I think you are partially, and probably most importantly, right. But I would actually take it further, despite being what most (including myself) would consider to be a grass roots Labour person - Labour has no plan in which all their rhetoric could actually have a chance of becoming reality. They rely on nasty Tories doing the 'dirty deeds' which is the only way Labour can do what they do - else the nation would be bankrupt. The Tories have a plan and Vision Labour has no plan, just Vison (aka illusion) The Tories have policies, upon which they apply spin to make them palatable to more people Labour has rhetoric, which sounds socially good but is nothing but spin. So unless Labour resolve their internal differences to an adequate level, as was done under Blair, they are not just useless, and not only a liability to the country, WE have no clue as to what we should expect from them. and more than this they need the vision to come up with a viable plan and strategy to implement those policies in a realistic way which WE can believe in. At the moment all they do is spout the buzzwords We need : The Vision Something concrete not just the words The Plan Something, Anything concrete to support the possible implementation of that vision. Just spouting We have a vision for a fairer Britain for all and similar foundation-less, plan-less, meaning-less rhetoric is worth NOTHING. unclebulgaria67, Of course it is true that it was Labours fault. Whoever instigated the things leading up to it, be it Thatcherism, dropping the Gold standard or labour overspending, ... it happened on a LONG Labour watch. So the blame sits with them before anyone or anything else..

But I think that the last two elections and the continuing crash of support for Labours 'normal' is the issue. Lets take the very emotive example of the Tories cutting benefits. Labour say it was done wrong, and I agree, but the simple fact they are saying it should have been done differently rather than Labour INITIATING those changes in a more Social way when they were in power says it all. That changes were and are needed should be clear to anyone who is not blinded by their own self-interests. Even the Tories implementation is better (for the country as a whole) than leaving it as it was, but Labour should have driven more practical social reforms when they were in power for so long - and they didn't. Mind you there probably would have been uproar from the Labour ranks even for a Labour driven fairer change - so they probably rightly thought they would be in a lose-lose situation. The Tories have taken the bull by the horns and implemented changes that suites their policies - as they should (be true to their policies and practices). You WONT see Labour reversing these changes if they do get in, neither did you or would you see Labour introducing such changes. Both parties are driven by the noisy minorities, there is no-one actually doing what is best for the majority. .. and regarding young votes - I think the Liberals have introduced them to the lies of politics and painted it darkly for life for all those young Lib voters - and they all have paid for it.

and most of the clubs use the same accountancy company as Greece..

Exactly, and all I'm hearing from these 4 is rhetoric and waffle with no substance. --- avoiding real answers to ANY of the questions. Now we know the tories avoided answers to MANY questions but Labour appear to have absolutely no real answers - just lots of waffle about what should be not ways to achieve them.

Just watching Victoria Derbyshire at friends house. Labour have had it haven't they :/

Your history is faulty. Lets expand on your concept there. Do you think you should get a loan if you had no income, but they hoped you would some time in the future? Do you think that would be responsible lending or the basis for a reasonable system if wonga did that?

I fail to see how that changes anything. There is still a WORLD of difference between your example couple of days (or minutes) on the job training as a Tesco shelf stacker and someone spending 3 years (let alone more) getting a degree . Even apprentices for a C&G get paid as they learn and attend college on day release, but could you see any employer paying for the amount of time in someone getting a degree? So we would be back to only wealthy families getting higher education - and once that starts, it would soon be only those who can pay get any education. Not only wrong from a moral standpoint, think of all the genuine talent that would be wasted.

How you tried complaining regarding these discrepancies which seem to evidence that there is not a fair and common application of guidelines to the council, not the planning dept. I was in the process of researching it until highways rejected the one I was involved with. Complain with your evidence of dual standards to The local council itself, with a copy to your local MP, particularly in your case with the government stance of needing more houses. ... Then LGO http://www.lgo.org.uk

Seen the latest? Further reduction in even the limitations the planning depts ignore? eg some London properties no planning permission needed to add another storey http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/09/osborne-tears-up-planning-laws-londoners-build-extra-storeys-on-homes http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33472405

https://www.thepeoplesoperator.com/pay-monthly#choose-your-deal TPO sim only 30 day pay monthly Unlimited* mins Unlimited* texts 31 GB £19.99 + 10% of fee goes to charity of your choice Addendum 3's All you can Eat data T&C All-you-can-eat data. If you have All-you-can-eat data units as part of your package or with an Add-on, there are no hidden ‘fair use policies’ within the UK. If you’re in a Feel At Home destination, you can use up to 25,600 data units (which converts into 25 GB of data .... ... It’s worth noting that even if you used your phone for every minute of every day you’d only use, subject to TrafficSense™, around 1,000 GB each month. theres thatTrafficSense - aka throttling http://support.three.co.uk/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBISAPI.DLL?Command=New,Kb=Mobile,Ts=Mobile,T=Article,varset_cat=signal,varset_subcat=3804,Case=obj%284046%29 VM users with throttling issues on their superfast fibre BB may recognise the terminology there.

