On grammar, there are rules which appear to serve no useful purpose, which are arbitrary and demonstrably fail in their supposed purpose of providing clarity of meaning and structure of language. As they serve no useful purpose, the use of language evolving to not utilise them, some of which were just made up not that long ago or insisted upon as firm rules despite this historically not being the case, can only be a good thing.
Its one less/fewer <\i> Thing to think about.
Oddly, I was never taught English grammar (I was taught far more Latin grammar) so much of this discussion is incomprehensible to me. I wonder if that was common among people educated in the Seventies and Eighties.
Same here - I learned about "verbs" studying French....
Mr. M, like putting topspin on a cue ball, I have a bad habit of just slipping into passive voice.
Mr. Jim, then perhaps that points the way the votes will go.
Mr. Claypole, I hope you're right, but fear you're not. His odds have moderately lengthened with Ladbrokes to be last (from 5 to 6). Fox remains strong favourite at 1.28.
Many years ago it was quite obvious (!) that the world was undergoing a structural shift. The emerging economies were, well, emerging, bringing new centres of production, markets, and consumers. Post-Berlin Wall, a new set of countries joined those on this upward trajectory.
Who were the beneficiaries? Well those emerging economies of course.
Who were likely to suffer? Those incumbent, post-industrial countries which had hitherto controlled production and consumption, ie us. Someone who can build a widget or mend a u-bend more cheaply than we can will necessarily undermine our income and standard of living on the one hand, yet eallow us to make savings and hence investment into more productive areas on the other.
It is the ineluctable march of history. And it is out of our control. And against this, some of us in the UK decided to try to control that tiny bit of this whole changing process that they can control: the number of people coming into our country. And also to register their dislike and dismay at the way the world is progressing.
It is hugely understandable.
Well put. I think globalists would have done well to have understood those that were left behind by globalisation and supported them and not just have seen them as backward. Manipulated by dishonest politicians like Gove, Johnson and Farage they stuck two fingers up at globalisation and the elite, not aware that these were just as much part of the elite, do very well out of of globalisation, and never had any solutions. The sad thing is that we'll be spending the next ten years trying to put the pieces back together after this referendum and the interests of the rejectionists will be ignored even more.
And what if leadsome is going down like a lead balloon with MPs and they think she shouldn't get to the last two? May will be accused of grubby tricks as that will be the presumed reason the lead messiah didn't make it. So since accusations of grubbiness will occur whether or not may tries to keep leadsome off the final two, there's not that much harm to it.
If Leadsom is going down like a leadsom-balloon then the Tories will correctly want to avoid the Corbyn/PLP disaster. A party leader, let alone PM, must carry very substantial, if not majority support of their MP's or else they are badly winged.
The while prescriptive grammar thing probably comes from people thinking Latin, a dead language with calcified unchanging set of grammar, should be the exemplar for living languages.
Very silly thinking. We should boldly go in our attempts to ignore that such prescription.
I understand one problem understanding Medieval Latin is plenty of writers in the time were pretty bad at Latin, grammar playing a part no doubt.ive seen Latin from the period with Anglo Saxon runes mixed in. Barbarians.
LOL! The leadership process is the same as before but the amount is up to the NEC to set. So if they wanted to make it £50,000 they would attract (substantially) fewer of these voters than before!
As Malcolm Tucker might say, it's an Omnishambles clusterf...
Mr. Meeks, worth noting lots of businessmen simply won't hire women who might be of child-rearing age due to the potential cost. They're not allowed to ask, so they just don't hire them.
I'm not in favour of stripping all rights, but the very generous maternity leave harms women's jobs prospects because it adds a substantial potential cost to hiring them.
Incidentally, what time do we get the result of today's vote in?
And what if leadsome is going down like a lead balloon with MPs and they think she shouldn't get to the last two? May will be accused of grubby tricks as that will be the presumed reason the lead messiah didn't make it. So since accusations of grubbiness will occur whether or not may tries to keep leadsome off the final two, there's not that much harm to it.
If Leadsom is going down like a leadsom-balloon then the Tories will correctly want to avoid the Corbyn/PLP disaster. A party leader, let alone PM, must carry very substantial, if not majority support of their MP's or else they are badly winged.
I don't think she is, but I hope they do do that should it be necessary, got just that reason.
Mr. M, like putting topspin on a cue ball, I have a bad habit of just slipping into passive voice.
Mr. Jim, then perhaps that points the way the votes will go.
Mr. Claypole, I hope you're right, but fear you're not. His odds have moderately lengthened with Ladbrokes to be last (from 5 to 6). Fox remains strong favourite at 1.28.
Mr Dancer, have you read "A History of Venice" by John Julius Norwich? It might be outside your preferred period, yet the chapters on Venice vs. Byzantium are fascinating. Well worth a read if you have time.
*edit* Results at 7pm I believe, in answer to your question.
On grammar, there are rules which appear to serve no useful purpose, which are arbitrary and demonstrably fail in their supposed purpose of providing clarity of meaning and structure of language. As they serve no useful purpose, the use of language evolving to not utilise them, some of which were just made up not that long ago or insisted upon as firm rules despite this historically not being the case, can only be a good thing.
Its one less/fewer <\i> Thing to think about.
Oddly, I was never taught English grammar (I was taught far more Latin grammar) so much of this discussion is incomprehensible to me. I wonder if that was common among people educated in the Seventies and Eighties.
And 90s I assure you. I was never taught it, but while some restrictions are clearly helpful, and which even the untaught obey as useful, others are merely rules someone came up with one day which add nothing but for sneering corrections about the 'proper' way to do things.
As someone who proofed final drafts - it's all about personal idiosyncrasies. AFAIC, 'impacted' isn't a verb and only applies to wisdom teeth, 'wholly unique' is awful tautology et al.
I'd a boss with his own bete noire that drove me equally around the twist. Smile and nod was the only option.
My personal crusade has always been against the passive voice. Sadly, working in government, this is to tilt at windmills.
I found it really hard to adapt to the passive voice when I first worked in Whitehall - it felt so deliberately awkward/private language style. And afterwards, really hard to drop the habit when I left.
Mr. M, no, though I am aware of its existence. The Venetian-Genoese proxy trade war in Byzantium was quite interesting, although also a rather sad note in the history of a city that had once ruled the waves. It also, of course, played a substantial role in the Fourth Crusade.
At the moment, I'm on e-books mostly as I need to clear some shelf space.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Gove do better than expected with the MPs, especially in the first round. He set himself up as the man to stop Boris, and he performed that role very well indeed.
And in doing so Gove trashed his reputation, seen starkly with the YouGov polling. There may be some Conservative MP's that wish to cosy up to the rotting corpse of Gove's political life but in very short measure they will not wish to be buried with him.
Family flowers only ....
Not impossible Leadsom comes second today and Fox third with Gove coming last behind Crabb
I think Gove will withdraw if Leadsom beats him by a lot. Crabb may too if the numbers have shifted to a clear May vs Leadsom contest.
No minimum wage for less than 3 employees? Surely we'd see a splintering of vast numbers of businesses into complex networks of connected companies each with 2 employees? Bonkers.
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
That must be right. I'm struck by how many intelligent peers find it hard to express themselves coherently on paper. We were taught loads of spelling, but good grammar is surely more important.
We were taught grammar and essay structure. Topic sentences and so forth. I used to write quite well, if I do say so myself. Ten years with the Civil Service blunted that to some degree.
Now I just huff and puff when I see a Cyclefree or David Herdson post. So many good writers on this site.
Half my income comes from a translation business that I've built up over the last 10 years, and I've found that the selling point is actually not expert knowledge of the orihginal language (which at a pinch you can look up, compare with other docujments etc.) but a good feeling for the subtleties of English, so that the writer (who probably knows some English) says "Yes! That's exactly what I was trying to convey." Knowing the difference between "Our product is unique" and "Our product is exceptional" (which doesn't claim that there really isn't anything like it) and "Our product is outstandingly good" (which unlike the others makes an explicit quality claim while being weaker in claiming distinctiveness) is crucial. Grammar and spelling are both important to avoid distraction but I'd like to see pupils asked to discuss precise meaning too.
Technically true. That's why leadsome will win votes for saying declare immediately
Apparently she changed her mind last night
Ugh. Changing ones mind is often a good thing, but on a clear cut issue like that changing the tune so quickly? She's definitely no transformative politician then, spine like a wet biscuit if you are right.
No minimum wage for less than 3 employees? Surely we'd see a splintering of vast numbers of businesses into complex networks of connected companies each with 2 employees? Bonkers.
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
Mr. M, like putting topspin on a cue ball, I have a bad habit of just slipping into passive voice.
Mr. Jim, then perhaps that points the way the votes will go.
Mr. Claypole, I hope you're right, but fear you're not. His odds have moderately lengthened with Ladbrokes to be last (from 5 to 6). Fox remains strong favourite at 1.28.
Mr Dancer - Tory MPs are often inscrutable I remember in 1995 when the media door stepped MPs only to be told that everyone was "voting for John". I expect the dice will fall rather differently to how we imagine. Today's ballot will be instructive. Suspect May will win very nearly half the votes possibly more. She could even be in the position that if the former rules were in place the contest would be over.
Mr. M, no, though I am aware of its existence. The Venetian-Genoese proxy trade war in Byzantium was quite interesting, although also a rather sad note in the history of a city that had once ruled the waves. It also, of course, played a substantial role in the Fourth Crusade.
At the moment, I'm on e-books mostly as I need to clear some shelf space.
Edited extra bit: thanks
Public libraries can be very helpful. Might have to wait, but they can get almost anything. I once got a copy of a fairly obscure book; “Clock and Watchmakers of Wales in the mid 19th Century”, which I needed for some family history research.
On grammar, there are rules which appear to serve no useful purpose, which are arbitrary and demonstrably fail in their supposed purpose of providing clarity of meaning and structure of language. As they serve no useful purpose, the use of language evolving to not utilise them, some of which were just made up not that long ago or insisted upon as firm rules despite this historically not being the case, can only be a good thing.
Its one less/fewer <\i> Thing to think about.
Oddly, I was never taught English grammar (I was taught far more Latin grammar) so much of this discussion is incomprehensible to me. I wonder if that was common among people educated in the Seventies and Eighties.
And 90s I assure you. I was never taught it, but while some restrictions are clearly helpful, and which even the untaught obey as useful, others are merely rules someone came up with one day which add nothing but for sneering corrections about the 'proper' way to do things.
As someone who proofed final drafts - it's all about personal idiosyncrasies. AFAIC, 'impacted' isn't a verb and only applies to wisdom teeth, 'wholly unique' is awful tautology et al.
I'd a boss with his own bete noire that drove me equally around the twist. Smile and nod was the only option.
My personal crusade has always been against the passive voice. Sadly, working in government, this is to tilt at windmills.
I found it really hard to adapt to the passive voice when I first worked in Whitehall - it felt so deliberately awkward/private language style. And afterwards, really hard to drop the habit when I left.
Oddly I found it very natural to use it, but some really seem to struggle when they first come in.
No minimum wage for less than 3 employees? Surely we'd see a splintering of vast numbers of businesses into complex networks of connected companies each with 2 employees? Bonkers.
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
No person has the right to demand labour from another.
In interviews people in their 20s are disadvantaged when it comes to SMEs, the owners simply can't afford maternity or paternity pay so look elsewhere.
I'm a free marketeer, if you want the best you have to pay for it, conversely if you pay peanuts you get monkeys, it's nothing to do with govt what one adult pays another.
No minimum wage for less than 3 employees? Surely we'd see a splintering of vast numbers of businesses into complex networks of connected companies each with 2 employees? Bonkers.
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
That would be more impractical than simply paying for the cost of rights. Especially when you appreciate something known as substance over form.
No minimum wage for less than 3 employees? Surely we'd see a splintering of vast numbers of businesses into complex networks of connected companies each with 2 employees? Bonkers.
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
When I ran a consultancy company (two directors!), we might have considered hiring a third if we could escape some of the burdens described. Like Blackburn, I never thought unfair dismissal laws were the impediment.
However, as you say, this is one of those flashy measures where you think "Of course!" and then five minutes later "Hmm, hang on."
I take this old essay as my guide in these matters:
Mr. Meeks, worth noting lots of businessmen simply won't hire women who might be of child-rearing age due to the potential cost. They're not allowed to ask, so they just don't hire them.
I'm not in favour of stripping all rights, but the very generous maternity leave harms women's jobs prospects because it adds a substantial potential cost to hiring them.
Incidentally, what time do we get the result of today's vote in?
There's reasonable evidence that employment law makes it very difficult for small businesses to take a risk on expanding organically past the original founders. It's never said, but who would hire a lady in her early thirties that got married recently.
Yes it can go too far, there's ads in this part of the world for "Attractive female Lebanese secretary, single, 25-35, involves travel" which is basically an ad for a PA-cum-mistress, but there is probably a happy medium somewhere, whereby especially small businesses are not constrained unduly from expansion by burdensome regulation.
LOL! The leadership process is the same as before but the amount is up to the NEC to set. So if they wanted to make it £50,000 they would attract (substantially) fewer of these voters than before!
As Malcolm Tucker might say, it's an Omnishambles clusterf...
Another example of why this assumption that Corbyn will win so no point in a challenge is lazy thinking. Someone has to step up to the plate and get on with it.
No minimum wage for less than 3 employees? Surely we'd see a splintering of vast numbers of businesses into complex networks of connected companies each with 2 employees? Bonkers.
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
Leave means a bonfire of workers rights by slavering right wingers?
No minimum wage for less than 3 employees? Surely we'd see a splintering of vast numbers of businesses into complex networks of connected companies each with 2 employees? Bonkers.
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
It would be interesting to see someone try and run a hotel, restaurant, or even corner shop, on two employees.
King Cole, problem with history is that I very often either read books a second time or refer back to them for writing research. A sound suggestion, but, like Gollum, we don't gives the Precious back.
No minimum wage for less than 3 employees? Surely we'd see a splintering of vast numbers of businesses into complex networks of connected companies each with 2 employees? Bonkers.
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
It would be interesting to see someone try and run a hotel, restaurant, or even corner shop, on two employees.
You'd have each person employed by their own separate company, avoiding all those regulations like minimum wage or maternity.
If May gets this I do hope she is different to Remainers on here. Most seem to now want their country to fail rather than Brexit being a success. It is the height of childishness from a segment of the population always used to getting their way. It reminds me of an overly spoilt only child.
On grammar, there are rules which appear to serve no useful purpose, which are arbitrary and demonstrably fail in their supposed purpose of providing clarity of meaning and structure of language. As they serve no useful purpose, the use of language evolving to not utilise them, some of which were just made up not that long ago or insisted upon as firm rules despite this historically not being the case, can only be a good thing.
Its one less/fewer <\i> Thing to think about.
Oddly, I was never taught English grammar (I was taught far more Latin grammar) so much of this discussion is incomprehensible to me. I wonder if that was common among people educated in the Seventies and Eighties.
And 90s I assure you. I was never taught it, but while some restrictions are clearly helpful, and which even the untaught obey as useful, others are merely rules someone came up with one day which add nothing but for sneering corrections about the 'proper' way to do things.
As someone who proofed final drafts - it's all about personal idiosyncrasies. AFAIC, 'impacted' isn't a verb and only applies to wisdom teeth, 'wholly unique' is awful tautology et al.
I'd a boss with his own bete noire that drove me equally around the twist. Smile and nod was the only option.
I found it really hard to adapt to the passive voice when I first worked in Whitehall - it felt so deliberately awkward/private language style. And afterwards, really hard to drop the habit when I left.
Oddly I found it very natural to use it, but some really seem to struggle when they first come in.
I'd spent many years penning promotional literature, winning major bids for commercial clients and advertorial/spin copy.
Reversing that whole approach felt very alien. The passive voice, forever hedging one's actual intentions in jargon or obliqueness et al was really weird.
No minimum wage for less than 3 employees? Surely we'd see a splintering of vast numbers of businesses into complex networks of connected companies each with 2 employees? Bonkers.
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
Leave means a bonfire of workers rights by slavering right wingers?
Nah, just more Project Fear.
I suppose you feel we have a God-given right to live high on the hog in perpetuity whilst the Chinese and Indians are sweating for their 6p an hour. And that will somehow work.
No minimum wage for less than 3 employees? Surely we'd see a splintering of vast numbers of businesses into complex networks of connected companies each with 2 employees? Bonkers.
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
It would be interesting to see someone try and run a hotel, restaurant, or even corner shop, on two employees.
You'd have each person employed by their own separate company, avoiding all those regulations like minimum wage or maternity.
No minimum wage for less than 3 employees? Surely we'd see a splintering of vast numbers of businesses into complex networks of connected companies each with 2 employees? Bonkers.
