Considering voting Labour?

*Education.
end of university tuition fees -*
The current system of tuition fees was drawn up and published under LABOUR just before a GA. Got them all ready and Tories/Lib dems just adopted THEIR plans.
Now theyre pretending it was nothing to do with them to win votes. Hmm

New nanny, the example of the gas was in the 1960s when no such regulation existed.

Our most recent rent because of widespread flooding in the area means you take what is offered or live in a damp, stinking property. This last property was rented via a letting agent, it had a gas certificate but didn’t mean the heating was working!

Fortunately we are now back home and warm and dry. I’m so pleased newnanny that you look after both your property and your tenants. Many landlords are not like you and leave people living in misery. Oh and I don’t think compulsory sales of private property is necessary. I never agreed with the cheap sale of council housing so IMO this will help neither yourself, your tenants not the housing shortage.

Grandad1943. I think we should have a massive social housing build programme. I’d go as far as saying that prefabs as built post WW2 would be an improvement on temporary accommodation or homelessness.

guaranteed minimum number of hours of work a week this will allow zero hours contract workers a semblance of normality and stability, and give them the chance to plan their lives.

Zero contracts are not "bad"
Zero contracts replacing permanant contracts are a big problem.
ABUSE of zero hour contracts is the problem.

Banning them outright and fully replacing them with minimum hours contracts with leave a lot of mothers without the option of "keeping their hand in" now and then during work gaps with small children. And will FLOOR the NHS who are a huge user of correctly done zero hours contracts.

Landlords are going to be encouraged to ensure there is more affordable housing. Councils and town planners are to be given more enforceable powers.

Slum landlords will be banned.

Ah yes, they will universally role out a sort of landlord licencing program which has been trialed by some councils and worked so well....

OH WAIT IT DIDNT!
In councils with landlord licencing zones, the better smaller portfolio landlords were forced to sell up (as they ran on such low profit margins anyway)... did this imcrease housing stock for first time buyers? NO! They were snapped up by developers and he "bad" big portfolio dodgy landlords, who can afford to absorb licence fees and legal fees and know tricks to work around the licencing.

Meaning a total monopoly in the area. One or two big profit driven landlord firms owning ALL the stock. Less choice and worse service and HIGHER RENTS for renters.

notanan2 When tuition fee were first introduced the payment was means-tested and maintenance grants were available for the poorest students. Since then fees have rocketed and maintenance grants have been replaced with maintenance loans. Effectively making the poorest students less likely to access higher education. It is never wrong for a party to say "we tried that, it didn't work, we are going to change things."

I have as yet to hear any private landlord state that their properties are not maintained up to a very high standard.

However, week after week we see programs on television and reports in other media of families living in private rented accommodation that is quite frankly disgusting.

So, where are these awful landlords who make large sums of money often from those who are the most vulnerable in our society?

The existence of these properties and revolting standards stands as proof that Britains private rented sector is not fit for purpose and should be eliminated by way of a large scale council homes building program and the revoking of the right to buy legislation.

Grandad, I agree, the right to buy should be abolished

During "winter pressures" huge amounts of NHS staff do extra work on zero hours bank contracts that they dont use at all for the rest of the year.

They will opt out of those contracts if they HAVE to work a minimum amount of hours on them a month!

There are THOUSANDS of NHS staff, that the staff will lose to agency (where they are self employed not zero hours so can effectively do zero hours if zero hours are banned) if bank contracts are not allowed to be zero hours any more.

This will cost the NHS hundreds of thousands in extra agency fees. And will cost lives because their bank staff know the trust/wards/patients. Agency staff that replace them get shipped in from all over the country!

Labour is such a blunt tool. "Ban it/them" as a response to things that arent fundamentally bad being used inappropriately or abused.

This approach throws the baby out with the dishwater.

Zero hour contract are and always have been "BAD". The concept that you could pretend someone was employed by you but offer them no work is Victorian (It happened in the 1930s to dock workers). If you do not work for a week you are unemployed. If you work less hours than you usually do because of an emloyer's whim you need support. There are more mothers struggling to work childcare around uncertain hours than there are any "Keeping their hand in". I notice no one is suggesting highly paid women like lawyers have zero hours contracts to" keep their hand in"
Can you explain how a Zero hours contract can be abused, please?

notanan2 I totally agree with your last post.

Zero hour can be good or bad. I have already posted at length how they are used in a good way by the NHS. Who offers them as an option alongside the option of permanant contracts, which do not suit everyone. Or as well as permanant contracts as a second source of income now and then, or regularly.

When they are ABUSED they are bad. When they are used in place of permanant contracts they are bad.

Banning them outright throws out the good with the bad and DOESNT SOLVE THE PROBLEMS

notanan2 you are confusing Zero hours contracts and casual work. NHS bank staff are casual workers.

Same goes for "ban bad landlords"

A buyers/renters market forces landlords to offer more compeditive/better service and properties.

Look at what has happened in landlord licencing areas: LESS competition not more. INCREASED rents. The soulless large portfolio landlords gaining a monopoly in areas where you could previously avoid them and go with a small independant landlord.

Quality has not improved. The "big boys" know how to tick the licence boxes.

Labour says we'll all be better off if we all have LESS choice. Because then what is left when we ban everything will be good.

Reality: less choice = a captive market. Not good for anyone but the chosen provider, who doesnt have to offer a compeditive service.

This has happened in landlord licence zones. Which are mini trials of labours housing policy

notanan2 you are confusing Zero hours contracts and casual work. NHS bank staff are casual workers.

NHS bank contracts are zero hours contract.

notanan2 what you describe in your post @13:05 today in regard to so-called self-employed persons working for agencies is what is known as Gig Economy working.

The Trades Unions have had great success in the courts of recent against many employers who have been using this particularly despicable method of employment.

The Supreme Court is now in consideration of making such employment terms illegal throughout the United Kingdom. That in the eyes of anyone who wishes to see stable employment conditions for all brought forward in this country is exactly how it should be.

Without NHS bank contracts being allowed to be, as the ARE at present, true zero hour employment contracts. We are back to HEAVY heavy use of agency.

Where is all that money going to come from. And how many lives will that cost?.

As NHS bank staff are employed on zero hours contracts, their training is done by the trust that they work for. They know the trust they work for. They know its policies. Agency staff may be good individuals but they are less safe when thrown in at the deep end in a trust they are unfamiliar with!

That's great grandad, except if trained healthcare staff who don't want a permanant contract are no longer ALLOWED to work as and when. What do you think will happen to the NHS? Especially over winter crisis?

There are semi retired nurses who come back from their holiday homes to do a week every 2 or 3 months. That might not sound a lot to you but to the ward they go back to, it is! If they have to be TIED to working a set amount of hours a month they will just fully retire!

And who will replace them?

That in the eyes of anyone who wishes to see stable employment conditions for all brought forward in this country is exactly how it should be.

"ALL" do not want to be on fixed permanant contracts. Not all can!

I know someone who was badly injured. She works her zero hr contract when she's feeling well, she takes weeks off at a time when things flair up. She could not do her job on a fixed permanant cobtract basis (and she is good at it!)

Yes people who WANT permanant contracts should have the OPTION of them.

This is not what labour is proposing! Labour just wants to ban all zero hrs, so its not an option for anyone!

Rather than adopt a NHS like model where anyone who does a lot of zero hours work can switch to permanant fixed contracts if they want to

It wouldnt be hard to legislate! Say anyone working over 20hrs a week for more than 30 weeks of the year should be offered the option on contracted hours. Sonething like that.

Labour doesnt work that way. Ban it for everyone!

I notice no one is suggesting highly paid women like lawyers have zero hours contracts to" keep their hand in"

Pilots can be on zero hour contracts. Female and Male. Usually for the cheaper airline but they earn a nice amount.

Some people do actually want zero hour contracts.

Many really struggle with them.

They're not perfect

An outright ban would upset a lot of people

notanan2 well, said, good posts.
That’s the trouble with a far left LP, they would throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You can actually make quite a lot on a zero hours contract. Many do. You can chose to work the "higher value" shifts like weekends, nights, bank holidays.

Those saying NHS bank contracts arent real zero hours contracts are wrong and have it backwards.

They are an example of exactly what a zero hour contract is supposed to be!

Lets encourage the good ones that use the option appropriately rather than ban em all for everyone!

The NHS probably offer more zero hr contracts than permanant contracts but only because such a high % of their permanant staff also have a bank contract as well. And then there are the ones that do only bank by choice as their main job for the flexibility.

So look at those numbers and adopt them, since they are working so well there! E.g. if you offer zero hr contracts you must also have at least 35% of your contracts offering fixed contracted hours!

GG13 I must take issue with your statements on taxation in your post at 9.20.

For limited companies of any size tax is due 9 months after the Company's year end.

For the self employed, including unincorporated partnerships some tax is due within the tax year and some afterwards. Using the current year 2019/20, the tax is due as follows:

31 January 2020 first poa
31 July 2020 second poa
31 January 2021 - any balance due.

Payments on account are 1/2 of the tax liability of the previous year. If you become aware that your profits are going to be less you can apply for a reduction in the payments on account. If the subsequent payments turn out to be less than the final liability then interest is charged.

I prepare about 120 self assessment returns each year and many of those clients will be due refunds. These normally arrive within about 2 weeks of the return being filed. If the refund doesn't materialise, it's because I've forgotten to ensure that the clients' bank account details are on the return. HMRC don't pay refunds these days if the taxpayer hasn't actually requested one.