Snap General Election?
Discussion
desolate said:
If Zero hour contracts where two way then the argument would be different.
I am sure someone with a brain could find a way off allowing zero hour contracts for those who have a genuinely flexible two way relationship with their employer whilst stopping the abuse of such contracts by many employers.
Unlikely to find such a person in the House of Commons.
And for those where the employer cannot afford a fixed contract, then they just won't be offered a job. Who does that help exactly?I am sure someone with a brain could find a way off allowing zero hour contracts for those who have a genuinely flexible two way relationship with their employer whilst stopping the abuse of such contracts by many employers.
Unlikely to find such a person in the House of Commons.
sidicks said:
desolate said:
If Zero hour contracts where two way then the argument would be different.
I am sure someone with a brain could find a way off allowing zero hour contracts for those who have a genuinely flexible two way relationship with their employer whilst stopping the abuse of such contracts by many employers.
Unlikely to find such a person in the House of Commons.
And for those where the employer cannot afford a fixed contract, then they just won't be offered a job. Who does that help exactly?I am sure someone with a brain could find a way off allowing zero hour contracts for those who have a genuinely flexible two way relationship with their employer whilst stopping the abuse of such contracts by many employers.
Unlikely to find such a person in the House of Commons.
t of the EU, hence the need for zero hours contracts.Burwood said:
robemcdonald said:
sidicks said:
robemcdonald said:
So the doctor can stay, but his wife and kids can do one?
Maybe he can get a superior non EU immigrant family.
A strange response.Maybe he can get a superior non EU immigrant family.
Doctor contributes - fixes broken people and pays tax
Wife and kids - tale our taxes to pay for education etc - non contributor not required.
If the decision is not made based on contribution. Then how is it made? And by whom?
The problem is I have been reading and contributing in between customer visits and my posts have generally been reactions to others replies. As a result haven't given proper consideration to some of my posts.
My assertion that I am not a troll is not really mine to make. If that's how I have come across I apologise. It's the result of rushing.
Apologies to all if I have been too adversarial. it was not my intent when I asked the original question. On reflection I haven't represented myself as well as I'd have liked.
On that basis I am going to retire to a spectator position, at least until I am in a position have a more positive input.
I still stand my belief that we should allow migrants currently here to stay because think it's the right thing to do and sometimes that should be enough.
Once again apologies to anyone I have offended.
sidicks said:
mx-6 said:
Yes, laws do change, thanks for helping me understand that as I was having trouble before you replied. What I wouldn't expect is a change in law to be applied retrospectively.
And yet you've said yourself that we have always been able to send people home.And nothing will happen until after Brexit, 2 years down the line.
So to talk of retrospective changes is nonsense.
mx-6 said:
People have come here and made settled lives as was their right, you seem to advocate treating them like they are redundant automatons that should be cast aside if they momentarily cease to perform a given economic function.
Wrong, people have come here temporarily. Sorry you don't understand the difference.mx-6 said:
As for being short of money, I'd suggest that we should focus on creating new jobs rather than actively reducing the number of potential workers and consumers in the economy.
As explained already, if they are required (as workers) why would we send them back?They are not necessarily here temporarily, they don't have limited visas. Under current laws they can apply for and get British citizenship after being here 5 years, or 2 if they have a British spouse IIRC. There is, or I guess was, no expectation that they will have to leave at some point.
I'm sorry that you are sorry, I think we will have to agree to disagree as it were. You seem to have a strong us and them mindset, I don't see things that way.
mx-6 said:
It is retrospective in the sence that people have already made the decision to come and settle here to live and work.
Permanent residence wasn't an option when they came here, so nothing has changed.mx-6 said:
They are not necessarily here temporarily, they don't have limited visas.
What restrictions were in place?mx-6 said:
Under current laws they can apply for and get British citizenship after being here 5 years, or 2 if they have a British spouse IIRC. There is, or I guess was, no expectation that they will have to leave at some point.
So why don't they apply for British Citizenship?mx-6 said:
I'm sorry that you are sorry, I think we will have to agree to disagree as it were. You seem to have a strong us and them mindset, I don't see things that way.
Not at all, in fact the opposite. I'm just confused why you think that it's appropriate to allow lots of (predominantly white) EU migrants come to this country and stay here (regardless of what they can offer the UK) but (as far as I'm aware) don't propose to offer the same opportunity to (predominantly non-white) non-EU migrants.That sounds very much 'them and us' to me...
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 25th April 13:55
robemcdonald said:
I have been reading, but only skim reading. Which makes your point a good one.
The problem is I have been reading and contributing in between customer visits and my posts have generally been reactions to others replies. As a result haven't given proper consideration to some of my posts.
My assertion that I am not a troll is not really mine to make. If that's how I have come across I apologise. It's the result of rushing.
Apologies to all if I have been too adversarial. it was not my intent when I asked the original question. On reflection I haven't represented myself as well as I'd have liked.