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
It would be interesting to see someone try and run a hotel, restaurant, or even corner shop, on two employees.
easy to split a business into small companies which do nothing but contract labour to the 'actual' business. 'Fawlty Towers 1 Ltd' 'Fawlty Towers 2 Ltd' etc etc
No minimum wage for less than 3 employees? Surely we'd see a splintering of vast numbers of businesses into complex networks of connected companies each with 2 employees? Bonkers.
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
It would be interesting to see someone try and run a hotel, restaurant, or even corner shop, on two employees.
I didn't mean that. I meant a hotel say with twenty staff would on inspection by the HMRC or whatever be found to actually be being run by a series of 2 person companies working together. The boss would have more paperwork obviously i.e. submissions for ten companies. Whether that would be worth it wrt to saving by under cutting the minimum wage only time would tell.
Incidentally, solely from my own personal experience of these matters, hotels and restaurants at least will probably have to pay above minimum wage if we leave EU and there are no more east europeans available.
No minimum wage for less than 3 employees? Surely we'd see a splintering of vast numbers of businesses into complex networks of connected companies each with 2 employees? Bonkers.
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
It would be interesting to see someone try and run a hotel, restaurant, or even corner shop, on two employees.
easy to split a business into small companies which do nothing but contract labour to the 'actual' business. 'Fawlty Towers 1 Ltd' 'Fawlty Towers 2 Ltd' etc etc
No minimum wage for less than 3 employees? Surely we'd see a splintering of vast numbers of businesses into complex networks of connected companies each with 2 employees? Bonkers.
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
Leave means a bonfire of workers rights by slavering right wingers?
Nah, just more Project Fear.
I think it's a non-issue. Finding minimum wage work is not difficult (that might change of course). It's hard to see how micro businesses could undercut, say, Lidl. Let's keep a sense of proportion here.
As I mentioned, we wouldn't have minded hiring an office-manager type, but the whole HR angle put us off. We wouldn't have been paying minimum wage mind, I have great belief that you do actually get what you pay for.
Given that this was suggested in 2012, has gained zero traction, we shouldn't assume it's the return of the baby-eating Tories.
With the exception of unfair dismissal I agree with it.
And I don't see it being hugely offputting to most Tory members to be honest.
Then you don't know Tory members very well. One of the most popular policies has been the introduction of the national living wage.
Didn't conservatives vote against the minimum wage?
In 1998.
I know, they have principles and if you don't like them........
You only have to read this site, the conservative party believes in nothing. Clear the deficit? We've changed our mind. Reduce immigration? Immigration is needed. Minimum wages? Nah, we can beat that with the living wage.
No minimum wage for less than 3 employees? Surely we'd see a splintering of vast numbers of businesses into complex networks of connected companies each with 2 employees? Bonkers.
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
Leave means a bonfire of workers rights by slavering right wingers?
Nah, just more Project Fear.
I suppose you feel we have a God-given right to live high on the hog in perpetuity whilst the Chinese and Indians are sweating for their 6p an hour. And that will somehow work.
What a compelling reason to do away with things like pensions and maternity leave!
When people who don't like her, highlight things about her that they don't like, it's not going to persuade people who share her values.
As I said yesterday, the objection to her is nothing to do with any of her actions or views except one. She voted Leave. As such Remainers have gone deranged over her. They don't seem to understand the referendum is over and they lost. It is time to move on.
On grammar, there are rules which appear to serve no useful purpose, which are arbitrary and demonstrably fail in their supposed purpose of providing clarity of meaning and structure of language. As they serve no useful purpose, the use of language evolving to not utilise them, some of which were just made up not that long ago or insisted upon as firm rules despite this historically not being the case, can only be a good thing.
Its one less/fewer <\i> Thing to think about.
Oddly, I was never taught English grammar (I was taught far more Latin grammar) so much of this discussion is incomprehensible to me. I wonder if that was common among people educated in the Seventies and Eighties.
And 90s I assure you. I was never taught it, but while some restrictions are clearly helpful, and which even the untaught obey as useful, others are merely rules someone came up with one day which add nothing but for sneering corrections about the 'proper' way to do things.
As someone who proofed final drafts - it's all about personal idiosyncrasies. AFAIC, 'impacted' isn't a verb and only applies to wisdom teeth, 'wholly unique' is awful tautology et al.
I'd a boss with his own bete noire that drove me equally around the twist. Smile and nod was the only option.
I found it really hard to adapt to the passive voice when I first worked in Whitehall - it felt so deliberately awkward/private language style. And afterwards, really hard to drop the habit when I left.
Oddly I found it very natural to use it, but some really seem to struggle when they first come in.
I'd spent many years penning promotional literature, winning major bids for commercial clients and advertorial/spin copy.
Reversing that whole approach felt very alien. The passive voice, forever hedging one's actual intentions in jargon or obliqueness et al was really weird.
No minimum wage for less than 3 employees? Surely we'd see a splintering of vast numbers of businesses into complex networks of connected companies each with 2 employees? Bonkers.
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
It would be interesting to see someone try and run a hotel, restaurant, or even corner shop, on two employees.
easy to split a business into small companies which do nothing but contract labour to the 'actual' business. 'Fawlty Towers 1 Ltd' 'Fawlty Towers 2 Ltd' etc etc
And if we are talking new parties then we are not just talking MPs. At every level of government, elected representatives would need to make a choice, and there are tons of labour controlled councils where the process would be both traumatic and throw up all sorts of comsequences in terms of which party(ies) are in charge. Plus of course higher profile people in the devolved parliaments, House of Lords, MEPs etc. would have the same choice. It could be chaotic, and will/would certainly be interesting!
Anyone involved with managing PB isn't going to get a break any time soon...
