Interesting that you cut off his quote at that point..
Was just interested in the business point.
Considering the vast majority of business owners are small businesses/sole traders etc and the way a lot of self employed were hung out to dry by the last labour government (after all, they are the party of the employed working man traditionally) makes me think similarly to colt. Big businesses like banks did well under labour (as they did under the Tories before). And we all know how that turned out.
Not sure what you mean by "hung out to dry" but a lot of smaller businesses did just fine under the last Labour government as well.
In fact I don't recall there being too much discussion around the economy full stop back around the turn of the century when things were going well in general terms and we were runnng a budgetary surplus.
I think he was referring to the period after that, when Labour ran a budget deficit and we had a high number of liquidations, administrations and most people in the country were scared of losing their job
From today's Labour manifesto - I think it's a long-winded way of saying they want fans on the board:
Football clubs are an important part of many people’s identity and sense of belonging. They are more than just businesses. But despite their importance in the lives of their members and supporters, too often there are no effective means for fans to have a say in how their clubs are run. Labour will provide the means for supporters to be a genuine part of their clubs. We will introduce legislation to enable accredited supporters trusts to appoint and remove at least two of the directors of a football club and to purchase shares when the club changes hands. We will also review the role of fan participation in other sports.
We will ensure the Premier League delivers on its promise to invest five per cent of its domestic and international television rights income into funding the grassroots.
Interesting that you cut off his quote at that point..
Was just interested in the business point.
Considering the vast majority of business owners are small businesses/sole traders etc and the way a lot of self employed were hung out to dry by the last labour government (after all, they are the party of the employed working man traditionally) makes me think similarly to colt. Big businesses like banks did well under labour (as they did under the Tories before). And we all know how that turned out.
Not sure what you mean by "hung out to dry" but a lot of smaller businesses did just fine under the last Labour government as well.
In fact I don't recall there being too much discussion around the economy full stop back around the turn of the century when things were going well in general terms and we were runnng a budgetary surplus.
I think he was referring to the period after that, when Labour ran a budget deficit and we had a high number of liquidations, administrations and mostn people in the country were scared of losing their job
What you mean like under the present Coalition or plenty of past Tory governments?
Interesting that you cut off his quote at that point..
Was just interested in the business point.
Considering the vast majority of business owners are small businesses/sole traders etc and the way a lot of self employed were hung out to dry by the last labour government (after all, they are the party of the employed working man traditionally) makes me think similarly to colt. Big businesses like banks did well under labour (as they did under the Tories before). And we all know how that turned out.
Not sure what you mean by "hung out to dry" but a lot of smaller businesses did just fine under the last Labour government as well.
In fact I don't recall there being too much discussion around the economy full stop back around the turn of the century when things were going well in general terms and we were runnng a budgetary surplus.
I think he was referring to the period after that, when Labour ran a budget deficit and we had a high number of liquidations, administrations and mostn people in the country were scared of losing their job
What you mean like under the present Coalition or plenty of past Tory governments?
No. We have THE HIGHEST EVER AMOUNT OF PEOPLE EMPLOYED now and generally businesses are doing fine.
Interesting that you cut off his quote at that point..
Was just interested in the business point.
Considering the vast majority of business owners are small businesses/sole traders etc and the way a lot of self employed were hung out to dry by the last labour government (after all, they are the party of the employed working man traditionally) makes me think similarly to colt. Big businesses like banks did well under labour (as they did under the Tories before). And we all know how that turned out.
Not sure what you mean by "hung out to dry" but a lot of smaller businesses did just fine under the last Labour government as well.
In fact I don't recall there being too much discussion around the economy full stop back around the turn of the century when things were going well in general terms and we were runnng a budgetary surplus.
I think he was referring to the period after that, when Labour ran a budget deficit and we had a high number of liquidations, administrations and mostn people in the country were scared of losing their job
What you mean like under the present Coalition or plenty of past Tory governments?
No. We have THE HIGHEST EVER AMOUNT OF PEOPLE EMPLOYED now and generally businesses are doing fine.
And how many of those employed are on minimum wage or below or on zero hour contracts ? You and I are making up the shortfall in their monies with tax credits and other benefits. No wonder that businesses are generally doing fine.
Interesting that you cut off his quote at that point..
Was just interested in the business point.
Considering the vast majority of business owners are small businesses/sole traders etc and the way a lot of self employed were hung out to dry by the last labour government (after all, they are the party of the employed working man traditionally) makes me think similarly to colt. Big businesses like banks did well under labour (as they did under the Tories before). And we all know how that turned out.
Not sure what you mean by "hung out to dry" but a lot of smaller businesses did just fine under the last Labour government as well.
In fact I don't recall there being too much discussion around the economy full stop back around the turn of the century when things were going well in general terms and we were runnng a budgetary surplus.
I think he was referring to the period after that, when Labour ran a budget deficit and we had a high number of liquidations, administrations and mostn people in the country were scared of losing their job
What you mean like under the present Coalition or plenty of past Tory governments?
No. We have THE HIGHEST EVER AMOUNT OF PEOPLE EMPLOYED now and generally businesses are doing fine.
We've also had a 17 year high in unemployment under the coalition IIRC and GDP is still not back to where is was at the start of 2008.
Interesting that you cut off his quote at that point..
Was just interested in the business point.
