Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:12 pm  

Were all suffering from the politics of envy mind.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:58 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

To be fair, there's only been one who went OTT. Fortunately he waved the white flag and buggered off somewhere near the bottom of page 6

Well he has achived one thing!. Me and you are agreeing on something.
We both have much the same view on him.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:23 pm  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

I have done allsorts.
Delivery driver, Fitters mate, Labouror, CNC operator, Line setter at a cake factory and Storeman.
I can turn my hand to pretty much anything as my CV shows.

I wonder if that's a case of too much variety? I find the same in my industry at times - I've worked in more roles than anyone I know but that sometimes goes against me. The longest role I've had is my current position of 5 1/2 years - that's mainly due to working overseas and switching roles within the same company a few times. I know the fields I'm good in but if someone's being doing it none-stop for 10 years I'm at a disadvantage.

Conversely, I also imagine the first few roles you mention such as labourer are inundated with applicants at the moment - including entry-level labour from schools and colleges (and yes, possibly from Europe). I know every single lad in our team working in similar roles has lost work and suffered problems throughout the last few years, often more than once. As a result most have had to take work that involves weekends (team selection is a nightmare!).

Anyway, congrats on finding a temp job and good luck. As I always tell my friends and myself when looking - it might take a hundred applications, but you only need to get the right job once.

Could it be that you're putting 'Anakin Skywalker' on your CV? Put me off, that would.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 17, 2011 11:09 pm  

I think it's a good move, I work with a lot of young unemployed people and for many of them the thought of getting a job doesn't even cross their mind because their parents and relatives don't work. If it manages to instill a work ethic into even a few of them then it's worthwhile.

To those who say we are subsidising the supermarkets -I agree. However I'd be much happier knowing that my contributions to the economy are at least going on even a dubious social mobility scheme than just being handed out without any meaningful checks that they are even looking for work. Maybe if the Labour government hadn't been quite so free and easy with taxpayers money in the first place, we wouldn't be in quite the pickle we find ourselves in at present.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 17, 2011 11:44 pm  

Standee wrote:

but that is the thing, the majority of the perpetually unemployed think they should be able to get a job just around the corner from their house, on hours to suit them at a minimum of £22k a year

it's time we removed benefits for those that can work but wont, and give the money saved to those that would work but genuinelt cant.

Doesnt seem like they are asking for a lot to be honest.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 17, 2011 11:53 pm  

TrinityIHC wrote:

... Maybe if the Labour government hadn't been quite so free and easy with taxpayers money in the first place, we wouldn't be in quite the pickle we find ourselves in at present.

Are this country's problems unconnected to the global financial crisis - or did Tone and Gordy cause that too?

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 17, 2011 11:55 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Doesnt seem like they are asking for a lot to be honest.

£22k would, sensibly, get you a mortgage of £66k. And we all know how easy it is to get on the property ladder that way, eh? Rent, of course, is so, SO much cheaper.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 17, 2011 11:59 pm  

Mintball wrote:

£22k would, sensibly, get you a mortgage of £66k. And we all know how easy it is to get on the property ladder that way, eh? Rent, of course, is so, SO much cheaper.

I dont get what part of a livable wage, and conditions which allow you a family life is supposed to be greedy?

Did i miss the vote where we decided that most people having a decent quality of life was less important than a ridiculously small minority living in decadence?

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 17, 2011 11:59 pm  

Hmmmm. Government debt was higher the last time the Tories were in power than at any time under Labour's last spell in power except for 2009.

Now what might have happened in 2008 to make government debt rise? I honestly can't think of any global event that might have led to the UK government having to spend more money.

Damn those reckless, free-spending, irresponsible lefties. If only the Tories had been in then debt would have fallen, as their record shows. Right?

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:02 am  

Him wrote:

Hmmmm. Government debt was higher the last time the Tories were in power than at any time under Labour's last spell in power except for 2009.

Now what might have happened in 2008 to make government debt rise? I honestly can't think of any global event that might have led to the UK government having to spend more money.

Damn those reckless, free-spending, irresponsible lefties. If only the Tories had been in then debt would have fallen, as their record shows. Right?

That's nonsense! Next thing you'll be claiming is that debt rose under decent, right-wing conservative administrations in the US - and that would obviously be ridiculous!

Oh ...