BS: election uk

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 11:57 AM

And the assertion that even the poor are getting richer is a lie -

About what I expect of the lunatic right here -

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/02/poor-richer-poverty-living-standards

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 11:54 AM

Terribilis, your assertions only make any sort of sense if you assume that everyone should pay out the same proportion of their income in income tax - which is of course tosh.

In 1971 the top rate of tax (on unearned income) was 90%. And a damned good thing.

The way to stop the feral rich running away is exchange control.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 11:21 AM

Or - if that's too complicated for you - try the Christian take on the matter - Maybe Keith the Christian would care to comment
POVERTY IN THE UK
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Musket
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 11:10 AM

I wonder if Keith and Terribulus might start believing their own outrageously silly comments? I wonder if we passed that point some time ago.

I don't know where they usually spout it but I notice here on Mudcat, many are too intelligent to fall for it, so why they continue to look laughing stocks with their right wing xenophobic diatribe is beyond me.

Still, like I said. Everybody gets to vote.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 10:50 AM

"Poor getting poorer - NO, quite the reverse in fact"
There is no indication whatever that this is the case - your old usual unqualified claims.
These are the actual figures - respond to them rather than the bullshit
POVERTY IN BRITAIN
And no - I don't believe everything I e#read i the press, but I'm happy to respond yto your actual figures
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 10:28 AM

Dave the Gnome(you graduated from being a Gnut): "If both rich and poor are getting richer, where is the wealth coming from?"

Good question...but you may ask, instead, 'If both rich and poor are getting richer, where is the wealth coming from..who finance the candidates and elections??...the poor??????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 10:17 AM

Genuine question here. If both rich and poor are getting richer, where is the wealth coming from? No tricks, it just doesn't add up in my mind. We have no more resources but everyone is gettng more of them. How does that work?

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 09:28 AM

Luckily there are business magnates on both sides of the Atlantic who seem to realise that wealth has nothing to do with how much they have but is dependent on how much people are payed, taxed and spend. I am heartened to see the likes of Robert Reich urgung other business leaders to ensure a healthy economy by paying workers more.

OK, they may be in the minority at present but we can but hope others will realise the truth of true prosperiety before long.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 08:42 AM

"The "rich" who for some reason you seem to hate are already paying more tax than they have ever done, push them too far and they leave - who then pays "their whack" or do you just let services, benefits, pensions and welfare go to the wall."

Presumably, if we're patient and wait long enough, their wealth will "trickle down" and benefit everyone (hurrah!). Any estimates of how long we'll have to wait before this starts happening, Teribus? A couple of million years perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 07:37 AM

Most idiotic statement ever seen on this forum

"Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 12:05 PM

Welcome to Teribus's glorious haves-'n'-have-nots Tory Britain!"

1: Stevie-Son there will be "haves-n-have-nots" irrespective of who is elected. The "rich" who for some reason you seem to hate are already paying more tax than they have ever done, push them too far and they leave - who then pays "their whack" or do you just let services, benefits, pensions and welfare go to the wall.

2: "Non-Doms" = non-issue really when you take into the equation the wealth they bring into the country - even Labour realised after Red Ed had made his idiotic statement that it would be disastrous to boot them out or bring them into the full income tax fold (Collect in £900 million IF they hang around to pay it and lose £billions in what they bring into the country) Good old Labour dinosaur "class-warfare" type thinking - not surprising you have admitted previously that you are perfectly willing to cut off your nose to spite your face.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 07:06 AM

Getting back to the original Achmelvich point it seems whatever the intentions of the anti-Scottish commentators are, the outcome is more and more Scots seem to be turning to the SNP. Poll yesterday suggested they may win all but two of the seats. Today's Ipsos Mori poll suggests they could in fact win every seat. SNP on 54% with Labour only on 20% and in danger of being overtaken by the Tories. The UKIP vote has fallen back to only 1% which I suspect has helped the Tories. Lib Dems only on 5%.

