The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Well their strategy seems fairly clear. Throw mud at the opposition and fire bovine excreta at us with no regard for fiscal responsibility.



The first paragraph is hysterical in the context of the second one.



Both of which will evidently cost nothing significant. Minimum wage increase and increase in paid paternity leave are both quite strongly anti-business measures. Brown appears to have sloughed off any pretence at being centrist now and is pushing a populist and potentially harmful left-wing socialist agenda with total ignorance to the costs of his bribes both to the public and private sector.

what other choice does he have.desperate times call for desperate
measures.

[Ravenheart]

Well it's good to see that certain sections of the media are really concentrating on the real election issues..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...en-Temple.html

She was probably told to keep everything crossed before her husband's election campaign kicked into gear, but Sarah Brown looks to have taken that advice a little too literally.

A Daily Mail Reporter? Too scared to put their name to such a useless bit of drivel?

[punky]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Well their strategy seems fairly clear. Throw mud at the opposition and fire bovine excreta at us with no regard for fiscal responsibility.

And bring up Lord Ashcroft every other sentence.

Originally Posted by Ravenheart

Well it's good to see that certain sections of the media are really concentrating on the real election issues..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...en-Temple.html



A Daily Mail Reporter? Too scared to put their name to such a useless bit of drivel?

Oh that is just plain nasty.

I hate it when wives and families of politicians are attacked in this way..it's unnecessary and nothing to do with politics in any way.

I want the media to debate the issues not the people please.

Originally Posted by Ravenheart

Well it's good to see that certain sections of the media are really concentrating on the real election issues..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...en-Temple.html



A Daily Mail Reporter? Too scared to put their name to such a useless bit of drivel?

How pathetic - truly pointless reporting.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

How pathetic - truly pointless reporting.

I bet Gordon's fuming

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Well their strategy seems fairly clear. Throw mud at the opposition and fire bovine excreta at us with no regard for fiscal responsibility.

The first paragraph is hysterical in the context of the second one.

Both of which will evidently cost nothing significant. Minimum wage increase and increase in paid paternity leave are both quite strongly anti-business measures. Brown appears to have sloughed off any pretence at being centrist now and is pushing a populist and potentially harmful left-wing socialist agenda with total ignorance to the costs of his bribes both to the public and private sector.

Desperate times these clearly....

What people have to appreciate is that ever since Bliar came to power, New Labour have relied on lies, spin and an ineffectual opposition to keep them there and we're all going to pay the price for that. This tactic has never really changed but around election time they ratchet it all up and we get quite ridiculous stuff like this. I seem to recall Brown telling us his administration would be different but of course it's just more of the same without Bliar's polish and charisma. Cynically conceived, populist, soundbite promises, which would be unlikely ever to come to fruition in a period of boom let alone now when savage cutbacks are going to have to be made. Brown and his cohorts have had 13 years in power with a massive parliamentary majority and yet they've failed to deliver on so many of the major promises they've made and often regurgitated over that period. The only thing they've excelled at is recklessly spending our money as if it were going out of fashion and as a result it has! If anyone really thinks that's about to change now, think again. Brown will say almost anything to stay in number 10!

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Well their strategy seems fairly clear. Throw mud at the opposition and fire bovine excreta at us with no regard for fiscal responsibility.



The first paragraph is hysterical in the context of the second one.



Both of which will evidently cost nothing significant. Minimum wage increase and increase in paid paternity leave are both quite strongly anti-business measures. Brown appears to have sloughed off any pretence at being centrist now and is pushing a populist and potentially harmful left-wing socialist agenda with total ignorance to the costs of his bribes both to the public and private sector.

No they are not. I have offered paid paternity leave to my employees for some time. Those who take it return to work, more refreshed and more relaxed than those who don't. Therefore maintaining their productivity, efficiency and loyalty.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

No they are not. I have offered paid paternity leave to my employees for some time. Those who take it return to work, more refreshed and more relaxed than those who don't. Therefore maintaining their productivity, efficiency and loyalty.

2 week statutory paternity leave is mandatory, the government wants to increase this period to 4 weeks at full pay. This may work just fine for you, for others it will not, smaller companies losing a highly skilled and difficult to replace employee for 4 weeks will struggle in their absence.

I also question if this has been costed in any way given the low level of statutory paternity pay at the moment. For someone on a high salary this would cost the government thousands.

63% of 18-24 year-olds said they'd take the extra paternity leave, compared to 40% of 25-34 year olds, 19% of 45-54 year olds, and 13% of over 55s.

Companies that can afford to offer this already do - for two weeks, I am not aware of any that offer it for four.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

2 week statutory paternity leave is mandatory, the government wants to increase this period to 4 weeks at full pay. This may work just fine for you, for others it will not, smaller companies losing a highly skilled and difficult to replace employee for 4 weeks will struggle in their absence.

I also question if this has been costed in any way given the low level of statutory paternity pay at the moment. For someone on a high salary this would cost the government thousands.

I do run "a smaller company." In the last four years I have had three male employees take up their option to take four weeks maternity leave. It was a little inconvenient, but nothing we couldn't handle, after all we did have up to eight months' notice. One employee decided to split his leave over three months (a facility offered in the contracts), which made things a little easier for everyone.

Companies that can afford to offer this already do - for two weeks, I am not aware of any that offer it for four.

Now you are.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I do run "a smaller company." In the last four years I have had three male employees take up their option to take four weeks maternity leave. It was a little inconvenient, but nothing we couldn't handle, after all we did have up to eight months' notice. One employee decided to split his leave over three months (a facility offered in the contracts), which made things a little easier for everyone.

Now you are.

I expected as much, and other companies that may not have the flexibility or indeed finances?

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I expected as much, and other companies that may not have the flexibility or indeed finances?

But it doesn't happen that often for a small company and the bulk of the costs can be mitigated by a workforce with improved productivity.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

But it doesn't happen that often for a small company and the bulk of the costs can be mitigated by a workforce with improved productivity.

Which begs the point that if one can mitigate that person not being around with improved productivity why employ them in the first place?

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

But it doesn't happen that often for a small company and the bulk of the costs can be mitigated by a workforce with improved productivity.

Family friendly companies also seem to get more productivity and support during hard times from their staff. Our boss has been sharing the care of his daughter whilst she is ill as both he and his wife have equally responsible jobs. We know he is available by e-mail should it be necessary.

[Pierre]

New Labour is long dead.

What we have now is good old "pie in the sky" socialism

At the moment I'd vote for satan himself if he was wearing a blue tie (sets up inevetible jokey comment)