Considering the vast majority of business owners are small businesses/sole traders etc and the way a lot of self employed were hung out to dry by the last labour government (after all, they are the party of the employed working man traditionally) makes me think similarly to colt. Big businesses like banks did well under labour (as they did under the Tories before). And we all know how that turned out.
Not sure what you mean by "hung out to dry" but a lot of smaller businesses did just fine under the last Labour government as well.
In fact I don't recall there being too much discussion around the economy full stop back around the turn of the century when things were going well in general terms and we were runnng a budgetary surplus.
I think he was referring to the period after that, when Labour ran a budget deficit and we had a high number of liquidations, administrations and mostn people in the country were scared of losing their job
Ah yes - that must be when Labour caused the Lehman Brothers crash and the implosion of US sub prime mortgage market.
Interesting that you cut off his quote at that point..
Was just interested in the business point.
Considering the vast majority of business owners are small businesses/sole traders etc and the way a lot of self employed were hung out to dry by the last labour government (after all, they are the party of the employed working man traditionally) makes me think similarly to colt. Big businesses like banks did well under labour (as they did under the Tories before). And we all know how that turned out.
Not sure what you mean by "hung out to dry" but a lot of smaller businesses did just fine under the last Labour government as well.
In fact I don't recall there being too much discussion around the economy full stop back around the turn of the century when things were going well in general terms and we were runnng a budgetary surplus.
I think he was referring to the period after that, when Labour ran a budget deficit and we had a high number of liquidations, administrations and mostn people in the country were scared of losing their job
What you mean like under the present Coalition or plenty of past Tory governments?
No. We have THE HIGHEST EVER AMOUNT OF PEOPLE EMPLOYED now and generally businesses are doing fine.
And how many of those employed are on minimum wage or below or on zero hour contracts ? You and I are making up the shortfall in their monies with tax credits and other benefits. No wonder that businesses are generally doing fine.
Or apprenticeships masquerading as standard employment such as shop assistant apprenticeship. I can fully understand why things such as these and zero hour contracts would be very attractive to businesses but they are extremely exploitative and should be stopped. It seems to me we need to move away from bottom line figures on expenditure on employment and focus on ensuring that there is a happy and motivated work force.
I read a piece a while ago about a trial run in Seattle I believe where they paid the employees more than the minimum wage. It had a positive impact on the businesses involved, productivity increased as well as sales. Turns out that your employees earning more are more likely to spend some money on your products. Who would have thought?
A good analysis of Miliband bringing 'old' Labour back into play by the BBC's Robert Peston . He explains why 'new' Labour didn't do anything about non doms.
If Miliband does end up as PM then he will be in an incredible position as he will be there on his terms and nobody else's, he will owe nothing to anybody.
Len McCluskey might not agree with you. I get the impression he'll want his pound of flesh.
Extracts from an interview he did last autumn:
"You know Ed, and I hope this doesn't happen, could get run over by a bus tomorrow, it really wouldn't matter who takes his place."
I ask: "The leadership of the Labour Party doesn't matter?"
"No, what matters is the policies. You know we've been saying this to Ed since he became elected. Labour have got to show they're on the side of ordinary, working people.
"If he does that, he'll be the next prime minster, if he fails to do that, then of course, he'll be defeated and he'll be replaced as the leader."
It is clear from this conversation that the union boss is not entirely behind the Labour Leader Ed Miliband.
In 2010, Ed Miliband won the leadership contest with the help of union backing. So how much influence does Len have?
Does Ed Miliband listen to him? I ask if he sometimes gets a bit threatening and says, "look we're not going to associate with you any more if you don't do as I say?"
"No, never threatening."
I point out that I didn't mean it literally. He does accept he has power and influence: "Yeah, undoubtedly because I am the general secretary of Unite."
Clearly there is the need to keep the unions reasonably happy, but it is a far less onerous task keeping them onside (given their only other option is a Tory government) than it is to be in debt to the Sun King.
Every Prime Minister from Thatcher to Cameron has been in thrall to Murdoch - if Miliband gets there without him then that is a watershed moment in British politics right there.
Thought I'd have a browse at the Labour manifesto to see how much they would be costing me.
This came up on the home page of their web site: a flash survey:
Good morning. We're fighting to win the next election.
Are you with us?
YES, I'll be voting Labour
MAYBE, I'm still undecided
That's it. I wonder if they'll be using the results of this remarkable piece of polling in any future publicity? If only they'd gone the whole hog and got rid of the undecided option they could have had a North Korea style 100% verdict!
I'll be back later with my personal cost of a Labour Govt.
I have to admit, that that is spectacularly silly of them. But of course it is the party of Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson
No need to bring foul and abusive language into this thread Prague! ;-) Campbell is only slightly lower on my scale than Blair. Son of a doctor, grammar school and Cambridge boy who got his degree by not reading the modern language texts of his course but other people's reviews of them, (by his own admission), then became a porn writer who pretended the stories were about himself. Daily Mirror journo who as soon as became ill through alcoholism, went private. And thats before we consider his upstanding role in the Iraq war which he was utterly unqualified to create a dossier on. Commenting on WMDs in Iraq he said, "Come on, you don't seriously think we won't find anything?" Or the Gilligan/Kelly affair. A slimier piece of work has never graced British politics.