I don't know if these recent polls are rogue but they do show a further momentum. Though even if 54% was correct I don't think it'd mount to every seat as it takes no account of regional differences etc. The Tories could win 2 seats in the south and the Lib Dems could retain places like the Northern Isles whilst some Labour seats need a massive local swing to change hands. Sturgeon has kind of dismissed the polls on her twitter account saying "forget polls as only votes win elections"

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/318815-stvipsos-mori-poll-snp-set-to-win-all-scots-seats-at-general-election/

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 06:37 AM

By the way - I would echo Muskie's stupid question - who are they and us.
I've never had any problems in any of the countries I visited in Europe or Africa and ventures into parts of Asia - both as an obsessive hitch-hiker in my youth and later a visitor.
I was greeted with politeness and on occasion warmth and friendship by just about everybody I met and learned quite a lot because of that.
I quite often deepend those relationships by sharing my hatred and mistrust of their and our politicians - the real "them and us" as far as we were concerned.
I'm still often struck by what bad tourists many Britons make - the Empire on holiday.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 06:28 AM

"Frogs'n'Krauts' "
Pretty well sums up Britain's outlook on the world down the centuries - little wonder the world hates us - particularly those we bled dry in the name of Empire
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 06:18 AM

'They might hate and despise you Michael but who are "they" and who are "us"?

I made it perfectly clear that 'they' are the Frogs'n'Krauts' and 'us' are the Brits. Don't pretend to be more stupid & [in the true sense] illiterate than you actually are. It is an Act Of Supererogation, as forbidden by the Thirty-nine Articles!

Xenophobic? Not even the start of it. I find it amazing that such views still prevail.'

But they don't prevail, do they? Just the trouble...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 04:53 AM

By the way
One of the benefits of the success of the Irish economy via Europe was an increase in the support for the arts, particularly the traditional arts, which brought about a turnaround of the fortunes of Irish music and brought many thousands of youngsters to it, enabling them to be creative artists and not just factory and farm fodder.
Not only has this assisted the Irish economy at home, but it has allowed kids to build careers and musicians and music teachers abroad - and has made traditional Irish music an international phenomenon.
Thatcher was the nearest Britain ever came to electing a fascist into office and her contempt for working people, especially young people, as being anything but factory fodder (certainly not creative human beings) is till very much part of Conservative philosophy
That is the Christmas the turkeys are being asked to vote for - cold and bleak as ever
Jim Carroll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 04:30 AM

The Norwegians comply with the measures they want to, where they feel they gain an advantage, the ignore the ones where they feel they don't which is why they have 100% control over their agriculture, fishing, their oil & gas industry, finances, etc, etc.

As for the "dead Kiwi" - he was perfectly correct wasn't he.

As to influencing things inside the EU - the EU Parliament is a toothless talking shop nothing more nothing less - it decides nothing the unelected Commissioners do the deciding - apparently as whims most of the time.

See you ignored the point I made about the UK being one of the largest net contributors to the EU ( i.e. we put more in than we get out so we have to be better off if we are out of it)

Margaret Thatcher negotiated a rebate for the UK - Tony Blair gave it away on the understanding that the EU's idiotic CAP would be first revised and then scrapped, we lost the lion's share of the rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher but was the CAP scrapped - was it F**K, still continues to this day because it benefits France - if you negotiate a deal both sides must live up to it - End result UK shafted again - that is what influence we have being in the EU (Constantly outvoted) and our Commissioners kicked to sidelines in "no-count jobs" - not surprising seeing the downright "crooks" we've sent there.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 04:29 AM

Keith. - Err. The social chapter contained within The Maastrict Treaty doesn't exist? It is just a Labour manifesto promise?????

Yes it exists, but Britain opted out of it.
We chose to enact a minimum wage by our own democratic process.
The minimum wage WAS "just a Labour manifesto promise."

Anything else you need explaining Musket?

