The next 5 years with Labour?
Discussion
chrispmartha said:
pheonix478 said:
No. People sport unconventional looks for attention. .
People have their hair and wear clothes how they want because they like them, just as I’m presuming you do?
Surprises aside, being a government minister must be one of the most important jobs with the least training (i.e., none).
Institute for Government said:
The job of a government minister is a strange one. There is no job description, no application, no interview and no tuition: you are picked from among your peers, by the Prime Minister, to be a chief decision maker and a joint leader of a large and complex organisation that you may know absolutely nothing about. Your new role starts the moment you leave Number 10, perhaps with some instruction from the Prime Minister about what he or she would like you to do, perhaps not. It is a great privilege and most likely the highlight of your political career. In your new office, departmental staff you don’t know, none of whom you can – formally – hire or fire, will greet you and wait to hear your plan. You will be part of a ministerial team that you haven’t been able to choose and that may include political rivals.
Your new job is 24/7 as you juggle a constant stream of government business along with your role as a parliamentarian, all under the gaze of the media and the public.
Your new job is 24/7 as you juggle a constant stream of government business along with your role as a parliamentarian, all under the gaze of the media and the public.
Edited by Salted_Peanut on Sunday 1st December 19:15
Salted_Peanut said:
Edited by Salted_Peanut on Sunday 1st December 19:15
For ministers it's even worse as they're expected to be experts in their brief from literally the first day. Apparently you only start to become useful in a ministerial post about 18 months into the job, and most don't last more than 2 years without a reshuffle moving them on.
Tankrizzo said:
Salted_Peanut said:
Edited by Salted_Peanut on Sunday 1st December 19:15
For ministers it's even worse as they're expected to be experts in their brief from literally the first day. Apparently you only start to become useful in a ministerial post about 18 months into the job, and most don't last more than 2 years without a reshuffle moving them on.
Too much power, too high an opinion of themselves and not enough skill. A dangerous combination...
Backlash from councils over Rayner housing targets
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crk4y05vp61o
Local councils have told the government its flagship plan to build 1.5m new homes in England over the next five years is “unrealistic” and “impossible to achieve”, the BBC can reveal.
Well strike me down with a feather.
Clownworld.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crk4y05vp61o
Local councils have told the government its flagship plan to build 1.5m new homes in England over the next five years is “unrealistic” and “impossible to achieve”, the BBC can reveal.
Well strike me down with a feather.
Clownworld.
M1AGM said:
Backlash from councils over Rayner housing targets
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crk4y05vp61o
Local councils have told the government its flagship plan to build 1.5m new homes in England over the next five years is “unrealistic” and “impossible to achieve”, the BBC can reveal.
Well strike me down with a feather.
Clownworld.
I read the BBC article a few things struck me https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crk4y05vp61o
Local councils have told the government its flagship plan to build 1.5m new homes in England over the next five years is “unrealistic” and “impossible to achieve”, the BBC can reveal.
Well strike me down with a feather.
Clownworld.
1) most housing will be built in rural areas. I assume there are less jobs in such area so less need plus transport networks are less so again more car use required seems odd choice
2) land avalible a council said they would need to use farm land which does explain the change in IHT but of course we do need food.
Not mentioned in the article but who will build these new homes also?
M1AGM said:
Backlash from councils over Rayner housing targets
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crk4y05vp61o
Local councils have told the government its flagship plan to build 1.5m new homes in England over the next five years is “unrealistic” and “impossible to achieve”, the BBC can reveal.
Well strike me down with a feather.
Clownworld.
That map shows 100% more housing required for the Isle of Wight.https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crk4y05vp61o
Local councils have told the government its flagship plan to build 1.5m new homes in England over the next five years is “unrealistic” and “impossible to achieve”, the BBC can reveal.
Well strike me down with a feather.
Clownworld.
119 said:
M1AGM said:
Backlash from councils over Rayner housing targets
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crk4y05vp61o
Local councils have told the government its flagship plan to build 1.5m new homes in England over the next five years is “unrealistic” and “impossible to achieve”, the BBC can reveal.
Well strike me down with a feather.
Clownworld.
