yeah but if you read the text -he actually isnt
He is saying the measure of productivity has limited uses... one example of this is disabled (he also cites long term and youth unemployment)
Are they measuring productivity in a new way, in order for him to highlight this? Or is it the way that's been used for a number of years?
It reads like productivity rate has fallen, and he doesn't want to talk about the effects austerity has had on it.
like that way for years - hence the equalities act provided the relief through HMRC to offset this know effect so yeah as I say on a technical point he is correct and to spin this into a "nasty party" line is as much as lie as to pretend that this accounts for the whole of the UK productivity gap to other countries.
As I say plenty of nasty party examples but its stretching incredulity to spin this in that way
he is not saying that - he is saying all along there are issues with taking productivity as the be all and end all - as he stipulates things can be bad for the measure of productivity and good for the economy overallOkay but now i'm confused.
They have been measuring productivity in the same way for years, yes? Despite it's limitations.
Equality act was enacted in 2010 - has the rate of productivity been falling for 7 years? Or is this the first year that it's showed signs of slowing down?
- edit, I just had a quick look, this is the first year where Output per worker for the whole economy has actually decreased.
If it's the latter, then how can he be right when there was nothing wrong with the way of measuring productivity previously wasn't an issue, further more how does he lead with the notion that disabled workers have a big effect on this?
Especially since, when broken down - the productivity in Services actually grew, but productivity in manufacturing fell - out of the two, I would imagine more disabled workers would be in services?
I'm not really sure how this is "spin".
he is not saying that - he is saying all along there are issues with taking productivity as the be all and end all - as he stipulates things can be bad for the measure of productivity and good for the economy overall
we do have a productivity issue in the UK compared to some other places - I guess education and regulations might be the major issues if I was to pick them but he really isnt talking about that - he is saying dont get fixated on this one measure as it has limitations - then cites an example...
to spin this as nasty party blames disables for productivity is as I say a stretch a little too politicized imo.
The Ofsted chief - who has no teaching experience - shows her true colours:
Disadvantage no excuse for poor performance of schools - Ofsted chief:
https://www.theguardian.com/educati...cuse-for-poor-school-performance-ofsted-chief
Ofsted's next head, Amanda Spielman, rejected by MPs:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36723828
People like this is why other folks lose patience and support the Govt coming down like a ton of bricks:
Oh God someone grandad has figure out how to use a computer.People like this is why other folks lose patience and support the Govt coming down like a ton of bricks:
Wait how does having puppies to sell mean you are not eligible for access to foodbanks? And why does anyone give a toss who has access to foodbanks. The bloke who tweeted that is the prime example of why the left ends up berating the right for being heartless.
Their rise in popularity is often used as an example of the abject poverty many citizens now live in under the Tories.
What people neglect to mention, because they don't know better or it doesn't support their argument, is the availability of food banks is much higher now and you no longer need a referral to use them, and where you do the criteria for getting one has been relaxed. It leads to widespread overuse/abuse such as that woman who is hardly the intended target user.
I don't know enough about the availability of foodbanks now compared to before. But that is a fair argument although arguably the increase was driven by demand in the first place.
Using some random woman as an example that foodbanks are full of rampant abuse is a bit over the top.
They resign from cabinet but not from their seat, the cnuts.
David Davis was reported as threatening to resign if Green was sacked. I suppose he wasn't technically sacked, but you never know.
Green: 'I regret I've been asked to resign'. Why don't they just say sacked?
He sank his own battleship thanks to the lying, but there are two other strands at play: first, that people can still be prudish about porn in 2017; secondly, the actions of police officers, during their time of sergice and otherwise.
I know that most people here won't care about the latter, on account of it being a Tory minister, yet the conduct of the police is clearly open to question. And more practically, we can ill-afford a schism between MPs and law enforcement right now.
I also heard a caller to LBC ask if it was 'extreme' (legal) porn. What does that even mean?
In other news:
- Nazamin Zaghari-Radcliffe is a step close to freedom.
- The Government are to allow councils to increase taxes by around 6%. It'll be interesting to see how many go to the maximum, as there are local elections in 2018.
- Income tax receips in November were higher than expected, leading to reduction in brrowing. In fact, public sector borrowing is the lowest it's been since prior to the financial crisis.
That'd be the UK government, considering their plans to limit the legality of certain 'types' of porn. Added onto the fact I'd imagine part of the problem was Green doing it at work, which clearly isn't really on.
I help out with free food distribution, it's only basic stuff - sandwiches that we make, crisps, cake, drinks. One day a smart-looking young man in a suit came to the door. We ask no questions, we just give to anyone who wants some food.I don't know enough about the availability of foodbanks now compared to before. But that is a fair argument although arguably the increase was driven by demand in the first place.
Using some random woman as an example that foodbanks are full of rampant abuse is a bit over the top.
They won the popular vote by 2 points but have 40 more seats in the commons. If we're talking bias in a system...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...s-denied-last-election-voting-system-slanted/
An overall majority of 14. But blocked by the Lib Dems post 2010, and Labour are obviously quite happy with the bias of the existing system.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...s-denied-last-election-voting-system-slanted/
An overall majority of 14. But blocked by the Lib Dems post 2010, and Labour are obviously quite happy with the bias of the existing system.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...s-denied-last-election-voting-system-slanted/
An overall majority of 14. But blocked by the Lib Dems post 2010, and Labour are obviously quite happy with the bias of the existing system.
Wasn't it blocked by the Lib-Dems because the Tories reneged on their coalition agreement over the wording of the PR referendum, which Cameron put in a way he expected to be rejected, rather than that previously agreed? Just off memory, I'm often wrong.
Might be another thing to blame Cameron for I suppose. Although looking back it might have been better for Clegg to have ended the coalition at that point as well.
What is the bias in the existing system for Labour over the Conservatives?
Seems like Labour managed to stop the Conservatives from gerrymandering further considering the difference between the popular vote and number of seats.
How does that work? Tories have 48% of seats on 42% of the vote, Labour have 40% of both.I don't remember that myself, but i wouldn't rule it out at all either (not with Cameron). Whether a change in wording would have led to a different result in the AV Ref though...doubtful IMO.
The existing constituency boundaries mean that it requires fewer votes for Labour to win a seat in parliament. Both the Lib Dems and the Tories are disadvantaged but the latter most of all.
How does that work? Tories have 48% of seats on 42% of the vote, Labour have 40% of both.
Because we have constituencies with vast discrepancies in population. Compare the Isle of Wight to Aberavon for example.
Even if that's the case it's still the Tories who benefited from the system more than Labour in the last election. Certain factors may disadvantage them but overall they benefit from it.
