RugbyRebels

Perhaps rebrand it but virtually all political hues agree the overarching policy is a good one. It’s getting to the point where no govt will ever attempt a large overhaul of any system and instead mend and make do with the current, badly flawed situation. That is no way to run anything, let alone a country.

Mellsblue wrote:Perhaps rebrand it but virtually all political hues agree the overarching policy is a good one. It’s getting to the point where no govt will ever attempt a large overhaul of any system and instead mend and make do with the current, badly flawed situation. That is no way to run anything, let alone a country.

I agree with many of the ideas of UC. But they don't get a free pass on the years of delays in implementation, going way over budget on the planning and implementation, nor lousing up much of what has been rolled out

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Perhaps rebrand it but virtually all political hues agree the overarching policy is a good one. It’s getting to the point where no govt will ever attempt a large overhaul of any system and instead mend and make do with the current, badly flawed situation. That is no way to run anything, let alone a country.

I agree with many of the ideas of UC. But they don't get a free pass on the years of delays in implementation, going way over budget on the planning and implementation, nor lousing up much of what has been rolled out

I agree they shouldn’t get a free pass but we’re in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water. It’s an extremely difficult project with some basic, fundamental flaws that need sorting, but you don’t rollout something like this without issues. I can’t think of many, if any, govt projects of this scale that run to time or budget. To expect perfect delivery on something of this scale is ridiculous, as depressing as it is that it’s so negatively affecting peoples lives. It’s not as if you can just blame this (hapless) administration. These sorts of projects have failed to deliver via many different administrations, even ones you’d label as competent.
I’ll stick with the fact that no govt will ever go near anything on this scale within a generation if the govt are forced to ditch it. It won’t be worth the political capital to even attempt anything this radical and we’ll be stuck with aging systems and infrastructure for another 30 years. The NHS will still use fax machines, docs will still illegally use their private phones and tablets to look at medical notes etc etc
Hopefully, they’ll fully fund it - another cock up from Teflon Osborne - and sort out front end payments and we’ll all benefit from it in five years.

If they're going to fund it properly and fund the NHS and austerity is over they really should be gearing up to raise taxes, that lot is 2-3p on income tax easily. Or I suppose they could go with Comrade Corbyn and just borrow more

And yes they're getting a lot of grief from many for even having the idea of UC, but equally many like me are slating the implementation rather than the concept. And saying it's hard isn't a defence, it's supposed to be hard at cabinet level, that's why you don't want talent free muppets like Grayling in cabinet

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Perhaps rebrand it but virtually all political hues agree the overarching policy is a good one. It’s getting to the point where no govt will ever attempt a large overhaul of any system and instead mend and make do with the current, badly flawed situation. That is no way to run anything, let alone a country.

I agree with many of the ideas of UC. But they don't get a free pass on the years of delays in implementation, going way over budget on the planning and implementation, nor lousing up much of what has been rolled out

I agree they shouldn’t get a free pass but we’re in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water. It’s an extremely difficult project with some basic, fundamental flaws that need sorting, but you don’t rollout something like this without issues. I can’t think of many, if any, govt projects of this scale that run to time or budget. To expect perfect delivery on something of this scale is ridiculous, as depressing as it is that it’s so negatively affecting peoples lives. It’s not as if you can just blame this (hapless) administration. These sorts of projects have failed to deliver via many different administrations, even ones you’d label as competent.
I’ll stick with the fact that no govt will ever go near anything on this scale within a generation if the govt are forced to ditch it. It won’t be worth the political capital to even attempt anything this radical and we’ll be stuck with aging systems and infrastructure for another 30 years. The NHS will still use fax machines, docs will still illegally use their private phones and tablets to look at medical notes etc etc
Hopefully, they’ll fully fund it - another cock up from Teflon Osborne - and sort out front end payments and we’ll all benefit from it in five years.

But it's that exact certainty that the project would encounter difficulties that shows the government should have put safeguards in place to enable issues to be fixed either on the fly or in a more timely manner.