Those old enough to remember the SDP split know that party splits are horrible because they split old friendships which have been built up from years or even decades of working in a common cause - in some cases they even end marriages. It's not what you think of the national leaders that's so hard, it's turning your back on Sally, who is a brilliant councillor and someone you've worked with in four successive elections but has come to a different conclusion to you. Add to that the venom that inevitably arises (look how Southam and I wrestle with staying friendly, and we don't even know each other) and the default is usually to stick with your original party, say as little as possible, and hope the mess goes away.
Successful party splits are an extreme rarity in Britain or any country on the planet. What is more common is for a different party gradually to supplant an established one, as Labour edged the Liberals aside in Britain and successive Italian centre-left parties have inched out the former Communists. If a new Labour election led to a triumph for Corbyn, I can see some MPs drifting over to the LibDems and helping to shift them into a more consistently centre-left role, though I think others would accept it or quietly retire. If it resulted in a massive repudiation of Corbyn, I think most of the newer members would retreat into apathy.
No minimum wage for less than 3 employees? Surely we'd see a splintering of vast numbers of businesses into complex networks of connected companies each with 2 employees? Bonkers.
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
Leave means a bonfire of workers rights by slavering right wingers?
Nah, just more Project Fear.
I suppose you feel we have a God-given right to live high on the hog in perpetuity whilst the Chinese and Indians are sweating for their 6p an hour. And that will somehow work.
He'll be moaning later that we don't make anything anymore and bleating about Tata steel.
With the exception of unfair dismissal I agree with it.
And I don't see it being hugely offputting to most Tory members to be honest.
Then you don't know Tory members very well. One of the most popular policies has been the introduction of the national living wage.
Didn't conservatives vote against the minimum wage?
In 1998.
I know, they have principles and if you don't like them........
You only have to read this site, the conservative party believes in nothing. Clear the deficit? We've changed our mind. Reduce immigration? Immigration is needed. Minimum wages? Nah, we can beat that with the living wage.
So the Tory party should be standing on the same manifesto as it stood on in the 1600s?
With the exception of unfair dismissal I agree with it.
And I don't see it being hugely offputting to most Tory members to be honest.
Then you don't know Tory members very well. One of the most popular policies has been the introduction of the national living wage.
I think there are many Conservative constituencies where you would get a lot of people agreeing with Leadsome's proposals from 2012, though paradoxically, more so in constituencies that voted Remain than in those that voted Leave.
LOL! The leadership process is the same as before but the amount is up to the NEC to set. So if they wanted to make it £50,000 they would attract (substantially) fewer of these voters than before!
As Malcolm Tucker might say, it's an Omnishambles clusterf...
Another example of why this assumption that Corbyn will win so no point in a challenge is lazy thinking. Someone has to step up to the plate and get on with it.
Well yes, but if the 172 MPs had a backbone between them, there would have been a challenge a week ago.
No minimum wage for less than 3 employees? Surely we'd see a splintering of vast numbers of businesses into complex networks of connected companies each with 2 employees? Bonkers.
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
That would be more impractical than simply paying for the cost of rights. Especially when you appreciate something known as substance over form.
You may laugh about it - but an accountancy firm last year suggest such a scheme to make maximum use of the Employer NI Relief.... I saw the leaflet that was sent to care firms....
No minimum wage for less than 3 employees? Surely we'd see a splintering of vast numbers of businesses into complex networks of connected companies each with 2 employees? Bonkers.
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
It would be interesting to see someone try and run a hotel, restaurant, or even corner shop, on two employees.
easy to split a business into small companies which do nothing but contract labour to the 'actual' business. 'Fawlty Towers 1 Ltd' 'Fawlty Towers 2 Ltd' etc etc
I agree with Leadsom re micro businesses. It discouraged me from permanently employing others and being employed myself. We mostly ended up as Ltd singletons invoicing each other.
With the exception of unfair dismissal I agree with it.
And I don't see it being hugely offputting to most Tory members to be honest.
Then you don't know Tory members very well. One of the most popular policies has been the introduction of the national living wage.
Didn't conservatives vote against the minimum wage?
In 1998.
I know, they have principles and if you don't like them........
You only have to read this site, the conservative party believes in nothing. Clear the deficit? We've changed our mind. Reduce immigration? Immigration is needed. Minimum wages? Nah, we can beat that with the living wage.
So the Tory party should be standing on the same manifesto as it stood on in the 1600s?
With the exception of unfair dismissal I agree with it.
And I don't see it being hugely offputting to most Tory members to be honest.
Then you don't know Tory members very well. One of the most popular policies has been the introduction of the national living wage.
Didn't conservatives vote against the minimum wage?
In 1998.
I know, they have principles and if you don't like them........
You only have to read this site, the conservative party believes in nothing. Clear the deficit? We've changed our mind. Reduce immigration? Immigration is needed. Minimum wages? Nah, we can beat that with the living wage.
So the Tory party should be standing on the same manifesto as it stood on in the 1600s?
The Conservative Party was one of free enterprise, I fail to see how a national minimum wage ties in with that.
But then I accept the party has changed which is why I'll never vote for it again.
No minimum wage for less than 3 employees? Surely we'd see a splintering of vast numbers of businesses into complex networks of connected companies each with 2 employees? Bonkers.
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
It would be interesting to see someone try and run a hotel, restaurant, or even corner shop, on two employees.
easy to split a business into small companies which do nothing but contract labour to the 'actual' business. 'Fawlty Towers 1 Ltd' 'Fawlty Towers 2 Ltd' etc etc
I think the only ones who could be bothered to do that would be those already not paying minimum wage by whatever means.
No minimum wage for less than 3 employees? Surely we'd see a splintering of vast numbers of businesses into complex networks of connected companies each with 2 employees? Bonkers.