That map shows 100% more housing required for the Isle of Wight.https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crk4y05vp61o
Local councils have told the government its flagship plan to build 1.5m new homes in England over the next five years is “unrealistic” and “impossible to achieve”, the BBC can reveal.
Well strike me down with a feather.
Clownworld.
Condi said:
119 said:
That map shows 100% more housing required for the Isle of Wight.
No it doesn't.... It's shows vs the previous target +100%. So if the previous target was 20 new homes, now the target is 40 new homes.
Idiot.
turbobloke said:
Condi said:
119 said:
That map shows 100% more housing required for the Isle of Wight.
No it doesn't.... It's shows vs the previous target +100%. So if the previous target was 20 new homes, now the target is 40 new homes.
Idiot.
Wombat3 said:
turbobloke said:
Condi said:
119 said:
That map shows 100% more housing required for the Isle of Wight.
No it doesn't.... It's shows vs the previous target +100%. So if the previous target was 20 new homes, now the target is 40 new homes.
Idiot.
Unfortunately for VaticAngie infallibility isn't contagious.
All of the economic data - be it OBR, IFS, BoE etc. etc. - is backward looking. They roll out data with great fanfare, but in essence, they barely more useful than someone being able to look in the road for s
t and tell you a horse has been down it.
What's happening fast in an unraveling of any control. It's certain business will not be able to deliver growth or, therefore, higher tax receipts that were a budgetary assumption.
https://www.cityam.com/budget-could-wipe-out-12500...
t and tell you a horse has been down it.What's happening fast in an unraveling of any control. It's certain business will not be able to deliver growth or, therefore, higher tax receipts that were a budgetary assumption.
https://www.cityam.com/budget-could-wipe-out-12500...
CBI Economics said:
The change unveiled in Labour’s first Budget could reduce the value of goods and services produced across the UK economy by £9.4bn and incur a £1.3bn net loss for the Treasury between 2026/27 and 2029/30.
Digga said:
All of the economic data - be it OBR, IFS, BoE etc. etc. - is backward looking. They roll out data with great fanfare, but in essence, they barely more useful than someone being able to look in the road for st and tell you a horse has been down it.
What's happening fast in an unraveling of any control. It's certain business will not be able to deliver growth or, therefore, higher tax receipts that were a budgetary assumption.
https://www.cityam.com/budget-could-wipe-out-12500...
Not surprising.t and tell you a horse has been down it.What's happening fast in an unraveling of any control. It's certain business will not be able to deliver growth or, therefore, higher tax receipts that were a budgetary assumption.
https://www.cityam.com/budget-could-wipe-out-12500...
CBI Economics said:
The change unveiled in Labour’s first Budget could reduce the value of goods and services produced across the UK economy by £9.4bn and incur a £1.3bn net loss for the Treasury between 2026/27 and 2029/30.
As IANAeconomist, here's a silly question, for economists: is it likely thar increased gov't spending G in the formula for nominal GDP=C+I+G+(X-M) could provide a positive view of economic 'growth' at some point?
turbobloke said:
Digga said:
All of the economic data - be it OBR, IFS, BoE etc. etc. - is backward looking. They roll out data with great fanfare, but in essence, they barely more useful than someone being able to look in the road for st and tell you a horse has been down it.
What's happening fast in an unraveling of any control. It's certain business will not be able to deliver growth or, therefore, higher tax receipts that were a budgetary assumption.
https://www.cityam.com/budget-could-wipe-out-12500...
Not surprising.t and tell you a horse has been down it.What's happening fast in an unraveling of any control. It's certain business will not be able to deliver growth or, therefore, higher tax receipts that were a budgetary assumption.
https://www.cityam.com/budget-could-wipe-out-12500...
CBI Economics said:
The change unveiled in Labour’s first Budget could reduce the value of goods and services produced across the UK economy by £9.4bn and incur a £1.3bn net loss for the Treasury between 2026/27 and 2029/30.
As IANAeconomist, here's a silly question, for economists: is it likely thar increased gov't spending G in the formula for nominal GDP=C+I+G+(X-M) could provide a positive view of economic 'growth' at some point?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff