Britain - The Official Thread

[MatskiMonk]

I wonder what everyone's making of Osborne's proposed "work for welfare" idea?

Personally, I think it's a bad idea. Given the minimum wage is £6.31/hr, and the dole is ~£67/wk, making the unemployed work for any more than 10 hours per week is under the minimum wage.

Oh heavens, wouldn't want people to have to work for their hand out would we?

 

[DK]

There's a similar programme over here called Jobbridge, where the unemployed are offered a €50 bonus on top of their dole if they were to take up a 6-month job placement. However, there are cases of big employers like supermarkets using this scheme just to get cheap labour, and often participants in this scheme are let go after 6 months and not hired at the wages any other employee in their position would get.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Oh heavens, wouldn't want people to have to work for their hand out would we?

If it's fair for them, then yes, of course they should.

But asking someone to work for a wage significantly less than minimum wage and have to cover the cost of working too is unfair.

A return bus fair alone could be £3-5, and that's if you've only got to catch one bus. Add in the cost of washing uniform, any childcare and other associated costs. It all adds up.

I don't agree with this idea of people having to go to the job centre to find jobs. It can be a full time task applying for jobs, and doing it stood at a kiosk, or just using the Job Centre list of positions is no use to anyone with qualifications and an extensive CV. But sadly even now, those people can end up unemployed.

 

[MatskiMonk]

If it's fair for them, then yes, of course they should.

But asking someone to work for a wage significantly less than minimum wage and have to cover the cost of working too is unfair.

A return bus fair alone could be £3-5, and that's if you've only got to catch one bus. Add in the cost of washing uniform, any childcare and other associated costs. It all adds up.

I don't agree with this idea of people having to go to the job centre to find jobs. It can be a full time task applying for jobs, and doing it stood at a kiosk, or just using the Job Centre list of positions is no use to anyone with qualifications and an extensive CV. But sadly even now, those people can end up unemployed.

Well, true enough, but I can't see it ending up in an exrtreme scenario where people are working for much less than minimum wage. Although I always struggle to be sympathetic, since I first started work for £2.27 an hour in 1994.

The whole way unemployment is handled could probably be better, from my point of view though, it's difficult for me to judge - though I do know people that have been unemployed, it's never been their sole benefit... so even though it may only have been £67 a week they still managed to hang on to a privately rented house and their car.

I'm sure this is also not a new idea... I seem to remember when my dad was made redundant from Rover from an annual salary of about £35k (20+ years ago, so about 60k today?), he was unemployed for three years, my parents ended up with a £98,000 overdraft, basically secured against the house IIRC, but anyway, he had a passionate dislike for Michael Portillo, who I seem to recall suggested those that were claiming the dole should be made to dig ditches for the council.

Either way, getting value out of paying benefits is going to become more of a vote winner as time goes by as far as I'm concerned - It is one of the issues that would sway my vote at least.

 

[DK]

On one hand, it might be a good idea to encourage the unemployed to spend a day or two each week volunteering for a local charity. They might gain experience in a workplace that may help their CV.

On the other hand, if you give them work that is akin to that given to petty criminals with ASBOs to their name, that's going to stigmatise them.

 

[MatskiMonk]

On one hand, it might be a good idea to encourage the unemployed to spend a day or two each week volunteering for a local charity. They might gain experience in a workplace that may help their CV. On the other hand, if you give them work that is akin to that given to petty criminals with ASBOs to their name, that's going to stigmatise them.

Well, I can't speak for all employers obviously, but we've been taking people on steadily for a couple years - don't et me wrong, there's still only 16 of us, so we're not big by any stretch, but no matter the role we hire for, it's ALL about attitude, and demonstrating a willingness to work is a big part of that, chances are if you've made eh effort to do some work at least during unemployment, then you're probably not the type of person that finds any excuse to not be at work when you do have a job. Seriously, finding good people is probably one of the hardest things about running a small business.

 

[ScouserInExile]

I'm sure this is also not a new idea... I seem to remember when my dad was made redundant from Rover from an annual salary of about £35k (20+ years ago, so about 60k today?), he was unemployed for three years, my parents ended up with a £98,000 overdraft, basically secured against the house IIRC, but anyway, he had a passionate dislike for Michael Portillo, who I seem to recall suggested those that were claiming the dole should be made to dig ditches for the council.

Sorry, what?

If they got 98k in debt in the three years after losing a 35k gross income, that meant they spent more, not less when their income dropped.

And what bank lets someone have on overdraft that big? Ours is about 500 quid when we pay in about 4k a month...

I call shenanigans on this one...

 

[Liquid]

Probably because the house was the collateral. Before everything went A over T, banks were happy to give out silly money secured against property, as well as for property.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Sorry, what?

