Not taken as personal mate far from it, we have been going a year last week and what may change in the next 12 months who knows, to do what Chizz says would need a lot more managing on my part and as such I will look into it and see of it can be done at what cost,
Those that abuse zero hrs should face punishment and fines it should be there for those that need it, noway should companies as big as sports direct need to use it, but companies like mine at the present time should
I love this clip. Every lefty in England should be shown it on repeat.
"I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that I have the same contempt for his socialist policies as the people of east Europe" LOL
I find this clip interesting as I think it does illustrate the big lie that working people are fed. That is, if we make the rich richer, wealth will trickle down to the poor. The evidence is to the contrary. If you give a poor person a few extra quid, it tends to get spent on food and British food at that. If you give a rich person £50k extra it is a holiday abroad or a German car. The aim of Milliband's Labour party is not to bring the rich down, but the poor up. But it isn't just the poor, it is the squeezed worker who keeps getting told we are in recovery and feels worse off. He is a conviction politician like Thatcher was, but the similarity ends there as he believes in fairness with a passion.
He has been attacked by opponents and the tory press because they fear him. They have tried to manipulate the public's perception of him and people are starting to see what he is about and questioning what they have been fed. I think it has been a major miscalculation by the press and I said as much at the start of this campaign. This is being shown to be true as his rating rise and the Tory campaign begins to look lacklustre in comparrison. Make no mistake, behind closed doors the Tories have a lot of respect for Milliband and many of them are dismayed at Cameron's approach to this election.
Make no mistake by giving those who don't earn it a hand out and the ability to live beyond their means with little value of a pound note, you cause more issues than just rich getting richer, you create debt that they can't pay back when they get targeted and conned by unscrupulous bstd loan companies, you get an increase in drug and alcohol abuse, find the way to make them value themselves and what they can achieve and the value in monetary terms what they can earn and you will be half way to solving many of the issues we have
I love this clip. Every lefty in England should be shown it on repeat.
"I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that I have the same contempt for his socialist policies as the people of east Europe" LOL
I find this clip interesting as I think it does illustrate the big lie that working people are fed. That is, if we make the rich richer, wealth will trickle down to the poor.
If you read this article, you'll find that no one, either right-wing or left-wing, has actually seriously supported the notion of trickle-down economics. The fact is that you have been lied to, just not by the people you think. The truth is that leftists have invented this concept in order to discredit right-wing economic policies, even though no right-wing government has actually pursued a policy of trickle-down.
I love this clip. Every lefty in England should be shown it on repeat.
"I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that I have the same contempt for his socialist policies as the people of east Europe" LOL
I find this clip interesting as I think it does illustrate the big lie that working people are fed. That is, if we make the rich richer, wealth will trickle down to the poor.
If you read this article, you'll find that no one, either right-wing or left-wing, has actually seriously supported the notion of trickle-down economics. The fact is that you have been lied to, just not by the people you think. The truth is that leftists have invented this concept in order to discredit right-wing economic policies, even though no right-wing government has actually pursued a policy of trickle-down.
Not withstanding the fact that Muttley has highlighted the exact behaviour/tactics that has/have been used against Farage and UKIP.
Now, I don't particularly agree with a lot of what he says but he is just as much a victim of the above as it is claimed Miliband is.
That's all I have to say on this thread. Time to hide behind the privet hedge again.
I love this clip. Every lefty in England should be shown it on repeat.
"I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that I have the same contempt for his socialist policies as the people of east Europe" LOL
Usual simplistic bollocks from the old bat. Insult to what the people of east Europe were actually suffering at the time. And of course most of those countries since 2000 have settled down to a moderate centre right centre left landscape, after loads of her discredited advisers piled into the region in 1990, spouting bollocks, and did I told damage. Indeed Russia is what it is now because Yeltsin believed those nutters.
Re Zero Hours contracts and other proposals that target low paid workers:- If you own a business and you cannot afford to pay your staff a competitive living wage, holiday pay etc then you have no right being in business.
