Jump to content
Frank Grimes

General Election 2019 - AND IT’S LIVE!

X in the box for   

462 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, alta-pete said:


I’m on the app so can’t highlight individual words/phrases but if you’ve got a spare minute or so you can read this and pretty much get a full house at Freedom! Bingo.

I apologise young man, apparently i have omitted the generic and ingrained war cry of  "wearrapeepul" from the retort to wee malky.  How remiss of moi.  That would have given you a "big hoose" rather than your piss-taking "Freedom! Bingo".

You have a productive and safe day now.  Cho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BawWatchin said:

Black kids in Africa today are more better off than your great grandparents ever were. It's called evolution. 

 Was this in the 'Origin of the Species: More Better'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Malky3 said:

The number I've been banding about was the £12.6Bn difference between what the Scottish Government currently spends and what Scotland generates in tax revenues. That £12.6Bn extra comes from the Barnett Formula where we get more than a fair share of the wealth generated in London, the South East and the East of England. Those figures are not incorrect in any way shape of form. To completely balance the books the Independent Scottish Government would have to find a way to bridge a gap in funding which equates to just over 90% of the total spend on NHS Scotland. 

The current deficit equates to just under 8% of Scottish GDP - as I've said it would be one of the highest fiscal deficits in the Western world. To rejoin the EU you would need to get that deficit down to less than 3% per annum. That would still allow in Independent Scotland to run a much smaller deficit but each year it does so it puts itself further and further into debt and that kind of fiscal management of a Scottish economy would be completely at odds with the Norweigan one that Nationalists love to draw similarities to where they ran their economy at a surplus - not a deficit - in order to save money in a oil fund. 

Lets face it Scottish Nationalists are aggrieved at everything no matter how much proof and clarity I provide so I'm not concerned in the slightest if people are aggrieved at having the £12.6Bn figure repeated over and over again at them. All I want to know is what public services you would cut, and how much more tax would I have to pay to cover the cost of your fantasy. Be honest with the nation Joey Jo Jo - for the first time - be honest! 

 

Hi Malky,

It would have been easier to say "Scotland would not need to cut £12.6b a year from public spending and I am wrong to continuously throw this figure around".

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BawWatchin said:

Black kids in Africa today are more better off than your great grandparents ever were. It's called evolution. We have access to technologies now that were science fiction back in those days. But regardless, it doesn't stop poorer people going hungry,  or being more prone to sickness and other death risks.

Nobody cares how large or advanced their cheapo modern TV is compared to the black and white box of the 30s, if they haven't got food to eat.

Sorry Pal but I have to disagree with you stating black kids are better off now than our grandparents were 60 years ago, that is given that the average age or our grandparents is say 70,

I have Visited/worked in most West African countries and that is definately not the case, a lot of kids are in survival mode daily with sparse educational facilities and poor living conditions.

If you were to compare our grandparents with one area then that is Asia where in the main Children are well educated and provided for with ample work opportunities and financial growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pet Jeden said:

Surely, in UK poverty terms, both are true - even for some individuals. But the overlap between “can’t be bothered” and mental health problems, is big.

To say that both are true is disingenuous. The number of folk who are in poverty because they simply cannot be bothered doing anything about their circumstances is going to be so incredibly small a number as to be statistically worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ross. said:

To say that both are true is disingenuous. The number of folk who are in poverty because they simply cannot be bothered doing anything about their circumstances is going to be so incredibly small a number as to be statistically worthless.

Well, you would have to expand on what is meant by "can't be bothered" to make sense of this. But, for instance, have you never heard any adult say a potential job is "not worth taking because "it doesn't pay much more than benefits"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

Well, you would have to expand on what is meant by "can't be bothered" to make sense of this. But, for instance, have you never heard any adult say a potential job is "not worth taking because "it doesn't pay much more than benefits"?

Personally, no, I have never heard someone say this. That being said, even if someone did say that, and it was actually true, taking that job would still very likely leave them in relative poverty, so it wouldn't change a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, you would have to expand on what is meant by "can't be bothered" to make sense of this. But, for instance, have you never heard any adult say a potential job is "not worth taking because "it doesn't pay much more than benefits"?

I can confirm I've never heard an adult say this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MixuFixit said:


I can confirm I've never heard an adult say this.

