Support NeoGAF

[kitch9]

What are you talking about? Who’s taken control of their money away from them? You do realise that thousands of people are ‘let go’ every day? Nobody is forced to employ anyone, where does this idea come from?

Also, you seem to think that everybody is in a position where they could start their own business, guess what, most people in the country are poor, which is why legislation to prevent wholesale exploitation by those who aren’t is necessary.

I started my own business with my life savings of £8000, and I am fortunate to get it to a point where its now turning over £500K.... It hasn't been easy and I've gambled on a re-mortgage of my house at one point as I'd run out of money and I was staring down the barrel of a gun..... At what point should I have let my staff who I'd spent thousands on training go? At the first sign of trouble, the first week, month, year? Your average business owner would take the hit first before staff are let go. £500k turnover isn't that much and I currently make a modest living, and there has been times when my staff regularly earned more than me... Thankfully that now seems to have passed, but you can't tell me there aren't opportunities out there for people who want to grab them. My wife set up a fairly fruitful beauty and nails business for £500 and she makes a good living out of that. I've just re-invested just about all of my money in property again, and I have guys working in that full time restoring any I buy. Now this is a big gamble on my behalf and if it all goes tits up my staff will have been paid, and I will end up with nothing and homeless but we'll see.

The government recently offered non-paid short term work placements for those on benefits which quickly got shot down as exploitation and companies such as Tesco and Sainsburys fell over themselves to pull out which made me laugh because I spent my teen Saturdays and holidays working in a clothes shop for £15.00 a 9-10 hour day. This was pure exploitation on the shop owners behalf, but you know what, when it came to actually applying for my first proper job the amazing reference that guy gave me proved to be worth multiple times the pittance of a wage I got. I had few qualifications, but I got a sales job at a car dealership thanks to that, and at 19 I was driving a brand new company car and by 24 I was running my own dealership. In hindsight, I just wish I didn't blow all my money at the time partying hard, but hey, I was young.

 

[ruttyboy]

Again, what are you talking about? You quoted me originally, so I assumed you disagreed with something I said, but I don't know anymore.

When did I ever say that business owners don't work hard or sometimes make sacrifices? The point is those sacrifices are not made on behalf of their employees, but out of self interest. In fact you're only proving my point by admitting the reason you didn't want to let your staff go was because you've spent your money on them. This means that it is not a morally superior position, which is the stance taken by many figureheads in the media. It's like someone selling something to a customer at a profit and then expecting the customer to thank them for selling it to them.

Also, you seem to be one minute arguing that you should be allowed to fire whoever, whenever for whatever (a la Beecroft) and then saying that you don't want to let your staff go anyway? Confusing.

In society, there has to be a balance struck between the powerful and the weak, the recommendations that Beecroft came up with would have shifted the scale so far in the 'haves' favour that the 'have-nots' would have been screwed.

For a lot of people the opportunities simply aren't there. It's no coincidence that if you are born into poverty you tend to die in poverty. Besides, what are you suggesting, that there is market enough for every single person in the country to set up a competing business?

For the record, I don't consider work placements to be exploitation (so long as they are kept in check), however businesses using their employees as purely disposable goods is abhorrent. I'm not even saying that people shouldn't be made unemployed, merely that the safety net of redundancy is an essential tool to prevent widespread hardship.

 

[Jackpot]

Army to be cut by one fifth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18350358

I started my own business with my life savings of £8000, and I am fortunate to get it to a point where its now turning over £500K.... It hasn't been easy and I've gambled on a re-mortgage of my house at one point as I'd run out of money and I was staring down the barrel of a gun..... At what point should I have let my staff who I'd spent thousands on training go?

I think you misread his posts. He's talking about the ethical motivations of SMEs and how they have no moral high ground as some portray.

 

[SteveWD40]

Army to be cut by one fifth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18350358

Not great for the guys getting cut but it's an inevitable evolution where warfare is moving closer to drones and small tactical units.