Was agreeing with you until your final sentence. Equally slimy IMO, but dressed in blue, is Thatcher's version of Campbell, Tim Bell; then among elected politicians I offer you Neil Hamilton, that bloke whose name I forgot but banged on about "the trusty sword of truth", until he found himself banged up, John Redwood, Daniel Hannan, Michael GreenGrant Schapps and the biggest slime bag of the lot, Michael Gove.
The worrying thing is that Schapps and Gove have years of sliming around ahead of them unless we spank their asses on May 7.
A good analysis of Miliband bringing 'old' Labour back into play by the BBC's Robert Peston . He explains why 'new' Labour didn't do anything about non doms.
If Miliband does end up as PM then he will be in an incredible position as he will be there on his terms and nobody else's, he will owe nothing to anybody.
Len McCluskey might not agree with you. I get the impression he'll want his pound of flesh.
Extracts from an interview he did last autumn:
"You know Ed, and I hope this doesn't happen, could get run over by a bus tomorrow, it really wouldn't matter who takes his place."
I ask: "The leadership of the Labour Party doesn't matter?"
"No, what matters is the policies. You know we've been saying this to Ed since he became elected. Labour have got to show they're on the side of ordinary, working people.
"If he does that, he'll be the next prime minster, if he fails to do that, then of course, he'll be defeated and he'll be replaced as the leader."
It is clear from this conversation that the union boss is not entirely behind the Labour Leader Ed Miliband.
In 2010, Ed Miliband won the leadership contest with the help of union backing. So how much influence does Len have?
Does Ed Miliband listen to him? I ask if he sometimes gets a bit threatening and says, "look we're not going to associate with you any more if you don't do as I say?"
"No, never threatening."
I point out that I didn't mean it literally. He does accept he has power and influence: "Yeah, undoubtedly because I am the general secretary of Unite."
Clearly there is the need to keep the unions reasonably happy, but it is a far less onerous task keeping them onside (given their only other option is a Tory government) than it is to be in debt to the Sun King.
Every Prime Minister from Thatcher to Cameron has been in thrall to Murdoch - if Miliband gets there without him then that is a watershed moment in British politics right there.
Thought I'd have a browse at the Labour manifesto to see how much they would be costing me.
This came up on the home page of their web site: a flash survey:
Good morning. We're fighting to win the next election.
Are you with us?
YES, I'll be voting Labour
MAYBE, I'm still undecided
That's it. I wonder if they'll be using the results of this remarkable piece of polling in any future publicity? If only they'd gone the whole hog and got rid of the undecided option they could have had a North Korea style 100% verdict!
I'll be back later with my personal cost of a Labour Govt.
I have to admit, that that is spectacularly silly of them. But of course it is the party of Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson
No need to bring foul and abusive language into this thread Prague! ;-) Campbell is only slightly lower on my scale than Blair. Son of a doctor, grammar school and Cambridge boy who got his degree by not reading the modern language texts of his course but other people's reviews of them, (by his own admission), then became a porn writer who pretended the stories were about himself. Daily Mirror journo who as soon as became ill through alcoholism, went private. And thats before we consider his upstanding role in the Iraq war which he was utterly unqualified to create a dossier on. Commenting on WMDs in Iraq he said, "Come on, you don't seriously think we won't find anything?" Or the Gilligan/Kelly affair. A slimier piece of work has never graced British politics.
Was agreeing with you until your final sentence. Equally slimy IMO, but dressed in blue, is Thatcher's version of Campbell, Tim Bell; then among elected politicians I offer you Neil Hamilton, that bloke whose name I forgot but banged on about "the trusty sword of truth", until he found himself banged up, John Redwood, Daniel Hannan, Michael GreenGrant Schapps and the biggest slime bag of the lot, Michael Gove.
The worrying thing is that Schapps and Gove have years of sliming around ahead of them unless we spank their asses on May 7.
If we're doing a political bad boy eleven this afternoon can I nominate Andy Coulson please. As far as I know Alistair Campbell has never been convicted of hacking peoples phones for private gain.
because people who own businesses do so in order to be a success, anyone who wants to tie the hands of employers by removing the zero hour contracts and increasing the minimum wage to the level they have mentioned, I agree that the cost of living in this country makes it difficult for those on a low income but unless businesses can pass the increased cost on to their clients or customers you reduce the potential viability of the business,
since the coalition came in to power there has been an up turn in money coming into the country, and to risk that now is ridiculous, I work with a cross section of businesses, from haulage, hire companies, set builders, advertising agencies, I have met some very inspiring people who under the labour government nearly lost everything as the money just stopped being spent,
I have jumped between parties based on the results they deliver during their term. And the last labour government were shocking, ed balls and miliband do nothing to inspire confidence that they will do anything better than brown and Co
In could be totally wrong, and as a new owner of a business that currently is thriving, the thought of someone who openly states he is a socialist could lead this country scares the shit out of me, I am working hard to be a wealthier and successful person and create a business that rewards hard work with bonus payments but zero hr contracts, we need the ability to base that labour on demand and volume of work, that doesn't suit every person but it suits me and the guys who work for me
A good analysis of Miliband bringing 'old' Labour back into play by the BBC's Robert Peston . He explains why 'new' Labour didn't do anything about non doms.
If Miliband does end up as PM then he will be in an incredible position as he will be there on his terms and nobody else's, he will owe nothing to anybody.