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
It would be interesting to see someone try and run a hotel, restaurant, or even corner shop, on two employees.
You'd have each person employed by their own separate company, avoiding all those regulations like minimum wage or maternity.
I think self-employment would become the norm, with horrible fine print. It already is in some sectors.
And if we are talking new parties then we are not just talking MPs. At every level of government, elected representatives would need to make a choice, and there are tons of labour controlled councils where the process would be both traumatic and throw up all sorts of comsequences in terms of which party(ies) are in charge. Plus of course higher profile people in the devolved parliaments, House of Lords, MEPs etc. would have the same choice. It could be chaotic, and will/would certainly be interesting!
Anyone involved with managing PB isn't going to get a break any time soon...
Those old enough to remember the SDP split know that party splits are horrible because they split old friendships which have been built up from years or even decades of working in a common cause - in some cases they even end marriages. It's not what you think of the national leaders that's so hard, it's turning your back on Sally, who is a brilliant councillor and someone you've worked with in four successive elections but has come to a different conclusion to you. Add to that the venom that inevitably arises (look how Southam and I wrestle with staying friendly, and we don't even know each other) and the default is usually to stick with your original party, say as little as possible, and hope the mess goes away.
Successful party splits are an extreme rarity in Britain or any country on the planet. What is more common is for a different party gradually to supplant an established one, as Labour edged the Liberals aside in Britain and successive Italian centre-left parties have inched out the former Communists. If a new Labour election led to a triumph for Corbyn, I can see some MPs drifting over to the LibDems and helping to shift them into a more consistently centre-left role, though I think others would accept it or quietly retire. If it resulted in a massive repudiation of Corbyn, I think most of the newer members would retreat into apathy.
Yes, I can see all of this. And in the UK our voting system makes it so very much more risky.
Labour's biggest mistake, both for itself and for our politics, was not to have kept its promise on voting reform when it had the chance.
Small businesses who were exempted from the minimum wage would either employ the unemployable or spend their entire time training replacements as their staff moved on to better opportunities. In reality they would have to match the going rate once they were confident that having the extra pair of hands was going to pay. At the margins it would increase employment and I think some removal of the regulatory burden would be a good idea.
Nothing to do with health and safety of course and probably not the working time directive or unfair dismissal but it is the sort of flexibility we can take advantage of when we are out.
On topic, fascinating figures and it'd be the mother of all mess-ups were May not to get it now. Sure, there's some name recognition effect ongoing - how many people really know who Crabb is, or Leadsom beyond a couple of EURef performances? But still, it's not so much their lack of visibility; it's the positive figures for May.
It's clear, however, that her team ought to be concentrating on manoeuvring Gove into the final two, if they can.
Ahhhhh! The Jiggery pokery of the elite, David? Where's your sense of democracy gone?
The system is not designed to be 'democratic'; it is designed to produce a leader who (1) can command support within Westminster, (2) can command support within the country, and (3) can do the job. Those objectives aren't always reconcilable but to the extent that they are, one part of the MPs job is to ensure that the members get two candidates who would make reasonable PMs. It's perfectly reasonable for MPs to engage in forced consensus-building.
With the exception of unfair dismissal I agree with it.
And I don't see it being hugely offputting to most Tory members to be honest.
Then you don't know Tory members very well. One of the most popular policies has been the introduction of the national living wage.
Didn't conservatives vote against the minimum wage?
In 1998.
I know, they have principles and if you don't like them........
You only have to read this site, the conservative party believes in nothing. Clear the deficit? We've changed our mind. Reduce immigration? Immigration is needed. Minimum wages? Nah, we can beat that with the living wage.
No, the people who didn't like those policies are dead or have defected to UKIP. The last major split in the membership and among MPs was the EU and now that's settled as well.
And if we are talking new parties then we are not just talking MPs. At every level of government, elected representatives would need to make a choice, and there are tons of labour controlled councils where the process would be both traumatic and throw up all sorts of comsequences in terms of which party(ies) are in charge. Plus of course higher profile people in the devolved parliaments, House of Lords, MEPs etc. would have the same choice. It could be chaotic, and will/would certainly be interesting!
Anyone involved with managing PB isn't going to get a break any time soon...
Those old enough to remember the SDP split know that party splits are horrible because they split old friendships which have been built up from years or even decades of working in a common cause - in some cases they even end marriages. It's not what you think of the national leaders that's so hard, it's turning your back on Sally, who is a brilliant councillor and someone you've worked with in four successive elections but has come to a different conclusion to you. Add to that the venom that inevitably arises (look how Southam and I wrestle with staying friendly, and we don't even know each other) and the default is usually to stick with your original party, say as little as possible, and hope the mess goes away.
Successful party splits are an extreme rarity in Britain or any country on the planet. What is more common is for a different party gradually to supplant an established one, as Labour edged the Liberals aside in Britain and successive Italian centre-left parties have inched out the former Communists. If a new Labour election led to a triumph for Corbyn, I can see some MPs drifting over to the LibDems and helping to shift them into a more consistently centre-left role, though I think others would accept it or quietly retire. If it resulted in a massive repudiation of Corbyn, I think most of the newer members would retreat into apathy.
An easier solution would be for Corbyn to do the honourable thing and resign. There is no constitutional basis for his remaining in post and his doing so is an act of gross narcissism that is making a mockery of our parliamentary democracy.
Rather than writing posts telling elected representatives to "STFU" you should engage with the clear fact that Corbyn cannot command the authority of 85% of his own MPs.
Mr. Meeks, worth noting lots of businessmen simply won't hire women who might be of child-rearing age due to the potential cost. They're not allowed to ask, so they just don't hire them.