The SBS / SAS alone in Afghanistan have had a bigger impact than any large ground force. The UK army work well as force multipliers as well, much like ex UK army guys did as mercs in the cold war, provide, tactics, training and the "teeth" as this guy pointed out.

 

[phisheep]

Their 'dream' is entirely one of self interest (be your own boss/do what you love/make a lot of money). What I'm objecting to is people posturing as though it gives them some moral high ground over the people they employ when it does no such thing.

Well, it isn't necessarily all self-interest. That's the way economists like to dress it up for the sake of getting the maths to work out, but there is more to it than that. Me and Mrs phisheep have just opened a shop after a couple of months of planning/financing/fitting out/sorting out suppliers/incurring more debt than we really wanted to and so on. But it isn't just self-interest that's at stake here. It is also partly a social thing, partly it is contributing to the mix of stuff available in town, a lot of it is making stuff available to customers that they couldn't otherwise get without travelling 20 miles or more, and the feedback we've had from our customers and neighbouring traders so far is that yes, this is something that the town needed and that the town needs more of. And we're proud of contributing to that.

Sure, we want to make a living out of it, but to characterise that as pure naked self interest is to mischaracterise it.

You are both right, essentially, you seem to be having a different argument.

It is correct that many small business owners can risk it all and go without to keep their staff happy, but it is also correct they don't do it for the good of their staff as much as the good of their company, so yes, self interest for the most part.

Fact is most SME owners would never claim to be "job creators", it's the CEO's of huge companies who talk shit like that.

You're right in that it's mostly large companies that make this claim. One of the problems with employment law - and until the Companies Act 2006 it used to be a problem with company law as well - is that it assumes that all businesses have the resources that large businesses have, and employment law can be very onerous to small businesses.

That's not about any moral high ground, it is more about the balance of power. An aggrieved employee may be the underdog against a large corporation (though even then the legal costs can be so high that a compromise agreement may be reached regardless of the merits of the case), but is often in a very powerful position against a small business that does not have the resources, time or money to contest even an erroneous claim.

In society, there has to be a balance struck between the powerful and the weak, the recommendations that Beecroft came up with would have shifted the scale so far in the 'haves' favour that the 'have-nots' would have been screwed.

But, the small business owner is not necessarily the one in a powerful position when it comes to employment disputes.


Trouble is, you take on an employee and you are taking on a bunch of unquantified future liabilities. Some of it is insurable risk and some of it isn't. In particular, the ability to get rid of somebody who is not useful to the business without having to pay them more money than you have already paid them in wages would take away some of the concerns that people have about taking on staff in the first place.

 

[ruttyboy]

Well, it isn't necessarily all self-interest. That's the way economists like to dress it up for the sake of getting the maths to work out, but there is more to it than that. Me and Mrs phisheep have just opened a shop after a couple of months of planning/financing/fitting out/sorting out suppliers/incurring more debt than we really wanted to and so on. But it isn't just self-interest that's at stake here. It is also partly a social thing, partly it is contributing to the mix of stuff available in town, a lot of it is making stuff available to customers that they couldn't otherwise get without travelling 20 miles or more, and the feedback we've had from our customers and neighbouring traders so far is that yes, this is something that the town needed and that the town needs more of. And we're proud of contributing to that.

Sure, we want to make a living out of it, but to characterise that as pure naked self interest is to mischaracterise it.

Would you do it if you thought you would lose money on it overall? No. My 'beef' is that people are posturing that they are creating jobs out of philanthropy when it is no such thing. Sure there are fringe benefits that are good for all, but at the heart of it, it is self interest.

But, the small business owner is not necessarily the one in a powerful position when it comes to employment disputes.

Trouble is, you take on an employee and you are taking on a bunch of unquantified future liabilities. Some of it is insurable risk and some of it isn't. In particular, the ability to get rid of somebody who is not useful to the business without having to pay them more money than you have already paid them in wages would take away some of the concerns that people have about taking on staff in the first place.

