Kingfisher

Link for that last bit? https://twitter.com/paullewismoney/status/444040955952635905

Private firms win 70% of NHS contracts... what could possibly go wrong? In other news, G4S tagging contract repaying govt £109m for false claims on tags for dead and prisoners. That's fraud isn't it? G4S tried to defraud us of over £100m? Will we be paying them to tag themselves now? Tories, 'cleaning up the mess'.

Q: How about a minimum wage set at the living wage? ...So we can raise people out of poverty? 'No no no, impossible... we just can't possibly do that I'm sorry, bad for the economy, blah blah blah'. Q: How about some new FCA rules from April which will allow payday lenders to demand more than double the loan back after less than 90 days? 'Why not! Great idea!'

Why raise the NMW? It will stifle the pay day loan industry! http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/12/uk-payday-loan-shop-banks-building-societies Notice Glasgow is top? Why oh why do the Scottish want to break away??? Hmmm it's a mystery. It must be those smelly ginger nationalists, yeah it's probably that.

Hot on the heels of the bombshell that Britain just can't afford to raise people out of poverty, just can't afford a national health system, just can't afford...well anything really, bankers bonuses are up 44%! Tories... cleaning up the mess.

In short I said October's rise is so small it's irrelevant. It won't effect employers. A rise to the living wage level of I think around £7.75 would have an effect on small businesses which could be absorbed by reduced rates. The NHS is an interesting example. The problems the NHS are facing and are going to face are those created by Labour and now the Tories through these crazy PFI schemes not the cleaners at the bottom. And in short I'm saying you are talking utter rubbish if you think a 3% rise in NWM will have no affect upon employers. As for the living wage being absorbed by reduced rates... I'd love to see how that one would work. As for the rest of this post about the NHS and PFI that really has nothing to do with the topic of NMW. You think I'm talking utter rubbish then immediately attribute to me a conclusion I never even gave. I propose a rise, in conjunction with other policies, up to a living wage. ...'Oh no that's impossible, unworkable blah blah blah'. It's funny how everything is impossible - until it comes to fleecing the poorest, that's dead easy, it seems. You might want to read your post again I've not attributed any conclusion to you simply quoted back what you've said. I note you have yet to provide anything to back up your previous claim about those living in poverty and NMW. I'm saying the October increase won't effect employers in any significant way. If you think otherwise then I'm not the only one obliged to present evidence. Most people in poverty will be earning above the October rise. That's the group we need to address if we are serious about ending in work poverty. If that's false, I'd like to see the evidence. I'm working off common sense, I will go out there an get evidence if you really want. (Not tonight, I'm nackered lol).

In short I said October's rise is so small it's irrelevant. It won't effect employers. A rise to the living wage level of I think around £7.75 would have an effect on small businesses which could be absorbed by reduced rates. The NHS is an interesting example. The problems the NHS are facing and are going to face are those created by Labour and now the Tories through these crazy PFI schemes not the cleaners at the bottom. And in short I'm saying you are talking utter rubbish if you think a 3% rise in NWM will have no affect upon employers. As for the living wage being absorbed by reduced rates... I'd love to see how that one would work. As for the rest of this post about the NHS and PFI that really has nothing to do with the topic of NMW. You think I'm talking utter rubbish then immediately attribute to me a conclusion I never even gave. I propose a rise, in conjunction with other policies, up to a living wage. ...'Oh no that's impossible, unworkable blah blah blah'. It's funny how everything is impossible - until it comes to fleecing the poorest, that's dead easy, it seems.

It's an extra £370 a year for the average worker. The average worker. No. It will be a small benefit for the very very lowest paid and only as much as £370 for a full time worker on NMW.

In short I said October's rise is so small it's irrelevant. It won't effect employers. A rise to the living wage level of I think around £7.75 would have an effect on small businesses which could be absorbed by reduced rates. The NHS is an interesting example. The problems the NHS are facing and are going to face are those created by Labour and now the Tories through these crazy PFI schemes not the cleaners at the bottom.

A company employes how many staff on NMW??

The old nobody can afford it. Firstly this increase is so low, it's irrelevant. Most people in poverty will be earning more than that an hour. It should go up to the living wage level, coupled with other well thought out policies in housing and small business rates it will save the tax payer money which can be used on hospitals and services rather than in work benefits.

There will be a 19p increase in the minimum wage from October.... Tory's the party for 'hard working people'? Really? I don't think so, I'd say that it is derisory and quite frankly insulting. Tory's cleaning up the mess.

Job centres are sending people to food banks. So does that mean the government admit they're now part of the welfare system?? Tories : Clearing up the mess lol http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/11/food-bank-jobcentre-dwp-referrals-welfare

I'll say one more thing on Bob Crow. When you have virtually the whole media i.e. the right wing media, making ad hominem attacks against you, and convincing the public their temporary inconvenience is more important than working conditions and wages. And when the same media are making out that it's you your members should resent, for what you earn, and not their low paying boss. To get results takes strong leadership. If MP's started getting results for us they'd have earned his wage.

ISDS represents a race to the bottom, as corporations supersede democracy. http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/keith-taylor/euus-trade-deal-is-threat-to-democracy-but-even-meps-dont-know-whats-going-o?utm_source=hootsuite&utm_campaign=hootsuite

So the Condems passed clause #119. Now MP's can close viable hospitals when they choose, such as the Lewisham A&E. Not local, clinical led decisions. Another nail in the coffin of the NHS.

I don't think the general public are obsessed by not speaking badly of the dead. If you we're enough of a cock in your life to piss people off I think the British public are quite unabashed when it come to expressing that. Just look at Thatcher.

RIP Bob Crow, he was a savvy operator. I saw him being interviewed by Andrew Neil recently. He effortlessly batted away Neil's attempts to undermine him with the kind of trivial, personal bullshit the right wing media use when they know they're losing the argument. He increased union membership and did well for his members. He was a real thorn in the side of the few who want it all their own way at our expense.

Of course it's what teachers want. Nobody wants to have targets to reach. I'm not saying Ofstead are any good. I'm pretty sure they're not. But I couldn't really gather from that article what The Greens are suggesting as an alrernative? In the article. 'It calls for its replacement with continuous collaborative assessment and for national council educational excellence working closely with local authorities. To further encourage local accountability and reaction to local needs, the policy calls for education authorities to encourage schools to set up parent councils or forums, providing a mechanism for direct local input, and also for representatives of older students to be able to attend governing body meetings and have input into their decisions.' Sounds like they want a less top down, more regional and inclusive decision making process.

Green Party pledges to abolish Ofsted. Seems to be what teachers want. http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/4920199?utm_hp_ref=uk

On the day that more NHS contracts are revealed to be up for grabs, clause 119 has it's final vote in parliament. Caroline Lucas is leading a cross party effort to try and defeat the government. Clause 119 allows the government to go ahead with the closures of hospitals without need for a judicial review. More in link : http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2013-14/656

I dreamed I ran over a little girl. She just ran out, and because I wasn't alert I didn't brake as fast as I could have. I felt guilty about that for the rest of the dream which was essentially me being given a breathalyser test and questions. I woke up feeling sick.

After years of getting an inexplicably large amount of airtime on the TV Ofcom have decided to rubber stamp it by declaring UKIP a major party in next years general election. So we'll be getting more of women being called sluts, more gay weather and more bongo bongo land. Yet the Green Party, who actually have a democratically elected MP in Westminster are by comparison an irrelevance?? **** joke.

Evidence? Because I would argue that the private sector is several times more efficient than the public. Presumably you also object to GlaxoSmithKline? Or Elastoplast? Or the bloke that makes sick bags because they too make a profit out of sick people.Or is it profit in general you object to? If the NHS remain free at the point of use but more efficient in its treatment of people where is the problem? In the video I posted the GP, Doctor Gill said efficiency levels have been dropping with privatisation. It doesn't do what it's supposed to do. As for the pharmaceutical industry, well there is a stark advert of the dangers of leaving medicine to the profiteers of the markets. So to repeat colhints point...what has actually been privatised apart from Labour's PFI build hospitals? Or is that to what Dr Gill is referring?George Osborne progressed 61 PFI schemes worth a total of £6.9bn in his first year as Chancellor.

Evidence? Because I would argue that the private sector is several times more efficient than the public. Presumably you also object to GlaxoSmithKline? Or Elastoplast? Or the bloke that makes sick bags because they too make a profit out of sick people.Or is it profit in general you object to? If the NHS remain free at the point of use but more efficient in its treatment of people where is the problem? In the video I posted the GP, Doctor Gill said efficiency levels have been dropping with privatisation. It doesn't do what it's supposed to do. As for the pharmaceutical industry, well there is a stark advert of the dangers of leaving medicine to the profiteers of the markets.