I think everything that is wrong with the Tories can be summarised in May's statement that if the abolishing human rights stops terrorists she will do it. She is playing on people's fears. She has been home secretary for 6 years and Prime Minister for long enough to know what aspect of human rights legislation is getting in the way of stopping terrorists. Why the if? Why not say what the legislation in question is - hasn't she had a chance to work it out? And they have had 7 years to change legislation, and committed to it in their referendum and suddenly decide to make this vague announcement days before the vote. She has mentioned things that can already be done within our existing laws! We need to examine the details and learn lessons. And we need to give the police the powers to do their jobs and protect us.
It is to deflect from the conclusions that can be logically made about police numbers and resources. If we want to stop people having the power of free speech we might not even get the clues that were give to us from the Channel 4 programme for instance. We already have strong laws to protect brainwashing and grooming - these are done outside of the law. We need to learn teh lessons - why did the police not deal with these potential terrorists appropriately - more likely to be around resources than legislation that tehprime minister can't give a specific example of how it affects things.
Opportunist and disgusting. We won't defeat terrorism by ripping up our rights.
Dropped my wife into school this morning - she was telling me they were losing two teachers and not replacing them due to budget cuts. That is the other reality of the tories.
Isn't that just politics in this country for at least the last 20 years? Spin spin spin, all the parties to one extent or another do it and why I generally don't believe much of what they all say.
Re schools, sadly London & the south east will be hit hardest (and some other major cities) as the money is redistributed as they currently receive considerably more funding than many parts of the UK per head.
It's never reported of course but more schools will get additional funding than those that will lose, is that what you get from the reality of the tories?
I don't know what school your wife works mutley but I assume that the two not being replaced won't mean a class of children fending for themselves?
Many London schools if we take Primary have up to 25% more teachers than classes, compare that to other places in the U.K. Where schools struggle to have one teacher per class and those teachers often forgo their PPA time as there is no cover.
Of course in an ideal world we would have a fairer funding structure (which is what they are trying to do) and also more funding in general.
My wife's school isn't in London. Earlier this year 40 kids in our area were not given any choice of secondary school. Not you have to have this school and not your choices - they were told there were no places anywhere. Of course something will be found at some point, but it really isn't good and please , we understand you are bothered about paying more tax but don't try to tell us the NHS and schools are not in crisis when they clearly are!
And stop talking about an ideal world please - it is quite annoying when these basic improvements are achievable in our world if very rich people and corporations pay a bit more tax. I haven't got an issue paying more tax - I back myself to do better from a growing economy.
Around 9,000 schools will be worse off and 11,000 better off, as I said London & the SE will be hit hardest as well as some other major cities but so will schools elsewhere.
Do you think it's fair that schools a couple of miles apart with the same salary scales, number of pupils etc can receive a 10% or more disparity in funding between them? The current way of calculating funding is ridiculous and needs changing.
I managed a £3m+ school budget for over ten years. I was asked by a neighbouring borough to help a couple of their schools who had got into difficulty and I was amazed that their funding per pupil was considerably less than the school where I was simply because of the postcode/borough, it's utterly unfair but lets not worry about that heh, lets just jump on the bandwagon rather than try to solve the problems.
I don't agree using the word 'crisis' for schools currently. In my area at the time (Lewisham borough but equally applied to neighbouring boroughs) the crisis was the numbers of pupils coming in. Almost every primary school in Lewisham now has an extra intake class and has done so since around 2007/8. I can't remember the exact year, think it was 2006, but Lewisham initially had 900 children entering primary school without a place, we had to put up temporary classrooms in numerous schools (or playgrounds actually) to cater for those extra numbers. You can make your own mind up why that situation arose.
The sheer financial wastage in schools is in my experience huge, why don't you speak to your local council and put your name down to be a school governor, I think once you delve under the surface you'll be shocked. Such as building repairs that will cost 5x what they should do. Get involved and help make a difference.
Mutley, if you look back at my posts in this thread I've said numerous times I'm more than happy to pay more tax if it goes to areas like Education, the NHS etc etc, over the past 7 years I've done so and paid as a % of my income more tax and been happy to do so. I said earlier in this thread I actually liked the lib dems proposal of 1p tax extra across the board specifically for this.
Look at the countries people here hold up as model one's - you'll find the higher earners don't really pay any or much more there than they do here, but the lower earning employee's pay considerably more. There seems to have become this mantra over this election that somehow over the last 7 years the more wealthy have had tax cuts to the detriment of the less wealthy when the actual reality is the complete opposite.
