Unbelievable Jeff Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Or translated for some Mirror readers: Labour loved the sunny holidays but forgot to save for the rainy days. And then it ****ed it down for ages. Damn straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 What like Ireland? Its debt to GDP ratio was a minimal 25% when it entered the crisis; yet today it tops 100%, the fourth highest in the EU. Exposure to the financial sector and property, not irresponsible spending commitments, was the main factor. So you're saying that the size of the deficit we were left with in 2010 was not affected at all by Labour overspending? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 So you're saying that the size of the deficit we were left with in 2010 was not affected at all by Labour overspending? No. Im saying that its role in the grand scheme of things is much less important than the morons who predicted a debt crisis or the UK 'doing a Greece' assume. Or whatever the line is that gets lapped up on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Or translated for some Mirror readers: Labour loved the sunny holidays but forgot to save for the rainy days. And then it ****ed it down for ages. And to pay for it we are now reducing benefits costs by 'sanctioning' claiments for being ill and missing appointments, whilst the bankers still get their bonuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 No. Im saying that its role in the grand scheme of things is much less important than the morons who predicted a debt crisis or the UK 'doing a Greece' assume. Or whatever the line is that gets lapped up on here. Don't disagree with that. The Greece line is all electioneering though, I don't think many actually believe it contributed greatly to the financial crisis, but it certainly did to the deficit and the work this government has had to try and do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 No. Im saying that its role in the grand scheme of things is much less important than the morons who predicted a debt crisis or the UK 'doing a Greece' assume. Very much this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 And to pay for it we are now reducing benefits costs by 'sanctioning' claiments for being ill and missing appointments, whilst the bankers still get their bonuses. Bankers create a **** load of money for the economy, why shouldn't someone that benefits his company so much be rewarded? As for the sanctions, some kind of "3 strikes and your out" should apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 7 May, 2015 Author Share Posted 7 May, 2015 we are now reducing benefits costs by 'sanctioning' claiments for being ill and missing appointments It's government policy to sanction someone for missing an appointment due to being too ill to attend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Bankers create a **** load of money for the economy, why shouldn't someone that benefits his company so much be rewarded? As for the sanctions, some kind of "3 strikes and your out" should apply. It's a question of degree. The size of the bonuses on offer made ignoring the rules a risk worth taking. The fear of losing your job became obsolete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Bankers create a **** load of money for the economy, why shouldn't someone that benefits his company so much be rewarded? As for the sanctions, some kind of "3 strikes and your out" should apply. "Create" being the operative word. Why should they be the only ones that profit, and are protected from risk while doing so? If we're going to have a fictional financial system, we should at least have one where the benefits are more widely applied. Let's not forget that the banking system, as constituted, is merely the legalisation of practices like fractional reserve lending. It's government policy to sanction someone for missing an appointment due to being too ill to attend? Looks that way. If you haven't been paying attention, there is a culture of targets at the DWP, specifically getting the claimant number down. This is why some wags have dubbed Job Centres as sanction centres. It creates huge short-term problems for the claimant, often puts them into debt or in the hands of the local loan sharks. The knock-on effects are incalculable, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 It's a question of degree. The size of the bonuses on offer made ignoring the rules a risk worth taking. The fear of losing your job became obsolete. That and short-termism - a "who cares if it turns sour next year, I'd have got my bonus and moved on to Credit Suisse / Deutche Bank / Barclays etc by then". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucks Saint Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 What like Ireland? Its debt to GDP ratio was a minimal 25% when it entered the crisis; yet today it tops 100%, the fourth highest in the EU. Exposure to the financial sector and property, not irresponsible spending commitments, was the main factor. Having one of the EU's lowest corporate tax regimes, which attracts plenty of low tax paying mega corporations, has played a part Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 It's government policy to sanction someone for missing an appointment due to being too ill to attend? Pretty much. There have been plenty of links already on the Forum to reports, blogs, etc with some very nasty stories, and supported by evidence from former Job Centre staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 It's a question of degree. The size of the bonuses on offer made ignoring the rules a risk worth taking. The fear of losing your job became obsolete. The bonus became everything. You're professional worth and success was based upon it & therefore all risks were worth it to secure the biggest one you could. I asked someone involved to explain sub-prime and the whole rigmarole to me once and their closing statement stuck with me "it's all a giant con. It's all bullsh_it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 7 May, 2015 Author Share Posted 7 May, 2015 It's government policy to sanction someone for missing an appointment due to being too ill to attend? Looks that way The guidelines do appear somewhat woolly and/or poorly worded: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/416930/dwpf15-0315.pdf 2. What must I do to keep my benefit payment? The reason your last job ended will always be checked, and benefit can be stopped if you were dismissed for misconduct, or left without good reason. Once you start to get benefit payment, this will continue as