ECCOnoob

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. Don't keep bigging up your part. Your catering trolley management on board a train gives you about as much insight into the strategic operations of the transport industry as one of my law office cleaners has insight in the justice system. Your observations from when you have occasionally travelled is irrelevant. The DFT have analysed figures and actual facts to declare if something is a success or not. At the end of the initial trial period, the Tram-Train recorded more than 1.5 million passenger journeys and the pilot scheme of the technology was deemed sufficient in which 10 other local authority are now considering a similar tram train service - including proposals to expand it to other parts of South Yorkshire. On current stats, the passenger numbers have increased to about 2.3 million.

From reading the article it's seems clear that those "seven other jobs" are ad hoc consultancy and board advisory things for a few hours a week at most. Some of them are merely a few hours each month. I bet there wouldn't be so much whinging if those other committees and boards were unpaid voluntary. I wonder how his time commitments to his MP role stacks up compared to other MPs in their constituency work. All seems a bit of jealousy to me about the fact that can earn good money from those companies from just a few hours commitment. Interesting also that seemingly many of the locals interviewed like him as an MP and are more than happy with him despite this supposed "outrage".

Back in your box. I was merely asking what country you were describing in your post at #20.

What country?

Why do you instantly jump to it being "of concern". How about the other angle. In the past year MPs have reduced the time they are sitting in the house arguing by an average of 50 minutes. That's 50 minutes that they can be using to get on with the other parts of their job, their drafting, their reading, their correspondence, their constituency roles....

To be replaced by who? What magic solution will the replacement bring?

How else do you think something is run 'for the people' rather than profit making. Public ownership or private. Make your mind up.

So you want to put more services and business under state control. Good logic.

Its not in recession. In fact economic analysts are forecasting that there will be some modest growth boosted by a faster than expected lowering of inflation and interest rates cut. I think many WOULD disagree that things are blanket 'in decline and getting worse'. Despite still dealing with the impact of covid and global conflict, minimum wage increased, pensions increased, state benefits increased... Public services are not 'starved of funding'. The NHS and Social Care Budget was higher than last year reaching over £153 billion, NHS staff numbers are up to 1.7 million employees, Police workforce has increased by 19%, we still have universal healthcare (despite that evil privatisation). Our infrastructure is not all crumbling and in need of major repair. Yes, SOME of it needs improvement but last time I checked the lights are still on, the water is still flowing, the transport is still running, the roads are still busy , the internet is still connected, the schools are still functioning, the shops are still stocked and people are getting on with their lives. There has always been a measurable divide with the South East. Its where our capital is. Its where most investment wants to be. Its population is 2.2x the size of say Yorkshire and North East, over 3x the size of Scotland and over 5x the size of Wales. That isnt going to change anytime soon. The shortage of doctors is being felt in nations across the word right now. Its partly the reason why Australia and New Zealand are taking drastic measures to lure Brits abroad. Recruitment is still being made a priority but there are other factors when it comes to retention. The obvious one being that its hard for state funded NHS doctors to compete with the lure of private practice despite ever spiralling pay rises for public sector employees. Medical degrees are very long to complete and expensive compared to other occupations. There is a higher ratio of early retirement and pressures on trickle down skill sharing compared to other industries. Its not just here, in France they have shortages with some estimated 7m people who dont have ready access to a GP. There are recruitment issues in Greece, Finland, Portugal and several African and Eastern nations are reported to be at critical levels. Handing out degrees to all and sundry is a slight overreaction. Besides, just because someone trains to be a lawyer, doctor, nurse, social worker, engineer doesnt automatically mean they become one. Yes, you could (and probably will) go on. Yes we do get the picture. You are a constant doom monger who always seems to portray that everything can magically be solved by your precious Labour Party and lots of state ownership.

Is it? GP's and Dentistry have been a private since the NHS was founded. They work as contractors to the NHS so every patient they have is an nice profit for their practice partnership. The NHS accounts state that spending within the private sector organisations is about 7% and mirroring the same as it's being years previous. Full Fact organisation research also showed that the rise in spending on independent private companies for the NHS almost doubled under labour governments and predated the 2010 take over by the conservatives, so people need to stop portraying this as simply a Tory issue. Reforms to the NHS and better integration with private sector healthcare has being emerging since the 1970s.

Oh yes and are we going to suddenly increase taxes to 'more than inflation' levels to pay for it? Is everyone's pay going to jump up to 'more than inflation levels' so they can afford it? What then will happen to all suppliers and equipment costs to the NHS do they suddenly increase their prices to 'more than inflation' levels? How do you think all that's going to reflect, you know, inflation. It really isn't that simple.

^^ edit.

Because we massively trade bullion I have several large commercial vaults.

