itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

I think those positions are core problems with team balance over the past 7 years. Jedinaks fitness and general lack of defensive midfield, no width from before we sold Albrighton (plus his energy lost too), silly mistakes by defenders costing us many games. Gk, you make a good point! Very unsure about Johnstone. You're right we need some creative quality but perhaps that will come from first full season signings and younger players that now need to prove themselves.

By employing a more mixed economy. We will need to, for example, pay attention to technical changes connections between savings and growth and the determinants of commodity prices.

We do indeed and so opening up those trade avenues is a necessity in a post-brexit world. Certain regulatory changes may help in that respect too; for example, fisheries policy. But I also think there are opportunities we could further explore to invest in British industry and create new export markets as well as compete with some existing ones. Despite our innovation, the report I linked also points to problems with access to finance. Government can solve that problem directly or through procurement, particularly if it sets an agenda like renewables; an agenda which could have been better supported without an ECJ ruling. It will require the identification of strength and future industries but that should be a challenge relished.

Ahhh, okay. In essence you're right, it does make sense to be part of a bigger group. But as one of the leaders of innovation surely there's an opportunity to start providing the world with high quality British products? In our current 'competitive' environment, perhaps that's tougher while in the EU? The competition element has certainty impacted both our rural and coastal communities. Outside the EU, we could more easily enable British industry/innovation through collaborative ties between university, government and investors. Maybe we haven't been working hard enough in the past and Brexit will facilitate that much needed change? I do wish we still had a Peter Shore to at least have some tough conversations.

What a game and a draw was well deserved. Such a shame we made a few mistakes and took the ball standing too often but the defence was great and staggered NZ's play brilliantly.

Why do you think that? From my limited UK based perspective, I have always felt Germany's main advantage was an ability to deliver education because employment opportunities were sustainable through business partnership, specifically regional business. In EU terms, our compliance to regulation appears more stringent than in Germany. Maybe because they have a historic approach that cannot be changed for the EU? because they don't see the point in complying? or because we're getting it wrong? Two examples in housing. In Germany, local/regional builders are facilitated through strategic planning to be in a room with clients, clients then pick which developer builds the homes for them. They have joint mortgages, strategic land (and land tax which is v different from UK) and college linked industry training. Because of that they also have assured pipelines of work. This allows businesses to keep training staff and improving the quality of work relative to location. This then drives innovation. Also, their Housing Associations do not use OJEU procurement which keeps costs lower and pipelines more sustainable. It means regions can influence supply directly as well as guarantee and sustain local employment. I had a good chat to a German minister about it. Are we too worried about falling foul of competition law, or are we lazy? It was a shame nobody had the answer when LDV and Rover were on their knees and it reminds me of Thatcher recognising British Leyland were too big to fail.

Some brilliant points in the last few posts, good god how we needed this logic 25 years ago! Agreed, @magnkarl. I am also delighted with T-levels because they help parents who aren't sure about apprenticeships motivate their kids to do something more vocational. Plus it shrinks the qualification/wage gap (which is not as clear-cut as people make out). T-levels are a huge step in moving education back in line with employment and what a surprise, it happened when Gove moved on and industry was invited in. The cross party support for T-levels is so welcomed. But imo @bickster has brought up a very important point. I have long argued that our education/career system shouldn't be classified as successful relative to when you leave traditional education;16, 18, 21, 24 and PHD. (just general ages). On the continent you're not expected to be settled until mid 20-s with some influencing decisions in modules generally taken before that....or as magnkari says, through vocational work with transferable skills that are recognised or delivered through industry. (Germany). In the UK, age, transferable skills, natural talent and time available are all secondary to what qualification (not talent) you have, imo that cycle needs to end. But there's a social problem too, too many kids are not allowed to live at home past 16 and 18, they are literally kicked out. So what do we do here? Housing benefit cut to reduce costs and encourage more parents to keep their children at home and in education/learning? Build loads of cheap homes for young people and have it part of education funding? Pay people to go to University (as Denmark does)? Equalise qualification/experience so transferable skills means you're not automatically sifted out of a CV pile? Or something else? On the continent home support seems further reaching, with 34% of our kids being at home between the ages of 18-35.

