Technological advances may change the way we work, but will they affect our attitudes to working, asks Graham Snowdon

How will the world of work have changed by 2020? That was the question I and other attendees were invited to consider at a panel discussion organised by City University's Centre for Performance at Work last night.

Not surprisingly, the relentless advance of technology was at the heart of the debate. One panellist doubted whether large organisations could continue to exist in their current form, and whether they would eventually be replaced by loose networks of workers. Another felt we would come to re-evaluate technology and the usefulness of its demands on our time, and harness it more efficiently to do fewer things better.

Yet another embraced the raw potential of change and access to information as a force for advancement (you can watch the mind-boggling but slightly terrifying presentation he showed us here – I'd like to know where all the stats are from but it is thought-provoking if nothing else).

The thought that stuck with me most, though, was of one panellist who expressed the hope that for more people work would come to be more about personal expression than just paying the bills.

Later at home I switched on the TV to find BBC1 tackling unemployment in two somewhat different ways. First came Famous, Rich and Jobless in which moderately well-known people pretended to be on the dole (why the corporation feels viewers can't understand society's problems without the insight of third-rate celebrities is anyone's guess).

Thankfully, that was followed by Jobless, a beautifully made film by the Bafta-winning documentary maker Brian Woods about ordinary people struggling to cope with redundancy. From the workers and families who occupied a Visteon factory in protest at the brutal axing of their jobs and redundancy pay, to a Scottish journalist cast on the scrapheap and the IT sales manager desperately trying to put a brave face on his lack of opportunities, Jobless painted a simple but powerful picture of the dignity we are ultimately afforded by our work.

It seemed to me that for all the seismic technological and economic changes going on around us, how we actually feel about our work is still crucial. Hopefully we won't lose sight of that in 10 years' time or beyond. Do you agree?

Despite the losses – down to £257m from £1.3bn a year ago – Northern Rock is paying out £15m in bonuses to its staff but chief executive will waive his

More than 22,500 Northern Rock customers – over 4% – have missed monthly mortgage payments, the nationalised mortgage lender admitted today as it reported a sharp fall in losses for last year.

Despite the losses – down to £257m from £1.3bn a year ago – the bank is paying out £15m in bonuses to its staff and will be paying £1.5m to the Treasury to cover the cost of the one-off tax on the payments.

Chief executive Gary Hoffman is waiving his bonus although the bank said a new long-term incentive scheme was being drawn up for the former Barclays executive.

The new scheme for Hoffman will pay out only when the nationalised bank returns to profit or if it can be returned to private hands.

The bank, which was split into a "good" and "bad" operation at the start of the year, actually managed to make a £466m profit in the second half of the year although this was not enough to offset losses in the first half, and charges for impaired loans of £1bn.

The operation reporting today is Northern Rock (Asset Management) plc – technically the "bad" bank. Before it was nationalised, the company specialized in so-called Together loans – allowing customers to borrow more than the value of their home – and this left it a legacy of large customers in arrears.

The company's mortgage arrears rate rose in the first half of 2009 before stabilising in the final quarter of the year by which time residential mortgage accounts over three months in arrears reached 4.28%, compared with 2.92% at 31 December 2008. If Together loans are stripped out, the numbers in arrears fall to 3.10% although this is still higher than the 2.25% at 31 December 2008, which shows that more than 6% of customers with Together mortgages are in arrears.

Hoffman warned of the difficulties ahead. "The outlook for the UK economy remains uncertain. After a contraction in the economy during 2009, with increases in unemployment and house price deflation, conditions appear to have stabilised, but economic recovery is still expected to be relatively weak," Hoffman said.

He said the current low level of interest rates means that loan repayments "remain affordable for those in employment", but said that the company's future performance will be influenced by the timing and extent of increases in rates.

He also admitted that loan loss impairment charges are expected to remain high during 2010, but below the level recorded in 2009.

"It is over two years since Northern Rock entered public ownership. During that time the company has made good progress in pursuit of its objectives that include repayment of state aid, delivering value for taxpayers and ultimately a return to private ownership. We are looking forward, not back, and my colleagues across the business remain committed to delivering a high standard of service for all of our customers. We are on the right trajectory and I am confident that, with the current strong management team in place, we are well positioned to deliver against our objectives in 2010," he added.

The bank, which has permission from the EU to start mortgage lending after reducing its loans in the early months following its nationalization in February 2008, said residential lending stood at £4.2bn in 2009, compared with £2.9bn in 2008. But as a result of the strategy to lend again, the taxpayer has injected more funds into the lender which now owes the taxpayer £22.8bn, up by more than £8bn.

Northern Rock Asset Management has £49.7bn of residential mortgages, as well as £3.9bn of personal unsecured loans.

Following approval for state aid granted by the European commission, the company ceased to offer new lending at the end of 2009. As a result of the restructuring the company also transferred its entire book of retail savings, of £19.5bn, to the new "good" bank, Northern Rock plc, and no longer offers any retail savings products.

Also in the podcast, Tom Clark and Larry Elliott analyse the pros and cons of Germany's plan to introduce an International Monetary Fund for the eurozone. Is the idea for an EMF simply unbelievable (ho ho)?

Finally Nils Pratley, details the viability of the Red Knights as they prepare for battle for control of Manchester United.

Have a listen and post your comments on the blog below, and click here for more details about our live Politics Weekly show in Manchester.

Number of 'phishing' attacks have risen to 51,000 from just 1,700 five years ago, according to the UK Cards Association

The amount of money lost to online banking fraud last year rose by 14%, according to figures released today, despite an overall drop in card fraud losses.

Criminals have switched their attentions from internal bank systems, which are notoriously difficult to attack, to individual household computers, the UK Cards Association said.

Fraudsters are targeting bank customers through email links and attachments. Once consumers click on the links or open the attachments they expose themselves to computer viruses that can detect their keystrokes when they log on to their accounts.

The number of "phishing" attacks, where fraudsters lead customers to fake bank websites via an email that purports to come from their bank, increased by 16% from 2008 to 51,000. This compares to just 1,700 such attacks five years ago.

As a result, online banking losses totalled almost £60m in 2009 compared to £52.5m in 2008 and £23.2m in 2005.

"Fraudsters are now relying on the weakest link in the chain, and that is online banking customers themselves," a spokesman for the UK Cards Association said. "Banks would never approach customers by email asking for their bank details, but people still fall for this scam."

Phone banking losses, which were recorded for the first time in 2009, totalled £12.1m, with most losses involving customers being duped into disclosing security details through cold calling.

Despite the sharp increase in online losses, overall fraud on debit cards and credit cards fell by more than a quarter compared to the previous year – the first time card fraud has decreased since 2006. However, it still costs the industry £440m a year, which is only slightly down on the 2005 figure.

Remote threat

The industry struggled with huge losses in 2007 and 2008 when the amount of money lost to fraud peaked at about £610m. It attributed this to the number of remote transactions not protected by chip and pin, such as internet purchases. This "card not present" fraud still accounts for the biggest chunk of card fraud losses, although they were down 19% last year to £266m.

Card fraud abroad was the other major problem in 2007 and 2008. In an effort to get around chip and pin, which completed its UK roll out in 2006, fraudsters were cloning the magnetic stripe on the back of cards and taking these overseas to countries where chip and pin had not yet been introduced.

In the last year industry initiatives to tackle both these areas have paid dividends. Chip and pin has been introduced by more countries across the world making cloning cards more difficult, while the continuing growth of MasterCard SecureCode and Verified by Visa in the UK has made it harder for fraudsters to shop online with other people's cards.

Banks and building societies have also become more proactive about blocking card transactions abroad. This tactic has not always proved popular with customers, however, who are increasingly finding themselves unable to use their cards abroad because their bank suspects fraudulent use.

Despite all the industry's best efforts, annual plastic card fraud losses are still up £1m from 2005.

"Tackling card fraud is like a rollercoaster with plenty of peaks and troughs," the UK Cards Association spokesman said. "Whatever system we put in place we know criminals won't give up and go and get legitimate jobs. They are always going to target our cards."