If they got 98k in debt in the three years after losing a 35k gross income, that meant they spent more, not less when their income dropped.

And what bank lets someone have on overdraft that big? Ours is about 500 quid when we pay in about 4k a month...

I call shenanigans on this one...

It was related to the house, I was only in my early teens at this point so I don't recall all the detail, but it could have been to pay off a re-mortgage. The value of the house had gone up a lot, I guess as the value went up they borrowed against it to maintain the place. It also wasn't just because of the unemployment, in the end my dad went self employed, had to fund that, and then didn't have regular work for a while. The bank was RBS IIRC.

As for overdrafts, mine's 2 grand, I live in it since I only pay about 2 grand in each month

 

[Ganon83]

Found this bit on another forum I frequent, think you Brits might enjoy it.
http://toys.usvsth3m.com/super-tory-boy/

 

[Youngun]

Ha thats epic, funny more than fun. Missing ed though....... Secret enemy lol

 

[BHRxRacer]

---- wrong thread. Delete please

 

[Famine]

So... what's going on here then?

What neighbour has the temerity to refer to a couple he hasn't seen in FIFTEEN YEARS as "private and quiet"? What members of their family have they contacted who didn't notice Bill and Pat hadn't sent a birthday card or Christmas card since before Monica Lewinsky was even a thing?

Why did no-one - not the council (to whom they inevitably owed Council Tax), utilities companies (to whom they inevitably owed rates) or the postal service (who were delivering all of these red letters) notice this couple had effectively vanished in 1998?

 

[axletramp]

That house and lawn don't look like they've been neglected for 15 years. Something doesn't smell right here, and I'm not just talking about their patio!

 

[ExigeEvan]

That house and lawn don't look like they've been neglected for 15 years. Something doesn't smell right here, and I'm not just talking about their patio!

This.

And no one noticed someone digging 2 graves in the back garden?

Sounds like a family cover-up, or reptilian.

 

[dhandeh]

It's always the quiet ones!

 

[Famine]

There's been allegations it's connected to the Colin Gunn gang.

 

[axletramp]

British Gas made a profit of £356m last year (3% increase over the previous year) and their owners, Centrica, made a net profit of £1.58bn in the same period (9% increase). Yet they insist that a UK average duel-fuel price hike of 9.2% is necessary (8.4% gas and 10.4% electricity) and that they "understand the frustration". Really? Well, I hope they have a pretty good PR team as you can see the press ****storm that's coming when people (and let's be frank, mainly the elderly) can't heat their houses. Energy prices need regulation and fast as this just can't carry on.

Here's some friendly advice from British Gas* themselves:

*OK, it might not be official.

 

[ExigeEvan]

But let us consider the current UK energy infrastructure.

We've only got 5% excess capacity predicted for coming years.
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKBRE99G0A120131017?irpc=932

And a power station costs £1 Billion.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-19639091

And people aren't queuing up to build nuclear power plants
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/29/nuclear-reactors-rwe-eon-energy

And we need to invest in the infrastructure just to get the massive variety of power sources (nuclear, wind, solar etc)
http://www.npower.com/Medium-business/Energy-news/npower-news/WCMS_161559



So yes, they're making a profit, but they have to invest if they want to survive. Amd we have to pay more if we want power from the grid...

 

[homeforsummer]

Here's another hypothesis: It's the energy industry's way of turning the screw on shale gas extraction. "Don't want it in your back yard? Would you prefer a huge increase in gas prices instead?..."

 

[Touring Mars]

And speaking of energy, I'm finding this story increasingly disturbing...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...frontline-of-britains-energy-war-8890335.html

It would appear that Ineos are expecting people who work there to accept new terms/contracts or they will close the entire site permanently, which could have massive implications for the Scottish (and probably the wider British) economy.

If Grangemouth was to close permanently, I reckon we could all be looking at substantial increases in our energy bills - as if that isn't happening already.

 

[Youngun]

Im all for nuclear and really doesnt see a problem as some of the smartest minds are in the uk so problems, if they do arise, should be dealt with. Fusion fission on the other hand is hard to judge on whats best.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactors

 

[ExigeEvan]

Here's another hypothesis: It's the energy industry's way of turning the screw on shale gas extraction. "Don't want it in your back yard? Would you prefer a huge increase in gas prices instead?..."

Even if we get large scale shale gas production, it still needs to be burnt.

And in my opinion the figures for "grotesque profit" don't anywhere near match the required investment.

 

[lbsf1]

We need to invest in nuclear (Currently Fusion to get by until fission becomes useable), it is the cleanest energy source that is reliable. Wind/Sun are nice however they won't be reliable enough to be the main staple source.