What genteel, middle class circles you must move in, Mixu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ross. said:

Personally, no, I have never heard someone say this. That being said, even if someone did say that, and it was actually true, taking that job would still very likely leave them in relative poverty, so it wouldn't change a thing.

Yes, it's a logical decision. Short term

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

Yes, it's a logical decision. Short term

Not necessarily. Going back around 15 years I found myself out of work after a period of temping and short term contracts. I accepted a permanent job that was salaried but pretty much worked out as paying minimum wage, unless I met the bonus targets. Based on the basic salary and what I was paying in rent and council tax, I would have been as well off not working, as would most of my colleagues. In the time since, and through social media, I know that a fair number of the people I worked with are still there, and I know that the company involved still pays a very poor basic salary. If the targets they set now are anything like they were when I worked there, then most of those people are earning poverty wages, based on the UK figures for relative poverty. That is over a 15 year period, working 40-45 hours a week. If anyone refused that job, would you tell them they are thinking short term or that they are lazy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

Well, you would have to expand on what is meant by "can't be bothered" to make sense of this. But, for instance, have you never heard any adult say a potential job is "not worth taking because "it doesn't pay much more than benefits"?

If he turned down or failed to apply for such a job he'd have his benefits sanctioned pronto. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

Well, you would have to expand on what is meant by "can't be bothered" to make sense of this. But, for instance, have you never heard any adult say a potential job is "not worth taking because "it doesn't pay much more than benefits"?

Only on trash TV like Benefits Street etc. To do so would incur benefits sanctions but that's not to say it does not happen. I think everyone realises that there is a very small hard core in every society that has no intention of working and fully intend living on Benefits as long as they can but the numbers are tiny overall but they are bound to be areas with larger concentrations so if you live near or in such an area your impression might be skewed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ross. said:

Not necessarily. Going back around 15 years I found myself out of work after a period of temping and short term contracts. I accepted a permanent job that was salaried but pretty much worked out as paying minimum wage, unless I met the bonus targets. Based on the basic salary and what I was paying in rent and council tax, I would have been as well off not working, as would most of my colleagues. In the time since, and through social media, I know that a fair number of the people I worked with are still there, and I know that the company involved still pays a very poor basic salary. If the targets they set now are anything like they were when I worked there, then most of those people are earning poverty wages, based on the UK figures for relative poverty. That is over a 15 year period, working 40-45 hours a week. If anyone refused that job, would you tell them they are thinking short term or that they are lazy?

Would the person taking the job have expected to be still in it 15 years later? Probably not - so would it have been a reasonable thing to do to turn it down? You didn't. But here is the conundrum. Should the person who turned that job down get the same money from the state as the person who put up with working for 15 years for what sounds like a pretty scummy employer. (Surely with 15 years in the job their experience and loyalty is worth a bit more to the employer and/or they could have been trained into wider or more responsible roles)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pet Jeden said:

Would the person taking the job have expected to be still in it 15 years later? Probably not - so would it have been a reasonable thing to do to turn it down? You didn't. But here is the conundrum. Should the person who turned that job down get the same money from the state as the person who put up with working for 15 years for what sounds like a pretty scummy employer. (Surely with 15 years in the job their experience and loyalty is worth a bit more to the employer and/or they could have been trained into wider or more responsible roles)?

No, they shouldn't, but that isn't the fault of the person who is turning down the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ross. said:

No, they shouldn't, but that isn't the fault of the person who is turning down the job.

No it's not. But is the state paying too much or is the employer paying too little?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pet Jeden said:

No it's not. But is the state paying too much or is the employer paying too little?

The employer is paying too little and the state aids them in doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ross. said:

The employer is paying too little and the state aids them in doing so.

Do you mean by not setting minimum wage higher? Or by paying in-work benefits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

If he turned down or failed to apply for such a job he'd have his benefits sanctioned pronto. 

There are definitely other ways to make sure you're not getting that job.

I was on jobseekers for a few months after leaving uni. I was applying for the jobs I wanted but the rules were apply for something like 10 positions per week. Trawl the govt website, find 10 jobs that you'e unlikely to ever be hired for, send in an utterly shite CV. Get that done on a Monday morning. Spend the rest of the week working on applications for jobs you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...