Re your earlier post about Mrs T's death - I can't help feeling that since her funeral the Tories have moved on and become more confident in who they are now. Whenever I read yet another article from Mr Tebbit - it just reminds me how far things have come.
Flogging the dead horse of her time as PM has become even more pointless since she's no longer with us - the Left have also lost a hate figure since railing against the dead just doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
Lord Michael Dobbs @dobbs_michael Neil Kinnock kind enough to enquire how I hurt my foot. Kicking Socialists, I reply. Where do you find them nowadays, he asks...
PoliticsHome @politicshome Dr Peter Carter of Royal College of Nursing says 111 has seen "ambulances being dispatched for a scratch by a cat" @BBCNews
Surely it would be better if the cat was dispatched, quickly.
But 111 saved £10 on the phone call if you ignore the cost of the ambulance.
Tim, can you confirm that:
(1) the victim was not pregnant, so there is no risk of toxiplasmosis (2) the cats claws were clean so there is no risk of lockjaw (3) the wound was shallow and not infected, so there was no risk of septicemia
If not, then you can't assess whether it was the right decision to send an ambulance or not.
FFS PBTories Jessop, Plato and others, listen to yourselves!
You're arguing that ambulances are needed for cat scratches. More to the point, you're arguing about cat scratches!
Talk about getting sucked into the wormhole of blind partisanship. A point isn't necessarily invalidated just because it's made by Tim, you know.
(similarly, I'm sure the cat scratch example isn't a sign of 111's systemic failure, any more than the daft "couldn't make it up" stories you read in the Mail, Sun etc are a sign of the systemic failure of policies towards immigration, welfare etc)
By Jessops logic everyone phones an ambulance after getting their ears pierced, just in case
-Hello, I've opened a bag of compost, what should I do? -Call an ambulance, it can be lethal
PCL house prices to rise by 6% (not 0%) this year – Knight Frank
July 29, 2013 Barely a week after Savills tore up its start-of-the-year predictions, adding 6.6% to the expected increase in property prices (read all about it here), Knight Frank has followed suit, revising up its prime central London house price forecasts for the year from 0% to 6%.
"As the MP for Unwinnable West, says: “It’s dog whistle politics: appealing to people who instinctively dislike brutal slayings. It’s also driving a wedge between the murdering and non-murdering community. Just this morning I had a local murderer on the phone, he’s been happily walking the streets for months after he drove his truck into a betting shop, killing six. Now the poor fellow is a wreck, he’s seen these vans and he’s wondering if the police might take action. And think about the effect on his family. What’s he going to tell his wife, who has been locked in his cellar for seven years?”
This is the sort of campaign from Unite that I would hope could obtain cross party support. Apparently 90% of Sports Direct staff are on zero hours contracts.
Frankly, I would think rather better of Ed Miliband if he got behind this as well. It might even give some meaning to his rather flakey "predator" nonsense. These contracts are an abuse of a dominant position and need to be stopped.
Yes, it's not yet official Labour policy (for all the usual reasons) but Andy Burnham has called for zero-hours contracts to be banned.
I often scratch my head over your posts - half of them are centrist, reasonable, and kind-hearted, with often a good word for unions and benefit recipients, and I often agree with you. Half are virulently partisan Tory posts. I'd have thought that you'd have mixed feelings about all the parties and be open to persuasion?
Hard to say, especially when you are too mean to subscribe to the FT! But a one off bonus seems to me very much a part of the culture. You don't have entitlements, you are subject to the whims and grace and favour of the employer. It is demeaning and wrong.
The FT piece focused exclusively on the 2,000 staff lucky enough to qualify for a bonus without mentioning anything about the 20,000 or so other staff!
FFS PBTories Jessop, Plato and others, listen to yourselves!
You're arguing that ambulances are needed for cat scratches. More to the point, you're arguing about cat scratches!
Talk about getting sucked into the wormhole of blind partisanship. A point isn't necessarily invalidated just because it's made by Tim, you know.
(similarly, I'm sure the cat scratch example isn't a sign of 111's systemic failure, any more than the daft "couldn't make it up" stories you read in the Mail, Sun etc are a sign of the systemic failure of policies towards immigration, welfare etc)
No, I am saying in some rare cases an ambulance might be necessary for a cat scratch, not all cases. As evidenced by my links.
This is the sort of campaign from Unite that I would hope could obtain cross party support. Apparently 90% of Sports Direct staff are on zero hours contracts.
Frankly, I would think rather better of Ed Miliband if he got behind this as well. It might even give some meaning to his rather flakey "predator" nonsense. These contracts are an abuse of a dominant position and need to be stopped.
Yes, it's not yet official Labour policy (for all the usual reasons) but Andy Burnham has called for zero-hours contracts to be banned.
I often scratch my head over your posts - half of them are centrist, reasonable, and kind-hearted, with often a good word for unions and benefit recipients, and I often agree with you. Half are virulently partisan Tory posts. I'd have thought that you'd have mixed feelings about all the parties and be open to persuasion?
I certainly do not believe that any party has the sole source of wisdom or insight. But when I do come over all tory is in macro economics. The last government, which you supported Nick, did terrible things to this country creating a disaster that will impoverish our children, let alone my generation. I cannot forgive them for that and would not contemplate voting Labour while some of the guilty men remain in office.
As you will have seen I don't think Osborne has got everything right either but he is at least trying to go in the right directions. Brown just lied and lied and spent and spent.
On social policy I find some tory positions hard to stomach although this has been much less of a problem under Cameron and Osborne, who do not get nearly enough credit for this, than previous leaders. There are clearly opportunities for different points of view and a pragmatic approach. I frequently find myself in agreement with yourself and Southam Observer in particular.
FFS PBTories Jessop, Plato and others, listen to yourselves!
You're arguing that ambulances are needed for cat scratches. More to the point, you're arguing about cat scratches!
Talk about getting sucked into the wormhole of blind partisanship. A point isn't necessarily invalidated just because it's made by Tim, you know.
(similarly, I'm sure the cat scratch example isn't a sign of 111's systemic failure, any more than the daft "couldn't make it up" stories you read in the Mail, Sun etc are a sign of the systemic failure of policies towards immigration, welfare etc)
By Jessops logic everyone phones an ambulance after getting their ears pierced, just in case
Tim, can you get yourself down to a basic literacy class? You need to learn how to read what people actually write, rather than what you think they write.
Ted Nugent's "Cat Scratch Fever" is an all time classic - surely even Democrats must enjoy his music...
What a peculiar conversation this is. Cat scratches and bites are very well known to be sources of nasty infections - my MiL almost lost a finger and my GP prescribed me antibiotics to keep in the cupboard so I could treat any injuries promptly.
In just a couple of hours an infection can track up your arm rather seriously if you're unlucky.
We both know that cat scratches can be serious in some rare cases, both immediately and in the longer term. You know that. The world knows that.
Tim does not.
I'm waiting for Labour's next manifesto. "The NHS will deal with any accident at A&E, except when it is a cat scratch. Then the patient can just FOAD."
In fact, that sounds a bit like the way Stafford treated a relative of mine after a head injury: "Go home, and if you're alive in the morning we'll deal with you." ...
JJ, you seem a bright chap, why do you allow yourself to be trolled?
Tim doesn't really care about the stuff he bangs on about, he does it to provoke a reaction, once he gets that reaction he will endlessly repeat it, in and out of context, in the hope of provoking further reaction.
