Iain Duncan Smith resigns

[yod dropper]

I did say MODEST income, not millionaires.

A couple on £40,000 a year in London may suddenly find themselves having to find £2.500 a month in rent.

 

Then it would appear that Osbourne, you and I are in agreement. In that not everybody should receive subsidised rent just because they happen to have received it in the past. It's just a case of at what income they benefit from it, you say £40k(?), the government says less but you both seem to agree that the better off should not benefit. There will be loads of families earning less than others who are getting subsidised rent, this isn't 'fair' or targeted at those who need it most. If Osbourne & co. introduced a housing (or other) policy that gave benefits to the better, rather than the worse off, there'd be an uproar from the left but this is what they're defending.

Edited March 22, 2016 by yod dropper

[panoma1]

From an employers perspective zero hours contracts are very advantageous because they can staff to suit the peaks and troughs of their business which maximises their savings on such things as production costs etc.........from an employees perspective, if that zero hours contract fulfils your needs that's fine, but for young people with little option but to take a job on a zero hours contract (or remain out of work)............how do they get on the property ladder when they wont be able to get a mortgage because their earnings are neither regular, reliable nor predictable?

Edited March 22, 2016 by panoma1

[UKPoacher]

So people who might be able to scrape by on savings should voluntarily stand aside from a job that gives them extra cash because someone else 'more needy' could have that job?

 

Why don't you extend that premise a little further and say people with savings in the bank should give that money to those who borrow, after all arguably they need that money more.

 

Why is a zero hours contract not a 'proper contract'?

 

There are many people, as stated above, who really enjoy the flexibility of zero hours, likewise there are loads of businesses who need the flexibility otherwise they would not have a business.

 

People have been working on a casual labour basis for years and years, just that we have given it a name now "zero hours contract" that folk get all up in arms about it on the basis of half baked and thoroughly misplaced ideology.

 

Of course there are businesses who abuse it, just as there are those who abuse fixed hours contracts or no paid overtime contracts and just the same as there are workers who abuse what their employer offers.

 

Much easier to blame the instrument than the person playing it though.

 

Whilst zero hours contracts might suit some who choose to supplement other earnings, it does not offer the necessary stability to those with no other income and no choice but to take the zero hours contracts or lose their benefits. Zero hours contracts allow businesses to exploit workers in a way that is reminiscent of America in the 1950's.

[chris1961]

 

Drivel, and as you quite rightly say a rant.

 

There is not a bottomless pit of malways ou care to look at ttth s background he has always had a 'care' for those in the community.

 

He has had the thankless job of trying to manage a ballooning (in payments) department - what is your suggestion - that we pay as much as they want to all applicants?

 

It has to be managed somehow, and there will always be a fall guy who has to make the decisions. No such system can be faultless, and all you can do is try to root out the scammers (we all know a few) and protect those most in need.

Tell that to the people that have been acesed fit for work only to die a couple of days later and by a French company employed by the government

Edited March 22, 2016 by chris1961

[armsid]

744,000. on zero hrs contracts if they were fully employed even paying £10.00 week tax it is £7,4m.per week that is alot out of the economy add on working longer till retirement and you end up with even more debt as the older ones have health issues so get benifitts till their 70

[Danger-Mouse]

 

Whilst zero hours contracts might suit some who choose to supplement other earnings, it does not offer the necessary stability to those with no other income and no choice but to take the zero hours contracts or lose their benefits. Zero hours contracts allow businesses to exploit workers in a way that is reminiscent of America in the 1950's.

 

I`ve done my fair share of zero hours contracts work. There are definitely pros and cons to them.

 

I enjoyed the fact that if I fancied some time off I could just tell my employer I didn`t want to work the next week or two, no messing about booking holidays. But the negative side of that is if you take time off in a busy period then you`re likely to find yourself at the bottom of the pile when work becomes more scarce.

 

But the truth is you can work every hour they offer you, be the most hard working loyal employee on the firm, but when the work dries up that won`t matter a damn, you`ll be left with no hours just like everyone else. There were times when no work was available for month after month.

 

It rarely bothered me but I`m single and rent my house. If work dried up I could always get my rent paid. But plenty of the guys I worked with had mortgages and families and there were times they really struggled.

