frankie_baby
Member
i did miss a few bits myself, i remember that being mentioned but cant remember why
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
i did miss a few bits myself, i remember that being mentioned but cant remember why
So, Cam just told the Greek people to shit or get off the pot re: the Euro.
Part of me thinks he has something approaching a point, but the overwhelming thought in my mind is "Who the fuck does he think he is, telling a foreign country's populace how to vote?!"
Part of me thinks he has something approaching a point, but the overwhelming thought in my mind is "Who the fuck does he think he is, telling a foreign country's populace how to vote?!"
inb4poisonelf
PJV3
Member
Cameron contributes fuck all, people in Europe don't care about him. And his comment is just plain fucking dumb, does he think the Greek people ring each other and plan the election result.
Camo is trying to look like he is "doing something", same as Obama, they both have almost no power here and the EU will either limp on or implode, but there is pressure on world leaders to look like they are trying to fix it.
He knows if it goes to shit he will get the blame come election time so he is getting his name in there.
He knows if it goes to shit he will get the blame come election time so he is getting his name in there.
Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
I could probably dig out dozens of posts in this thread criticising Cameron for not showing any leadership regarding the Eurozone, and when he does offer some direction all we get is "Who the fuck are you?". He was only stating the obvious anyway.
His comment was borne out of pure desperation. The EU is probably the most dysfunctional political organisation in the world, European leaders' inability to do their job is wrecking the economy of Europe and setting the continent back decades.
I'm generally a very patient person and have always been pro-Europe, but the current system is a clusterfuck and it needs to be completely reset. Just scrap the entire EU model and have a large trading block, like it was in the early days. If that's now my opinion, then imagine how the right wing Europhobes feel. They are beeing more and more vindicated by the day. I don't care if the entire EU sinks and we enter a depression, because at this stage that would be preferable to chugging along for years to come with zero growth. It's time for Germany and France to put up or shut up.
I could probably dig out dozens of posts in this thread criticising Cameron for not showing any leadership regarding the Eurozone, and when he does offer some direction all we get is "Who the fuck are you?". He was only stating the obvious anyway.
His comment was borne out of pure desperation. The EU is probably the most dysfunctional political organisation in the world, European leaders' inability to do their job is wrecking the economy of Europe and setting the continent back decades.
I'm generally a very patient person and have always been pro-Europe, but the current system is a clusterfuck and it needs to be completely reset. Just scrap the entire EU model and have a large trading block, like it was in the early days. If that's now my opinion, then imagine how the right wing Europhobes feel. They are beeing more and more vindicated by the day. I don't care if the entire EU sinks and we enter a depression, because at this stage that would be preferable to chugging along for years to come with zero growth. It's time for Germany and France to put up or shut up.
killer_clank
Member
I'm sick of Germany telling countries what to do. If the EU is to survive in its current form, it needs to be far more collaborative than simply Germany and France ganging up on everyone else.
For anyone who is interested NPR's Planet Money did a podcast a few months ago on France, Germany, European Union and the single currency.
You can find it here. It helps put into context why Germany and France command so much power in the European Union. The structure of the EU was born out of German and French co-operation and the institutions were all created with German and French bias in one form or another. What I personally found very interesting is how events multiple decades in the past play a huge role in the political and social emotions in defining current day events. The two events that shape French and German psyche are the world wars (clearly) and in the case of Germany the WW1 reparations and resulting hyperinflation. If anyone is interested then its a fantastic podcast and well worth listening to.
I would prefer the EU is fixed, I would prefer low growth for years over huge recession: the sequel, but I think both those will take a huge shift away from Germany thinking they are the only ones who know what works, an opinion wrongly vindicated by their idea of being an economic ideal (they aren't).
Well it seems that may end now that France has a new leader who is almost economically opposite to Merkel as far as I can tell.
Well it seems that may end now that France has a new leader who is almost economically opposite to Merkel as far as I can tell.
PJV3
Member
While we behave like Merkel and expect the same as Hollande, we need to get involved and compromise, even if it's just a temporary one over a financial tax. The other northern EU states need to spend and ease pressure on the south.
