Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

General Election 2017



S

Soulman

New member
Oct 22, 2012
10,966
Sompting
The Birdman said:
Who did the figures Diane Abbot :facepalm:
Click to expand...

Get your money on a win double, Abbott and McDonnell, bothh having a stab at it.

"John McDonnell has been accused of Googling the deficit figure in a radio interview with Nick Robinson, after he apparently quoted old information contained on Wikipedia rather than the most recent figure.
When asked what the national deficit was, the Shadow Chancellor said it was £70bn, the figure given on Wikipedia.
However, it appears he got it wrong by £18bn; the deficit is in fact around £52bn, and it appeared he was quoting the 2015-16 figure.
He was being questioned on the Radio 4 Today programme ahead of Labour's manifesto launch later today.
Rustling heard during the interview led host Robinson to ask McDonnell if a colleague passed him a note to help him with the question.


Nick Robinson asked: "What is Britain’s deficit at the moment, Mr McDonnell?"

He replied: “If I can say to you…If I can say to you that what’s happened as well in terms of day to day expenditure, we need the investment… we need the investment… we need the investment…”

The BBC presenter repeated the question, and the Shadow Chancellor paused and stuttered again, and ruffling could be heard.
Challenging him, Mr Robinson asked: "Is somebody passing you a piece of paper?"
Mr McDonnell laughed, replying "Not at all".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...t-getting-figure-wrong/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw
 




Silk

Silk

New member
May 4, 2012
2,488
Uckfield
catfish said:
What I find really galling is the bonanza enjoyed by the outsourcing companies who do the assessments. Each time they carry out one of these assessments they recieve a fee. I've already been declared
unfit for work twice by ATOS and face yet another assessment later this year. My condition is incurable & gradually getting worse yet these tossers are cashing in on me.
Click to expand...
This harassment of disabled people for profit is sickening. My wife has to go through it as well. It's absolutely dreadful, being regularly interrogated as if you are a criminal.
 


Silk

Silk

New member
May 4, 2012
2,488
Uckfield
Big G said:
Oh come on...we all know Corbyn is an IRA sympathiser and even arrested at an IRA sympathy protest in 1986!
And you believe this person should be running the country???
Don't bother with the he just had contact with them rubbish...he sympathises with an organisation that murders British people!
Click to expand...
You appear to sympathise with an organisation that murdered Irish people. It's history​. 30 years ago!

Around the time we had 3.5 million unemployed under the Tories, by the way.
 


Scotchegg

Scotchegg

Well-known member
Sep 1, 2014
313
Brighton
Analysis of tory Facebook ads sites that 10 out of 10 are straight attacks on corbyn. Still no policy. Maybot being forced to talk to the plebs and its going about as well as the campaign staff feared. Their entire campaign is essentially a soundbite.

Meanwhile, borrowing is up, inflation is up, tories missed every single target they ever set themselves on the budget. The vulnerable are suffering.

But but but corbyn had a chat with the IRA 30 years ago! Clearly he's unfit to do the job!
 






S

Soulman

New member
Oct 22, 2012
10,966
Sompting
Silk said:
Around the time we had 3.5 million unemployed under the Tories, by the way.
Click to expand...

"My right hon. Friend is factually correct: every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they came to office."

David Cameron, Prime Minister's Questions, 2 April 2014

"No Labour government has ever left office with unemployment lower than when it started, despite the name of the party."
https://fullfact.org/economy/has-labour-ever-left-office-lower-unemployment-it-started/
 


Silk

Silk

New member
May 4, 2012
2,488
Uckfield






Buzzer

Buzzer

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121


Silk

Silk

New member
May 4, 2012
2,488
Uckfield
Buzzer said:
Not really. Surely it's an indicator that the DWP should get it right first time so that if cases get referred it proves that they've done due diligence.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Deciding in advance how many cases should "go your way" and not taking each case on its own merits is hardly "due diligence", is it?

Sent from my F5121 using Tapatalk
 


Buzzer

Buzzer

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121
Silk said:
What are you talking about? Deciding in advance how many cases should "go your way" and not taking each case on its own merits is hardly "due diligence", is it?

