Britain and the EU

Sapphire

Thrugelmir wrote: »

People need to train or start their own businesses. There's no shortage of unskilled labour.

Many won't do this, though, if they can rely on benefits and watch telly all day. Some need to have a similar work ethic and ambition instilled in them to that possessed by most Poles. This seems to have been lost to an extent in Britain (if it ever existed to a great degree among some sections of the population). The 'world' (aka 'taxpayers) does not owe anyone a living, contrary to the expectations of some…

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

For someone who thinks they're talking about pragmatic you sure seem to talk about principles a lot:



Pragmatism would be not caring about them being elected or accountable as long as they are doing the right thing; what you've been going on about, apparently by accident, is the principle that unelected and unaccountable people shouldn't have the ability.

We all know you don't like the EU, you could save a lot of bandwidth by leaving it at that rather than imagining up a never ending line of smokescreens to hide that behind.

pragmatism is about being pragmatic

democracy is an awful system but on balance and being pragmatic it seems the best that is available.
It beats unelected judges most of the time.

In the case of the ECHR, they often do the wrong thing, but even if they occasionally do the right thing, I prefer that the decisions about UK matters of law and order, are made by a government which we can kick out.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

How about 'a lot more than we have' for now...then we can argue the toss about any differences to your contrary hearts content later Clapton me ol' mucker!

because I wish harm to no-one and I wish good to the people of all races and colours etc, I would think all countries should have a 'lot more than now'.

BobQ

vivatifosi wrote: »

Not a topic for this thread, but leading on from Gen's post above. It will be interesting to see the impact of the new minimum wages on the public sector. A big low paid but massively growing aspect of the public sector is the legion of carers who visit people in their homes.

Most carers are employed by the private sector. The problem with raising the minimum wage is that if the public sector budgets for care are not increased at the same rate as the minimum wage rises then the care providers will simply not bid for the work. Private sector care providers have limited margins and most of the costs are labour. Something has to give and this is already happening with some care providers deciding not to bid for care contracts when faced with unrealistic "guideline" hourly rates set by councils based on their budgets.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

The problem with raising the minimum wage is that if the public sector budgets for care are not increased at the same rate as the minimum wage rises then the care providers will simply not bid for the work.

That's the downside impact of the minimum wage. Ultimately someone has to pay. In any industry no one is going to invest money if there's no return. The leisure sector i.e. hotels/pubs etc will face challenges by 2020. Something has to give. Increased prices or improved productivity. Worth taking a look at some of the large quoted companies and how much profit they make per employee. It's not as high as one would imagine.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

I would not see the UN in any way as the equivalent to the ECHR.

The UN is talking shop for governments : many quite vile but nevertheless jaw jaw is better than war war.

In general it doesn't involve itself in the minute of individual countries internal laws.

Stop and search powers are a proper consideration for an elected parliament.

WE signed the UN Charter on Human Rights and we signed the European Convention on HR.

Everything is a proper consideration for an elected parliament. The issue is what do you do when your government decides to do something that conflicts with the documents your nation signs.

If Russia does it we question their commitment to human rights. When we do it we say what?

We can of course terminate our commitment to them and write our own Bill of Rights. But what does that say about us. If China did it, what would we infer from it?

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

WE signed the UN Charter on Human Rights and we signed the European Convention on HR.

Everything is a proper consideration for an elected parliament. The issue is what do you do when your government decides to do something that conflicts with the documents your nation signs.

If Russia does it we question their commitment to human rights. When we do it we say what?

We can of course terminate our commitment to them and write our own Bill of Rights. But what does that say about us. If China did it, what would we infer from it?

So you think a view once taken should NEVER be changed?


The ECHR was established after the war in the context of millions of deaths.

It was never intended that the court would determine the wisdom of 'stop and search' or precisely what crimes justified withdrawing voting rights or the wrongs and rights or expelling foreign rapist or murderers etc.

Generali

BobQ wrote: »

Most carers are employed by the private sector. The problem with raising the minimum wage is that if the public sector budgets for care are not increased at the same rate as the minimum wage rises then the care providers will simply not bid for the work. Private sector care providers have limited margins and most of the costs are labour. Something has to give and this is already happening with some care providers deciding not to bid for care contracts when faced with unrealistic "guideline" hourly rates set by councils based on their budgets.

Sounds like a classic supply and demand problem to me. Company costs increase which means that they will supply less at any given price. That forces up the price so either incomes (council spending on care) will have to rise to shift the demand curve or less will be demanded.

If less is demanded then some people receiving care will get less or even none.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Sounds like a classic supply and demand problem to me. Company costs increase which means that they will supply less at any given price. That forces up the price so either incomes (council spending on care) will have to rise to shift the demand curve or less will be demanded.

If less is demanded then some people receiving care will get less or even none.

interesting to note that the care commission has declared that 15 minute per visit is unacceptable and that every visit should be a minimum of 30.
obviously they don't have to find the money............

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

Sounds like a classic supply and demand problem to me. Company costs increase which means that they will supply less at any given price. That forces up the price so either incomes (council spending on care) will have to rise to shift the demand curve or less will be demanded.

If less is demanded then some people receiving care will get less or even none.

You are applying logic and economics to the problem! Councils are telling the supplier to maintain or improve the service but setting a maximum price based on what they can afford. This is amounting to a no bid response from firms that cannot see ways of making other efficiencies. There is also increasing pressure to cut out 15 minute home visits.