Europe should be investing in tech/infrastructure that reduces oil consumption, when the recovery finally returns oil prices will rocket.
What do you know about it? Who are you anyway? Who are you? Criminals? Are you proud of yourselves? Proud of breaking safes or cheating at cards? Things you could just as well keep your fingers off. You wouldn't need to do all that if you'd learn a proper trade or if you'd work. If you weren't a bunch of lazy bastards.
But I, I can't help myself! I have no control over this! This evil thing inside me, the fire, the voices, the torment!... It's there all the time, driving me out to wander the streets, following me, silently, but I can feel it there. It's me, pursuing myself. I want to escape, to escape from myself. But it's impossible. I can't escape. I have to obey it. I have to run endless streets. I want to escape, to get away. And I'm pursued by ghosts. Ghosts of mothers. And of those children. They never leave me. They are there, always there. Always, except when I do it. When I - Then I can't remember anything.
And afterwards I see those posters and read what I've done. Did I do that? But I can't remember anything about it. But who will believe me? Who knows what it's like to be me? How I'm forced to act -- How I must! -- Must!-- Don't want to -- Must! -- Don't want to, but must! And then a voice screams -- I can't bear to hear it! -- I can't go on, I can't go on ...
But I, I can't help myself! I have no control over this! This evil thing inside me, the fire, the voices, the torment!... It's there all the time, driving me out to wander the streets, following me, silently, but I can feel it there. It's me, pursuing myself. I want to escape, to escape from myself. But it's impossible. I can't escape. I have to obey it. I have to run endless streets. I want to escape, to get away. And I'm pursued by ghosts. Ghosts of mothers. And of those children. They never leave me. They are there, always there. Always, except when I do it. When I - Then I can't remember anything.
And afterwards I see those posters and read what I've done. Did I do that? But I can't remember anything about it. But who will believe me? Who knows what it's like to be me? How I'm forced to act -- How I must! -- Must!-- Don't want to -- Must! -- Don't want to, but must! And then a voice screams -- I can't bear to hear it! -- I can't go on, I can't go on ...
PJV3
Member
el retorno
Member
I can sympathize with that but at the same time. I undersand them others are asking germany to take one for the team and bail out others and its not like they haven't had to be somewhat flexable, how much have they given and how much did greek debt get written down? Not saying they shouldn't be more flexable but I understand their hesitance. They feel they played by the rules and now are paying for others. They other countries don't HAVE to do what germany is telling them. They'd just face the consequences. That's the real world for you. Portugal, Ireland and Greece have no leverage over Germany.
How can that be termed a temporary compromise? That seems like a fundamental change in the financial system. Not just a compromise.
And yes they should be investing in those things. But with what money?
Long term - yes.
Short term - no.
German/French paralysis has allowed the Greece debacle to rumble on for years. The Germans are unwilling to consider deflation or Eurobonds, which would put an end to the Greek crisis and rebalance the entire continent. The entire Euro project is a French/German political tool, the ball is now in their court.
Long term - It has been proven time and time again that European leaders simply cannot agree and make concessions for the greater good. The union is too large and complicated. France and Germany can't even agree on how to handle the current debt crisis, how do you expect the entire union to collaborate and get any sort of cohesive plan together, where everybody makes concessions?
Either scrap the entire project and just revert to a trading block, or consolidate into a United States of Europe. Since the second option is simply not viable, let's just hit the reset button.
remember guys, only britain soldiers on.
el retorno
Member
Egos will prevent this. It really should have been just a NATO type thing with a bit more political intergration but they went overboard in the good times and its just obvious everything went to fast. I still think things like free movement and what not are pretty good ideas and salvageable.
They'll limp along as long as they can.
You know what would be great? If companies could fire whoever they wanted for no reason.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...wer-question-no-fault-dismissal?newsfeed=true
They've almost become a parody of themselves. What exactly stops wholesale discrimination as employers no longer have to rely on bogus manufactured problems that flop in court to get rid of someone they don't like because of, say, being black or gay?
Could they be any more out of touch? Wish we could apply this policy to the cabinet.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...wer-question-no-fault-dismissal?newsfeed=true
They've almost become a parody of themselves. What exactly stops wholesale discrimination as employers no longer have to rely on bogus manufactured problems that flop in court to get rid of someone they don't like because of, say, being black or gay?