Sent from my F5121 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yes it is. I don't read it as putting pressure on reviewers to fix cases but that the pressure is on the people making the original decision to have got it right in the first place and if less than 80% that are referred prove to be upheld then the department that had failed is the originator NOT those reviewing.
 




deletebeepbeepbeep

deletebeepbeepbeep

Well-known member
May 12, 2009
20,959
Buzzer said:
Not really. Surely it's an indicator that the DWP should get it right first time so that if cases get referred it proves that they've done due diligence.
Click to expand...

So you think that its acceptable for it to be necessary that people, rather than go to an independent tribunal, need to apply for reconsideration to the same department that is incetivised as a key performance indicator to uphold 80% of its cases.

That doesn't seen unfair to you?
 


Silk

Silk

New member
May 4, 2012
2,488
Uckfield
Buzzer said:
Yes it is. I don't read it as putting pressure on reviewers to fix cases but that the pressure is on the people making the original decision to have got it right in the first place and if less than 80% that are referred prove to be upheld then the department that had failed is the originator NOT those reviewing.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on what internal pressures are brought to bear. The trouble is, a performance indicator can very easily turn into a target.
 


Buzzer

Buzzer

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121
deletebeepbeepbeep said:
So you think that its acceptable for it to be necessary that people, rather than go to an independent tribunal, need to apply for reconsideration to the same department that is incetivised as a key performance indicator to uphold 80% of its cases.

That doesn't seen unfair to you?
Click to expand...
I haven't said that at all.

Quite simply, the DWP wants to get its decisions made as accurate as possible so that if a case is referred that there's a greater than 80% chance that the DWP got it right first time.

Its pretty standard for these types of performance indicators to exist in customer service departments. And as I've said, it's a target set for those who made the original decision to try to get it right first time.

No-one is fixing the right to review, no-one is fixing the review decision. Surely by putting pressure on getting the result right first time, those DWP customers are getting a better service.

You're getting upset over nothing here.
 




Buzzer

Buzzer

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121
Silk said:
I guess it depends on what internal pressures are brought to bear. The trouble is, a performance indicator can very easily turn into a target.
Click to expand...
And if it is then good. I want at least 80% of DWP decisions to be right first time. And I want that target to keep increasing so that no-one suffers needlessly.
 


Silk

Silk

New member
May 4, 2012
2,488
Uckfield
Buzzer said:
And if it is then good. I want at least 80% of DWP decisions to be right first time. And I want that target to keep increasing so that no-one suffers needlessly.
Click to expand...
A target would be bad, because the 80% would have to be met, whether those 80% were correct decisions or not. The result would be wrong decisions being upheld!
 


Buzzer

Buzzer

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121
Silk said:
A target would be bad, because the 80% would have to be met, whether those 80% were correct decisions or not. The result would be wrong decisions being upheld!
Click to expand...
Once again... The target is not set for those making the reviews, it's for those who made the original decision.

If reviewers get less than 80% the fault is with the originators NOT the reviewers.

If a school sets a target that each class should have 80% passing an exam then the pressure is on the teachers to hit those targets, not the examiners to fix the results to get 80%.
 


jonny.rainbow

jonny.rainbow

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2005
6,607
Soulman said:
"My right hon. Friend is factually correct: every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they came to office."

David Cameron, Prime Minister's Questions, 2 April 2014

"No Labour government has ever left office with unemployment lower than when it started, despite the name of the party."
https://fullfact.org/economy/has-labour-ever-left-office-lower-unemployment-it-started/
Click to expand...

History also tells us that if you want a budget surplus, vote Labour.

The Tories have proven their economic plan repeatedly fails.

image.png
 






Silk

Silk

New member
May 4, 2012
2,488
Uckfield
Buzzer said:
Once again... The target is not set for those making the reviews, it's for those who made the original decision.

If reviewers get less than 80% the fault is with the originators NOT the reviewers.

If a school sets a target that each class should have 80% passing an exam then the pressure is on the teachers to hit those targets, not the examiners to fix the results to get 80%.
Click to expand...
No, the 80% is for cases going to mandatory reconsideration.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here