Len McCluskey might not agree with you. I get the impression he'll want his pound of flesh.
Extracts from an interview he did last autumn:
"You know Ed, and I hope this doesn't happen, could get run over by a bus tomorrow, it really wouldn't matter who takes his place."
I ask: "The leadership of the Labour Party doesn't matter?"
"No, what matters is the policies. You know we've been saying this to Ed since he became elected. Labour have got to show they're on the side of ordinary, working people.
"If he does that, he'll be the next prime minster, if he fails to do that, then of course, he'll be defeated and he'll be replaced as the leader."
It is clear from this conversation that the union boss is not entirely behind the Labour Leader Ed Miliband.
In 2010, Ed Miliband won the leadership contest with the help of union backing. So how much influence does Len have?
Does Ed Miliband listen to him? I ask if he sometimes gets a bit threatening and says, "look we're not going to associate with you any more if you don't do as I say?"
"No, never threatening."
I point out that I didn't mean it literally. He does accept he has power and influence: "Yeah, undoubtedly because I am the general secretary of Unite."
Clearly there is the need to keep the unions reasonably happy, but it is a far less onerous task keeping them onside (given their only other option is a Tory government) than it is to be in debt to the Sun King.
Every Prime Minister from Thatcher to Cameron has been in thrall to Murdoch - if Miliband gets there without him then that is a watershed moment in British politics right there.
Thought I'd have a browse at the Labour manifesto to see how much they would be costing me.
This came up on the home page of their web site: a flash survey:
Good morning. We're fighting to win the next election.
Are you with us?
YES, I'll be voting Labour
MAYBE, I'm still undecided
That's it. I wonder if they'll be using the results of this remarkable piece of polling in any future publicity? If only they'd gone the whole hog and got rid of the undecided option they could have had a North Korea style 100% verdict!
I'll be back later with my personal cost of a Labour Govt.
I have to admit, that that is spectacularly silly of them. But of course it is the party of Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson
No need to bring foul and abusive language into this thread Prague! ;-) Campbell is only slightly lower on my scale than Blair. Son of a doctor, grammar school and Cambridge boy who got his degree by not reading the modern language texts of his course but other people's reviews of them, (by his own admission), then became a porn writer who pretended the stories were about himself. Daily Mirror journo who as soon as became ill through alcoholism, went private. And thats before we consider his upstanding role in the Iraq war which he was utterly unqualified to create a dossier on. Commenting on WMDs in Iraq he said, "Come on, you don't seriously think we won't find anything?" Or the Gilligan/Kelly affair. A slimier piece of work has never graced British politics.
Was agreeing with you until your final sentence. Equally slimy IMO, but dressed in blue, is Thatcher's version of Campbell, Tim Bell; then among elected politicians I offer you Neil Hamilton, that bloke whose name I forgot but banged on about "the trusty sword of truth", until he found himself banged up, John Redwood, Daniel Hannan, Michael GreenGrant Schapps and the biggest slime bag of the lot, Michael Gove.
The worrying thing is that Schapps and Gove have years of sliming around ahead of them unless we spank their asses on May 7.
Ah yes Bell and Hamilton. Agreed. Equally as grotesque as Campbell. The others you mention dont come close in terms of lives lost or damage done! We can agree to disagree!
Well if the figures don't work for you cafcfan i guess we should cancel the election and carry on as we are.
Excellent. A sensible policy at last! How do I vote for you?
Well, here's my summary of the Labour Manifesto.
First, as you'd expect there seems to be a lot of smoke and mirrors. For example bringing back the 10p tax band and a pledge not to increase tax rates (which is odd as they are doing that by bringing back the 50p upper rate, still never mind). BUT as they will have to tamper with the personal allowances in order to introduce the 10p rate it is a slight surprise that there is no mention at all on where they intended the important 40p tax rate (or any of the other bands) to start. Or to have a commitment to keep the newly raised personal allowance of £10,600. I suspect it's a deliberate omission because they don't want to frighten us.
I think the 40p band (again the manifesto is not specific), is their cut-off point for taking away pensioners' winter fuel allowances. So, in terms of my personal finances, I'm none the wiser and won't be until such time as Balls get up on his hind legs and introduces his first budget.
On the plus side there's the footie bit (maybe), staying in the EU, no more badger culls and the continuing ban on hunting with dogs.
On the negative side (for me I appreciate others might disagree) there's a huge amount of control-freakery. More commissioners for this and that, new power regulator, regulating prices, blah, blah blah.
This is the bit that I'm not expecting will get much attention at all from the media but I think is potentially the most important and worst bit in the whole document:
"Institutional investors will have a duty to act in the best interests of ordinary savers. (Natch -they probably wouldn't last long if they didn't.) They will have to (my emphasis) prioritise long-term growth over short-term profits for the companies in which they are investing. We will change takeover rules to enhance the role of long-term investors by restricting voting to those already holding shares when a bid is made. In addition, we will strengthen the public interest test."
I think it is the path to madness. First because short-term profits may (but only may) actually be in the best interests of ordinary (I apologise for re-using that word - I hate it) savers. Second It also takes no account of the fact that a significant number of funds operate outside the UK jurisdiction anyway.