I've talked about this previously. As far as I know, within a year you can already get rid of anyone at no extra cost for pretty much no reason. If, as a business owner you employ someone for more than a year and then want to get rid of them because either:

a) They are shit - well, more fool on you for not paying attention for a whole year!

b) They are no longer needed - well, they clearly were needed for a time greater than a whole year so you have profited from their employment and loyalty to you. Paying them a months wage as a severance package is surely better financially than continuing to employ them indefinitely no? With the added benefit that the employee isn't at risk of becoming immediately destitute/homeless with no warning.

Surely the problem only comes about when an employer wants to 'fire' someone to save money rather than make them redundant. Is there a tribunal process stopping people from using the redundancy process (I genuinely don't know)?

 

[phisheep]

Would you do it if you thought you would lose money on it overall? No. My 'beef' is that people are posturing that they are creating jobs out of philanthropy when it is no such thing. Sure there are fringe benefits that are good for all, but at the heart of it, it is self interest.

Hmm. I think maybe you are pushing this point a bit too hard.

If it was all purely monetary self-interest then I'd be doing corporate legal stuff still. I'm making a whole load less out of the shop (though it is a load more fun, and a load more tied in to the local community and a load more sociable) than I was in big company land. So arguably I'm assisting employment in two ways (a) in making a job available in big company land if anyone wants it and (b) in kicking off a modest startup that may well employ other people quite quickly.

That may not fit your definition of 'philanthropic', but it is kind of useful.

I've talked about this previously. As far as I know, within a year you can already get rid of anyone at no extra cost for pretty much no reason. If, as a business owner you employ someone for more than a year and then want to get rid of them because either:

a) They are shit - well, more fool on you for not paying attention for a whole year!

b) They are no longer needed - well, they clearly were needed for a time greater than a whole year so you have profited from their employment and loyalty to you. Paying them a months wage as a severance package is surely better financially than continuing to employ them indefinitely no? With the added benefit that the employee isn't at risk of becoming immediately destitute/homeless with no warning.

Surely the problem only comes about when an employer wants to 'fire' someone to save money rather than make them redundant. Is there a tribunal process stopping people from using the redundancy process (I genuinely don't know)?

Let me just a step back here. Seems to me that the biggest problem we have with employment right now is the inexorable rise of the zero-hours contract in retail and catering at least. So people end up with an employment contract that guarantees them pretty well nothing and demands of them pretty well everything. And that is total shit from the employee's point of view. And it only ever came about because of onerous employment legislation.

I'm not happy with those contracts and I don't want to employ somebody on one, because I think it is grossly unfair to the employee. But on the other hand, I do not think I should then be landed with liabilities beyond their worth for people who do not serve the business.

Maybe I need to expand this a bit, but I'm in the middle of a load of business paperwork right now. Happy to talk later.

 

[Dambrosi]

You've opened a shop, Phisheep? *peels open manky trenchcoat* What are ya sellin, Stranger?

To the point being debated - companies (big or small) employ workers out of need for their knowledge or industry, right? I'm sure if the boss of, say, Adidas could concievably run the business by himself and keep all the profits and all the wages he then would not have to pay, he would. I'm sure he'd love a rotating freebie workforce, too, but that's illegal (for now, at least - give the Tories another couple of years).

What I think ruttyboy is trying to say is that he's tired of right-wing pundits and big business executives calling themselves "job creators" as if they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, all while outsourcing all the jobs they can to third-world countries with cheaper/no wages, and gifting the executive, directorial ones they can't to their mates in Whitehall/Capitol Hill/wherever for "services rendered". Now, I don't believe all big business execs (or right-wing pundits, for that matter) are bad, but it is a laughable argument to suggest that, say, Adidas employ thousands of child workers across the third world purely for philanthropic reasons. Or is that Nike? Eh, trainies.