Q I am considering buying a second home to rent out as a medium- to long-term investment. I have a £50,000 deposit and do not have a mortgage on my own home. I am looking for a loan of £80,000 for the second property. Am I restricted to buy-to-let mortgages only, or can I utilise other mortgage products which may have better rates to meet my requirements? RE

A No you are not restricted to buy-to-let mortgages. Instead of securing a loan on the second property you could take out a mortgage on your own home, provided it is worth at least £80,000. Doing this is likely to give you access to more competitive interest rates than those available on buy-to-let mortgages. If your home is worth considerably more than £80,000 you will also benefit from better rates because of borrowing a low percentage of the value of your home.

Also, if you were to secure a loan on your own home you would still be able to set the mortgage interest against the rental income from the second property for tax purposes.

In August last year my partner lost his job, but was successful in November at securing another one. How is this likely to affect our chances of securing a mortgage? Despite being first-time buyers we have managed to pull a decent-sized deposit together, but the recent unemployment status of my partner could add a new risk element. SH

A If your partner is still in a trial period with his new employer it will affect your ability to get a mortgage, assuming you want the loan to be based on both your salaries. However, once he has completed any trial period and is confirmed as a permanent member of staff you should have no problem getting a mortgage. And you are right in thinking that having a decent-sized deposit will be a great help too.

Lucy Neville-Rolfe attacks the quality of education received by many of the young Britons recruited by the retailer

A main board director of Tesco will today attack the quality of school-leavers and the standards achieved by A-level students and university graduates.

Lucy Neville-Rolfe, the retailer's director of corporate and legal affairs, says school-leavers have basic problems with literacy and numeracy and that many also have "what you might call an attitude problem". She adds: "They don't seem to understand the importance of a tidy appearance and have problems with timekeeping ... Some seem to think that the world owes them a living."

Neville-Rolfe also says: "There are growing questions over various aspects of our exam system." She adds that grade inflation makes it difficult to identify the highest achievers: "There seems to be a fair amount of evidence now that [exams] are getting easier and failing to stretch people. The proportion of firsts and 2:1s has risen enormously so it's much rarer to get a 2:2 than a first. People who are clever today are achieving the grades of the very clever a couple of decades ago."

Tesco is the largest private sector employer in the country, with 280,000 UK employees, and Neville-Rolfe, 56, is one of the most powerful and well paid women in British business. An Oxford graduate and former civil service high-flyer before joining Tesco, her total pay package last year was more than £1.6m.

Her broadside, in a speech to be delivered at a London conference, is the second time in under six months that Tesco has publicly criticised the education system and the quality of school-leavers. Last October, the grocer's chief executive, Sir Terry Leahy, said: "Despite all the money that has been spent, standards are still woefully low in too many schools. Employers like us ... are often left to pick up the pieces."

His comments were echoed by Richard Lambert, director general of the CBI, which represents business leaders and by Sir Stuart Rose, chairman of Marks & Spencer. Rose said millions of school-leavers were unfit for work because: "They cannot do reading. They cannot do arithmetic. They cannot do writing." Lambert said the education system was failing poorer children and producing "exam results we ought to be ashamed of".

Neville-Rolfe, says part of the problem is that there are too many agencies and oversight bodies and too much paperwork: "Our education system seems very complicated to me. I would guess that the paperwork mountain with which teachers have to struggle is even worse than the red tape we face in business. There are lots of agencies and bodies, often issuing reams of instructions to teachers. It isn't surprising if teachers sometimes get distracted from the most important task at hand: teaching children well in the classroom."

She says Tesco store managers are the "equivalent of a headteacher in a school" and that senior supermarket staff would make good school governors.

Heads should also be given more power and rewarded better. "Why don't we give heads and teachers more freedom to take responsibility and use their professional judgment?"

She also points to wider problems among the young and their attitudes to work, authority and discipline: "The truth is that a certain humility and an ability to work hard are important for success ... More broadly, a society where people don't feel the need to work to gain material possessions will not be a stable or successful society."

In her speech to the Institute of Grocery Distribution's conference on skills, she says that education "is set to be an important point of debate at the general election" and that the supermarket industry should come up with a "manifesto for education and skills which we can give to whoever wins".

The government and teaching unions have repeatedly dismissed the attacks by business leaders on educational standards, pointing out that they have never been higher.

Documentary on rebels siphoning cash sparks fury, with legal action threatened and sackings demanded

Bob Geldof has launched a furious attack on the BBC World Service over its claim that 95% of the $100m aid raised to fight famine in northern Ethiopia was diverted by rebels and spent on weapons.

Writing in today's Guardian, the musician and mastermind of the 1985 Live Aid concerts accuses the World Service of a "total collapse of standards and systems", threatens it with legal action and calls for the sacking of the reporter behind the story, his editor and the head of the World Service, Peter Horrocks.

Geldof also uses the Guardian's Comment is Free website to lash out at the journalist Rageh Omaar for penning a "ridiculous" opinion piece for the site on Monday in which the former BBC correspondent defended the corporation's story and its right to investigate the fate of millions of pounds of aid money.

The row began last week when the World Service broadcast an Assignment programme in which a former Ethiopian rebel commander claimed that in 1985, only 5% of the $100m destined for famine relief in the northern province of Tigray reached the hungry.

The report, by the World Service's Africa editor, Martin Plaut, also carried an allegation from another former rebel that the Tigrayan People's Liberation Front had tricked aid workers into giving them money meant to buy food for the starving.

Geldof and the Band Aid Trust are talking to some of the world's biggest charities – including Oxfam, Unicef, the Red Cross, Christian Aid and Save the Children – about reporting the BBC to the broadcasting watchdog Ofcom and the corporation's governing body, the BBC Trust.

But Geldof has now announced his intention to go further.

"We will also take a view on what, if any, legal action we may take both against the journalist in question and the World Service in general," he writes. "Martin Plaut, [the BBC World Service news and current affairs editor] Andrew Whitehead and Peter Horrocks should be fired. There should be an immediate investigation into what went wrong, steps should be taken to rectify the identified faults and the World Service must work very, very hard to re-establish its trust and hard-won reputation as the world broadcaster of excellence."

In his article, Omaar had argued that while the interplay of politics and aid was complicated, the BBC felt it had uncovered "credible evidence" during a nine-month investigation and was entitled to broadcast its findings.

He added: "As a Somali, looking at what happened in my country during the US-led humanitarian intervention in 1992 and what is happening today, what I find unacceptable is that a humanitarian operation can be elevated to the status of being above criticism."

Geldof, however, has hit back at Omaar – and the media as a whole – for continuing to cover the allegations, which he insists are baseless.

"How can you deign to lecture on being above criticism, prompted by the criticism I meted out last weekend to your incompetent mate and his associates at the Beeb, while falling back on the implied assumption that you and by extension all journalists, are above the criticism yourselves? Get it straight, pal – you are not. Either as individuals or an organisation. It's about time a little more humility was allowed into your closed, self-regarding media world. But like the bankers and the MPs these days, you lot just don't get it, do you?

He also asks Omaar why Plaut's allegations have only now surfaced.

"Band Aid has been under the most intensive scrutiny since and most particularly during the mid-80s. Quite rightly too. Pretty weird, however, that not a single one of the dozens of journalists who have travelled with me or covered Band Aid 'discovered' Martin Plaut's 'story'."

A BBC spokesman said the World Service would continue to defend its report.

"This was a well-researched programme and the BBC stands by its journalism," he said. "We are happy to repeat that there is no suggestion that any relief agency was complicit in any diversion of funds".

However, a senior BBC source told the Guardian that there was concern about the amount of criticism that "a relatively obscure documentary [which] didn't even mention Band Aid" had attracted. He said: "We are concerned we are going to come under fire. We hear from sensible people in the aid business that 'of course money went missing – we are just concerned about the 95% figure' [but] Bob Geldof's exaggeration that 'not a penny went missing' looks ridiculous to us".