Fixed it for you

I use the Brighton mainline which has shaped many conversations around rail due to the thrill of strikes, choke points and desperate need for upgrade. Plus some MP's and manifesto promise! I would support nationalisation but there are three trains that run on that line, all owned by the same company but different operators. Why not nationalise a route? Also, different charges, little to no difference in speed. Operation has not been split up, in part because there would be serious problems with the running schedule that would cripple the line if one operator made on-track mistakes, but that means the line is defined by existing passenger traffic with upgrades only accepted when political pressure delivers funding; which will probably happen at Croydon. If a line was nationalised and they chose to connect up less popular places (for example, Shoreham, Portslade, Uckfield and not Brighton or Hove), not only would you improve competition on the line but you would unlock new regional opportunities. It's one of the reasons I would also focus on HS3 from Hull to Liverpool and not Manchester to Birmingham. But if you have a plan, like rationalisation, you have to have a long term strategy and the recognise the implications. Same with nationalising water, it would be great but I don't think Labour know the extent of the problems those companies have. It would be far smarter to have a policy forcing them to reveal their capacity and infrastructure and then say you were going to nationalise because they have done X,Y and Z badly.

Ha, that was a great reply! I went blue!

I've attended four rallies in Brighton over the last year and EVERY ONE has been interrupted by Momentum groups who don't listen to what is said (because they turn up late) and then chant over speakers. Same on twitter; many post a reply but few bother to engage past 'Corbyn' 'Manifesto' and ''Tory pejorative'. Are the books really being balanced? Papers lost popularity (apparently they have seen a mini-resurgence) and from what I read, it's a disgrace that Canary call themselves independent. But what about the Guardian, Independent, Metro or Mirror? All painfully one-sided. Besides, Momentum and their supporters get more (and longer) interviews and attention than our 'minor' parties. How can that be okay? We also have people like Adam Klug. Founders that will not discuss policy apart from telling everyone how people want to vote for Labour because of the manifesto. At least when the 'right' gets media attention for ignorance (eg - the Farage poster or Greece) they are savaged/ignored by the majority......savaging barely happens with Momentum (or their agenda), in part because people treat the 'left' as inherently good, despite many powerful left wing pressure groups being inherently ignorant with their argument. Ignorance might be less dangerous than right wing attitudes but it can be as damaging, I assume the majority want to close the wealth gap, promote equality and give everyone a chance but apart from the wealth gap, the Labour manifesto and particularity Momentum, certainly does not understand how they can promote equality or give everyone a chance. Their stance on university and housing (two of life's biggest expenses) tells us that! But heck, if they say it's equal, it must be?! I am all for Momentum if they can progress the conversation and vicariously policy, but at the moment the clue is in their tag, 'a new kind of politics.' True, but the conversation and speakers that are then put forward are influenced by the Momentum agenda, Canary for example. Back to us vs them!

Ha, good point well made. Though 16 or 60....sometimes ignorance never passes.

Football is rotten and we must aspire to make amends for its deplorable side. But I wonder whether he will also boycott the next two world cups?

Bloody depressing isn't it. Scare, scare and bloody scare. While I used to blame Blair for his abuse of scare and the media, the Conservatives have well and truly taken the reins of that flying turd. At least May is shocking at it!

While at this point it would gain them move votes it would help smaller parties too....plus, it might help actually educate an electorate and increase turnout at local elections. Lot's of good reasons for it but without it being delivered alongside electoral reform, it's for the few and not the many.

Oooh this has got testy! I can't remember whether I posted already but hey ho, let's go! @magnkarl, I have to say I think @HanoiVillan makes some good points and as someone who does go on tv every now and again I would hate for my past to outweigh who I am now....not that's there's much on me, but I feel everyone deserves a reprieve, or even two. Not everyone stays flawed or even acts on flawed views, Tim Farron for example. But fighting for equal weight of opinion is important and hopefully that brings me to a few things you posted earlier on in this thread, on Momentum and university. I campaigned for two parties during the election and was a mouthpiece for one candidate on twitter. Though I only get one kind of attention, even on here, and that's for being a 'Tory'. Now maybe that's because I like to focus on policy, which all too often includes Labour failure, but over the past decade or so I have been kicked, spat at, pushed and dismissed by a whole host of different Labour supporters. And that's before I get to present a project to a Labour council member! While 'squaring up' (madness, I'm 6"3) has not happened for a few years now (since leaving Brum), the vile nature of conversation from Momentum - and sheer number, which they all too often see as a debating position - worries me a lot. So many of them are only fixated on politics and they rarely show respect to policy. Even at rallies not organised by them! Imo that's bloody dangerous and I hope they do grow up, as @bickster expects them to But I can't be alone in thinking policy comes before politics, and if I am, I can only thank my university education. I had two main lecturers; one loose cotton wearing socialist who wore no shoes (anywhere) and the other, a tweed suited beardy economist. They actively debated policy warfare in most classes and of course never revealed their party loyalty....or even hinted! But as an old polytechnic we perhaps had a stronger variation of views than many redbricks. I loved that people were not only allowed, but encouraged to express themselves, so we could debate and not prejudge the merit of their view. If that's not happening in politics, is it happening in education/university? And that's again why momentum need to grow up fast. Not only to help Corbyn identify how he will enact his manifesto but to help Labour voters and MP's drive that message at the Conservatives and other parties. Too true. Labour ones don't contribute enough for us to judge how dumb they are (arf, arf)

