If you vote Tory I'm going to murder you.

[redunderthebed]

Nothing wrong with that but stacking shelves will hardly be long-term employment that will keep them off benefits nor provide a living wage.

What an incredibly snobby and judgemental statement...are you suggesting that people who do this aren't earning a valid living? some people do it all their lives. Some people stick labels on apples all their lives, some people clean or sweep roads all their lives.. are you suggesting what they do is somehow not a worthy way to earn money?

I didnt say that thanks for putting words in my mouth.

[Elessarina]

I didnt say that thanks for putting words in my mouth.

then why would it "hardly be long-term employment that will keep them off benefits nor provide a living wage"? What is your basis for that statement?

[redunderthebed]

I didnt say that thanks for putting words in my mouth.

then why would it "hardly be long-term employment that will keep them off benefits nor provide a living wage"? What is your basis for that statement?

I meant stacking shelves at a supermarket i mean there is exceptions but its generally not long-term employment just ask most supermarket managers most will say they have a high staff turnover.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I didnt say that thanks for putting words in my mouth.

then why would it "hardly be long-term employment that will keep them off benefits nor provide a living wage"? What is your basis for that statement?

I meant stacking shelves at a supermarket i mean there is exceptions but its generally not long-term employment just ask most supermarket managers most will say they have a high staff turnover.

I worked as a shelf stacker for a couple of years as a Saturday job when I was a teenager - there was a chap there that had been doing the same job, full-time, for 5 years. There are people stacking shelves at my local Asda that have been there for well over 10 years, possibly much longer, they have certainly been there since I moved into the area in 1997. Just because it is not long-term employment for some does not mean that it it isn't for others. For some it is a mark of respect.

[Trolldor]

...As I said, I am happy to pay the going tax rate for an excellent health service, education system and to protect the most vulnerable and weak sections of our society...

You do realise the Tories are going to slash all those services to bits don't you.

They say they won't, but they will. They're Tories.

Whoever gets in will have to. We are currently spending 200Billion a year more than we have as a country.

There's plenty of other areas you could easily slash money off, rather than welfare programs.

[Trolldor]

I didnt say that thanks for putting words in my mouth.

then why would it "hardly be long-term employment that will keep them off benefits nor provide a living wage"? What is your basis for that statement?

I meant stacking shelves at a supermarket i mean there is exceptions but its generally not long-term employment just ask most supermarket managers most will say they have a high staff turnover.

I worked as a shelf stacker for a couple of years as a Saturday job when I was a teenager - there was a chap there that had been doing the same job, full-time, for 5 years. There are people stacking shelves at my local Asda that have been there for well over 10 years, possibly much longer, they have certainly been there since I moved into the area in 1997. Just because it is not long-term employment for some does not mean that it it isn't for others. For some it is a mark of respect.

For some it's all they want to do, for some it's all they can do.

[Elessarina]

I meant stacking shelves at a supermarket i mean there is exceptions but its generally not long-term employment just ask most supermarket managers most will say they have a high staff turnover.

So maybe they go on to other employment... ? But when i have worked in supermarkets their were mny people there who had been there long term. whether it's short term or long term though .. isn't it better to be involved in something than nothing?

[Elessarina]

For some it's all they want to do, for some it's all they can do.

Quite, so suggesting it is not long term or can provide a living wage is disrespectful to honest hard-working people who do those jobs

[devogue]

You said nothing about fraud at all i agree benefit fraud should be punished to the fullest extent and those who commit it should be cut off.

It is part of the problem, as well as the boom in state non-jobs, quangos and general public sector fuckwittery. I don't think the Tories go far enough - they should:

1) be specific about which jobs they want to slash, and where.

2) They should announce that one of their priorities after election will be the suspension of superannuated public sector pensions - anyone who is in now will have their terms and conditions honoured, but anyone starting in, say, 2011 can whistle like the rest of us. Not only is the burden on the taxpayer ridiculously high for such generous retirement provision for one section of society, but most people in the private sector who generate the wealth to subsidise these pensions have absolutely fuck all provision themselves - especially after Brown's despicable actions all but destroyed private final salary schemes.

Nothing wrong with that but stacking shelves will hardly be long-term employment that will keep them off benefits nor provide a living wage.

I agree fully with Elessarina. I have a new sales assistant who is working 40 hours a week, basically stacking shelves, and she earns (after tax) £196 per week. She is 20 years old and she is fucking delighted to have found a job - she now has enough money to afford driving lessons and she part pays for her wine classes which will hopefully further her career down the line.