Ha! The person who gave inspiration for Corbynomics. I think we can do without such expertise. Yes, apparently the books 'inspiring' in the article are The Deficit Myth and The Joy of Tax. Both publication's authors raised criticism of their commentary and supposed over simplistic if not childish solutions. For the former book by Stephanie Kelton it got panned not only from economists at Stanford and New York universities but even the chief economist of the European Central Bank gave a negative review. On the latter book by the aforementioned Richard Murphy even the shadow chancellor at the time described it as '...left a lot to be desired on macroeconomic policy'.

Well the country must be doing something right considering it's still the fourth largest exporter in the world. The OEC says our biggest ones are gold, cars, petroleum and medicine. By the way, we must be making some cars here Anna given we exported vehicles to the tune of £2.6 billion. You do realise that our economy is not simply based on company profits. Have you stopped to think for a second about all the materials that come into the country, all of the outside suppliers that make money off those big businesses, all of the hundreds of thousands of employees who get salary who then pay tax and spend in our country. What about all the other taxes and charges and fees that companies have to face to export their products. How about our non physical economy. I know you think bankers and stockbtokers as bogeyman number one but you also might like to know that London has recently over taken New York to become the biggest financial centre in the world. Its reported the sector has had over 68% increase a foreign investment amounting to over 2 billion with new financial tech companies, investment banks and other white collar sectors opening premises creating over 15,000 jobs. There's been a decrease in the amount of office vacancies in the capital and over £4.2 trillion asset management for overseas clients. That in turn then creates a whole other type of growth outside the capital for our ever growing service sector and management sector. IT development, hosting and processing services, technical administration, legal and regulatory services..... The world of "industry" and what we "manufacture" for the world has evolved Anna. It is not all simply steel works and coal mines any more.

Well the country must be doing something right considering it's still the fourth largest exporter in the world. The OEC says our biggest ones are gold, cars, petroleum and medicine. By the way, we must be making some cars here Anna given we exported vehicles to the tune of £2.6 billion. You do also read as the conga may doesn't just work on company profits for stop. Have you stopped to think for a time you second about the fact that all the materials that come into the country, all of the outside suppliers that make money off those big businesses? All of the hundreds of thousands of employees they give salary to who then pay tax. And what about all the other taxes and charges that companies have to face. I know you think bankers and stockbtokers as bogeyman number one but you also might like to know that London how's recently over taken New York to become the biggest fan anxial centre in the world. Its reported the sector has had over 68% increase a foreign investment amounting to over 2 billion with new financial tech companies. Investment vans opening premises creating over 15,000 jobs. There's being a decrease in the amount of office vacancies in the capital. Then of the 4.2 trillion asset management for overseas clients. The world of "industry" and what we "manufacture" for the world has evolved Anna. It is not all simply steel works and coal mines any more.

Only skim read the article but seems the writer and the original book he cribbed from both have the economics of a 5-year-old child. Yes let's just create more money out of thin air. Let's just print more notes and give everyone £1m. Budgets are just a big myth to keep the poles in their place blah blah. Why didn't no one think of that before. What could possibly go wrong 🙄 I note the article's author describes himself as a "storyteller and civic journalist". Well he's a storyteller alright....... Bloody fairy tales.

Again with this "should" be funded properly I'd say it's reasonable for it to be questioned WHY should they be funded. Is there actually demand for them? Do they actually get used on a sufficiently regular basis? Do they offer the facility required by a modern day society? Do they actually have any footfall? With all the technology and all the changes and evolution of the way people learn and study and research do they actually serve a purpose? We now have access to a world of information, instant communication and even broadcast at the click of a button from a slimline shiny device in our pocket. If libraries are not providing an essential service they won't stick. Its clear their footfall is significantly dwindling. So like all things, the question arises whether the money is better spent somewhere else. Even more when it's taxpayer money. You always seem to find change as a negative. I'd argue that many "young people" these days have better education, better opportunities, and, in many cases, far better lifestyles than their predecessors. I think back to my own youth and that of my parents. Most of them were expected to be out of school at 15 and getting on with work. For the females with a young family that was normally restricted to pretty much 3-4 jobs. If you were female and wanted to be anything other than shop girl, secretary, operator or nurse - tough luck. The boys took priority. You were expected to be behind the kitchen sink and getting dinner on the table ready for the mans arrival home. There was no 12 months paternity rights, no flex time, no agile working or working from home, there was limited support or no meal vouchers or food banks. If you were poor you just got on with it. If you were running skint that week, you made the bread and dripping stretch even further. You gave smaller portions and coped clinging on until next payday. When they never never man came around you robbed peter to pay Paul, that was no credit cards or 0% finance or Klana to treat yourself with. That was the reality. Young people today have been brought into a globalised world, many of them getting a solid start inheriting property or money from their hardworking scrimping and saving predecessors. They have education to 18 years old, almost universal access to university, a minimum wage, grants and top ups to help with childcare or low income or housing, information on tap and communication across the planet at the click of a button. They have an abundance of low credit, drip feed payments, online marketplaces, voucher programs, discount stores, megacorp warehouses offering a range of goods and appliances at relative prices the likes of which their predecessors could only dream of. For those prepared to seek out the opportunities, they can advance their careers, retrain and develop into whatever field their choose. They can work remotely, work abroad, seek out the globalisation and shrinking of the planet. We've gone from a time where going abroad was for the top elitist 1% and now it's almost as easy and cheap as getting a bus. We've gone from a time of communal wash houses and outside bogs to even the most basic of so-called 'poverty accommodation' having central heating, fully fitted facilities and a range of modern appliances. Times change and state run facilities like libraries need to change with them. Just like banks, bricks and mortar retail and telephone boxes, you move with the times or become obsolete. I don't want to see my tax monies propping up an obsolete facility laying empty most of the week except for a handful of pensioners popping in for a chat with the librarian whilst changing their books. If people want to keep it running as a niche voluntary led facility that's fine. However if you expecting vast amount of taxpayer money for it, it has to have a purpose and use.