Could they be any more out of touch? Wish we could apply this policy to the cabinet.
el retorno
Member
Question from the states. When they say no fault they mean not for economic reasons?
In the UK what do you need to do to be able to fire someone.
StealthGoblin
Banned
Prove that they are at fault in a dismissal case.
We don't just fire people for the fuck of it over here. The employee has to be at fault for them to be sacked unless the company has gone bust.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Well, I believe that the Govermnent should be doing more to reduce unemployment, so these measures seem a sensible means to that end.
It's good to see that companies will be able to fire all those employees that they're not hiring.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Why does it seem like the super-villain esque party policies the GOP are famous for seem to be leaking over from the Atlantic?
Fuck the NHS, let employers fire for no reason, cut the tax bracket for the super rich! All from a non-majority government that wasn't given a mandate to make such sweeping changes to the country.
Fuck the NHS, let employers fire for no reason, cut the tax bracket for the super rich! All from a non-majority government that wasn't given a mandate to make such sweeping changes to the country.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
??? Not sure I understand the logic.
...I hope you're joking.
Unfortunately, i get the feeling you're not.
So you're A-OK with your workmates being undeservedly sacked because the arsehole boss needs someone to act out his mid-life crisis/ageism/racism/sexism/closetting on, and them having no recourse?
radioheadrule83
Banned
It's worth drawing the distinction between sacking people and laying them off. When you get the sack, you'd like to think you're at blame for something... poor performance, poor behaviour, not meeting expectations - whatever... but it sounds like the Tories behind this want to paint the current rules as forcing employers to keep current staff that are unproductive. If they are being competent at monitoring staff performance and appraising their staff properly, they can get rid of people whenever they want under the current system - be it through dismissal or post reductions / redundancies -- indeed its been happening on a widespread basis in this country since 2008, and is only just showing signs of abating.
Allowing businesses to sack individuals with no explanation (ie. no recourse for the individual in case of wrongful dismissal) is just stupid. A reckless unbalancing of power and respect in the employer relationship. If we had this proposal's power over ministers, those responsible would be sacked without explanation by tomorrow tea time... bring on the next election already!
radioheadrule83
Banned
It does seem that way doesn't it. If not for the phone hacking scandal we'd probably have Fox News UK branch and NPR style radio bleating about foreigners in Daily Mail style rants 24/7 as well.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Most definitely.
Also, speaking of sacking people. WHAT THE FUCK does Jeremy Hunt need to do to be sacked, or at least resign?
Psychotext
Member
Same as any other Tory. Piss off one of the major donors.
el retorno
Member
So they're is no downsizing in the UK? You have to be bankrupt to fire someone?
If that's the case then there probably does need to be some labor reform. The state should be looking after people rather than forcing businesses to hold on to them until bankruptcy. I can imagine letting a few people could go could save the other jobs that might be lost if they're forced to hold on to a person.
PJV3
Member
No, There's redundancy. or do you mean something else?
People have to draw the line, are we here for the system or the other way round.
As soon as the cunts defeated communism they started clawing everything back. (i'm getting depressed, i should go for a wank)
Speedymanic
Banned
This is going to end well. I wonder how many cases of abuse, theft and possibly death by negligence will come out of this.
LOL, CRB checks are a complete and utter joke. We had a nurse working in our hospital last year who had been convicted for sexual assault a few years prior and was only found out because a cop who worked his case happened to recognize him one night when he was on shift.
It's a complete farce.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
Alternatively, they could fucking pay them a wage seeing as this is clearly a job that needs doing. Either way the government is paying these people, might as well remove the stigma of the jobseekers allowance.
So we're bringing back slave labour? Awesome, this can only end well.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Yup, makes no sense. If you are going to pay people unemployment benefits but then force them to do jobs anyway, why not just spend that money on job creation? I just can't understand the logic.
Also, kudos to Vince Cable for heavily resisting the sacking proposals. He's absolutely spot on that British workers are reliable and flexible, including most Unions, and they are the last people who need to be targeted.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
The number of people that don't know about The Daily Mash is insane. Everyone I've told about it has ended up loving it. Way better than The Onion.
