Support NeoGAF

[StealthGoblin]

Absolutely agree with Mr. Oliver.

There is absolutely no point in having this big P.E drive for school children if everything will be undone by school dinners. As it is, the general cooking standards of most parents these days is below that of their parents, and with tough economic times, less and less parents will be cooking from scratch and using fresh ingredients.

We have a really good opportunity to provide excellent balanced meals twice a day for children and its stupid to try and let that go.

The statistics he quoted are worrying. By cutting corners now, we'll pay for it in the future.

I wonder what else Mr. Gove will do to mess around schools.

 

[Meadows]

They should force kids to have at least 4 or 5 a day (veg) in school. Every day of the week. I don't care about their human rights or whatever bollocks, these kids aren't getting it at home and they need it at school. Free compulsory 2 a day at the start of the day with a smoothie and then the rest at lunch with a dinnerlady making sure they eat all of their veg.

It's like aggressive nutrition.

 

[Dambrosi]

Penny-pinching, ideologically up their own arse Tories up to no good? Quelle surprise.

So, nobody twigged that this was always going to happen as a result of Gove's backdoor privatisation of our school system? Watch the kids' families have to buy their own textbooks next.

Now, normally I mildly dislike Jamie Oliver, but I couldn't agree with him more on this issue. As a fatass myself, who used to get free school meals and actively avoided PE whenever I could due to it actually physically hurting to exercise (yeah, I should've just told a teacher and got a med check), I can tell you that it's really important to get into the fitness habit when you're young. Mostly because it's a bugger trying to get the stodge off when you're a geezer, but also because you're more likely to be employed when you're fit, as opposed to fat. Anecdotal, and probably not borne out by the evidence, but eh.

Let's all hope he (and the parents of these kids getting Turkey Twizzlers - I mean, what the fuck's a Turkey Twizzler? Sounds like Mystery Meat) makes enough of a fuss to effect some positive change on this issue.

 

[StealthGoblin]

They should force kids to have at least 4 or 5 a day (veg) in school. Every day of the week. I don't care about their human rights or whatever bollocks, these kids aren't getting it at home and they need it at school. Free compulsory 2 a day at the start of the day with a smoothie and then the rest at lunch with a dinnerlady making sure they eat all of their veg.

It's like aggressive nutrition.

For the little ones, I think this (Jamies) whole scheme was/is a brilliant idea. The way it works at the school I am at is as follows:

For £1, children can come into school early and receive a balanced breakfast.

Every break time, each child is given a piece of fruit or a vegtable (Out of a selection) to eat during morning break. This is free.

The school menu was published so that parents knew what their child was going to be offered.

There is no food rota, so children won't know what is going to be on the menu on a given day. This promotes the idea that trying new things is good and it diversifies their pallet. Additionally, it opens their eyes to multi-culturalism as the menu contains traditional English meals, Indian foods, Italian foods etc. All of the foods are well within the nutritional guidelines and some of them are above and beyond what is required. £1.50 a day - which is phenomenal value given the quality of the food offered.

The children love it. The parents love it. The teachers love it.

Everybody wins. Additionally, the themes of healthy eating and exercise can be taught knowing that there is no hypocrisy and double standards at the school.

 

[War Peaceman]

Ugh Michael Gove is the worst: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/25/michael-gove-king-james-bible

 

[StealthGoblin]

Waste of money. It'll be put on a shelf in a cupboard somewhere and forgotten.

I hope his foreword is better than this monstrosity:

"It's a thing of beauty, and it's also an incredibly important historical artefact. It has helped shape and define the English language and is one of the keystones of our shared culture. And it is a work that has had international significance."

 

[Empty]

what an egotistical move, you don't need a copy with his forward to teach the importance of it. though i guess i don't really have a huge problem if he can get a religious group to cover the cost.

also

Gove praised an academy school in London that competitively ranks every pupil by subject,

wtf is this. reminds me of an episode of malcom in the middle

 

[War Peaceman]

As a supporter of Grammar schools, education is one area where I should really agree with Conservative ideas. But they just seem to have gone off the deep-end. What a shame.

 

[Meadows]

Please tell me you don't support the tripartite system.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

Ugh Michael Gove is the worst: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/25/michael-gove-king-james-bible

The chinless wonder is at it again. They don't have money for anything, but want to send out thousands of bibles for no reason other than "it's an important part of English history."

