Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Lib Dem Conference: Cable Plans Pay Rise For Apprentices

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29496477

Business Secretary Vince Cable is to announce plans to give the lowest-paid apprentices a £1.06 an hour pay rise.

The move is backed by the Conservatives and could come into effect next October, if cleared by regulators.

Liberal Democrat Mr Cable will unveil the plan at his party's annual conference in Glasgow later.

He is also expected to defend the benefits of immigration, saying his party has a responsibility to be the voice of "sanity" on the issue.

He will also use his speech to activists to launch a fierce attack on the Conservatives over their proposed benefit freeze.

'Extravagant' language

Mr Cable is writing to the Low Pay Commission recommending that the apprentice rate of the minimum wage and the 16/17-year-old rate are combined.

Most apprentices already earn more than the minimum wage but about 31,000 people are expected to benefit from the move, with their hourly rate going up from £2.73 to £3.79.

Well with that increase you still won't be anywhere near the threshold of paying income tax. Would it push them into the NI threshold for a 40hr week?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick Clegg will say his party wouldn't shirk the responsibility of encouraging more house building in south-east England.

How about "promising", "pledging" and "vowing" some numbers to be reneged on rather than the usual flannel speak and time wasting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about instead he doesn't shirk the responsibility of not needing constant house building? Sorry, I forgot, this is HPC, there's no downside whatsoever to building more houses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about instead he doesn't shirk the responsibility of not needing constant house building? Sorry, I forgot, this is HPC, there's no downside whatsoever to building more houses.

Apparently there's no downside to high levels of immigration either. Just keep stuffing them into our cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently the population is growing at about 400,000 people per annum and total new home building is at about 100,000 per annum (All Tenures as they like to call it) and that mismatch has been continuing for several years now and at that level of disparity even since the Gordon's days.

Some people are content just to keep continually cramming the rapidly increasing population into the existing housing stock as if there's no downside - it doesn't seem to be a good solution.

What are the LibDem's proposed new home building numbers - then they could be voted on rather than on the flannel.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently there's no downside to high levels of immigration either. Just keep stuffing them into our cities.

Quite. I'll put up (reluctantly) with a spate of building to adequately house our current population. It's dealing with a problem we shouldn't have ever allowed to happen, and it'll result in a country less pleasant to live in than it has been and could've been (which gets me depressed), but that's the reality of the situation even if I don't like it. What I have no tolerance for is continually driving that need up, and hence quality of life down, particularly in areas like immigration where it's entirely within our power to do something about it without having to resort to anything unethical.

Besides, even if you don't have an issue with the numbers it doesn't take a genious to see that any benefits from increasing them are just in the short-term pyramid scheme mould. If you've not got a system that works in a steady state you've not got a system that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently the population is growing at about 400,000 people per annum and total new home building is at about 100,000 per annum and that mismatch has been continuing for several years now and even since the Gordon's days.

Some people are content just to keep continually cramming the rapidly increasing population into the existing housing stock as if there's no downside - it doesn't seem to be a good solution.

An average of 4 per household doesn't sound too terrible. However continually building more isn't a good solution either. The only good solution is to stop the increase in population, everything else is a symptom of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An average of 4 per household doesn't sound too terrible. However continually building more isn't a good solution either. The only good solution is to stop the increase in population, everything else is a symptom of that.

So far as the numbers per dwelling (dwellings - as they like to put it) are concerned it depends on the size of the new homes.

If they are reasonably large with several bedrooms then that's one thing but if they are high rise apartment blocks which mainly have one or two bedrooms then that's another thing altogether - but Clegg's waffle speak without numbers is completely inadequate.

Then there's the infrastructure around the crammed in people to cater for the extra population and to take into account as well.

What are the proposals and the numbers then people can vote on them. Where are the new towns and Garden cities going to be built (or not built).

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An average of 4 per household doesn't sound too terrible. However continually building more isn't a good solution either. The only good solution is to stop the increase in population, everything else is a symptom of that.

Based on water usage, sewage system usage and supermarket stats the population could be up to 10mil higher than official stats.

Sure as hell not many disguised houses being built. Although there are the sheds/garages that have been "repurposed".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on water usage, sewage system usage and supermarket stats the population could be up to 10mil higher than official stats.

Sure as hell not many disguised houses being built. Although there are the sheds/garages that have been "repurposed".

That rather suggests to me that there are lots of people here who shouldn't be here. Chuck them out, not build for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An average of 4 per household doesn't sound too terrible. However continually building more isn't a good solution either. The only good solution is to stop the increase in population, everything else is a symptom of that.

Your numbers dont take into account the amount of houses that will be falling into disrepair each year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your numbers dont take into account the amount of houses that will be falling into disrepair each year.

No, they don't. Is that number signficant? Anyway that's all a side issue since the problem is too many people not too few houses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Vince is all talk no action.

Its like Clegg trying to claim all the good things that have happened under the coalition while disavowing all the bad, its just talk it won't stop people blaminy the Lib Dems for enabling the Conservatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   215 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.