On that basis I am going to retire to a spectator position, at least until I am in a position have a more positive input.
I still stand my belief that we should allow migrants currently here to stay because think it's the right thing to do and sometimes that should be enough.
Once again apologies to anyone I have offended.
No need to apologise for anything you've said - people have strong opinions and it can get heated in here, but in comparison to some (including me) you've been very reasonable.The problem is I have been reading and contributing in between customer visits and my posts have generally been reactions to others replies. As a result haven't given proper consideration to some of my posts.
My assertion that I am not a troll is not really mine to make. If that's how I have come across I apologise. It's the result of rushing.
Apologies to all if I have been too adversarial. it was not my intent when I asked the original question. On reflection I haven't represented myself as well as I'd have liked.
On that basis I am going to retire to a spectator position, at least until I am in a position have a more positive input.
I still stand my belief that we should allow migrants currently here to stay because think it's the right thing to do and sometimes that should be enough.
Once again apologies to anyone I have offended.
Vaud said:
There is also the minor point that some employees like ZHCs, especially students.
Quite so.Just in case anyone back from lunch missed it, there's this a page or so back in the thread:
CIPD research report on ZHC said:
65% of zero-hours workers say they are satisfied with their work–life balance compared with 58% of all employees.
In all, 60% of zero-hours contract workers agree or strongly agree they are satisfied with their job with 19% disagreeing, compared with a survey average of 59% agreeing and 20% disagreeing.
In all, 60% of zero-hours contract workers agree or strongly agree they are satisfied with their job with 19% disagreeing, compared with a survey average of 59% agreeing and 20% disagreeing.
sidicks said:
mx-6 said:
Yes, laws do change, thanks for helping me understand that as I was having trouble before you replied. What I wouldn't expect is a change in law to be applied retrospectively. People have come here and made settled lives as was their right, you seem to advocate treating them like they are redundant automatons that should be cast aside if they momentarily cease to perform a given economic function.
As for being short of money, I'd suggest that we should focus on creating new jobs rather than actively reducing the number of potential workers and consumers in the economy.
And yet you claim you are considering voting Labour!! Surely you shouldn't need reminding that they are the cause of high debt / shortage of funds we are facing. They certainly aren't the solution!As for being short of money, I'd suggest that we should focus on creating new jobs rather than actively reducing the number of potential workers and consumers in the economy.
mx-6 said:
Ha, no I didn't say Labour and I agree they aren't the solution to anything in their current form. I've said that I'll be voting Lib Dem this time, over their stance on the Brexit issue, as something of a protest vote (I'm in an area leave supporting area with a very safe Conservative seat).
Yes, I confused you with someone else. Sorry about that.sidicks said:
mx-6 said:
Ha, no I didn't say Labour and I agree they aren't the solution to anything in their current form. I've said that I'll be voting Lib Dem this time, over their stance on the Brexit issue, as something of a protest vote (I'm in an area leave supporting area with a very safe Conservative seat).
Yes, I confused you with someone else. Sorry about that.robemcdonald said:
Burwood said:
robemcdonald said:
sidicks said:
robemcdonald said:
So the doctor can stay, but his wife and kids can do one?
Maybe he can get a superior non EU immigrant family.
A strange response.Maybe he can get a superior non EU immigrant family.
Doctor contributes - fixes broken people and pays tax
Wife and kids - tale our taxes to pay for education etc - non contributor not required.
If the decision is not made based on contribution. Then how is it made? And by whom?
The problem is I have been reading and contributing in between customer visits and my posts have generally been reactions to others replies. As a result haven't given proper consideration to some of my posts.
My assertion that I am not a troll is not really mine to make. If that's how I have come across I apologise. It's the result of rushing.
Apologies to all if I have been too adversarial. it was not my intent when I asked the original question. On reflection I haven't represented myself as well as I'd have liked.
On that basis I am going to retire to a spectator position, at least until I am in a position have a more positive input.
I still stand my belief that we should allow migrants currently here to stay because think it's the right thing to do and sometimes that should be enough.
Once again apologies to anyone I have offended.
robemcdonald said:
I have been reading, but only skim reading. Which makes your point a good one.
The problem is I have been reading and contributing in between customer visits and my posts have generally been reactions to others replies. As a result haven't given proper consideration to some of my posts.
My assertion that I am not a troll is not really mine to make. If that's how I have come across I apologise. It's the result of rushing.
Apologies to all if I have been too adversarial. it was not my intent when I asked the original question. On reflection I haven't represented myself as well as I'd have liked.
On that basis I am going to retire to a spectator position, at least until I am in a position have a more positive input.
I still stand my belief that we should allow migrants currently here to stay because think it's the right thing to do and sometimes that should be enough.
Once again apologies to anyone I have offended.
The only difference between us is that I believe that if we offer a right to stay as part of our negotiation, so should the EU.The problem is I have been reading and contributing in between customer visits and my posts have generally been reactions to others replies. As a result haven't given proper consideration to some of my posts.
