Poll: which party are you going to vote in up coming elections?

[RedvGreen]

I was listening to some political commentator or another today who was saying that under our election system UKIP wouldn't do very well at all, particularly given that polls indicate that over half of those voting for UKIP in a European election will return to the lib/lab/con parties come a general election.

Newark will be interesting, or not...depending on the outcome.

The inference being that each constituency is calculated independently of another and not based on sum total of voters countrywide?

Whereas if you had total voting populace for the country, those numbers could highlight something quite different to the total seats of constituents?

Something like ...

Tories winning 150 seats with 1.5mil votes
UKIP winning 70 seats with 2mil votes

 

[Castiel]

No, it's to penalise and punish the unemployed for being unemployed, blaming unemployment on the unemployed is a joke. Have a read here..

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18487743

I don't need to reread it...thanks though.

 

[Nitefly]

So not The Forced Labour Scheme after all, but one to help long term job seekers back into work and off of benefits...that one?

I think it's a terrible scheme. If people are working they should be getting at least minimum wage for their time.

 

[spankingtexan]

I don't need to reread it...thanks though.

Glad you understand it

I think it's a terrible scheme. If people are working they should be getting at least minimum wage for their time.

+1

 

[Caged]

Where did I say he caused it? People in this thread and on this forum in particular do love to misrepresent what people say. My opinion is that they left the country so indebted and so inefficient that the financial crisis had a significantly larger impact on everyone than had they been more prudent. He was so sure that he'd magically solved the key to financial stability that he often declared "No more boom and bust" while the more realistic among us realised he was running headlong into a future crisis with his eyes and ears covered. Smart move.

Growth is certainly easier when you're buying it with money you don't have. But eventually that debt comes back to bite. And it did.

Debt as a % of GDP stayed relatively flat during the Labour years. There's nothing wrong with borrowing to put into projects that generate a positive ROI, and you end up doing things like providing jobs and building a road or a bridge at the same time. It could be argued that slamming the brakes on public spending prolonged the recession, but that can only ever be a theory as it's not possible to roll the clocks back and try again.

 

[Westyfield2]

Another wild exaggeration from the left

Forced labour scheme?

Haven't you looked out the window recently? The EVIL TORY SCUM are identical to Nazi Germany with their concentration camps:

Or not.

 

[Tefal]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-20773800

They got rid of him too.

so actually the complete opposite of how you tried to imply the situation was.

He's an uncompassionate Tory who wont listen to reason or even give a damn about his fellow human beings unless they got plenty, it's their trademark, just watch this evil piece of work, Tefal and Duncan Smith are from the same stock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec3wJlHtVMM

you're right my bad, no one in a wheel chair should ever work again, i see why its wrong to think they should lead normal lives and not just be stuck at home all day alone now, thank you for enlightening me.

gonna suck for that Hawking fella though, he seemed to like his job.

 

[Caged]

Haven't you looked out the window recently? The EVIL TORY SCUM are identical to Nazi Germany with their concentration camps:

Or not.

Hyperbole aside, do you not see an issue with having someone work ~30 hours for £72.40? If there's a job to be done then that position should be advertised and filled by one of the many unemployed people who want to work.

 

[Castiel]

I think it's a terrible scheme. If people are working they should be getting at least minimum wage for their time.

It's not forced labour however.

I don't disagree, if they work they should get minimum wage, but their benefits should stop accordingly...however I also see nothing wrong with voluntary community work being implemented either, as long as their is measurable benefit to both the community and the individual as regards learning skills necessary to help them back into the workplace and off benefits.

 

[spankingtexan]

Hyperbole aside, do you not see an issue with having someone work ~30 hours for £72.40? If there's a job to be done then that position should be advertised and filled by one of the many unemployed people who want to work.

Well, well done you Sir, I think we can actually agree on something.

It's not forced labour however.

I don't disagree, if they work they should get minimum wage, but their benefits should stop accordingly...however I also see nothing wrong with voluntary community work being implemented either, as long as their is measurable benefit to both the community and the individual as regards learning skills necessary to help them back into the workplace and off benefits.

I know you said you don't want to reread but I think you should.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18487743

 

[Nitefly]

It's not forced labour however.

I don't disagree, if they work they should get minimum wage, but their benefits should stop accordingly...however I also see nothing wrong with voluntary community work being implemented either, as long as their is measurable benefit to both the community and the individual as regards learning skills necessary to help them back into the workplace and off benefits.

I'm going to nose into this more this week because I've yet to read the supreme court's transcript / obligatory PLC note. In any case, they have no say on the merits of the policy and considering the alternatives... the scheme seems ludicrous. The only winners are the bodies corporate.