So, I'm genuinely interested, why allow yourself to be trolled?
T ed Nugent's "Cat Scratch Fever" is an all time classic - surely even Democrats must enjoy his music...
What a peculiar conversation this is. Cat scratches and bites are very well known to be sources of nasty infections - my MiL almost lost a finger and my GP prescribed me antibiotics to keep in the cupboard so I could treat any injuries promptly.
In just a couple of hours an infection can track up your arm rather seriously if you're unlucky.
We both know that cat scratches can be serious in some rare cases, both immediately and in the longer term. You know that. The world knows that.
Tim does not.
I'm waiting for Labour's next manifesto. "The NHS will deal with any accident at A&E, except when it is a cat scratch. Then the patient can just FOAD."
In fact, that sounds a bit like the way Stafford treated a relative of mine after a head injury: "Go home, and if you're alive in the morning we'll deal with you." ...
JJ, you seem a bright chap, why do you allow yourself to be trolled?
Tim doesn't really care about the stuff he bangs on about, he does it to provoke a reaction, once he gets that reaction he will endlessly repeat it, in and out of context, in the hope of provoking further reaction.
So, I'm genuinely interested, why allow yourself to be trolled?
Because I've just had a rather long teleconference with a client, and I need to let my annoyance out somewhere. ;-)
However, I'm not sure Tim's a troll. There's still an infinitesimal chance he might be the world-renowned-expert-in-everything he makes himself out to be.
T ed Nugent's "Cat Scratch Fever" is an all time classic - surely even Democrats must enjoy his music...
What a peculiar conversation this is. Cat scratches and bites are very well known to be sources of nasty infections - my MiL almost lost a finger and my GP prescribed me antibiotics to keep in the cupboard so I could treat any injuries promptly.
In just a couple of hours an infection can track up your arm rather seriously if you're unlucky.
We both know that cat scratches can be serious in some rare cases, both immediately and in the longer term. You know that. The world knows that.
Tim does not.
I'm waiting for Labour's next manifesto. "The NHS will deal with any accident at A&E, except when it is a cat scratch. Then the patient can just FOAD."
In fact, that sounds a bit like the way Stafford treated a relative of mine after a head injury: "Go home, and if you're alive in the morning we'll deal with you." ...
JJ, you seem a bright chap, why do you allow yourself to be trolled?
Tim doesn't really care about the stuff he bangs on about, he does it to provoke a reaction, once he gets that reaction he will endlessly repeat it, in and out of context, in the hope of provoking further reaction.
So, I'm genuinely interested, why allow yourself to be trolled?
Because I've just had a rather long teleconference with a client, and I need to let my annoyance out somewhere. ;-)
However, I'm not sure Tim's a troll. There's still an infinitesimal chance he might be the world-renowned-expert-in-everything he makes himself out to be.
Tim is a troll, that's why he stalking you as we speak, in a pathetic attempt to get another reaction from you. Still, your keyboard, your rules. Have fun.
They can be genuinely beneficial for employees / potential employees. The problem is that they are abused by employers, as the Sports Direct example shows.
I don't know whether a ban is the answer, but if not I don't know what is! Though for sure, they should at least be a rare exception. But hey, all bow down and worship the "flexible labour market" eh.
Ted Nugent's "Cat Scratch Fever" is an all time classic - surely even Democrats must enjoy his music...
What a peculiar conversation this is. Cat scratches and bites are very well known to be sources of nasty infections - my MiL almost lost a finger and my GP prescribed me antibiotics to keep in the cupboard so I could treat any injuries promptly.
In just a couple of hours an infection can track up your arm rather seriously if you're unlucky.
We both know that cat scratches can be serious in some rare cases, both immediately and in the longer term. You know that. The world knows that.
Tim does not.
I'm waiting for Labour's next manifesto. "The NHS will deal with any accident at A&E, except when it is a cat scratch. Then the patient can just FOAD."
In fact, that sounds a bit like the way Stafford treated a relative of mine after a head injury: "Go home, and if you're alive in the morning we'll deal with you." ...
JJ, you seem a bright chap, why do you allow yourself to be trolled?
Tim doesn't really care about the stuff he bangs on about, he does it to provoke a reaction, once he gets that reaction he will endlessly repeat it, in and out of context, in the hope of provoking further reaction.
So, I'm genuinely interested, why allow yourself to be trolled?
Are you attempting to troll a troll who is trolling someone else who is allowing themselves to be trolled?
Ted Nugent's "Cat Scratch Fever" is an all time classic - surely even Democrats must enjoy his music...
What a peculiar conversation this is. Cat scratches and bites are very well known to be sources of nasty infections - my MiL almost lost a finger and my GP prescribed me antibiotics to keep in the cupboard so I could treat any injuries promptly.
In just a couple of hours an infection can track up your arm rather seriously if you're unlucky.
We both know that cat scratches can be serious in some rare cases, both immediately and in the longer term. You know that. The world knows that.
Tim does not.
I'm waiting for Labour's next manifesto. "The NHS will deal with any accident at A&E, except when it is a cat scratch. Then the patient can just FOAD."
In fact, that sounds a bit like the way Stafford treated a relative of mine after a head injury: "Go home, and if you're alive in the morning we'll deal with you." ...
JJ, you seem a bright chap, why do you allow yourself to be trolled?
Tim doesn't really care about the stuff he bangs on about, he does it to provoke a reaction, once he gets that reaction he will endlessly repeat it, in and out of context, in the hope of provoking further reaction.
So, I'm genuinely interested, why allow yourself to be trolled?
Are you attempting to troll a troll who is trolling someone else who is allowing themselves to be trolled?
Isn't the internet odd.
I'm not trolling anybody. I'm genuinely interested why in the face of all the evidence, somebody allows themselves to be trolled. No ulterior motive, no desire to become massively engaged in some sort of troll off. So to prove the point, that's my last post on the matter.
They can be genuinely beneficial for employees / potential employees. The problem is that they are abused by employers, as the Sports Direct example shows.
I don't know whether a ban is the answer, but if not I don't know what is! Though for sure, they should at least be a rare exception. But hey, all bow down and worship the "flexible labour market" eh.
It is tricky because there is clearly a place for casual labour and seasonal employment. There are also well paid professionals who may use the flexibility to their advantage.
My tentative suggestion would be that where an employee is working for a single employer or related employers for a qualifying period then their contract should be deemed to be for the average of their of their hours over the last 13 or 26 weeks as benefits them, entitling them to claim earnings and employment rights on that basis.
I also think that this is the sort of case that the public sector should use its economic muscle by making it clear that it will be a condition of any public sector contracts that the employees providing these services are not to be on these contracts. The fact that they exist and are spreading in the public sector itself shows that something needs to be done.
Edit, can I congratulate you in calling the cat argument right some considerable time ago.
They can be genuinely beneficial for employees / potential employees. The problem is that they are abused by employers, as the Sports Direct example shows..
Yes, that is spot-on.
I can't see how a government could ban (or rationally would want to ban) an arrangement whereby, for example, a catering company can have a pool of people whom they can call on when they have a particularly large requirement for staff (for the Henley Regatta, say).
However, the key thing is that it should be a genuine flexible arrangement willingly entered into on both sides, with no obligation on either side to supply or accept the work, not a wheeze to get round employment law.