Potentially if this meddling in the decision-making process (however well-intentioned) leads to less efficient UK-based funds unable to take prompt action when merited, they will be obliged - by having a duty to act in the best interests of ordinary savers (sorry again) - to take their business somewhere more sensible. Investors would demand this of them anyway if they started to see the Luxembourg version of a fund inching away from the performance levels of its British equivalent. This little paragraph could spell the death knell for a large part of the UK financial services sector with large numbers of firms and jobs decamping elsewhere. I suppose we will see in due course but add it to the promised further and continuing persecution of bankers and the 50p tax band, mansion tax, etc, etc and London could soon seem a much, much less attractive place to do business.
We may well have the promised fairer society: with everybody, without exception being much poor. But on the bright side and at a stroke the empty mansions could all be converted to studio flats thereby meeting the target for numbers of extra homes.
This bit from "education" struck me as odd too: "...ensure all young people study English and Maths to age 18". Unless you want to do it as a specialism, surely anyone with half a brain doesn't still need to be studying our native language past the age of 16? I'd have thought diversification on to something else would be more productive, like German? Or will they be doing special courses for prospective BBC journalists and aspiring politicians explaining why the word data is plural or "going forward" is a solecism? In any event, if people at 16 are too young to give up learning English, how come they are old enough to vote? (Another manifesto commitment.)
The document itself is 86 pp. 14 of those are taken up with photographs of random appealing normal people who have typical jobs - I quite liked the one on page 82. (There's also a picture of their middle-of-the road, hard-working leader, Ed.) There's one very small paragraph on the not unimportant topic of Northern Ireland. Which seems to have been marginalised in Labour's thinking. A few bland words about Ulster vs 14 glossy pictures of modest, homely people doesn't seem like a very encouraging ratio to me.
Then there's Ed's foreword. A single pp, around three hundred words. Eight of those words are "people" and nine of them are "country". That's about 6% of the total. By contrast, "economy" is a word used just once.
There's also one "Britain". Britain, of course, is just England and Wales. So has Labour's homespun leader given up on Scotland already, forgotten to include the "Great" and/or just really wants to piss off the Unionists in Northern Ireland? (I don't really think they could have just forgotten the "Great" because that's another word that's used to excess in Ed's foreword , accounting for nearly 2% of the total. So, another one would not have hurt, surely?
Interesting that you cut off his quote at that point..
Was just interested in the business point.
Considering the vast majority of business owners are small businesses/sole traders etc and the way a lot of self employed were hung out to dry by the last labour government (after all, they are the party of the employed working man traditionally) makes me think similarly to colt. Big businesses like banks did well under labour (as they did under the Tories before). And we all know how that turned out.
Not sure what you mean by "hung out to dry" but a lot of smaller businesses did just fine under the last Labour government as well.
In fact I don't recall there being too much discussion around the economy full stop back around the turn of the century when things were going well in general terms and we were runnng a budgetary surplus.
I think he was referring to the period after that, when Labour ran a budget deficit and we had a high number of liquidations, administrations and mostn people in the country were scared of losing their job
What you mean like under the present Coalition or plenty of past Tory governments?
No. We have THE HIGHEST EVER AMOUNT OF PEOPLE EMPLOYED now and generally businesses are doing fine.
We've also had a 17 year high in unemployment under the coalition IIRC and GDP is still not back to where is was at the start of 2008.
Had being the operative word. The effects of the global recession - the byword excuse for Labour's catastrophic mis-management of the economy obviously dont apply once labour are out of power!
Latest news: Unemployment fell by 102,000 to 1.86 million in the three months to the end of January, according to the latest Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures.
The number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance in February fell by 31,000 to 791,200, its lowest level since 2008, the ONS said.
The employment rate now stands at 73.3%, the highest rate of people in work since the ONS began keeping records in 1971.
As Robert Peston of the BBC explains.... Unemployment is referred to as a lagging indicator, because businesses will often delay laying people off as long as they can in difficult times.
From today's Labour manifesto - I think it's a long-winded way of saying they want fans on the board:
Football clubs are an important part of many people’s identity and sense of belonging. They are more than just businesses. But despite their importance in the lives of their members and supporters, too often there are no effective means for fans to have a say in how their clubs are run. Labour will provide the means for supporters to be a genuine part of their clubs. We will introduce legislation to enable accredited supporters trusts to appoint and remove at least two of the directors of a football club and to purchase shares when the club changes hands. We will also review the role of fan participation in other sports.
We will ensure the Premier League delivers on its promise to invest five per cent of its domestic and international television rights income into funding the grassroots.
And that supports my point of money coming into the country and business doing well, these 37 days or whatever the period is has already shown within our sector people are holding back until it's decided who will run the country, we work with two huge companies, 4 large British companies and 3 fledgling brands who are breaking into the market above their own expectations and forecasts, all of those companies have shelved some planned work during this period,
Guardian Headline 2010 Ex-Treasury secretary Liam Byrne's note to his successor: there's no money left Byrne left letter on desk for incoming minister David Laws
because people who own businesses do so in order to be a success, anyone who wants to tie the hands of employers by removing the zero hour contracts and increasing the minimum wage to the level they have mentioned, I agree that the cost of living in this country makes it difficult for those on a low income but unless businesses can pass the increased cost on to their clients or customers you reduce the potential viability of the business,
since the coalition came in to power there has been an up turn in money coming into the country, and to risk that now is ridiculous, I work with a cross section of businesses, from haulage, hire companies, set builders, advertising agencies, I have met some very inspiring people who under the labour government nearly lost everything as the money just stopped being spent,
I have jumped between parties based on the results they deliver during their term. And the last labour government were shocking, ed balls and miliband do nothing to inspire confidence that they will do anything better than brown and Co
In could be totally wrong, and as a new owner of a business that currently is thriving, the thought of someone who openly states he is a socialist could lead this country scares the shit out of me, I am working hard to be a wealthier and successful person and create a business that rewards hard work with bonus payments but zero hr contracts, we need the ability to base that labour on demand and volume of work, that doesn't suit every person but it suits me and the guys who work for me
I can understand those concerns. But I think like I said in my last post that we need to look past the bottom line figure of the cost of wages.
