Blackswanwood
Still Learning
You’ve lost me Jacob. Pay rises for who?
Keir Starmer
- Thread starter Delaney
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
I don't suppose they'll let that surface .. .
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
I’ll probably get over the disappointment 🤷
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Your workers?
Presumably the directors and shareholders you refer to, do actually employ people to do the work, whatever it is?
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
No pay rise specifically but all employees participated in a profit share arrangement. The CEO and Board understood the value of employees feeling engaged and invested in the business which increases the chances of having a successful business imo.
Yorkieguy
Established Member
Time and again, rather too many people including Starmer and the MPs who receive this corporate hospitality have said: 'it's within the rules, and have refuted any suggestion that there is a quid pro quo, but that simply isn't the case, and here's why:
There are calls from many quarters to increase the levy on gambling companies. The Institute for Public Policy Research wants the duty on High St Bookmakers doubled from its present 15 % to 30%, and the duty on online gaming to increase from 15% to 50%. This would raise £2.9 bill next year alone, and would bring the UK in line with Europe: France - online sports betting, 55%. Austria 40%. Netherlands are to raise theirs from 30% to 37.5%.
The UK online gambling market vies with America as the largest in the world. The Social Market Foundation has also called for remote casino gaming duties to be doubled from 21% to 42%, which it estimated would being in close to an extra £1 billion a year.
Betting and gaming companies are among the biggest providers of corporate hospitality, doling out tickets to sporting entertainment and cultural events so beloved by politicians, left right and centre. They are among the most generous donors, pouring £1.08 million into Labour's coffers in the last few years, giving £20,000 to fund Rachel Reeves office when in opposition.
Maybe that's why gambling companies don't seem unduly concerned about rumours that Reeves might increase their taxes in the impending budget to help fill the so called £22Bn 'black hole'? They know that both Tory and Labour governments have shied away from taking on the industry. By comparison, pensioners on £13k a year no longer entitled to WFA, and impecunious working class families who make sacrifices to send their children with special needs to private schools, are easy meat.
Labour have encourage gambling since Blair liberalised gaming laws in 2005. High Streets - particularly in poor areas, are full of betting shops with fixed odds betting terminals. Jonathan Reynolds accepted football tickets to the Euro Championship from 'Entain' - the company behind Ladbrokes and Sportingbet. Louse Haigh, transport secretary enjoyed tickets from betting companies, and Starmer accepted £25,00 from Peter Coates, head of the £25 billion company Bet365. Coates daughter Denise - now the richest woman in Britain, who lives in a £90 million home (although in fairness, she does pay all her taxes, which she can well afford to).
Influential Labour Peer Lord Mendelson, chairs Evoke - the company behind William Hill and '888', Lord Watson - the party's former deputy leader, is a paid advisor to the largest listed betting company in the world - 'Flutter'. These companies use technological advances to hook vulnerable punters who have addictive personalities or are desperate for cash.
The NHS has seen a rise of 42% in demand for it's gambling clinics, and Public Health England estimates that there are around 400 suicides per year in England alone. According to the Gambling Commission, a million adults and 55,000 children have an out of control gambling addiction, heavily skewed to economically deprived areas.
So before anyone tries to trivialise the acceptance by the PM and his top team of corporate hospitality from such sources and claim that these firms get nothing back from their largesse, if taxes on Betting and Gaming companies aren't increased in the budget, you'll know why. 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'.
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
I've had offers of (software) work in the gambling industry. Good money. I just couldn't bring myself to do it. I may be a miserable misanthrope at the best of times, but preying on the vulnerable just doesn't do it for me.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
So Starmer will be selling out to the powers that be? No surprises there - he made it absolutely clear from the start by purging all those lefties, breaking all his pledges, promising no tax rises.
He's working for the other side, just like Bliar.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jan/16/how-britain-got-the-gambling-bug
And who is next in the payrise queue, it may not surprise anyone but it is the London underground next who will be going on strike to secure a nice deal like the other train drivers, 22% is great if you can get it but who will be paying apart from the pensioners.
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
I used to do some software work in the amusement industry. I confess to writing code for fruit machines of the pub variety, which were low stake, high percentage payout devices, but I pulled out when my client moved into the betting shop end of the market. I wouldn't touch any of it these days.
I may be asking a silly question but why is this thread on this forum?
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
There are no silly questions, only silly answers. You'll find lots on this thread.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
That the NHS operates using private sector resources is nothing new - drugs manufacture, hospital construction, medical consumables, x-ray and imaging machinery, IT hardware and systems etc etc etc. Most would have no issue with this.
There may be more concern perceived where the private sector delivers services somewhat closer to patient outcomes - cleaning, catering, etc.
Yet most don't realise that GP surgeries and services. - a fundamental NHS building block - has been privately run under contract to the NHS since its inception.