Everybody wins. Additionally, the themes of healthy eating and exercise can be taught knowing that there is no hypocrisy and double standards at the school.

But it's too centralised and "nanny state", so obviously it was evil. The Tories dogmatic approach to some things is ridiculous.

 

[Bleepey]

I saw Peter Mandelson today at a cinema. I asked him if anyone has told him he looekd like Peter Mandelson and he said he got that all the time

 

[zomgbbqftw]

I saw Peter Mandelson today at a cinema. I asked him if anyone has told him he looekd like Peter Mandelson and he said he got that all the time

Should have told him he is a cunt.

 

[Walshicus]

Ugh Michael Gove is the worst: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/25/michael-gove-king-james-bible

Perhaps it's in lieu of some sort of winter fuel allowance?

 

[Meadows]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15915627

cuntfuck

 

[radioheadrule83]

Try and cheer yourselves up by reading this:
http://www.ittc.ku.edu/~evans/stuff/americans_in_uk.html

 

[Meadows]

I like how the army have become this kind of workforce for when people go on strikes, pretty funny stuff:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15921183

 

[PJV3]

I like how the army have become this kind of workforce for when people go on strikes, pretty funny stuff:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15921183

The world's most expensive temping agency.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

I like how the army have become this kind of workforce for when people go on strikes, pretty funny stuff:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15921183

It's pretty crazy, and some people wanted thousands of troops doing menial security jobs at the Olympics, which is A) insulting, and B) is forgetting how overstretched and underfunded the armed forces are at the moment.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15915627

cuntfuck

Bah, a -0.4% contraction is plenty easy to deal with. Generally a recession or 0% growth is not automatically a bad thing. As long as the contraction comes from the public sector and is counter balanced by some kind of private sector growth tax receipts will rise and spending will fall, despite there being no growth or even a technical recession. Growth is not the be all and end all that people seem to be making out, private sector growth (which causes a real increase in tax receipts) is much, much more important.

If the public sector contracts faster than the private sector grows it is a short terms problem that can cause unemployment to rise slightly, but right now balancing the books is just about the most important thing the government needs to do so that the cost of borrowing doesn't rise and our debt becomes unserviceable like Italy and then we end up going cap in hand to the IMF who will impose severe spending cuts and investment cuts to make sure we balance the books. It already happened in the 70's.

 

[Ashes]

Bah, a -0.4% retraction is plenty easy to deal with. Generally a recession or 0% growth is not automatically a bad thing. As long as the contraction comes from the public sector and is counter balanced by some kind of private sector growth tax receipts will rise and spending will fall, despite there being no growth or even a technical recession. Growth is not the be all and end all that people seem to be making out, private sector growth (which causes a real increase in tax receipts) is much, much more important.

If the public sector contracts faster than the private sector grows it is a short terms problem that can cause unemployment to rise slightly, but right now balancing the books is just about the most important thing the government needs to do so that the cost of borrowing doesn't rise and our debt becomes unserviceable like Italy and then we end up going cap in hand to the IMF who will impose severe spending cuts and investment cuts to make sure we balance the books. It already happened in the 70's.

Damn, you talk like a banker. Human beings just digits in the machine. Careful now, there is such a thing as the link between psychopaths and economists.

 

[radioheadrule83]

I have a moral opposition to using the armed forces in the event of strikes anyway.

We are essentially talking about the government intervening in disputes between companies/institutions and their workers, and effectively taking sides -- taking away the power of one party in the dispute by offering tax-subsidised workers that will obediently fall in line for them.

You might argue that there is an economic benefit by allowing work to go on as normal in the event of strikes, but I think:

•  a) its wrong for any service (fire, customs, airports etc.) to undermine negotiations made in good will, and believe their staff are disposable and that they must accept any and all impositions -- if that's the case they can just hire other people, they don't need the army.
•  b) I think its wrong for any employer to feel that they need not fear low morale or feel they can always draft in the army, it's not their money they are wasting when they do that, and its their services that suffer if/when it doesn't work and
•  c) it's not what the army is for.

The army is there to fight the enemies of the state and protect our sovereignty, not act against certain members of the public by standing in their posts when they decide to stand up for their rights. They are there for us, not to be wielded by governments as a weapon against us. If I was on strike and the army basically rendered my protest irrelevant, I would cease to see them as my army and start seeing them as my enemy.