In fact, it's quite likely that a lot of zero-hour contracts are in fact legally dubious:
Thus, when deciding whether a zero-hours contract constitutes a contract of employment, conferring employee status, the wording of the contract will not be determinative of whether there is, in practice, a mutuality of obligation. The tribunal will look closely at the reality of the agreement. If the reality is that there is a pattern of regular work which is regularly accepted, the tribunal may deem the contract to be one of employment
"OT Amazing and shocking tale of the sinking of USS Indianapolis and the sharks"
Don't you remember the second best scene in JAWS?
"Hooper: You were on the Indianapolis?
Brody: What happened?
Quint: Japanese submarine slammed two torpedoes into our side, Chief. We was comin' back from the island of Tinian to Leyte... just delivered the bomb. The Hiroshima bomb. Eleven hundred men went into the water. Vessel went down in 12 minutes. Didn't see the first shark for about a half an hour. Tiger. 13-footer. You know how you know that when you're in the water, Chief? You tell by looking from the dorsal to the tail fin. What we didn't know, was our bomb mission had been so secret, no distress signal had been sent. They didn't even list us overdue for a week. Very first light, Chief, sharks come cruisin', so we formed ourselves into tight groups. You know, it was kinda like old squares in the battle like you see in the calendar named "The Battle of Waterloo" and the idea was: shark comes to the nearest man, that man he starts poundin' and hollerin' and screamin' and sometimes the shark will go away... but sometimes he wouldn't go away. Sometimes that shark he looks right into ya. Right into your eyes. And, you know, the thing about a shark... he's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be living... until he bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then... ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin'. The ocean turns red.......................",
I also think that this is the sort of case that the public sector should use its economic muscle by making it clear that it will be a condition of any public sector contracts that the employees providing these services are not to be on these contracts.
What about catering, for which these contacts are very well suited?
"I'm not trolling anybody. I'm genuinely interested why in the face of all the evidence, somebody allows themselves to be trolled. No ulterior motive, no desire to become massively engaged in some sort of troll off. So to prove the point, that's my last post on the matter."
Josias Jessop always comments on my posts, this morning on housing, this afternoon with his "call an ambulance it might get infected" idiocy, you'd have to ask him why
"I'm not trolling anybody. I'm genuinely interested why in the face of all the evidence, somebody allows themselves to be trolled. No ulterior motive, no desire to become massively engaged in some sort of troll off. So to prove the point, that's my last post on the matter."
Josias Jessop always comments on my posts, this morning on housing, this afternoon with his "call an ambulance it might get infected" idiocy, you'd have to ask him why
It's because I'm secretly in love with you.
There's nothing wrong with having ambition.
Quite the opposite. You'd be my dirty down-at-hell lover, shuffling around the mean streets of Liverpool in a dirty mac as you yearn for my presence. It'll be a step down for me. But at least our affair will get you away from posting on PB for a few hours a day ...
I also think that this is the sort of case that the public sector should use its economic muscle by making it clear that it will be a condition of any public sector contracts that the employees providing these services are not to be on these contracts.
What about catering, for which these contacts are very well suited?
I think the qualifying period deals with that. If someone is taken on to deal with a one off event then they will have the contract they have. If, however, the caterer is using the same pool of people week in, week out to meet a range of different contracts then that reality should be reflected in the employment relationship and the rights of the employee.
I don't really agree with the comments made in the HoC paper you linked to. It is out of date. There is, in my experience, an increasing trend to reflect the actual words of the contract that parties signed fair or not. This is a result of the sort of principles that exist in commercial contractual interpretation bleeding over into employment contracts.
That is why I think we need the kind of provision that I have tentatively suggested.
I agree with him on Alonso. Earlier today I was thinking of laying Alonso to be top 3 in the title race, but the lay odds are 1.55, which is a bit too long for me.
I think the qualifying period deals with that. If someone is taken on to deal with a one off event then they will have the contract they have. If, however, the caterer is using the same pool of people week in, week out to meet a range of different contracts then that reality should be reflected in the employment relationship and the rights of the employee.
Surely the point is the unpredictability of it. The catering company will want to call upon a pool of people whom they know are reliable and competent (so they won't want to take on casual staff they've never used before), but the actual hours when they'll need those staff are completely variable - it might be nothing one week, and 500 people the next week because they've got the contract to provide catering to a sports event or whatever. If the staff don't mind working on that basis, because it's just some extra money or their other commitments are very flexible, then surely that is fine, and indeed the only practical way of working - unless you're going to ban smaller companies from operating at all in this field, and effectively allow only mega-corporations to do so.
On the other end of the scale, the example given in that parliamentary paper of "Edinburgh University found 27% of staff are on such contracts, rising to 47% for those in the College of Humanities and Social Science" sounds like an abuse.
"OT Amazing and shocking tale of the sinking of USS Indianapolis and the sharks"
Don't you remember the second best scene in JAWS?
"Hooper: You were on the Indianapolis?
Brody: What happened?
Quint: Japanese submarine slammed two torpedoes into our side, Chief. We was comin' back from the island of Tinian to Leyte... just delivered the bomb. The Hiroshima bomb. Eleven hundred men went into the water. Vessel went down in 12 minutes. Didn't see the first shark for about a half an hour. Tiger. 13-footer. You know how you know that when you're in the water, Chief? You tell by looking from the dorsal to the tail fin. What we didn't know, was our bomb mission had been so secret, no distress signal had been sent. They didn't even list us overdue for a week. Very first light, Chief, sharks come cruisin', so we formed ourselves into tight groups. You know, it was kinda like old squares in the battle like you see in the calendar named "The Battle of Waterloo" and the idea was: shark comes to the nearest man, that man he starts poundin' and hollerin' and screamin' and sometimes the shark will go away... but sometimes he wouldn't go away. Sometimes that shark he looks right into ya. Right into your eyes. And, you know, the thing about a shark... he's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be living... until he bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then... ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin'. The ocean turns red.......................",
Surely the point is the unpredictability of it. The catering company will want to call upon a pool of people whom they know are reliable and competent (so they won't want to take on casual staff they've never used before), but the actual hours when they'll need those staff are completely unpredictable - it might be nothing one week, and 500 people the next week because they've got the contract to provide catering to a sports event or whatever. If the staff don't mind working on that basis, because it's just some extra money or their other commitments are very flexible, then surely that is fine, and indeed the only practical way of working - unless you're going to ban smaller companies from operating at all in this field, and effectively allow only mega-corporations to do so.
On the other end of the scale, the example given in that parliamentary paper of "Edinburgh University found 27% of staff are on such contracts, rising to 47% for those in the College of Humanities and Social Science" sounds like an abuse.
You are in serious danger of wandering into one of my favourite hobby horses here. The short version is that all contracts are about the allocation of risk. it is why every lawyer should be compelled to study economics.
The risk in your scenario is that the employer will one week find himself short of work. He passes that risk to the employee by a zero hour contract. Who is best placed to take that risk?
Well that depends on the nature of the relationship. If you are a chef, for example, you may have similar arrangements with several "employers" and you may be willing to take that risk for a higher rate of pay. If you are less skilled and lower paid it is not fair or reasonable for the risk to be put on the employee or indeed the state who pick up the tab in benefits. Those most at risk have only 1 employer or one group of employers which is why I made that a condition of qualifying.