I'm not in favour of stripping all rights, but the very generous maternity leave harms women's jobs prospects because it adds a substantial potential cost to hiring them.
Incidentally, what time do we get the result of today's vote in?
A better solution would be to retain the rights but increase Governemnt support for small firms with the costs of maternity pay and similar benefits.
Everyone's trying to pretend that "Free movement of people" is the status quo, which would be compulsory to retain EFTA membership. In fact, under EFTA we can discriminate on benefits, reducing massively the pull factors driving unskilled immigration to the UK. To some, this is still FoM and evil, but to many more it represents a reasonable compromise.
On the Tusk quote: doesn't South Korea have access to the single market? If so, I'd be surprised if it had agreed freedom of movement.
People still seem to be confused between access and membership. Even with that distinction, the difference is overstated, given the single market in services is very far from complete. An EU member has perhaps 75% free trade with a fellow member, relative to something like 60% for South Korea.
Small businesses who were exempted from the minimum wage would either employ the unemployable or spend their entire time training replacements as their staff moved on to better opportunities. In reality they would have to match the going rate once they were confident that having the extra pair of hands was going to pay. At the margins it would increase employment and I think some removal of the regulatory burden would be a good idea.
Nothing to do with health and safety of course and probably not the working time directive or unfair dismissal but it is the sort of flexibility we can take advantage of when we are out.
If the proposal had come from say, the Adam Smith Institute, or Institute of Economic Affairs, rather than Andrea Ledsom, I expect it would be more sympathetically received in this parish.
When people who don't like her, highlight things about her that they don't like, it's not going to persuade people who share her values.
As I said yesterday, the objection to her is nothing to do with any of her actions or views except one. She voted Leave. As such Remainers have gone deranged over her. They don't seem to understand the referendum is over and they lost. It is time to move on.
No. The eurosceptics would certainly not have moved on if the result was reversed. We are not going to roll over while a bunch of liars destroy our country and economy on a false prospectus.
On the Tusk quote: doesn't South Korea have access to the single market? If so, I'd be surprised if it had agreed freedom of movement.
As ever, they're using the shorthand 'access' when they mean 'tariff free access'. The world (sanctions regimes excepted) has 'access' to the EU market. The EU doesn't have FTAs with the USA, China or Japan (before Robert jumps all over me, bar anything agreed under the general provisions of GATT and WIPO).
WTO rules means that if we don't get some kind of bespoke deal on the single market, we'll be trading under 'Most Favoured Nation' rules.
The issue there isn't so much the tariff levels (which vary from 3.6% to 12%) - those can be managed (if we can call it that) by a weaker pound. It's the Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs) and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBTs) that cause issues. They can put your costs up to 25% or more. Not good.
There's even some suggestion that we'd have to apply to join the WTO (it only formed in 1992). I have no idea on whether that's well founded or more Internet bullshittery.
With the exception of unfair dismissal I agree with it.
And I don't see it being hugely offputting to most Tory members to be honest.
Then you don't know Tory members very well. One of the most popular policies has been the introduction of the national living wage.
Didn't conservatives vote against the minimum wage?
In 1998.
I know, they have principles and if you don't like them........
You only have to read this site, the conservative party believes in nothing. Clear the deficit? We've changed our mind. Reduce immigration? Immigration is needed. Minimum wages? Nah, we can beat that with the living wage.
No, the people who didn't like those policies are dead or have defected to UKIP. The last major split in the membership and among MPs was the EU and now that's settled as well.
At least it should be settled if Remainers just accepted their loss with good grace rather than engaging in furious campaigns against every Leave supporting candidate.
Mr. Fire, that would be a viable alternative, provided large companies didn't take advantage of it by, as suggested below, splitting into a multitude of dinky firms.
And if we are talking new parties then we are not just talking MPs. At every level of government, elected representatives would need to make a choice, and there are tons of labour controlled councils where the process would be both traumatic and throw up all sorts of comsequences in terms of which party(ies) are in charge. Plus of course higher profile people in the devolved parliaments, House of Lords, MEPs etc. would have the same choice. It could be chaotic, and will/would certainly be interesting!
Anyone involved with managing PB isn't going to get a break any time soon...
Those old enough to remember the SDP split know that party splits are horrible because they split old friendships which have been built up from years or even decades of working in a common cause - in some cases they even end marriages. It's not what you think of the national leaders that's so hard, it's turning your back on Sally, who is a brilliant councillor and someone you've worked with in four successive elections but has come to a different conclusion to you. Add to that the venom that inevitably arises (look how Southam and I wrestle with staying friendly, and we don't even know each other) and the default is usually to stick with your original party, say as little as possible, and hope the mess goes away.
Successful party splits are an extreme rarity in Britain or any country on the planet. What is more common is for a different party gradually to supplant an established one, as Labour edged the Liberals aside in Britain and successive Italian centre-left parties have inched out the former Communists. If a new Labour election led to a triumph for Corbyn, I can see some MPs drifting over to the LibDems and helping to shift them into a more consistently centre-left role, though I think others would accept it or quietly retire. If it resulted in a massive repudiation of Corbyn, I think most of the newer members would retreat into apathy.
An easier solution would be for Corbyn to do the honourable thing and resign. There is no constitutional basis for his remaining in post and his doing so is an act of gross narcissism that is making a mockery of our parliamentary democracy.
Rather than writing posts telling elected representatives to "STFU" you should engage with the clear fact that Corbyn cannot command the authority of 85% of his own MPs.
No minimum wage for less than 3 employees? Surely we'd see a splintering of vast numbers of businesses into complex networks of connected companies each with 2 employees? Bonkers.
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
When I ran a consultancy company (two directors!), we might have considered hiring a third if we could escape some of the burdens described. Like Blackburn, I never thought unfair dismissal laws were the impediment.
