UKIP - The Future - Volume 2

[Timsta]

Rovinghawk said:

If you want a solid income to support your needs, get a profession or trade or marketable skills before churning out offspring rather than blaming businesses for not supporting you better?

Are you implying that people should be responsible? Surely not.

[turbobloke]

Timsta said:

Rovinghawk said:

If you want a solid income to support your needs, get a profession or trade or marketable skills before churning out offspring rather than blaming businesses for not supporting you better?

Are you implying that people should be responsible? Surely not.

In general, it'll never catch on.

[chris watton]

Guam said:

turbobloke said:

In general, it'll never catch on.

Correct, Nanny will provide, no need to worry about making your way as long as Nanny is there for you

...And you have an army of public sector bods making excuses for you - it's their 'job'..

[FiF]

Thinks "going to vote Labour just to piss people off"

[steveT350C]

Suckling at the teet of the State

[mrpurple]

Some interesting reading:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/...

ETA not a mention of BNP or BF.

[Mojocvh]

BGARK said:

Individual responsibility is key to life, the notion that someone else should support or give you something be it a higher wage or hand outs in tax breaks is so fundamentally wrong.

Unless, of course, the cost of living has been so artificially inflated that it is fundamentally impossible to live without said assistance.........

[SpeedMattersNot]

BGARK said:

Individual responsibility is key to life, the notion that someone else should support or give you something be it a higher wage or hand outs in tax breaks is so fundamentally wrong.

I entirely disagree, we're much more efficient as a society if we all work together. I think you've got to be a bit of a scrooge to not want to help support others less able or from a poorer background than yourself.

[wc98]

BGARK said:

Individual responsibility is key to life, the notion that someone else should support or give you something be it a higher wage or hand outs in tax breaks is so fundamentally wrong.

i agree completely,that is why i do not like to see the tax payer subsidising business owners by paying their employees benefits to bring their income up to a level they can afford to live on.

[wc98]

SpeedMattersNot said:

entirely disagree, we're much more efficient as a society if we all work together. I think you've got to be a bit of a scrooge to not want to help support others less able or from a poorer background than yourself.

or one of the above who turn a discussion on zero hours contracts into suckling on the public purse teat , fk me,i have seen some strange turns on here,but how the flying fk do you turn criticizing businesses being subsidised by state handouts to their employees instead of making the tight s pay proper wages and questioning the widespread use of zero hours contracts being advocacy for sponging off the state ,i have no fking idea.

the very same posters are quick to mention the real world in the ukip thread and climate change thread ,where we share the same views,yet seem completely unable to comprehend that some people go to st schools,are academically inept,thick or just plain useless. some may well be lazy,but the real world situation is that all these people should be working and earning a living, not sponging off the tax payer or living on the street.

does anyone have any views on the link to the seattle situation ? it will be interesting to see how that pans out in the long term ,applied in a relatively small area there must be greater potential for failure as people have the ability to outsource and physically move business locations (as salmond will find out in the unlikely outcome of a yes vote) which would not happen if applied nationwide.

[turbobloke]

SpeedMattersNot said:

BGARK said:

Individual responsibility is key to life, the notion that someone else should support or give you something be it a higher wage or hand outs in tax breaks is so fundamentally wrong.

I entirely disagree, we're much more efficient as a society if we all work together. I think you've got to be a bit of a scrooge to not want to help support others less able or from a poorer background than yourself.

With respect that's not the point. That help, via effective use of proportionate taxation for deserving cases is accepted, helping those dealt a carp hand in life at birth or later and people who need a temporary safety net to get through a bad patch hasn't been disputed in posts I've read over the years.

The point about taking individual responsibility is aimed at encouraging folks to take more control of their lives and make better decisions, which is empowering and healthy and more positive than being a passenger within a dependency culture which blames everyone else. The people in question aren't those unable to take care of themselves and their family it's about those unwilling to do so.

Working together is fine, but you seem to be including those who don't want to work let alone together.

[turbobloke]

wc98 said:

SpeedMattersNot said:

entirely disagree, we're much more efficient as a society if we all work together. I think you've got to be a bit of a scrooge to not want to help support others less able or from a poorer background than yourself.

or one of the above who turn a discussion on zero hours contracts into suckling on the public purse teat , fk me,i have seen some strange turns on here,but how the flying fk do you turn criticizing businesses being subsidised by state handouts to their employees instead of making the tight s pay proper wages and questioning the widespread use of zero hours contracts being advocacy for sponging off the state ,i have no fking idea.

Not bad as a rant but you must be reading different posts from different folks. The real turn to marvel at is a UKIP thread becoming another zero hours contract thread. Maybe it's time to get back to bashing UKIP and have done with it.

[steveT350C]

@wc98,

Sorry if offended you.

should have put a after the Little Britain 'bitty' pic.

Must admit, I was not fully reading the discussion re 0 hours contracts, was just skimming through and that 'meme' came to mind.

Us kippers have had so much st thrown at us that poor attempts at humour is all we got left!

[brenflys777]

mrpurple said:

Some interesting reading:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/...

ETA not a mention of BNP or BF.

Interesting. The details about a gender gap, levels of support and the acknowledgement that even the Lib Dems are losing support to UKIP is noteworthy.

