I had to laugh. Ed Balls and Jim Murphy the other day in Glasgow spouting the evils of zero-hour contracts, in a building where the front-line, technical and catering staff are all on zero-hour contracts! Maybe they should have done a bit more research...
However, not all zero-hour contracts are evil and bad. Some are actually okay, depending on your circumstances and how balanced the terms are.
I've already said that I don't approve of tax evasion, or indeed of benefit - or any other - sort of fraud. I wasn't aware of the figures which have been quoted and am not qualified to contest them.
The glaringly obvious reason that so many people have not had pay rises is that they cannot be afforded, because we've already been paying ourselves more than we're earning. I agree that it sticks in the gullet a bit when big company bosses are awarded huge rises, but could you do their job? And companies have to compete for capable management in a pretty ruthlessly competitive market. I've never had the talent or ambition or ability to take on anything like that but if I were in charge of a major company which was succeeding and expanding and providing a boost to the UK economy, I would certainly expect to be rewarded accordingly - even if it meant my salary was many, many times that of most of my employees, because I'd be earning it.
I begin to wonder whether much of the electorate appreciate the extent of the overspending we've been guilty of over recent years. And paying off the extent of our extravagance is of course painful, just as is paying off personal household debts. If it has meant pay freezes, of course it has - we've been overpaid for what we do for years, and don't let's deny it.
So, the coalition failed to prevent the national debt from increasing and UK's current growth rate is disappointing over the last Quarter. But where on earth would we be had we had some sort of Labour coalition, with their longstanding record of fiscal improvidence? A lot further down the plug, is where!
The prospect of some sort of Labour/SNP alliance is terrifying, with Labour being freely manipulated by the SNP to the exclusive advantage of Scotland, and the SNP then busting up the UK, as is their declared aim. And the SNP have declared themselves "anti-austerity" by which I presume they're in favour of unrestrained public spending and bugger the consequences ... they are very dangerous and their outlook is entirely selfish.
Finally, a word on a subject which has been dangerously neglected in the election debates so far: the nuclear deterrent (actually, at the end of the day, even more important than schools, hospitals et al). In a letter in today's Times a collection of major figures, led by Lord Robertson, a former Labour defence minister, together with a bevy of former senior military officers, say that "in an uncertain world where some powers are now displaying a worrying faith in nuclear weapons as an instrument of policy and influence, it would be irresponsible folly to abandon Britain's own independent deterrent". The SNP of course want to abandon the deterrent altogether, possibly because Glasgow just might be a target in any nuclear exchange; whether they're fools or cowards, they fail to realise that in such a nuclear exchange every major city in UK would be likely to be targeted. And the very best way to prevent any such exchange is to retain our own deterrent at whatever cost. One is tempted to think of accounts of the 1930s when the country was desperate to avoid war, but only at the last minute started to begin to pay for the necessary preparations. The defence of the realm is the first and over-riding responsibility of whatever government is in power, and part of their duty is to spell out clearly to us all just what is being done in our defence.
I've already said that I don't approve of tax evasion, or indeed of benefit - or any other - sort of fraud. I wasn't aware of the figures which have been quoted and am not qualified to contest them.
Then perhaps, if you have not done your research, it is better not to comment on such matters rather than add to the frankly dangerous idea that benefit fraud is the major way in which this country is being duped out of money.
“Our defeats are softened and our victories are sweetened because we did it together.” - Toby Ziegler.
The problem with benefit fraud stats is that they are inaccurate. They do not catch everyone, and when they estimate to take account of that that is by its very nature inaccurate.
I have worked in a benefits environment, and multiple times a week I was having the "deprivation of capital/income" chat with people who wanted to hide their money so they could keep claiming benefits. I think talking of fraud is taking away from the real issue (in my opinion), of generational welfare dependents and benefit claiming as a lifestyle because, frankly, it is easier than working. Work doesn't always pay, and there's no point in pretending it does. If some claimants made the same effort they make into keeping their claim going as into looking for, and keeping, a job, they'd be raking it in.