Mine was so bad over the entire 13 months before I managed to get rid (wouldn't let me give notice of leaving more than 3 days before end of 12 months contact - without invoking steep exit charges they claimed) I was effectively paying them for nothing as I ended buying another sim from another supplier to use and carried 2 phones around with me. and that was mild compared to the call centers responses. even after leaving (I got my bank to block the company from DD given the issues) they tried to continue charging me beyond the number being transferred despite paying a month in advance. It was a few years ago, and I just wrote of the monthly payment as every attempt to address the issues hit very firm and high brick walls. The monthly payment didn't seem worth the stress and risk of continuing to take on 3. I have a low opinion of VM (not VM mobile which I used in the past and found to be excellent), but 3 make VM look like saints in my opinion. I have had multiple friends who have had 3 dongles that were effectively unusable - brief burst of reasonably speed followed by massive stalls - I tracerouted the issues to 3's systems. I will NEVER use them again - even if free - the only company I would say that about - although I would only ever use npower again if it was free. It seems to me you are very lucky capquest. Hope it continues for you.

Excellent job there by alchamist. I'll add one thought: Microwave oven use is horrendous for disconnecting wifi. So make sure it isn't 'pinger' meals ruining your game night

Have you used 3 havinastalla? I have. Never again. Never Never Never. Even if an unlimited contract was £5 a month. Never Never Never again. ... Ever. Not even if it was free if I had to set up a DD . (If you doubt this, I refused the (probably false) offer of 3 months free trial to not leave 3 at the end of the contract - they had my number and I wanted it OUT of their hands. They offered to send me a free sim with another number for the 3 months free trial - I refused - I had no doubts whatsoever) :/ I have used O2 before and was happy, and would have been happy returning to them, was intending too - but not now that 3 have taken them over/merged.

It should be : We should get all the money back the financial institutions and politicians based there stole from us, that should leave it way beyond bankrupt, and us back in the green We can then move Hadrians wall to block off London, open the flood barriers and send London after Atlantis, while the rest of a truly United Kingdom goes into the future unburdened, simply telling their kids scary stories of a horrible place that used to exist called Loondun that was full of mean monsters who stole from everyone and ate children.

IFS adds to evidence of actual budget effects http://www.ifs.org.uk/ "13m UK families will lose average of £260 a year due to budget’s freeze on working-age benefits." "The minimum wage announcement won’t “anywhere near compensate in cash terms” for the welfare cuts, he said. People currently on tax credits will be “significantly worse off” and the reform would cost 3 million families an average of £5,000 per year each." "The reduction of the work allowance will also have a huge effect, he said, meaning cuts will be bigger for those with a job, reducing incentives for people to move into work." Osbourne of course disagrees..

Thank You for that enlightening explanation ericsbrother It was the bit that said charges were legal if immoral that threw me.

Thanks for that, I thought the 'English' looked a bit strange even for legalese, although I am still unclear as to how such a small handling charge would be deemed unreasonable when handling charges are allowed. ie £25-£50 for a banks automated systems to process a bounced check where the actual costs would probably be less than a pound! (Not standing up for the bandits here, just want to be on solid ground should such a thing occur again to me since the change in laws/practices) would the following be more 'correct' if the charges are indeed illegal? Finally, ECP is claiming processing costs for payment in breach of the consumer contracts regulations, making any contract that relies on them an unlawful act to fulfill and void as repugnant.

Wicked. Well impressed Quick question. Is that last bit some legaleese or a bit wrong? "illegal acts making any contract that relies on an unlawful act to fulfill it void as repugnant."

Because of the inherent difference between investing 2 weeks in training and the 3-10 years investment needed to get a good degree + experience. (A number of degrees need the investment in maths etc before you even get on the course) I think that the proper education and opportunities for the nations young (not just your own) is the MOST important thing - above healthcare even. Our future does depend on it.