If these conditions were imposed on all employers in catering there would be a level playing field and the cost of catering would no doubt rise slightly to reflect the risk the employer has taken on. That seems to me to be an appropriate cost for the employer to have to take on.
Another area is things like strike cover or peak demand mgt. The Royal Mail is a very good example of casuals being needed at very short notice in fairly large numbers - I used to manage the supply to a large sorting office and finding 60 bods in 2hrs for a 4hr shift was commonplace.
I've no problem with zero hour contracts provided the nature of the work isn't largely predictable/regular - I would have a problem if the staff are actually doing substantial numbers of hours over a month or longer.
"I'm not trolling anybody. I'm genuinely interested why in the face of all the evidence, somebody allows themselves to be trolled. No ulterior motive, no desire to become massively engaged in some sort of troll off. So to prove the point, that's my last post on the matter."
Josias Jessop always comments on my posts, this morning on housing, this afternoon with his "call an ambulance it might get infected" idiocy, you'd have to ask him why
It's because I'm secretly in love with you.
There's nothing wrong with having ambition.
Quite the opposite. You'd be my dirty down-at-hell lover, shuffling around the mean streets of Liverpool in a dirty mac as you yearn for my presence. It'll be a step down for me. But at least our affair will get you away from posting on PB for a few hours a day ...
You don't strike me as being "hours a day" interesting.
Well, I am a Geek. And the Geeks will inherit the Earth.
If these conditions were imposed on all employers in catering there would be a level playign field and the cost of catering would no doubt raise slightly to reflect the risk the employer has taken on. That seems to me to be an appropriate cost for the employer to have to take on.
No, what would happen is that there would be a small number of monopoly employers because the barriers to entry for new firms would be insuperable. That's not in anyone's interest (except Compass plc).
In any case you're starting from the assumption that this must be definition be an abusive relationship. But 'tain't necessarily so: lots of people don't mind having the option - but, crucially, not the obligation - to work a few evenings a month. Whether they do so for one or several companies doesn't alter that; they may prefer to work on an occasional basis for just one company who they in turn trust and like.
I think the qualifying period deals with that. If someone is taken on to deal with a one off event then they will have the contract they have. If, however, the caterer is using the same pool of people week in, week out to meet a range of different contracts then that reality should be reflected in the employment relationship and the rights of the employee.
Surely the point is the unpredictability of it. The catering company will want to call upon a pool of people whom they know are reliable and competent (so they won't want to take on casual staff they've never used before), but the actual hours when they'll need those staff are completely variable - it might be nothing one week, and 500 people the next week because they've got the contract to provide catering to a sports event or whatever. If the staff don't mind working on that basis, because it's just some extra money or their other commitments are very flexible, then surely that is fine, and indeed the only practical way of working - unless you're going to ban smaller companies from operating at all in this field, and effectively allow only mega-corporations to do so.
On the other end of the scale, the example given in that parliamentary paper of "Edinburgh University found 27% of staff are on such contracts, rising to 47% for those in the College of Humanities and Social Science" sounds like an abuse.
RN, if they were restricted to these cases, where there is a common interest in the flexibility then they are fine.
The problem is that they are often used by big companies / organisations versus workers with limited real choice / other options. Examples are cleaning staff in hospitals - companies know how much work they will have on a reasonably predictable basis, so there should be no need for zero hours contracts
Tories taking a hammering on the evening news over 111, deservedly No ministers available, just the old buffer from the Lords. Surely Hunt Soubry and Dr Dan didn't all go on holiday at the same time?
The NHS is simply not safe in Tory hands. Simples.
Tories taking a hammering on the evening news over 111, deservedly No ministers available, just the old buffer from the Lords. Surely Hunt Soubry and Dr Dan didn't all go on holiday at the same time?
The NHS is simply not safe in Tory hands. Simples.
I'd rather the patients were safe than the institution.
Doesn't the disgraced and banned poster HD2 feel he could spend his time more interestingly than flagging posters as trolls under his imaginative new username HB2?
What about preparing fascist lessons for his next term's students?
If these conditions were imposed on all employers in catering there would be a level playign field and the cost of catering would no doubt raise slightly to reflect the risk the employer has taken on. That seems to me to be an appropriate cost for the employer to have to take on.
No, what would happen is that there would be a small number of monopoly employers because the barriers to entry for new firms would be insuperable. That's not in anyone's interest (except Compass plc).
In any case you're starting from the assumption that this must be definition be an abusive relationship. But 'tain't necessarily so: lots of people don't mind having the option - but, crucially, not the obligation - to work a few evenings a month. Whether they do so for one or several companies doesn't alter that; they may prefer to work on an occasional basis for just one company who they in turn trust and like.
I don't see the barriers to entry point. New businesses typically have owner/employer staff and would not be affected. By the time they were employing people on a sufficiently regular basis for them to qualify they are well enough established to take on the cost, particularly if all their competitors have the same cost.
The second point is more complicated because my suggestion clearly does remove some flexibility. But employment rights are contingent upon working enough hours to qualify so a student, for example, is unlikely to qualify. If they do work enough hours then perhaps they should get the rights I have suggested. Such rights are of course self limiting as they will be fixed by reference to the hours worked.
F1: Spa will be very interesting. That's partly because it's a properly good track, but also because it (apparently) shouldn't suit the Mercedes due to faster corners putting more strain on the tyres (something which will also occur at Suzuka).
But, if Mercedes can do well at Spa, then it may well be in a very good position to mount a serious title challenge.
If these conditions were imposed on all employers in catering there would be a level playign field and the cost of catering would no doubt raise slightly to reflect the risk the employer has taken on. That seems to me to be an appropriate cost for the employer to have to take on.
No, what would happen is that there would be a small number of monopoly employers because the barriers to entry for new firms would be insuperable. That's not in anyone's interest (except Compass plc).
In any case you're starting from the assumption that this must be definition be an abusive relationship. But 'tain't necessarily so: lots of people don't mind having the option - but, crucially, not the obligation - to work a few evenings a month. Whether they do so for one or several companies doesn't alter that; they may prefer to work on an occasional basis for just one company who they in turn trust and like.
I don't see the barriers to entry point. New businesses typically have owner/employer staff and would not be affected. By the time they were employing people on a sufficiently regular basis for them to qualify they are well enough established to take on the cost, particularly if all their competitors have the same cost.
The second point is more complicated because my suggestion clearly does remove some flexibility. But employment rights are contingent upon working enough hours to qualify so a student, for example, is unlikely to qualify. If they do work enough hours then perhaps they should get the rights I have suggested. Such rights are of course self limiting as they will be fixed by reference to the hours worked.
RN, if they were restricted to these cases, where there is a common interest in the flexibility then they are fine.
The problem is that they are often used by big companies / organisations versus workers with limited real choice / other options. Examples are cleaning staff in hospitals - companies know how much work they will have on a reasonably predictable basis, so there should be no need for zero hours contracts
Yes, that's basically what I'm saying. However, the parliamentary briefing paper which I linked to earlier seems to suggest that, in the latter case, the staff are actually employees and the zero-hours contract wouldn't stand up. DavidL suggests that is a wrong interpretation of the law - I'm not qualified to give an opinion on that, but it sounds as though what is needed is either a further test case (over to you, trades unions!), or an amendment to existing law.
However, one does need to be careful not to throw out the baby with the regulatory bathwater. As we all know, the only beneficiaries of excessive regulation are big, semi-monopolistic companies.