However, as you say, this is one of those flashy measures where you think "Of course!" and then five minutes later "Hmm, hang on."
I take this old essay as my guide in these matters:
That is a really interesting essay, and not just because it sets out how I have always done my own personal accounting. The section on legalisation illustrates nicely how what appears to be a simple task is actually horrendously complicated to implement. and for me confirms that leaving the EU is not going to get done in two years, or even twice that...
Small businesses who were exempted from the minimum wage would either employ the unemployable or spend their entire time training replacements as their staff moved on to better opportunities. In reality they would have to match the going rate once they were confident that having the extra pair of hands was going to pay. At the margins it would increase employment and I think some removal of the regulatory burden would be a good idea.
Nothing to do with health and safety of course and probably not the working time directive or unfair dismissal but it is the sort of flexibility we can take advantage of when we are out.
Quite. I'd hope it'd offer more opportunities for those with criminal records, health or learning issues.
Comments
ouch!
So is this.
https://twitter.com/emporersnewc/status/750026152882925568
Mr. Jim, then perhaps that points the way the votes will go.
Mr. Claypole, I hope you're right, but fear you're not. His odds have moderately lengthened with Ladbrokes to be last (from 5 to 6). Fox remains strong favourite at 1.28.
I understand one problem understanding Medieval Latin is plenty of writers in the time were pretty bad at Latin, grammar playing a part no doubt.ive seen Latin from the period with Anglo Saxon runes mixed in. Barbarians.
As Malcolm Tucker might say, it's an Omnishambles clusterf...
I'm not in favour of stripping all rights, but the very generous maternity leave harms women's jobs prospects because it adds a substantial potential cost to hiring them.
Incidentally, what time do we get the result of today's vote in?
*edit* Results at 7pm I believe, in answer to your question.
At the moment, I'm on e-books mostly as I need to clear some shelf space.
Edited extra bit: thanks
Edit: In those parts of economy where minimum wage is an issue e.g. retail, hospitality etc
In interviews people in their 20s are disadvantaged when it comes to SMEs, the owners simply can't afford maternity or paternity pay so look elsewhere.
I'm a free marketeer, if you want the best you have to pay for it, conversely if you pay peanuts you get monkeys, it's nothing to do with govt what one adult pays another.
Aren't we supposed to engage the brain before putting the mouth into gear?
http://www.andrealeadsom.com/working-for-you/andrea's-blog/marriage-is-key-to-the-safety-of-our-society/148
When people who don't like her, highlight things about her that they don't like, it's not going to persuade people who share her values.
However, as you say, this is one of those flashy measures where you think "Of course!" and then five minutes later "Hmm, hang on."
I take this old essay as my guide in these matters:
http://steve-yegge.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-marijuana.html
Yes it can go too far, there's ads in this part of the world for "Attractive female Lebanese secretary, single, 25-35, involves travel" which is basically an ad for a PA-cum-mistress, but there is probably a happy medium somewhere, whereby especially small businesses are not constrained unduly from expansion by burdensome regulation.
Nah, just more Project Fear.
Reversing that whole approach felt very alien. The passive voice, forever hedging one's actual intentions in jargon or obliqueness et al was really weird.
Incidentally, solely from my own personal experience of these matters, hotels and restaurants at least will probably have to pay above minimum wage if we leave EU and there are no more east europeans available.
As I mentioned, we wouldn't have minded hiring an office-manager type, but the whole HR angle put us off. We wouldn't have been paying minimum wage mind, I have great belief that you do actually get what you pay for.
Given that this was suggested in 2012, has gained zero traction, we shouldn't assume it's the return of the baby-eating Tories.
You only have to read this site, the conservative party believes in nothing. Clear the deficit? We've changed our mind. Reduce immigration? Immigration is needed. Minimum wages? Nah, we can beat that with the living wage.
Good day all.
Successful party splits are an extreme rarity in Britain or any country on the planet. What is more common is for a different party gradually to supplant an established one, as Labour edged the Liberals aside in Britain and successive Italian centre-left parties have inched out the former Communists. If a new Labour election led to a triumph for Corbyn, I can see some MPs drifting over to the LibDems and helping to shift them into a more consistently centre-left role, though I think others would accept it or quietly retire. If it resulted in a massive repudiation of Corbyn, I think most of the newer members would retreat into apathy.
May 122 .. Leadsom 40 .. Gove 32 .. Crabb 24 .. Fox 13 .. Undeclared 99
But then I accept the party has changed which is why I'll never vote for it again.
Would unleash tremendous economic growth and allow employees to choose and the market to compensate rather than the government.
Labour's biggest mistake, both for itself and for our politics, was not to have kept its promise on voting reform when it had the chance.
Nothing to do with health and safety of course and probably not the working time directive or unfair dismissal but it is the sort of flexibility we can take advantage of when we are out.
Rather than writing posts telling elected representatives to "STFU" you should engage with the clear fact that Corbyn cannot command the authority of 85% of his own MPs.
It really is that simple.
'The longer Brexit withdrawal goes on, the more likely it is to be overturned
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/brexit-how-britain-stays-in-the-eu-214005'
Dream on.
Sounds familiar ....
WTO rules means that if we don't get some kind of bespoke deal on the single market, we'll be trading under 'Most Favoured Nation' rules.
The issue there isn't so much the tariff levels (which vary from 3.6% to 12%) - those can be managed (if we can call it that) by a weaker pound. It's the Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs) and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBTs) that cause issues. They can put your costs up to 25% or more. Not good.
There's even some suggestion that we'd have to apply to join the WTO (it only formed in 1992). I have no idea on whether that's well founded or more Internet bullshittery.