Who the fuck is gonna sign up to this? There's no shortage of bellends who don't seem to believe that they should have any rights in the workplace, at least in the sort of places I work in. But even they will understand that they don't need to pay £20 a month to have someone negotiate that position on their behalf.
Who the fuck is gonna sign up to this? There's no shortage of bellends who don't seem to believe that they should have any rights in the workplace, at least in the sort of places I work in. But even they will understand that they don't need to pay £20 a month to have someone negotiate that position on their behalf.
I've almost, and I emphasise almost, a slight bit more quasi-respect for those who'd consider joining a Tory 'union', than for those who outright refuse to join any Union
They are doing their best to drive our doctors abroad at the moment, I dare say to make room for private cover.
I think they have discovered they don't have to destroy like Thatcher, they can cause chaos and move their privateers into the disorder.
They are doing their best to drive our doctors abroad at the moment, I dare say to make room for private cover.
I think they have discovered they don't have to destroy like Thatcher, they can cause chaos and move their privateers into the disorder.
The main problem with that is that it then costs the privateers big dollar to stabilise the chaos and disorder, and privateers don't like putting their hands in their pockets.
Nah, the govt would let things fail utterly before moving their buddies in to dine on the corpse.
Exclusive: Error affected grants worth millions and meant forces could have received wildly different amounts than told
The Government dramatically halted its controversial police funding reforms after Home Office analysts made the “basic mistake” of mixing up two data files with similar names, the department’s most senior civil servant has admitted.
...
Mike Penning, the policing minister, apologised to Parliament for what he described as an “embarrassing” mistake in the Home Office’s calculations and announced that the reforms were being put on hold.
...
an internal review at the Home Office has found that “confusion over file names” resulted in analysts using the wrong dataset.
...
“The base error was the confusion by analysts between the two filenames and datasets.
“But that error was compounded not corrected because they had insufficient understanding of the policy issues and context, and because policy officials had insufficient understanding of the technical issues and data.
It has emerged Home Office analysts based their calculations on an older classification of that data, which is based on 2001 census data, when they were meant to be using an updated version, which is based on 2011 census data.
It created a huge discrepancy in the money that would have been received by police forces under the reforms. The Metropolitan Police, for example, was set to lose £184m under the Home Office’s calculations, but would only lose around £3m if the correct dataset has been used, according to an analysis carried out by Mr Hogg’s office.
Errors of analysis and judgement were made by individuals at all levels. This will be addressed in their performance appraisals and through the department’s formal performance development and improvement procedures.”
The education secretary, Nicky Morgan, said: “Maths is a non-negotiable of a good education. Since 2010, we’ve seen record numbers of 11-year-olds start secondary school with a good grasp of the three Rs. But some continue to struggle.
“That is why, as part of our commitment to extend opportunity and deliver educational excellence everywhere we are introducing a new check to ensure that all pupils know their times tables by age 11.
someone's already done that joke, and it was pretty shit first time round. There's plenty of real things they could nail her on, like the laughable lie that “the number and quality of teachers in our classrooms is at an all-time high”, for example.
Could have gone in Floods thread....but, here will suffice...
Tory Ministers arrived for a meeting with locals in flood-battered Cumbria 20 minutes late on the wrong side of a bridge that collapsed a month ago, it has been claimed. Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin and environment minister and local MP Rory Stewart were branded "half-wits" and "plonkers" by fuming residents of Pooley Bridge, as they stood looking with confusion at the gap where the bridge used to be. Advisers stood by apparently making frantic phone calls, in scenes reminiscent of hit comedy The Thick of It.
Stopid pollyticians !
but quite typical.
unfortunately, the amount of money they are talking about will only scratch the surface of the repairs problem.
I just hope that the Pooley Bridge is rebuilt "as was" and not replaced by a concrete monstrosity !
This is a story from the other end of the spectrum than universal credit problems. But it is still an interesting example of just how clueless those in charge of the budgets are.
The new annual pension allowance rules are unworkable. And I don't say that as hyperbole, I mean it is literally impossible for them to be implemented.
The annual allowance for contributions is currently £40k per year. There is a legal duty on the pension provider to provide written warning to the member if they are going to breach this threshold.
As of next year, the annual allowance becomes quite staggeringly complicated. So complicated that even those working in the industry are struggling with it.
The key points are (feel free to skip this bit if you don't want the detail):
It will taper down from £40k to £10k once the member's total earnings (which includes all pension contributions and also any private income, such as from rent) goes above £150k, with this taper being a reduction of £1k for every £2k of earnings.
If your "qualifying" earnings appear to be below £110k, however, this is not worked out in the first place. Technically, it may be that you should have your allowance reduced but this won't happen because your qualifying earnings are too low.
You can carry forward unused allowances from the past three years, but only once you have used up this year's allowance and then you start using up allowances from the oldest year forwards
What counts as a "year" for these purposes depends on a whole bunch of factors, such as the type of pension scheme you are in and precisely when you started work. If you changed jobs in the mean time, you may have different types of "year" to take into account.
There are other rules too.
You get the idea -- ridiculously complicated. But here's the crux -- it is still a legal duty for the pension provider to inform the member of a breach of allowance. And yet they will not have the information necessary for them to know this! To have that information, you have to know all about what any member recently joining a company earned in his or her previous job(s) and what the member contributed to those pension schemes in those jobs. Why would the current pension provider have that information?
To anybody involved, it is simply obvious that this is unworkable. And what's more, the industry told the government that this was the case as soon as it was announced in the budget. The government ignored this until December 2015, at which point it turned back to the industry and said, "help, we have just noticed this is unworkable, please can you help us think of how to fix it?" And the industry said, "Lol".
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
I smell bollocks. This is a U-turn.
