Poundland Girl Wins Forced Labour Ruling

[Angilion]

I can't disagree too much with the 'like' interpertation, I think this is dependent upon your view of how useful a single vote can be and the myriad of issues that can impact on the realisation of a 'useful' vote.

I think that's irrelevant because a spoiled ballot paper isn't a vote.

Spoiled papers are not ignored, especially if it becomes a larger problem, they may not impact on the outcome directly but when they hit a certain percentage of the total vote it starts to undermine the democratic outcome.

How? Since they just go in the bin, how do they make a difference?

I've just looked for details on the voter turnount in the UK (it's higher than I expected, so I've binned the point I was going to make) and the first hit makes my point pretty well:

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

The chart below shows the percentage of registered voters who actually voted at each general election from 1945–2010, excluding votes deliberately or accidentally spoiled.

A spoiled vote isn't a vote. It's just a slight waste of paper.

Spoiling a paper - specifically in a determined campaign - is better than not taking part at all.

Why? Either way, it's a person choosing to not vote. While a low voter turnout could be considered to undermine the democratic process, the details of what the non-voters do instead of voting are scarcely relevant.

Change. The sort of change you, yourself, seek.

It would be merely transient publicity for the fact that a non-trivial minority of people are dissatisfied with both parties and that's neither news nor a change.

I'm not so willing to assume that England will remain Right wing indefinately.

Something will eventually pull the middle ground of politics more the the centre of the spectrum.

I think the whole idea of right and left is an over-simplification and any minor changes to where someone would put the government on that model (and different people would put the same government in different positions anyway) would make no difference. Even the extremes end up being much the same to people in general.

 

[Biohazard]

I think that's irrelevant because a spoiled ballot paper isn't a vote.

It is a vote, for nobody and nothing that has been presented. It's an inverted vote.

How? Since they just go in the bin, how do they make a difference?

If the percentage of votes cast that are spoiled increase anywhere near double figures it starts to draw questions the entire process, it's pulling it down from within, and that's where reform should result. Anything more than that in a concerted effort could bring new efforts in having a relevent franchise if synergised with an effective campaign.

Spoiled papers are normally pretty well scruitinised, and is of political interest anyway because of the nature and value of the democratic vote.

I've just looked for details on the voter turnount in the UK (it's higher than I expected, so I've binned the point I was going to make) and the first hit makes my point pretty well:

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

Your point is that it is a nulified vote? Yes I know, I don't need a url to tell me that they are discounted from the result but that's not the point I'm making it's a bit more nuanced than this?

But the overall decline in voting franchise does, as politics has become less and less representative and thus engaging because of it.

A spoiled vote isn't a vote. It's just a slight waste of paper

Under a banner of collective action, or rejection, it is. It's a vote of no confidence I think I've been rather clear on this.

Why? Either way, it's a person choosing to not vote. While a low voter turnout could be considered to undermine the democratic process, the details of what the non-voters do instead of voting are scarcely relevant.

One person doesn't engage with the system, the other does but doesn't have confidence in those participating. There is a sutble difference.

The details of what 'non-voters' read spoiled papers do or don't do are increadibly important, from the scandals in Scotland up to and including missing ballot boxes to people who were disenfranchised because polling stations turned them away..

It isn't such a non issue as inferred.

It would be merely transient publicity for the fact that a non-trivial minority of people are dissatisfied with both parties and that's neither news nor a change.

Well I suggest you stop trying to seek answers if you think every single political avenue of opportunity is closed for yourself.

I think the whole idea of right and left is an over-simplification and any minor changes to where someone would put the government on that model (and different people would put the same government in different positions anyway) would make no difference. Even the extremes end up being much the same to people in general.

Perhaps, but if you can't use common identifiers discussion becomes all but impossible.

 

[dowie]

 

[Biohazard]

Did it?

 

[spankingtexan]

Where The Workfare Money Goes – Charity Rich List Released

Charity trade journal Third Sector have released a league table (PDF) which highlights the staggering sums being paid to the bosses of many so called charities.

The magazine lists the top 150 earners in UK charities by income and broken down into sectors. It is a litany of obscene wealth built on the back of the poorest and most vulnerable, revealing for example that whilst next week the Anchor Trust Housing Association will be sending out bedroom tax bills – sure to result in eviction for many people – the highest earner at the trust earns a shocking £275,000 a year.

Elsewhere in the document is a list of the top earners at mainstream charities, most of them household names. Unsurprisingly it reads like an roll call of workfare exploiters and Work Programme sub-contractors.

Right up at the top of the list is the notorious Shaw Trust, one of the largest charitable Work Programme contractors and responsible for thousands of claimants suffering benefit sanctions. Whilst those sanctioned on the recommendations of the charity face immediate destitution and even homelessness, the boss takes home £180,000 a year, coming in at joint fifth of the highest paid mainstream charity earners.

Other Work Programme sub-contractors in the top 30 include Scope, RNIB, Leonard Chesire Foundation and Mencap.

Workfare exploiters Salvation Army predictably feature in the list at joint 27th. The British Heart Foundation, who claim to be moving away from workfare but according to their website are still very much part of the Work Programme, are at number 12 with the highest paid staff member earning £173,000, whilst Barnados are also on the list at number 20.

The list is also a reminder of who has pulled out of workfare. Age UK, Cancer Research, Marie Curie and Sense all make the top 40 and have all rejected workfare over the last year and a half.

Charities will claim they need to pay high salaries to compete with the business sector. The upshot of this is business people running charities, who put profit and the needs of the corporate sector they left behind before the people they are funded by the public to help. Workfare is good for business, helping to undermine wages and workplace organisation. And it’s good for big charities, who not only get a stream of unpaid workers but if they are particularly compliant may also be offered lucrative government welfare-to-work contracts.

That these are contracts and workfare placements that punish, degrade and impoverish the very people they claim to support can be brushed aside with glossy PR featuring ‘success stories’ – the handful of people who haven’t had miserable experiences at the hands of these organisations.

Millions of lives are currently being crushed under austerity and the erosion of the welfare state. As Scope Chief Executive Richard Hawkes has said however, these savage cuts provide big opportunities for charities. The end result of corporate style charities paying bosses hundreds of thousands of pounds are those bosses acting in their own class interests and attacking the very people whose poverty they leech from to fund their own lavish lifestyles.

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/where-the-workfare-money-goes-charity-rich-list-released/

 

[Sudden]

And the flip side? Having low salaries so that the qualified don't bother because it doesn't make sense from a financial perspective for them?

Sure there are some who will take the pay cut because they really want to help, but these will be in the minority. If no one qualified is running the charity, you risk so much more.

Seriously - do you ever look at things from more than one side?

 

[spankingtexan]

Right, disheartening to know the ones who really want to help are in the minority while the vile majority exploit free forced labour, isn't that the whole point of this thread? The decent charities who really want to help are the ones who refuse to back the Governments forced labour schemes and those who are pulling out.

 

[estebanrey]

Ahem.....

 

[Deleted member 66701]

And the flip side? Having low salaries so that the qualified don't bother because it doesn't make sense from a financial perspective for them?

Sure there are some who will take the pay cut because they really want to help, but these will be in the minority. If no one qualified is running the charity, you risk so much more.

Seriously - do you ever look at things from more than one side?

I have a paid job and volunteer just as much time for charty work. Surely these "big bosses" could do the same?

 

[estebanrey]

Did it?

I believe her 'experience' as a whole kicked her into getting the job at Morrisons. When she first started her campaign she was very much of the attitude that she should be able to do what she likes, including working indefinitely at the museum at the tax payer's expense should she choose to. She wasn't annoyed at being 'forced' into work, she was annoyed the very concept of the right not to work was being questioned.

Then when she finally realised that only level 6 Guardian readers and bat**** insane commie types backed her position she went and actually got a wage paying job.

 

[spankingtexan]

I have a paid job and volunteer just as much time for charty work. Surely these "big bosses" could do the same?

As he said himself in his own statement, those who really want to help are in the minority.

 

[Sudden]

Right, disheartening to know the ones who really want to help are in the minority while the vile majority exploit free forced labour, isn't that the whole point of this thread?

Disheartening, sure. But that is human nature mostly and it makes sense to pay these people enough for it to be worth it for them to come to the charity and ensure it runs effeciently. Otherwise you'll have people who have the best will in the world to help, but just don't have the skills. Wasting money which is donated to help is a lot worse in my opinion.

I'm not getting into the whole free forced labour debate again. Have already detailed my views earlier and we clearly disagree.

I have a paid job and volunteer just as much time for charty work. Surely these "big bosses" could do the same?

Can they? Sure. Will they? Unlikely unless they have a solid incentive to.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Can they? Sure. Will they? Unlikely unless they have a solid incentive to.

So what you're saying is that they're greedy?