Lastly, if you don't have an issue paying more and want to don't wait for the government to take it from you, set up a standing order to your local school, college, NHS trust etc. If you can do so ro a charitable organisation the government will contribute some tax
"Official figures released as the part of consultation on the changes show 9,045 schools will lose money while 10,653 will get more"
It's not easy to delve into education numbers, but honestly, if you get under the skin you'd be outraged at how schools literally within a mile or two of each other get vastly different funding amounts.
If each school had a procurement expert (or at least at the local council) there'd be no issues with the overall current funding in schools, I can't reiterate enough the wastage, it's not the heads fault, they are ultimately teachers after all, not procurement or budget management experts. If you have those skills, go and help them!
What about the funding per pupil? Amber Rudd tried to pull this on the radio, even she was forced to admit it would go down over the next parliment.
Isn't adding people like procurement managers and the like part of the problem with the bloated bureaucracy that is going on in the NHS at the moment? Not the sort of model we want schools to be heading towards. Unless the plan is to end up privatising them as well.
It's notable that people are very willing to believe that Trump has been compromised by a foreign power but dismiss as smears the suggestion that Corbyn might be in a similar situation. I'm not passing judgement on the merits of either case but the confirmation bias is plain to see.
When I see that Eddie Izzard is campaigning in Eltham for Clive Efford it suggests to me that Lynton Crosby is doing a masterful job in this election in going after seats, it is a utilisation of the first past the post system to the advantage of the Tories. I can't criticise him for approaching the election like this, after all Trump had less overall votes than Clinton, but exploited the system and won. I wonder if Corbyn will get a large number of actual Labour votes, even more than in 2015, but lose even more seats.
@Rob7Lee is right about the very serious waste that was prevalent in schools. The contracts for telephones, internet and photocopying could be outrageous. This is one of the pillars of the academy system, bring schools together, and centralise services like HR and procurement to save money. The Academy group takes in all funding for schools in their group and redistributes it where it is needed. Fundamentally, schools get more money this way, and naughty salesmen from BT and Xerox had a more formidable customer.
These efficiency savings have allowed per pupil funding to be cut in real terms. It also means that a new layer of bureaucracy has to be paid to manage the schools, so now schools can have a head teacher, an executive head teacher, an HR officer and a procurement team, all paid for by the same shrinking budget.
Don't try and talk sense Eddie, you are clearly just a torie cuts sympathiser the only way to solve problems is to throw more money at it..... don't dare say there could actually be other ways to solve problems even if that includes greater funding as well.
An interesting comment on the lunches v's breakfast debate: "General Secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders Geoff Barton said yesterday that they are not convinced universal free school meals boosted attainment. He said: “Targeted breakfast provision is likely to have a much greater impact.”
Not sure, it was on the BBC link I gave earlier and just said 'Erith School'. It'll all be irrelevant come Friday anyway whichever party gets in.
the website everyone is using I believe to be out of date come Friday as relates to an old policy/basis, we have some general election thingy on Thursday so changes are a foot.
When I see that Eddie Izzard is campaigning in Eltham for Clive Efford it suggests to me that Lynton Crosby is doing a masterful job in this election in going after seats, it is a utilisation of the first past the post system to the advantage of the Tories. I can't criticise him for approaching the election like this, after all Trump had less overall votes than Clinton, but exploited the system and won. I wonder if Corbyn will get a large number of actual Labour votes, even more than in 2015, but lose even more seats.
I think that is quite possible, never really understood/agreed with our current system, in 2015 SNP v UKIP showed the issue better than ever when it cam to number of votes v's actual representation by MP's.
I'll be watching Eltham with interest as it's my constituency, I tried to engage with Efford, never responded on Twitter (maybe not a surprise) and he didn't respond to the two emails I sent via his website either, didn't help getting the Lewisham Labour leaflets either
I tell you what though IF Corbyn sacked Abbott now that'd be an amazing sign of intent and that he is listening to the people.
Sure Conservative supporters would say it was a sign of weakness or that they're not strong and stable. But i think sometimes the strong and stable thing to do is get rid of dead wood.
Hmm. Not exactly calling it a sacking, but it looks very similar to one for me.