These rises are extortionate, as much as I hate government intervention I think it is needed in this situation. Capitalism has failed. Rather than the companies needing to be competitive and thus keeping prices down they have all realised that if they club together and don't fight each other then they can rip us off much more effectively.

 

[Johnnypenso]

We need to invest in nuclear (Currently Fusion to get by until fission becomes useable), it is the cleanest energy source that is reliable. Wind/Sun are nice however they won't be reliable enough to be the main staple source.

These rises are extortionate, as much as I hate government intervention I think it is needed in this situation. Capitalism has failed. Rather than the companies needing to be competitive and thus keeping prices down they have all realised that if they club together and don't fight each other then they can rip us off much more effectively.

Here in Ontario, Canada, we get between 50-70% of our electricity from nukes, depending on the time of day/season etc. Most of the rest is hydro and natural gas. Less than 10% from coal and a trickle from wind and solar, usually less than 1%. However that 1% is costing us mega billions, and even though we have no reliable capacity increase from wind (it only replaces power that would have been supplied by hydro for the most part because it's the easiest to turn off) our electricity rates are skyrocketing to pay for this joke called wind power. Up 50% in a few short years for literally almost zero change in emissions and with a landscape now dotted with hundreds of windmills.

Both the solar and wind are heavily subsidized with Samsung being the primary wind provider. Home solar was originally subsidized to the tune of 10x the rate we pay for hydro from the grid, now reduced to about 7x. In other words if you generate solar electricity and feed it back into the grid you get revenue equivalent to 10x the cost to provide you with that same electricity. This colossal mismanagement of public funds is driving away manufacturing and taking billions every year needlessly out of the pockets of homeowners, driving up taxes, public deficits etc.

 

[Emptyone]

We need to invest in nuclear (Currently Fusion to get by until fission becomes useable).

I'm going to suggest it's the other way round with fission being the one currently available, and fusion not really sorted as of yet.

Fission is heavily subsidised, and opponents would point to shale gas being half the price and easier to set up, never mind decommissioning the things afterwards. Then again, the emissions for nuclear are a benefit, even if the rest of Europe is holding back because of Fukushima, with France cutting back and Germany giving up new builds. Tough market to sell it to.

 

[Famine]

We need to invest in nuclear (Currently Fusion to get by until fission becomes useable), it is the cleanest energy source that is reliable.

Other way about - and nuclear fission isn't exactly "clean" just because it has a lower carbon footprint.

These rises are extortionate, as much as I hate government intervention I think it is needed in this situation. Capitalism has failed.

Yeah, no.

Unless by capitalism you mean face-value privatisation driven by taxpayer subsidies and usage taxes. That's failed quite badly - in just about any sector where there has been de-nationalisation but HM Treasury's kept hold of the reins. Funnily, industries that have never been nationalised seem to clip along just fine.

Rather than the companies needing to be competitive and thus keeping prices down they have all realised that if they club together and don't fight each other then they can rip us off much more effectively.

That would be illegal under existing legislation - Ofgem would like to know about it - and it'd be foolish as all it'd take is one member of the alleged consortium to realise they could capture the entire market and vastly increase their profits by halving their prices overnight.

Somewhere around of a tenth what you pay is UK energy tax, fines and incentives passed on to the consumer because of denationalisation. This includes requiring energy companies to pay for home improvements and subsidies for the fuel-poor (any household that would be below the poverty line if it spent what is considered reasonable on fuel), compulsory low-carbon electricity generation (under the Renewables Obligation, requiring suppliers to ensure a certain percentage of their electricity comes from renewable sources), emissions trading (in turn affected by the carbon price floor that is artificially propped up by... guess who... the government), feed-in tariffs for renewables and even smart meters (provided for free, but the companies still have to buy them and the cost is passed on... to whom?). The Low Carbon Transition Plan - an HM Government policy - stands to add more than another 10% to the cost of energy and guess who'll pay?


If British Gas made £356m profit in 2012 serving its 20m customers, it made about £18 per customer - you paid £18 into British Gas's profits. Meanwhile the average customer paid £113 into the Treasury.

Yeah, capitalism failed.

 

[ExigeEvan]

My new favourite website, ever!

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

So this storm is useful for 4.35 GW of our 31.10 GW demand. Not bad, not bad.

 

[PeterJB]

It's 11 pm, no wind, the rain isn't even that heavy. Even if the storm does hit it's hardly going to do anything. 80 mph winds is barely reaching an F1 Tornado.

 

[orimarc]

80 mph winds is barely reaching an F1 Tornado.

Is an F1 Tornado made by RedBull faster than an F1 Tornado made by Caterham?