Did anyone actually make comments and engage during the public proposals? Is anyone going to be attending the public hearings to raise questions or submissions? .....or are they just going to do nothing and then sit whinging and crying about it all on here. Waaaa why don't the public ever get a say. Waaaa why don't they do what the taxpayers ever want Waaaa it's not real democracy.

Yet, when Sainsbury's and Primark have done something similar - it's made national press with everyone has being "outraged" and "furious" and "hitting back" complaining they are being treated like criminals, making life harder and declaring it entrapment. Seems a pattern here. The stores can't win no matter what they do to try and prevent theft. That was outrage when stores increased security presence. There was outrage when they installed CCTV There was outrage when stores installed barriers. There was outrage when stores put security tags on lower value products. There was outrage when stores mandated receipts for all transactions. There was outrage when certain products were locked in cabinets requiring assistants to open. There was outrage when stores try to use RFID tags. There was outrage when they tried using facial recognition technology.

Going after the big boys and the professional shoplifting gangs, doing it to order requires input from other agencies far outside the remit of some security guards in the doorway. The shops themselves can only do so much and besides that's no reason for them to be stopping pursuit of the lower level so called 'soft target' shoplifters anyway. I don't disagree that more action needs to be taken properly to stop what seems to be a epidemic of shop theft. However, it requires action from the police force who are actually prepared to take the time and spend the funds to deal with these things, it requires a CPS to have the enthusiasm, budget and balls to actually prosecute shoplifting properly, it requires a government to bring in stronger laws and sentencing for people convicted of such an offence, particular serial offenders. It also requires quite a lot of the wider general public to stop treating it as some trivial issue and see it for what it is, theft. There needs to be far less of 'oh well it's only a £1 pack of chips' or 'everyone sneaks stuff through' or 'who cares since the shops are ripping us off anyway' or 'serves them right for bringing in self-checkouts' or excuse making nonsense like 'its the cost of living crisis' or 'they're only stealing to feed their family'...

Perhaps not. But it all helps even if it just stops the 'unprofessional' ones and or the chancers trying their luck or the "absent minded" who "totally innocently" pack three t-shirts but only get one scanned or those at the self checkout who press plain bread roll for a luxury chocolate muffin or those who just happen to "forget" to put the pack of batteries in their basket instead it falls into their shopping bag. There is little denying that shoplifting is rife right now. Its seeing it's biggest increase for decades. It's only right that retailers bring action to protect their assets because after all it's us consumers that end up paying more when stolen or underpaid items are flying off the shelves.

Yes, applying your slightly exaggerated and unlikely scenario, I probably would be a bit bothered about it. However, getting red faced on the odd occasion is very different to playing victim feeling 'insulted' by a guard doing their job and boycotting an entire retail chain. That, as I keep maintaining, in my opinion, is an overreaction.

Fine. So that comes back to the question. Why is it any different to what happens with random checks to personal bags made by security staff when going into some entertainment venues or some tourist attractions venues or entering some office buildings or being picked out by airport customs. Surely all has the same level of embarrassment or not. Does that mean it's a reasonable and proportionate reaction for people to also boycott those venues. Personally, I don't think it is.

But the main topic on the discussion here is shopping bags. I'm sorry but I just don't get it. If someone can hold their embarrassment enough to be purchasing, let's call them intimate products, from a shop, select them from the shelves, walk around with them in their basket or trolley, whilst under constant surveillance and filming from cameras, giving them to an assistant at the till......how is that any more or less embarrassing than a security guard asking to see a receipt and having a quick check in a bag on exiting. Do they really think the security guard is going to care. Do they think the security guard is going to call them out in front of everyone laughing and pointing about the fact they've got femfresh or jumbo pack of condoms or pile cream in their bag.