We in this country recognize that certain unscrupulous companies like the one I posted about above will try to unfairly exploit their workers, all while calling it charity and stroking their own egos in the wine bar later. That's why we have such stringent employment and redundancy laws to stop such things happening, or at least that's the idea. As you say, the balance of employment law in the UK might be weighted too heavily towards the employee, but the above link is a real example of why we need such laws, and why they need to be enforced rigorously, not weakened so the Tories' mates in the City can buy more yachts. Okay, yah?



BTW, just heard on BBC News that Vodafone and O2 are getting together to create a joint 4G network. That means there'll only be two 4G networks in the UK. I'm concerned that the price of mobile broadband might remain high for longer due to a lack of competition, especially if they don't overlap.



Oh yeah, Rock Paper Shotgun are fucking gods.

Despite the devs coming up with all manner of “new items, enemies, rooms, skills, and things to generally make your life Better and/or More Full of Death”, the one thing they couldn’t force their tired brains to do was devise a title for the new content. Hence, it is simply “You Have To Name The Expansion Pack.” I’m going to call mine Dungeons of Dredmor: George Osborne Is A Pasty-Faced Spawn Of An Earwig With A Weeping Sore Where His Soul Should Be. How about you?

Gods, I tell yaz.

 

[phisheep]

I'm kind of in line with you Dambrosi.

Part of the reason I am doing this is because I am utterly fed up with the big corporate stuff. And with a little shop then sure I'll be making a load less money but I'll also be a whole load more socially useful, right here and now; and I'm talking direct to my customers rather than to my customer's boss's lawyer's buddys and so on.

I think part of the problem with the employment law stuff is the same as with everything in common-law countries: the law gets determined by the cases that get heard (which is good, because it is grounded in reality) but the only cases that get heard are the ones where the parties can afford to pay for the legal action (which is basically big corporations versus either unions or legal aid) with the result that the law gets gradually biased towards people with big budgets.

That's where it needs some rebalancing or at least some rethinking. I can't afford to send an HR guy off for a week to give evidence. Don't actually have an HR guy to send. And if it is me, then the business has to close down for a bit.

I'm not saying that in principle the employment legislation is wrong (mostly it isn't), but it is grossly impracticable for any small business to deal with, and that is a problem in itself.

 

[Songbird]

Dambrosi, how did the interview go?

 

[phisheep]

You've opened a shop, Phisheep? *peels open manky trenchcoat* What are ya sellin, Stranger?

Well, since you ask, I'm selling beads. Y'know, stuff for making jewellery out of. Much more interesting than it sounds.

Been blogging the startup (somewhat sporadically) here.

If you're ever around my way and want to pop in for a chat, please do so. Be good to see you. Usually Mrs P is in charge of the shop bit, but it looks like I will be the main man on Thursdays, provided I get the hang of this customer service stuff which is really difficult after role-playing a hardnosed bastard for so long.

 

[Chinner]

bees?

 

[phisheep]

No, not bees, beads. like this stuff:

 

[Songbird]

I've been told that with all my job hunting woes I should start a business. I'd just need to identify a service that's not being provided and get the funding.

 

[phisheep]

I've been told that with all my job hunting woes I should start a business. I'd just need to identify a service that's not being provided and get the funding.

That little word "just" is a bastard.

Maybe try looking round your neighbourhood, see what's needed. For example I did a load of really heavy gardening last year and now have the best-looking front garden in the street and people keep asking me if I can do their gardens too. I pick up 20 or 30 of those and I'd have a decent income. that's not what I'm doing, but it is an opening. And one street spreads to another and so on.

Even in Liverpool.

EDIT: Bloody hell. I only posted that link to the shop site 45 minutes ago and already it is second only to google in terms of referalls. There's more to GAF than I thought. More beady stuff anyhow.

 

[Yen]

Beauty is in the eye of the bead holder.

 

[Dambrosi]

I'm kind of in line with you Dambrosi.

Part of the reason I am doing this is because I am utterly fed up with the big corporate stuff. And with a little shop then sure I'll be making a load less money but I'll also be a whole load more socially useful, right here and now; and I'm talking direct to my customers rather than to my customer's boss's lawyer's buddys and so on.

I think part of the problem with the employment law stuff is the same as with everything in common-law countries: the law gets determined by the cases that get heard (which is good, because it is grounded in reality) but the only cases that get heard are the ones where the parties can afford to pay for the legal action (which is basically big corporations versus either unions or legal aid) with the result that the law gets gradually biased towards people with big budgets.

That's where it needs some rebalancing or at least some rethinking. I can't afford to send an HR guy off for a week to give evidence. Don't actually have an HR guy to send. And if it is me, then the business has to close down for a bit.

I'm not saying that in principle the employment legislation is wrong (mostly it isn't), but it is grossly impracticable for any small business to deal with, and that is a problem in itself.

Yeah, right there with ya. Thanks for the invitation, but I don't normally travel outside the 'Pool much. If I'm ever down Bristol way, I'll make sure to look you up.

Oh, and prize gardens? In Liverpool? With our kids? Bwaaahahahahaha.

Dambrosi, how did the interview go?

Needless to say, I didn't get it. Oh well, I've got another one lined up for 9AM tomorrow!

 

[phisheep]

Oh, and prize gardens? In Liverpool? With our kids? Bwaaahahahahaha.

I have a couple of contacts in Liverpool, drop me a PM saying (honestly) what you are good at and I'll see what I can do. Plus, I promise to tell you immediately if I can't do anything - at least that cuts the speculation bit short,

 

[Temrer]

Oh, and prize gardens? In Liverpool? With our kids? Bwaaahahahahaha.

Depends whereabout you're looking

I can't comment on South Liverpool, but if you go up by Aintree/Maghull/Lydiate/Crosby/Formby way, there are a fair few nice houses with decent gardens.

 

[phisheep]

Depends whereabout you're looking

Aigburth even,

 

[Chinner]

beads?

 

[phisheep]

beads?

Ah, found your question mark at last Chinner. Yep, them beads. Largely attractive to vast quantities of female people of various ages from 12 to 60-something. And, for some reason, also to 10-year-old boys.

At least that's the customer research so far.

 

[radioheadrule83]

Osbourne blaming Europe for damaging our recovery sounds an awful lot like Brown pinning the sole blame for the crisis on things in America, does it not? Politically convenient thing for him to assert.

It couldn't possibly have anything to do with killing off hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs when we already had a morale crushing 2.5m+ unemployed, banks unwilling to lend, and demand/confidence too low to sustain the necessary private sector growth.

I'm happy that we've seen unemployment falls and signs of improvement in recent months, but they have NOT done enough to create conditions supportive enough or mitigated major risks, they have pursued an ideologically motivated programme as a priority and been far too stubborn. There is no confidence, people are still belt tightening. It's in this context theyve proposed shit like making it even easier to make people unemployed.. and they're having to waste their time with political distractions of their own making, like the warsi, hunt / news international affairs... I see no reason to allow him to scapegoat Europe!

 

[defel]

It's fine for him to blame Europe because what's happening in Europe has a huge impact on us. What matters is how Osborne responds to changing events and the government have to show some flexibility. They have to be prepared to put their pride on the line. This is politics and not economics though and I'm concerned that they won't actually do that.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

Not great for the guys getting cut but it's an inevitable evolution where warfare is moving closer to drones and small tactical units.

The SBS / SAS alone in Afghanistan have had a bigger impact than any large ground force. The UK army work well as force multipliers as well, much like ex UK army guys did as mercs in the cold war, provide, tactics, training and the "teeth" as this guy pointed out.

They're actually planning on increasing the size of the TA massively, so that reserves have a much bigger role than they do at present. Having worked with the TA before, I can tell you it needs a shitload of reform to take on this increased role, and I'm not sure how they're going to attract more people in when it's hard enough for them to make up numbers as it is, and adding to that, attendance is poor in many TA units.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

I know I've been banging on about it for a while now, but it does really look like HS2 is dead, and we really are getting a third runway. Expect a u-turn pretty soon, there has been briefing from the affected Tories this morning whining about a third runway and whining from railways about the lack of action over HS2. The civil service assessment over HS2 is about to leak and it does not make for good reading, no wonder the government tried to suppress it for so long. The only railway that makes sense in a country the size of Britain, other than conventional which we already have, is MagLev. Either we spend £100bn and do it right or we shouldn't bother at all with railway expansion.

A third runway, according to our model, will add at least 6.5% GDP growth in it's first ten years of operation, HS2 could add up to 1.4% in its first ten years. HS2 will cost £34bn and will bring in around £10bn for a 30 year lease, a third runway would cost £8bn, almost all of which will come from the private sector. HS2 is uneconomic and requires a huge implicit public subsidy to get off the ground, and ticket prices on the route will have to rise by 20% up front to meet these subsidies.

While a third runway isn't the perfect solution, it is the answer to the question currently being asked: Why the hell is Britain not growing. Businesses have known the answer for the better part of 4 years, the air industry predicted it 10 years ago. Our economic capacity is at its peak because of limited air capacity in places that foreign businessmen want to visit (London). The best part about a third runway is that it will support British business, the prime beneficiary is IAG which is 55% British owned and with more routes open it means more planes, more planes means more orders for our huge Aerospace industry. Trains give us nothing, we don't have trainbuilding left in Britain, a couple of foreign owned assembly lines here and there, but nothing like Rolls Royce.

Another advantage of a third runway is that Boeing have been making noises recently that they are worried that there is going to be a rise of nationalist economics in Europe and airlines will be compelled by governments to support Airbus by buying their planes. To that end Boeing have been scouting sites around Europe to build a new assembly plant for the new 737 short haul plane, a third runway and our existing aerospace infrastructure would make our case undeniable and it could bring thousands of jobs into country.

 

[blahblah...blah]

bees?

I appreciated this comment, even if nobody else did

 

[phisheep]

I appreciated this comment, even if nobody else did

So glad somebody did - it went straight over my head. Somebody want to explain quietly so I don't feel too stupid?

 

[blahblah...blah]

BEES?!

 

[JonathanEx]

On the HS2 thing, further reading on that report for anybody interested: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...2-were-exaggerated-secret-report-reveals.html

 

[phisheep]

BEES?!

Ok, so now I do feel stupid, since Chinner linked the exact same video under the question mark that I forgot to click on (or maybe had the sound turned off, in which case it makes no sense).

 

[blahblah...blah]

I didn't even notice the link in the question mark - sneaky bugger!

 

[StealthGoblin]

The National Curriculum for ICT is no more, at least temporarily.

The whole thing needs a refresh. Definitely needs to be more computer science at KS3/KS4 level. The Primary ICT Curriculum needs to be simplified a bit, because unfortunately. . .we'll start seeing teachers qualify in a year or so's time that haven't had to pass a mandatory ICT examination in order to qualify.

Technically this means that if Ofsted were to come and observe one of my ICT classes. . .as long as I could justify why the children are using Microsoft Paint to draw pictures of cats. . .I could get away with it.

 

[Songbird]

I would have loved it if I learned programming at school.

 

[Saiyar]

From the BBC

"We now accept that it is highly likely that, sometime in 2006, a member of staff in NHS Fife spoke, without authorisation, about the medical condition of Mr Brown's son, Fraser.

We welcome the fact that NHS Fife have today said that they believe there was 'no inappropriate access' to the medical records of Gordon Brown's son.

That is unbelievable, their defense is basicaly that they didn't have access to the actual medical records, they just got someone to tell them the details.

 

[radioheadrule83]

From the BBC

That is unbelievable, their defense is basicaly that they didn't have access to the actual medical records, they just got someone to tell them the details.

They probably paid said person to break the confidentiality of the records... why would someone give up that information for no reason? They wouldn't. They may as well have been in the hospital themselves, palming the NHS employee a wad of tenners for access to the records room..

 

[Songbird]

From the BBC

That is unbelievable, their defense is basicaly that they didn't have access to the actual medical records, they just got someone to tell them the details.

Yeah, because NI bribing staff for the details is hunky dory... Actual records BAD!

 

[twobear]

What's even their defence? 'Hacking it isn't the kind of thing we'd do.'?

 

[kitch9]

Osbourne blaming Europe for damaging our recovery sounds an awful lot like Brown pinning the sole blame for the crisis on things in America, does it not? Politically convenient thing for him to assert.

It couldn't possibly have anything to do with killing off hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs when we already had a morale crushing 2.5m+ unemployed, banks unwilling to lend, and demand/confidence too low to sustain the necessary private sector growth.

I'm happy that we've seen unemployment falls and signs of improvement in recent months, but they have NOT done enough to create conditions supportive enough or mitigated major risks, they have pursued an ideologically motivated programme as a priority and been far too stubborn. There is no confidence, people are still belt tightening. It's in this context theyve proposed shit like making it even easier to make people unemployed.. and they're having to waste their time with political distractions of their own making, like the warsi, hunt / news international affairs... I see no reason to allow him to scapegoat Europe!

Now fairness to all of them it would be hard to describe the worldwide economy as anything other than difficult.

 

[twobear]

It's still not true though. Osbourne is basically blaming the recession for causing the recession. The reason there's a Eurozone crisis is because Europe's leaders misdiagnosed the situation and rushed to create policies to cure fictitious ailments. Osbourne is one of those leaders.

 

[Speedymanic]

Longer recession due to slump in manufacturing...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/shock-drop...isk-longer-recession-092032142--business.html

Sucks.

Kinda missing zomg, I was looking forward to his posts about the data being wrong.

 

[Visualante2]

Wonder what sort of influence manufacturing UK trains in Germany has on that.

Osborne strikes me as a stubborn man, if France has a better recovery under Hollande it will be really interesting to see if they acknowledge that.

 

[Biggzy]

Lib Dems are to abstain from the Jeremy Hunt vote in the House of Commons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18413431

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Longer recession due to slump in manufacturing...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/shock-drop...isk-longer-recession-092032142--business.html

Sucks.

Kinda missing zomg, I was looking forward to his posts about the data being wrong.

Statistics aren't wrong. Manufacturing is in reverse and since the oil shutdowns from the Total leak it isn't surprising that industrial production is down.

 

[SmokyDave]

Grumble grumble C of E grumble grumble gay marriage grumble grumble miserable bastards.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Grumble grumble C of E grumble grumble gay marriage grumble grumble miserable bastards.

Seriously.

 

[JonathanEx]

I was rather surprised to hear Moyles talk about the CoE thing on Radio 1.

And when he can destroy their viewpoint in a non-shouty, considered way, well, their argument must be shitty.

 

[radioheadrule83]

Lib Dems are to abstain from the Jeremy Hunt vote in the House of Commons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18413431

I'd rather they voted for an investigation rather than abstaining, but I can understand it...

Not sure what use Clegg will be at Leveson, but if I were him I'd bring up the way the Tory press attempted to influence the election debate. The telegraph tried to scuffle his chances with dodgy headlines, and Boulton at Sky News made Sky the only debate broadcaster to sully events by mentioning the headlines in a tabloidish way during their debate broadcast -- not a question anyone in the audience was asking, or one that abided by the carefully drawn up guidelines, but a true attempt at putting the Tory smear on TV screens during an election debate.

 

[Dambrosi]

I take it there's no chance of this vote actually going through, even with Lib Dem abstention, right? Or are, by some miracle, the Tories boned this time?

---------------------------------

About my last interview. It was for a door-to-door sales job flogging home insulation, so I was of a mind to refuse it anyway, but thought I might as well stick the interview process out for practice's sake, if nothing else. So, the initial chat went well, and I and another candidate were called back for a second interview the following weekday. When we got there, we were told that we would take part in the daily "morning meeting" the firm regularly have. No problem, I thought as I waited in their small yet nicely plush reception while watching Scrubs DVDs on their PS3.

Then we were brought into the meeting room, and suddenly everything...well, "changed" doesn't quite sound right, but "became clear" seems like too much of a slight. There we were, two n00bs in a room full to humidity of yuppies. You guys remember yuppies, right? Young, go-getting, utterly insufferable twats who only care about money? Guess what - they're not extinct. And this room was chock full of them, with their iPod speaker in the corner blasting out generic house at a needlessly excessive volume, while their self-congratulatory chatter managed to even drown that out at times.

It got worse, as the meeting itself started with the In Crowd forming into a semi-circle as the boss, who we had met in the interview before, started doing his best impression of a hyperactive 10-year-old trying to recite the company training manual off by heart for ten minutes. Then it got worse, as the results for last week's KPIs were announced, and each individual achievement was rattled off one-by-one, followed by the person responsible running around the semi-circle and giving high-fives to everyone. One after the other, nearly everyone in the room ended up performing this ritual, giving the meeting the semblance of twenty Steve Ballmers at their sweatiest and most Microsoft-loving. It was like a cult.

Needless to say, both myself and my "competitor" made our excuses and ran far away.

Never going for a sales job again. That experience has burned itself into my retinas, never to leave.

 

[phisheep]

I was rather surprised to hear Moyles talk about the CoE thing on Radio 1.

And when he can destroy their viewpoint in a non-shouty, considered way, well, their argument must be shitty.

Hmmm. Not sure that Chris Moyles is the true test of the validity of an argument.

The Church of England response doesn't quite seem to hit the mark though, concentrating as it does on potential ECHR challenges that it is unlikely to face - only because of its privileged position. There are some significant problems with the government's proposals as outlined in the consultation document. Paragraph references are to the full consultation document:

(1.7) Under the proposed legislation it will not be possible for a same-sex couple to marry in a religious ceremony on religious premises. While the government has couched this as protection for religious beliefs, it is quite the opposite - it is legislating to tell religions what they must believe. It is perfectly feasible for there to be a religion that supports same-sex marriage (maybe, in the not too distant future, a spin-off from the Church of England even), but the proposed legislation would prohibit it from conducting such marriages. That is unwarranted State interference with religious belief, no matter how it is dressed up.

Such blanket discrimination is likely to be challengeable through the ECHR in almost exactly the same way as the ban on voting rights for prisoners.

This isn't an argument the CofE is likely make, but it is a better one than any they did make.

(2.4) It is not proposed to change the definition of religious marriage - even though it is admitted right at the beginning of the paragraph that there is no such definition, or at least not a very good one. In fact, as becomes clear from paras 2.4(1) through to 2.4(4), religious marriage is defined in part - but only for the Church of England/Church in Wales, for Quakers and for Jews. that puts the CofE in pretty much a protected position with regards to the proposed legislation. BUT it leaves all other religions (Catholics, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Orthodox and so on) under para 2.4(4) where marriage is only recognised subject to government authorisation of the premises and the person conducting the ceremony.

Because of the government involvement here, there are potential challenges both through the ECHR and through the discrimination legislation of the EU which would apply to all religions except the three (or four if you count the Church in Wales) religions specifically mentioned. Not surprisingly the CofE has not made much of this argument as it is in a protected position.

On the other hand, the three (four) protected religions have another problem. Since their marriages are recognised automatically through their own rites and customs, it is not at all clear that the proposed legislation preventing them from conducting same-sex marriages would have any force at all. The government has no such power (and is not proposing to change the relevant legislation so that it has). To that extent the CofE is right, although any challenges are likely to come from within the Church in the first instance rather than through the ECHR, simply because the government has (quite rightly) no control over what the Church does in this respect, and absent that it is not at all clear who would get sued.

(2.11) rather disingenuously makes the point that no CofE minister should face a successful legal challenge - why, one wonders, would they specify 'CofE' in this sentence? It's because of the stuff I mentioned above. Every minister outside CofE, Quakers and Jews could face such a challenge.