 

But that`s my experience from some years ago. At that time the industry I was working in paid a decent rate and combined with the long hours you were expected to work you could make a decent living. Nowadays I could sign up and do the same job with the same hours and my pay cheque at the end of the week would be less than it was over a decade ago.

[Dead-Eyed Duck]

Tell that to the people that have been acesed fit for work only to die a couple of days later and by a French company employed by the government

 

If the instance that you are referring to is correct, then I have to have a huge amount of sympathy.

 

However, I am pretty certain that there are others who will put their hands up to identify similar occurrences under true socialist (Labour) governments. No system is perfect, and you have to manage it under the funds available.

 

Partly as a result of labour policies the country is (was) bust. Haven't you noticed?

[BrowningB525]

744,000. on zero hrs contracts if they were fully employed even paying £10.00 week tax it is £7,4m.per week that is alot out of the economy add on working longer till retirement and you end up with even more debt as the older ones have health issues so get benifitts till their 70

 

People pay tax on zero hours contracts if they earn over 10k per annum.

 

Zero hours contracts are a minimum, not a maximum.

[grrclark]

 

Whilst zero hours contracts might suit some who choose to supplement other earnings, it does not offer the necessary stability to those with no other income and no choice but to take the zero hours contracts or lose their benefits. Zero hours contracts allow businesses to exploit workers in a way that is reminiscent of America in the 1950's.

 

That is far too simplistic a statement. Zero hour contracts are not the only jobs on offer, as has been stated elsewhere in this thread they form a relatively small proportion of total employment in the UK.

 

Exploitative businesses were always exploitative, whether it was called zero hours contracts, casual labour, piece time working, commission only, opportunity to earn, etc. It does suck that people will be exploitative, but it is the nature of people.

 

I am self employed so effectively zero hours, I have to go out and find people who want to give me money in order to deliver a service, I have to make the services that I offer attractive enough for someone else to want to buy them. I don't have an expectation that the state should give me money because I have no guarantee of income.

 

I'm sure that farmers would wish for guaranteed weather so that they can plan growing and harvest cycles and crop yield with absolute reliability, that they wish for predictable commodity prices so they can save and make provisions for mortgage, machinery purchases, pensions, etc.

 

Of course everybody would love to have a promise of guaranteed and predictable income in order to plan, make provision for the future, etc, but life doesn't follow an ideological handbook around an artificial notion of 'fairness' and people need to take responsibility for themselves and stop looking to others to take responsibility for them.

 

There are some who are not capable of taking care of themselves and they should be taken care of with the utmost of respect, but we have a massive problem of an over inflated sense of entitlement in this country and it's getting worse.

[Rewulf]

 

people need to take responsibility for themselves and stop looking to others to take responsibility for them.

 

There are some who are not capable of taking care of themselves and they should be taken care of with the utmost of respect, but we have a massive problem of an over inflated sense of entitlement in this country and it's getting worse.

 

This is the crux of the matter.

People dont have to work,because they know the state will look after them.

There are literally generations of shirkers and layabouts,people who will use any excuse to not take any meaningful employment.

Families copping disability benefits,because they have a child with 'ADHD' or some other behavioral issue.

When anyone with a grain of sense can see the child is just plain naughty.

Men and women with 'bad backs' or a 'dodgy leg' who did a few years work and decided it wasnt for them.

 

Before the abuse of the social state,people could remember the times where if you didnt work ,you didnt eat.

And there was no such thing as ADHD,tourettes and the like.

The times where people had respect for themselves,others and their country.

[rodp]

 

This is the crux of the matter.

People dont have to work,because they know the state will look after them.

There are literally generations of shirkers and layabouts,people who will use any excuse to not take any meaningful employment.

Families copping disability benefits,because they have a child with 'ADHD' or some other behavioral issue.

When anyone with a grain of sense can see the child is just plain naughty.

Men and women with 'bad backs' or a 'dodgy leg' who did a few years work and decided it wasnt for them.

 

Before the abuse of the social state,people could remember the times where if you didnt work ,you didnt eat.

And there was no such thing as ADHD Smack on the legs,tourettes Punch in the mouth and told not to use that language in front of my wife and the like.

The times where people had respect for themselves,others and their country.

There's always been a cure for those "ailments"

[Zapp]

Cheers for that, but since the thread isnt about punching people with recognised medical conditions in the face can we stay on topic please.

[felly100]

Funny!