Labour Leadership

[JohnL]

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blah Blah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The E&C deveolpment was first put together

> under

> > the liberal/ con coalition council (and some of

> > those lib and con councillors involved were

> given

> > jobs by Lendlease when they lost their seats!).

>

> And actually - the second part of that is

> completely wrong - when you look at this list of

> shame

> http://betterelephant.org/blog/2013/04/09/report-u

> ncovers-corruption-at-the-elephant/ - there are no

> Tories at all, just Labour councillors and

> non-political public servants who jumped ship to

> LendLease after Heygate...I mean...Tories eat

> babies.

#redtories

Sorry.

[miga]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The "x-thousand dead after being declared fit

> to

> > work" thing is a great example of awful

> reporting.

> > The kind of thing trotted out by people who

> have

> > no grasp of statistics. For instance - how many

> > claimants in total were declared fit to work in

> > the same period? What would be the expected

> > mortality rate for people across that age

> group?

> >

> > You can't claim there's correlation unless you

> > have all the relevant data.

>

> Is anyone actually analysing it properly ?

If you click on that Ben Goldacre article I linked to, he outlines the problems with the data. But even beyond that, it's also a matter of what you want to prove.

[Loz]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The "x-thousand dead after being declared fit to work" thing is a great example of awful reporting.

> The kind of thing trotted out by people who have no grasp of statistics. For instance - how many

> claimants in total were declared fit to work in the same period? What would be the expected

> mortality rate for people across that age group?

>

> You can't claim there's correlation unless you have all the relevant data.

It was a terrible piece of journalism, wasn't it? I'd even go as far as to say that the Guardian and the Indy DIDN'T do the rest of the research as they knew they story would evaporate if they did.

[????]

it's all a narrative innit, that suits simplistic naive analysis. Like how good old jezza only talks to the baddies @cos he wants peace....but, of course he only talks to the 'right' ie left baddies. Good piece here

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/09/no-jeremy-corbyn-not-antisemitic-left-should-be-wary-who-he-calls-friends

However I do think IDS is a C*nt

[Blah Blah]

No Miga, New Labour significantly reduced the deposit for right to buy and got the desired result of less homes sold. The coalition came in and increased it again to the biggest it's ever been of ?100k. I know who is the better party on addressing housing need. Having said that, both parties have failed to replace lost social housing.

And on the 4000 miga. Those ARE real figures recorded by the DWP. They know those figures because peoples claims stop when they die. Every single one of those people had appealed and were awaiting a decision or tribunal. Nothing to do with sensational journalism. Why can't you just accept the facts, that the welfare reforms HAVE harmed people.

Jeremy you miss the point. These are people who were already ill and found not ill enough by ATOS in an assessment that has nothing to do with medical considerations. The person who makes the decision, is not medically trained, never meets the client, nor asks his or her doctors for information. That's why so many tribunals find in favour of the client. Atos on the other hand were paid ?500+ for every person they failed, but didn't have to pay any of it back if that decision was overturned at tribunal (as half the failures were). You really don't have any understanding of the process do you? It sets ill and vulnerable people up to fail.

Miga, both Nick Stanton (Liberal) and Kim Humphries (Conservative) worked for Lendlease - that's the previous council leader btw and the councillor for housing.

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And on the 4000 miga. Those ARE real figures recorded by the DWP. They know those figures

> because peoples claims stop when they die. Every single one of those people had appealed and were

> awaiting a decision or tribunal. Nothing to do with sensational journalism.

It's everything to do with sensational journalism, else they would have provided better figures. How many of them died from their disease/injury? How many died from other causes? How many would be expected to die in that time, given no other influence? The Guardian/Indy just didn't bother to find out.

Hundreds of people this year have died within two weeks of reading the Guardian. Do you think this is strange? Perhaps the ink they use is toxic in some way? Perhaps their opinion writers are toxic? Or perhaps that is, statistically, an expected figure. If only there were a scientific way to establish this...

[miga]

BB, I really recommend that you read some of the many articles written about the 4000. These neither exonerate nor conclusively charge the Tories, simply because neither is sensible based on the data.

Re: Heygate, OK 2 out of the many who profited weren't Labour, big woop.

