General Election 2015

Its a close run thing between what is most predictable: the 'Torygraph' (clever play-on-words chortle) printing an article about job creators being anti-Labour or the inevitable reaction from the mouth-frothing anti-Tory brigade.

 

Too close to call

No problem with job creators being against Labour.....if they actually created more jobs in the first place for the ever growing population of unemployed using food banks and paid a living wage.

So just to be clear, you genuinely think that everyone living in poverty is in that situation because they are lazy?

That's how I read it as well.

No problem with job creators being against Labour.....if they actually created more jobs in the first place for the ever growing population of unemployed using food banks and paid a living wage.

Plus the increasing use of zero hours contract which invariably hit the lowest earners making them increasingly reliant on government paid benefits. Government paying for businesses instead of businesses paying a living wage.

if they actually created more jobs in the first place

What, like the c.2m that have already been created you mean?

Plus the increasing use of zero hours contract

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/contracts-with-no-guaranteed-hours/zero-hour-contracts--2014/index.html

Number of people employed on a “zero-hours contract” in their main job was 697,000 for October to December 2014, representing 2.3% of all people in employment. In the same period in 2013, this was 1.9% of all people in employment (586,000).

http://www.cityam.com/212637/general-election-2015-was-david-cameron-right-about-zero-hours-contracts-during-paxman-clash

Just over two per cent of the workforce are on zero hours contracts. According to the Office of National Statistics (ONS), people on these contracts "are more likely to be women, in full-time education or working part-time. They are also more likely to be aged under 25 or 65 and over."

 

These are the groups most likely to value flexibility in the workplace. The average number of hours worked for someone on a zero hours contract is 25. According to the ONS data, two-thirds of those people on zero hours contracts do not want more hours compared with one-third that do.

 

The Chartered Institute of Personnel Development (CIPD), cited by the ONS, shows 47 per cent of workers on zero hours contracts compared with 27 per cent who were dissatisfied. However, most workers on these contracts aren't just satisfied with the absolute number of hours they work but also value the flexibility and work-life balance they achieve thanks to zero hours contracts.

 

The CIPD conducted a survey of 2,500 workers and found that those on zero hours contracts were slightly happier with their employment situation than their peers in full-time work 60 per cent and 59 per cent respectively.

 

It's true that a third of people on zero hours want more work, but the evidence suggests Cameron is likley to be correct that most workers on these contracts choose them because it fits their circumstances, and they are happy with the arrangement.

 

So just to be clear, you genuinely think that everyone living in poverty is in that situation because they are lazy?

i know quite a lot of ppl that struggle for money, i do myself sometimes, and i dunno if lazy is the right word. I would more say we are feckless

What, like the c.2m that have already been created you mean?

I take little heed in the jobs created figures as I do in the unemployment figures. Both are manipulated for political means by both parties and stopped reflecting the truth a long, long time ago.

i know quite a lot of ppl that struggle for money, i do myself sometimes, and i dunno if lazy is the right word. I would more say we are feckless [emoji106]

First I have to look up the word indolent, and now feckless, seriously guys, this is hard work!

Just as long as they starve by their own efforts and don't expect the rest of society to help them do it.

 

 

 

Not necessarily. You might just believe that it is up to every indicual to do the best for themselves that they can without relyig on others to carry them through their indolence.

I often get the impression that people who moan about paying tax and hate the unemployed just hate their own jobs.

Black Wednesday causing a recession.

'Dealing with a global banking crisis and sheltering us from the worst efects of it'. Yeah, right

Austerity policy putting us back into recession.

 

All these bits.

 

You left out selling off the gold reserves at rock-bottom prices.

 

You also ignored the fact that this is a coalition government, not a Tory one.

Yeah, thanks for the clarification. I don't agree.

Where does the image say Black Wednesday caused a recession? As I recall, Black Wednesday was partially the result of a recession, the Tories having mismanaged finances so bad that the UK was no longer fit to be a member of the ERM.

On the second point about Labour's involvement in the last financial crisis. No-one is rolling around with wheelbarrows of cash to pay for loaves of bread. The one time it looked like we'd have a run on a bank, it was addressed by nationalising the problem institutions. It seems we have different ideas about what "the worst of it" entails. What did Labour do wrong, apart from prop up a private sector industry with public sector cash?

Finally, the idea that austerity is a way out of recession is absurd, at least in this day and age and especially with this particular implementation. The government has borrowed more, yet people are getting less. We have lost the economic activity of millions because they've not got a pot to píss in. The only people benefiting from austerity are the money lenders and banks that are making up the difference in cost of living, and it was the greed of those capitalist f**kers (along with light touch regulation) that got us into the mess we were in back in 2007.

I come on here to read people's personal opinions. Let's have a bit more of that, and a bit less of the regurgitated soundbites you're serving up for dinner here.

First I have to look up the word indolent, and now feckless, seriously guys, this is hard work!

If we spent less time looking words up we could get better jobs and wouldn't need hand-outs from whitey

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/contracts-with-no-guaranteed-hours/zero-hour-contracts--2014/index.html

 

 

 

http://www.cityam.com/212637/general-election-2015-was-david-cameron-right-about-zero-hours-contracts-during-paxman-clash

They are creeping in everywhere. Local FE college is laying off 100 staff, mainly teaching & student support staff, due to a massive funding cut but has "offered" to take some of the teachers back on zero hours contracts.

Big new distribution centre opening by J14 of the M6. 75% of the waged jobs are zero hours contracts.

It's almost a return to the old hire and fire.

What, like the c.2m that have already been created you mean?

Could I have some evidence of that please? Also evidence of them not being of the zero hours variety?

I'm also not an ignorant lefty thanks but I realise how much private medical care costs and know how much I and my parents would owe if I had to pay for the 40+ brain surgeries I've had and I also know that from it's very inception the conservatives made 42 formal objections to the NHS's very creation so for that reason, amongst many, I will never understand those who back such a party. Lets just get that out there. No blind hatred for the right I will just never understand supporting a party who, at every turn tried to privatise such an amazing creation as the NHS.

40+ brain surgeries I've had.

jeez that don't sound much fun

So just to be clear, you genuinely think that everyone living in poverty is in that situation because they are lazy?

In other words, fu ck you Jack cause I'm OK.

That's how I read it as well.

There's a name for this kind of false logic that I won't use today.

Could I have some evidence of that please? Also evidence of them not being of the zero hours variety?

 

I'm also not an ignorant lefty thanks but I realise how much private medical care costs and know how much I and my parents would owe if I had to pay for the 40+ brain surgeries I've had and I also know that from it's very inception the conservatives made 42 formal objections to the NHS's very creation so for that reason, amongst many, I will never understand those who back such a party. Lets just get that out there. No blind hatred for the right I will just never understand supporting a party who, at every turn tried to privatise such an amazing creation as the NHS.

Woah, 40 brain surgeries. **** me.

Looking at this objectively, let's say each surgery cost the NHS £5k, that's £200k those have costs. Luckily I have not had any health problems as yet, and have only been to the doctors a few times In my life (for which I am grateful), but it does mean you have taken a significant more out of the state than I have, even with the amount I put in. Would situations like this not call for an insurance based system (something that has to be provided within full time employment by employers) and covered by the government for the unemployed?

I don't know in all honesty, as having a free NHS is a brilliant thing to have.

Woah, 40 brain surgeries. **** me.

 

Looking at this objectively, let's say each surgery cost the NHS £5k, that's £200k those have costs. Luckily I have not had any health problems as yet, and have only been to the doctors a few times In my life (for which I am grateful), but it does mean you have taken a significant more out of the state than I have, even with the amount I put in. Would situations like this not call for an insurance based system (something that has to be provided within full time employment by employers) and covered by the government for the unemployed?

 

I don't know in all honesty, as having a free NHS is a brilliant thing to have.

So basically, "f**k you Hockey. I'd rather you died than I paid for you".

A solid bed of c**ts.

No offence, UJ.

Could I have some evidence of that please? Also evidence of them not being of the zero hours variety?

 

I'm also not an ignorant lefty thanks but I realise how much private medical care costs and know how much I and my parents would owe if I had to pay for the 40+ brain surgeries I've had and I also know that from it's very inception the conservatives made 42 formal objections to the NHS's very creation so for that reason, amongst many, I will never understand those who back such a party. Lets just get that out there. No blind hatred for the right I will just never understand supporting a party who, at every turn tried to privatise such an amazing creation as the NHS.

If it were that amazing some other country would have done the same.

I often get the impression that people who moan about paying tax and hate the unemployed just hate their own jobs.

Who are these people? I don't have a job so it can't be me

If it were that amazing some other country would have done the same.

For your own sake, stop f**king posting until you can bother to check the accuracy of the claims you're making.

Finding another country with free at the point of use healthcare is not f**king hard.

So basically, "f**k you Hockey. I'd rather you died than I paid for you".

 

A solid bed of c**ts.

 

No offence, UJ.

Not at all, his surgeries would be paid for by either his employer or the government, but it is a way of raising additional funds for the NHS through businesse.

...

Could I have some evidence of that please?

Also evidence of them not being of the zero hours variety?

I'm sure some are, but I don't have the stats to hand on the new jobs. I'll have a dig for them later (not that anyone will believe them of course, unless it turns out a significant percentage are zero hours upon which the figures will be revered)

I will just never understand supporting a party who, at every turn tried to privatise such an amazing creation as the NHS.

The NHS isn't being privatised and never will. Yes, there are services being outsourced, under both labour and the tories , (and always have been - GPs for example) but the NHS will always be "free" at the point of use.

My wife had a cancer scare last year and we had an excellent experience when going through the screening process, a service which happened to be run by Virgin Care.

Sorry to hear about the number of ops you've had. Puts life, and these forum debates, into perspective. All the best.

Not at all, his surgeries would be paid for by either his employer or the government, but it is a way of raising additional funds for the NHS through businesse.

So you want employers to pay if an employee needs surgery?

So you want employers to pay if an employee needs surgery?

I believe that is about the size of it. Or governments.

Radical idea, I know - but I reckon it'd be easier to get businesses to pay tax so that governments can fund a health service. Has that been tried before?

It would cater for the long-term sick or disabled that Jeff's universal employer care scheme will never cover.

There's a name for this kind of false logic that I won't use today.

What other conclusion are we supposed to draw from what you wrote?

What other conclusion are we supposed to draw from what you wrote?

Need Is The Enemy Of Indolence

Edit: Which is not the same, and more reasonable assertion than, "All Poor People Is Lazy", if you think about it.

Plus the increasing use of zero hours contract which invariably hit the lowest earners making them increasingly reliant on government paid benefits. Government paying for businesses instead of businesses paying a living wage.

The zero hours contracts issue is an interesting one and is one of those that is being used as a political stick, unfairly in some cases.

there is definitely place for them, in fact 1 in 5 on people on them would actively choose them over a fixed hours contract.

there are however abuses - bad is the general week to week uncertainty of hours, however the worst by far is employers restricting employees from taking other work whilst on a 0 hours contract. That is just plain wrong.

by all means legislate to remove the abuses of 0 hours contracts, but don't ban them as they have a role play.

Doesn't matter which way you dress it up, the Tories appeal to the less empathetic and more selfish amongst us.

Whereas of course, the Labour Party appeals to either feckless scroungers or those whose whole being is motivated by hatred caused by the envy of others better off than themselves.

There, that has managed to sum up the Labour party and its followers in a sentence as short and pithy as the one used against the Tories.

So you want employers to pay if an employee needs surgery?

No, it's an insurance. Effectively the business pays a premium per year per employee (say £500) and if that person doesn't use the NHS then it gets refunded.

Not sure if this is better taken from the employer or the employee as I am sure the business would see it as a kind of tax and remove it from the wage pool, or whether they would promote healthy living of the workforce and actively promote this.

I believe that is about the size of it. Or governments.

 

Radical idea, I know - but I reckon it'd be easier to get businesses to pay tax so that governments can fund a health service. Has that been tried before?

 

It would cater for the long-term sick or disabled that Jeff's universal employer care scheme will never cover.

Long term sick or disabled would be covered by the government if unemployment, as I said abov, or businesses if employed.

Of course zero hours contracts are sensible for both parties in some case.

The prevalence and abuse by the likes of Mike Ashley is disgraceful and anyone who defends it must be a complete cnt.

As Pap or someone said these same poor sods on zero hr contracts pay f all tax and get topped up in benefits from tax payers. Meanwhile that fat bastrd hoovers up what used to be good brands and sells tehm to chavs. Job creator eh boys and so should have his breaks

Just seen the Lib Dems party political broadcast.

A 3 minute televised definition of nothingness.

They'd have done themselves more favours if the bloke had crashed the car.

The zero hours contracts issue is an interesting one and is one of those that is being used as a political stick, unfairly in some cases.

 

there is definitely place for them, in fact 1 in 5 on people on them would actively choose them over a fixed hours contract.