Digby wrote:If they're going to fund it properly and fund the NHS and austerity is over they really should be gearing up to raise taxes, that lot is 2-3p on income tax easily. Or I suppose they could go with Comrade Corbyn and just borrow more

And yes they're getting a lot of grief from many for even having the idea of UC, but equally many like me are slating the implementation rather than the concept. And saying it's hard isn't a defence, it's supposed to be hard at cabinet level, that's why you don't want talent free muppets like Grayling in cabinet

I believe they are gearing up to raise taxes or, at least, not cut them and to let inflation and increased earnings work their magic. Liz Truss has been locked in a closet, without her phone.

Yes it’s hard and yes there are some muppets, but it’s always going to be hard and even those we don’t think are muppets struggle with it.
By all means moan on here like a lethargic Rowan but if we all moan too much and we all expect perfection we’ll be forever stuck with failing, antiquated systems and infrastructure which we will moan that they aren’t trying to fix. UC is very close (relatively) to being a success let’s see it through. I know I say that as someone not relying on benefit payments.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
I agree with many of the ideas of UC. But they don't get a free pass on the years of delays in implementation, going way over budget on the planning and implementation, nor lousing up much of what has been rolled out

I agree they shouldn’t get a free pass but we’re in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water. It’s an extremely difficult project with some basic, fundamental flaws that need sorting, but you don’t rollout something like this without issues. I can’t think of many, if any, govt projects of this scale that run to time or budget. To expect perfect delivery on something of this scale is ridiculous, as depressing as it is that it’s so negatively affecting peoples lives. It’s not as if you can just blame this (hapless) administration. These sorts of projects have failed to deliver via many different administrations, even ones you’d label as competent.
I’ll stick with the fact that no govt will ever go near anything on this scale within a generation if the govt are forced to ditch it. It won’t be worth the political capital to even attempt anything this radical and we’ll be stuck with aging systems and infrastructure for another 30 years. The NHS will still use fax machines, docs will still illegally use their private phones and tablets to look at medical notes etc etc
Hopefully, they’ll fully fund it - another cock up from Teflon Osborne - and sort out front end payments and we’ll all benefit from it in five years.

But it's that exact certainty that the project would encounter difficulties that shows the government should have put safeguards in place to enable issues to be fixed either on the fly or in a more timely manner.

Wholly agree. I’m just concerned we’re getting to the point that we are going to ditch what is pretty much universally thought of as a good idea.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I agree they shouldn’t get a free pass but we’re in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water. It’s an extremely difficult project with some basic, fundamental flaws that need sorting, but you don’t rollout something like this without issues. I can’t think of many, if any, govt projects of this scale that run to time or budget. To expect perfect delivery on something of this scale is ridiculous, as depressing as it is that it’s so negatively affecting peoples lives. It’s not as if you can just blame this (hapless) administration. These sorts of projects have failed to deliver via many different administrations, even ones you’d label as competent.
I’ll stick with the fact that no govt will ever go near anything on this scale within a generation if the govt are forced to ditch it. It won’t be worth the political capital to even attempt anything this radical and we’ll be stuck with aging systems and infrastructure for another 30 years. The NHS will still use fax machines, docs will still illegally use their private phones and tablets to look at medical notes etc etc
Hopefully, they’ll fully fund it - another cock up from Teflon Osborne - and sort out front end payments and we’ll all benefit from it in five years.

But it's that exact certainty that the project would encounter difficulties that shows the government should have put safeguards in place to enable issues to be fixed either on the fly or in a more timely manner.

Wholly agree. I’m just concerned we’re getting to the point that we are going to ditch what is pretty much universally thought of as a good idea.

There is always a worry of that when policies become tainted with the "bad" brush...

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:If they're going to fund it properly and fund the NHS and austerity is over they really should be gearing up to raise taxes, that lot is 2-3p on income tax easily. Or I suppose they could go with Comrade Corbyn and just borrow more

And yes they're getting a lot of grief from many for even having the idea of UC, but equally many like me are slating the implementation rather than the concept. And saying it's hard isn't a defence, it's supposed to be hard at cabinet level, that's why you don't want talent free muppets like Grayling in cabinet

I believe they are gearing up to raise taxes or, at least, not cut them and to let inflation and increased earnings work their magic. Liz Truss has been locked in a closet, without her phone.

Yes it’s hard and yes there are some muppets, but it’s always going to be hard and even those we don’t think are muppets struggle with it.
By all means moan on here like a lethargic Rowan but if we all moan too much and we all expect perfection we’ll be forever stuck with failing, antiquated systems and infrastructure which we will moan that they aren’t trying to fix. UC is very close (relatively) to being a success let’s see it through. I know I say that as someone not relying on benefit payments.

How is it close to being a success, it could be if they can figure out how to make it work and have it properly funded, but as of today?

And I'm not looking for perfection, in this instance they got carried away too early with an idea that wasn't properly thought through and rather than having caution cited some absurd potential efficiency savings and ploughed ahead far too quickly even if they're also years behind schedule

Increased earnings, have they heard about Brexit I wonder?

Digby wrote:Increased earnings, have they heard about Brexit I wonder?

Ah. The Brexit vortex.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:If they're going to fund it properly and fund the NHS and austerity is over they really should be gearing up to raise taxes, that lot is 2-3p on income tax easily. Or I suppose they could go with Comrade Corbyn and just borrow more

And yes they're getting a lot of grief from many for even having the idea of UC, but equally many like me are slating the implementation rather than the concept. And saying it's hard isn't a defence, it's supposed to be hard at cabinet level, that's why you don't want talent free muppets like Grayling in cabinet

I believe they are gearing up to raise taxes or, at least, not cut them and to let inflation and increased earnings work their magic. Liz Truss has been locked in a closet, without her phone.

Yes it’s hard and yes there are some muppets, but it’s always going to be hard and even those we don’t think are muppets struggle with it.
By all means moan on here like a lethargic Rowan but if we all moan too much and we all expect perfection we’ll be forever stuck with failing, antiquated systems and infrastructure which we will moan that they aren’t trying to fix. UC is very close (relatively) to being a success let’s see it through. I know I say that as someone not relying on benefit payments.

How is it close to being a success, it could be if they can figure out how to make it work and have it properly funded, but as of today?

And I'm not looking for perfection, in this instance they got carried away too early with an idea that wasn't properly thought through and rather than having caution cited some absurd potential efficiency savings and ploughed ahead far too quickly even if they're also years behind schedule

But it does work in the majority of cases, and, yes, they need to work out how to fund but at least that realisation is now there. ****ing Osborne sat at the ES taking potshots whilst everyone is trying to deal with his **** ups.
Maybe they have ploughed ahead too quickly but there is a poster on here who only a few minutes ago was moaning about delays. Which is it to be? Too fast or too slow?

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
But it's that exact certainty that the project would encounter difficulties that shows the government should have put safeguards in place to enable issues to be fixed either on the fly or in a more timely manner.

Wholly agree. I’m just concerned we’re getting to the point that we are going to ditch what is pretty much universally thought of as a good idea.

There is always a worry of that when policies become tainted with the "bad" brush...

Yep. If it’s ditched nobody will touch it in our lifetime and we’ll be stuck with an ineffective and expensive system that is open to fraud, traps people at x amount of hours at work and makes claiming the correct benefits an admin nightmare. We’ll also probably end up tacking on yet more benefits therefore making it even more complicated for both claimant to navigate and govt to administer. Huzzah.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I believe they are gearing up to raise taxes or, at least, not cut them and to let inflation and increased earnings work their magic. Liz Truss has been locked in a closet, without her phone.

Yes it’s hard and yes there are some muppets, but it’s always going to be hard and even those we don’t think are muppets struggle with it.
By all means moan on here like a lethargic Rowan but if we all moan too much and we all expect perfection we’ll be forever stuck with failing, antiquated systems and infrastructure which we will moan that they aren’t trying to fix. UC is very close (relatively) to being a success let’s see it through. I know I say that as someone not relying on benefit payments.

How is it close to being a success, it could be if they can figure out how to make it work and have it properly funded, but as of today?