However, "just" stacking shelves is an excellent means to an end and if that's her level and she wants to do just that for her current wage then fair enough - it's a vital, well regarded job within my business (and it's actually trickier than a lot of people think) - however, it is putting her in a position were she is able to think ambitiously if she wants. Now, if there are people who think that it's not worth working for £200 a week in their hand because of the generosity of benefits, then benefits need to be slashed to a level were those particular people are forced to get off their arses and out to work. Negative incentives are just as fair as positive ones. It really pisses me off that such thinking is demonised and seen as oppressive and unfair - what's oppressive and unfair is one portion of the population paying the bills of another portion who are perfectly fit and able to work, no matter what the job.

Anything that isn't just working for about the same as you would get on the benefits if not less needs what i mentioned benefits and really when you can live on benefits and do nothing and get the same not much incentive is it?.

Can you see the validity of the answer above? - cut benefits to a level were it is more desirable to work and contribute to society. Of course there is an obvious inverse answer - increase minimum wage levels so the onus is put on the employer, but I can assure you that as a small business owner the amount of tax, rates and red tape at the minute means that my staff is absolutely minimal - a substantial increase in the minimum wage (to the level were it would be a big incentive to get people off multiple benefits) would quite simply put me out of business, but a person should be able to live reasonably comfortably on a net wage of around £850 per month.

Which isn't there fault its the retarded wankers who seem to think you need a qualification to do everything and bosses who use anyone who goes on a apprenticeship or traineeship as cheap disaposable labour with no intention of employment et al.

Indeed. The retarded Labour wankers have set ridiculously high targets for numbers of university entrants and their wanking about with school leaving ages and various training schemes (which involve endless fucking paperwork for employers, and utterly useless qualifications in many cases) are just a load of bollocks.

Why not have one minimum wage (say the one for 21 year olds at the moment), and let me employ a really enthusiastic 14 year old who wants to learn the ropes in business but can't be fucked with school. Why does everything have to be so hard?

You're statement to me Dev seemed to tar all people with the same brush it could of helped if you elaborated. As long as there is social welfare dev there will be people who will manipulate it to there advantage get over it is my message you're brother-in-law and others tory or labor will sit on there arse and pile benefits like they did before.The only people who will be hurt by the tories are the people who really need it.

I did no such thing - my exact words were: "As I said, I am happy to pay the going tax rate for an excellent health service, education system and to protect the most vulnerable and weak sections of our society."

That is not tarring everyone with the same brush. Also: I have absolutely no problem with pensioners getting a decent pension, with disabled or ill people receiving generous assistance from the state, or people who find themselves out of work being helped with a genuinely decent benefits. I should in fact expand further on that by saying that those genuinely in need should get substantially more than they do now, and that extra windfall could be paid for by slashing the benefits of the hundreds of thousands of lazy, useless, or cheating cunts who take the piss out of everyone in society and who have been indulged by New Labour.

As I said before though, I am selfish - I have taken risks and I have created wealth. I am sick of being taxed to the hilt by Labour, but that's just a general grumble we are all guilty of - however, what is completely unforgiveable is how they have squandered taxpayers money, my money, on their grandiose and ultimately useless schemes over the years. I'm perfectly aware of what you are saying about the Tories but all you have to back it up with is the (admittedly heinous) example of Thatcherism. I think they should be given a chance, and if they can trim the public sector and make the private sector more competitive (even though sterling is doing a good job of that anyway) then I think they should be given a chance - let's see if "compassionate conservatism" isn't an oxymoron.

[devogue]

The best of it is I can't even vote for either Labour or the Tories (I don't count UCUNT as Tories).

I'm left with Creationists and murderers.

[devogue]

Sorry, I meant UCUNF.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...I'm perfectly aware of what you are saying about the Tories but all you have to back it up with is the (admittedly heinous) example of Thatcherism...

Which is all that's needed to back it up when the current party leadership are Thatcherites!

Cameron belongs to a group within the Tory party called 'Conservative Way Forward', which is a Thatcherite group which is headed by the old bitch herself!!!

[devogue]

Fuck.

[scrabbles round desperately for a response]

[Pensioner]

Fuck.

[scrabbles round desperately for a response]

Fuck, your word, you mine, join them together, fuck you, you tory cunt.

[devogue]

Fuck.

[scrabbles round desperately for a response]

Fuck, your word, you mine, join them together, fuck you, you tory cunt.

Fuck you, you imperialist cunt! Coming over here, shooting us and stealing our women!