I cannot agree more than with the thought of peace. But next week decisions have to be made, which will affect us all over the next five years. Firstly, in the interests (and reality of) real peace, let's for God's sake retain our nuclear deterrent and be sure we're defended against the ultimate threat. Let those making future nuclear threats be assured that whatever they may threaten they will, if necessary, get a full nuclear dose down their own necks if they should dare to try it on
As to austerity, reject it at your peril. Of course the present coalition hasn't got it all right. But if we're going to get our heads above water we simply cannot afford to go for an optimistic and unrealistic anti-austerity regime. Who the hell owes us a living? Who other than ourselves is going to bail us out? It's our debt, our extravagance, and our fault. For God's sake, vote for those most likely to get us out of it, without wishful thinking that we can somehow spend our way out of it ...
I didn't find claiming benefits easier than working. I found being on JSA and ESA (obviously at different times) absolutely soul destroying. Working is by far easier for me emotionally that sitting around on the dole. I felt heartbroken every time I had to go into the job centre and be escorted by security guards to my advisor. Thankfully I've never been on out of work benefits for very long stretches, and now not for a few years, but for me at least, working is kinder to my health.
I realise that that is completely about me, because I personally find it easier. I don't think a blanket statement like "claiming benefits is easier than working" is helpful, because for some people (even if it's the minority), that really isn't the case.
With regards to people at the head of big businesses deserving their pay rises? Perhaps they do (though I disagree with the extent of them in most cases), but are you saying that a big boss is more deserving of the pay rise than an ITU nurse (for example)? Granted, we can't afford for all nurses to get pay rises, but it's a lie when we're told "we're all in it together" when the rich get richer and the people who work on the front line (in jobs surely as deserving and that require just as hard work) are having their pay frozen.
“Our defeats are softened and our victories are sweetened because we did it together.” - Toby Ziegler.
I'm sorry, Aubergine, that i've given the impression that I think that benefit fraud is a major way of living. Though I do have clear memories of those in certain estates in Northern Ireland where no one had worked for generations, and there was no way that any of them were ever going to; you and I were paying for their total idleness, though they no doubt blamed us for it in some misguided way - and perhap still do!
As to nurses, of course the pay they earn is minuscule compared with the pay of the big bosses of major companies. But those same nurses, dedicated and expert as they are, could no way run a major company. Overall, in today's UK society people are paid what they're worth - I seem to understand that Doctors are now retiring in droves, having been paid lots for a very demanding job that requires dedication and long and exhausting hours. I don't begrudge them that, but I think they may have done better than many of us.
But for those of us in the harsh real world, we all have to make our own way, and it can often be difficult. However, the bottom line is that financial prudence/balance is everything and it needs to be paramount in the forthcoming election. I have yet to hear a coherent argument in favour of yet more spending - as per the mouthings of the Labour/SNP possible coalition. So vote against austerity if you will. But if you do, think about your children/grandchildren who will have to pay for it on your behalf in years to come.
For me, when it comes to my vote, I'll be looking to the best way to break out of recession, and for the best way to see the financial momentum of the country continue to move forward - rather than empty spoutings about how yet more debt can somehow be good for the economy.
Tony I find it a bit strange to say that ITU nurses couldn't do the job of a CEO and therefore they aren't worth a big pay packet.
Of course a nurse couldn't do a job like being a CEO as they have completely different training. But equally a CEO couldn't be a nurse. They'd be useless at it. But you can't say the CEOs of companies, and all the bankers deserve to be paid hundreds of times more than other extremely hard working people like nurses, paramedics, police.
People AREN'T paid what they're worth, they don't get paid in relation to how hard they work. It's completely unfair in this country. I'm not suggesting we go down the route of communism or anything, but you can't justify CEOs getting their big bonuses because they deserve millions of pounds for working hard. Lots of other people in this country will work just as hard, or harder, for pittance of a salary.