Before people mention police and ambulance services, you'll find that there are certain roles that are prohibited from meaningul strike action -- so they can't hold people hostage. BAA do not offer 'essential' services in the same kind of sense. If they can't maintain a happy workforce to allow international business and holidays to continue, that's their fucking problem.

 

[Walshicus]

Damn, you talk like a banker. Human beings just digits in the machine. Careful now, there is such a thing as the link between psychopaths and economists.

As an economist I just want to point out the wide gulf that is often between "economist" and "banker".

 

[PJV3]

As an economist I just want to point out the wide gulf that is often between "economist" and "banker".

£200,000 bonus?

I know, stupid joke.

 

[Ashes]

As an economist I just want to point out the wide gulf that is often between "economist" and "banker".

True. Though I did say he talked like a banker. And he was talking about the economy.

Spoiler

Don't come after me when I'm asleep! :/

 

[Walshicus]

£200,000 bonus?

I know, stupid joke.

Pretty much!

Most of the economist I know/knew who studied it did so theoretically, so a life in academia for them!

 

[ZombieFred]

So the public sector will once again have a 1% pay freeze for another two years? Damn, thank god I'm going up on the next pay grade (IT technician level 2 grade for local authority here) but damn, that's still a pay cut when you look at the other raises of costs. And Ed Balls once again trying to talk smart.

 

[Biggzy]

So the public sector will once again have a 1% pay freeze for another two years? Damn, thank god I'm going up on the next pay grade (IT technician level 2 grade for local authority here) but damn, that's still a pay cut when you look at the other raises of costs. And Ed Balls once again trying to talk smart.

Not only that, but it widens the gulf between the government and the trade unions even further over the pension reforms.

 

[radioheadrule83]

So the public sector will once again have a 1% pay freeze for another two years? Damn, thank god I'm going up on the next pay grade (IT technician level 2 grade for local authority here) but damn, that's still a pay cut when you look at the other raises of costs. And Ed Balls once again trying to talk smart.

Grim reading for anyone staying in the public sector, if it means basically pay increases below inflation until 2014 - its effectively a pay cut.

I'm bailing out hopefully.

 

[kitch9]

Damn, you talk like a banker. Human beings just digits in the machine. Careful now, there is such a thing as the link between psychopaths and economists.

I realise its tough mate, but the UK has to take some of the emotion out of the subject and just fucking get on with it as if we cannot correct this listing ship we are all going down.

The private sector is getting squeezed too and nobodies saying how fabulous their pensions are over there either.

One thing UK PLC cannot do is to be seen to be uncreditworthy...... If that happens all the shit we've seen will just be a stroll in the park, trust me.

 

[Mastadon]

Grim reading for anyone staying in the public sector, if it means basically pay increases below inflation until 2014 - its effectively a pay cut.

I'm bailing out hopefully.

Yep, it's going to be pretty tough for the next few years. My wage has been the same for three years now, despite me effectively doing the work of two people due to the cuts. So disheartening.

Is anyone striking tomorrow?

 

[radioheadrule83]

People should only "get on with it" in that they should fight and strive to make the best of the situation as they can. They shouldn't "get on with it" in the sense that they placidly and submissively accept any and all measures the government offer as sacrosanct, nor should they stop questioning the inequity of the way these burdens are being shared. Anyone who does is a doormat.

Yep, it's going to be pretty tough for the next few years. My wage has been the same for three years now, despite me effectively doing the work of two people due to the cuts. So disheartening.

Is anyone striking tomorrow?

I was asked to join the picket line tomorrow, and under different circumstances I'd consider it but I'm in arrears with my landlady and my job is being moved to another city, therefore I need to pay the arrears, find a deposit on a new flat and a first months rent... and pay for Christmas. I can't afford to take the hit this time. I tried to get assistance from PCS & CSBF so I could take part, but the evaluation process is too long so I'm gonna have to come in.

 

[J Tourettes]

People should only "get on with it" in that they should fight and strive to make the best of the situation as they can. They shouldn't "get on with it" in the sense that they placidly and submissively accept any and all measures the government offer as sacrosanct, nor should they stop questioning the inequity of the way these burdens are being shared. Anyone who does is a doormat.



I was asked to join the picket line tomorrow, and under different circumstances I'd consider it but I'm in arrears with my landlady and my job is being moved to another city, therefore I need to pay the arrears, find a deposit on a new flat and a first months rent... and pay for Christmas. I can't afford to take the hit this time. I tried to get assistance from PCS & CSBF so I could take part, but the evaluation process is too long so I'm gonna have to come in.

