mentality. Most people would agree that working for a living is far more rewarding than depending on state benefits. People working part time are required to be actively seeking more hours or work under the rules anyway. The most interesting thing I thought was the announcement to protect police funding. There are so many areas protected now that what I see is a calm before the storm. He still intends to make massive cuts to reach that surplus. Those cuts are going to come from Local Authorities and welfare. There is much pain to come, unless he abandons the aim to reach surplus.

He won't get a slap on the wrist for this crime though. That's a myth. Violent crime has consequences whatever the age. It's for crimes like burglary that teenagers get non custodial punishment.

Live by the sword, die by the Sword. Ken is a politician. Everything he says will be scrutinised. He should know better. Kevin Jones says that Ken Livingstone's appointment as co-chair of Labour's Defence Review Committee would damage Labour's credibility. Ken replies in a press interview with 'I think he might need some psychiatric help. He's obviously very depressed and disturbed.' Basically Ken is a knob. His insult is the reflection of a man so consumed in his own ego that anyone who thinks him not right for a role must be mentality affected. Jews, homosexuals and now the mentally disturbed. Who will he get into trouble with next?

I think it highlights why a fixed plan with no flexibility for unforseen events doesn't work Uncle. We will see where the money comes from for those services and Troops on Wednesday. The Police are worried. And if we go to war, where does the money come from for that? there are no oil fields to raid this time. Governments can always borrow for bailing out banks and war, but not for investment it seems.

Right away there's a glaring inacuracy in that article. Ken Livingstone wasn't appointed by Corbyn himself, but by the NEC. I think we should all be sceptical of polls after the last election, where the Tories and Labour were neck and neck according to the polls. But just like the election Major won (where polls put Labour ahead), the Tories do better than expected in General Elections and Labour slightly worse. Even if we accept those polls as a true reflection, it still puts Labour behind the Tories, and at a time when we are seeing the most draconian cuts for a long time. Those cuts are going to get far worse after the spending review on Tuesday as well, but they are not cuts that hit the typical Tory voter.

Being vegetarian spares me from dodgy meat. But I like Honest Burger because all of their meat is ethically sourced from free range farms. We have been to the one in Brixton and had their vegetarian options, whereas you would never get me through the door of a McDonalds, ever!

I agree with that Uncleglen, but at the same time, we have to be honest about what cuts really mean to front line services. The two are connected. Many of the facilities in place to deal with disruptive youths have been cut back. Youth groups have closed. The only reassurance that parents could be given is that children that are excluded are given the right involvement so they don't go and do what this teenager did. Helen Hayes MP wasn't just being a typical MP in opposition, she was making valid points about the consequences of this government'a drive to clear the deficit at any cost. It may not have been the right place to do that, but ya know, that's what politicians do. Teenage boys have aways carried knives. What has changed is the culture. It used to be to strip bark of a twig, now it's for 'protection'. 183 teenage murders in London between 2005-2015. http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/teenage-murder-london.html

But there is a case to be made about the loss of Safer Neighbourhood Teams. They have been very sucessful in community policing, part of which is engaging with youngsters and deterring knife crime. I think she is right to criticise. Less Police is going to mean more crime. That is common sense. The child that committed the crime had been excluded from school (according to reports). A community neighbourhood team would have been made aware of that, making engagement possible if he was seen out and about. That engagement may have prevented this crime. The same can be said for Southwarks warden scheme. Cuts mean less of these people.

I thought Burnham came accross well but agree on the point above about the bickering between him and the Tory woman. She didn't come accross well at all, especially on historical matters around the middle east, which probably helped. I disagree a little on Ed Milliband being the start of the rot in Labour Red Devil. For many it would be the point at which Blair took us into a war with Bush, based on no reliable evidence and in defiance of the UN. Ed Milliband failed because there was no opposition for years after Gordon Brown lost that election. In addition, Ed Milliband has no presence (not that Cameron does much better on that either). Who knows if a David Milliband leadership would have been different? Ed Milliband had some good policies, some of which the Tories have actually adopted. But his lack of presence meant he couldn't break the Tory myth that Labour destroyed the economy. Corbyn is symbolic of a need for a leader that takes the government on. He might not in himself be the right person, but he stood out from the rest and that is what those Tory lite Labour MPs need to understand. Who do they replace him with? I'm perfectly happy with my vote for Corbyn given what this government is doing and given the other options that were on offer. But he is out of his depth. I want to see a candidate that shares some of his principles, but is also a good leader. That is what the Labour party needs to find. The Tory majority is small. Labour should be able to make some ground given the impacts of Tory policies. But right now they are too busy with in fighting. They will still get my vote, but I want to see them in government, before the Tories completely destroy the NHS, welfare state and leave this country completely at the mercy of the free market.

No it didn't to be honest. Dianne Abbot yes, but no-one foresaw John McDonnell. I also hoped that Tom Watson would create the balance. The poorest are being hammered and no-one in opposition is fighting for them. Government cuts are reducing the resources for people like me to do our jobs. My vote switched when Harmen led the party to an abstention on the Welfare Reform Bill. The rot had set in long Before Corbyn's election. And if they don't sort themselves out fast, I won't be voting Corbyn again when the inevitable leadership challenge comes.

He has to take responsibility for the risk he puts people at.

Todays Daily Politics show is depressing. It starts with mad Ken (Livingstone's) poor apology for his disgraceful comment about an MPs mental health, followed by Dianne Abbot trying to find a way out of a picture of John McDonnell holding a letter he'd apparently signed for a left wing group, listing demands including the abolition of MI5. How is the Labour party ever going to be elected under a group of people like that (none of whom I particularly like and never have, it has to be said)? Yes the media are going overboard on Corbyn but with people like that to keep feeding them it's just too easy.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you want to live in a country, you should be able to speak the language - or have the desire and means to learn. Tell that to the millions of expats in Spain who don't speak any Spanish. I'm also against deporting people just because they fail to make the grade in an English class too (although I could support compulsary language lessons in principle) for all the reasons LondonMix points out. We have english nationals who are barely able to hold a conversation or communicate in a reasonable way, and poor language skills is at the heart of that too. How we deal with cultural issues, where women are kept disadvantaged is another matter.

I am sure the recognised authorities and professionals are now invloved.

Define earning English. Au Pairs for example come specifically to learn English here. How would such a requirement have a affected them, along with genuine refugees and asylum seekers? I personally think the high court was right to throw it out. Many people go on holiday unable to speak a word of the language of the country they visit. It is also perfectly possible for someone to go somewhere unable to speak a language and learn it there. Demanding people can speak English before arriving is descriminatory in the sense that only those with certain atandards of education available to them would be eligible to migrate. That's not the kind of workd I want to live in.

I'm not sure they are out of sight-line ED. If you are waking towards the building from the side street opposite they are clearly visible from the artists impressions. That's what drew me to it. Not that I ever look up there having said that :) Agree about the overhang. Are the same company restoring the Khan's frontage? Do you mean the passageway is protected? Can't see how that is the case if it leads only to the Bussey courtyard, unless it's meant to serve only as access to the back of 133 Rye Lane? So many questions :)

I suppose the arrogance of youth is at play there. Looking at the plans, I think the two levels bolted on to the top could be more sympathetic to the architecture of the rest of the building and I wonder how retail units in the passageway will work, as the Bussey use this as their entry point to club night with security at the end of it. I think those might be issues for them as well. Still, at least the two sides are talking now.

That article is a bit of a rant. The crux of which seems to be the authors take on Ukraine vs Milne's view. I thought the Ukraine conflict had started with pro-Russian seperatists? I don't know a huge amount about it but that doesn't sound like 'an uprising by Ukrainians keen to improve their lives.' Similarly I've never read any of Milne's columns so don't know much there either. It's not a well enough written article for me to take it seriously. Something else that is doing the rounds though is this comment from Goring during the Nuremburg Trials. ?Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America nor, for that matter, in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ... [V]oice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.? Food for thought there too.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/in-what-world-is-corbyn-radical-for-standing-against-more-killing-while-revenge-bombing-is-seen-as-a6737856.html Worth a read.

Quite Miga. Many things are being reported as said when they haven't been said at all, whilst other things are taken completely out of context. Dave, there is now way of knowing how many people envy Milne and his kids etc. Are you suggesting that criticism of the privileged class is mostly envy based? Causes/ impacts of inequality have no part in that criticism? Let's not forget that Cameron employed Andy Coulson, a man who was convicted and imprisoned for phone hacking. Just as Cameron knew that Lord Ashcroft was a non dom when accepting party donations. Errors of personal judgement are everywhere in the Commons. I don't know exactly what Corbyn thinks. I can only look at what he says now and ask if there is any merit in what he says. The world IS corrupt. He's correct on that (and many people agree - dare I even say most). Corbyn may be unmovable on miltary action (I don't know enough about him), but national defence is different to intervening in countries we shouldn't really be in. Most countries in the world are not bombing anyone, and they are doing just fine. And I seriously doubt if faced with a genuine threat to our country, from a declaration of war, that Corbyn would sit and do nothing. Is that you really think?

It doesn't bode well for him does it Otta. Having said that, Cameron won an election without answering direct questions - always deflecting his answer to what he wanted to talk about. It's what politicians do. I'm sure that Corbyn finds this way of doing things difficult (it's not natural to him). You can stick to principles on the back benches. It becomes a totally different challenge on the front. This is the irnoy. People who like him, partly like him precisely because he's not a party machined leader. But that might also be his downfall.

Crossed with Otta's post. It's not a class war thing, just an aknowledgement that too many people feel that MPs aren't like them. You only have to look at the growing divide between the wealthiest and poorest to see why people feel that way. You fail Dave to understand in turn that military action in Iraq and the middle east has been a disaster. I keep making this point and no-one is picking up on it. I also think the hysterical backlash against Corbyn is a reflection of how far public consciousness has shifted to the right. Terrorists if you can capture them and put them on trial is a better option in his view - nothing wrong with that. Privatisation hasn't always been a good thing either, so nothing wrong with being critical of that etc etc. You criticise him as though the opposite what he stands for is good! There are plenty of examples to show it's not. We need to be somewhere in between. Cameron isn't there either. Free markets are playing fields for exploitation when you look at the grossly unlevel playing field of trade for example. To even think poorer eceonomies are not being exploited for resources and labour etc is nonsense. So he's right. The arms trade is another problem. Who opened the pandoras box that is the mess in the middle east now? How far back do you want to go? We are complicit all the way back to the end days of the Ottoman Empire. There is nothing wrong with saying that. Part of the problem with it all is the denial from Western leaders and the US. I've said many times that I don't agree with Corbyn on everything (his views are not necessarily my own), but what I do know is that more of the same is not the answer either. If we want a safer world, we need to stop pretending we have nothing to do with creating any of it.