General Election 2017

[Soulman]

Who did the figures Diane Abbot

Get your money on a win double, Abbott and McDonnell, bothh having a stab at it.

"John McDonnell has been accused of Googling the deficit figure in a radio interview with Nick Robinson, after he apparently quoted old information contained on Wikipedia rather than the most recent figure.
When asked what the national deficit was, the Shadow Chancellor said it was £70bn, the figure given on Wikipedia.
However, it appears he got it wrong by £18bn; the deficit is in fact around £52bn, and it appeared he was quoting the 2015-16 figure.
He was being questioned on the Radio 4 Today programme ahead of Labour's manifesto launch later today.
Rustling heard during the interview led host Robinson to ask McDonnell if a colleague passed him a note to help him with the question.


Nick Robinson asked: "What is Britain’s deficit at the moment, Mr McDonnell?"

He replied: “If I can say to you…If I can say to you that what’s happened as well in terms of day to day expenditure, we need the investment… we need the investment… we need the investment…”

The BBC presenter repeated the question, and the Shadow Chancellor paused and stuttered again, and ruffling could be heard.
Challenging him, Mr Robinson asked: "Is somebody passing you a piece of paper?"
Mr McDonnell laughed, replying "Not at all".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...t-getting-figure-wrong/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

 

[Silk]

What I find really galling is the bonanza enjoyed by the outsourcing companies who do the assessments. Each time they carry out one of these assessments they recieve a fee. I've already been declared
unfit for work twice by ATOS and face yet another assessment later this year. My condition is incurable & gradually getting worse yet these tossers are cashing in on me.

This harassment of disabled people for profit is sickening. My wife has to go through it as well. It's absolutely dreadful, being regularly interrogated as if you are a criminal.

 

[Silk]

Oh come on...we all know Corbyn is an IRA sympathiser and even arrested at an IRA sympathy protest in 1986!
And you believe this person should be running the country
Don't bother with the he just had contact with them rubbish...he sympathises with an organisation that murders British people!

You appear to sympathise with an organisation that murdered Irish people. It's history​. 30 years ago!

Around the time we had 3.5 million unemployed under the Tories, by the way.

 

[Scotchegg]

Analysis of tory Facebook ads sites that 10 out of 10 are straight attacks on corbyn. Still no policy. Maybot being forced to talk to the plebs and its going about as well as the campaign staff feared. Their entire campaign is essentially a soundbite.

Meanwhile, borrowing is up, inflation is up, tories missed every single target they ever set themselves on the budget. The vulnerable are suffering.

But but but corbyn had a chat with the IRA 30 years ago! Clearly he's unfit to do the job!

 

[ferring seagull]

This manifesto is the one I have been waiting to see from a Labour Party for so many years I am convinced and I will be voting Labour

Changing your posting name to Red3 perhaps ?

 

[Soulman]

Around the time we had 3.5 million unemployed under the Tories, by the way.

"My right hon. Friend is factually correct: every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they came to office."

David Cameron, Prime Minister's Questions, 2 April 2014

"No Labour government has ever left office with unemployment lower than when it started, despite the name of the party."
https://fullfact.org/economy/has-labour-ever-left-office-lower-unemployment-it-started/

 

[Silk]

"My right hon. Friend is factually correct: every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they came to office."

David Cameron, Prime Minister's Questions, 2 April 2014

"No Labour government has ever left office with unemployment lower than when it started, despite the name of the party."
https://fullfact.org/economy/has-labour-ever-left-office-lower-unemployment-it-started/

And?

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

An FOI request has shown that one of the DWPs key performance indicators is that 80% of their decisions in 'manadatory reconsideration' cases should be upheld in the DWPs favour. Shameful.

https://sirhenrybrooke.me/2017/05/15/mandatory-reconsiderations-and-the-rule-of-law/amp/

 

[Buzzer]

An FOI request has shown that one of the DWPs key performance indicators is that 80% of their decisions in 'manadatory reconsideration' cases should be upheld in the DWPs favour. Shameful.

https://sirhenrybrooke.me/2017/05/15/mandatory-reconsiderations-and-the-rule-of-law/amp/

Not really. Surely it's an indicator that the DWP should get it right first time so that if cases get referred it proves that they've done due diligence.