There has been round after round of management streamlining and efficiency savings visited upon the public services. It is a special mindset that views the public services as a bunch of backsliding beaurocrats ordering in and wasting mountains of supplies. Does anybody actually pay attention to what front line workers are saying? The social worker, nurse, doctor, prison officer, firefighter, teacher, police officer, care worker and so on? I had to attend ENT at Lewisham hospital and the Doctor said the appointment system had to be based on 8 minutes per patient where as before it was more like 18. The police write empathetic letters if you have been a victim of crime and it is low priority, classrooms don't have enough physical space for the chairs and tables for the bigger class sizes. We are not talking of profligate practices here, but real life.
@Rob7Lee is right about the very serious waste that was prevalent in schools. The contracts for telephones, internet and photocopying could be outrageous. This is one of the pillars of the academy system, bring schools together, and centralise services like HR and procurement to save money. The Academy group takes in all funding for schools in their group and redistributes it where it is needed. Fundamentally, schools get more money this way, and naughty salesmen from BT and Xerox had a more formidable customer.
These efficiency savings have allowed per pupil funding to be cut in real terms. It also means that a new layer of bureaucracy has to be paid to manage the schools, so now schools can have a head teacher, an executive head teacher, an HR officer and a procurement team, all paid for by the same shrinking budget.
Don't try and talk sense Eddie, you are clearly just a torie cuts sympathiser the only way to solve problems is to throw more money at it..... don't dare say there could actually be other ways to solve problems even if that includes greater funding as well.
An interesting comment on the lunches v's breakfast debate: "General Secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders Geoff Barton said yesterday that they are not convinced universal free school meals boosted attainment. He said: “Targeted breakfast provision is likely to have a much greater impact.”
Not sure, it was on the BBC link I gave earlier and just said 'Erith School'. It'll all be irrelevant come Friday anyway whichever party gets in.
the website everyone is using I believe to be out of date come Friday as relates to an old policy/basis, we have some general election thingy on Thursday so changes are a foot.
No it is based on the 2017 manifesto's so will be relevant in (when) the event of a Tory victory.
@Rob7Lee is right about the very serious waste that was prevalent in schools. The contracts for telephones, internet and photocopying could be outrageous. This is one of the pillars of the academy system, bring schools together, and centralise services like HR and procurement to save money. The Academy group takes in all funding for schools in their group and redistributes it where it is needed. Fundamentally, schools get more money this way, and naughty salesmen from BT and Xerox had a more formidable customer.
These efficiency savings have allowed per pupil funding to be cut in real terms. It also means that a new layer of bureaucracy has to be paid to manage the schools, so now schools can have a head teacher, an executive head teacher, an HR officer and a procurement team, all paid for by the same shrinking budget.
Don't try and talk sense Eddie, you are clearly just a torie cuts sympathiser the only way to solve problems is to throw more money at it..... don't dare say there could actually be other ways to solve problems even if that includes greater funding as well.
An interesting comment on the lunches v's breakfast debate: "General Secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders Geoff Barton said yesterday that they are not convinced universal free school meals boosted attainment. He said: “Targeted breakfast provision is likely to have a much greater impact.”
Not sure, it was on the BBC link I gave earlier and just said 'Erith School'. It'll all be irrelevant come Friday anyway whichever party gets in.
the website everyone is using I believe to be out of date come Friday as relates to an old policy/basis, we have some general election thingy on Thursday so changes are a foot.
Yep, changes are afoot when the Tories win. More selective schools, perfect for addressing social imbalance. The academies are already selective of course, they just can't admit it. They can hide underperforming schools among the results of higher performing ones, and never actually address imbalance at all. A new class of school administrators now exists, that are good at presenting results vs finance and manipulating figures. None of it in the best interest of the child.
The new schools and existing free schools are paid for, supposedly, by the private sector (including the 9k per term universities). Because he private sector can allocate funding better than the public sector and the outcome is always better. Just look at the trains for proof.
Education truely is the be all and end all. Get it right and in the long term, society gains. This is where the government can throw money and see the benefit, but it's too long term to be a vote winner, so sod it, let's play politics with that too.
It's notable that people are very willing to believe that Trump has been compromised by a foreign power but dismiss as smears the suggestion that Corbyn might be in a similar situation. I'm not passing judgement on the merits of either case but the confirmation bias is plain to see.
Can we just reflect on this for a second (in order that we may laugh it out of court)
When I see that Eddie Izzard is campaigning in Eltham for Clive Efford it suggests to me that Lynton Crosby is doing a masterful job in this election in going after seats, it is a utilisation of the first past the post system to the advantage of the Tories. I can't criticise him for approaching the election like this, after all Trump had less overall votes than Clinton, but exploited the system and won. I wonder if Corbyn will get a large number of actual Labour votes, even more than in 2015, but lose even more seats.