 

there are however abuses - bad is the general week to week uncertainty of hours, however the worst by far is employers restricting employees from taking other work whilst on a 0 hours contract. That is just plain wrong.

 

by all means legislate to remove the abuses of 0 hours contracts, but don't ban them as they have a role play.

I certainly wouldn't ban them, however, only a fool doesn't believe that businesses won't abuse them and their should be some regulation of them.

My plan for solving nearly everything.

1) Nice-hearted types in the South should move to the North

2) Callous f**kers living in the North to migrate south.

3) Both regions to declare independence.

4) North waits a few years for the South to rip each other to f**king pieces, eventually literally.

5) South repopulated by aforementioned nice-hearted types.

6) Large f**k off national reunion party with plenty of ganja.

House prices, overpopulation, the demand on services, the general hostility of man. All sorted within 10 years

No, it's an insurance. Effectively the business pays a premium per year per employee (say £500) and if that person doesn't use the NHS then it gets refunded.

 

Not sure if this is better taken from the employer or the employee as I am sure the business would see it as a kind of tax and remove it from the wage pool, or whether they would promote healthy living of the workforce and actively promote this.

So you want me to pay extra above that I pay out of direct taxation for the NHS? Why should employers pay? What does it have to do with them?

For your own sake, stop f**king posting until you can bother to check the accuracy of the claims you're making.

 

Finding another country with free at the point of use healthcare is not f**king hard.

You know you're losing the argument when you resort to swearing

Comparing like for like, on the same scale, that sort of thing... The NHS is one of the largest employers in the world. Discuss.

There's an interesting debate here:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1200247

So you want me to pay extra above that I pay out of direct taxation for the NHS? Why should employers pay? What does it have to do with them?

A lot of employers already pay out in the form of private healthcare. It's about a duty of care to keep their workforce healthy.

No, it's an insurance. Effectively the business pays a premium per year per employee (say £500) and if that person doesn't use the NHS then it gets refunded.

I don't think that's how insurance works brah

I don't think that's how insurance works brah

It's not an insurance per se, more an upfront payment for services rendered, and if not used, refunded.

What other conclusion are we supposed to draw from what you wrote?

I expressly did not say that 'everyone living in poverty is in that situation because they are lazy'.

You know you're losing the argument when you resort to swearing

 

Comparing like for like, on the same scale, that sort of thing... The NHS is one of the largest employers in the world. Discuss.

 

There's an interesting debate here:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1200247

Sorry, WG. You were talking nonsense then and you are now trying to justify yourself after the fact with quibbles about implementation.

It is the principles behind the NHS that people cherish, the notion that we won't leave someone to suffer or die on the basis of his or her net worth.

I don't think that's how insurance works brah

It's called a 'no-claims bonus'.

Sorry, WG. You were talking nonsense then and you are now trying to justify yourself after the fact with quibbles about implementation.

 

It is the principles behind the NHS that people cherish, the notion that we won't leave someone to suffer or die on the basis of his or her net worth.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to write an essay every time I post, and I know I don't have to spell out evrything for someone of your intellect and insight. Please give me an example of a comparable country (not Singapore or Brunei or such) that runs health system as large and complex as the NHS. This is what I wrote: If it were that amazing some other country would have done the same.

As an aside, I also believe that those who can afford it should have a moral obligation to pay for private healthcare instead of using an already underfinanced and overworked NHS.

As an aside, I also believe that those who can afford it should have a moral obligation to pay for private healthcare instead of using an already underfinanced and overworked NHS.

Define "can afford it".

Define "can afford it".

Martin Freeman....?

http://order-order.com/2015/04/01/freeman-at-the-point-of-use/#_@/js9_LV9eGQYWwQ

I have neither the time nor the inclination to write an essay every time I post, and I know I don't have to spell out evrything for someone of your intellect and insight. Please give me an example of a comparable country (not Singapore or Brunei or such) that runs health system as large and complex as the NHS. This is what I wrote: If it were that amazing some other country would have done the same.

You are on here all day. You have the time to qualify your points.

Canada.

Healthcare should be free at point of contact for everyone, rich and poor. Let's not lower ourselves, just because "no other country does it" shouldn't mean we should follow suit. Go live in Ireland and pay 80 quid every time you have an ear infection or you need to get a lump checked, you'd soon get fed up with it.

Define "can afford it".

Where someone has the disposable income to cover it.

The savings in the NHS could cover the drop in benefits we've seen in this parliament...