GPs are critical - they manage delivery of healthcare to their local community and act as the gatekeeper to most other facilities and specialisms through referral processes.
That GP services are struggling is largely driven by the financial and contractual terms under which they currently operate. The general public and GPs would no doubt be delighted if contractual issues were resolved to enable a return to the high standards delivered over the last 75 years.
The knee jerk reaction - private involvement in the NHS is the precursor to is demise - is without foundation as has been demonstrated over decades.
Yorkieguy
Established Member
She used the term 'migrant' so that's what I used, but she means 'asylum seeker'. She referred to 'third country migrants'. I avoided using the term 'asylum seekers, to avoid winding up the factions on here who say they're not 'asylum seekers', they're 'illegal immigrants/illegals/dingy divers and other epithets.
But here goes, so it's clear what she said:
Quote:
The European Commission has signalled a willingness to offshore migration procedures, echoing growing calls from member states.
Ursula von der Leyen has offered her strongest endorsement yet to the controversial project of establishing so-called "return hubs" outside the European Union territory to transfer asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected. The idea was reflected in a letter the European Commission president sent to EU leaders ahead of a two-day summit in Brussels where migration is set to dominate talks.
The seven-page letter, shared with the media on Monday evening, outlines several proposals to curb the number of asylum applications, which reached 1,140,000 claims across the bloc last year, and counter irregular border crossings and human smuggling. It signals a strong shift to the right, in line with the direction of Europe's migration debate.
Among the proposals is an explicit call for action to develop "innovative ways," a euphemism often associated with offshoring asylum procedures, as Italy has done with Albania, where Giorgia Meloni's hard-right government has built two centres to transfer male migrants rescued in high waters by Italian authorities. Von der Leyen also pushes for designating "safe third countries" at the EU level to avoid disagreements between member states and speed up the rate of deportations, which continues to hover between 20% and 30% with no major change.
This sluggish rate has put migration firmly back on the political table, despite the bloc having recently completed a hard-fought reform. Last week, a group of 17 European countries sent a document to the Commission demanding a "paradigm shift" on deportations where governments "must be empowered." "People without the right to stay must be held accountable. A new legal basis must clearly define their obligations and duties," the 17 countries said. "Non-cooperation must have consequences and be sanctioned."
In her letter, von der Leyen appears to respond directly to the document as she promises to table a law "that would define clear obligations of cooperation for the returnee, and effectively streamline the process of returns," with a focus on digitalisation and mutual recognition of the decisions issued by member states.
The president supports two key demands from the 17-strong group. First, new rules to detain and expel those considered a threat to public order and security. Second, using visa and trade policies as leverage to convince non-EU countries to accept their citizens after their asylum applications are turned down. (This lack of cooperation has been credited as one of the main factors behind the low return rate.)
"The EU's migration policy can only be sustainable if those who do not have the right to stay in the EU are effectively returned," von der Leyen writes.
Other ideas floated by the president are the signing of more EU-funded deals with neighbouring countries (as she has done with Tunisia and Egypt), stricter rules to crack down on human trafficking, a beefed-up response against hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation, and more humanitarian aid for war-torn countries in the Middle East.
"These controversial proposals seek to dismantle the core tenet of international protection: that people under a jurisdiction have a right to seek asylum in that jurisdiction and have that claim fairly examined," a coalition of 90 organisations said in July.
Von der Leyen's letter was signed the same day the European Commission expressed disapproval about Poland's announced plan to introduce a "temporary territorial suspension of the right to asylum" and comes amidst a charged political atmosphere where governments show increasing boldness in their attempts to curb migration flows.
End quote.
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/...orses-return-hubs-for-rejected-asylum-seekers
https://www.euronews.com/video/2024...orses-return-hubs-for-rejected-asylum-seekers
She also said:
'Von der Leyen also stresses that any projects the bloc takes forward should respect "EU principles and values, obligations under international law and the protection of fundamental rights" and ensure "sustainable and fair solutions" for migrants, even if NGOs have warned offshoring migration is inherently problematic'.
It's not clear which countries the "return hubs" outside the European Union territory to transfer asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected are to be. Rwanda maybe?
And I'm not sure how she hopes to achieve her aims and still be compatible with the ECHR.
Meanwhile, in the UK freebiegate/frockgate/Swittgate' and the impending budget have pushed the asylum seeker/illegal immigrant whatever, off the front page for now, but the clock is ticking, and the longer that Labour's inactivity on this matter continues, the less excuse they'll have for prevarication and inaction.
Or so it seems to me.
Because it is not directly woodworking or such then the general chat threads is where it belongs, if it gets too political or extreme then it will go to OT2 which is not seen by the general public but rules still apply and the wrong behavior is not tolerated like in all the other threads.