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 04:20 AM

"Most of that was complete and utter tosh"
Course it was - and your saying so makes it so, as usual
Which bit was actually "tosh" - going to show us the unemployed miners with their second homes or Rollers.
Or maybe the wealth distribution bit is a global myth
"By the way they did borrow to buy bigger cars, buy widescreen TV's, take more holidays abroad, wear the fanciest designer trainers, etc."
Did they - not on the sink estate I grew up in - they borrowed for the reasons I said.
The reason that Fuhrer T launched her 'buy your council home" fiasco was to pay lip-service to the fact that working people wished to improve their lot.
An utter disaster about to be revisited.
Throwing up the Irish incompetence doesn't ring any balls either - I have no truck for Ireland following Britain's steps - but at least the Irish kids can go to Europe for work without too much of a problem - as I said, not satisfactory, but beats the situation back in the UK where kids are forced to take anything offered to them for whatever crap wages rather than move about and look for work abroad.
The U.K. unemployment figures are massaged by the policy of forcing people into taking what is offered at any price - a life destroying policy for any young person with any skill or inclination - just to make them in charge look good and win elections.
"Milton Malby "fiddler" pals to put a tune to it you would have yet another whinging Irish Ballad or a Country & Western Hit"
But you'd rather indulge in your racist Little Britain' stereo typing.
Thatcherite to the core - pity she climbed into bed with Pinochet and dropped the mask
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Musket
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 04:07 AM

Oh and the Norwegians? Yeah. Let's be subject to all the things right wing nutters moan about but not be able to influence them. As members, we get to vote on day to day, veto where appropriate on fundamental matters and provide a number of commissioners.

Norway get to do as they are told in order to trade tariff free. In fact they conform to some things we managed to opt out of. Be nice to see Tory faces as we are forced to opt back in

Looks like more than one here has been taken in by Farage 's lies. Still, we can't all exhibit intelligence. Everybody gets a vote.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 04:05 AM

"the richest 1% in the UK have doubled their money in the last 5 years."

OK then Bridge now tell everybody what percentage of the total taxes on income collected by HMRC that 1% pay.

Now I know that Bridge isn't going to do that so here are the figures

Ten years ago the richest paid only 20% of all income tax, today Britain's top 1% of earners pay 33% of all income tax collected by HMRC

The top 3,000 earners in the country pay more in income tax than 9 million of Britain's lowest paid workers (According to HMRC 29.9 people in the UK pay income tax)

The figures were disclosed in a Freedom of Information (FoI) request to the journalist Fraser Nelson as part of his investigation into growing wealth inequality in Britain. His findings will be broadcast in Channel 4's investigations programme Dispatches, entitled How The Rich Get Richer, which is shown tomorrow.

Mr Nelson, editor of The Spectator magazine, said yesterday that the new figures 'blow apart' Ed Miliband's claim last week that Britain had become a 'zero zero' country where the richest pay zero tax and the poorest work on 'zero hours' contracts.

"In the last tax year, the richest were shouldering a greater share of the burden than any time in history," said Mr Nelson. "And this was achieved after the top rate of income tax was reduced from 50p to 45p in April 2013."

AND THIS

"The new income tax figures appear to dispel the claim that Britain's richest people are avoiding paying tax.

The HMRC already publishes statistics showing that the top ten per cent of earners pay more than 55 per cent of the total income tax. But the latest figures released through the FoI request cast light on the even greater tax burden shouldered by the super-rich.

It shows that for the top 0.1 per cent of earners - about 30,000 people with a minimum declared income of £670,000 - they may earn five per cent of the total income but pay 11.3 per cent of all income tax.

The Institute of Economic Affairs calculated that the wealthiest 30,000 income tax payers contribute about £18.8 billion in income tax - equivalent to the entire budget of the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice combined.

For the richest 0.01 per cent, they earn 1.9 per cent of total income but pay 4.2 per cent of total income tax."

And what is Ed Miliband aiming to do? Drive them out of the country, so tell me what happens then? Who then has to take up the slack and make up the deficit? - ask Francois Hollande in France they tried the "Miliband/Labour" way and ended up collecting less in tax revenue - squeeze the rich to make the pips squeak and the rich not being mugs move taking their wealth with them.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Musket
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 03:57 AM

Oh dear. Let's listen to dead Kiwis.