Zero hours contracts would be fine if they didn't depend on employers not to abuse them. Plus people who don't know what money will be coming in next week won't spend. I highlighted them as an issue ages ago. I think Mullin has a few gos at them in his diaries.
TIM YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO MAKE ANY COMMENT ABOUT JEREMY HUNT WITHOUT A BONA FIDE LINK PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK PROVING WHAT YOU SAY OR EDIT YOUR COMMENT ACCORDINGLY>
What's this double yellow line non-starter? People park on them for a few minutes anyway to pop into a shop for something specific after a quick scan for wardens. Stupid idea.
After reading about two jurors who've been held in contempt of court - I rather liked this.
" During a recent criminal case in Ionia County District Court, the prosecutor’s closing argument was interrupted by a loud voice saying things such as “I can’t understand you. Say something like ‘Mom’”. Uneasiness spread through the court and attention then focused on Judge Raymond Voet whose new smartphone, it turned out, was the source of the impatient voice.
The phone, which was in the judge’s pocket, was trying to get him to give it voice commands for voice dialling. The judge initially tried in vain to stop the phone from asking him questions but he was used to using a BlackBerry and wasn’t familiar with the touchscreen controls. It seemed like the more he tried to silence the phone, the more insistent it became to get him to speak.
The judge said that he must have inadvertently bumped it into action. The trouble was that a special court edict, on the wall, asserts that any disturbance in court caused by electronic devices of any kind will result in the owner being instantly cited for contempt and fined. Judge Voet, therefore, cited himself for contempt. He said: “If I cannot live by the rules that I enforce, then I have no business enforcing these rules.” He fined himself $25. He did not ask himself for time to pay the fine and settled the debt in full later that day. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/law/weirdcases/article3746775.ece
Tories taking a hammering on the evening news over 111, deservedly No ministers available, just the old buffer from the Lords. Surely Hunt Soubry and Dr Dan didn't all go on holiday at the same time?
The NHS is simply not safe in Tory hands. Simples.
I'd rather the patients were safe than the institution.
Therein lies the difference in approach from the two wings of the political spectrum.
I'm on side of the patient in case there is any doubt.
" Uncontrolled electronic devices have posed challenges for the bench in some earlier cases. Magistrate Hector Graham was on the Bench at Luton magistrates’ court just before Christmas in 2000. A convicted man dejectedly stood before the bench, head hung, about to be sentenced for a property crime when the courtroom suddenly rang out to the tune Santa Claus is Coming to Town.
Mr Graham pulled open his jacket and agitatedly began fumbling with his musical novelty Santa Claus tie. The convicted defendant looked on incredulously. The magistrate’s tie then burst into We Wish You a Merry Christmas before stopping, at which point the defendant was jailed for four months."
What's this double yellow line non-starter? People park on them for a few minutes anyway to pop into a shop for something specific after a quick scan for wardens. Stupid idea.
In Italy we even have permanent "job on call" contracts. Waiters, receptionist, people working at gas stations, phone operators, janitors are among the categories of jobs where it's allowed. And obviously for weekends, summer, Christmas periods. The worker can't work for the same employer for more than 400 datys in a 3 years period.
There're 2 type of contracts...1) the worker can't refuse the call 2) the worker can tell the employer that he's already busy with something else. In case of Type 1, he receives a monthly allowance for his availability.
111 or any other possible phone line solution to crowded A&E departments will always have problems. In a perfect world, callers, both genuine and the few hypochondriacs, would be given the best professional advice and would accept it.
A GP at the end of the line would be optimal - they have more experience, more knowledge and a good trade union/insurance to deflect any potential criticism. And the medical confidence (hopefully) to say to callers when they are being hypochondriacs - a difficulty for even experienced nurses.
Occasionally, it will turn out badly but the victims should shrug their shoulders (if they survived) and say .. "well, that's life (or death), I had the best advice anyway."
But that optimal solution, even if it worked, would be fiendishly expensive and likely to become more so.
Nowadays we have increased expectations of medical practice and a much greater demand. And it grows year by year. And politically, every case of an unnecessary death (even in the old) is dynamite.
They used to say that the Home Office was the graveyard of political ambitions. I suspect it's now the DoH.
'Tories taking a hammering on the evening news over 111, deservedly No ministers available, just the old buffer from the Lords. Surely Hunt Soubry and Dr Dan didn't all go on holiday at the same time?'
Labour put Captain Birdseye on BBC who agreed that 111 was signed off by Labour.
Is Andy in hiding again or too hysterical to make an appearance?
He seems like a really nice man...Atleast am glad Jeremy Hunt wasn`t there with his stupid headnods
It's very odd, all the health ministers must have gone away at the same time if they are letting Earl Howe out to be interviewed. They are very keen to be photographed changing sheets on a hospital bed dressed up as nurses but they appear to have rota'd themselves on holiday at the same time. Funny really.
tim
Can you provide a link to Jeremy Hunt dressed up as a nurse?
You get the feeling the 111 fiasco is the tip of a very large iceberg.
The Tories are certainly doing a cracking job confirming the electorate's worst fears about their ability to look after the NHS.
What in God's name was Cameron thinking allowing all this upheaval he promised wouldn't happen?
Carl, in your opinion what do you think the top 5 changes for the worse are since 2010? I very rarely (thankfully) have had to make use of it and would be hard pushed to tell what, if any, differences there are.
It's very odd, all the health ministers must have gone away at the same time if they are letting Earl Howe out to be interviewed. They are very keen to be photographed changing sheets on a hospital bed dressed up as nurses but they appear to have rota'd themselves on holiday at the same time. Funny really.
No, Soubry is around, and holding forth on, um, whether to build houses on the green belt.
The Labour model of a monolithic, national telephone health advice and information service staffed by nurses has proved to be uneconomic when compared to private sector supply.
NHS Direct can only break even on the service if paid £13 per call whereas its smaller, regionally based competitors are able to contract at a rate of between £7 and £9 per call.
Any businessmen familiar with the de-monopolising of state services will be familiar with the arguments currently being rehearsed in public.
How may times have I heard the cry from the depossessed monopoly of "how can they can ever make a profit at those prices?".
But as we all know, when a market is opened up to competition new entrants push down pricing and costs and the new, fitter providers tend to win. "How can the Chinese make televisions/kettles/computers at those prices?".
So who is really complaining about this inevitable process? The Express article you quote gives us a clue:
Sara Gorton, deputy head of health at Unison, said the union previously warned that the new service would be a "shadow" of the former helpline.
"The Government rushed through the trials of 111 in its haste to increase private competition and it is patients who are now paying the price," she said.
Unite's national officer for health Barrie Brown said: "There was no logic for the Government to replace the successful single-service NHS Direct, which was highly rated by users, with a fragmented NHS 111 set up with 46 different contracts.
"The impetus here is not patient care, but cost-cutting by a Government whose foot is firmly on the privatisation accelerator."
And it won't be long before we hear allegations of life-endangering drops in service quality.
When they arise - and they will - all eyes should focus on independent and objective measurements of service quality delivery. Such quality assurance rarely lies and the pattern of a monopoly fragmenting is that the new entrants not only cut costs but they tend to be far more inventive at service development and effective in quality improvement than their predecessors.
What we are seeing with the 111 debate today is real evidence that the Lansley reforms are beginning to work.
