Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Kingfisher]

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.

[chrisp65]

Do you know how to truly effectively control rent?

 

Employ people to build factories. In those factories build homes. 400,000 homes. Put those new properties in new clusters all over the country, with improved transport to them and with some shops close by.

 

You never know, it might even prevent the next housing price bubble crisis we are currently racing towards by dicking about with demand instead of supply.

[bickster]

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

[Kingfisher]

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

[Kingfisher]

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

[Davkaus]

They want to be careful. Go on like that and they'll accidentally kill themselves after climbing in to a suitcase.

[MakemineVanilla]

To be honest, I wouldn't mind GHQ invading my privacy, if they would just click the 'like' button occasionally. 

[Kingfisher]

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.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Kingfisher

[MakemineVanilla]

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.

 

Does it apply to all unemployed or just long-term unemployed? 

[Kingfisher]

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.

[Risso]

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?

[Kingfisher]

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.

[MakemineVanilla]

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.

Edited May 6, 2014 by MakemineVanilla

[snowychap]

The policy should certainly do wonders for 'unemployment'/'employment' figures and may even help to create an illusion of full employment.

 

...if they don't get any, they retain their benefits...

And would still be subject to the same level of conditionality (and therefore open to being sanctioned, i.e. losing the benefits which would make up the shortfall in wages when not called in/offered work) as if they were not working at all (or 'employed').

Going back to the earlier discussions about zero hours contracts, one of the things that jumped out to me when I was having a look around the web was that it was supposed to be an arrangement where the worker was able to refuse the offer of work*. In these circumstances this wouldn't be the case, would it? The conditionality applied by JCP 'coaches' (what twunt came up with that one?) would mean that any 'offer' would have to be accepted.

*Edit: Though the CIPD guidance seems to suggest this is not necessary.

Edit 2: I wonder whether the McVeigh response has had any input from BIS and may give a hint as to any conculsion from the investigation Cable et al. were supposed to be undertaking in to zero hours contracts (e.g. whether they may be due to be legally defined in the future and whether this may also include something specific to get both parties, employers and government, out of any difficulties regarding conditionality and refusals of offers to work)?

Edited May 6, 2014 by snowychap

[Risso]

 

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.

 

 

Incorrect.  You are entitled to holiday pay as a 'worker' under zero hours contracts.

[Kingfisher]

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.

[Risso]

 

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.

[snowychap]

So in a given week, they might not get any work at all, and would therefore retain their benefits.

Not necessarily (as explained above).

[Kingfisher]

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.

[MakemineVanilla]

 

 

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.

 

 

The German 'mini job' has not been great for German workers but pretty good for employers.

 

http://tinyurl.com/mbaatvh

 

What we all know about market forces is that people tend to prefer cheap over dear and that applies to the purchase of labour as a commodity, as much as anything else.

 

Once second-class workers enter the marketplace then more and more companies find that they 'need' the cheaper option and therefore demand increases.

 

This is how you create a whole class of people called the precariat and increase inequality.