• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "New breakthrough Labour policy - guaranteed jobs!"

Collapse

  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by doodab View Post
    I didn't realise the Tories had a policy for dealing with sinkholes already.

    good point, they probably throw dead badgers in them.

    Leave a comment:


  • doodab
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    so its a tory policy renamed?
    I didn't realise the Tories had a policy for dealing with sinkholes already.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by doodab View Post
    It's being described as a compulsory jobs guarantee which might indicate that one loses benefits if one doesn't work.

    No indication these jobs will be with private sector organisations either, they will quite possibly be filling in sinkholes with teaspoons.
    so its a tory policy renamed?

    Leave a comment:


  • petergriffin
    replied
    It won't work. The whole concept of 'job' is gone.

    Milliband lives in the past.

    Leave a comment:


  • VectraMan
    replied
    Originally posted by doodab View Post
    No indication these jobs will be with private sector organisations either, they will quite possibly be filling in sinkholes with teaspoons.
    Perhaps they could all work at the Job Centre.

    Leave a comment:


  • doodab
    replied
    It's being described as a compulsory jobs guarantee which might indicate that one loses benefits if one doesn't work.

    No indication these jobs will be with private sector organisations either, they will quite possibly be filling in sinkholes with teaspoons.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by VectraMan View Post
    So companies get to hire 55,000 people. So what happens to the 55,000 that lose their jobs because their job can now be done by somebody free?
    or to the companies lumbered with unwilling conscripts?

    Leave a comment:


  • doodab
    replied
    Maybe they can clean out MPs moats.

    Leave a comment:


  • VectraMan
    replied
    So companies get to hire 55,000 people. So what happens to the 55,000 that lose their jobs because their job can now be done by somebody free?

    Leave a comment:


  • Doggy Styles
    replied
    Originally posted by Zero Liability View Post
    Doesn't sound fundamentally different to anything Cameron has proposed.
    To anything?

    I'm not sure what you mean. Fundamentally HMG are the opposite. They are cutting costs and largely leaving business to create jobs.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    these are 'guaranteed jobs' not work or your benefit gets cut (workfare). That is the difference!

    So instead of taking long term unemployed and saying turn up & work or lose your benefits they say hey we will pay you to turn up & sit around at some workplace.


    If I had been sat at home on benefits for 2 years and was comfortable I would just turn up and sit in the tea room for a year.

    With Workfare half of the pilot group didn't turn up and lost their benefits, one could suggest that they may be going somewhere else to work.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by minestrone View Post
    We could send one million unemployed with one million buckets down to the floods.
    A more realistic proposal would be to send 1 mln unemployed to some 3rd world country where cost of living is a fraction of what it costs to live in the UK.

    Leave a comment:


  • minestrone
    replied
    We could send one million unemployed with one million buckets down to the floods.

    Leave a comment:


  • hyperD
    replied
    Using different coloured buckets to save a sinking ship springs to mind.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zero Liability
    replied
    Doesn't sound fundamentally different to anything Cameron has proposed.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X