See mate that's not really fair, my business is very seasonal, the reason we can pay such good money for the months where you actually work is that we don't have the overheads when there is no work, this allows them to go into the courier game or other seasonal work they are not obliged to me nor me them, now with all seasonal work alot of it is weather depending or if there's a major event you manage to hook on to, even during that season / period it slowly rises to a peak,
The business within that time is extremely viable and profitable, during the slower times the full time employee of which there are two me and my second in command survive by working each event that we pick up and adding any other we need with self employed Terms
I can't offer them part time or short term contract unless on considerbly less hr rate orvday rate as we don't know demand of the same week let alone weeks ahead and to do so would jeopardise the whole thing,
There is no other solutions for me other than offer them a reduced amount with a guaranteed amount over a period, I can't do the agency bit as it goes over 11 weeks their costs go up if they go self employed
Zero hrs fits with a lot of people especially those that work in many sectors of logistics and delivery to just dismiss it as a non entity isn't right or fair
My guys on zero hrs work
Mid- April until October then have end of October off and work on the courier network from November until Xmas sometimes Jan but from Jan to March they have earned enough to not work so 9 months of zero hrs within their life pays more than enough for 12 months in most others
I am inclined to agree with @Greenie 's view. If you can't afford to employ people, full-time on a living wage, then you don't actually have a business.
So, if you visit the seaside this summer you won't be expecting anyone to be serving you with an ice cream, fish & chips or stick of rock then?
Indeed Russia is what it is now because Yeltsin believed those nutters.
Would you care to elaborate on this point? It is just my brother has spent years studying Russian history and modern society and I imagine if I told him the flaws of modern day Russia was entirely down to Thatcher's advisers I imagine the response I get would be along the lines of a single-worded vulgar colloquialism for testes.
I love this clip. Every lefty in England should be shown it on repeat.
"I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that I have the same contempt for his socialist policies as the people of east Europe" LOL
Someone watched the Leaders' Interviews with Ed Miliband last night. ;-)
I thought his reply to that particular question was very strong.
In my mind, the belief that if the richest are richer then everyone else benefits from that (the "trickle down" effect) is frankly a load of nonsense. :-)
Indeed Russia is what it is now because Yeltsin believed those nutters.
Would you care to elaborate on this point? It is just my brother has spent years studying Russian history and modern society and I imagine if I told him the flaws of modern day Russia was entirely down to Thatcher's advisers I imagine the response I get would be along the lines of a single-worded vulgar colloquialism for testes.
I will do, I promise, just getting back to the office, but it's important, at least for those of us who live jn the region
Make no mistake by giving those who don't earn it a hand out and the ability to live beyond their means with little value of a pound note, you cause more issues than just rich getting richer, you create debt that they can't pay back when they get targeted and conned by unscrupulous bstd loan companies, you get an increase in drug and alcohol abuse, find the way to make them value themselves and what they can achieve and the value in monetary terms what they can earn and you will be half way to solving many of the issues we have
I absolutely get the notion that people lived beyond their means, but surely the banking crisis was also about lending silly amounts to people with no hope of paying it back, both as individuals, countries, and businesses...let alone the likes of Lehman brothers going bust, and certain individuals with control over vast amounts robbing everybody. If benefit claimants are looking towards the financial institutions for inspiration and example then it is indeed a sorry world. We ought not to dish out hand outs, but we ought to dish out hand ups. Folk should also know that if you want it, save up for it, except in specialised circumstances (mortgages for instance) where you need to borrow.
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be. The question is, do you consider yourselves rich or poor, relative to someone who owns a 500k home and earns 60k + per year?
Make no mistake by giving those who don't earn it a hand out and the ability to live beyond their means with little value of a pound note, you cause more issues than just rich getting richer, you create debt that they can't pay back when they get targeted and conned by unscrupulous bstd loan companies, you get an increase in drug and alcohol abuse, find the way to make them value themselves and what they can achieve and the value in monetary terms what they can earn and you will be half way to solving many of the issues we have
Folk should also know that if you want it, save up for it, except in specialised circumstances (mortgages for instance) where you need to borrow.
Putting on a Labrador puppy face and asking Mrs cafcfan to buy it for my birthday around 11months early works for me!
How big a difference would the respective parties definition be?
I'd say someone who never had to look at the price before buying and someone who would never put clothes in for repair or sew buttons on, but simply but new ones. Someone who never has to use their kitchen, someone that can go on holiday wherever they want, someone who can spend thousands on something as simple as a watch... I know someone like this, I think most of us do...the b@&£(@d!
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be. The question is, do you consider yourselves rich or poor, relative to someone who owns a 500k home and earns 60k + per year?
Except it isn't is it? You don't actually have to look up the facts but just think about all our lifestyles now and compare that to what they were like in, say, the mid 1960s. Do you really think that we've all only got to be more well off in the years that the Labour Party were in power because that's very silly indeed. BTW the "poverty line" in the UK is defined as someone getting less than 60%of the median household income. So, as the country gets generally more well off, the poverty line goes up too. That's not necessarily a true measure of whether someone is actually poor or not. Someone trying to bring up a family would be, but a young single person living at home with their parents could actually think they were quite well off. The definition is open to manipulation.