Top advice.

With the price of housing I urge people to look at self-build registers. https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/20054/planning_strategies_and_policies/1052/apply_to_be_on_the_self-build_and_custom_housebuilding_register/4 http://www.solihull.gov.uk/selfbuild The cost of land is ludicrous and when you add that to service, planning, contributions etc. it's no surprise that smaller developers aren't delivering the homes that once kept the market competitive. Self build has always been genuinely affordable and certain changes that have already happened - and others hopefully happening over the next few years - may help many people who can't access social housing, afford a home of their own.

It's very confusing. House prices are rising everywhere but I have seen some regional prices slow as homes get released into the market. There's also a false perception about what's out there, perfectly exampled by the tiny sample of homes that rightmove carries. I'm quite intrigued to see what happens to investors like homewise, who for example, have over 3,000 'retirement' properties in London and the South East. I'm sure SLDT stalled their investment programme but there are perhaps other mechanisms that can pressure those homes to be put back into circulation and not remain empty. If local authorities can keep building and more importantly, publicise what they are building then price increases will soften. Also if there is a push on small sites and infill in existing communities it will help stabilise local prices instead of keeping them higher, as large developments setting new minimum prices do in the fabled 'urban extension' or 'garden city'. I believe snowychap has previously brought up empty homes. It's a big problem for sure and in many ways it twins with the investment portfolio of not just individual owners and companies, but investment portfolio which I would guess show many more homes being owned by foreign investors than is typically reported.

I'll guess you do need to add TLDR's on VT! Also let's hope you're not in any investigative position; very poor judgement on my voting habits. No, Labour and Conservative voters/MP's/Councils and anyone else who still engages in politics and not policy....hmmmm.......

So awful how we have been treating people. I understand the 2010-2015 focus but in my opinion the issue goes back a few more years, though I understand DPAC only formed after the Conservatives took charge. I don't doubt for a minute that the changes made by the Conservatives made things worse (and I know they did because I worked on a 'Helping the Hardest to Help' contract), but many 'changes' were adjustments to an already changed system. For example, Incapacity Benefit and now ESA. In the final Labour years, sanctions, delayed/reduced payments and the work capability assessments were harming many individuals and a move to private companies delivering risky contracts further disconnected politicians. When the Conservatives came in they made things more stringent and were then able to introduce policies of their own, like the bedroom tax and PIP. That wasn't really out of line with what Labour were doing - reducing claimants and costs - and so the Conservatives managed to deliver their own agenda of ignorance. This is one of the stories referenced in the article linked - https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/sister-hopes-campaign-for-benefit-sanction-inquest-will-prevent-further-deaths/ I saw this problem on a daily basis from the start of my job (and voluntary career) to the end. I experienced client suicides too, though thankfully none of my own personal clients. When I first started working in benefits (private company) we had a client spend which was sometimes used to cover the cost of delayed/missed benefit payments, at one point £5k for each client. But it was being abused, some people bought cars! When it dropped to below £1k I was already specialising in making sure clients benefits would come through so I took that job on for my other advisors. But that's me and not the job description. So who the F is looking after these people's other needs? Not many advisors that sit in the enabling call centre or a disconnected government, even when they throw cash at a problem. But I also hold the media is accountable, especially in giving people hope. They report panic and not solutions and it very much impacts on a claimants state of mind and desire to engage. Imo the whole debate has been nasty and misappropriated for a long time.

Fair point.

That the Conservatives acted swiftly and removed a horrible person? Or, that she posted it?

I didn't know that and I am purely going on what you have said but meh, why let policy get in the way of good rhetoric.

That's why I think it will be used to score a political point that I suspect both parties will share.