Kingfisher

Scary times. I think Randy had the interests of the club at heart, I hope the new owner does too.

Another example of the government picking on the most vulnerable in society. This time they're putting the boot into the disabled as the axe falls on the independent living fund.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/31/independent-living-fund-disabled

Maybe we could afford to give disabled people a decent quality of life if millionaires like Dave's mate Gary Barlow (the new poster boy for tax dodgers) were not allowed to be selfish and greedy.

Tories 'cleaning up the mess'.

You make it sound like it's easy to close the staple door, when there are thousands of companies paying accountants and legal teams to keep shoving it back open.

No point trying then.

How much does it cost the people who actually pay tax to chase the avoiders? Only a fraction of the lost tax is ever recovered. If you're Barlow and Take That, a vote for the Labour Tories and the current Tories has been a very lucrative one. Government needs to be more proactive in getting to grips with this problem, but they don't want to...

Why are they perusing Barlow now? Why didn't they close the stable door?

Labour and the Tory led coalition like to look like they're cracking down on tax avoidance, but the reality is they're not.

Edit - some reading on Green policy for those who might be interested.

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/17-03-2011-tax-evasion-bill-parliament.html

Gary Barlow likes tax loopholes, that's why he votes Tory. He'll perform a few shit songs for a children's ward, but he won't dip into his own pocket.

Gary Barlow OBE (for services to himself). Take that.

Gary Barlow likes tax loopholes, that's why he votes Tory. He'll perform a few shit songs for a children's ward, but he won't dip into his own pocket.

Gary Barlow OBE (for services to himself). Take that.

If the message that you are trying to convey is that only Tory voters participate in tax avoidance schemes, I would suggest that your view is even more blinkered than it normally appears.

I know a number of reasonably well off, potentially Tory voters, who were offered such schemes, which were perfectly legal, but turned them down for one reason, and one reason only. Because they were wrong.

In the end, no one should baulk at a 40% higher tax rate for earned income in this country, which worked up until the final squeals of the last Labour administration. You have to earn it to pay it.

You have drawn the wrong conclusions.

The message I'm tying to convey is we have tax loopholes and a mainly Tory coalition government who seem disinterested in closing them.

Therefore, if you benefit from tax loopholes, like Barlow, and don't want your tax avoidance methods closed, then a Tory vote would be a good one.

If like me you find the rich avoiding tax immoral, and greedy, vote for the Green Party as they seem serious about ending tax avoidance for the rich, something none of the three major parties are.

Gary Barlow likes tax loopholes, that's why he votes Tory. He'll perform a few shit songs for a children's ward, but he won't dip into his own pocket.

Gary Barlow OBE (for services to himself). Take that.

In work poverty up.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-socalled-inwork-poverty-soars-by-59-under-coalition-as-more-people-with-jobs-are-forced-to-claim-housing-benefit-9340907.html

My week:

On Tuesday I was around at a friends house. He feels suicidal because he fears he is going to become homeless as his landlord is threatening to put up his rent. He's in a poverty trap, unable to find viable employment.

Yesterday I was delivering food to a food bank for the second time in as many weeks.

Cameron's Britain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIH-2lZF2yw

That's the first PPB I've seen that hasn't made me want to cut my ears off within the first 20 seconds. It was funny and put valid a point across.

It's rightly however, received criticism because it solely attacks the government without presenting any alternative policies, but lets face it, Labour don't really have any.

A better and more versatile backup than Clark, but only on backup player wages and fee.

His height might be an issue, but he looked lightning fast, assured on the ball and quick to spot the danger - pretty much the antithesis of Clark

I look forward to seeing him next season, hopefully, please god, fully healed and back to his physical best, with an injury free preseason under his belt.

I liked the guy. Was gutted for him when Beagle crashed into Mars.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27322166

 

Farage is on question time tonight, ...again. His 14th appearance since 2009 and continues the BBC policy of guaranteeing UKIP a seat on the panel.

...Oh and 'elected' MP - Caroline Lucas will make a rare appearance for the Green Party, so it might be worth a watch.

Yeah, it's happening now. But it's only going to exasperate an already dodgy situation into outright exploitation if the unemployed are made to sign up to zero hours. Can an employee turn down hours in this situation without suffering sanctions?

If we show the same attitude as Palace did against Liverpool that's enough for me regardless of result. It's not good enough if they play like a team making up the numbers.

Introduce a basic income? How do you mean?

Edit, sorry - to be more specific. What would it be set at? And how might you think would it work? In layman's terms. It's an interesting theory.

However, back in the real world we have a political class that would not subscribe to such policy in a million years. So within that framework, zero hours will just become another tool to exploit the poorest in society.

Who is the winner if unemployed people stay unemployed?

That's a really good question.

I think it's a situation where it isn't a one answer fits all sitaution - i.e. either employers "win" or "people" win. It's more complex, obviously.

A small number of willingly unemployed "win" if they remain unemployed but on benefits, clearly. I don't believe there are a great number of them, and for every one of them, there will be multiple people who'd want a job, but can't get one.

Now those people, faced with travel costs, poor bus services, expensive trains or fuel etc. forced to take a zero hours job on minimum wage, unable to budget for guaranteed work, and thus buy a discounted travel card would quite conceivable be worse off, even if forced to work on zero hours contracts. Employers would get ultra cheap labour and force down wages for other employees. It doesn't look like a winner to me, that idea.

I think the only way is to have an economy that is based not around service industry "jobs" and finance, but around added value products - manufacturing, IP based stuff and so on. If you create an economy that is making and creating things, then people will be better off, as will the country. This is what the Gov't has largely got wrong.

Exactly. Get people into sustainable, meaningful and secure employment.

Zero hour contracts only work if both parties are flexible. If the flexibility is not viable for the employee then it's an unequal deal. The danger then is that employers start exploiting that situation, which I think will happen.

Zero hour contracts should be banned.

However once we go down the route of making people take them then it changes that. This policy of making the unemployed accept a zero hour job is a slippery slope towards exploitation of the unemployed.

*correction zero hours do get accrued holiday pay.

It's the slippery slope of getting the unemployed back into work. So in a given week, they might not get any work at all, and would therefore retain their benefits. If they do get some work, they get paid for it. Everyone's a winner. When I was unemployed, I'd have loved that opportunity.

Employers are the winner if this situation becomes the norm.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27289148

All unemployed by the looks of it. It looks to me like its another step towards normalising zero hour contracts.

It looks like a typical half-arsed British attempt to introduce a system similar to what the Germans call a 'mini-job'.

Keeps workers in the work habit, lowers the benefits bill, and improves the unemployment figures.

Typically, because our politicians are all ***** they haven't set out the arrangements in a proper statute, like ze Germans, by which they could be held to account, they have slipped some sloppy arrangement in by the back-door, while pretending they don't see it as permanent feature of the jobs market.

This is the British way, and if Westminster is the mother of parliaments, then the MPs are all mofos.

I'm not familiar with the German model. Proponents of zero hour contracts defend it saying they can be beneficial to both parties, employer and employee. However once we go down the route of making people take them then it changes that. This policy of making the unemployed accept a zero hour job is a slippery slope towards exploitation of the unemployed.

*correction zero hours do get accrued holiday pay.

I fail to see the problem with that. They have to take some work if available, and if they don't get any, they retain their benefits. Surely that's eminently sensible?

You get no normal employment rights such as holidays and sick pay and obviously no guarantee of work. A company can take on staff and let go of staff so easily, if orders were down 10 staff could go for a month. Those people could be on £150 a week one month and back on £50 odd universal credit the next. It's great for the employer but is exploitative of the unemployed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27289148

All unemployed by the looks of it. It looks to me like its another step towards normalising zero hour contracts.

The unemployed have to accept zero hour jobs now or face sanctions. Seems unfair to me to make people sign up to zero hour contracts with no regular wage and no guarantee of any wage from week to week.

Last week the government were saying they wanted to ensure employers were not using them as the norm, and that they should only be used where they benefit both employer and employee. This policy seems at odds with that goal.

I think zero hour contracts should be banned.

What have the government done in light of the Snowden revelations regarding spying? Nothing. What do they intend to do? Nothing. UKIP and Labour? On record, they won't do anything. It's always been the same, just a flat 'no we won't do anything, no need to worry yourselves over this, its for tour own good, now lets move on and not speak of this again'. It's dismissive, it's arrogant.

I think it's a totally unnecessary violation of my privacy, and it's dangerous and I want it stopped. This government don't care about privacy, they've already sold your medical records.

The Greens, the only party I feel are working for me, not themselves or big business are challenging the legality of GCHQ surveillance.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/04/greens-legal-challenge-gchq-surveillance

Rent controls and re nationalisation of the railways... possibly, maybe. There's almost two good policy promises by Labour there. You can tell they're good, they've received almost completely negative coverage from the BBC.

The Nationalisation of the Railways has been a Green policy for some time now, though I think the Green's would go a little further, they'd take the Utilities Co's back too iirc.

As this is a policy I approve of and I don't trust Labour one bit, its made me laugh at their desperation rather than approve of their possible policy. Labour have been attacking the greens for some time now, they seem to be worried that they will damage their chances

Caroline Lucas' private members bill on rail re-nationalisation here. http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/railways.html

She wrote an article about it in the Guardian back in August 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/22/privatising-railways-disaster-renationalise-labour