long as you: • are available for work and agree to do the things in your Claimant Commitment (Jobseeker’s Agreement ) • go to meetings on time with your work coach and take part in interviews • apply for suitable jobs your work coach tells you about • do everything your work coach tells you to do to find work, such as attending a training course or updating your CV • take part in employment schemes when your work coach tells you to. You’ll need to meet your employment scheme provider on time and do the things they tell you to do to find work. You’ll still need to meet your work coach and do what they tell you to do • do all you can to find work If you don’t do these things, and you don’t have good reason, your benefit payment could be stopped or your claim could be ended. It’s important that you understand everything you need to do to get your benefit payment and what will happen if you don’t. Ask your work coach to explain if you’re not sure. If you can’t do, or haven’t done these things, tell your work coach or employment scheme provider why straight away. You’ll get your benefit payment if you can show you had good reason for not doing what you were told to do. Provide as much information as you can, as quickly as possible. For example, call your work coach as soon as you can before an interview if you can’t attend. Let them know why. Your work coach can use this time to help others find work, and you’ll continue to get your benefit payment if we decide you had good reason for not going. I can't find a definitive list of what is considered to be a "good reason". Surely there needs to be fixed and clear criteria rather than it being left open to interpretation. Being too ill to attend a meeting surely counts as a "good reason"? Sounds like another case of a common sense policy poorly implemented to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Pretty much. There have been plenty of links already on the Forum to reports, blogs, etc with some very nasty stories, and supported by evidence from former Job Centre staff. Trousers will now say that it's implementation at a local level that is the issue etc and that it's not actual policy as he normally does ignoring all the facts that have previously been on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 It's a question of degree. The size of the bonuses on offer made ignoring the rules a risk worth taking. The fear of losing your job became obsolete. It is a question of degree's, you're correct. They shouldn't be protected from prosecution though, and banks should have the ability to sue for large proportions of past bonuses. Hence, do the job for a few years fully aware of the risks whilst in employment, and get to enjoy the vast proportion of your money later in life when retired. Less risks taken, more accountability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Bingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Bingo. You win! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 7 May, 2015 Author Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Trousers will now say that it's implementation at a local level that is the issue etc and that it's not actual policy as he normally does ignoring all the facts that have previously been on here. Or....Trousers will keep an open mind on whether its an issue with policy or implementation/interpretation of policy because the "facts" aren't conclusive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 (edited) Or translated for some Mirror readers: Labour loved the sunny holidays but forgot to save for the rainy days. And then it ****ed it down for ages. Damn straight. Says the man who only has £90,000 equity in a £600,000 house and has a buy to let similarly bought with money he doesnt have. Edited 7 May, 2015 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Here are my candidates. Liverpool West Derby. Rebecca Lawson, Green. Would. Not sure whether she'd get my vote though. Prediction: 3rd. Ed McRandal, Conservative. You can't really vote for any Tory up here. They know they are never going to win. West Derby has got a nice little village, which has its own Conservative Club, yet the Labour incumbent still commanded a majority of 18K during a time when his government was not popular. How much do they think of you, Ed? (arf!) Prediction: 5th. Neil Miney, UKIP. I'm not one of these lefties with my head in the sand. I've heard the confessions of former Labour voters putting a tick in the box for Nige. I think they'll do well here. Prediction: 2nd. Steve Radford, Liberal. Not to be confused with the Lib Dems. The Liberal party still exists in this country; we've had a couple of Liberal councillors on the council for decades now. Steve doesn't belong to a big party, but does have a half decent rep. Prediction: 4th. Stephen Twigg, Labour. Portillo-killer of 1997 fame, now rewarded with one of the safest Labour seats in the country. Expect UKIP to erode his majority a little, but still the clear winner for me. Prediction: 1st, with around a 13k majority. Paul Twigger, Liberal Democrats. Three hopes. 1/ Bob Hope. 2/ No Hope. 3/ Name recognition problems amongst less sparklingly intelligent voters, especially those that might have nicknamed Stephen Twigg "Twigger" at some point. The LDs used to command good numbers in Liverpool, if never quite being able to unseat the Labour incumbent. I'm going to be bold and predict 6th for these bell-ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Says the man who only has £90,000 equity in a £600,000 house and has a buy to let similarly bought with money he doesnt have. Not buy to let. I already owned it and now let it. Big difference there. And I have around £350k equity in the house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 (edited) Not buy to let. I already owned it and now let it. Big difference there. And I have around £350k equity in the house. edit. Edited 7 May, 2015 by buctootim pins in my eyes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Well, this particular 'spending cut' is about to go and vote. See you chaps later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 edit. Great response there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Well, this particular 'spending cut' is about to go and vote. See you chaps later. I am off to vote myself as soon as ms pap gets in. Democracy! (of a sort) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 The bonus became everything. You're professional worth and success was based upon it & therefore all risks were worth it to secure the biggest one you could. Yep. The whole concept of bonuses