 

[Westyfield2]

Hyperbole aside, do you not see an issue with having someone work ~30 hours for £72.40? If there's a job to be done then that position should be advertised and filled by one of the many unemployed people who want to work.

I'll be honest and say that my opinion would probably change if I found myself unemployed compared with my cosy position now.
I guess it can be argued pretty much anyway you want. "People shouldn't work for free" = people get paid properly (and unpaid interns would be interested too!). "People shouldn't get something for nothing" = do work to get benefits. Although then if people are spending their time doing work, then they're not busy CV writing to get them back into a proper job.

I can see the logic of the idea if it is genuinely to train people up and get them back to work. But I'm not really sure I trust the scheme to be implemented properly so that the big companies don't just take the biscuit and get themselves free labour for a job that otherwise would be a paid position.
At the end of the day, every position (unless it's charity volunteering etc) should get minimum wage. The whole point of minimum wage is that it's a minimum; ergo it is not possible to get less than the minimum. To get less than the minimum is just impossible according to the dictionary.

The Daily Mail argument is "WHY ARE THE STREETS DIRTY WHEN THERE'S UNEMPLOYED SAT AT HOME PLAYING XBOX", but it's a catch 22 really. If the council goes and gets everyone on benefits to pick up litter, then there's no need to employ litter pickers. So now any people in existing litter picker positions are unemployed… which hasn't really solved anything!


TDLR; has elements of a good idea, but don't trust it to be implemented well and therefore a bad idea overall.

 

[Castiel]

I know you said you don't want to reread but I think you should.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18487743

It's not that I don't want to...I don't need to, no matter how many times you keep posting the link.

 

[Caged]

I don't think people would have an issue with the scheme if it worked how Castiel proposed. Giving corporate bodies free labour on top of the benefits they already have to pay their staff because the wages on offer aren't enough to live on just leaves a bad taste.

I'd like to see a concerted effort made to slowly reduce in-work benefits and lift the minimum wage. The idea that someone could work a 37 hour week in a supermarket and not be able to afford to live anywhere near their work without some sort of government top-up is absurd.

 

[Westyfield2]

It's not forced labour however.

I don't disagree, if they work they should get minimum wage, but their benefits should stop accordingly...however I also see nothing wrong with voluntary community work being implemented either, as long as their is measurable benefit to both the community and the individual as regards learning skills necessary to help them back into the workplace and off benefits.

What he said .

 

[spankingtexan]

It's not that I don't want to...I don't need to, no matter how many times you keep posting the link.

Then it's a shame you just don't get it. People just want to be paid a wage for working, you get paid for working don't you? why should that be any different from people seeking work? I can only suggest you reread the thread link, all is discussed there.

 

[Castiel]

Then it's a shame you just don't get it.

It's far more a shame that you don't accept that I do get it, I simply don't get it in the same way you do. I am perfectly capable of understanding something and still not agreeing with your particular brand of reasoning, hence I have no need to reread your oft posted thread link...thanks anyway.

To address your edit; I don't get paid for all the work I do, in fact a large part of my job until very recently was unpaid under an intern agreement. As I said, I see nothing wrong with unpaid (it's not technically unpaid, as they continue to receive benefits) work as long as there is measurable benefit to the individual and the community in which they live in order to give them the skills necessary to enable them to find proper employment and get off benefits.

 

[spankingtexan]

It's far more a shame that you don't accept that I do get it, I simply don't get it in the same way you do. I am perfectly capable of understanding something and still not agreeing with your particular brand of reasoning, hence I have no need to reread your oft posted thread link...thanks anyway.

debate it in the relevant thread.

 

[Castiel]

debate it in the relevant thread.

The point was, I don't want or need to debate it, I already understand the relative arguments... I was merely questioning the use of exaggerated terminology.

 

[spankingtexan]

It's far more a shame that you don't accept that I do get it, I simply don't get it in the same way you do. I am perfectly capable of understanding something and still not agreeing with your particular brand of reasoning, hence I have no need to reread your oft posted thread link...thanks anyway.

To address your edit; I don't get paid for all the work I do, in fact a large part of my job until very recently was unpaid under an intern agreement. As I said, I see nothing wrong with unpaid (it's not technically unpaid, as they continue to receive benefits) work as long as there is measurable benefit to the individual and the community in which they live in order to give them the skills necessary to enable them to find proper employment and get off benefits.

Point is JSA falls short of minimum wage for 30 hours work, why do you think it is acceptable for unemployed people to work for less than minimum wage?

actually I'm done here. if you want to continue debate then go to relevant thread.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18487743