You're going to cross the picket line? Hope they don't treat you too harshly.

I work for a charity and we take our cost of living increase from the NJC agreements. Luckily we still get yearly increments as well.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Damn, you talk like a banker. Human beings just digits in the machine. Careful now, there is such a thing as the link between psychopaths and economists.

We had 20 years of being soft on unemployment and soft on crime and soft on education standard. Look where it got us - £167bn deficit, a part nationalised banking industry and 2.5m people out of work. It's time to make being unemployed in Britain more difficult and as the IEA say, the uprating of unemployment welfare by 5.2% is going to destroy the working incentive even further. This has been happening for too long and being unemployed in this country is too easy.

I know it sounds harsh and it sucks, but we the UK needs to start looking at reducing benefits to the unemployed outright as an incentive to go back to work. Increasing the minimum wage just serves to increase the burden on small business and increases insolvency or lowers the absolute rate of recruitment as fewer people take up more resources.

At the moment, the sums for UK PLC are so poor that the emotion needs to be dumped and real facts and figures need to be looked at. Without around £150bn in annual tax rises, spending cuts or a mix of the two the UK will be looking at an Italian style default/IMF bailout. Right now we have the backing of the markets to make good on our promises but should that go I don't see how we can avoid a default the sums are just not in our favour.

 

[guise]

Is anyone else watching Paul McMullan's testimony for the Leveson inquiry? This is fucking hilarious

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8167000/8167512.stm

"I felt slightly proud I'd written something that created a riot & got a paediatrician beaten up"

"I absolutely loved giving chase to celebrities. Before Diana died it was such good fun"

"Privacy is for peados"

 

[radioheadrule83]

We had 20 years of being soft on unemployment and soft on crime and soft on education standard. Look where it got us - £167bn deficit, a part nationalised banking industry and 2.5m people out of work. It's time to make being unemployed in Britain more difficult and as the IEA say, the uprating of unemployment welfare by 5.2% is going to destroy the working incentive even further. This has been happening for too long and being unemployed in this country is too easy.

Spending power of the common man is shrinking and will do so possibly until 2014, and you think now is a good time to pick the pocket of people who are bringing in the least money? I agree that unemployment shouldn't pay but...

I know it sounds harsh and it sucks, but we the UK needs to start looking at reducing benefits to the unemployed outright as an incentive to go back to work.

...what fucking imaginary jobs do you think they can walk into?

Increasing the minimum wage just serves to increase the burden on small business and increases insolvency or lowers the absolute rate of recruitment as fewer people take up more resources.

Minimum wage ensures people can cope with the inflationary costs of every day life. If everyone in this country earned the base minimum that employers were willing to pay them (voluntarily) right now, there would be fuck all being spent in shops and fuck all being banked and going towards paying off their credit card bills - because people would be poor-ass poor. You know why? Because businesses are greedy CUNTS. They don't have the wider concerns of the nation at heart, they'll take people for everything they can. That's why. That's why we have minimum wage. If they could pay a bunch of people £1.20 and get away with it, they'd probably STILL not hire and feather their nests with profit instead.

Some of his measures today are good -- expanding free childcare for example, but he's paying for it by taking money away from others and making their lives harder. If you're a working or middle class earner in this country, you are entirely at the mercy of what will make sort-of-alright reading in the newspapers when it comes to Osborne's token gestures. Single mum struggling to find care? Great. Affluent household that likes fast Internet or the prospect of 4G on your mobile phone? Good news! Struggling to find work more than 16 hours a week? Hoping to retire some time in the next decade? Sorry, you're fucked. We're You're all in this together.

The rail fares thing... he might as well not have bothered. ATOS have already indicated that the ticket-fare rise cap is an average and that it won't be adhered to across the board -- meaning its probably fucking meaningless.

We are in for a fucking bleak couple of years. His speech was absolutely depressing.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Spending power of the common man is shrinking and will do so possibly until 2014, and you think now is a good time to pick the pocket of people who are bringing in the least money? I agree that unemployment shouldn't pay but...



...what fucking imaginary jobs do you think they can walk into?

So it's fair that the private sector is facing another pay freeze year and the public sector is looking at a measly 1% rise with inflation running at around 4-5% but unemployed people escape that pain?

The ONS confirmed that there are almost half a million vacancies across the UK, the jobs are out there. Unemployed people just have to be in a position of wanting to do them, and making unemployment pay by giving a 5.3% rise is not really going to do that. Like I said, make being unemployed more difficult.

