[Tubby Isaacs]

This is positive too. Despite the warning, this is the only way that costs will get contained in the right way (by efficiency savings across larger areas, rather than just trying to stop people applying for what they're entitled to),

Warning of £20bn timebomb as Reeves switches Send funding in England to education department
Councils welcome move but OBR says it is a significant fiscal risk and could lead to 4.9% real fall in spending per pupil

[Malcolm Armsteen]

The NEU is already threatening to strike...

[Tubby Isaacs]

Was that their Stop The War leader?

It's possible that someone might notice something we've all missed, but so far the Budget is holding up. Some of the people saying it wouldn't raise any money or that if it would, it would hurt growth, should maybe reflect on that.

[Tubby Isaacs]

This is bollocks. The tax only goes when an international solution is agreed.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I won't be too bothered about this. It's certainly the bit of the bill that I can see an issue with. The rest of it, like most tax rises, business just gets on with it. But in terms of taking on staff, if they see a problem with the bill, then they don't take people on in the first place, and we can't afford that with the trend (since 2014) of young people going NEET.

[The Weeping Angel]

So what have they offered instead?

[Abernathy]

There have apparently been some intensive negotiations by the government with trades unions and employers, with it in mind that the bill has been bounced back from the Lords twice already, with this measure (day one protection from unfair dismissal) apparently the sticking point. Most of the unions are on board, with only Sharon Graham (quelle surprise) kicking off about it. Should mean the legislation gets on the statute book sooner than it otherwise would, with most of its original substance intact.

[Tubby Isaacs]

It is a manifesto promise, in fairness. So there's bound to be a reaction.

[The Weeping Angel]

It is a manifesto promise, in fairness. So there's bound to be a reaction.

There has.

[Abernathy]

Who is this James Austin chap, and why is anything he says worthy of attention ?

[The Weeping Angel]

Why do I have to give a biography every time I post a link?

[Abernathy]

Who is he ? Do you know ?

[The Weeping Angel]

Well, for one thing, Tubbs has linked to him a fair few times, as have I. For another, you could say that about just about anyone online.

[Dalem Lake]

Why do I have to give a biography every time I post a link?

It's not that you have to post a biography but you've got to appreciate that not everyone uses bluesky or X, or cares what some random on there thinks, and as you do post a lot of stuff from there, a bit of context wouldn't go amiss as to why their tuppence-worth is noteworthy.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Well, for one thing, Tubbs has linked to him a fair few times, as have I. For another, you could say that about just about anyone online.

Precisely.

That is exactly the point.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Well, for one thing, Tubbs has linked to him a fair few times, as have I. For another, you could say that about just about anyone online.

Precisely.

That is exactly the point.

See
https://libguides.bham.ac.uk/asc/evaluatinginformation

Modified by me, below.
In this case 'source' can be 'social media post'.

The ABC of Evaluation
Here is a suggested set of questions to ask yourself when making an assessment of any published source of information, not just websites:

A - Authority
Who authored it, and what are his/her/their credentials? Are they affiliated to a university or a research institute? Or newspaper with a definite political stance, or other organisation such as a think tank.

Does the source contain up-to-date references to source materials, particularly to original research or statistics, so that you can check whether the discussion or opinions are based on reliable facts? Is it aimed at a popular audience, or is it more scholarly and reasoned in its approach? What kind of language does it use: is it rhetorical or emotive, and does the author back up his/her/their arguments with appropriate facts and original sources?

B - Bias
Think about the possibility of any bias in the information you have found. Is it possible that the organisation represented by the author or website has a particular standpoint to promote: is it a campaigning or pressure group, a government department, or public information service?

If the source is likely to have a bias, make sure you check any references or links provided, and find some other sources with a contrasting standpoint, preferably from an academic book or journal. It is good practice to use a variety of sources of information so you can compare and contrast different viewpoints on a topic.

C - Currency/Comparison
Check how up-to-date the information is.
Does this information match information or opinions expressed in other sources?

[The Weeping Angel]

Ok, can I apply this to your posts, Malcolm?

[Abernathy]

You’re not looking to re-post any of Malcolm’s posts, are you ?

[The Weeping Angel]

No, but if he posts a link or links to a post, I'd expect him to follow these rules. I would add

1. It was a response to a post about the reaction.

2. I have seen Tubbs link to him, and no one batted an eyelid.

3. He's a Labour Party member who posts on Bluesky, and he is a useful source of information,

4. What he said about it being in the manifesto was true.