My assertion that I am not a troll is not really mine to make. If that's how I have come across I apologise. It's the result of rushing.
Apologies to all if I have been too adversarial. it was not my intent when I asked the original question. On reflection I haven't represented myself as well as I'd have liked.
On that basis I am going to retire to a spectator position, at least until I am in a position have a more positive input.
I still stand my belief that we should allow migrants currently here to stay because think it's the right thing to do and sometimes that should be enough.
Once again apologies to anyone I have offended.
I don't think you are trolling, however. Misguided, perhaps...!
ZHCs are another one of those topics, like microloans and Brexit, where hand-wringing middle-class metropolitan maniacs think the lower orders are too dumb to make their own decisions about their own lives.
Research consistently shows people like ZHCs and their flexibility. In one survey, only 58% of UK employees said there were happy with their work-life balance, compared to 65% of those on zero-hours contracts.
http://www.robertsoncooper.com/good-daily-work-art...
Research consistently shows people like ZHCs and their flexibility. In one survey, only 58% of UK employees said there were happy with their work-life balance, compared to 65% of those on zero-hours contracts.
http://www.robertsoncooper.com/good-daily-work-art...
sidicks said:
mx-6 said:
It is retrospective in the sence that people have already made the decision to come and settle here to live and work.
Permanent residence wasn't an option when they came here, so nothing has changed.They are not necessarily here temporarily, they don't have limited visas. Under current laws they can apply for and get British citizenship after being here 5 years, or 2 if they have a British spouse IIRC. There is, or I guess was, no expectation that they will have to leave at some point.
residence here but the reason why we have never bothered to get citizenship so far, is dispite living here for over ten years and running her own business she is required to sit an English and life in the U.K. Test.
She would loose her residency in her home country too, which would stop us buying land, so if we purchased a house as a foreigner the land would become leasehold from the government where as if she keeps her passport we will be able to purchase the land freehold.
It's a bit stupid but they do it to prevent foreign investment from buying and owning all the land.
Edited by TLandCruiser on Tuesday 25th April 14:07
TLandCruiser said:
My wife is an EU national with permanent residence here but the reason why we have never bothered to get citizenship so far, is dispite living here for over ten years and running her own business she is required to sit an English and life in the U.K. Test.
She would loose her residency in her home country too, which would stop us buying land, so if we purchased a house as a foreigner the land would become leasehold from the government where as if she keeps her passport we will be able to purchase the land freehold.
It's a bit stupid but they do it to prevent foreign investment from buying and owning all the land.
This is one of the totally sShe would loose her residency in her home country too, which would stop us buying land, so if we purchased a house as a foreigner the land would become leasehold from the government where as if she keeps her passport we will be able to purchase the land freehold.
It's a bit stupid but they do it to prevent foreign investment from buying and owning all the land.
t situations in the so-called EU, why haven't the EU done something constructive and worthwhile (IMO) by getting these countries to change such laws on property ownership? No wonder we wanted out from the EU.Likes Fast Cars said:
TLandCruiser said:
My wife is an EU national with permanent residence here but the reason why we have never bothered to get citizenship so far, is dispite living here for over ten years and running her own business she is required to sit an English and life in the U.K. Test.
She would loose her residency in her home country too, which would stop us buying land, so if we purchased a house as a foreigner the land would become leasehold from the government where as if she keeps her passport we will be able to purchase the land freehold.
It's a bit stupid but they do it to prevent foreign investment from buying and owning all the land.
This is one of the totally sShe would loose her residency in her home country too, which would stop us buying land, so if we purchased a house as a foreigner the land would become leasehold from the government where as if she keeps her passport we will be able to purchase the land freehold.
It's a bit stupid but they do it to prevent foreign investment from buying and owning all the land.
t situations in the so-called EU, why haven't the EU done something constructive and worthwhile (IMO) by getting these countries to change such laws on property ownership? No wonder we wanted out from the EU.Likes Fast Cars said:
TLandCruiser said:
My wife is an EU national with permanent residence here but the reason why we have never bothered to get citizenship so far, is dispite living here for over ten years and running her own business she is required to sit an English and life in the U.K. Test.
She would loose her residency in her home country too, which would stop us buying land, so if we purchased a house as a foreigner the land would become leasehold from the government where as if she keeps her passport we will be able to purchase the land freehold.
It's a bit stupid but they do it to prevent foreign investment from buying and owning all the land.
This is one of the totally sShe would loose her residency in her home country too, which would stop us buying land, so if we purchased a house as a foreigner the land would become leasehold from the government where as if she keeps her passport we will be able to purchase the land freehold.
It's a bit stupid but they do it to prevent foreign investment from buying and owning all the land.
t situations in the so-called EU, why haven't the EU done something constructive and worthwhile (IMO) by getting these countries to change such laws on property ownership? No wonder we wanted out from the EU.Edited by mx-6 on Tuesday 25th April 14:47
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff