Vote Tory for a..umm...err..we sort of might have a sort of referendum on Europe.

[Nibble]

If politicians want to meet with media moguls, and industrial tycoons, and heads of state, members of other governments, members of Royal Families, there are ways to do that. Those ways are through Official channels, they are subject to a degree of transparency and media scrutiny, and most importantly public scrutiny.

There are reasons that things are done this way, those reasons being to avoid conflicts of interest and corruption.

Like you, I believe that this world runs on an old boys network (although it is not just comprised of men). But you seem to think that is fine, I think that there is something not right about that, and it baffles me that people pretend it is not so, or when accepting that it is so, suggest that anyone who has a problem with it is mad or should be marginalized.

It's like you have Stolkholm Syndrome.

I just try and work within it to acheive what I wish to cheive rather than spending my days worryinng about things I have zero control over.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

For anyone who is interested Nigel Farage is now taking calls on the James Whale show on LBC.
London's Biggest Conversation - LBC Radio 97.3 | LBC

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

But Europe is never going to achieve all those things, because every nation in Europe has a different attitude and cultural way of doing and thinking about things. And there is much financial disparity between nations. The poorer nations, like Bulgaria and Romania are rubbing their hands with glee at all the European money which is going to be tarmacked all over their countries, and at the reduction in benefits they will have to pay to their huge numbers of unemployed because they'll all hop off to England, the land of milk and honey. If you can imagine the worst slum in England, the very worst, most Bulgarian and Romanian nationals live in houses even worse than that. To them, a shed at the bottom of someone's garden is luxury compared to what they live in, now. With the hope of a job, a shed to live in, and a state that will pay them to live here, they will come in their droves.

And besides, this is utterly and totally the wrong time to do this. We are in the middle of the worst recession in many generations, and he heaps yet more uncertaintly on the UK. What will any potential UK investors think now? f***ing crazy and I seriously worry for ANYONE who thinks that Cameron and Osborne's are doing any good. They are royally screwing up the UK big time.

 

[blue2]

And besides, this is utterly and totally the wrong time to do this. We are in the middle of the worst recession in many generations, and he heaps yet more uncertaintly on the UK. What will any potential UK investors think now? f***ing crazy and I seriously worry for ANYONE who thinks that Cameron and Osborne's are doing any good. They are royally screwing up the UK big time.

Totally agree with this

 

[yxee]

Absolute bollocks.

This is based on the assumption that the manager is some kind of omnipotent being and there is a constant supply of skilled people to fill specific jobs.

Are you really saying that you'll employ people if it's easier to get rid of them?

I'm saying the risk is lower, so the decision is made easier with looser labour laws. I hear this argument all the time, and it seems to make sense to me.

 

[Nibble]

And besides, this is utterly and totally the wrong time to do this. We are in the middle of the worst recession in many generations, and he heaps yet more uncertaintly on the UK. What will any potential UK investors think now? f***ing crazy and I seriously worry for ANYONE who thinks that Cameron and Osborne's are doing any good. They are royally screwing up the UK big time.

Spot on.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

That is a seriously dumb point to make in an argument. Do you have even the faintest grasp of economics ?

I didn't make the point so you might want to aim your dumb ass question at the person that did.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

And it isn't only the English who like a bargain. They think you're nuts, in foreign markets, if you don't barter with them. They snigger to themselves if you just pay whatever they ask

I am not talking about a f***ing Moroccan souk or whatever. What I mean is cost is not the first and only consideration. For most of the UK business it is.

 

[CheeseRolls]

I didn't make the point so you might want to aim your dumb ass question at the person that did.

Please accept my apologies - now could you please pass the keyboard back to the other Westdene Seagull - the one who was talking shite earlier - thanks

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Who is going to make the blanket statement he is requesting ? and with what authority ?

Good grief - the OP made the statement that the US and Commonwealth had said they would no longer trade with us if we left the EU. If this is the case then I'd like to see the evidence - why make such a post if it isn't true ?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Loose labour laws sound heartless, but they kept workers on their toes and keen to keep their jobs. If they left their job, there was always someone local to fill it. And if that new someone was useless, there was always someone else, and someone else, until you found the worker who could do the job properly. Now, so many companies are staffed by people who just don't know how to do their job, but they can't be got rid of.

There are plenty of reports and papers which suggest more stringent employment laws lead to a better economy. Workers who are confident about their employment spend more. Workers who feel they could get the chop tomorrow dont. And besides, surely the onus is on the empoyer to make the right choice? Successful companies will do this. And if you do employ someone who is useless it is not too difficult to get shot of them. Do you really seriously propose an employment model where employers continually hire, train and fire?

 

[yxee]

There are plenty of reports and papers which suggest more stringent employment laws lead to a better economy. Workers who are confident about their employment spend more. Workers who feel they could get the chop tomorrow dont. And besides, surely the onus is on the empoyer to make the right choice? Successful companies will do this. And if you do employ someone who is useless it is not too difficult to get shot of them. Do you really seriously propose an employment model where employers continually hire, train and fire?

Why would an employer fire a trained employee? Employing and training someone is an investment. An employer is more likely to make that investment if they know they can cut their losses if it ever turns bad. If I tell you "you can hire someone, but you have to keep them for two years and go through a tribunal if you want to fire them" or something like that, you're going to think "do I REALLY need this person?" before taking the risk. It's much easier to take a risk on hiring someone if you know you can get rid of them if they're rubbish. The best interviewer in the world can't be 100% certain they've got the right person, so that risk always exists.

 

[Camicus]

But Europe is never going to achieve all those things, because every nation in Europe has a different attitude and cultural way of doing and thinking about things. And there is much financial disparity between nations. The poorer nations, like Bulgaria and Romania are rubbing their hands with glee at all the European money which is going to be tarmacked all over their countries, and at the reduction in benefits they will have to pay to their huge numbers of unemployed because they'll all hop off to England, the land of milk and honey. If you can imagine the worst slum in England, the very worst, most Bulgarian and Romanian nationals live in houses even worse than that. To them, a shed at the bottom of someone's garden is luxury compared to what they live in, now. With the hope of a job, a shed to live in, and a state that will pay them to live here, they will come in their droves.

So as Europeans (You cannot change geography) shouldnt we all have the same living standards? I assume you have never actually been to Romania or Bulgaria both former easter block countries both now a free democracy the Romanian economy was transformed into one of relative macroeconomic stability, characterised by high growth, low unemployment and declining inflation. In 2006, according to the Romanian Statistics Office, GDP growth in real terms was recorded at 7.7%, one of the highest rates in Europe. Bulgaria has one of the highest levels of infrastructer dont forget the Romanian/Bulgarian oil fields.

So much for your shed dwelling parasites rubbing there hands in glee and all the unhaggling UK peoples they are here to fleece. IF we can put aside nationality and all work towards making the whole of Europe a good place to live we can do that but not all the time Daily mail readers have the blinkers on

 

[soistes]

There are plenty of reports and papers which suggest more stringent employment laws lead to a better economy. Workers who are confident about their employment spend more. Workers who feel they could get the chop tomorrow dont. And besides, surely the onus is on the empoyer to make the right choice? Successful companies will do this. And if you do employ someone who is useless it is not too difficult to get shot of them. Do you really seriously propose an employment model where employers continually hire, train and fire?

Not quite true, actually. The most authoritative statistical studies on this, by OECD, which involve comparing the economic performance of different countries, correlating that with the strictness of employment legislation in those countries, and controlling for other possibly relevant factors such as industrial structure etc, conclude that there is no association between the strictness of employment legislation and economic performance. Equally if you look within countries at changes over time in employment legislation, there is no correlation with economic performance -- e.g. in UK we have changed the threshold for unfair dismissal and redundancy several times since the 1970s, and all the studies that have looked at it find that it made no difference to overall employment levels.
However, this doesn't mean that employment protection is not a good thing -- it is, because it stops people being exploited by employers. All it shows is that the debate about whether or not it's bad or good for the economy is a bit of a red herring.

 

[Camicus]

Not to mention the 13 players that wouldnt be playing for the Albion if we quit the EU

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Not to mention the 13 players that wouldnt be playing for the Albion if we quit the EU

Really, I'm sure there's Swiss and Norwegian players in our leagues ?

 

[JCL666]

Why would an employer fire a trained employee? Employing and training someone is an investment. An employer is more likely to make that investment if they know they can cut their losses if it ever turns bad. If I tell you "you can hire someone, but you have to keep them for two years and go through a tribunal if you want to fire them" or something like that, you're going to think "do I REALLY need this person?" before taking the risk. It's much easier to take a risk on hiring someone if you know you can get rid of them if they're rubbish. The best interviewer in the world can't be 100% certain they've got the right person, so that risk always exists.

All employers should be asking do I really need this role prior to even thinking about recruiting.

I tell you what. You name an EU directive on employment that you think has contributed to increased unemployment.

 

[abc]

What a fudge Dave. 2015 and we get a renegotiation refererendum and then perhaps an in out vote.

No.

Completely clear. A referendum is guaranteed by the Tories (if in power) and it will be an IN/OUT vote.

Not a fudge in sight!

 

[Algernon]

The fudge will come once re-elected. You don't believe promises made by politicians do you?

 

[yxee]

All employers should be asking do I really need this role prior to even thinking about recruiting.

I don't see why it should be binary. Labour is a resource and the employer will pay for it if they judge its value to be greater than the asking price. As it becomes easier to fire someone, the risk of employment reduces and the value of the labour increases. At some critical point this value exceeds the wage, and the person is hired.

I tell you what. You name an EU directive on employment that you think has contributed to increased unemployment.

I was making a general point. I have no idea about EU directives.