The economy has improved under this government but I have my suspicions it is in spite of what Cameron/Osborn have done. I also share some scepticism about what Labour might do with the economy but to lay the blame solely at them for what happened during the last recession is a little off.
1. "Britain only succeeds when working people succeed". - Careful to avoid mention of the successful businesses needed to employ the working people. 2. "This is a plan to reward hard work" - Good (see 3 for the catch) 3. "..share prosperity and build a better Britain". - Means once you succeed, and have been rewarded, we will take it away from you so those who are less successful or don't want to work hard will have the same as you.
I don't hold them entirely responsible like the latest leaders of this country they had to deal with the problems left behind, but as a 40 yr old man you can only take a view on what unfolds during your lifetime,
I didn't really care about who and what policy was in place what party ran the country until i was in my mid twenties, bought the whole new labour thing I felt at that time the country needed a change and during that period in believed that you need more than 4 yrs to implement change and plans , stable consistent management gives that the best chance, labour were in charge at a time that we as a country were at the same point before Blair got in, in need of a change we are not at that point now and people need to give the policy and objectives and chance to work
Thanks for your summary although as you readily say, it is filtered through your lens, but nevertheless it is a good read, and has a sense of authority. I am also looking forward to this 'manifesto' week, and further analysis, and I wonder if the UKIP version will be the 'Lepoint' of manifestos.
I don't hold them entirely responsible like the latest leaders of this country they had to deal with the problems left behind, but as a 40 yr old man you can only take a view on what unfolds during your lifetime,
I didn't really care about who and what policy was in place what party ran the country until i was in my mid twenties, bought the whole new labour thing I felt at that time the country needed a change and during that period in believed that you need more than 4 yrs to implement change and plans , stable consistent management gives that the best chance, labour were in charge at a time that we as a country were at the same point before Blair got in, in need of a change we are not at that point now and people need to give the policy and objectives and chance to work
Respect all you have said, and I'm not in a position to defend Labour's record re small businesses last time round.
However from what I know of your new business I'd have thought the single biggest political threat it faces is the UK leaving the EU and even the possibility might cause issues for you, no?
I don't hold them entirely responsible like the latest leaders of this country they had to deal with the problems left behind, but as a 40 yr old man you can only take a view on what unfolds during your lifetime,
I didn't really care about who and what policy was in place what party ran the country until i was in my mid twenties, bought the whole new labour thing I felt at that time the country needed a change and during that period in believed that you need more than 4 yrs to implement change and plans , stable consistent management gives that the best chance, labour were in charge at a time that we as a country were at the same point before Blair got in, in need of a change we are not at that point now and people need to give the policy and objectives and chance to work
Fair point about stabilisation, I just fear for the more cuts route that the Tories want to go down. The economy has performed relatively well since the recession but given we are about to go into deflation for the first time in over 50 years it's hard to be completely positive about the current running of the country.
1. "Britain only succeeds when working people succeed". - Careful to avoid mention of the successful businesses needed to employ the working people. 2. "This is a plan to reward hard work" - Good (see 3 for the catch) 3. "..share prosperity and build a better Britain". - Means once you succeed, and have been rewarded, we will take it away from you so those who are less successful or don't want to work hard will have the same as you.
This is exactly how I see it and understand it and for the life of me see how it makes sense
I left school with zero qualifications, have worked since I left school, managed to find a stable job and stayed there for twenty + years
My mum came to this country at 14 worked two and three jobs is still working now into her 60s, building a home feeding two boys and not taking a penny from hand outs she never completed education in Ireland as her family needed the kids working to assist for the first five years she sent her wages back home
My dad worked for years until he was involved in an accident that nearly crippled him, yet he still found employment that he could do although he could not walk without the aid of a stick
My work ethic has come from them, to strive and achieve to be as good a parent, husband or person you can, seeing people crying and moaning about not being able to get off their arse as it doesn't pay enough to take a job on minimum wage as they can get near enough the same on hand outs so why bother infuriated me and it seemed imo to get worse under the last labour government than anytime I could remember or maybe I just didn't care enough before To notice
Hell yeah PA and that point is not lost on me at all but surely the people have a right to make their own decisions on that fact just like Scotland had the right to choose, and referendum doesn't automatically mean it will be voted for leaving if the country decides against it then so be it, but my view will be made at the polling station at that time if it happens and unfortunately if my vote is not on the winning side I will have to face that
I am in no way saying that the way we are being run is not without fault, but it's a damn site better than it was
Hell yeah PA and that point is not lost on me at all but surely the people have a right to make their own decisions on that fact just like Scotland had the right to choose, and referendum doesn't automatically mean it will be voted for leaving if the country decides against it then so be it, but my view will be made at the polling station at that time if it happens and unfortunately if my vote is not on the winning side I will have to face that
I am in no way saying that the way we are being run is not without fault, but it's a damn site better than it was
Or of course you could move across to France now while the going is good, like that UKIP supporting Lifer. Or in your case find some Irish relatives and set up your European HQ In Dublin, lower your corporate tax bill at the same time, like Google and Facebook:-)
Thanks for your summary although as you readily say, it is filtered through your lens, but nevertheless it is a good read, and has a sense of authority. I am also looking forward to this 'manifesto' week, and further analysis, and I wonder if the UKIP version will be the 'Lepoint' of manifestos.