The Labour model of a monolithic, national telephone health advice and information service staffed by nurses has proved to be uneconomic when compared to private sector supply.
NHS Direct can only break even on the service if paid £13 per call whereas its smaller, regionally based competitors are able to contract at a rate of between £7 and £9 per call.
Any businessmen familiar with the de-monopolising of state services will be familiar with the arguments currently being rehearsed in public.
How may times have I heard the cry from the depossessed monopoly of "how can they can never make a profit at those prices?". But as we all know, when a market is opened up to competition new entrants push down pricing and costs and the new, fitter providers tend to win.
So who is really complaining about this inevitable process? The Express article you quote gives us a clue:
Sara Gorton, deputy head of health at Unison, said the union previously warned that the new service would be a "shadow" of the former helpline.
"The Government rushed through the trials of 111 in its haste to increase private competition and it is patients who are now paying the price," she said.
Unite's national officer for health Barrie Brown said: "There was no logic for the Government to replace the successful single-service NHS Direct, which was highly rated by users, with a fragmented NHS 111 set up with 46 different contracts.
"The impetus here is not patient care, but cost-cutting by a Government whose foot is firmly on the privatisation accelerator."
And it won't be long before we hear allegations of life-endangering drops in service quality. When they arise - and they will - all eyes should focus on independent and objective measurements of service quality delivery. Such quality assurance rarely lies and the pattern of a monopoly fragmenting is that the new entrants not only cut costs but they tend to be far more inventive at service development and effective in quality improvement than their predecessors.
What we are seeing with the 111 debate today is real evidence that the Lansley reforms are beginning to work.
There is as yet no evidence that any of the companies contracting at £ 7 to 9 per call are making or can make a profit .
I suppose you get what you pay for.If you pay 7 to 9 pounds per call,we now see what the private sector does.They stuff the call centres with poorly trained non-clinical staff to make a profit who then send everyone to A&E.And then the A&E and ambulance services gets overloaded and we have got a crisis on our hands.I am all for the private sector but it is not the panacea for everything that`s for sure.
I suppose you get what you pay for.If you pay 7 to 9 pounds per call,we now see what the private sector does.They stuff the call centres with poorly trained non-clinical staff to make a profit who then send everyone to A&E.And then the A&E and ambulance services gets overloaded and we have got a crisis on our hands.I am all for the private sector but it is not the panacea for everything that`s for sure.
Previously I asked Carl to list his 5 worst changes to the NHS since 2010, he has not answered. Perhaps you could do so. I'm genuinely interested in your opinion as I have virtually no contact with the NHS and don't have anything to compare against. It would be interesting to see if you have actually got any hard issues to comment on, or if you are just yah booing.
I suppose you get what you pay for.If you pay 7 to 9 pounds per call,we now see what the private sector does.They stuff the call centres with poorly trained non-clinical staff to make a profit who then send everyone to A&E.And then the A&E and ambulance services gets overloaded and we have got a crisis on our hands.I am all for the private sector but it is not the panacea for everything that`s for sure.
Sorry, SMukesh, can't agree with you.
The telephone service is not - and is not intended to be - a conventional diagnosis by a qualified medical professional.
It is simply a screening and patient interaction process whose quality will be dependent on the intelligence of the software systems used by the call centre and the ability of the call handler to relate to the caller.
A well designed software system has the potential to be even more effective, in the vast majority of cases, than a conventional face to face medical diagnosis, as it won't be prone to human error and can exhaust all possible diagnoses in a way that no doctor or nurse can.
This is not to say that advice based on computer systems analysis will be more effective for all diagnostic work or medical information provision. The key is the ability of the system to screen callers so that only those who would benefit from direct interaction with medical professionals are passed through.
The success of the service will depend on the effectiveness of such "exception management".
Comments
Re your earlier post about Mrs T's death - I can't help feeling that since her funeral the Tories have moved on and become more confident in who they are now. Whenever I read yet another article from Mr Tebbit - it just reminds me how far things have come.
Flogging the dead horse of her time as PM has become even more pointless since she's no longer with us - the Left have also lost a hate figure since railing against the dead just doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
Death to Thatcher t-shirts are so passe...
Lord Michael Dobbs @dobbs_michael
Neil Kinnock kind enough to enquire how I hurt my foot. Kicking Socialists, I reply. Where do you find them nowadays, he asks...
(1) the victim was not pregnant, so there is no risk of toxiplasmosis
(2) the cats claws were clean so there is no risk of lockjaw
(3) the wound was shallow and not infected, so there was no risk of septicemia
If not, then you can't assess whether it was the right decision to send an ambulance or not.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100228569/britains-murderers-up-in-arms-after-heartless-tory-van-campaign-disses-them/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
-Call an ambulance, it can be lethal
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2116523/Gardener-killed-by-fungus-in-his-compost.html
And £600K won't buy you much in P CL (or SP CL)
I LOL at this bit
"As the MP for Unwinnable West, says: “It’s dog whistle politics: appealing to people who instinctively dislike brutal slayings. It’s also driving a wedge between the murdering and non-murdering community. Just this morning I had a local murderer on the phone, he’s been happily walking the streets for months after he drove his truck into a betting shop, killing six. Now the poor fellow is a wreck, he’s seen these vans and he’s wondering if the police might take action. And think about the effect on his family. What’s he going to tell his wife, who has been locked in his cellar for seven years?”
Interesting stuff, I wonder if the Sports Direct financial PR people got one over the FT when they published this:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f3f11e5c-ef71-11e2-8229-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2aS3qbi5l
Should go down really well on here.
It did leave me wondering when wasting taxpayers' money became an issue for just the left, the Guardian and the Lib Dems though.
I often scratch my head over your posts - half of them are centrist, reasonable, and kind-hearted, with often a good word for unions and benefit recipients, and I often agree with you. Half are virulently partisan Tory posts. I'd have thought that you'd have mixed feelings about all the parties and be open to persuasion?
(switches right wing bias back on again)
The FT piece focused exclusively on the 2,000 staff lucky enough to qualify for a bonus without mentioning anything about the 20,000 or so other staff!
Simples.
Do you disagree?
As you will have seen I don't think Osborne has got everything right either but he is at least trying to go in the right directions. Brown just lied and lied and spent and spent.
On social policy I find some tory positions hard to stomach although this has been much less of a problem under Cameron and Osborne, who do not get nearly enough credit for this, than previous leaders. There are clearly opportunities for different points of view and a pragmatic approach. I frequently find myself in agreement with yourself and Southam Observer in particular.
Tim doesn't really care about the stuff he bangs on about, he does it to provoke a reaction, once he gets that reaction he will endlessly repeat it, in and out of context, in the hope of provoking further reaction.
So, I'm genuinely interested, why allow yourself to be trolled?
However, I'm not sure Tim's a troll. There's still an infinitesimal chance he might be the world-renowned-expert-in-everything he makes himself out to be.
They can be genuinely beneficial for employees / potential employees. The problem is that they are abused by employers, as the Sports Direct example shows.
I don't know whether a ban is the answer, but if not I don't know what is! Though for sure, they should at least be a rare exception. But hey, all bow down and worship the "flexible labour market" eh.
Isn't the internet odd.
Roger said:
'Crap tasteless and very unfunny blog by Sean.
Should go down really well on here.'
"What was tasteless about it ?"