Scraping the barrel a bit aren't we?

Tell you what, why don't you tell us what the debt was as a precentage of GDP when this government was formed and what it is now?

Fool

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 03:44 AM

Jim Carroll - 29 Apr 15 - 03:14 AM"

Most of that was complete and utter tosh but if you get one of your Milton Malby "fiddler" pals to put a tune to it you would have yet another whinging Irish Ballad or a Country & Western Hit - the choice as they say is yours.

By the way they did borrow to buy bigger cars, buy widescreen TV's, take more holidays abroad, wear the fanciest designer trainers, etc.

Youth unemployment Rate in the UK = 15.6%.
Youth unemployment Rate in Ireland = 21.6%

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 03:28 AM

Comments by a New Zealander, Charles Upham VC & Bar, at the time Britain was attempting to Join the Common Market:

1962 - "Britain will gradually be pulled down and down, and the whole English way of life will be in danger."

1971 - "Your politicians have made money their god, but what they are buying is disaster." He then added - "They'll cheat you yet, those Germans."

When we went into the Common Market we were joining a "Trading Block" not a political union, when we were asked if we wished to remain in the Common Market we were talking about remaining in a "Trading Block" not whether or not we ultimately wanted any form of United States of Europe. The Conservatives are the only major party that is offering the electorate of the UK a choice in the matter that has far outran the original concept that we voted for in the past. The United Kingdom is one of the largest net contributors to the EU's coffers which to me suggests we put in far more than we get out. In the long term we are better off out of it as a Political Union. We cannot negotiate a damn thing from inside it, we could as an associate member via EFTA, just as the Norwegians have successfully done.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Musket
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 03:28 AM

They might hate and despise you Michael but who are "they" and who are "us"?

Xenophobic? Not even the start of it. I find it amazing that such views still prevail. Meanwhile, The EU commission are bending over backwards to accommodate Cameron 's preferred better terms but within Europe.

Keith. - Err. The social chapter contained within The Maastrict Treaty doesn't exist? It is just a Labour manifesto promise?????

Wow. I always suspected there was a chance my jibes had a ring of truth about them but it seems you really have been taken in by UKIP leaflets!

No doubt you'll be sending another pm to Michael thanking him for his support.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 03:25 AM

Premature ejaculation again
meant to add:
THE WORLD SITUATION
Of vourse - as Ake says, we can always vote them out of office - and elect somebody equally corrupt and incompetent and self-serving - then wait another five years and try again.... and so ad infinitum
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 03:20 AM

Yep, sounds very paranoid.

The important question about Fred Teeth was "Whose arse was he licking"?

Shall we get back to the question now?

The core points, it seems to me, are two simple ones.   

First, do you believe in the welfare state, the rule of law, and access to justice? The conservatives are already dismantling those.

Second, the richest 1% in the UK have doubled their money in the last 5 years. Have you?

All in it together? Not!

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 03:14 AM

"or would you rather see no such thing and massive youth unemployment as currently enjoyed in Ireland"
The long term and massive youth unemployment in Ireland has been alleviated to a great degree from Ireland's membership of Europe and the fact (sad that it is is) that young people are able to move freely about the world to get jobs.
Not an ideal solution by any means, but infinitely preferable to the situation that has existed throughout my entire life in Britain - stay at home unemployed.
Ireland did extremely well out of membership of Europe until the bankers sent the economy crashing into the sea in flames - what went wrong here is everything that has always been wrong with Britain - corrupt and incompetent politicians an increasingly predatory economic system and a society generated by greed and acquisition as a yardstick for success.
"nobody forced people to live beyond their means - that is down to the stupidity of individuals"
So - it is stupid for a family, under pressure from banks insisting that money grows on trees, to borrow to say, move out of a sink estate, or add an extra room to their home to accommodate an addition to the family or to seek a better standard of education for their children, but it's good politics to allow those banks to pressurise such people to the point that it destroyed their lives and lost them their homes - destroying the economy - let's blame the stupid borrowers or the immigrants for trusting the professionals.
Working people borrowed, not to buy second homes, or have longer holidays or bigger cars - they borrowed to improve their lot slightly as workers - to lift themselves out of the mire to provide themselves with a little more security of existence - no homes in the sun or offshore accounts or tax havens - just a better life.
Too much to ask for in today's Brave New World.
BRITAIN'S FILTHY RICH WORKERS
RUBBING OUR NOSES IN IT