I think that is quite possible, never really understood/agreed with our current system, in 2015 SNP v UKIP showed the issue better than ever when it cam to number of votes v's actual representation by MP's.
I'll be watching Eltham with interest as it's my constituency, I tried to engage with Efford, never responded on Twitter (maybe not a surprise) and he didn't respond to the two emails I sent via his website either, didn't help getting the Lewisham Labour leaflets either
I think the SNP v UKIP is not the best example as SNP are not a UK national party and only contested 58 odd seats. A better example is the amount of votes that it takes to win one seat. I did bring this up before but at the last election in was something like this.
SNP 25,000 votes per MP Cons 35,000 Lab 40,000 LD 400,000 Green 1,500,000 UKIP 4,000,000
Until we sort our voting system out can we ever truly be a modern democracy?
Yep reflected on it. Foreign powers have had a hold over Corbyn for decades because it was obvious to them he would become PM. In a two ( ish) horse race in America the foreign powers figured there would be little point in having a hold over one of them.
When I see that Eddie Izzard is campaigning in Eltham for Clive Efford it suggests to me that Lynton Crosby is doing a masterful job in this election in going after seats, it is a utilisation of the first past the post system to the advantage of the Tories. I can't criticise him for approaching the election like this, after all Trump had less overall votes than Clinton, but exploited the system and won. I wonder if Corbyn will get a large number of actual Labour votes, even more than in 2015, but lose even more seats.
I think that is quite possible, never really understood/agreed with our current system, in 2015 SNP v UKIP showed the issue better than ever when it cam to number of votes v's actual representation by MP's.
I'll be watching Eltham with interest as it's my constituency, I tried to engage with Efford, never responded on Twitter (maybe not a surprise) and he didn't respond to the two emails I sent via his website either, didn't help getting the Lewisham Labour leaflets either
I think the SNP v UKIP is not the best example as SNP are not a UK national party and only contested 58 odd seats. A better example is the amount of votes that it takes to win one seat. I did bring this up before but at the last election in was something like this.
SNP 25,000 votes per MP Cons 35,000 Lab 40,000 LD 400,000 Green 1,500,000 UKIP 4,000,000
Until we sort our voting system out can we ever truly be a modern democracy?
I never knew this?
Is this a thing? Surely most votes wins a seat? This is almost as embarrassing as the american system.... Actually it's equally bad.
and I am sure there are numerous studies out there that show the benefits to child development, popular culture, happiness, dementia, anti-recidivism...
Corbyn quote at Runcorn ".....and it'll cost, I know, but every child will be able to learn a musical instrument..."
Yep. Not forced to.
The UK creative arts industry is a bigger earner of foreign money than UK manufacturing, and just below the financial industry.
The nurturing of creative talent is something the Tories see as just being a hobby, this Labour manifesto sees it as being of benefit to the individual and the country.
Yep reflected on it. Foreign powers have had a hold over Corbyn for decades because it was obvious to them he would become PM. In a two ( ish) horse race in America the foreign powers figured there would be little point in having a hold over one of them.
This is precisely the sort of ridicule I was hoping for
Interestingly over the past 30 years or so, total tax receipts as a % of GDP have remained in a very consistent 35-40% range regardless of which party was in government suggesting that it is not as easy as it is made out on here to raise tax receipts (not the same as raising tax rates).
It chimes with one of my big issues. Are we collecting the tax Parliament intended from corporations? We know the answer is "no" in some high profile cases. Maybe this is one reason why people appear to have a lower standard of living than 20 years ago despite GDP/head more than doubling.
I won't bore everyone overmuch re the ad industry. Your assessment is reasonable in comparative terms. Nevertheless, while it faces challenges, it remains a thriving and aspirational career in most developed countries. In the UK very bright grads are still recruited into it. But when you say "Very high standard of living", well then it's relative. When I was 31 and on the way up, I was able to afford to buy, on a 95% mortgage, a 3 bedroom 70's town house in Surbiton. And trust me, a lot of my colleagues looked at me and said "Surbiton?". Even the secretaries tended to live in places like Fulham or Barnes. I don't see how my equivalent in 2017 can remotely get the funds to buy my house off me. That's what I'm getting at.
