drat01 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 When the current government has suggested that certain functions are better performed by various independent charities or social groups and structures you have generally howled with outrage that this is the government's role. You can possibly see then why one might surmise you don't really appreciate the difference. The broad outlook of the labour party is based purely and simply on implementing a system designed to infantilise and indoctrinate a nation with post-Soviet socialism, destroying anyone who doesn't want to be part of that.................. Childish caricatures are childish. I do like this new VT because you can see the people who "like" quotes - quite good fun to see who they were ...... You are making things up again I see AWOL another of your traits. What has charities and organisations got to do with anything? A difference between society and the state has nothing to do with charity and the big society shit that you allude to. So maybe you can explain why you made that reference in the context of what was being discussed? Are you saying that society is something that only charities and the like can contribute to? I am really struggling to see what your point is and why you are making it. Care to explain? again your second statement has no relevance to what was was said other than another attempt to deflect a point that was being raised. A typical "ahh but Labour" response I see. As we have seen again recently by Cameron and his "support" for the JCB donations with his comments in Brazil, the Tory supporters do prefer to support their backers rather than the country. Why have the rich - who whatever way you want to spin it are typically the Tory party core support - been excused from paying taxes while the poorer in society taken the full and bit more hit? Is that a fair society or should they be "looked after" by charities? Maybe the Tea Party policies on things such as abortion and welfare are the ones that you would explain as being beneficial to society? Maybe charities should be responsible for abortions or should people behind windows covered in blinds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 The new 'voluntary' owner employee suggestion is not going to be (necessarily) voluntary for new employees from next April, apparently: Edit: Link to announcement on BIS site. Also, the annual exemption for CGT is £10.6k for this year. I saw this on Skynews web site and had to check it wasn't April 1st back to the drawing board on that one me thinks ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 The new 'voluntary' owner employee suggestion is not going to be (necessarily) voluntary for new employees from next April, apparently: Edit: Link to announcement on BIS site. Also, the annual exemption for CGT is £10.6k for this year. Sounds like Adrian Beecroft's report, maybe watered down a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 I saw this on Skynews web site and had to check it wasn't April 1st back to the drawing board on that one me thinks ... I need to read the details but it might work for some people? My redundancy would be about £30k if I got the push tomorrow (I wish!) but I would give up my rights if they gave me £30k of shares instead. I'd just resign! Or doesn't it work like that?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Boris Johnson " One nation, One Direction, one squirrel. " :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 The risk is being allocated to the employee, 'we'll give you shares if you let us fire you for no reason and stop redunency packages'. This will only work for things like tech-start ups, for most companies and thus jobs, it won't work very well at all, and it will naturally be to the detriment of labour. Tech-start ups have high growth potential, the rest of the economy? hmmm not so much. The govt. wants more start ups as a result of this but a hell of a lot of these start ups go bust in their first year anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 8, 2012 Moderator Share Posted October 8, 2012 The shares thing is another half cocked idea. The idea of workers owning shares is a good one, promoting loyalty and commitment - so far so good. But it seems to me that is a win - win - the employer gets a more productive loyal worker and the worker gets a small number of shares (max 1500 quid per annum at the mo', I think) in their co. which they can sel ltax free after 5 years, and they pay no income tax on that 1500 quid. So why take away basic employment protection on top of that. It takes away the win-win, and biases it towards the employer. It doesn't promote responsible employment. These tories, full of half baked "ideas" and they mess everything up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 What a ridiculous scheme. What happens if a worker swapped their redundancy package for shares, only for the company to later go out of business forcing the redundancy, then there would be no redundancy money and no shares. A lose-lose situation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 What a ridiculous scheme. What happens if a worker swapped their redundancy package for shares, only for the company to later go out of business forcing the redundancy, then there would be no redundancy money and no shares. A lose-lose situation. Erosion of workers rights is certainly a common theme from this Gvmt and from previous Tory gvmts so it really should come as no shock 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veloman Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Well I reckon this (above) is a great idea. In fact it could be modified so that employers don't actually pay wages/salaries anymore but give employees goods or vouchers to get goods from nominated suppliers. We could call it .......'The Truck System'; that we be progressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Well I reckon this (above) is a great idea. In fact it could be modified so that employers don't actually pay wages/salaries anymore but give employees goods or vouchers to get goods from nominated suppliers. We could call it .......'The Truck System'; that we be progressive. You could be on to something here. If only there was also a way of companies helping these grateful sackable plebs with housing too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Well I reckon this (above) is a great idea. In fact it could be modified so that employers don't actually pay wages/salaries anymore but give employees goods or vouchers to get goods from nominated suppliers. We could call it .......'The Truck System'; that we be progressive. Yes, but think of all the admin. We could do away with all that bureaucracy, get rid of the red tape. How about if the employer simply bid for the services of staff in a free market, and then sorted out things like food, accommodation, medical care and whatever, according to the needs and resources of the business? They would have to guarantee to find employment for the worker's family as well, or else release them on to the open market to another employer. It would be a job for life, or until no longer needed, in which case the opportunity would arise to be passed on to another employer. It would save a massive amount on things like education and health care. We wouldn't need those big expensive universal systems of provision any more - just trust the employer to provide what is most efficient. After all, the natural working of the market will push the employer to find the most efficient form of providing for these things, and employers who provide too little or too much by way of health and education would find themselves at a competitive disadvantage over time, so it would all work out for the best, with the least efficient owners going bust and staff gravitating to those who were better in tune with the market. It would mean that things like all this health and safety stuff could go, because again employers would know the best thing to do, and would not take risks which might disadvantage them through workers losing limbs in machinery, for example. Industrial tribunals would be another wasteful bit of red tape that could be got rid of. Employers could be trusted to determine effective forms of workplace discipline themselves. They would also probably find means of entertainment for the workers and their families, for example the younger ones and especially those of a female persuasion. And of course cutting back the role of the state in this way would prevent all this state spending from crowding out private enterprise, so we would see real economic growth, with rewards going to the risk-taking entrepreneurs. Mr Osborne's plans leave a little to be desired so far, but it seems that at least he's on the right road. God speed the good gentleman's progress. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veloman Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 ^^^^^ Better satire than Jonathon Swift !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 The Tory party are in total turmoil as the reports have just shown. Cameron is a dead man walking and the god awful Boris is now a sure fire next leader of the Tory party the only question is when will the Tory party rid themselves of Cameron and put the buffoon in charge? Ashcroft and the other big money (tax avoiders) backers of the Tory party are clearly showing they have little time for Cameron. Relying on people like Clegg to support him through parliament just wont work and in Osborne he has nothing but a chancellor that people deride and have contempt for. Boris will continue to play the buffoon card clevelrly hiding his repugnant semi racist streak until he can be in charge of the Tory party. End of the line Cameron, was never a good leader of anythin and his record on ill judgement of people and inability to deliver anything he promised will be a majorpart of his downfall from the UK public and his financial backers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Boris will not be next. He's distanced himself from the current lot for a reason. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 It would seem that even the IMF are now calling Osborne incompetent. The IMF has slashed forecast for the UK economy this year from growth of 0.2 pct to contraction of 0.4 pct. IMF says the world economy will grow 3.3% this year, the slowest since the 2009 recession, and 3.6% next year The reality though is still that bosses pay in the UK is increasing, unemployment remains very high, cuts in front line services are still impacting the UK people but Cameron and Osborne would still have you believe that the fault lies with people on any sort of benefits. Just when you think they can sink lower they find another trap door to go down yet another level Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 That would be the IMF whose opinion you deemed worthless when they pointed out the mismanagement of our economy by Brown I'm sure they will be pleased to learn they are no longer on the axis of evil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 For anyone who caught Mr Osborne's comments today, about how hard-working families leaving home to go to work as shift workers, teachers, nurses, lifeboatmen, rescuers of fallen women, venture capitalists, paperboys, hewers of wood and drawers of water, cancer surgeons and the rest, will glance wistfully up at the windows of their scrounging layabout unemployed lower class neighbour and see the blinds still drawn, because the feckless idle scum are lounging in bed injecting reefers or taking snuff with the vicar's wife while watching Jeremy Kyle: this one's for you, George. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 The IMF were endorsing Gideon a couple of years ago. I really wouldn't take them too seriously, although you can find some interesting research papers on their site, but these papers of course 'do not reflect the views of the IMF' but only the authors. At least they are starting to see that the idiotic theory of 'fiscal-contraction-expansion' is just, well, idiotic. Although I and many others could have told them that at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 That would be the IMF whose opinion you deemed worthless when they pointed out the mismanagement of our economy by Brown I'm sure they will be pleased to learn they are no longer on the axis of evil The clue is in the phrase "even the IMF". They are a clueless bunch of incompetents whose main purpose in life is to act as cheerleaders for neoliberal governments, sacrificing any shred of academic credibility they might have fleetingly possessed in their youth for the diktats of the organisation and the political necessity to shore up imbeciles in positions of power. Yet even they can't go along with Osborne's claims to be getting the economy back to growth. By the way, newsnight have pointed out a word which (highly unusually for a Chancellor's speech) did not pass Mr O's lips today. It begins with "g". Can you tell what it is yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts