Support NeoGAF

[zomgbbqftw]

EU trade will only get worse next year, the worst has yet to come for them, trade outside the EU wont be able to plug the gap, consumers are still paying off their own debt, they wont suddenly go on a spending spree, and business investment will be slightly better for small businesses with the allowance but wont match their forecasts

Well consumer spending is up YoY by around 1.5% this year, so consumers are spending money, it's a natural consequence of inflation going down. It causes disposable income to rise and that means more people will spend.

As for the EU, there's nothing we can do about it except continue to increase exports to non-EU nations and keep the pace up.

You are wrong on business investment, the £250k capex announcement has been extremely well received. It will have a hugely positive effect on SME investment.

 

[Clay Davis]

Well, it depends what you mean by "plan A", and rather more importantly what "plan B" is supposed to be. If "plan B" is no austerity at all and a huge bunch more government spending then that is a road to ruin - higher taxation all round, bigger deficits all round, bigger debts all round and so on - not a good story. Could only be supported by even more improbably optimistic growth prospects than we already have.

As for me, I quite pleased at the extensions of 100% Small Business Rates Relief to 2014. Though that does mean that next year I will probably pay more in corporation tax than the whole of fuckin' Starbucks has for 15 years - which to be quite honest I find rather grating. And it is slightly odd that the headline rate of corporation tax is coming down to within a whisker of the small business rate. That's good news for big companies and for those bordering on 1/3 million profit, but not a huge incentive to the small ones amongst us especially if we actually pay our taxes.

Can't complain in all honesty, as I'm all in favour of flatter taxation and it is flattening, at least at the corporate level. Would like to have seen some more incentive for small businesses to pick up employees even at below min wage - as it is I am flooded with people who would gladly work here (and maybe in summer I could take on two or three) but the business does not yet have the numbers to support that. So instead the two of us get to work ungodly hours for about 1/3 min wage (as owners) when sometimes we could damn well do with a rest. Be better come springtime, but for now it is knackering and if snow comes then taking on someone for Saturdays would wipe out a day's takings and a week's profits.

One thing I would consider doing (though the charity lobby would rail against it) is ending the special rates relief for charities. Couple of towns around completely dominated by charity shops who (a) don't employ anybody (all staffed by volunteers) (b) don't pay rates and (c) serve to prop up high street rents beyond what small businesses can afford (or at least afford to commit to).

maybe I'm missing something, but if your business is unable to support paying anyone the minimum wage, surely you don't have a very good business or it's a business that doesn't require any more staff outside of the owners?

what am I missing?

 

[phisheep]

maybe I'm missing something, but if your business is unable to support paying anyone the minimum wage, surely you don't have a very good business or it's a business that doesn't require any more staff outside of the owners?

what am I missing?

What you're missing largely is (a) we're a small startup business with around 80% of our capital in stock and (b) trade is at present highly seasonal. This risk of taking on even a minimum wage employee at present is too great. Even at a time when the business can sustain an employee on raw trading the downside of potential liabilities in redundancy/sickness etc is a significant risk.

 

[Clay Davis]

What you're missing largely is (a) we're a small startup business with around 80% of our capital in stock and (b) trade is at present highly seasonal. This risk of taking on even a minimum wage employee at present is too great. Even at a time when the business can sustain an employee on raw trading the downside of potential liabilities in redundancy/sickness etc is a significant risk.

thanks. so if I'm understanding it correctly, you don't really need any other workers? you'd like them but as you can't pay a proper wage, it's clearly not possible for your business to support one.

thanks for the reply. I was wondering why you wanted to hire people at less than minimum wage, I don't agree with anyone doing that it damages the job market.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

thanks. so if I'm understanding it correctly, you don't really need any other workers? you'd like them but as you can't pay a proper wage, it's clearly not possible for your business to support one.

thanks for the reply. I was wondering why you wanted to hire people at less than minimum wage, I don't agree with anyone doing that it damages the job market.

In what way would it damage the jobs market if phisheep took on a 16 year old at £2.50 per hour? It would definitely help that 16 year old.

Phisheep is an honest kind of guy and will try his best to hire people above board, but a lot of independent retailers do not, they hire illegal immigrants who are usually paid from £2-3 per hour and that prices young people out of the market. What's worse is that the illegal immigrants are usually harder working and better educated than our current crop of 16-18 year olds, thus dampening their job prospects further. Who would pay more money to someone who requires more supervision and does less work? Only a chump would do that. We have to reduce illegal immigration and reduce minimum wage for young people, that would put a serious dent in youth unemployment, but a more permanent measure would be to fix the education system after 20 years of neglect and grade inflation. That takes time.

 

[phisheep]

thanks. so if I'm understanding it correctly, you don't really need any other workers? you'd like them but as you can't pay a proper wage, it's clearly not possible for your business to support one.

thanks for the reply. I was wondering why you wanted to hire people at less than minimum wage, I don't agree with anyone doing that it damages the job market.

No problem Clay. I just like to set it out like I see it.

Thing is, we've got some sensible growth plans and funding, but it all takes time and work for both of us. If we're stuck with min wage then it does one of two things (a) slows our growth plans down for about two years or (b) leaves us reliant on volunteers in the meantime. Now you can probably guess that I'm not all that keen on slowing down our growth plans, so essentially I'm going to be using volunteers for two years instead of employing somebody. I've no shortage of volunteers either. That's damn fine for the business but rotten for anybody who hasn't got a jpb and wants one. especially if they want one here. And it gives essentially an unfair advantage to people who already have nearly enough money to volunteer for opportunities that other people can't apply for.

Does that make any sense? It is confusing as hell to me!

EDIT: I should add, there's a lot of "zero-hours" contracts around these days in at least the leisure, catering and retail sectors - presumably set up as a bastion against min-wage. Essentially people get a minimum wage per hour but absolutely no contracted hours whatsoever. THAT seems to me to be immoral and I won't do it. It essentially prevents the employee (who has no contractual rights to any payment at all) from getting another job in case they breach the T&Cs of the current one. This stuff is happening all the time and round and round here and I hate it. Now what's worse? Taking somoeone on at minimum wage at zero hours per week, or at £2.50 an hour for two days/16 hours a week that they can predict?

 

[StealthGoblin]

Performance related pay for teachers? Yeah, that'll go down well.

Everyone is already depressed enough as it is.

 

[CyclopsRock]

There is no work to incentivise.

It is more complex than that. Since the downturn, immigrant workers have continued to rise in employment, especially versus British people. EU immigration has lead to an enormous labour pool which suppresses wages, and these immigrants don't have the option of taking benefits here so they are forced to take lower wages. With wages thusly suppressed, and with a whole group of the labour market forced to keep them low, it isn't necessarily true to say that there is no work - it is that British people have a form of (meagre) income that immigrants don't have access to, thus the latter ending up employed more often than the former.

 

[twobear]

The Graun obviously had a lot of fun with today's news:

 

[CyclopsRock]

Balls acted up pretty bad this morning.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Can't be as bad as he was on the autumn statement reply yesterday

 

[Messofanego]

Old but I wanted to post it.

Palestine Defended on the BBC (a rare moment)

Owen Jones on Question Time.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Ugh, can't stand Owen Jones.

What's that "rare moment" thing about? I didn't know the bbc was thought to have an isreali bias - would have assumed it would tend towards the palastinieans if anything

 

[Nicktendo86]

I didn't see Balls' response to the autumn statement yesterday, was it really that bad?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ement-performance-on-his-stammer-8389086.html

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

I didn't see Balls' response to the autumn statement yesterday, was it really that bad?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ement-performance-on-his-stammer-8389086.html

Yes, it was horrific - bookies have even lengthened the odds on him being the next chancellor

Labour really need a new top team, ed-ed-yvette has waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much baggage

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20642428

same sex marriage bill will allow churches that want to perform services to do so.

Free vote with Cameron in favour, the creepy right wing tories will no doubt vote against, but conservative moderates + lib dem + labour should easily see it through I'd have thought

 

[War Peaceman]

Good on them for pushing for marriage equality. Not much more to say, really, except that I am very impressed that they are going ahead with it. It appeared that they were backing off it earlier in the year, but thankfully that appears not to be so.

 

[GJS]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20642428

same sex marriage bill will allow churches that want to perform services to do so.

Free vote with Cameron in favour, the creepy right wing tories will no doubt vote against, but conservative moderates + lib dem + labour should easily see it through I'd have thought

CofE and CinW churches are to be specifically excluded, and CofE and CinW churches will be prevented by law from carrying out same sex marriages.

http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924

 

[Jackpot]

da fuq is this?

The Church of England and Church in Wales will be banned in law from offering same-sex marriages, the government has announced.

That needed legislating and enshrining into law? Really?

Right after Tory MPs were complaining "parents don't want gay children".

That will undoubtedly appease many of her critics, particularly on her own backbenches.

The danger I think is it will anger many supporters of gay marriage who feel she has given far too much ground.

No shit.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I guess this isn't the point they were making, but I wouldn't want gay children, either. Why would I? Despite the huge strides that have been made, their life is still going to have more hurdles and bigotry in their way than if they're heterosexual. I don't understand why anyone would want that for anyone they care about.

 

[kitch9]

da fuq is this?



That needed legislating and enshrining into law? Really?

Right after Tory MPs were complaining "parents don't want gay children".



No shit.

No parent would want their child to be gay, even gay parents I would imagine. Whilst growing numbers, probably the majority of parents would understand and support a gay child, not many would want their child to be gay.

There's still too much small minded bullshit around this subject to want your child to be subject to it.

 

[Jackpot]

No parent would want their child to be gay, even gay parents I would imagine.

Wrong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/11/david-davies-parents-gay-child

There's still too much small minded bullshit around this subject to want your child to be subject to it.

I guess this isn't the point they were making, but I wouldn't want gay children, either. Why would I? Despite the huge strides that have been made, their life is still going to have more hurdles and bigotry in their way than if they're heterosexual. I don't understand why anyone would want that for anyone they care about.

Yes, being gay is so terrible and soul-destroying we should just euthanise them rather than condemning them to a miserable life. brb, going to dye my mixed-race child's skin white to appease any potential bigots out there.

 

[phisheep]

da fuq is this?

That needed legislating and enshrining into law? Really?

Certainly did. It's because of the peculiar legal position of the CofE and the CinW, where the rules for marriage are enshrined in the Marriage Act 1949. It's not the same for any other religion.

 

[twobear]

I guess this isn't the point they were making, but I wouldn't want gay children, either. Why would I? Despite the huge strides that have been made, their life is still going to have more hurdles and bigotry in their way than if they're heterosexual. I don't understand why anyone would want that for anyone they care about.

I know that I only want my child to be a white heterosexual male.

 

[kitch9]

Wrong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/11/david-davies-parents-gay-child





Yes, being gay is so terrible and soul-destroying we should just euthanise them rather than condemning them to a miserable life. brb, going to dye my mixed-race child's skin white to appease any potential bigots out there.

You are completely missing the point of what is being said.

 

[Jackpot]

You are completely missing the point of what is being said.

Sexism is still alive and well. Does this mean you hope none of your children are born female?

 

[kitch9]

Sexism is still alive and well. Does this mean you hope none of your children are born female?

The hyperbole is strong with this one.... As I have said I think the vast majority of parents would love and support a gay child, but next to none would want and wish they were that way. As a parent you don't want your child to be in a minority, especially a minority that is subject to ignorance, you naturally want the best for them.

 

[Jackpot]

The hyperbole is strong with this one....

You got anything better than one line posts that don't relate to the argument at hand? How is it hyperbolic? It's the same concept.

We should also quash this idea that being gay or having gay parents means spending your entire life in abject misery, so when bigots campaign against gay adoption, etc, they're really just thinking of the poor kiddie-winks having to suffer at school!

 

[kitch9]

You got anything better than one line posts that don't relate to the argument at hand? How is it hyperbolic? It's the same concept.

We should also quash this idea that being gay or having gay parents means spending your entire life in abject misery, so when bigots campaign against gay adoption, etc, they're really just thinking of the poor kiddie-winks having to suffer at school!

I agree it should be the same concept, but it isn't. By a looooonnnggg shot.

Unfortunately.

I did edit my previous post.

Kids took piss out of me at school because my ears stuck out a bit more than most, and I mean a bit. Stuff like this just blows the roof off, and can make a childhood a nightmare, parents just want their kid to fit in as they've been to school themselves and know what it is like. Being gay is probably on a long list of things what most parents wouldn't want their kids to have/be.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Yes, being gay is so terrible and soul-destroying we should just euthanise them rather than condemning them to a miserable life. brb, going to dye my mixed-race child's skin white to appease any potential bigots out there.

I don't think that's what I said now, is it?

 

[Nicktendo86]

I agree with kitch on this one, let's be honest if parents were given a choice I am sure the majority would want their children to be strait rather than gay as they would want them to be in the majority, they are not bad parents for thinking that and they may even support gay marriage. I do, I wish anyone could marry the person they love regardless of gender where they want.

 

[War Peaceman]

The whole 'don't want children to be gay' thing is irrelevant to the subject at hand. It doesn't matter what parents want their children to be, people are gay

 

[nib95]

Old but I wanted to post it.

Palestine Defended on the BBC (a rare moment)

Owen Jones on Question Time.

Yea I caught that when it was on TV. Great moment. Crowd support for him was really strong too.

 

[twobear]

The hyperbole is strong with this one.... As I have said I think the vast majority of parents would love and support a gay child, but next to none would want and wish they were that way. As a parent you don't want your child to be in a minority, especially a minority that is subject to ignorance, you naturally want the best for them.

So you think that black people wish they had white children?

I don't disagree that a lot of people would want their kids to be straight, given the choice. But I don't think that's necessarily because they 'want what's best' for their children. If I had kids, I would want what's best for them, but I wouldn't, for instance, send them to private school even though they're much more likely to succeed if they do.

 

[Clay Davis]

I'm somewhat surprised by the lack of discussion regarding the census results.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18681865

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20677321

http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=census 2011

pretty surprising results. Christianity is falling, Islam rising, atheism rising, number of foreign people in the country (London) increased, number of white british in London falling.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Not surprised at the atheism numbers. Most people simply put down "Christianity" out of habit/tradition and do so for everyone in their family.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'm somewhat surprised by the lack of discussion regarding the census results.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18681865

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20677321

http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=census 2011

pretty surprising results. Christianity is falling, Islam rising, atheism rising, number of foreign people in the country (London) increased, number of white british in London falling.

I'm confused about what part of that is surprising.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Picture the Express covers. Mmm, yes.

 

[phisheep]

I'm somewhat surprised by the lack of discussion regarding the census results.

pretty surprising results. Christianity is falling, Islam rising, atheism rising, number of foreign people in the country (London) increased, number of white british in London falling.

No real surprises there at all. If anything I'm surprised at the relatively high number still identifying as Christian.

Besides, wasn't this the first census where people could identify as, say, "Welsh" rather than "British" - doesn't mean they're foreign - well not much.

 

[StealthGoblin]

Not surprised at the atheism numbers. Most people simply put down "Christianity" out of habit/tradition and do so for everyone in their family.

Indeed. Non-religious statistics will continue to rise. I've never filled in the form (family member does it) but I suspect I was put down as 'Catholic/Christian' even though I have made my Atheism known to all. Many people will be in the same boat.

 

[EdwardTivrusky]

No real surprises there at all. If anything I'm surprised at the relatively high number still identifying as Christian.

Besides, wasn't this the first census where people could identify as, say, "Welsh" rather than "British" - doesn't mean they're foreign - well not much.

In the 2011 Census "Welsh" was added as a distinct choice after we moaned at the previous census which allowed us to tick "Other" and then write "Welsh".