Make no mistake by giving those who don't earn it a hand out and the ability to live beyond their means with little value of a pound note, you cause more issues than just rich getting richer, you create debt that they can't pay back when they get targeted and conned by unscrupulous bstd loan companies, you get an increase in drug and alcohol abuse, find the way to make them value themselves and what they can achieve and the value in monetary terms what they can earn and you will be half way to solving many of the issues we have
I absolutely get the notion that people lived beyond their means, but surely the banking crisis was also about lending silly amounts to people with no hope of paying it back, both as individuals, countries, and businesses...let alone the likes of Lehman brothers going bust, and certain individuals with control over vast amounts robbing everybody. If benefit claimants are looking towards the financial institutions for inspiration and example then it is indeed a sorry world. We ought not to dish out hand outs, but we ought to dish out hand ups. Folk should also know that if you want it, save up for it, except in specialised circumstances (mortgages for instance) where you need to borrow.
This. Some people on here talk of the fairness of Labour's policies but there is nothing fair about people being trapped in a benefits catch-22, where actually going into work would leave them with less money than staying at home and living off the state. Meanwhile those in low-wage and unskilled jobs or sole traders suffered for doing the right thing and going out to earn a living. Miliband's manifesto does nothing to persuade me that they aren't going back to this Ponzi scheme of a policy. Their proposed action on the economy has been slammed from economists and large & small businesses. If they're planning on honouring their promise of 'no new borrowing' (and lets face it no one believes that promise) then once they significantly reduce the tax base, how will they plan to make the welfare system fairer without reproducing the benefits trap? The fact is they can't and they won't.
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be. The question is, do you consider yourselves rich or poor, relative to someone who owns a 500k home and earns 60k + per year?
Except it isn't is it? You don't actually have to look up the facts but just think about all our lifestyles now and compare that to what they were like in, say, the mid 1960s. Do you really think that we've all only got to be more well off in the years that the Labour Party were in power because that's very silly indeed. BTW the "poverty line" in the UK is defined as someone getting less than 60%of the median household income. So, as the country gets generally more well off, the poverty line goes up too. That's not necessarily a true measure of whether someone is actually poor or not. Someone trying to bring up a family would be, but a young single person living at home with their parents could actually think they were quite well off. The definition is open to manipulation.
Er.... it is true, the rich get richer under a Tory government.
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be.
This is only half true. The rich have always gotten richer, whether under Tories or Labour, however neither under the 18 year Tory government or the 5 year Coalition have the poor been left poorer. Figures indicate that the poor will be slightly better off in 2015 than they were in 2010 and that's before you take into account the cyclical effect of the global financial crisis that was still at its peak when the Coalition came to power.
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be.
This is only half true. The rich have always gotten richer, whether under Tories or Labour, however neither under the 18 year Tory government or the 5 year Coalition have the poor been left poorer. Figures indicate that the poor will be slightly better off in 2015 than they were in 2010 and that's before you take into account the cyclical effect of the global financial crisis that was still at its peak when the Coalition came to power.
So its true then the rich get richer under a Tory government,...glad we cleared that up.
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be. The question is, do you consider yourselves rich or poor, relative to someone who owns a 500k home and earns 60k + per year?
Except it isn't is it? You don't actually have to look up the facts but just think about all our lifestyles now and compare that to what they were like in, say, the mid 1960s. Do you really think that we've all only got to be more well off in the years that the Labour Party were in power because that's very silly indeed. BTW the "poverty line" in the UK is defined as someone getting less than 60%of the median household income. So, as the country gets generally more well off, the poverty line goes up too. That's not necessarily a true measure of whether someone is actually poor or not. Someone trying to bring up a family would be, but a young single person living at home with their parents could actually think they were quite well off. The definition is open to manipulation.
Er.... it is true, the rich get richer under a Tory government.
I was actually referring to the "poor get poorer" bit. But since you bring it up, as has been referred to in this thread previously, "the rich" whoever they may be are now paying more tax than they did under the last administration. In any event what is wrong with getting richer?
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be.
This is only half true. The rich have always gotten richer, whether under Tories or Labour, however neither under the 18 year Tory government or the 5 year Coalition have the poor been left poorer. Figures indicate that the poor will be slightly better off in 2015 than they were in 2010 and that's before you take into account the cyclical effect of the global financial crisis that was still at its peak when the Coalition came to power.
So its true then the rich get richer under a Tory government,...glad we cleared that up.
Ah good, you just agreed with a small part of my post so therefore you agree with all of it. Thanks for confirming that I'm right.
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be.
This is only half true. The rich have always gotten richer, whether under Tories or Labour, however neither under the 18 year Tory government or the 5 year Coalition have the poor been left poorer. Figures indicate that the poor will be slightly better off in 2015 than they were in 2010 and that's before you take into account the cyclical effect of the global financial crisis that was still at its peak when the Coalition came to power.
So its true then the rich get richer under a Tory government,...glad we cleared that up.
Ah good, you just agreed with a small part of my post so therefore you agree with all of it. Thanks for confirming that I'm right.
*Steps away for the sake of this good natured thread.
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be. The question is, do you consider yourselves rich or poor, relative to someone who owns a 500k home and earns 60k + per year?
Except it isn't is it? You don't actually have to look up the facts but just think about all our lifestyles now and compare that to what they were like in, say, the mid 1960s. Do you really think that we've all only got to be more well off in the years that the Labour Party were in power because that's very silly indeed. BTW the "poverty line" in the UK is defined as someone getting less than 60%of the median household income. So, as the country gets generally more well off, the poverty line goes up too. That's not necessarily a true measure of whether someone is actually poor or not. Someone trying to bring up a family would be, but a young single person living at home with their parents could actually think they were quite well off. The definition is open to manipulation.
Er.... it is true, the rich get richer under a Tory government.
I was actually referring to the "poor get poorer" bit. But since you bring it up, as has been referred to in this thread previously, "the rich" whoever they may be are now paying more tax than they did under the last administration. In any event what is wrong with getting richer?
Because the poor get poorer, ergo the majority of the country suffers.........
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be. The question is, do you consider yourselves rich or poor, relative to someone who owns a 500k home and earns 60k + per year?
Except it isn't is it? You don't actually have to look up the facts but just think about all our lifestyles now and compare that to what they were like in, say, the mid 1960s. Do you really think that we've all only got to be more well off in the years that the Labour Party were in power because that's very silly indeed. BTW the "poverty line" in the UK is defined as someone getting less than 60%of the median household income. So, as the country gets generally more well off, the poverty line goes up too. That's not necessarily a true measure of whether someone is actually poor or not. Someone trying to bring up a family would be, but a young single person living at home with their parents could actually think they were quite well off. The definition is open to manipulation.
Er.... it is true, the rich get richer under a Tory government.
I was actually referring to the "poor get poorer" bit. But since you bring it up, as has been referred to in this thread previously, "the rich" whoever they may be are now paying more tax than they did under the last administration. In any event what is wrong with getting richer?
Because the poor get poorer, ergo the majority of the country suffers.........
Comments
Those that abuse zero hrs should face punishment and fines it should be there for those that need it, noway should companies as big as sports direct need to use it, but companies like mine at the present time should
It's all about measure and control
People eh?
He has been attacked by opponents and the tory press because they fear him. They have tried to manipulate the public's perception of him and people are starting to see what he is about and questioning what they have been fed. I think it has been a major miscalculation by the press and I said as much at the start of this campaign. This is being shown to be true as his rating rise and the Tory campaign begins to look lacklustre in comparrison. Make no mistake, behind closed doors the Tories have a lot of respect for Milliband and many of them are dismayed at Cameron's approach to this election.
Now, I don't particularly agree with a lot of what he says but he is just as much a victim of the above as it is claimed Miliband is.
That's all I have to say on this thread. Time to hide behind the privet hedge again.
I thought his reply to that particular question was very strong.
In my mind, the belief that if the richest are richer then everyone else benefits from that (the "trickle down" effect) is frankly a load of nonsense. :-)
If benefit claimants are looking towards the financial institutions for inspiration and example then it is indeed a sorry world.
We ought not to dish out hand outs, but we ought to dish out hand ups. Folk should also know that if you want it, save up for it, except in specialised circumstances (mortgages for instance) where you need to borrow.
Always been the case and always will be.
The question is, do you consider yourselves rich or poor, relative to someone who owns a 500k home and earns 60k + per year?
How big a difference would the respective parties definition be?
You don't actually have to look up the facts but just think about all our lifestyles now and compare that to what they were like in, say, the mid 1960s. Do you really think that we've all only got to be more well off in the years that the Labour Party were in power because that's very silly indeed. BTW the "poverty line" in the UK is defined as someone getting less than 60%of the median household income. So, as the country gets generally more well off, the poverty line goes up too. That's not necessarily a true measure of whether someone is actually poor or not. Someone trying to bring up a family would be, but a young single person living at home with their parents could actually think they were quite well off. The definition is open to manipulation.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Camoron will be getting a bit twitchy.