I'd have thought it'll be the Harry Cripps of manifestos....
Now moving to the green and pleasant land is a lovely thought, I don't think being that close to the brewery who make a fantastic pint of black stuff would be good for the liver or home life
All I want is a government that spends our money in the right way, doesnt waste it on wars and employing five people in a local council office to do the jobs that 2 could do if they work hard and efficiently
Supports or elderly, helps us when we fall on hard times to get back on our feet, doesnt reward bone idle lazy baby breeding free loaders
Gives our children a decent education and doesn't have thousands getting degree's that will not help them get a job and fill them with unreal unrealistic expectations, help parents explain that through hard work ambition and self respect you can do anything you wish, but that sometimes working your way up the ladder gives you more wealth of education and experience than a degree will give or that it's a better option than excepting hand outs and having no ambition
Comments
I read a piece a while ago about a trial run in Seattle I believe where they paid the employees more than the minimum wage. It had a positive impact on the businesses involved, productivity increased as well as sales. Turns out that your employees earning more are more likely to spend some money on your products. Who would have thought?
Michael GreenGrant Schapps and the biggest slime bag of the lot, Michael Gove.The worrying thing is that Schapps and Gove have years of sliming around ahead of them unless we spank their asses on May 7.
since the coalition came in to power there has been an up turn in money coming into the country, and to risk that now is ridiculous, I work with a cross section of businesses, from haulage, hire companies, set builders, advertising agencies, I have met some very inspiring people who under the labour government nearly lost everything as the money just stopped being spent,
I have jumped between parties based on the results they deliver during their term. And the last labour government were shocking, ed balls and miliband do nothing to inspire confidence that they will do anything better than brown and Co
In could be totally wrong, and as a new owner of a business that currently is thriving, the thought of someone who openly states he is a socialist could lead this country scares the shit out of me, I am working hard to be a wealthier and successful person and create a business that rewards hard work with bonus payments but zero hr contracts, we need the ability to base that labour on demand and volume of work, that doesn't suit every person but it suits me and the guys who work for me
The others you mention dont come close in terms of lives lost or damage done!
We can agree to disagree!
Well, here's my summary of the Labour Manifesto.
First, as you'd expect there seems to be a lot of smoke and mirrors. For example bringing back the 10p tax band and a pledge not to increase tax rates (which is odd as they are doing that by bringing back the 50p upper rate, still never mind). BUT as they will have to tamper with the personal allowances in order to introduce the 10p rate it is a slight surprise that there is no mention at all on where they intended the important 40p tax rate (or any of the other bands) to start. Or to have a commitment to keep the newly raised personal allowance of £10,600. I suspect it's a deliberate omission because they don't want to frighten us.
I think the 40p band (again the manifesto is not specific), is their cut-off point for taking away pensioners' winter fuel allowances. So, in terms of my personal finances, I'm none the wiser and won't be until such time as Balls get up on his hind legs and introduces his first budget.
On the plus side there's the footie bit (maybe), staying in the EU, no more badger culls and the continuing ban on hunting with dogs.
On the negative side (for me I appreciate others might disagree) there's a huge amount of control-freakery. More commissioners for this and that, new power regulator, regulating prices, blah, blah blah.
This is the bit that I'm not expecting will get much attention at all from the media but I think is potentially the most important and worst bit in the whole document:
"Institutional investors will have a duty to act in the best interests of ordinary savers. (Natch -they probably wouldn't last long if they didn't.) They will have to (my emphasis) prioritise long-term growth over short-term profits for the companies in which they are investing. We will change takeover rules to enhance the role of long-term investors by restricting voting to those already holding shares when a bid is made. In addition, we will strengthen the public interest test."
I think it is the path to madness. First because short-term profits may (but only may) actually be in the best interests of ordinary (I apologise for re-using that word - I hate it) savers. Second It also takes no account of the fact that a significant number of funds operate outside the UK jurisdiction anyway.
Potentially if this meddling in the decision-making process (however well-intentioned) leads to less efficient UK-based funds unable to take prompt action when merited, they will be obliged - by having a duty to act in the best interests of ordinary savers (sorry again) - to take their business somewhere more sensible. Investors would demand this of them anyway if they started to see the Luxembourg version of a fund inching away from the performance levels of its British equivalent. This little paragraph could spell the death knell for a large part of the UK financial services sector with large numbers of firms and jobs decamping elsewhere. I suppose we will see in due course but add it to the promised further and continuing persecution of bankers and the 50p tax band, mansion tax, etc, etc and London could soon seem a much, much less attractive place to do business.