 

[Silk]

Not really. Surely it's an indicator that the DWP should get it right first time so that if cases get referred it proves that they've done due diligence.

What are you talking about? Deciding in advance how many cases should "go your way" and not taking each case on its own merits is hardly "due diligence", is it?

Sent from my F5121 using Tapatalk

 

[Buzzer]

What are you talking about? Deciding in advance how many cases should "go your way" and not taking each case on its own merits is hardly "due diligence", is it?

Sent from my F5121 using Tapatalk

Yes it is. I don't read it as putting pressure on reviewers to fix cases but that the pressure is on the people making the original decision to have got it right in the first place and if less than 80% that are referred prove to be upheld then the department that had failed is the originator NOT those reviewing.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

Not really. Surely it's an indicator that the DWP should get it right first time so that if cases get referred it proves that they've done due diligence.

So you think that its acceptable for it to be necessary that people, rather than go to an independent tribunal, need to apply for reconsideration to the same department that is incetivised as a key performance indicator to uphold 80% of its cases.

That doesn't seen unfair to you?

 

[Silk]

Yes it is. I don't read it as putting pressure on reviewers to fix cases but that the pressure is on the people making the original decision to have got it right in the first place and if less than 80% that are referred prove to be upheld then the department that had failed is the originator NOT those reviewing.

I guess it depends on what internal pressures are brought to bear. The trouble is, a performance indicator can very easily turn into a target.

 

[Buzzer]

So you think that its acceptable for it to be necessary that people, rather than go to an independent tribunal, need to apply for reconsideration to the same department that is incetivised as a key performance indicator to uphold 80% of its cases.

That doesn't seen unfair to you?

I haven't said that at all.

Quite simply, the DWP wants to get its decisions made as accurate as possible so that if a case is referred that there's a greater than 80% chance that the DWP got it right first time.

Its pretty standard for these types of performance indicators to exist in customer service departments. And as I've said, it's a target set for those who made the original decision to try to get it right first time.

No-one is fixing the right to review, no-one is fixing the review decision. Surely by putting pressure on getting the result right first time, those DWP customers are getting a better service.

You're getting upset over nothing here.

 

[Buzzer]

I guess it depends on what internal pressures are brought to bear. The trouble is, a performance indicator can very easily turn into a target.

And if it is then good. I want at least 80% of DWP decisions to be right first time. And I want that target to keep increasing so that no-one suffers needlessly.

 

[Silk]

And if it is then good. I want at least 80% of DWP decisions to be right first time. And I want that target to keep increasing so that no-one suffers needlessly.

A target would be bad, because the 80% would have to be met, whether those 80% were correct decisions or not. The result would be wrong decisions being upheld!

 

[Buzzer]

A target would be bad, because the 80% would have to be met, whether those 80% were correct decisions or not. The result would be wrong decisions being upheld!

Once again... The target is not set for those making the reviews, it's for those who made the original decision.

If reviewers get less than 80% the fault is with the originators NOT the reviewers.

If a school sets a target that each class should have 80% passing an exam then the pressure is on the teachers to hit those targets, not the examiners to fix the results to get 80%.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

"My right hon. Friend is factually correct: every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they came to office."

David Cameron, Prime Minister's Questions, 2 April 2014

"No Labour government has ever left office with unemployment lower than when it started, despite the name of the party."
https://fullfact.org/economy/has-labour-ever-left-office-lower-unemployment-it-started/

History also tells us that if you want a budget surplus, vote Labour.

The Tories have proven their economic plan repeatedly fails.

 

[East Preston Gull]

Emily Thornbury at it again now on C4 news. Clueless, embarrassing. This is painful to watch. Labour are an utter shambles.

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

 

[Silk]

Once again... The target is not set for those making the reviews, it's for those who made the original decision.

If reviewers get less than 80% the fault is with the originators NOT the reviewers.

If a school sets a target that each class should have 80% passing an exam then the pressure is on the teachers to hit those targets, not the examiners to fix the results to get 80%.

No, the 80% is for cases going to mandatory reconsideration.