The striking thing for me was the increase in support/like ability for UKIP and Farage following negative campaigns against them. Looking forward to Clacton, but particularly the Middleton & Heywood seat. If UKIP get a good showing there Labour will have to acknowledge UKIP and unless they follow the conservatives in insulting their defecting voters.. they might even move back towards actually representing useful values not spin. Maybe

[chris watton]

DM I know, but how true is this?:

"Millions of modified and classic cars could be banned from the roads as meddling European Union try to shake-up MOT rules

'Ridiculous' proposals suggest that cars cannot be modified once they leave the factory

Motoring organisations say most changes do not affect a car's safety and potential rule is completely unnecessary

Changes that are made to make classic cars safer would be illegal

If new rules implemented it could cripple industry and thousands may lose their jobs"


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199311/Mi...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Will the future car choices be only German makes, I wonder....

ETA - I have since learned that that article was 2012, looks like that's not happening, yet, at least..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/9758494/E...

Edited by chris watton on Saturday 13th September 11:37

[FiF]

Reading the comments on that Guardian article amusing to see the fallacious 'omjg Kippers want to take everything back to the 50s' rear its ugly head.

Doubly amusing as it's commenting on an article which points out quite clearly what some of us have been saying on here that the rudeness and name calling really has anything between a nil to a clearly counter productive effect.



Moving on. Further proof that the Westminster elite don't give a stuff for the country. Remember how Labour emptied the coffers and put in place various contracts and so on when they were realising in the run up to the election that they were likely to get binned? Remember that?

Well Tories are doing the same. Putting in place huge contracts with their mates in the private sector, and locking in penalty clauses worth hundreds of millions of pounds if the next Government tries to unpick those contracts. For example the controversial probation privatisation contracts have a 400 million cancellation clause written in.

On top of that there is cross party support to legally mandate into the future the 12 billion foreign aid budget with increases.

Then there is the issue that all the savings on expenses has resulted in a rise in costs. Just Wtf sort of a secretarial job does the wife of an MP do to warrant a 50k salary.

Needs a clear out

Edited by FiF on Saturday 13th September 10:39

[zygalski]

tangerine_sedge said:

Steffan said:

Indeed the fault is not the responsibility of the employer in such circumstances. We have become enmeshed in the fault and liability culture that seeks to always blame sorebody or something for every difficulty that life throws up in the UK. Part of the unpleasant compensation culture spilling over into other unrelated matters once again.

There must be flexibility between employers and employees and zero hours contracts clearly provide that flexibility as the growing use suggests. Not everything that happens in life is someone else's fault and the reality of difficult decisions and difficult choices is part of living. Down to each individual to shoulder their personal responsibilities and deal with life. Not everything in life is someone else's fault and responsibility.

The growing use has less to do with employees wanting them, and more to do with companies finding a nice loop-hole to avoid having to provide additional benefits. Like all policies there are unintended consequences of what seems like a good idea. Hence the previous poster who had next to no work through one company, then 50 hours per week through another. in the first case, they obviously wanted him on the books just in case, and in the second case they are using him instead of a proper employee.

I think zero hour contracts should be given thresholds, so that for example the minimum payment is for 10 hours a week (regardless of how many worked), and the maximum 25 hours per week. Any more than that and they have to be on a proper contract. To enable businesses to flex a little, make it average working hours over a 3 months period for example.

Where I work over the last 10 or 15 years many of the lower paid formerly in-house jobs with the decent pensions, healthcare plans, overtime rates, holiday etc etc have been outsourced. Most new employees are now on zero hours contracts. 100% of the staff who I've spoken to over the years on my 1200 employee site say that this is simply a way for the firm to reduce costs & defer responsibility to a contractor.
The employer makes no pretensions about all the contracting-out & new zero hours contracts being for the good of the employees or at the request of all these new staff who desperately don't want overtime rates, holiday pay, a decent pension, a fixed roster....
I do wish some of the right wing loons in here would be as transparent & honest about this as my employer!

[FiF]

zygalski said:

Where I work over the last 10 or 15 years many of the lower paid formerly in-house jobs with the decent pensions, healthcare plans, overtime rates, holiday etc etc have been outsourced. Most new employees are now on zero hours contracts. 100% of the staff who I've spoken to over the years on my 1200 employee site say that this is simply a way for the firm to reduce costs & defer responsibility to a contractor.
The employer makes no pretensions about all the contracting-out & new zero hours contracts being for the good of the employees or at the request of all these new staff who desperately don't want overtime rates, holiday pay, a decent pension, a fixed roster....
I do wish some of the right wing loons in here would be as transparent & honest about this as my employer!

Some of the recent pro zero hours comments have been obnoxious and sickening in equal measure frankly

[johnS2000]

All I can say is that there must be more than one type of "0" hours contract .

The only ones I've been involved with are employer focused and of no benefit whatsoever to the employee .

There are a few shocks on the horizon for some people on here who think they may have a job for life .

I have known a few "high flyers" reduced to private hire drivers/agency workers and not being able to find anything else !

[turbobloke]

Blimey the thread is still looking more like zero hours UKIP bashing that full-time.

johnS2000 said:

There are a few shocks on the horizon for some people on here who think they may have a job for life.

Not just some people on here (who?) but anyone who thinks that.

Yesterday on this thread I said:

not that any f/t job is for life these days so "permanent employment" is a bit of a misnomer

As to bias, a zero hours contract is entered into by both parties voluntarily, if bias towards an employer is so obvious then signing a zero hours contract would seem to be an act of stupidity - and yet more people are satisfied with their zero hours contract job and the work-life balance it gives than on average for all jobs.