is disgusting and disgraceful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Yep. The whole concept of bonuses is disgusting and disgraceful. The concept is correct. The culture and way it's implemented is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Is small government when my taxes pay for Jeff's daughter's flat's mortgage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 I thought it was all Labour's fault? And you're now saying the global financial crisis was somehow caused by those in the financial sector? How's that done, then? The idea of bankers causing a banking crisis won't compute for many. The trigger was in the U.S. Financial markets but other economies were built on weak foundations. I think you'll find that we have been consistent over Labour's role in it. They overspent and left us exposed to external factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Voted blue. No better alternative IMO and don't see too much need for change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Or....Trousers will keep an open mind on whether its an issue with policy or implementation/interpretation of policy because the "facts" aren't conclusive Here's a true story for you. Mr TF is currently out of work. He straight away went to the JobCentre to 'sign on' and was told he would be sent an appointment by text message to see his 'work coach'. He received the text that said 10:20 a.m. on 20 April. He turned up at the appointed time and was told he'd been sanctioned for non-attendance. He said 'but I'm here and on time'. 'Oh no' they said, 'your appointment was for 2 April'. 'No' he said 'look here's the text you sent me'. 'Oh' they said 'there's been an administrative error - but the sanction stands' So he kicked up stink and in the end they said they weren't allowed to remove the sanction but they would append a note to his file. It did the trick and he's just heard he's got JSA. But just supposing he hadn't kept the text or wasn't confident enough to defend himself. That, my dears, is how it works in reality. Bastards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Democratic duty has been done. The Polling Station was pretty busy. Big turnout tonight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansums Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Democratic duty has been done. The Polling Station was pretty busy. Big turnout tonight? Must have been tough having to tear yourself away from the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Here's a true story for you. Mr TF is currently out of work. He straight away went to the JobCentre to 'sign on' and was told he would be sent an appointment by text message to see his 'work coach'. He received the text that said 10:20 a.m. on 20 April. He turned up at the appointed time and was told he'd been sanctioned for non-attendance. He said 'but I'm here and on time'. 'Oh no' they said, 'your appointment was for 2 April'. 'No' he said 'look here's the text you sent me'. 'Oh' they said 'there's been an administrative error - but the sanction stands' So he kicked up stink and in the end they said they weren't allowed to remove the sanction but they would append a note to his file. It did the trick and he's just heard he's got JSA. But just supposing he hadn't kept the text or wasn't confident enough to defend himself. That, my dears, is how it works in reality. Bastards Indeed it does. The job centre system haven't been fit for purpose for many many years. A friend of mine had to leave the building industry due to a serious back injury and got signed on. He then got sanctioned as he didn't apply for any of the jobs he got put forward for. All of them involved heavy lifting This is where a large part of the problem lies and successive governments have completely failed on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Voted blue. No better alternative IMO and don't see too much need for change. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 (edited) Is small government when my taxes pay for Jeff's daughter's flat's mortgage? I assume you're her divorced scumbag ex-husband then? Fits your character beautifully I have to say. Edited 7 May, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Is small government when my taxes pay for Jeff's daughter's flat's mortgage? 'Government' will be just a little bit smaller on June 18th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Not sure what either of you are talking about to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Not sure what either of you are talking about to be honest. Not really a surprise is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Who? Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Sky bet. Ed is slight favourite for the first time to be next PM, but not as a majority gov. Interesting though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Sky bet. Ed is slight favourite for the first time to be next PM, but not as a majority gov. Interesting though! Thats my bet - 10 seats more than Tories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 I assume you're her divorced scumbag ex-husband then? Fits your character beautifully I have to say. Out of interest, why is he a scumbag? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Out of interest, why is he a scumbag? He used to hit her, had a kid with her, then left her for his PA. Pays her rent though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 I assume you're her divorced scumbag ex-husband then? Fits your character beautifully I have to say. He used to hit her, had a kid with her, then left her for his PA. Pays her rent though. I thought you were in your 30s and your kids were small Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 I thought you were in your 30s and your kids were small Thats what I thought. Perhaps Jeff is talking about himself? Some sort of weird projection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 I thought you were in your 30s and your kids were small Sorry? I am in my early 30's (well, 30)?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Thats what I thought. Perhaps Jeff is talking about himself? Some sort of weird projection. Sigh...Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 7 May, 2015 Share Posted 7 May, 2015 Is small government when my taxes pay for Jeff's daughter's flat's mortgage? I assume you're her divorced scumbag ex-husband then? Fits your character beautifully I have to say. I thought you were in your 30s and your kids were small Sorry? I am in my early 30's (well, 30)?? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now