Same here, I convert as many as I can, some of the best satire since 90's HIGNFY.
"Damn pinkos, they've infiltrated the guv'ment!"
I know the Conservatives want to go back in time, but I didn't realise we'd ended up in the McCarthy era USA.
As for the 'no-fault' dismissal, I've yet to hear anyone explain to me how making it easier to fire people is supposed to make it easier to hire people? Why not propose a tax break on employees during the first 12 months or something?
Plus, as I understand it, in the UK, employers can already fire someone within 12 months of starting for no reason so this is a transparent attempt to reduce (eliminate) essential social safeguards like redundancy pay.
Some hilarity stems from how the stereotypes are being reinforced so hard I keep think I'm watching a cartoon though. The conservatives apparently have no perspective of what it's like to be poor, like AT ALL, they should start wearing top hats again.
This line from the mash article just describes the situation and how these people think so perfectly.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the economy has slowed down because people are spending less money as they are uncertain over the future, worried about job security etc.. What's a great way of encouraging people to spend money rather than save? That's right, massively increase the number of people who think they're likely to lose their job at short notice with no warning.
Man, it just gets me so angry, it's so fucking arrogant. Surely making it harder to fire people means that in a recession there is a gradual decline in employment rather than thousands getting binned at the slightest whiff of things going wrong, merely to ensure that the shareholders retain as much cash as they possibly can. Obviously it's much better that the wealthiest stay as wealthy as possible rather than help ordinary people raise their children in an environment of security, being able to pay for housing, that kind of thing. Fucking peasants, how dare they expect me to not rape the rest of society quite as much!?!
I know the Conservatives want to go back in time, but I didn't realise we'd ended up in the McCarthy era USA.
As for the 'no-fault' dismissal, I've yet to hear anyone explain to me how making it easier to fire people is supposed to make it easier to hire people? Why not propose a tax break on employees during the first 12 months or something?
Plus, as I understand it, in the UK, employers can already fire someone within 12 months of starting for no reason so this is a transparent attempt to reduce (eliminate) essential social safeguards like redundancy pay.
Some hilarity stems from how the stereotypes are being reinforced so hard I keep think I'm watching a cartoon though. The conservatives apparently have no perspective of what it's like to be poor, like AT ALL, they should start wearing top hats again.
This line from the mash article just describes the situation and how these people think so perfectly.
The Daily Mash said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the economy has slowed down because people are spending less money as they are uncertain over the future, worried about job security etc.. What's a great way of encouraging people to spend money rather than save? That's right, massively increase the number of people who think they're likely to lose their job at short notice with no warning.
Man, it just gets me so angry, it's so fucking arrogant. Surely making it harder to fire people means that in a recession there is a gradual decline in employment rather than thousands getting binned at the slightest whiff of things going wrong, merely to ensure that the shareholders retain as much cash as they possibly can. Obviously it's much better that the wealthiest stay as wealthy as possible rather than help ordinary people raise their children in an environment of security, being able to pay for housing, that kind of thing. Fucking peasants, how dare they expect me to not rape the rest of society quite as much!?!
el retorno
Member
You know if need be that you can let them go. You don't sign up for quite the shackle when you hire someone.
The german labour reforms seem to be doing well.
I don't understand why an employer should be forced to keep an employee.
Which you already can do, within 12 months for free and at a small cost after that.
They're angling this as getting rid of 'underperforming employees'. If after 12 months you still haven't realised that the person you employed is shit, perhaps there are management problems?
Edit: Just seen you edit. Again, they are not in any way forced to keep an employee on.
el retorno
Member
That could disuade an employer. Its also not only just bad employees. Maybe you just realized you hired and unnecessary position and if you let one guy go you can hire two lower paid employees.
And your forced to pay. That's exerting influence and "forcing." I'm not 100% sure of english law I was just pointing out that "making it easier to fire" could lead to job growth.
Its needed much more in southern europe. they have crazy job protection. but you are right it should be down in the out years, like germany.
Speedymanic
Banned
Just so I'm understanding you correctly, you think it's fine to sack someone say after a few years for whatever reason and not pay them redundancy.