Although I don't agree with the way it has been implemented, I do agree that tax payers should not support companies in paying low wages. If more people end up unemployed, then that is an accurate reflection on the true state of the system, and would show what really needs to be addressed rather than shooting policies at ghosts 'problems'. If the government needs to 'create' jobs, then private indiciduals, let alone starbucks, tesco and asda should not be profiting from it at our expense. The whole current system is flimflam smoke and mirrors which hides problems - not addresses them.

and apprentices get paid - admittedly a lower amount than skilled workers (just like students), or are are you saying that only the wealthy should have access to higher education for their kids? Presumably followed by only healthcare, then fire service, police... Now don't get me wrong, I don't think that the pre-existing system was correct - it should have been far more merit based, with 'students' kicked out for not delivering results, but lining up massive debt for all students, not just those who will end up as highly paid lawyers, bankers and politicians, is just as wrong as giving those places to the minority of idiots who throw away the opportunity they have been given.

and from the executive summary some details (for those interested, it clearly states in the full document that growth is negatively impacted by 'fiscal tightening' Highlighting is mine Overview 1.1 The new Government has used its first Budget to loosen significantly the impending squeeze on public services spending that had been pencilled in by the Coalition in March. This is being financed by welfare cuts, net tax increases and three years of higher government borrowing. The Government has delayed the expected return to a budget surplus by a year to 2019-20, but is then aiming for a slightly bigger surplus in the medium term. 1.2 The Government’s provisional spending assumptions imply that Resource Departmental Expenditure Limits (RDEL) – which cover day-to-day central government spending on public services, grants and administration – would be £83.3 billion higher in total over the current Parliament than the Coalition suggested in March. The Government has also announced tax cuts costing £24.6 billion over the Parliament, primarily cutting corporation tax rates, raising the income tax personal allowance and extending inheritance tax relief for main residences. 1.3 These ‘giveaways’ are being financed from five main sources: • tax increases raise £47.2 billion over the Parliament, including increases in dividend taxation, insurance premium tax and vehicle excise duty, plus cuts in pensions tax relief, earlier corporation tax payments, and anti-avoidance and evasion measures; • welfare cuts raise £34.9 billion. These include a four-year freeze in the uprating of most working-age benefits, cuts in the generosity of tax credits and reduced work allowances in universal credit. The Government will also force local authorities and housing associations to cut rents, thereby reducing the cost of housing benefit; • other spending decisions raise £8.1 billion. These include reductions in departmental capital spending and a cut in funding for the BBC reaching £745 million in 2020-21; • these various tax and spending decisions have indirect effects that raise a further £14.2 billion. These include the pension contributions that would be paid by additional public sector workers, and higher income tax and NICs receipts; and • the Budget decisions also imply £3.5 billion of extra borrowing over the Parliament, on top of the £14.6 billion increase implied by our pre-measures forecast. This includes £16.7 billion of additional borrowing between 2016-17 and 2018-19, to help avoid the sharpest cuts in public services spending. Thereafter the Government uses some of the welfare cuts and tax increases to aim for bigger budget surpluses. 1.4 On the basis of these provisional plans, the forthcoming Spending Review would be a lot less challenging than it appeared in March. The Government would have to identify further real cuts in public services spending rising to a peak of £17.9 billion in 2019-20, rather than £41.9 billion in 2018-19. Thereafter spending is assumed to rise again in real terms. Public services spending would fall by an average of 1.5 per cent a year in real terms over this Parliament as a whole, slightly less than the 1.6 per cent a year cuts over the last. 1.5 We now forecast that public sector net borrowing will total £69.5 billion this year, down £5.8 billion since March thanks to stronger-than-expected revenues, the spending cuts announced in June, the rise in insurance premium tax and a delay to the introduction of tax-free childcare. The deficit then declines more slowly than in March, moving into surplus by £10.0 billion in 2019-20, increasing to £11.6 billion in the following year. ... (technical stuff left out - look at documents in link if interested) 1.7 The Chancellor said in his March Budget speech that he wanted to raise £12 billion from welfare cuts and £5 billion from anti-avoidance and evasion measures by 2017-18. As defined in the Treasury’s scorecard of policy measures, this Budget raises £7.0 billion from welfare cuts and £2.4 billion from ‘avoidance and tax planning, evasion and compliance, and imbalances in the tax system’. These rise to £12.1 billion and £5.0 billion in 2019-20. ... 1.11 In addition to the sales of Lloyds shares and mortgage assets held by UK Asset Resolution that were announced in March, the Government has now said that it will sell some of its RBS shares, its remaining stake in Royal Mail and its shares in King’s Cross Central Partnership this year. Together with the initial tranche of sales of the pre-2012 student loan book, these asset sales should reduce public sector net debt by £32 billion in 2015-16. The Government has also announced plans to sell three-quarters of its shares in RBS over the Parliament, which we assume will raise around £6 billion a year from 2016-17 to 2019-20. Financial asset sales typically bring forward cash that would otherwise have been received later in mortgage repayments and dividends, so they only reduce net debt temporarily.

The office for budget responsibility summary : The new Government has used its first Budget to loosen significantly the impending squeeze on public services, financed by : welfare cuts, net tax increases and three years of higher borrowing. http://budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/

Good to hear that as I've opened a Nationwide account as my back-up but not really put it to the test yet. Chose Nationwide after lots of looking around.

I think that further steps toward completely killing off the accessibility of higher education for poorer people is a disgrace to the entire country. (except Scotland of course)