Politics

[Tom 13895]

Must have been the 2% that did it. As that's the representation of 0 hour contracts in employment altogether. Canny match.

 

Better when Ed ditches them and people can be sure as to whether they're paying their bills or not one week to the next.

[Christmas Tree 4001]

But Yoga?

[Tom 13895]

Yoga is mint tbh.

 

Bet you couldn't do a minute...

[Monkeys Fist 39018]

You've got huge tits.

[Alex 30706]

Shitting it now like. I mean, when has CT ever made a bad prediction?

[Monkeys Fist 39018]

Shitting it now like. I mean, when has CT ever made a bad prediction?

[ChezGiven 0]

Back in 2010 people were predicting that Austerity would cause double and treble dip recessions. As the basic definition of a recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP, then what we were predicting was a prolonged period of around 2 years of reduced GDP. It was somethig like 4 years before the economy started to grow again. Economists had to make up a new name for the Great Depression which of course finally ended but leaves the economy shirt of the level of GDP it was at in 2008.

 

So no, you saggy-titted shite house, austerity has not worked. It was such a failure that it was in part abandoned (which was never admitted by Osborne) and the only reason a narrative which ran counter this reality was allowed to take hold was because the real idiots are the people like yourself who swallow the simplistic political headlines and who don't understand the broader picture and the reality of where we are. Falling living standards and a chancellor who sets fiscal policy based on an ideological reading of economics rather than a compassionate view of social welfare.

 

Now I'm the first one to remind people that in order to redistribute wealth you have to create it first but what is the point in creating wealth if it's not to create a better society? I just don't agree with the idea that wealth creation is the end itself. Bill Gates spent his younger life becoming one of the worlds richest men. Once he gained all that wealth he sat back and realised what he wanted to do with it was to spend it on philanthropic projects. Why rely on the choices of the wealthiest individuals when you can build the principles of a fair society into a welfare state? Vote Miliband.

[Dr Gloom 20001]

It is funny like that CT took some weird moral stand by flouncing but then continued to read the forum all this time, clearly itching to post an update about his latest fad or cooking atrocity. It was his desire to launch his one man pre-election tory crusade that finally cracked his resolve.

[Monkeys Fist 39018]

Quite simply.....

[Dr Gloom 20001]

Back in 2010 people were predicting that Austerity would cause double and treble dip recessions. As the basic definition of a recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP, then what we were predicting was a prolonged period of around 2 years of reduced GDP. It was somethig like 4 years before the economy started to grow again. Economists had to make up a new name for the Great Depression which of course finally ended but leaves the economy shirt of the level of GDP it was at in 2008.

 

So no, you saggy-titted shite house, austerity has not worked. It was such a failure that it was in part abandoned (which was never admitted by Osborne) and the only reason a narrative which ran counter this reality was allowed to take hold was because the real idiots are the people like yourself who swallow the simplistic political headlines and who don't understand the broader picture and the reality of where we are. Falling living standards and a chancellor who sets fiscal policy based on an ideological reading of economics rather than a compassionate view of social welfare.

 

Now I'm the first one to remind people that in order to redistribute wealth you have to create it first but what is the point in creating wealth if it's not to create a better society? I just don't agree with the idea that wealth creation is the end itself. Bill Gates spent his younger life becoming one of the worlds richest men. Once he gained all that wealth he sat back and realised what he wanted to do with it was to spend it on philanthropic projects. Why rely on the choices of the wealthiest individuals when you can build the principles of a fair society into a welfare state? Vote Miliband.

Yup.

 

Productivity growth is at its lowest since the war so while the Tories may crow about the long term plan working, it really isn't the case in reality. there's a recovery on paper, but it doesn't feel like it for most working people.

 

Labour aren't much better mind, they back austerity too. And they're only doing it in a misguided attempt to win the floating voters who worry they're not fiscally credible. They'd be much better off acting like the real opposition, in my opinion - old labour in other words. But at least there's isn't an ideogical mission to rewrite the social contract.

[ChezGiven 0]

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/work-and-pensions-committee/benefit-sanctions-policy-beyond-the-oakley-review/written/16465.html

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3240]

Straw pol: does anyone think CT knows anything about politics?

[Ayatollah Hermione 12844]

I can't remember where I saw the point made but this ridiculous story about Miliband, shock horror, HAVING A GIRLFRIEND OR TWO only serves to make him look more like an actual, relatable, real person. Not like these chinless fuckers, birthed out of Thatcher's womb with a polo mallet in their hand. The closest this lot have come to having girlfriends at university was probably playing Soggy Biscuit in their boarding school dorm room at night. Fuckers.

[Tom 13895]

Isn't it weird how you only ever heard the term 'soggy biscuit' from posh lads?

[Gemmill 35258]

I can't remember where I saw the point made but this ridiculous story about Miliband, shock horror, HAVING A GIRLFRIEND OR TWO only serves to make him look more like an actual, relatable, real person. Not like these chinless fuckers, birthed out of Thatcher's womb with a polo mallet in their hand. The closest this lot have come to having girlfriends at university was probably playing Soggy Biscuit in their boarding school dorm room at night. Fuckers.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/10/ed-miliband-politician-genitals-shocker-daily-mail-labour-love-life

[Howmanheyman 27358]

The recovery is built on 2 million extra jobs. Only 2% (40,000) are zero hours. Of this 2%, the majority are happy with the hours they have.

 

Tony and Gordon promised to ban them in 1995 until they saw sense.

 

Same as the non doms. Labour we're going to ban them, but then doubled them.