Re: RTB, in the first half of New Labour the sales of council homes steadily increased (would link to picture but writing on phone). But, the mantra of that era was home ownership rather than building of new social housing - so even if in the latter half of that government RTB sales dipped as a result of policy, the other part of the picture is increasing house prices, mad credit conditions etc. leading us into the affordability mess we're in. So, no, on the evidence, I wouldn't say Labour have proved to be the party with the solutions to the housing problems but the party that creates them.

It's not that I don't feel bad about people struggling under this, or any, regime; I just hate it when arguments are reduced to such easy populism.

[Eileen]

But what does it convey that 4000 people died within a short period of being judged fit to work? Some may have become sick after the assessment but as most were off sick already their deaths so soon after may show rather conclusively that they were not fit to work.

Is this really how the assessments are done: "The person who makes the decision, is not medically trained, never meets the client, nor asks his or her doctors for information." Does anyone know what this is supposed to be and how the people for assessment are being selected for scrutiny? It sounds like a nightmare concoction of Kafka and George Orwell's brilliant descriptions of the bureaucratic state gone into insanity.

[ratty]

Error Loz, they were found fit for work. I think this is the point here. You seem to be deliberately missing it. Can't think why.

[Loz]

ratty Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Error Loz, they were found fit for work. I think this is the point here. You seem to be

> deliberately missing it. Can't think why.

Because I really, really dislike poor uses of statistics? You seem to be implying something, ratty, but don't have the cojones to type it?

A little bit of journalism could have put together a properly researched story. And yet it wasn't. I'm not saying that there isn't a problem here, just that saying "x number people have died" without proper context and a proper statistical approach is utterly meaningless.

Newspapers (of all political colours) write this stuff because gullible people unquestioningly lap it up. It's usually a DM and Sun specialty, but the Guardian does it far too often as well, despite it employing some pretty good journos.

[JohnL]

Sky saying this morning the Corbyn bandwagon might be running out of steam.

Still can't see him losing this.

[Jah Lush]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sky saying this morning the Corbyn bandwagon might

> be running out of steam.

That's the Murdoch owned Sky, mouthpiece of whoever he's backing and that wouldn't be Corbyn. And "might be" isn't a fact and rather meaningless. It's a absolute non-story - i.e total bollocks.

[Loz]

These are stupidly funny... jokes 'by' Jeremy Corbyn

[david_carnell]

#sadiq4mayor

#yeswekhan

[Otta]

I voted for him, so pleased to see this news pop up today.

[ratty]

Almost certainly a pre-cursor to Corbyn? Must be a death knell for the other Blairite leadership candidates??

Sadiq Khan or Zac Goldsmith?

Non-contest?

[david_carnell]

Son of a bus driver vs son of a plutocrat should make the messaging easy.

[Loz]

Bookies are shortening their odds on a Tory mayoral victory. Labour have rejected a well-known candidate in favour of a relative unknown. He's got a lot of work to do.

[Jeremy]

I thought Sol Campbell was going to be the Tory candidate! What happened?

[????]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Son of a bus driver vs son of a plutocrat should

> make the messaging easy.

yup, the class warfare approach has sure worked well for Labour recently.....

I think he's a decent candidate but no party with Jezza up top is ever getting my vote at any level

[Loz]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I thought Sol Campbell was going to be the Tory candidate! What happened?

I think they discovered he was Sol Campbell.

[Jeremy]

Shame. I was looking forward to the mayoral election debates.

[Loz]

I'd already pencilled my vote in for TJ. Shame - I thought she's make a good mayor.

Back to the drawing board.

[????]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> david_carnell Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Son of a bus driver vs son of a plutocrat

> should

> > make the messaging easy.

>

>

> yup, the class warfare approach has sure worked

> well for Labour recently.....

>

> I think he's a decent candidate but no party with

> Jezza up top is ever getting my vote at any level

I even beat the New Statesman to it

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2015/09/no-it-wont-help-sadiq-khan-have-old-etonian-opponent

[JohnL]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bookies are shortening their odds on a Tory

> mayoral victory. Labour have rejected a

> well-known candidate in favour of a relative

> unknown. He's got a lot of work to do.

That's just the polls though.

A lot to run in the contest.