Unfortunately and don't take this in a way that it's not intended, a graduate job in an advertising agency is just not that lucrative (from a pure financial perspective) when so much of the wealth in the past 20-30 years has been generated in other fields (finance, sport, technology/internet, entertainment etc.). Again these industries benefit from one key trait, namely huge economies of scale.
Put it another way, the salaries of advertising graduates over that period have presumably risen roughly in line with nominal GDP growth, but salaries of say Premiership Academy footballers or brilliant software engineers have increased exponentially. The simple explanation is that one career has 'scale' and another doesn't.
With regard to corporation tax, whilst this may be precisely your point (!) it only represents a very small single-digit percentage of total tax receipts. Given that these companies are very footloose fiscally but their employees are generally not, we may have to acknowledge the compromise whereby it's better for say Google to employ 3,000 highly paid staff here (all contributing PAYE/NI) but pay most of its corporation taxes elsewhere, than move the whole office to Dublin.
Well, we don't know just how small or otherwise the corporate tax avoidance bill is, but I think there is a good chance that if properly collected it would fund adult social care to the extent that the government could leave estates with 500k rather than the 100k they have come up with. It's not just those big names of course. There are hedge funds at it, too, i believe...
Relatively small point but if you believe Google would move those 3,000 people to Dublin just because they have to pay the tax that keeps their office running and their people (usually) safe and secure in London, you have fallen for the fairy tale. Next, you'll be telling me they are a tech company. They are a media owner, most of those 3,000 are basically media sales people and their customers are...WPP, et al.
Corbyn quote at Runcorn ".....and it'll cost, I know, but every child will be able to learn a musical instrument..."
Yep. Not forced to.
The UK creative arts industry is a bigger earner of foreign money than UK manufacturing, and just below the financial industry.
The nurturing of creative talent is something the Tories see as just being a hobby, this Labour manifesto sees it as being of benefit to the individual and the country.
Creative industries are well on course to overtake the financial sector in the future, it's growing at an exceptional rate, which has helped skew the stats in the tories favour. They are beginning to see the point of the creative industries, even though a lot of people in the creative industries are natural labour voters..
When I see that Eddie Izzard is campaigning in Eltham for Clive Efford it suggests to me that Lynton Crosby is doing a masterful job in this election in going after seats, it is a utilisation of the first past the post system to the advantage of the Tories. I can't criticise him for approaching the election like this, after all Trump had less overall votes than Clinton, but exploited the system and won. I wonder if Corbyn will get a large number of actual Labour votes, even more than in 2015, but lose even more seats.
I think that is quite possible, never really understood/agreed with our current system, in 2015 SNP v UKIP showed the issue better than ever when it cam to number of votes v's actual representation by MP's.
I'll be watching Eltham with interest as it's my constituency, I tried to engage with Efford, never responded on Twitter (maybe not a surprise) and he didn't respond to the two emails I sent via his website either, didn't help getting the Lewisham Labour leaflets either
I think the SNP v UKIP is not the best example as SNP are not a UK national party and only contested 58 odd seats. A better example is the amount of votes that it takes to win one seat. I did bring this up before but at the last election in was something like this.
SNP 25,000 votes per MP Cons 35,000 Lab 40,000 LD 400,000 Green 1,500,000 UKIP 4,000,000
Until we sort our voting system out can we ever truly be a modern democracy?
I never knew this?
Is this a thing? Surely most votes wins a seat? This is almost as embarrassing as the american system.... Actually it's equally bad.
Scrub that I think what this means is due to spread of votes and locations.
If 4,000,000 voted ukip but there was only a few per town or village, then that'd make sense.
Heads become heads because of expertise in Education, not finance. Heads generally know what is needed for their schools, there ought to be financial people out there able to help heads address those needs.
Someone, somewhere, will suggest that, rather than having lots of schools operating alone, there might be a benefit to having some kind of local support structure for schools, encompassing things like budgeting and procurement, etc., taking the weight of such pressures of head teachers in individual schools.
Obviously, it would have to be some kind of authority, and would have to be named in such a way that reflected both its educational and local nature.
That would be the sort of thing that the Government supports wouldn't it?
This fantasy authority that you talk off @NornIrishAddick, wouldn't it be helpful if it still had access to its own workforce, able to maintain and improve these schools on our behalf, so that these heads didn't then have to go out to open market to find someone who can do it...and end up paying 5x the going rate, apparently, because they know they've got them over a barrel? Outlandish I know but seems something in it myself.
I don't know maybe this same workforce could do the same with council properties too or something like that?
