I have a better understanding now. I guess my layman's point is businesses who make ££££ profit could reasonably be expected to pay their workforce more, removing the need to cut workers taxes or pay UC. Is that naive? I get it can't be a blanket approach given variables (size of co., local factors)

Sorry for being an economically illiterate BS, but I’m not an economist. I’m just a regular voter who is saying what I see. I might be way off the mark, but if the gov have to subsidise ppl who are in work , isn’t that a point to be addressed? Happy to be educated

If people who are in work are also receiving benefits to make ends meet, the benefits system is subsidising the corporates, not the people. A fact that seems under-reported.

Gosh, that’s taken us all by surprise 😮

Luckily those of us who were listening/watching at home, had no such dilemma. I was repeatedly shouting at the TV 🤬🤬🤬

Genuinely bemused … many (not all) ppl who were soundly voted out at the GE, now thinking if they switch parties we won’t notice that it was on their (previous) watch. Lab have serious issues, but 14 yrs can’t be turned round in 18months!

An apology made after pressure to do so, isn't really an authentic apology, is it.

#mysteryhour there was a question on Padel bats which morphed into other bats, and their level of danger!

Disagree. There seems to be an assumption that they are dealing with a rational actor in the WH. No-one has any influence, and even if they did today, that position could change tomorrow. We appear to be way past any normal diplomatic norms.

Surprised it’s taken this long for this connection to surface.

I had an involuntary verbal outburst 😂 just why?!?