Why is it that the Press seem totally unable to have a rational conversation about this?
Economics doesn't come more basic than this. You cannot tax less. And spend more. Without increasing (the already unsustainable) debt mountain
The Conservative Party gave us 14 years of austerity. Cut spending pretty much everywhere. And yet still gave us record taxation, And a massive deficit (it is far higher now than 14 years ago).
Leaving to 1 side the fantasy world of getting the super-rich to pay their fair share (it is never going to happen) this Govt-any Govt-is only left with a pretty unappealing set of options.
It's all very well bleating about taxing X less. Or giving Y (usually Pensioners) more. The simple fact of the matter is that can only be achieved by taxing someone else more. Or giving another deserving group less. And to pretend otherwise is just stupid
PS. Fun fact of the day. Remember all those newspapers harrumphing about Starmer's free Taylor Swift tickets? Funny how they forgot to mention that nearly every newspaper (and some of the columnists themselves) also received free tickets. Because it is not only politicians who are two-faced.
Pretty much every Govt blames the last one. Usually with some justification.
The only difference is the way the Press reports it. Ignoring Tory overspending, while highlighting Labour.
All this talk about a ยฃ20Billion black hole needs to be put into context. Our current Govt Debt (which goes up under every Govt) currently stands at ยฃ2.7 Trillion.
To put that into more relatable numbers that is about ยฃ40,000 for every man, woman, and child in the UK.
While the Tories promised to reduce the Debt, in the 14 years it doubled. Regardless of all the belt tightening. And-for all the talk-it will carry on going up.
1. Put the Central(-ish) London (and other major Cities) prisons, such as Wormwood Scrubs up for sale 2. Get planning permission for the land on which they sit to be sold for housing 3. Sell the prisons 4. Then use the money to build new prisons in the middle of nowhere 5. Then introduce new rules to incarcerate tens of thousands of extra prisoners
I'm sorry to burst the bubble of these crazed loons. Bit if I could just point out 1 or 2 teeny-weensy flaws in this masterplan:-
(1) 1-3 is going to take about 10 years (or 15 if you realise the 1st time this could start is after the next election) (2) 4 is going to take another 10 years, once you get the requisite planning permission, deal with the objectors, and build them (3) Exactly what is going to happen when it is realised you have just created a 10-20 year window where you have to release about 50,000 prisoners. Not this year. Every year (4) The cost of extra prisoners is massive. From the cost of building the prisons, to staffing them, to the loss of tax revenue (5) I'm guessing that budgeting ยฃ100 Billion or so on Prisons is not going to be a vote-winner
It's not just that Jenrick is as thick as mince. He is clearly surrounding himself with people just as deluded
Just want to deal with one. The proposal to cut time period before can claim Unfair Dismissal from 2 years to 0.
I have rather a lot of experience in relation to this. And:-
1. It would stop the thousands of cases where people try to shoehorn in some sort of Discrimination because they have less than 2 years' service; and
2. Is it really so terrible that Employers will lose the right to break contracts without good reason for 2 years? Name another contract where people have this sort of time period to break contracts?
Just want to deal with one. The proposal to cut time period before can claim Unfair Dismissal from 2 years to 0.
I have rather a lot of experience in relation to this. And:-
1. It would stop the thousands of cases where people try to shoehorn in some sort of Discrimination because they have less than 2 years' service; and
2. Is it really so terrible that Employers will lose the right to break contracts without good reason for 2 years? Name another contract where people have this sort of time period to break contracts?
Two years may be too long, but 0 may well be too short. I am not sure of the likely penalties of being found guilty of unfair dismissal of someone who had been employed for 5 minutes. I think that a relatively short probationary period is fair. Some people just dont fit. It will probably create a whole layer of admin for employers that can afford it, where they will document any transgressions irrespective of how trivial.
Just want to deal with one. The proposal to cut time period before can claim Unfair Dismissal from 2 years to 0.
I have rather a lot of experience in relation to this. And:-
1. It would stop the thousands of cases where people try to shoehorn in some sort of Discrimination because they have less than 2 years' service; and
2. Is it really so terrible that Employers will lose the right to break contracts without good reason for 2 years? Name another contract where people have this sort of time period to break contracts?
Two years may be too long, but 0 may well be too short. I am not sure of the likely penalties of being found guilty of unfair dismissal of someone who had been employed for 5 minutes. I think that a relatively short probationary period is fair. Some people just dont fit. It will probably create a whole layer of admin for employers that can afford it, where they will document any transgressions irrespective of how trivial.
If the papers actually reported what is actually being proposed, it would help.
The starting point is 0. But that is not the only finishing point. It just means that any Probationary Period must be expressly in the Contract-rather than just an automatic 2 year Get Out of Jail Free. The norm is expected to be a 6-month Probationary period.
It will then be clear to the Employer, and the Employee, just what the Probationary Period is. Rather than the current 2 year period which is never communicated.
You are right. some people just don't fit. Not necessarily their fault-can just as easily be the job or the current staff. But if an Employer cannot spot that within 6 months then there is a serious problem within the management of that Company.
Just want to deal with one. The proposal to cut time period before can claim Unfair Dismissal from 2 years to 0.
I have rather a lot of experience in relation to this. And:-
1. It would stop the thousands of cases where people try to shoehorn in some sort of Discrimination because they have less than 2 years' service; and
2. Is it really so terrible that Employers will lose the right to break contracts without good reason for 2 years? Name another contract where people have this sort of time period to break contracts?
Two years may be too long, but 0 may well be too short. I am not sure of the likely penalties of being found guilty of unfair dismissal of someone who had been employed for 5 minutes. I think that a relatively short probationary period is fair. Some people just dont fit. It will probably create a whole layer of admin for employers that can afford it, where they will document any transgressions irrespective of how trivial.
If the papers actually reported what is actually being proposed, it would help.
The starting point is 0. But that is not the only finishing point. It just means that any Probationary Period must be expressly in the Contract-rather than just an automatic 2 year Get Out of Jail Free. The norm is expected to be a 6-month Probationary period.
It will then be clear to the Employer, and the Employee, just what the Probationary Period is. Rather than the current 2 year period which is never communicated.
You are right. some people just don't fit. Not necessarily their fault-can just as easily be the job or the current staff. But if an Employer cannot spot that within 6 months then there is a serious problem within the management of that Company.
Comments
Economics doesn't come more basic than this. You cannot tax less. And spend more. Without increasing (the already unsustainable) debt mountain
The Conservative Party gave us 14 years of austerity. Cut spending pretty much everywhere. And yet still gave us record taxation, And a massive deficit (it is far higher now than 14 years ago).
Leaving to 1 side the fantasy world of getting the super-rich to pay their fair share (it is never going to happen) this Govt-any Govt-is only left with a pretty unappealing set of options.
It's all very well bleating about taxing X less. Or giving Y (usually Pensioners) more. The simple fact of the matter is that can only be achieved by taxing someone else more. Or giving another deserving group less. And to pretend otherwise is just stupid
PS. Fun fact of the day. Remember all those newspapers harrumphing about Starmer's free Taylor Swift tickets? Funny how they forgot to mention that nearly every newspaper (and some of the columnists themselves) also received free tickets. Because it is not only politicians who are two-faced.
The only difference is the way the Press reports it. Ignoring Tory overspending, while highlighting Labour.
All this talk about a ยฃ20Billion black hole needs to be put into context. Our current Govt Debt (which goes up under every Govt) currently stands at ยฃ2.7 Trillion.
To put that into more relatable numbers that is about ยฃ40,000 for every man, woman, and child in the UK.
While the Tories promised to reduce the Debt, in the 14 years it doubled. Regardless of all the belt tightening. And-for all the talk-it will carry on going up.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/reeves-puts-bond-market-over-050000044.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/robert-jenrick-unveils-five-strikes-and-youre-out-policy/ar-AA1sFVJT?ocid=BingNewsSerp
This is the "Plan".
1. Put the Central(-ish) London (and other major Cities) prisons, such as Wormwood Scrubs up for sale
2. Get planning permission for the land on which they sit to be sold for housing
3. Sell the prisons
4. Then use the money to build new prisons in the middle of nowhere
5. Then introduce new rules to incarcerate tens of thousands of extra prisoners
I'm sorry to burst the bubble of these crazed loons. Bit if I could just point out 1 or 2 teeny-weensy flaws in this masterplan:-
(1) 1-3 is going to take about 10 years (or 15 if you realise the 1st time this could start is after the next election)
(2) 4 is going to take another 10 years, once you get the requisite planning permission, deal with the objectors, and build them
(3) Exactly what is going to happen when it is realised you have just created a 10-20 year window where you have to release about 50,000 prisoners. Not this year. Every year
(4) The cost of extra prisoners is massive. From the cost of building the prisons, to staffing them, to the loss of tax revenue
(5) I'm guessing that budgeting ยฃ100 Billion or so on Prisons is not going to be a vote-winner
It's not just that Jenrick is as thick as mince. He is clearly surrounding himself with people just as deluded
Just want to deal with one. The proposal to cut time period before can claim Unfair Dismissal from 2 years to 0.
I have rather a lot of experience in relation to this. And:-
1. It would stop the thousands of cases where people try to shoehorn in some sort of Discrimination because they have less than 2 years' service; and
2. Is it really so terrible that Employers will lose the right to break contracts without good reason for 2 years? Name another contract where people have this sort of time period to break contracts?
I am not sure of the likely penalties of being found guilty of unfair dismissal of someone who had been employed for 5 minutes.
I think that a relatively short probationary period is fair.
Some people just dont fit.
It will probably create a whole layer of admin for employers that can afford it, where they will document any transgressions irrespective of how trivial.
The starting point is 0. But that is not the only finishing point. It just means that any Probationary Period must be expressly in the Contract-rather than just an automatic 2 year Get Out of Jail Free. The norm is expected to be a 6-month Probationary period.
It will then be clear to the Employer, and the Employee, just what the Probationary Period is. Rather than the current 2 year period which is never communicated.
You are right. some people just don't fit. Not necessarily their fault-can just as easily be the job or the current staff. But if an Employer cannot spot that within 6 months then there is a serious problem within the management of that Company.