 

It's all guff around the edges. History tells us in no uncertain terms that a Labour government leads to more unemployment.

 

:lol:

 

How do you know? Have you asked them?

 

I've worked with loads of kids on these contracts. Guess what? Not fucking ONE admits to being happy with them, it's bad enough the casualisation that has gone on in lots of industry these last two decades but the zero hours stuff is just taking the piss out of an already bad situation, a bit like the bedroom tax is a bit of a sick joke on people on the absolute bones of their arse.

[Meenzer 14128]

Not like these chinless fuckers, birthed out of Thatcher's womb with a polo mallet in their hand.

 

Among the many ironies of CT being a Tory, this is perhaps the greatest.

[Gemmill 35258]

Who the fuck is going to be "happy" with a zero hours contract? Not knowing when you'll be required to work or what your income will be from one week to the next? What is there in that uncertainty that would make anyone "happy"?

 

I'm sure it's preferable to no work and no income, but that isn't the same thing and it doesn't excuse or support their existence. They should be abolished and for anyone to defend them, but for the employers that are directly benefiting from them, is utter cuntistry.

[Tom 13895]

How does it work for Benefits etc? It must be a right fuck on deciding how much benefit the zero hours worker gets any given week reconciled against their hours/income because obviously they can't pay for themselves.

[Howmanheyman 27358]

Who the fuck is going to be "happy" with a zero hours contract? Not knowing when you'll be required to work or what your income will be from one week to the next? What is there in that uncertainty that would make anyone "happy"?

 

I'm sure it's preferable to no work and no income, but that isn't the same thing and it doesn't excuse or support their existence. They should be abolished and for anyone to defend them, but for the employers that are directly benefiting from them, is utter cuntistry.

I'd rather be on the dole than on one of these contracts. Many workers on low paid wages will get tax credits which in effect subsidise the minimum wage, those out of work get the pittance of the dole and income support but if you're on one of these contracts and you only get a a few hours of work in a week try going to the jobcentre for help. You'll get fuck all as you're classed as being in employment. The tax credits will be no use as it's bad enough in my experience if your shifts change once in a year and your wage alters, you inform the HMRC and it takes to the next tax year to sort your money out. Try informing them every week of a change of income.

 

How this zero hours stuff isn't illegal I'll never know.

[PaddockLad 14799]

I think its deemed as full time employment Tom, so I presume youre supposed to come off benefits completely?...

[NJS 3989]

I think I've said before that my Mam told me how her Dad used to turn up at the shipyards in the 20s to try and be picked out of a crowd to work for that day. That's why the unions were born and also why the Tory hated concept of demarcation came about in an effort to provide stable work for skilled men. Its taken the bastards 80 years but they've undone all of that and we're now back there for millions of people.

 

I'd also point out to CT that his two million new jobs have led to no increase in tax revenues - I wonder if he can figure out why?

[PaddockLad 14799]

I think I've said before that my Mam told me how her Dad used to turn up at the shipyards in the 20s to try and be picked out of a crowd to work for that day. That's why the unions were born and also why the Tory hated concept of demarcation came about in an effort to provide stable work for skilled men. Its taken the bastards 80 years but they've undone all of that and we're now back there for millions of people.

 

I'd also point out to CT that his two million new jobs have led to no increase in tax revenues - I wonder if he can figure out why?

 

Can CT also tell us why this government has borrowed more in 5 years than "irresponsible" Labour did in 14?...under a general policy spun by the massive wankers as austerity?...

[ewerk 26731]

David Cameron

A Conservative government would end inheritance tax on family homes worth up to £1m, David Cameron is to announce.

It means most owners of homes in the UK would be able to pass them on to their children without paying tax.

The policy is likely to be at the centre of the Tory election manifesto, which will be launched next week.

It comes as Labour announced a fresh crackdown on tax avoidance and the Lib Dems set out their economic plans.

The £1bn cost of the Conservative policy will be paid for by reducing tax relief on the pension contributions of people earning more than £150,000.

'Natural instinct'

At present, inheritance tax is payable at 40% on the value of an estate in excess of the tax-free allowance of £325,000 per person. Married couples and civil partners can pass the allowance on to each other.

If the Conservatives win the general election 7 May, parents will each be offered a further £175,000 allowance to enable them to pass property on to children tax-free after their death.

The new "family home allowance" will be transferable on the death of one spouse and can be added to the existing £325,000 transferable allowance to bring the tax-free total up to £1m.

The full amount would be transferable even if one member of a married couple has died before the policy comes into effect, the Conservatives say, and so would benefit existing widows and widowers.

For properties worth more than £2m, the new allowance would be gradually reduced, so that those with homes worth more than £2.35m would not benefit at all.

The policy would come into effect in April 2017.

In a speech on Sunday, Mr Cameron will say: "That wish to pass something on is about the most basic, human and natural instinct there is. And that's why for a long, long time I have wanted to act on inheritance.

"We've already done some important things. With the Conservatives, people can pass on their ISAs - and they'll be able to pass on their pension pot tax-free.

"And I can tell you today that the next Conservative government would go much further. We will take the family home out of inheritance tax.

"That home that you have worked and saved for belongs to you and your family.

"You should be able to pass it onto your children. And with the Conservatives, the tax man will not get his hands on it."

[Gemmill 35258]

"That wish to pass something on is about the most basic, human and natural instinct there is."

 

No David, that instinct is to be able to feed yourself and have a roof over your head. Which is why people are queuing at food banks. Passing on an estate is not a basic human instinct, you shiny faced fuckwit.