As for your rant against business, it is what I and most private sector people have come to expect from the public sector. Completely out of touch. Small business is the number on job creator in the UK and the attitude you (and generally the public sector) have towards it is a terrible reflection on the public sector. I would like to see you run a small business then be clobbered with a minimum wage rise and having to let people go as a result to make sure the business doesn't go under.

 

[Ashes]

We had 20 years of being soft on unemployment and soft on crime and soft on education standard. Look where it got us - £167bn deficit, a part nationalised banking industry and 2.5m people out of work. It's time to make being unemployed in Britain more difficult and as the IEA say, the uprating of unemployment welfare by 5.2% is going to destroy the working incentive even further. This has been happening for too long and being unemployed in this country is too easy.

I know it sounds harsh and it sucks, but we the UK needs to start looking at reducing benefits to the unemployed outright as an incentive to go back to work. Increasing the minimum wage just serves to increase the burden on small business and increases insolvency or lowers the absolute rate of recruitment as fewer people take up more resources.

At the moment, the sums for UK PLC are so poor that the emotion needs to be dumped and real facts and figures need to be looked at. Without around £150bn in annual tax rises, spending cuts or a mix of the two the UK will be looking at an Italian style default/IMF bailout. Right now we have the backing of the markets to make good on our promises but should that go I don't see how we can avoid a default the sums are just not in our favour.

I see the point you are making, and I applaud you for talking about people as people now; but why is it always the fault of the poor for society's ills and that it should be them that has to pay?

It always irks me when somebody says the rich are better then the poor, when ordinarily, the poor tend to work longer hours for lesser money, and proportionately spend more of their money on helping the economy, whether that be in paying bills or buying food, or simply spending their money here, and it always irks me when the rich talk about charity, when the last time I checked, it is -percentage wise- the poor who give more in charity, then the rich.

 

[radioheadrule83]

So it's fair that the private sector is facing another pay freeze year and the public sector is looking at a measly 1% rise with inflation running at around 4-5% but unemployed people escape that pain?

The ONS confirmed that there are almost half a million vacancies across the UK, the jobs are out there. Unemployed people just have to be in a position of wanting to do them, and making unemployment pay by giving a 5.3% rise is not really going to do that. Like I said, make being unemployed more difficult.

As for your rant against business, it is what I and most private sector people have come to expect from the public sector. Completely out of touch. Small business is the number on job creator in the UK and the attitude you (and generally the public sector) have towards it is a terrible reflection on the public sector. I would like to see you run a small business then be clobbered with a minimum wage rise and having to let people go as a result to make sure the business doesn't go under.

I have worked in both the public and private sector for the last 12 years, smart arse, something I'm sure you cannot claim to have done. I worked for BMG Music and Barclaycard before I worked for the MOD. Yes, its a shame when people have to be let go, but I absolutely agree with the concept of a minimum wage - as long as it is tied to certain principles and rates. I believe there is a duty of care on the part of employers to ensure that they are able to enjoy a basic quality of life. Nobody should have to work two jobs and have no life in order to keep themselves from spiralling into poverty or to feed themselves and their families, but they are. I am right now! I do deliveries of an evening. Have you considered that maybe you yourself are out of touch with what a lot of people are having to go through?

I'm all for initiatives to get people off benefits and into work, but the jobs need to be there (you talk as though those half a million vacancies are spread evenly amongst regions where there are also swathes of unemployed - something I doubt!), and those who DO need benefits should at least be able to survive with a basic quality of life.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

I see the point you are making, and I applaud you for talking about people as people now; but why is it always the fault of the poor for society's ills and that it should be them that has to pay?

It always irks me when somebody says the rich are better then the poor, when ordinarily, the poor tend to work longer hours for lesser money, and proportionately spend more of their money on helping the economy, whether that be in paying bills or buying food, or simply spending their money here, and it always irks me when the rich talk about charity, when the last time I checked, it is -percentage wise- the poor who give more in charity, then the rich.

Where did I mention anything about the poor in general? You should read further back in the thread. My ideal tax plan would be so that no person on minimum wage pays any income tax by raising the tax free threshold to £13k. I don't think it is at all fair for people on minimum wage to go out and work a difficult job for 40-50h a week only for the government to take £1600 from you in taxes of which 25% is spent on welfare (a lot of which will go to unemployed people who have never worked a day in their lives)

I have worked in both the public and private sector for the last 12 years, smart arse, something I'm sure you cannot claim to have done. I worked for BMG Music and Barclaycard before I worked for the MOD. Yes, its a shame when people have to be let go, but I absolutely agree with the concept of a minimum wage - as long as it is tied to certain principles and rates. I believe there is a duty of care on the part of employers to ensure that they are able to enjoy a basic quality of life. Nobody should have to work two jobs and have no life in order to keep themselves from spiralling into poverty or to feed themselves and their families, but they are. I am right now! I do deliveries of an evening. Have you considered that maybe you yourself are out of touch with what a lot of people are having to go through?

I'm all for initiatives to get people off benefits and into work, but the jobs need to be there (you talk as though those half a million vacancies are spread evenly amongst regions where there are also swathes of unemployed - something I doubt!), and those who DO need benefits should at least be able to survive with a basic quality of life.

I agree with the concept of minimum wage as well. I don't see where I disagreed with it. I was just pointing out that there are two ways (in general) incentivising people to come off benefits and into work, the first is to increase the work incentive (raising minimum wage is the number one method) the other is to decrease the unemployment incentive. The first costs jobs in small business. It may not effect large business as much (like the two companies you worked for previously) because they don't generally have minimum wage employees but it is a killer for small business and it does cause higher unemployment. Employment costs go up and revenues don't, the only way to square that circle is to reduce employment costs which means having to let people go. Part of the reason Germany has such low unemployment is that they have no real minimum wage. I wouldn't go that far, but freezing for a couple of years would definitely see an economic boost. If that was coupled with a rise in the tax free allowance it would be a great policy. Decreasing the unemployment incentive (or making unemployment stop paying) by introducing voucher based spending and having a real cut in benefits for the unemployed.

The jobs are out there, people just have to be willing to do them. If the jobs aren't where one lives then one has to move to find work. If my job moved to some other part of the country or even world I would follow it there.

 

[Ashes]

Where did I mention anything about the poor in general? You should read further back in the thread. My ideal tax plan would be so that no person on minimum wage pays any income tax by raising the tax free threshold to £13k. I don't think it is at all fair for people on minimum wage to go out and work a difficult job for 40-50h a week only for the government to take £1600 from you in taxes of which 25% is spent on welfare (a lot of which will go to unemployed people who have never worked a day in their lives)

I can agree with this. Especially, if you are talking about benefits on a generational level. They pretty much are our equivalent of a ghetto.

But I'm also of the opinion that a billionaire can pay 75% tax, and live a life of luxury as a millionaire with hundreds of millions of pounds in his bank account. But it isn't about getting stuck in and contributing what you can at that level, and billionaires will just move the bus elsewhere if they aren't already running their business from Monaco or something.

And voluntary tax additions are unlikely to be a successful ploy anyway.

 

[defel]

I think we need a more flexible minimum wage system. There is no doubt that we need a minimum wage in the long term since its one of the main underlying drivers of social inequality but there are certain situations in which the minimum wage needs to be reduced and certain situations where it needs to increase. The minimum wage should be some function of where in the UK you live, how many dependents you have, the relative strength or weakness of the sector that you work in, average borrowing rates, cost of housing in your area etc. As you can see the idea isnt fully formed in my head but during a recession we need to encourage employment for current and future prosperity and by sacrificing through a lower minimum wage in certain areas for a higher minimum wage in other areas we might reach a better level of prosperity in the future.

 

[PJV3]

I think we need a more flexible minimum wage system. There is no doubt that we need a minimum wage in the long term since its one of the main underlying drivers of social inequality but there are certain situations in which the minimum wage needs to be reduced and certain situations where it needs to increase. The minimum wage should be some function of where in the UK you live, how many dependents you have, the relative strength or weakness of the sector that you work in, average borrowing rates, cost of housing in your area etc. As you can see the idea isnt fully formed in my head but during a recession we need to encourage employment for current and future prosperity and by sacrificing through a lower minimum wage in certain areas for a higher minimum wage in other areas we might reach a better level of prosperity in the future.

Sounds too complicated and expensive to administer, a London waiting allowance is about as complicated as i would want it.

 

[defel]

Sounds too complicated and expensive to administer, a London waiting allowance is about as complicated as i would want it.

Thats why economists tell the politicians what to do and politicians work out how to do it

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Thats why economists tell the politicians what to do and politicians work out how to do it

And that's how we end up with 7m employed in the public sector doing the same thing as 5m people used to do previously.

That idea would be a nightmare to administer.

 

[Dambrosi]

Leaving defel1111's potential bureaucratic nightmare aside, hey Zomg:

It's time to make being unemployed in Britain more difficult

If the public sector contracts faster than the private sector grows it is a short terms problem that can cause unemployment to rise slightly, but right now balancing the books is just about the most important thing the government needs to do

UK PLC

Decreasing the unemployment incentive (or making unemployment stop paying) by introducing voucher based spending and having a real cut in benefits for the unemployed.

Spoken like a true moneymind who doesn't know anything about being poor/unemployed.

Although I agree with the sentiment that unemployment shouldn't pay, I can't possibly agree with deliberately making people poorer just to "incentivise" them to take the poorest-paying, most degrading/dangerous work, or to force them to uproot themselves and their families just to look for work. What next, poorhouses? The Victorian age is over, Zomg. Thank God.

Though the benefit uprating by 5.2% was a surprise. Not something I would have done; I would have increased benefits in line with inflation and been done with it. I wonder why Osbourne did this?

*realises inflation is already at 5%, answers own question*

 

[StealthGoblin]

Before we can start cutting down the cost of benefits, we need to create the jobs for people.

We need to invest in manufacture very heavily and the ideal place to do this is in the North East/West.

The extra 310,000 expected job losses in the public sector is terrible news.

The marches tomorrow should be interesting.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Leaving defel1111's potential bureaucratic nightmare aside, hey Zomg:




Spoken like a true moneymind who doesn't know anything about being poor/unemployed.

Although I agree with the sentiment that unemployment shouldn't pay, I can't possibly agree with deliberately making people poorer just to "incentivise" them to take the poorest-paying, most degrading/dangerous work, or to force them to uproot themselves and their families just to look for work. What next, poorhouses? The Victorian age is over, Zomg. Thank God.

Though the benefit uprating by 5.2% was a surprise. Not something I would have done; I would have increased benefits in line with inflation and been done with it. I wonder why Osbourne did this?

*realises inflation is already at 5%, answers own question*

You know why I don't know what it's like to be unemployed? Because I always took whatever job I could get, my first job at university was to photocopy handouts for the lecturers, shit sucked. Before uni I worked part time in a newsagents (for less than the minimum wage no less) while I was at college, that was a terrible job but I wanted the money and it was the only job I could get at 16. My parents aren't wealthy and they couldn't afford my travel costs to college as well as my social life like my friends. Sucked for me because I would spend all of Saturday and Wednesday afternoons in a shitty newsagents earning £4.25/h (cash! ).

Maybe I'm not a good example because I was motivated to make something of myself and worked hard to that end, but it's not like my parents helped me out with getting a job or internships/work experience at big companies that I could put on my CV at a later date.

How would you propose we increase the incentive to work? Raising the minimum wage will decrease employment in small business, it happens every time. Reducing the benefits withdrawal rate will cost billions that we as a country don't have. The logical and really only viable solution is to reduce unemployment benefits. If we had loads of money and time I would say reducing the withdrawal rate is a better way of reducing benefit dependency and getting people back into work. The problem is that we don't. Britain's situation is dire. The only reason we don't hear about how bad it actually is, is because the media and government pretty much keep it all out. The OBR report today was the first salvo and the downgrading of growth is going to continue until euro either breaks up or is saved. If it gets worse we are looking at a one way ticket to IMF town, and that means mass austerity imposed from above so worse cuts to unemployment benefits, abolition of a number of child related benefits and 2m public sector workers getting the sack overnight. Not something anyone wants to see.

 

[killer_clank]

heard anything about those downgrade rumours zomg?

 

[zomgbbqftw]

heard anything about those downgrade rumours zomg?

There has been some chatter about the US because of the lack of a coherent plan to close the deficit and get the debt to GDP ratio down. I have heard some chatter from the continent pointing at us for a downgrade to take the heat off them, but there isn't anything to it. Fitch said today that the UK is stronger today than the last time they reviewed because there is a real consensus amongst politicians in power and the electorate that reducing the deficit is the most important aspect of this election cycle. Polls seen over the weekend support the government position and Osborne has taken quite a few measures today on infrastructure investment that has cheered markets.

 

[Nuttycam]

Paul McMullan's testimony is brilliant "privacy is for peado's!!!"