 

[StealthGoblin]

In the 2011 Census "Welsh" was added as a distinct choice after we moaned at the previous census which allowed us to tick "Other" and then write "Welsh".

Is 'English' an option? (I honestly don't know)

 

[EdwardTivrusky]

Is 'English' an option? (I honestly don't know)

It was 18 months ago. I've no bloody idea! Hah

You've got me intrigued now, i'll have to have a look for a copy of the 2011 census questions...

Edit: Yup. England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Elsewhere.

 

[phisheep]

Is 'English' an option? (I honestly don't know)

Yes, it was.

That was in Q15 about national identity rather than in Q16 about ethnicity (which is itself odd, as it allows you to be, amongst many other things "white british" or "black british" but not "mixed-race british").

 

[EdwardTivrusky]

9 What is your country of birth?
• England
• Wales
• Scotland
• Northern Ireland
• Republic of Ireland
• Elsewhere, write in the current name of country

15 How would you describe your national identity?
• English
• Welsh
• Scottish
• Northern Irish
• British
• Other, write in

16 What is your ethnic group?
A. White
• English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish / British
• Irish
• Gypsy or Irish Traveller
• Any other White background, write in
B. Mixed / multiple ethnic groups
• White and Black Caribbean
• White and Black African
• White and Asian
• Any other Mixed / multiple ethnic background, write in
C. Asian / Asian British
• Indian
• Pakistani
• Bangladeshi
• Chinese
• Any other Asian background, write in
D. Black / African / Caribbean / Black British
• African
• Caribbean
• Any other Black / African / Caribbean background, write in
E. Other ethnic group
• Arab
• Any other ethnic group, write in

Questions 9, 15 & 16 - there may be others too.

 

[Gregorn]

'London has become the first region where white British people have become a minority.

People have been telling me this for years and I've always assumed they were just crazy racists that read the daily mail too much. But I guess I was wrong, I actually am a minority in my capital city.

That's insane.

Why did no one make a thread about this? I would but I'm too scared to make threads.

 

[Jackpot]

I actually am a minority in my capital city.

That's insane.

Why did no one make a thread about this? I would but I'm too scared to make threads.

Seems inconsequential.

 

[blahblah...blah]

People have been telling me this for years and I've always assumed they were just crazy racists that read the daily mail too much. But I guess I was wrong, I actually am a minority in my capital city.

That's insane.

Why did no one make a thread about this? I would but I'm too scared to make threads.

Are they lumping all non-whites together and saying that (combined), they outnumber white people, or are they actually saying that there is an ethnic group larger than Caucasians in London? I assume the former, in which case it's not that surprising, I guess.

I wouldn't say it's inconsequential, however.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Forget all of that census fluff, this is 100x more important:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...g-to-the-Telegraph-before-expenses-story.html

As many know it was The Telegraph that broke the Expenses scandal in the first place when they bought the disc from the unknown source for £100,000. Now a Minister has threatened them using Leveson to try and bury a damaging story.

It's absolutely fucking disgraceful, she needs to be sacked, yesterday if possible. I'm sure the SpAd will take the hit as usual and the Minister will claim it was out of character and she had no knowledge of the conversation or what the SpAd was trying to imply.

What I don't get is that on one side David Cameron makes this big speech about press freedoms and how we as a country must work to protect them, and then on the other hand one of his Ministers is trying to use the threat of legislation to cover up a personally damaging story and in doing so stifling press freedom.

 

[phisheep]

People have been telling me this for years and I've always assumed they were just crazy racists that read the daily mail too much. But I guess I was wrong, I actually am a minority in my capital city.

That's insane.

Why did no one make a thread about this? I would but I'm too scared to make threads.

If it makes you feel any better, you're not in a minority in London at all. Actually, you're privileged to be in two majorities: 59.8% White, and 75.3% British - it's just they aren't all the same people.

Are they lumping all non-whites together and saying that (combined), they outnumber white people.

Worse than that. they're lumping all the "white British" together and comparing with everybody else whether they are British or not and whether they are white or not.