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Apr 15 - 01:21 AM

The trouble with our being bound into this "one of the largest trading blocks in the world" is that it is, from our pov & to our detriment & bane, predicated on the fact that its two leading members, France & Germany, have only one thing they really agree about — they both HATE LOATHE AND DESPISE US. Having made things as hard as they could for us to get in [don't get me started on that perfidious, ungrateful, bite·hand·that·feeds·you heap of dribbling pigshit De Gaulle], they eventually conceded to the importunities of the certifiably moronic own-nest-feathering arslikkin Heath for the express purpose of finding some common ground — the process of frustrating us at every possible turn. Out of that stinking organisation is the only way forward if our very polity is to survive. Makes no odds to me. I'm 83 and have no children to worry about, so I'm not going to have to live with the consequences of keeping blindly on this self-destructive track of complacently just sitting there being Aunt Sally and hoping they might come to love us if we put up with it for long enough. So there is clearly only one way to vote -- and do please stop this unworthy evocation of Godwin's Law every time this is pointed out in a disgraceful attempt to blacken the only party promulgating the only policy that can save our nation.

And if you think this all sounds maybe a bit paranoid, don't forget the unassailable principle postulated by Joseph Heller et al, that just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get you.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 02:39 PM

Musket,
But without EU membership and the social chapter, we wouldn't have a legal minimum wage. The Major government fought tooth and nail to get out of the requirement.

Completely false.
EU had nothing to do with it, and it was not an EU requirement.
It had been Labour policy since 1986, but they did not get elected until
1997 so it was not enacted until 1998.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Musket
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 02:18 PM

Free to trade with the world eh?

I shan't even begin to point out the idiocy beyond that. Contrary to the ramblings coming from the padded cells err sofas in the con club, we don't have a fucking empire.

That's why the Conservative party took us into European integration via the common market and successive conservative prime ministers signed further treaties to ensure our inclusion in one of the largest trading blocks in the world.

I'd stick to moaning about foreigners if I were you. Your tirade on trade is about as accurate as Farage 's waffle. At least he doesn't pretend to be rational.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 01:54 PM

Free movement of labour???

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 12:53 PM

Well let's start off discussing those rules and ideas you don't like first. We're not on straight bananas and cucumbers and the size of duck eggs again, are we?

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 12:31 PM

If our politicians do not do as the British people wish, they can be removed at the ballot box.   how do we remove the rule makers and ideologues of Brussels?

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 12:05 PM

Ah yes, that good old Tory mantra, "the flexible jobs market". Translator's note: hire and fire at will, stuff the unions, remove all contractual protection, zero hours contracts rule OK, minimum wage not living wage, just enough part-time hours to keep the plebs off benefits but not enough to put food on kids' plates (off to the food bank, chaps!), a pittance for those on fake apprenticeships, let's call job seekers "self-employed"...

Oh yes, let's celebrate the fact that we don't have to count all those millions who can hardly make ends meet, if at all, as "unemployed". And, if there are any left to bugger up the stats, well we can always impose "sanctions" on them at the merest whim of some little Hitler down the Job Centre. But better lay off of them poor non-doms and better make sure we can leave the poor little rich kids the mansion plus some, and don't mention Starbucks or Amazon, and how dare Labour threaten to control those nice private landlords...

Welcome to Teribus's glorious haves-'n'-have-nots Tory Britain!

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 11:38 AM

It also does wonders for providing flexibility in the job market - or would you rather see no such thing and massive youth unemployment as currently enjoyed in Ireland; France; Spain; Italy, etc, etc.