We may well have the promised fairer society: with everybody, without exception being much poor. But on the bright side and at a stroke the empty mansions could all be converted to studio flats thereby meeting the target for numbers of extra homes.
This bit from "education" struck me as odd too: "...ensure all young people study English and Maths to age 18". Unless you want to do it as a specialism, surely anyone with half a brain doesn't still need to be studying our native language past the age of 16? I'd have thought diversification on to something else would be more productive, like German? Or will they be doing special courses for prospective BBC journalists and aspiring politicians explaining why the word data is plural or "going forward" is a solecism? In any event, if people at 16 are too young to give up learning English, how come they are old enough to vote? (Another manifesto commitment.)
The document itself is 86 pp. 14 of those are taken up with photographs of random appealing normal people who have typical jobs - I quite liked the one on page 82. (There's also a picture of their middle-of-the road, hard-working leader, Ed.) There's one very small paragraph on the not unimportant topic of Northern Ireland. Which seems to have been marginalised in Labour's thinking. A few bland words about Ulster vs 14 glossy pictures of modest, homely people doesn't seem like a very encouraging ratio to me.
Then there's Ed's foreword. A single pp, around three hundred words. Eight of those words are "people" and nine of them are "country". That's about 6% of the total. By contrast, "economy" is a word used just once.
There's also one "Britain". Britain, of course, is just England and Wales. So has Labour's homespun leader given up on Scotland already, forgotten to include the "Great" and/or just really wants to piss off the Unionists in Northern Ireland? (I don't really think they could have just forgotten the "Great" because that's another word that's used to excess in Ed's foreword , accounting for nearly 2% of the total. So, another one would not have hurt, surely?
The effects of the global recession - the byword excuse for Labour's catastrophic mis-management of the economy obviously dont apply once labour are out of power!
Latest news:
Unemployment fell by 102,000 to 1.86 million in the three months to the end of January, according to the latest Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures.
The number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance in February fell by 31,000 to 791,200, its lowest level since 2008, the ONS said.
The employment rate now stands at 73.3%, the highest rate of people in work since the ONS began keeping records in 1971.
As Robert Peston of the BBC explains....
Unemployment is referred to as a lagging indicator, because businesses will often delay laying people off as long as they can in difficult times.
;-)
Guardian Headline 2010
Ex-Treasury secretary Liam Byrne's note to his successor: there's no money left
Byrne left letter on desk for incoming minister David Laws
The economy has improved under this government but I have my suspicions it is in spite of what Cameron/Osborn have done. I also share some scepticism about what Labour might do with the economy but to lay the blame solely at them for what happened during the last recession is a little off.
1. "Britain only succeeds when working people succeed". - Careful to avoid mention of the successful businesses needed to employ the working people.
2. "This is a plan to reward hard work" - Good (see 3 for the catch)
3. "..share prosperity and build a better Britain". - Means once you succeed, and have been rewarded, we will take it away from you so those who are less successful or don't want to work hard will have the same as you.
I didn't really care about who and what policy was in place what party ran the country until i was in my mid twenties, bought the whole new labour thing I felt at that time the country needed a change and during that period in believed that you need more than 4 yrs to implement change and plans , stable consistent management gives that the best chance, labour were in charge at a time that we as a country were at the same point before Blair got in, in need of a change we are not at that point now and people need to give the policy and objectives and chance to work
Thanks for your summary although as you readily say, it is filtered through your lens, but nevertheless it is a good read, and has a sense of authority.
I am also looking forward to this 'manifesto' week, and further analysis, and I wonder if the UKIP version will be the 'Lepoint' of manifestos.
However from what I know of your new business I'd have thought the single biggest political threat it faces is the UK leaving the EU and even the possibility might cause issues for you, no?
This is exactly how I see it and understand it and for the life of me see how it makes sense
I left school with zero qualifications, have worked since I left school, managed to find a stable job and stayed there for twenty + years
My mum came to this country at 14 worked two and three jobs is still working now into her 60s, building a home feeding two boys and not taking a penny from hand outs she never completed education in Ireland as her family needed the kids working to assist for the first five years she sent her wages back home
My dad worked for years until he was involved in an accident that nearly crippled him, yet he still found employment that he could do although he could not walk without the aid of a stick
My work ethic has come from them, to strive and achieve to be as good a parent, husband or person you can, seeing people crying and moaning about not being able to get off their arse as it doesn't pay enough to take a job on minimum wage as they can get near enough the same on hand outs so why bother infuriated me and it seemed imo to get worse under the last labour government than anytime I could remember or maybe I just didn't care enough before
To notice
I am in no way saying that the way we are being run is not without fault, but it's a damn site better than it was
All I want is a government that spends our money in the right way, doesnt waste it on wars and employing five people in a local council office to do the jobs that 2 could do if they work hard and efficiently
Supports or elderly, helps us when we fall on hard times to get back on our feet, doesnt reward bone idle lazy baby breeding free loaders
Gives our children a decent education and doesn't have thousands getting degree's that will not help them get a job and fill them with unreal unrealistic expectations, help parents explain that through hard work ambition and self respect you can do anything you wish, but that sometimes working your way up the ladder gives you more wealth of education and experience than a degree will give or that it's a better option than excepting hand outs and having no ambition