Isn’t it funny how day by day nothing changes but when you look back, everything is different…
you once called your brain a hard drive, well say hello to the virus.
Well Sherlock, if we're not to go down the communist route, what other system of wages/salaries are we to follow? There'll be unfairnesses in any system and of course it is the responsibility of government to try to sort these out. I have great sympathy and admiration for nurses and their dedication but we simply can't afford to pay them vast amounts - in my time I've been shot at and bombed for no more than they then got and I sometimes felt that 20 times my pay wouldn't have been fair compensation (my pay was 20p a day when I first joined the army, and then having been commissioned after doing the full 18-month Sandhurst thing, I was paid a whole £1.05 per day - riches, but of course I did risk getting my head blown off.)
As to the huge salaries of some senior executives, companies such as theirs are answerable to their shareholders at least once a year. If the company is thriving and producing a good return on investments then the shareholders will be happy to retain a CEO at a substantial enough salary to avoid having him poached by some rival firm. Those shareholders are investing money that they've saved out of taxed income and, understandably, they expect a return on it. Sorry that neither you or I are capable of holding down such an appointment - but then neither are the nurses, for all the wonderful work that they do in their own sphere.
Tony I find it a bit strange to say that ITU nurses couldn't do the job of a CEO and therefore they aren't worth a big pay packet.
Of course a nurse couldn't do a job like being a CEO as they have completely different training. But equally a CEO couldn't be a nurse. They'd be useless at it. But you can't say the CEOs of companies, and all the bankers deserve to be paid hundreds of times more than other extremely hard working people like nurses, paramedics, police.
People AREN'T paid what they're worth, they don't get paid in relation to how hard they work. It's completely unfair in this country. I'm not suggesting we go down the route of communism or anything, but you can't justify CEOs getting their big bonuses because they deserve millions of pounds for working hard. Lots of other people in this country will work just as hard, or harder, for pittance of a salary.
The market should decide peoples' wages, not some arbitrary definition of what peoples' work is worth.
But surely the market does decide wages. No major company is going to pay a CEO some huge sum of money unless they and their shareholders believe that he will earn that payment by producing profits/expansion for that company - otherwise he won't last long.
At the other end of the scale, a company employing, say, 200 people making widgets will only pay those workers just enough to ensure that they can keep those workers and not have them go to another firm down the road. The market dictates that they must make a profit and paying over-generous wages acts against that and will quickly put them out of business - which will of course mean no jobs at all. So the market decides what an expert and deserving widget-maker will earn 'cos if we don't pay them enough we'll have no widgets, but if we overpay them there'll be no widget-making companies surviving.
I note that this brings us back to finance and the crunch is coming next Thursday. Do we want a government of Labour, whose past record has been of consistent and wilful overspending, backed by an SNP bent on the destruction of the Union and which has declared that it's positively anti-austerity, or do we settle for an alternative which may certainly have its faults but which has shown itself over the years as very much more capable of balancing the economy. We are deeply in debt for God's sake and whatever one may feel about particular issues and however much they may rankle, only a sound and recovering economy will allow us any room at all to put anything right. And anyone voting for an anti-austerity party - well, on your children's heads be it ...
But Cameron failed, he said he would balance the books by 2015 and he has failed while making the debt bigger. Even with unfair austerity he HAS FAILED.
True enough about the note and he still gets grief about that to this day but conservatives have not shown anything whatsoever that they are the only party that can fix this and I think the classic rhetoric that everything was Labours fault is to deflect everyone away from the bad job they are doing instead of people looking ahead.
This is why I am sad there is no proper Socialist party anymore. the closest party to that is probably the Greens and will they get in? I doubt it and Ed has said he wants to do it all alone. So Labour it is for me just so people worse off than I can actually feed their kids.