As for doing better than most not in the Eurozone well yes we are aren't we, but we are tied to the Eurozone via our membership of the EU, far better to trade with the world as we did before and caould do again.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 09:37 AM

What you failed to say about zero-hours contracts, Billyboy, is that the numbers on them shot up by 28% in one year. This government is allowing that culture to become the norm. Let's face it, it does wonders for the unemployment figures, doesn't it? As for which sectors are using them, I think your definitions of sectors could be a little flexible. That could be seen as an attempt to give you homework, but I wouldn't bother if I were you. I don't really give a damn about who uses the contracts. It's the fact that your Tories love them so much, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 09:27 AM

who are also forced to compete for scarce housing, schools and medical services.

So, still unaware or unwilling to see that the net effect of migration in the EU is that we have, at worst, no more people and, according to some reports, considerably less people than if there was no migraion in the EU?

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 09:27 AM

Well, Billyboy, you mentioned the healthy state off the finances in 1997 (did I argue with that?) and I filled the gap you left, that (among other things) the NHS was struggling. That is not taking you to task. That's making an honest man of you. As for "doing better" than most in the Eurozone, well we're "doing better" than most not in the Eurozone as well, so the implication in your point is not borne out. Perhaps we can talk about what "doing better" means another time. In that conversation, shall we mention food banks, zero-hours contracts, struggling A&E departments, rocketing NHS waiting lists, tens of thousands of disabled people dumped off benefits etc., or not?

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Musket
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 09:20 AM

Yes Keith. If people are willing to work for less then they will be paid less. But never less than the pitiful minimum wage, which is an small comfort but better than no net.

But without EU membership and the social chapter, we wouldn't have a legal minimum wage. The Major government fought tooth and nail to get out of the requirement.

So jobs are on a level playing field. Our minimum wage could be higher and that would stoke the economy and take more people out of the need for other benefits as top ups. Far better to spend the money on giving employers the confidence to pay more than mop up afterwards.

Other than an opinion in a report, which is balanced against other reports anyway, I fail to see how immigration is the main cause of a rush to the bottom?

Oh. Hang on. Your post. Silly me... I keep trying to look at them objectively. I do apologise.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,#
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 09:20 AM

". . . as the politicians set the minimum wage they should then be paid it - see which way it moves then."

Well said.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 09:15 AM

GUEST# as the politicians set the minimum wage they should then be paid it - see which way it moves then. Would mean massive unemployment of course but that is the trouble with those who want their cake and eat it.

Zero-Hours Contracts - this surprised me:
- Those on them represent only 2.3% of the UK workforce (Means that 97.7% of the UK workforce aren't on zero hour contracts)
- Voluntary Sector Organisations greatest user of zero hour contracts at 33%
- Public Sector comes second at 25%
- Private Sector comes third with 17%

So the evil bosses exploiting these poor unfortunates would appear to be "Charities" and the Government/Public Sector Employers, with the big bad capitalists in private industry coming a very poor third - WOW who wud a thunk that.

Fear not billybob - you've got a US Presidential Election to look forward to - that should start to ramp up in a couple of months time.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: billybob
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 08:48 AM

Only 10 more days and it will be over! I have a headache ,going for a lie down.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 08:45 AM

Yes "Lest we forget" Stevieboy:

1: "the deregulation of the banking system was initiated with great fanfare by Thatcher in the late 80s. New Labour did sod all about it, of course, but the Tories were in full and enthusiastic support right up to the crash."

Ehmmmm everybody was in full and enthusiastic support as that deregulated banking sector made enormous profits and poured money into the coffers of the Treasury. IIRC as Scotland's First Minister and erstwhile employee of RBS, Alex Salmond was full of praise for Fred the Shred and hailed the RBS take over of ABN AMRO as a master-stroke of forward planning and genius.

2: Stevieboy DID I SAY that the country was "all hunkydory in 1997?? - Don't think I did (HINT what I DID SAY WAS - "Blair took over in 1997 with one of the healthiest balances ever") - If you cannot tell the difference then no point in discussing the matter, on the basis of you taking me to task on things I do not say.

3: Still doing better than most in the Eurozone

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: GUEST,#
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 08:45 AM

Fair Wages for Parliament. Drop their salaries by 60%

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 08:11 AM

neither employers nor politicians can be trusted to ensure a fair wage.

Of course not!
If there is a pool of workers willing to work for less they will pay less.

Lovely for employers.
Lovely for those toffs wanting cheap domestics, nannies and gardeners.

Desperately hard for workers on the edge, who are also forced to compete for scarce housing, schools and medical services.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 07:29 AM

they are still fully committed to working towards the break up of the United Kingdom and independence for Scotland.

Well they can't do it without the constitutional consent of the Scottish people, who are as British as anyone else living here. In the meantime you would expect the SNP to fight Scotland's corner. Boris fights London's corner, Maggie fought the City's corner (and fought the public sector tooth and nail into the bargain), we're all fighting our own corners. Why is that? Because vast tracts of the UK get a lousy deal, that's why. We get the politicians we ask for. Our system includes Scottish MPs at Westminster and they have every right to use whatever power they can get to give the Scottish people a better deal. I don't hear you whingeing about the extremely undemocratic deal struck in 2010, when a failing also-ran poor third-place party got to wield power whereas a party with 200 seats more got to wield none at all. If there is going to be a Labour/SNP coalition, which I severely doubt and personally would not like to see, I should like you to explain why you've been so quiet about the ConDems before you start throwing brickbats at the Scots.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 06:18 AM

Lest we forget, the deregulation of the banking system was initiated with great fanfare by Thatcher in the late 80s. New Labour did sod all about it, of course, but the Tories were in full and enthusiastic support right up to the crash. As for the country being all hunkydory in 1997, well let's talk about the then 18-month waiting lists for new hips, etc. That's the trouble with the economist types - they measure human happiness in terms of money and nothing else. After 18 years of Toryism unemployment was at 6.8%. By 2008 it stood at 5%. Then came the crash, which the Tories never fail to blame entirely on New Labour, which is entirely a big lie. Now we have the Tories concealing unemployment and under-employment by encouraging zero-hour contracts, part-time work with no job security, bogus apprenticeships and forcing jobseekers to declare themselves "self-employed". Thatcher managed it by sticking millions of people she' d thrown out of work on to the scrap heap known as incapacity benefit. Anything to conceal the true level of unemployment, eh? But the productivity and growth figures are a somewhat inconvenient giveaway, eh? Not looking too good in this morning's news....

As for my predilections, Billyboy, my dislike of the major parties is almost evenly spread. Like most other people I have to weigh up what the least worst option is. I know what the worst option is: more of this, that's what. If I lived in America I'd have to vote democrat even though they are somewhere on the spectrum with Genghis Khan, simply because they seem ever so slightly less inclined to get us into wars. Voting is all about realising that some bugger has to do it, then holding your nose.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 06:14 AM

Ehmmm NO Richard nobody forced people to live beyond their means - that is down to the stupidity of individuals. It then goes to poor risk assessment on the part of those lending, unfortunately they incorrectly believed that the sums they had in bookmakers parlance "laid off" to cover themselves were based on an assumption that was terribly wrong.

What betrayal in the referendum? The majority of the electorate of Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom, the track record is that you cannot put any faith in any assurance given by the SNP wrt the United Kingdom and they are still fully committed to working towards the break up of the United Kingdom and independence for Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 06:04 AM

Rigidly enforced wages and a strongeg Trades Union say in workerss wages - I should have said
The claimed threat to standards of workers living is proof, if proof were needed, that neither employers nor politicians can be trusted to ensure a fair wage.
Jim Carrroll

Subject: RE: BS: election uk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Apr 15 - 05:34 AM

Sounds like a great argument for a rigidly enforced minimum wage
Jim Carroll
IMMIGRATION TO AND MIGRATION FROM BRITAIN