So if someone, for example, has dedicated his/her life to a job and is reaching their retirement age, can be sacked for whatever reason, not be paid redundancy and also lose any pension provisions the company may have been required to provide.
That's perfectly acceptable to you?
Because that's what it will mostly be used for, it won't be used to sack someone who has only worked at a company for 1-2 years as most companies can sack those people without giving any explanation, this will mostly affect those who have worked in a company for many, many years and the company doesn't want to pay redundancy/pensions.
Nicktendo86
Member
This sums it up pretty well for me, wasn't this crisis started and still maintained because of a lack of confidence? It pains me to say it as a Tory supporter but this Government is fucking useless.
If it took you more than 12 months before you realised you hired an 'unnecessary position' after 12 months of them actually being in an unnecessary position then again what the fuck?
What I suspect you mean is that the position has become unnecessary long after it was created, which is what redundancy procedure is for.
Taking people who have been loyal, and dedicated a long period of time to a company and dumping them onto the street whenever a company feels like it is not the way to go for social cohesion.
Also, lol at job creation where the thinking is 'if I can exploit two people for a pathetic wage rather than pay one person a decent wage' being a positive thing.
EDIT: Also, also, in what universe does paying someone a few months wages to let them go make less sense than keeping that person (and therefore paying their wages anyway) indefinitely? Basic maths should force a company to let someone go if they're not needed, not the evil hand of policy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18177405
Good, good, get under his skin. It'd be so amazing if they made him explode (figuratively).
That sounds like socialist talk to me! Can you imagine how much worse it'd be if we didn't have people like Vince Cable providing a touch of sanity.
Good, good, get under his skin. It'd be so amazing if they made him explode (figuratively).
That sounds like socialist talk to me! Can you imagine how much worse it'd be if we didn't have people like Vince Cable providing a touch of sanity.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Its just such a stupid proposal.
Ok, lets ignore the fact that people can already discipline and dismiss unproductive or poorly behaving staff, or the fact they can already make them redundant... let's say for arguments sake you bring this in and allow employers to get rid of people on the spot, with no recourse for wrongful dismissals... great.
How does this jive well with other government initiatives through the years, such as trying to get young people into work, trying to get mothers working through help with childcare, generally lowering that unemployment count? Women of child bearing age, plus the young and the old alike will be used and tossed aside like cheap currency. It helps no-one to increase already widespread job uncertainty... and as this is proposed for small firms only, there will be a stigma and risk around working for a small firm. It potentially engenders an unwarranted growth advantage to firms that are already large, because that's where employees will want to flock and stay. In essence, an idea supposedly designed to help small businesses could give them nothing but churn and actually hurt them.
I can't believe we're seeing 'socialist' and 'communist' thrown around. Anyone who reduces their argument to such bullshit American/McCarthyist style labelling is an idiot. An IDIOT. It's on par with the people who invoke Godwin's Law at every opportunity.
This is a vote loser and would eat the coalition alive. I hope Cameron tries to stand by it.
Ok, lets ignore the fact that people can already discipline and dismiss unproductive or poorly behaving staff, or the fact they can already make them redundant... let's say for arguments sake you bring this in and allow employers to get rid of people on the spot, with no recourse for wrongful dismissals... great.
How does this jive well with other government initiatives through the years, such as trying to get young people into work, trying to get mothers working through help with childcare, generally lowering that unemployment count? Women of child bearing age, plus the young and the old alike will be used and tossed aside like cheap currency. It helps no-one to increase already widespread job uncertainty... and as this is proposed for small firms only, there will be a stigma and risk around working for a small firm. It potentially engenders an unwarranted growth advantage to firms that are already large, because that's where employees will want to flock and stay. In essence, an idea supposedly designed to help small businesses could give them nothing but churn and actually hurt them.
I can't believe we're seeing 'socialist' and 'communist' thrown around. Anyone who reduces their argument to such bullshit American/McCarthyist style labelling is an idiot. An IDIOT. It's on par with the people who invoke Godwin's Law at every opportunity.
This is a vote loser and would eat the coalition alive. I hope Cameron tries to stand by it.