And I'm not looking for perfection, in this instance they got carried away too early with an idea that wasn't properly thought through and rather than having caution cited some absurd potential efficiency savings and ploughed ahead far too quickly even if they're also years behind schedule

But it does work in the majority of cases, and, yes, they need to work out how to fund but at least that realisation is now there. ****ing Osborne sat at the ES taking potshots whilst everyone is trying to deal with his **** ups.
Maybe they have ploughed ahead too quickly but there is a poster on here who only a few minutes ago was moaning about delays. Which is it to be? Too fast or too slow?

They've over promised and under delivered and I am reasonably imo criticising both failures

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:Increased earnings, have they heard about Brexit I wonder?

Ah. The Brexit vortex.

Hard to ignore if they want to spend more on the NHS and end austerity elsewhere, it'd be like ignoring our aging demographics. So it's either break the manifesto pledge on tax or reduce scope to attack Corby and his magic money tree heading into the next election

There aren't any good choices it would seem, but it's the hand they've been dealt

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:Increased earnings, have they heard about Brexit I wonder?

Ah. The Brexit vortex.

Hard to ignore if they want to spend more on the NHS and end austerity elsewhere, it'd be like ignoring our aging demographics. So it's either break the manifesto pledge on tax or reduce scope to attack Corby and his magic money tree heading into the next election

There aren't any good choices it would seem, but it's the hand they've been dealt

At present we could be anywhere from a full CU for the next 10 years, EFTA/EEA, Canada ++ or WTO. All of which have widely different outcomes. If the NI border can be fudged and we stay in the CU until we can come up with a way of reconciling a FTA with the GFA then Brexit should have little drag on the economy, if any.
Even if you disagree, that’s an impressive amount of an acronyms to cram in to such a short paragraph.
As for aging demographics, there’s another thing nobody dares touch as it’ll expend too much political capital.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Ah. The Brexit vortex.

Hard to ignore if they want to spend more on the NHS and end austerity elsewhere, it'd be like ignoring our aging demographics. So it's either break the manifesto pledge on tax or reduce scope to attack Corby and his magic money tree heading into the next election

There aren't any good choices it would seem, but it's the hand they've been dealt

At present we could be anywhere from a full CU for the next 10 years, EFTA/EEA, Canada ++ or WTO. All of which have widely different outcomes. If the NI border can be fudged and we stay in the CU until we can come up with a way of reconciling a FTA with the GFA then Brexit should have little drag on the economy, if any.
Even if you disagree, that’s an impressive amount of an acronyms to cram in to such a short paragraph.
As for aging demographics, there’s another thing nobody dares touch as it’ll expend too much political capital.

I suspect you're merely trying to annoy me there, those aren't acronyms, at least it annoys me less than politicians ignoring demographics and thus knowingly working from ill conceived budgets

Vicious rumours that the threshold of letters to trigger an Conservative leadership election has been passed. In wholly unrelated news, Jonny Mercer is on manoeuvres.

Odd if enough letters have been received as May looks well set to win any challenge

IIRC, which I probably don’t, Maggie survived the initial challenge but died shortly after of the wounds inflicted.

True, but seemingly May will do far better than Maggie, partly brexit, partly the spectacularly poor language over the weekend and partly who else?

And it's really only a one time threat to May

They can be unpredictable beasts. Who’d have thought Leadsom would be in the final two last time round, and nobody expected Cameron to win prior to that. If team May were so confident they wouldn’t be working so hard in the background to stop the possibility.

The only reason I assume May cares is people who vote against her now are more likely votes lost for her Chequers deal. or whatever other abomination she lands on

No tricks just treats says the headline in the Sun, or put another way it says please not Corbyn, as really there's very little in the budget beyond steady as she goes. Frankly with brexit still dominating our politics it'd be daft to claim a great shift in vision so to me the budget is in the main reasonable even if there are items I'd like to revisit, but it's nothing to be excited or even that pleased about.

Also worth noting our £20 billion borrowing requirement would be gone but for Brexit, the economy now being so much smaller than it would have been the one third government take would have left us a balanced budget or the chance to invest more. And still neither the Tories nor Labour have a serious economic position on brexit the piss poor bastards

Dont worry lads, all will be well. Just call me Dave wants to come back into Frontline politics

Is there anyone apart from his missus who would vote for him?
Labour or Lib Dems? Nope
Eurosceptic Tories? nope
Pro European tories? nope