The girl in this story was quite happy to volunteer for charity work (and was doing so) whilst looking for work. I'd say she's on higher moral ground that these "leaders" of charities.

 

[Sudden]

So what you're saying is that they're greedy?

The girl in this story was quite happy to volunteer for charity work (and was doing so) whilst looking for work. I'd say she's on higher moral ground that these "leaders" of charities.

You may look at is 'greedy'. I don't.

These are people who have, most likely, been earning 6 figure salaries. They have a lifestyle in accordance with that. Why would they give that up and take a low paying job? Some might do that, sure. But the majority? I highly doubt that.

The girl in the story was not earning a 6 figure salary prior to volunteering. She was not taking a huge pay cut in order to help out. I have no idea about her personally and can't say what her motivations were. Speaking for myself, the only time I was even considering volunteering is when I was unable to find a job that I was looking for.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

You may look at is 'greedy'. I don't.

These are people who have, most likely, been earning 6 figure salaries. They have a lifestyle in accordance with that. Why would they give that up and take a low paying job? Some might do that, sure. But the majority? I highly doubt that.

I'm not saying they should give up thier paid job, simply what's to stop them volunteering like I and many others do?

Don't answer that - I already know the answer.

 

[spankingtexan]

 

[spankingtexan]

 

[spankingtexan]

 

[Biohazard]

Brick up spare rooms, urges Labour MP Frank Field

Senior Labour MP Frank Field has urged landlords to take "direct action" against housing benefit changes.

The government wants to end what it calls the "spare room subsidy" for social tenants, but critics have dubbed the move a "bedroom tax".

In a Westminster debate, Mr Field said landlords should "brick up" doors and "knock down the walls" in defiance.

He called the change "grossly unfair", but ministers say it is necessary to free up housing stock and cut waste.

From 1 April, changes to housing benefit affecting working-age social housing tenants deemed to have spare bedrooms will mean a 14% cut for those with one extra room and of 25% for those with two or more.

Mr Field, a former welfare minister who represents Birkenhead in Merseyside, said during a debate in Westminster Hall: "It unfairly affects constituencies in the North West.

"I've been in the House over three decades. I've witnessed many so-called welfare reform measures. I have not ever witnessed a measure which is so grossly unfair as this measure is.

"This is about a supply-side issue, but we are trying to control the demand of people on low income to fit on with the regimented holes in which the government would like to fit them."
Nine Years War

Mr Field added: "I feel so strongly about what the government is doing to constituents and similarly placed constituents around the country that I make a call to landlords - both social housing landlords and to housing association landlords - to defy this act by not only not operating it but to do as landlords did after the Nine Years War [in the late 17th Century], when the government similarly stretched for money imposed a window tax.

"They bricked up those windows. I hope landlords will brick up the doors to spare bedrooms and, where appropriate, they will knock the walls down of spare bedrooms, so that the properties fit the tenants - safely, one hopes - of the tenants thereby.

"I've never, ever, ever asked for direct action before. I do so this afternoon because I feel this measure is so grossly unfair."

Mr Field also said the police feared that the housing benefit change would encourage landlords to make up the difference by letting out their spare room to grow cannabis.

The government says it wants to bring social housing tenants in line with its provision in the private sector, where size criteria already apply.

Intended to reduce a £21bn annual housing benefit bill, the measure is also aimed at encouraging greater mobility in the social rented sector, it adds.

"DIRECT ACTION!"

How about voting against it you shower of ****s!

Labour duplicity. New Labour = Old Tory.

MPs overturn Lords defeat on 'bedroom tax'

Meanwhile, Labour's Frank Field described the "bedroom tax" as a "nasty, mean little measure".

Mr Field said the policy had been forced on the Department for Work and Pensions by the Treasury and would not work.

Forced onto the DWP by Tories aided and abetted by Labour no less!

Their hypocrisy in harming the poor while crying 'another boy done it' is breathtaking.

 

[Biohazard]

I believe her 'experience' as a whole kicked her into getting the job at Morrisons. When she first started her campaign she was very much of the attitude that she should be able to do what she likes, including working indefinitely at the museum at the tax payer's expense should she choose to. She wasn't annoyed at being 'forced' into work, she was annoyed the very concept of the right not to work was being questioned.

Then when she finally realised that only level 6 Guardian readers and bat**** insane commie types backed her position she went and actually got a wage paying job.

Hang on a second, didn't the UK judiciary also agree with her?

So it wasn't just Guardian readers and commies?