Westminster Politics

Smores said:
You can already predict the goverment response:

We're spending X more than Labour
We've announced plans to look at house building
We've setup a review to look at adult training

Never any actual comment on the current situation/accusation its all just deflective soundbites
Click to expand...
Yeah I would expect anything from them(This what they want to happen). We'll have to wait until the next election to see just how much this has done to them. At the moment their base seems to be at holding, sadly (Most polls have them at around 40%)
 
Smores said:
He's been an MEP since 99, how the feck has that happened? It's fecking crazy
Click to expand...

Because the EU has been a an issue for that long, a problem only further exacerbated during the Labour years. UKIP were also a less controversial party back then too.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Because the EU has been a an issue for that long, a problem only further exacerbated during the Labour years. UKIP were also a less controversial party back then too.
Click to expand...

If its a problem voting in someone who attends might be a start? Seems very counter-productive to me, bit of a pathetic tantrum vote.
 
Farage as always been a hypocrite. Drinking from the gravy train while wanting the EU to implode. As Jean-Claude Juncker said “Why are you here?”
 
Smores said:
If its a problem voting in someone who attends might be a start? Seems very counter-productive to me, bit of a pathetic tantrum vote.
Click to expand...

Labour were enthusiasticlaly Europhile and led by a keen intergrationist (which conicinded with the prevailing sentiment in Brussels). The Tories, on the other hand, were still recovering from 97 and could not exactly be relied upon to lead the cause. At the time, the clearest and strongest Eurosceptic voice had no better home on the British political landscape. The object was to influence Westminster as much as who ended up in the Euroepan Parliament. Counter-productivit...would have been to continue under the misapprehension that the EU's ambitions are not contrary to our own. We being majority Eurosceptic as a country, albeit to varying levels of intesntiy.
 
I wish there was a pragmatic, centrist option in British politics.

Corbyn is too far to the left, reactionary old Labour, and May is way too far the right, nasty old Tories. The Lib Dems aren't up to much any more.

God knows I'd have Cameron back in a second, or Umunna, or even David Miliband. It just seems one extreme or the other, and I don't fancy either.
 
17 Van der Gouw said:
I wish there was a pragmatic, centrist option in British politics.

Corbyn is too far to the left, reactionary old Labour, and May is way too far the right, nasty old Tories. The Lib Dems aren't up to much any more.

God knows I'd have Cameron back in a second, or Umunna, or even David Miliband. It just seems one extreme or the other, and I don't fancy either.
Click to expand...
That type of politics has caused the conditions we see now.
 
17 Van der Gouw said:
I wish there was a pragmatic, centrist option in British politics.

Corbyn is too far to the left, reactionary old Labour, and May is way too far the right, nasty old Tories. The Lib Dems aren't up to much any more.

God knows I'd have Cameron back in a second, or Umunna, or even David Miliband. It just seems one extreme or the other, and I don't fancy either.
Click to expand...

Corbyn for the most part isn't that extreme I'd say - his politics are mostly just centre-left democratic socialism. He wants to raise taxes but doesn't want to do so to the extreme and supports an end to austerity. I don't think that's too far-left.
 
17 Van der Gouw said:
I wish there was a pragmatic, centrist option in British politics.

Corbyn is too far to the left, reactionary old Labour, and May is way too far the right, nasty old Tories. The Lib Dems aren't up to much any more.

God knows I'd have Cameron back in a second, or Umunna, or even David Miliband. It just seems one extreme or the other, and I don't fancy either.
Click to expand...
I want 'centrist' blue and reds to come together and form a party with a single issue manifesto - electoral reform. It's holding the country back massively, and would effectively kill off the Tories.
 
altodevil86 said:
I want 'centrist' blue and reds to come together and form a party with a single issue manifesto - electoral reform. It's holding the country back massively, and would effectively kill off the Tories.
Click to expand...

The problem is that they'll never do it because the moment they assume power they'll no longer want electoral reform.
 
Dobba said:
Didn't they call themselves New Labour?
Click to expand...
Yep, and like the more recent example of Labour in Canada, they chickened out. It's why I really dislike Trudeau despite his adorning fans online. He's a prick.
 
17 Van der Gouw said:
I wish there was a pragmatic, centrist option in British politics.

Corbyn is too far to the left, reactionary old Labour, and May is way too far the right, nasty old Tories. The Lib Dems aren't up to much any more.

God knows I'd have Cameron back in a second, or Umunna, or even David Miliband. It just seems one extreme or the other, and I don't fancy either.
Click to expand...
:lol:

We need a pragmatic option. Like the pig fecking war monger or a bloke complicit in torture.
 
It's like the old anecdotes of how well-off people only discovered the poverty in their midst on reading Dickens' novels.
 
The Ofsted chief - who has no teaching experience - shows her true colours:

Spielman told head teachers not to wallow in self-pity: “It seems that school leaders are constantly comparing notes” over how many deprived or difficult pupils they teach. "I am sometimes reminded of Monty Python’s Four Yorkshiremen sketch,” she said.
Click to expand...
Disadvantage no excuse for poor performance of schools - Ofsted chief:
https://www.theguardian.com/educati...cuse-for-poor-school-performance-ofsted-chief

Ofsted's next head, Amanda Spielman, rejected by MPs:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36723828
 
Sweet Square said:
The Nasty Party out in full force today

Philip Hammond: UK Productivity Rates Low Because More Disabled People Are In Work

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...eople-are-in-work_uk_5a281714e4b044d16726b7bd
Click to expand...
yeah thats the headline but actually there is a point here

firstly his actual text is

Asked about a fall in productivity rates earlier this year, he said: “The consequences of high levels of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, will be felt for many, many years to come.


“It is almost certainly the case that by increasing participation in the workforce, including far higher levels of participation by marginal groups and very high levels of engagement in the workforce, for example of disabled people - something we should be extremely proud of - may have had an impact on overall productivity measurements.”

Hammond said the situation demonstrated that productivity measurements should not be the sole judge of economic health.

“Having high levels of workforce participation, and allowing maximum access to the workforce for all groups in society brings benefits in itself, and actually produces larger GDP,” he added.

“It may have collateral impact on measured productivity performance.”
Click to expand...



But fundamentally as an employer of some disabled staff I think I know where of i speak when i point out that not only is this kind of known anyway - its why the equalities act and tax syetem is set up to reflect this

How does the tax system support employers of disabled people?
The Equality Act 2010 (EA) requires employers to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to help any disabled employees and these can cover both changes to the workplace or employment arrangements.

The cost of making many of these adjustments would qualify for tax relief as a business expense either as a revenue expense, or through capital allowances.

Examples of revenue expense include the cost of large print documents and training on disability issues. These are fully deductible for tax purposes. Examples of capital expenses include installation of ramps and hand rails. HMRC give guidance on capital allowances and examples of the tax treatment of particular types of expenditure on GOV.UK.
Click to expand...

So lets say I employ option A an able bodied staff member or option B a disabled person - both are on the same wages, both produce the same output but I have to spend money to make the office more accessible or on specialist IT equipment... Now by the measure of productivity the disabled person is now less productive

Of course when you then factor in the tax breaks etc it is neutral so the point about "productivity" being necessarily the perfect metric is imo valid

is hammond a prick - yes
has this been unnecessarily spun to fit a pre-defined agenda - yes

hes still a prick but technically he has a valid point ref measurement of economic activity... which is what he was being asked about
 
sun_tzu said:
yeah thats the headline but actually there is a point here

firstly his actual text is





But fundamentally as an employer of some disabled staff I think I know where of i speak when i point out that not only is this kind of known anyway - its why the equalities act and tax syetem is set up to reflect this



So lets say I employ option A an able bodied staff member or option B a disabled person - both are on the same wages, both produce the same output but I have to spend money to make the office more accessible or on specialist IT equipment... Now by the measure of productivity the disabled person is now less productive

Of course when you then factor in the tax breaks etc it is neutral so the point about "productivity" being necessarily the perfect metric is imo valid

is hammond a prick - yes
has this been unnecessarily spun to fit a pre-defined agenda - yes

hes still a prick but technically he has a valid point ref measurement of economic activity... which is what he was being asked about
Click to expand...

Not really sure your reasoning is valid either.

Firstly it's based on the premise that being disabled means you are less productive than an able-bodied counterpart - presumably because you're disabled. It doesn't take into account job type, the spectrum of disability, or the amount of disabled people in employment period.
On that final point - according to scope, 3.4 million disabled people are in work, which amounts to approximately 30% of all disabled people in the UK regardless of age (https://www.scope.org.uk/media/disability-facts-figures)
Also - I can't imagine that disabled employment has surged in recent years?
Common sense would suggest that it would have largely stayed constant, given so few of the work force are disabled, and so few of the population are disabled as well - that number is unlikely to offset the fact that mostly everyone is working longer hours, and being less productive because we're struggling.

If his logic is correct then productivity will plummet when a large amount of the disabled population lose their benefits and are unable to work?
 
vi1lain said:
Not really sure your reasoning is valid either.

Firstly it's based on the premise that being disabled means you are less productive than an able-bodied counterpart - presumably because you're disabled. It doesn't take into account job type, the spectrum of disability, or the amount of disabled people in employment period.
On that final point - according to scope, 3.4 million disabled people are in work, which amounts to approximately 30% of all disabled people in the UK regardless of age (https://www.scope.org.uk/media/disability-facts-figures)
Also - I can't imagine that disabled employment has surged in recent years?
Common sense would suggest that it would have largely stayed constant, given so few of the work force are disabled, and so few of the population are disabled as well - that number is unlikely to offset the fact that mostly everyone is working longer hours, and being less productive because we're struggling.

If his logic is correct then productivity will plummet when a large amount of the disabled population lose their benefits and are unable to work?
Click to expand...

No it means that if somebody is disabled and you have to pay for specialist equipment the measurement says they are less productive
The truth is that investment is tax deductible so in reality they are not less productive
as such the metric that is used to measure productivity is limited - not to say its irrelavant by any means but having recently hired somebody t work for me their salary being circa 20K i had to spend £15k on specialist IT equipment and access

lets say I get 50K output from this person for example

Cost without the extras is 20k and output is 50K
With extras cost is 35k and output is 50K

How productivity is reported takes no account of the fact that i can then get a tax break on the £15K

As such yeah i think he has a point - especially when answering a question about productivity... Its just lazy to use this as an example of the "nasty party" - there are of course plenty of examples that could be used but its pure spin to use this
 
sun_tzu said:
No it means that if somebody is disabled and you have to pay for specialist equipment the measurement says they are less productive
The truth is that investment is tax deductible so in reality they are not less productive
as such the metric that is used to measure productivity is limited - not to say its irrelavant by any means but having recently hired somebody t work for me their salary being circa 20K i had to spend £15k on specialist IT equipment and access

lets say I get 50K output from this person for example

Cost without the extras is 20k and output is 50K
With extras cost is 35k and output is 50K

How productivity is reported takes no account of the fact that i can then get a tax break on the £15K

As such yeah i think he has a point - especially when answering a question about productivity... Its just lazy to use this as an example of the "nasty party" - there are of course plenty of examples that could be used but its pure spin to use this
Click to expand...
This isn't the reason for the UK awful productivity rate. Hammond was talking complete shite.
 
sun_tzu said:
No it means that if somebody is disabled and you have to pay for specialist equipment the measurement says they are less productive
The truth is that investment is tax deductible so in reality they are not less productive
as such the metric that is used to measure productivity is limited - not to say its irrelavant by any means but having recently hired somebody t work for me their salary being circa 20K i had to spend £15k on specialist IT equipment and access

lets say I get 50K output from this person for example

Cost without the extras is 20k and output is 50K
With extras cost is 35k and output is 50K

How productivity is reported takes no account of the fact that i can then get a tax break on the £15K

As such yeah i think he has a point - especially when answering a question about productivity... Its just lazy to use this as an example of the "nasty party" - there are of course plenty of examples that could be used but its pure spin to use this
Click to expand...

But again - this is based on a number of pretenses
1 - the scale of that individuals disability requires specialist equipment in the first place
2 - the employer doesn't have the infrastructure in place to support disabled people to begin with.
3 - the type of job that the employee is going to be doing.

I've mostly seen disabled people working low-level/entry level jobs that require little experience, such as cleaning or in fast food, which would offset the need for specialist equipment.
Also you then need to consider exactly what is meant by 'disabled' because it's not just necessarily physical, and they don't necessarily need specialist equipment or training. And even then a large amount of wheelchair users are just as capable as their able-bodied counter parts, and usually only need accessibility - there's 5 people in my place of work who are in wheelchairs, and the only thing they need is lifts and ramps, everything else is exactly the same.
Furthermore - the disabled employee populous is unlikely to have increased significantly in recent years, why would it when they are still a minority in the general population?

Also there are other factors that are effecting productivity, such as youth unemployment, zero-contract hours, mental illness/depression, rise in poverty, inflation etc.

Blaming this on the disabled working populous is very misleading, especially since they are due to take away a large amount of their benefits - so if they were that concerned with the productivity of these people then they should revisit this decision.
 
vi1lain said:
But again - this is based on a number of pretenses
1 - the scale of that individuals disability requires specialist equipment in the first place
2 - the employer doesn't have the infrastructure in place to support disabled people to begin with.
3 - the type of job that the employee is going to be doing.

I've mostly seen disabled people working low-level/entry level jobs that require little experience, such as cleaning or in fast food, which would offset the need for specialist equipment.
Also you then need to consider exactly what is meant by 'disabled' because it's not just necessarily physical, and they don't necessarily need specialist equipment or training. And even then a large amount of wheelchair users are just as capable as their able-bodied counter parts, and usually only need accessibility - there's 5 people in my place of work who are in wheelchairs, and the only thing they need is lifts and ramps, everything else is exactly the same.
Furthermore - the disabled employee populous is unlikely to have increased significantly in recent years, why would it when they are still a minority in the general population?

Also there are other factors that are effecting productivity, such as youth unemployment, zero-contract hours, mental illness/depression, rise in poverty, inflation etc.

Blaming this on the disabled working populous is very misleading, especially since they are due to take away a large amount of their benefits - so if they were that concerned with the productivity of these people then they should revisit this decision.
Click to expand...
yeah but if you read the text -he actually isnt
He is saying the measure of productivity has limited uses... one example of this is disabled (he also cites long term and youth unemployment)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.