Lord Duckhunter

I can't name one, because there is no need for any nursery to pay the living wage. People will work there for a minimum wage because of the taxpayers top up. Do you think that the money nurseries cost is in anyway linked to the child care portion of the wftc. If the government is going to help with peoples child care costs, where is the market pressure to reduce costs going to come from If the government decided to help people pay for their food, it wouldn't be too long before the supermarkets started increasing their prices. Same principle applys to rents, paying housing benefit drives the cost of rent up, because the market is not allowed to punish people for overcharging, via a loss of customers. Im not saying that we should cut all state aid in one swift kick in the balls. But we need to move towards a goal of welfare only for the few needy people temporary down on their luck and with no work. In work benefits can not be right. It is not sustainable to just chuck money at a problem, its a never ending cycle of debt. How does paying someone in work' s rent, keep rent prices down. How does susbsidising child care , keep prices down. What keeps prices down is people voting with their feet." Im not paying that " and "Im not working for that".

If a business can only make money by relying on government money to top up staff wages, then I suggest that they need to look again at their business model. If I had a cleaning company and paid people the minimum wage, which was not topped up by the government, I would have trouble finding staff to fulfill my contracts. I would have 2 options, pay my staff more to attract people or go to the wall. How i find the money to pay for the extra staff costs will depend on my ability as a business man. I could pass the costs onto my customers, risking them going elsewhere (but remember they'll have the same issues i have, with no top up from taxpayer) . I could take reduced profits or i could become the "John Lewis" of cleaning companies, paying my staff well, and attaracting the best cleaners around. People would pay a premium to have my well paid staff clean for them, and they have the satisfaction of not receiving hand outs from the state. At the moment there's no incentive at all to pay more than the bare minimum. The other thing these government wage subsidies do, is keep people at the bottom. I have experiance of this at work. Trying to promote people to supervisor level, but the loss of top up benefits means, they dont take any extra money home. Now, some people are happy with the chance, but most say why bother with the extra hassle and hours for the same money? Surely the best way to cut the benefit bill is to slowly move towards no more in work benefit, and I include child benefit in that. The first step in this long journey should be to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. Your point about tax thresholds is very leftie . It is our money, by reducing tax and thresholds the governemnt is not giving us money, it is taking less of our money, a completely different thing.

The significant fall has been achieved by the welfare part, nothing to do with the "minimum wage". Meanwhile companies get a government subsidy to ensure that they keep their payroll down.

That's exactly what I said. I made no comment as to whether the minimum wage was right or wrong, only that IF you're going to have a minimum wage, it should not be so low that taxpayers have to top it up. My first post described it as a con, I reach that conclusion because it allows Labour to bang on about how wonderful it is, when its so low as to be meaningless. Its not a minimum wage, its a welfare to work scheme that benefits company shareholders and big business. My belief is it either needs to be set at a living wage, or abolished. At the moment we have to worst of all worlds , we dont force companies to pay a decent wage, but we ensure that they can always fill jobs by topping up peoples pay. What is asda's incentive to pay people £9 an hour when they can pay them £7, and the taxman give them the other £2? If i set up a business and budgetted to pay my staff £7 an hour and nobody would work for me at that rate, i either need to increase my wages or my business model is unsustainable. At present government subsidies mean I will fill those jobs and its happy days. Who pays for my happy days, blokes who are in genuine need of welfare, who end up having their benefits cut because the bill is too high and politically its an easier thing to do than insist that people are paid a living wage.

But why should the taxpayer increase those profits by keeping their staff costs down? Surely a man's labour should be subject to market forces. Pay too little and you'll not get any staff. At present if you pay too little the mug taxpayer will ensure you've got plenty of staff, without eating in to your profits.

The minimum wage is one big con trick, perpetrated by the Labour party, but everybody turns a blind eye and pretends it's so great social development in this country. How on earth can you set a minimum wage, that people cant live on? What basically happens is companies pay disgracefully low wages that we then top up, saving the said companies millions. If we didn't top those wages up, people wouldn't work for the companies, they'd be better off on the dole. The upshot of this would be that Companies would have to increase their wages to actually get people to work for them. Tesco, B&Q, ASDA, to name 3 make millions of pounds in profit, how much of our money is used to top up their workers pay which they should be paying? Long term the minimum wage keeps workers pay down, and company profits up.

Wasn't cork replaced by the guy that made the goal? And made it with a pass cork wouldn't have picked in a month of Sundays. Sub makes goal, team keep clean sheet, supporters moan about managers change -bizarre. Cork is average and was average yesterday. Victor is a better player, and the defence play better with him in front of them.

She's so much better now, still has a brown inhaler for bed and a blue for everyday use, but doesn't need the courses of steroids she used to. Sad.thing was she was an amazing swimmer, at 2 she could swim around without arm bands, dive in, anything, just no fear at all. But her wet hair and the cold seemed to go stright to her chest and she'd be coughing all night, then up docs again. To be fair, I moan and complain about the dog, but he's great really. He is a great pub dog, highly intelligent, people take the **** out of poodles , but he's no trouble at all. I guess its not really taking one for the team, but I do feel a twt if I see a mate when im walking him.

My daughter used to get really bad asthma, and the steroids made her put on a bit of chunk. She has 3 brothers all skinny as rakes , a mum with a decent figure and a dad whose slightly portly shape is down to lifestyle choices. So basically, she was the odd one out and with the others being very sporty it was starting to upset her. About 3 years ago, the dog nonsense started " can I have a dog" , no. " can I have a dog" no, repeat daily, over and over. I explained she couldn't have a dog, cause 1 she's asthmatic and 2 they're a pain in the rear. She then changed her approach . Evidently, they're are things called hypoallergenic dogs, that dont shed fur, "can I have one of those". No. My mum and dad used to get me to walk their dogs, pain in the butt, no way. She then broke my heart as she said very quietly " If I had a dog daddy, id have to walk it every day and it will help me lose some weight" . How can I turn down a 10 year old daughter ,holding that over me? So fast forward 3 years and you'll see how I took one for the team. As the doctor informed us it could, the asthma is so much better, she doesn't need steroids, she now a slim , beautiful 13 year old (going on 17). Of course you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of walks she's given the dog. So my hit for the team is walking a ****ing chocolate brown poodle every day.

I've always looked at my mortgage as rent, rather than a debt. We pay the building society rent for 25 years and at the end, they give us the house. I suppose its a very simplistic approach but its worked for me and stops me worrying about debt or negative equity. Obviously, the only downside is the maintaince costs, but with next door renting their place for £1100 our mortgage payments of £480 will leave enough money go cover any issues there. Personally, its the stability of ownership that I like, and the flexibility to do what the hell we like with the house. Have 4 kids ranging from 13 to 25, one is an owner, 2 at school and one has rented, been back home, rented again and been back home about 3 times. I would also encourage them to try and buy, but its not easy. Wish I could help them out, but barring a lottery win, they'll be on their own. Mrs Duck is pressing me to use some of the equity in our place (about 200k) to remortgage and buy a smaller place to rent out. Her idea is when the kids have gone, we move into it and then rent the 4 bed family house we're in at present out, providing a retirment income as the mortgage will be paid off before that. Me, im not so sure as it goes against my mortgage is rent philosophy.

How many games did avram grant win at Chelsea?

Seems to me you've got an open goal here spudders. If its going to work out with this chick, you'll be able to bring it up all the time . If she moans you're off to football again, remind her what you gave up for her. You moved home from a foregin country, what a sacrifice, should be well good for laying a guilt trip on her.

I can't think of any social event that doesn't involve visiting a boozer either before or after.

There's not much difference in the price of ale between London and Poole, I know that. We even found a hall and woodhouse pub in central London and they charged less for a pint of my favourite tipple than the one I go to down the quay. ****ing joke. I don't find London that expensive, I certainly think its better value than Dublin.

I was told that MP uses Yoshida as back up for Lovren and Jos as back up for Jose, something to do with which side of the 2 they prefer to play. Don't know if its true and can't be bothered to check thr team sheets, but I know some coaches do put a lot of faith in one centre half better on the left and one on the right, rather than both the same.

Before the Everton game I popped round to see my mate who was back from the US of A and staying with his elderly mother in clubmoor. You keep banging on about Liverpool but there are parts of it as rough as ****. Great city to visit, but there are loads of better places to live.

Spot on.

Help to buy is a ****ing disaster waiting to happen, its basically ploy for votes. The government has no business being in the lending game, its for building societies and banks to fund house buying. Nothing surprises me with this lot, but I still cant believe it is a Tory government proposing thus nonsense. Have they learnt nothing from the past . The way to open up the housing ladder to more people is to build more ****ing houses, not lend people more money. If you inject more money into the market without increasing the supply , you just create a bubble . A bubble that will eventually burst. Any Tory with half a brain should be against this.

The fa say they looked and made a decision based on the allegation contained in the complaint letter. The press association claim tha t the letter stated the "you've changed" accusation. Now either something more abusive was said, in which case why on earth would saints leave it out, and how can the fa and Riley rule on an allegation that wasn't made in the complaint letter. If a ref swore at a player,there's no doubt the FA would act. How can they act if this wasn't specifically mentioned in the letter. How on earth can it be a "technicality" . They have clearly stated that what saints alleged in the letter, does not constitute misconduct. If saints have left any abusive langague off the letter, that's their fault not the FA's. What are the fa expected to do, second guess what was said. They didn't say that they had investigated and found clattenburg innocent, or even thast it was unproven, they say that the complaint "as disclosed in the letter of complaint" does not constitute misconduct.

If west ham have put this in the public domain, you can bet your life he's been sounded out and is open too it. If his agent has put it out there, then he's applying pressure to saints around a pay rise or new contract. I doubt if a journo made this up, and then made up the wage offer. Find out where it came from and then it'll be easier to judge if its gonna happen.

I remember that last game at forest, where saints fans were dancing along when they played their goal music, west ham supporters were doing the same today

I missed the start but the commentator sounds like Sam Matterface and he's a skate.

Can someone let me know the rules around transfer speculation in the press, cause I'm confused. Shaw or Rickie off and its made up shiete, fox off and its gospel. Do you have to be a certain standard before they make it things up?

So Carroll will play every week because of wages and fee, yet paying a large fee and wages for a 30+ year old counts for nothing. Whose to say Carroll will get fit and whose to say Fat Sam won't play both of them. After ****ing up overt Carroll , is fat Sam going to persuade Gold & Sullivan to spend big on an older player and then not play him? There's also the tiredness factor. With our game he could be dead on his feet come may. Fat Sam got the best out of an ageing Kevin Davies , could he do the same for SRL.

I also think some of our posters are overlooking the world cup factor as well. MP has shown time and time again that he'll leave him out and from what I've seen he needs to be playing week in week out. If fat Sam is going to spend millions on him and double his wages, he'll play him . playing down the middle with 2 wingers and early crosses, he's quite capable of 15 goals in the remaining 19 games. IMO he wants to go to Brazil more than he wants to play for saints. Only problem I've got with it is having to rename the family dog lol.