Reducto ad absurdam arguments are for schoolchildren or those with a very limited IQ. Sean is neither (unlike some of his fans on here).
My tentative suggestion would be that where an employee is working for a single employer or related employers for a qualifying period then their contract should be deemed to be for the average of their of their hours over the last 13 or 26 weeks as benefits them, entitling them to claim earnings and employment rights on that basis.
I also think that this is the sort of case that the public sector should use its economic muscle by making it clear that it will be a condition of any public sector contracts that the employees providing these services are not to be on these contracts. The fact that they exist and are spreading in the public sector itself shows that something needs to be done.
Edit, can I congratulate you in calling the cat argument right some considerable time ago.
I can't see how a government could ban (or rationally would want to ban) an arrangement whereby, for example, a catering company can have a pool of people whom they can call on when they have a particularly large requirement for staff (for the Henley Regatta, say).
However, the key thing is that it should be a genuine flexible arrangement willingly entered into on both sides, with no obligation on either side to supply or accept the work, not a wheeze to get round employment law.
In fact, it's quite likely that a lot of zero-hour contracts are in fact legally dubious:
Thus, when deciding whether a zero-hours contract constitutes a contract of employment, conferring employee status, the wording of the contract will not be determinative of whether there is, in practice, a mutuality of obligation. The tribunal will look closely at the reality of the agreement. If the reality is that there is a pattern of regular work which is regularly accepted, the tribunal may deem the contract to be one of employment
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06553.pdf
"OT Amazing and shocking tale of the sinking of USS Indianapolis and the sharks"
Don't you remember the second best scene in JAWS?
"Hooper: You were on the Indianapolis?
Brody: What happened?
Quint: Japanese submarine slammed two torpedoes into our side, Chief. We was comin' back from the island of Tinian to Leyte... just delivered the bomb. The Hiroshima bomb. Eleven hundred men went into the water. Vessel went down in 12 minutes. Didn't see the first shark for about a half an hour. Tiger. 13-footer. You know how you know that when you're in the water, Chief? You tell by looking from the dorsal to the tail fin. What we didn't know, was our bomb mission had been so secret, no distress signal had been sent. They didn't even list us overdue for a week. Very first light, Chief, sharks come cruisin', so we formed ourselves into tight groups. You know, it was kinda like old squares in the battle like you see in the calendar named "The Battle of Waterloo" and the idea was: shark comes to the nearest man, that man he starts poundin' and hollerin' and screamin' and sometimes the shark will go away... but sometimes he wouldn't go away. Sometimes that shark he looks right into ya. Right into your eyes. And, you know, the thing about a shark... he's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be living... until he bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then... ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin'. The ocean turns red.......................",
Josias Jessop always comments on my posts, this morning on housing, this afternoon with his "call an ambulance it might get infected" idiocy, you'd have to ask him why
It's because I'm secretly in love with you.
"5. I took too much Viagra and couldn't leave the house." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/i-took-too-much-viagra-and-could-not-leave-the-house-dvla-reveals-the-top-10-silliest-excuses-made-for-not-paying-road-tax-8737027.html
There's nothing wrong with having ambition.
Quite the opposite. You'd be my dirty down-at-hell lover, shuffling around the mean streets of Liverpool in a dirty mac as you yearn for my presence. It'll be a step down for me. But at least our affair will get you away from posting on PB for a few hours a day ...
I don't really agree with the comments made in the HoC paper you linked to. It is out of date. There is, in my experience, an increasing trend to reflect the actual words of the contract that parties signed fair or not. This is a result of the sort of principles that exist in commercial contractual interpretation bleeding over into employment contracts.
That is why I think we need the kind of provision that I have tentatively suggested.
Interesting thoughts, as usual, from Gary Anderson: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23492408
I agree with him on Alonso. Earlier today I was thinking of laying Alonso to be top 3 in the title race, but the lay odds are 1.55, which is a bit too long for me.
Allison's returned to Ferrari as chassis technical director: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23495111
He's got his work cut out.
On the other end of the scale, the example given in that parliamentary paper of "Edinburgh University found 27% of staff are on such contracts, rising to 47% for those in the College of Humanities and Social Science" sounds like an abuse.
The risk in your scenario is that the employer will one week find himself short of work. He passes that risk to the employee by a zero hour contract. Who is best placed to take that risk?
Well that depends on the nature of the relationship. If you are a chef, for example, you may have similar arrangements with several "employers" and you may be willing to take that risk for a higher rate of pay. If you are less skilled and lower paid it is not fair or reasonable for the risk to be put on the employee or indeed the state who pick up the tab in benefits. Those most at risk have only 1 employer or one group of employers which is why I made that a condition of qualifying.
If these conditions were imposed on all employers in catering there would be a level playing field and the cost of catering would no doubt rise slightly to reflect the risk the employer has taken on. That seems to me to be an appropriate cost for the employer to have to take on.
Another area is things like strike cover or peak demand mgt. The Royal Mail is a very good example of casuals being needed at very short notice in fairly large numbers - I used to manage the supply to a large sorting office and finding 60 bods in 2hrs for a 4hr shift was commonplace.
I've no problem with zero hour contracts provided the nature of the work isn't largely predictable/regular - I would have a problem if the staff are actually doing substantial numbers of hours over a month or longer.
You don't strike me as being "hours a day" interesting.
Well, I am a Geek. And the Geeks will inherit the Earth.
Get a room. Without an internet connection. Please. This got weird some time ago.
" What was the best scene? "
The first one.
In any case you're starting from the assumption that this must be definition be an abusive relationship. But 'tain't necessarily so: lots of people don't mind having the option - but, crucially, not the obligation - to work a few evenings a month. Whether they do so for one or several companies doesn't alter that; they may prefer to work on an occasional basis for just one company who they in turn trust and like.
I am surprised that Sean targetted murder in his blog.
According to the latest MORI polls I believe immigration has greater salience.
I, for one, would be interested to hear Sean's views on illegal immigrants.
The problem is that they are often used by big companies / organisations versus workers with limited real choice / other options. Examples are cleaning staff in hospitals - companies know how much work they will have on a reasonably predictable basis, so there should be no need for zero hours contracts
Would they really choose a name so close to their original one?
Seems a tad too obvious to me
The second point is more complicated because my suggestion clearly does remove some flexibility. But employment rights are contingent upon working enough hours to qualify so a student, for example, is unlikely to qualify. If they do work enough hours then perhaps they should get the rights I have suggested. Such rights are of course self limiting as they will be fixed by reference to the hours worked.
But, if Mercedes can do well at Spa, then it may well be in a very good position to mount a serious title challenge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHtuOgtlUjg
Right now Ferrari need Alonso more than the other way around.
http://www.espn.co.uk/ferrari/motorsport/story/119083.html
MODERATION IS NOT A SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION ON PB
Call your mates in first and squeeze out the ones that you don't like.
However, one does need to be careful not to throw out the baby with the regulatory bathwater. As we all know, the only beneficiaries of excessive regulation are big, semi-monopolistic companies.
This is the best 'Jaws' scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gciFoEbOA8
YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO MAKE ANY COMMENT ABOUT JEREMY HUNT WITHOUT A BONA FIDE LINK
PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK PROVING WHAT YOU SAY OR EDIT YOUR COMMENT ACCORDINGLY>
" During a recent criminal case in Ionia County District Court, the prosecutor’s closing argument was interrupted by a loud voice saying things such as “I can’t understand you. Say something like ‘Mom’”. Uneasiness spread through the court and attention then focused on Judge Raymond Voet whose new smartphone, it turned out, was the source of the impatient voice.
The phone, which was in the judge’s pocket, was trying to get him to give it voice commands for voice dialling. The judge initially tried in vain to stop the phone from asking him questions but he was used to using a BlackBerry and wasn’t familiar with the touchscreen controls. It seemed like the more he tried to silence the phone, the more insistent it became to get him to speak.
The judge said that he must have inadvertently bumped it into action. The trouble was that a special court edict, on the wall, asserts that any disturbance in court caused by electronic devices of any kind will result in the owner being instantly cited for contempt and fined. Judge Voet, therefore, cited himself for contempt. He said: “If I cannot live by the rules that I enforce, then I have no business enforcing these rules.” He fined himself $25. He did not ask himself for time to pay the fine and settled the debt in full later that day. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/law/weirdcases/article3746775.ece
" Uncontrolled electronic devices have posed challenges for the bench in some earlier cases. Magistrate Hector Graham was on the Bench at Luton magistrates’ court just before Christmas in 2000. A convicted man dejectedly stood before the bench, head hung, about to be sentenced for a property crime when the courtroom suddenly rang out to the tune Santa Claus is Coming to Town.
Mr Graham pulled open his jacket and agitatedly began fumbling with his musical novelty Santa Claus tie. The convicted defendant looked on incredulously. The magistrate’s tie then burst into We Wish You a Merry Christmas before stopping, at which point the defendant was jailed for four months."
Councils like the revenue raised from PCN's so will have zero regard for Eric's idea.
I think that makes four bad train crashes in Europe in just a few weeks. :-(
In Italy we even have permanent "job on call" contracts.
Waiters, receptionist, people working at gas stations, phone operators, janitors are among the categories of jobs where it's allowed. And obviously for weekends, summer, Christmas periods.
The worker can't work for the same employer for more than 400 datys in a 3 years period.
There're 2 type of contracts...1) the worker can't refuse the call 2) the worker can tell the employer that he's already busy with something else.
In case of Type 1, he receives a monthly allowance for his availability.
It can't be used to replace striking workers.
111 or any other possible phone line solution to crowded A&E departments will always have problems. In a perfect world, callers, both genuine and the few hypochondriacs, would be given the best professional advice and would accept it.
A GP at the end of the line would be optimal - they have more experience, more knowledge and a good trade union/insurance to deflect any potential criticism. And the medical confidence (hopefully) to say to callers when they are being hypochondriacs - a difficulty for even experienced nurses.
Occasionally, it will turn out badly but the victims should shrug their shoulders (if they survived) and say .. "well, that's life (or death), I had the best advice anyway."
But that optimal solution, even if it worked, would be fiendishly expensive and likely to become more so.
Nowadays we have increased expectations of medical practice and a much greater demand. And it grows year by year. And politically, every case of an unnecessary death (even in the old) is dynamite.
They used to say that the Home Office was the graveyard of political ambitions. I suspect it's now the DoH.
'Tories taking a hammering on the evening news over 111, deservedly
No ministers available, just the old buffer from the Lords.
Surely Hunt Soubry and Dr Dan didn't all go on holiday at the same time?'
Labour put Captain Birdseye on BBC who agreed that 111 was signed off by Labour.
Is Andy in hiding again or too hysterical to make an appearance?
Can you provide a link to Jeremy Hunt dressed up as a nurse?
You have piqued a carnal interest.
https://twitter.com/tpearce003/status/361895169894785025
Don`t give Jeremy Hunt ideas...He`ll start answering phone calls on 111 next time.
Cameron,Osborne and now all the health ministers...I wonder if any of the Tory ministers are in the country.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3828692.ece
The Tories are certainly doing a cracking job confirming the electorate's worst fears about their ability to look after the NHS.
What in God's name was Cameron thinking allowing all this upheaval he promised wouldn't happen?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10209643/Internet-troll-who-abused-Mary-Beard-apologises-after-threat-to-tell-his-mother.html
Mumeeeeeee
'You do know the difference between the Labour proposals for 111 and what Lansley did don't you?'
Yes,Captain Birdseye explained the difference on the BBC, we would have implemented it differently, so in plain English zero difference.
FITALASS... PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS MODERATION
NHS Direct can only break even on the service if paid £13 per call whereas its smaller, regionally based competitors are able to contract at a rate of between £7 and £9 per call.
Any businessmen familiar with the de-monopolising of state services will be familiar with the arguments currently being rehearsed in public.
How may times have I heard the cry from the depossessed monopoly of "how can they can ever make a profit at those prices?".
But as we all know, when a market is opened up to competition new entrants push down pricing and costs and the new, fitter providers tend to win. "How can the Chinese make televisions/kettles/computers at those prices?".
So who is really complaining about this inevitable process? The Express article you quote gives us a clue:
Sara Gorton, deputy head of health at Unison, said the union previously warned that the new service would be a "shadow" of the former helpline.
"The Government rushed through the trials of 111 in its haste to increase private competition and it is patients who are now paying the price," she said.
Unite's national officer for health Barrie Brown said: "There was no logic for the Government to replace the successful single-service NHS Direct, which was highly rated by users, with a fragmented NHS 111 set up with 46 different contracts.
"The impetus here is not patient care, but cost-cutting by a Government whose foot is firmly on the privatisation accelerator."
And it won't be long before we hear allegations of life-endangering drops in service quality.
When they arise - and they will - all eyes should focus on independent and objective measurements of service quality delivery. Such quality assurance rarely lies and the pattern of a monopoly fragmenting is that the new entrants not only cut costs but they tend to be far more inventive at service development and effective in quality improvement than their predecessors.
What we are seeing with the 111 debate today is real evidence that the Lansley reforms are beginning to work.
Now framed and placed on the top shelf in my Library.
I suppose you get what you pay for.If you pay 7 to 9 pounds per call,we now see what the private sector does.They stuff the call centres with poorly trained non-clinical staff to make a profit who then send everyone to A&E.And then the A&E and ambulance services gets overloaded and we have got a crisis on our hands.I am all for the private sector but it is not the panacea for everything that`s for sure.
Thankfully for the Government, the Express has about the same readership as oil lamp fettlers monthly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23494203
What is it about European trains lately? I think I'll keep off Eurostar for a bit.
I'm genuinely interested in your opinion as I have virtually no contact with the NHS and don't have anything to compare against. It would be interesting to see if you have actually got any hard issues to comment on, or if you are just yah booing.
The telephone service is not - and is not intended to be - a conventional diagnosis by a qualified medical professional.
It is simply a screening and patient interaction process whose quality will be dependent on the intelligence of the software systems used by the call centre and the ability of the call handler to relate to the caller.
A well designed software system has the potential to be even more effective, in the vast majority of cases, than a conventional face to face medical diagnosis, as it won't be prone to human error and can exhaust all possible diagnoses in a way that no doctor or nurse can.
This is not to say that advice based on computer systems analysis will be more effective for all diagnostic work or medical information provision. The key is the ability of the system to screen callers so that only those who would benefit from direct interaction with medical professionals are passed through.
The success of the service will depend on the effectiveness of such "exception management".
"IN ALL THINGS MODERATION"