itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

Just now, Junxs said:

Of course it is, last year towards the end I could see he wasn't up to much but was willing to give him the summer to IMPROVE the squad from an attacking point of view. So far he hasn't done that, all the players he is after are defensive players. I really thought he would sign a top goalkeeper and 2 wingers to really add flair and creativity to the team. He goes for Johnstone and what looks to be Elmohamady and Glen Whelan. These are exactly the type of players the next manager will be adding to the bomb squad. So in my view we have not attempting to improve from an attacking standpoint at all. More dull football next year on the horizon.

Theres still a chance that Grealish and McCormack may suddenly get their act together, but Bruce hasn't attempted to improve the problem area at all. So in my estimation he's going down in my manager ranking of him.

Watching the rubbish last year it was blatantly obvious to anyone that we lacked goals and creativity. So when he said he would only be getting 3-4 players in to improve the quality of the team, the last positions in my mind were a centre back, defensive midfielder, another right back/defensive right midfielder and getting the same rubbish keeper again.. !   

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. 

10 hours ago, snowychap said:

What is the mechanism for translating this apparent comparative advantage in 'innovation' to an actual economic advantage, such as a net increase in manufacturing exports?

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.

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Do we not already provide the world with high quality British products?

Where I'm going is to ask what is the mechanism for translating this apparent comparative advantage in 'innovation' to an actual economic advantage, such as a net increase in manufacturing exports?

 

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.

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Because throwing up barriers to trade while simultaneously aiming to become an export-led manufacturing economy seems like making hard work for yourself. 

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.

Quote

The Global Innovation Index ranks the innovation performance of 128 countries and economies around the world, based on 82 indicators. This edition explores the impact of innovation-oriented policies on economic growth and development.

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.

51 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I keep seeing people mention Germany as an alternative model, but the German model is more than just apprenticeships. I mean, if we as a nation were serious about emulating the German model, the very first thing we would have to do is withdraw article 50. 

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.

17 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

9k a year plus interest for 3 years and then figuring out that you don't really have any aspirations or 1 year as an apprentice doing something that will give you transferable skills for next to no monetary sacrifice is very different. You can quit being an apprentice without much financial loss. If you quit uni you'll have wasted 9 x years attended. Apprenticeships are a much softer way for people to figure out what they want than uni - it also adds to the place of work.

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.

Quote

Share of young adults aged 18-34 living with their parents by age and sex - EU-SILC survey

35 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Trumps rhetoric has always been America gets the best out of it's deals from now on. Do not expect favours from his regime.

Also it's not really to to him how quickly a deal gets done.

The US share of global GDP isn't of much relevance either.

Fixed it for you

2 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

Was British Rail so shite because it was a nationalised service or because it was incompetently run?  Most countries seem to manage it alright.

Right now not only are we paying the highest fares in the world, much of which goes directly into shareholders pockets, but we are paying again in subsidies through taxes.  It is a complete joke and they must be howling with laughter at us in their cosy little board meetings.

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. 

8 hours ago, darrenm said:

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 do you mean don't listen to? How do you know? Rallies for what?  Four rallies; Refugee crisis, anti-austerity, anti-Trump immigration policy and LGBT rights. We are all listening to speakers with non-partisan stories but suddenly from the back - three quarters through an event - arrive placards, megaphoned slogans about May, Trump, Boris and red t-shirted Momentum fellows. 

what is said (because they turn up late) - How do you know specific people aligned with specific groups turn up late to rallies? I can't figure out the practicalities of this.
See above. Red momentum t-shirts and anti-conservative, perceived right-wing figurehead slogans. Also 'ooooh Jeremy Corbyns means you can hear them a mile away...in both directions! Though I think that chant is amazing for modern day Britain.

and then chant over speakers. Same on twitter; many post a reply but few bother to engage past 'Corbyn' 'Manifesto' and ''Tory pejorative'. - like who? In rallies I attended, so anyone speaking late! And on twitter it's quite easy to identify who is saying what and whether they are partisan, particularity with the Labour logo thing many have adopted. I also ran the twitter campaign for a Lib Dem and so sadly had to do a lot of response reading. Very murky out there!

