Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Risso]

Yes Peter, it's a bit unfair to bring up tough questions a Tory can't answer

 

He didn't ask a question.  Well, not a sensible one anyway.  A farm seems to be getting farm subsiidies from the EU.  That's completely different from the question of tax avoidance which Peter seems to be making allegations about.  What is it that IDS is supposed to be doing?

[tonyh29]

Tony did you find my posting of left foot forward articles at all? :-)

As for you not reading their articles, great i am genuinly pleased, at least you wont post any of their drivel as fact then.

P.s. when will my cattle be delivered :-)

 

 

have I ever posted any of their stuff    ?

 

your buffalo had a slight accident

 

Ps it tasted delicious

[tonyh29]

 

Yes Peter, it's a bit unfair to bring up tough questions a Tory can't answer

 

I can only apologise.  I can't think what came over me.

 

Villaajax by the sounds of it

[mockingbird_franklin]

It's a big farm, that gets money the owners don't need from the EU, like all other owners of big farms.  I don't agree with it, but I'd hardly call it a tax dodge.

I agree, Corporate Welfare might be a better description, I wonder if it's means tested or rigorously assessed as genuinely in need like public welfare, or whether it's a case of just applying and waiting for the cash to flow, in the way public welfare is often wrongly portrayed as working

Edited August 5, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[Risso]

Well it comes from the EU, so it's almost certainly inefficient, unjust and just completely wrong.  I wonder how you go about being classed as a 'farm'?  What's to stop anybody spending a relatively low amount on a few acres of agricultural land, then applying for subisidies?  I grew a bit of veg in the garden, where's me handout?

[tonyh29]

More evidence that Balls was wrong  

 

Monday's purchasing managers' indexes (PMIs), surveying thousands of companies worldwide, showed the UK services sector expanded at its fastest pace in more than six years last month, topping even the most optimistic forecasts.

[meregreen]

 

More evidence that Balls was wrong

 

 

 

Monday's purchasing managers' indexes (PMIs), surveying thousands of companies worldwide, showed the UK services sector expanded at its fastest pace in more than six years last month, topping even the most optimistic forecasts.

 

Service sector is the weakest sector for an economy to rely on. Jobs can come and go at an alarming rate. Many of these jobs will be part time or zero hours, not to say generally low paid . Until this country adopts the German model of high tech, high pay, top end manufacturing, in partnership with, not in conflict with its labour unions then we will continue to become a nation divided between the have lots and have very littles. Good that jobs  are being created. But that is by no means the whole story. Balls generally has a better grasp of this than that idiot Osborne.

[villaajax]

 

 

Yes Peter, it's a bit unfair to bring up tough questions a Tory can't answer

 

I can only apologise.  I can't think what came over me.

 

Villaajax by the sounds of it

 

 

I can only apologise, if I was a Tory MP I'd have probably just asphyxiwanked myself to death.

 

True story.

[snowychap]

More evidence that Balls was wrong

Monday's purchasing managers' indexes (PMIs), surveying thousands of companies worldwide, showed the UK services sector expanded at its fastest pace in more than six years last month, topping even the most optimistic forecasts.

 

Firstly, doesn't it 'suggest' rather than 'show' (it's an index of feelings, isn't it)?

Secondly, when comparing it to the increase in the manufacturing PMI, doesn't it also present itself as more evidence to suggest that Osborne et al. are either liars or incompetent (rebalance the economy, march of the makers and all that jazz)?

[villaajax]

So there could be up to 1 Million people on zero-hours contracts? Seems like a good way to bring down 'unemployment' statistics get people into work.

 

It just goes to show how bogus these Tory statistics are. Zero hours contracts, you might have a couple of hours work, you might not have any but you are official employed.

16 hours of work or over per week is all you need to complete for the Government to consider you full time employed, 16 hours! Yes, let's bump up the full time employment statistics by lowering the number of hours needed to consider it full time work.

People who are claiming unemployment benefit get cut off after 6 months. They're not claiming so they're no longer an unemployment statistic regardless of whether they've actually found work or not.

Making people work for free... although you've given them something to do, it's not really a job, it's just classed as one to make the Tories look like they're tackling unemployment.

[tonyh29]

Government in massaging unemployment figures shock ....

its been going on longer than they've been lying on reasons for going to war ...

Edited August 5, 2013 by tonyh29

[villaajax]

Get with the times Tony

[drat01]

Government in massaging unemployment figures shock ....

its been going on longer than they've been lying on reasons for going to war ...

 

"ahhh But ........ " , is that the only answer?

 

Maybe I can mention the General Belgrano or can I mention the fact that the only way the Iraq war got through parliament was by the support of Hague, Cameron et al? What about the fact that Tory opposition of the day were upset because the Gvmt didn't act sooner etc etc.

 

At least lets keep talking about the subjects (Note: I expect a reference to Prescott and sheffield must be nearly due for another airing) - come on Tony you are better than all of this.

[drat01]

So an interesting set of findings re the Bedroom Tax has been published in the Indy

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/big-lie-behind-the-bedroom-tax-families-trapped-with-nowhere-to-move-face-penalty-for-having-spare-room-8745597.html

 

 

‘Big lie’ behind the bedroom tax: Families trapped with nowhere to move face penalty for having spare room

 

 

96% of benefit claimants who will be penalised cannot be rehoused

 

The Government’s justification for its controversial “bedroom tax” has been debunked by new figures showing that up to 96 per cent of those affected have, in effect, nowhere to move.

The figures published today in The Independent expose the false argument behind ministerial attempts to spin the move as ending the  “spare-room subsidy”, and confirm campaigners’ claims that it merely penalises poor people.

The policy means that tenants have their housing benefit reduced by 14 per cent if they have one spare bedroom, and 25 per cent if they have two or more spare bedrooms.

Yet more than 19 out of 20 families  hit by the bedroom tax are trapped in their larger homes because there is nowhere smaller within the local social housing stock to take them. This is shown by figures provided by councils in response to Freedom of Information requests by the Labour Party.

For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit.

Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area. ......more on link

 

It seems that a lot of the "publicity" (lies) that surround so many of the headlines re the benefit attacks are now oozing out. I wonder what spin the junior spokesman (or woman) will say in response to this.

Edited August 5, 2013 by drat01

[tonyh29]

The point was when you were trumpeting falling unemployment under the last term I pointed out it was massaged figures and its as old as Mike ... So the current government are doing nothing new

It's not defending them , it is merely pointing out the flaw and the hypocrisy of the original post

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

So an interesting set of findings re the Bedroom Tax has been published in the Indy

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/big-lie-behind-the-bedroom-tax-families-trapped-with-nowhere-to-move-face-penalty-for-having-spare-room-8745597.html

 

 

‘Big lie’ behind the bedroom tax: Families trapped with nowhere to move face penalty for having spare room

 

 

96% of benefit claimants who will be penalised cannot be rehoused

 

The Government’s justification for its controversial “bedroom tax” has been debunked by new figures showing that up to 96 per cent of those affected have, in effect, nowhere to move.

The figures published today in The Independent expose the false argument behind ministerial attempts to spin the move as ending the  “spare-room subsidy”, and confirm campaigners’ claims that it merely penalises poor people.

The policy means that tenants have their housing benefit reduced by 14 per cent if they have one spare bedroom, and 25 per cent if they have two or more spare bedrooms.

Yet more than 19 out of 20 families  hit by the bedroom tax are trapped in their larger homes because there is nowhere smaller within the local social housing stock to take them. This is shown by figures provided by councils in response to Freedom of Information requests by the Labour Party.

For the 38 councils that provided full data, 99,079 families are expected to be affected by the bedroom tax, but only 3,803 one and two-bedroom social housing properties are available – just 3.8 per cent of the homes required to rehouse the families who are hit.

Another 26 councils who responded said they expected a total of 45,669 families to be affected, but were unable to say how many smaller properties were available in their area. ......more on link

 

It seems that a lot of the "publicity" (lies) that surround so many of the headlines re the benefit attacks are now oozing out. I wonder what spin the junior spokesman (or woman) will say in response to this.

 

[snowychap]

As Cable et al. have said they are going to look at them, I'll post the Grauniad story in here:

McDonald's ties nine out of 10 workers to zero-hours contracts

McDonald's has emerged as potentially the biggest zero-hours employer in the private sector after admitting that it employs 90% of its entire workforce in Britain, or 82,800 staff, on the controversial terms.

Politicians said the UK's largest food chain should offer staff minimum guaranteed hours, while also suggesting that the latest revelation increases the pressure on the business secretary, Vince Cable, to ensure that an ongoing review of the contracts is far-reaching.

Zero-hours contracts have been criticised because they offer no guarantee of regular work and no stability of income.

However, the Institute of Directors, which represents 38,000 directors including several bosses of FTSE 100 companies, attacked calls for a ban, claiming the UK could be in the same situation as Italy or Spain without a flexible labour market.

Andy Sawford, a Labour MP who has campaigned to abolish zero-hours contracts, said: "McDonald's could lead on addressing this issue. There will be some employees working 20 to 30 hours a week, week in week out, and it is indefensible not to put those people on contracts. In the ordering of their food they know how to identify customer levels so they cook the right amount, so they could use that same information with staff levels and give employees more certainty."

McDonald's employs 92,000 staff throughout the UK, running 1,200 restaurants. A spokeswoman said prospective employees are asked during the application process to say which days they can work.

She added: "Many of our employees are parents or students who are looking to fit flexible, paid work around childcare, study and other commitments.

"Employee hours are scheduled in advance and we never ask people to be 'on call'.

"The zero-hours contracts which all our hourly-paid employees are on do not affect employee benefit entitlement and all of our employees are entitled to a range of benefits including life assurance, employee discounts and access to a range of training and qualifications."

She said McDonald's has employed zero-hours contract workers since it entered the UK in 1974.

It has also emerged that a rival fast food franchise, Subway, employs hundreds of staff on zero-hours contracts. The Guardian has seen a contract for staff at one of the largest Subway franchisees, Made To Order, which runs more than 100 Subways in Greater Manchester and Yorkshire.

The contract states: "The company has no duty to provide you with work. Your hours of work are not predetermined and will be notified to you on a weekly basis as soon as is reasonably practicable in advance by your store manager. The company has the right to require you to work varied or extended hours from time to time."

It adds that by signing the contract all non-management staff – or "sandwich artists" – waive their right under working time regulations to work no more than 48 hours a week.

Subway said in a statement: "All Subway stores are independently owned and operated by franchisees. As part of their agreement, franchisees are responsible for all employment matters. Franchisees are required to comply with employment law when recruiting, contracting and in all dealings with employees."

By comparison, sandwich chain Pret A Manger said it does not use zero-hours contracts and that all staff are on a minimum of eight guaranteed hours a week.

The latest revelation has led MPs to call for a broader investigation by the government into the issue since the Guardian first disclosed that retailer Sports Direct employs 90% of its 23,000 staff zero-hours contracts.

Alison McGovern, another Labour MP who has campaigned against the contracts, saidthat the issue is clearly more widespread than first thought. She said: "Every day that goes by and we find out more about how widespread the practice is, the more concern there is and the more there needs to be action. We can't ignore this issue any longer because the calls for change are getting louder and louder. Saying it's fine and we don't need to do anything does not address the issue."

The IoD criticised calls for a change to the rules and said banning the contracts would have extremely damaging results for businesses and employees. It said the flexibility was vital to a strong economy.

Alexander Ehmann, head of regulatory policy at the IoD, said: "Calls to ban zero-hours contracts are deeply misguided and any such action would have extremely damaging results. It would hurt thousands of employees who rely on the flexibility such contracts allow and employers, especially small and medium-sized firms, would struggle to hire the staff they need to meet varying demand.

"Countries with a flexible labour market tend to have lower unemployment and higher employment, and one of the reasons that the UK economy has not gone the way of southern Europe is because employers have been able to adapt swiftly to changing demand."

The IoD employs around 200 staff at its London head office on Pall Mall, with 16 catering and bar staff on zero-hours contracts.

'Staff numbers'

Companies and their staff numbers on zero-hours contracts:

McDonald's 82,800

JD Wetherspoon 24,000

Sports Direct 20,000

Spirit Group 16,000

Boots 4,000

Cineworld All part-time employees

Subway All non-management staff in Yorkshire and Greater Manchester, at least

Tate Catering All part-time employees

Buckingham Palace 350 summer workers

From having a look around, it would appear that there is some confusion as to the correct terminology as a 'zero hours contract' seems to have a specific meaning, whereby the worker is just that and not an employee, the contract is for the worker to provide a service, that the offer of work can be refused by the worker - okay in a practical sense the reoffering of work for the unskilled is unlikely to occur to those who refuse but still it is supposed to affect the wording of the contract, and that holiday pay and sick pay is not treated as under the ERA but as per the working time directive. It would seem that the way that most of the above have been explained might make them casual hours/flexible hours contracts which would make all of those people on them employees and would not enable the employers to abdicate some of the duties one would normally expect of them.

In order to test that out I guess there would have to be a few tribunal cases on the matter to give an indication as to what constitutes employment and so on. If only they hadn't just made accessing tribunals more difficult, eh?

p.s. IANAL so any resident employment lawyer may well come along and say that what I claim to have gleaned above is, actually, cobblahs.

Edit: Also on the Subway waiving working time directive rights - can't one unilaterally reclaim those rights by putting it in writing to one's employer with a notice period? I thought that was always the deal?

Edited August 6, 2013 by snowychap

[Risso]

So, McDonald's have just been doing what they've done for most of the last 40 years but only now it's a problem?

[snowychap]

So, McDonald's have just been doing what they've done for most of the last 40 years but only now it's a problem?

Have they been employing 90% of their 'workforce' on these contracts for the last 40 years?

[tonyh29]

So, McDonald's have just been doing what they've done for most of the last 40 years but only now it's a problem?

doesn't that count as ahhhh but .......