No, what am I talking about, that would be ridiculous. Let's just put our faith in the private sector giving us their best price and value for money. I'm sure that's for the best, history tells us this is what happens after all.
Corbyn quote at Runcorn ".....and it'll cost, I know, but every child will be able to learn a musical instrument..."
Yep. Not forced to.
The UK creative arts industry is a bigger earner of foreign money than UK manufacturing, and just below the financial industry.
The nurturing of creative talent is something the Tories see as just being a hobby, this Labour manifesto sees it as being of benefit to the individual and the country.
and I am sure there are numerous studies out there that show the benefits to child development, popular culture, happiness, dementia, anti-recidivism...
I wouldn't dispute that music is a great therapy etc., but he's proposed paying for every child in the country to learn to play an instrument, if they want to. This, on top of everything else he's proposed to plough loadsa money into.
Comments
Oh hang on I might be on to something here.
I wonder if Corbyn will get a large number of actual Labour votes, even more than in 2015, but lose even more seats.
Have you read the torie manifesto on school funding and subsequent 4bn of funding promise? (we'll see if they stick to it assuming they are elected). Summary here from Osbourne
An interesting comment on the lunches v's breakfast debate: "General Secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders Geoff Barton said yesterday that they are not convinced universal free school meals boosted attainment. He said: “Targeted breakfast provision is likely to have a much greater impact.” Not sure, it was on the BBC link I gave earlier and just said 'Erith School'. It'll all be irrelevant come Friday anyway whichever party gets in.
the website everyone is using I believe to be out of date come Friday as relates to an old policy/basis, we have some general election thingy on Thursday so changes are a foot.
I'll be watching Eltham with interest as it's my constituency, I tried to engage with Efford, never responded on Twitter (maybe not a surprise) and he didn't respond to the two emails I sent via his website either, didn't help getting the Lewisham Labour leaflets either
Does anybody actually pay attention to what front line workers are saying? The social worker, nurse, doctor, prison officer, firefighter, teacher, police officer, care worker and so on?
I had to attend ENT at Lewisham hospital and the Doctor said the appointment system had to be based on 8 minutes per patient where as before it was more like 18. The police write empathetic letters if you have been a victim of crime and it is low priority, classrooms don't have enough physical space for the chairs and tables for the bigger class sizes.
We are not talking of profligate practices here, but real life.
The new schools and existing free schools are paid for, supposedly, by the private sector (including the 9k per term universities). Because he private sector can allocate funding better than the public sector and the outcome is always better. Just look at the trains for proof.
Education truely is the be all and end all. Get it right and in the long term, society gains. This is where the government can throw money and see the benefit, but it's too long term to be a vote winner, so sod it, let's play politics with that too.
SNP 25,000 votes per MP
Cons 35,000
Lab 40,000
LD 400,000
Green 1,500,000
UKIP 4,000,000
Until we sort our voting system out can we ever truly be a modern democracy?
Foreign powers have had a hold over Corbyn for decades because it was obvious to them he would become PM.
In a two ( ish) horse race in America the foreign powers figured there would be little point in having a hold over one of them.
Is this a thing? Surely most votes wins a seat? This is almost as embarrassing as the american system.... Actually it's equally bad.
https://www.ukmusic.org/assets/general/Summary_Document__The_Economic_Contribution_of_the_Core_UK_Music_Industry.pdf
and I am sure there are numerous studies out there that show the benefits to child development, popular culture, happiness, dementia, anti-recidivism...
The UK creative arts industry is a bigger earner of foreign money than UK manufacturing, and just below the financial industry.
The nurturing of creative talent is something the Tories see as just being a hobby, this Labour manifesto sees it as being of benefit to the individual and the country.
Relatively small point but if you believe Google would move those 3,000 people to Dublin just because they have to pay the tax that keeps their office running and their people (usually) safe and secure in London, you have fallen for the fairy tale. Next, you'll be telling me they are a tech company. They are a media owner, most of those 3,000 are basically media sales people and their customers are...WPP, et al.
If 4,000,000 voted ukip but there was only a few per town or village, then that'd make sense.
Viola!!!!
There you go, I've already learnt a musical instrument, learning to play it, now, that may be slightly more difficult.
I don't know maybe this same workforce could do the same with council properties too or something like that?
No, what am I talking about, that would be ridiculous. Let's just put our faith in the private sector giving us their best price and value for money. I'm sure that's for the best, history tells us this is what happens after all.
Don't tell me.......err........corporation tax