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. - It's still nowhere near being balanced IMO. That the traditional Labour northern working class went hard brexit, isolationist and right while the younger non-paper readers went left is a sign that papers still have a (admittedly shrinking) influence. As for the left wing papers, the Mirror, Guardian and Independent have far smaller readership than the huge right wing groups. Not sure why you put the Daily Mail owned right wing Metro in there. And why isn't the Canary independent? Maybe you're younger than me so I'm getting the depth of influence wrong, but I have a 22 year old sister whose/friends voting preference was shaped by twitter/facebook and I still speak to many young people who have said the same thing. I would also argue that the left wing shapes more conversations than the right.

Canary isn't independent (unless you mean financially) because it relies on being anti-Conservative (not pro discussion) to sell itself.

I know it's a tough ask for a tabloid owned paper but the Metro all too often paints bleak pictures about existing policy without giving the reader both sides, or even the full argument. That ends up with more 'us vs them' and its seen by millions every day. On my commute to work I often pass the time with a pen by correcting headlines and articles.

Besides, Momentum and their supporters get more (and longer) interviews and attention than our 'minor' parties. How can that be okay? - Got any examples? I've seen one person on a late night BBC programme. Channel 4 will pitch a young momentum supporter against a conservative MP. Adam Klug on This Week. This ends up with conversations not being about what the solution is, but who has the stronger moral compass. Watching something like Question Time you realise how much an audience continues be taken in by phrases and not discussion. I remember in the 2000's where people used to google facts  ha

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 - Are they? Really? The majority of what? People, the media, general conversation, everyone! When one side goes too far in the context of what they stand for, society does stand up...even 'right wing press' stop being partisan!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3644716/Nigel-Farage-racism-storm-Brexit-poster-showing-thousands-male-refugees-warning-country-breaking-point.html
In the context Labour and their MP's - who are riding the wave of manifesto support from momentum which many young people feel is easily deliverable - I don't think the same level of scrutiny is applied. 

......savaging barely happens with Momentum (or their agenda),  - apart from what we're currently talking about? I'm glad you/some of us are but in general for both sides of the spectrum, few are challenged properly to give an adequate response, even in parliament! 

in part because people treat the 'left' as inherently good, - the left treat the left as good. Not really shocking is it? I feel that If you swing too much the other way because you are ideologically driven you leave people behind or worse still, harm them. Europe is a good example, a great project that doesn't do enough to help or sacrifice itself for those already behind, new behinds, lacking resources or with a differing point of view. Or maybe we have helped enough and my perception of equality is warped? 

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?! - Not really sure what you're talking about here. Could you explain how the Labour manifesto and Momentum don't understand how they can promote equality or give everyone a chance, and how their stance on university and housing tells us that? I'm really confused by that one. I'm happy to. On housing they will leave very many people behind because the policy does not even focus on the planning process, which has typically been the housing enabler for those unable to access social housing. I could post many other reasons if you wanted but I do not believe the party, leader or pressure group Momentum understand how homes actually get built and that worries me greatly.

University is another problem for me. It's not the only answer and despite promising to unlock adult education, which would offset the failings of secondary education, there has been little to explain where the industrial strategy, which should be the modern jobs creating platform, will produce success economically and socially. By the time that decision is made, because it's panic stations, it becomes a private vs public policy and co-operation is lost. 

In practicable terms, I believe both promises (not policies) will end up delivering inequality and continue delivering narrow opportunities.
Just so I'm clear for others, I'm not comparing manifestos here, just judging the Labour one on what I see.

I am all for Momentum - I can tell  

if they can progress the conversation and vicariously policy, but at the moment the clue is in their tag, 'a new kind of politics.' - anything new is bad? We need a new kind of policy, not a new kind of politics. 

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

38 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Just because people are nasty to other people and claim to be doing it on behalf of a group, doesn't mean the group is responsible. e.g. some nutter killing in the name is Islam doesn't mean all Muslims are bad or the collective group of Islam is. The left is attracting a few nutters, as is the right. I'm yet to see anything beyond online bullying from the left nutters though. We all know how they manifest on the right  

There's a desire for those threatened by Momentum (anyone not directing benefitting from them e.g. the entire right and centre) to paint them as dangerous. I've that term used about them many times and the actual context for it is either dangerous because they'll grab all the power, dangerous because they'll hold Corbyn's strings, dangerous because they're becoming very popular very quickly. The thing is, none of these are actually dangerous. Not compared to the actual dangerous group who kill thousands of people a year - the British government and their supporting group, the right wing press.

In fact, you could say Momentum are balancing the books a bit. On the right you have Murdoch, Dacre, Rothermere, Barclays, Desmond as a de facto political group aiding the Tories. On the left you have Momentum with sites like the Canary, Evolve and Skwawkbox pushing the left wing angle from a new media point of view. It's a good explanation of why the age divide has happened so suddenly - the new left with young people using social media and the old right with old print and (some) broadcast media.

But again, my point of view is that the right is far more dangerous than Momentum can ever be. Momentum are seen as a threat because they're getting powerful to enact their socialist agenda. An agenda that tries to close the wealth gap, promote equality and give everyone a chance. Debates over if capitalism can work with equality will rage eternal but things certainly aren't great at the moment.

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.'

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

I think that's entirely it. The majority of the general public wouldn't know who Momentum are

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!

40 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

So the argument so far is: she was 16, let's forget about it. All kids grow up. Let 16 year olds have a vote because they in a situation like this can not be held accountable, but when it comes to voting they should be held accountable. 

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

5 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

Boycotting a club because they've signed a player who said something racist once, yet claims to have started following football in the 80s?  He can do one.

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?

9 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

In times of uncertainty, some people like to go back and play all their favourite old tunes again. 

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!

42 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

There is a perfectly logical reasoning behind Labour's manifesto pledge to lower the voting age to 16.

A sixteen-year-old is considered too daft to drive a car, purchase alcohol and tobacco, or watch a film rated for adults and is treated as a juvenile in a court of law.

So therefore a sixteen- year-old is considered daft enough to vote Labour. 

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. 

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

or  and 'saying something dumb' isn't grounds for dismissing someone from a democratically-elected post (else we'd have no Tory MP's, arf arf).

Too true. Labour ones don't contribute enough for us to judge how dumb they are (arf, arf) 

26 minutes ago, V01 said:

Cover letter is a must, free reign to sell yourself. Use the job description as a checklist and illustrate how your skills/experience match what they want. Also worth using it as an opportunity to say why you want to work for them (research them and tie it into their company values).

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.

5 hours ago, zak said:

This,

People have talked about the bubble bursting for decades.

The way i see it, is back to basic economics. Demand for housing grows faster than supply in housing. This makes prices go up. When i say prices thats the combination of rental prices and house prices. People need places to live and are either buying houses (house price increase) or renting houses (rental prices increase) or a mixture of both.

Untill supply matches demand overall prices are likely to keep rising.

My viewpoint is mainly from greater London though where the disparity between demand and supply is large

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. 

38 minutes ago, Xann said:

We who? IDS and you Tory voters?

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.......

4 hours ago, Xann said:

Disability News Service

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 - 

Quote

Clapson had previously worked for 30 years, including five years in the army, and recently as a carer for his mother, who had dementia, but had had his £71.70-a-week jobseeker’s allowance stopped for a month after he missed two meetings at his local jobcentre.

CVs for job applications were found near his body, and he had been on work placements, passed a fork lift truck qualification and attended a computer training course.

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. 

Just now, bickster said:

Suspended isn't removed

Bet she's still a Tory in a couple of months time

Fair point. 

5 hours ago, PompeyVillan said:

Conservative councillor compares posts joke comparing Asian people to dogs.

Bet this doesn't make the evening news. 

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

3 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

You're a smart man and you already know she didn't .....

indirectly it was Heath not Thatcher .. the government demanded an end to free school milk , Thatcher got a compromise whereby nursery and primary schools kept it... Thatcher, Thatcher, she didn’t really snatch any milk and in fact tried hard to ensure it was still provided’... doesn't quite roll of the tongue does it 

 

of course Wilsons government scrapped free school milk in 1968 to all secondary schools ... for some reason that one has been airbrushed out of history ... can't imagine why 

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.

10 minutes ago, Awol said:

Pay review boards are guided by the Treasury so will only recommend awards they are supposed to recommend. There's nowt independent about them - except the MP's pay review body which is of course wholly independent....

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