Social Justice Challange

Immigration and development

admin — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:33:15 +0000

I have been following quite closely the recent developments regarding the curb on immigrants coming into the UK. I quite agree that if the gates are left wide open, there will an exodus of people into the country. This in turn will put a strain on the resources while impacting jobs, healthcare and all the assorted things that go with it. What I cannot understand is the government’s decision to put restrictions on the allotment of a visa on an area that the country needs. While a data management company will not be affected as much, the medical line definitely is. There is to be a dire need for such professionals and preventing them only harms the hapless citizen.

What I would recommend is bringing about a legislation that allows such people to come and work in the country for a certain number of years. And then reapply if they want to do another stint. This works for the country as it benefits without taking on a life time burden of maintaining new immigrants who eventually settle down in the country. Their subsequent generations may not contribute as much. The people coming under this category get to work in the country, often at a higher salary than what they would get in their country though some of the benefits like pension etc may not be there.

This ensures that there is never a dearth of the required skill set while at the same time perceived threats of jobs being taken away and an increase in the immigrant population etc. are banished. At the same time, unwarranted entry is restricted to the minimum.

Throughout history, it is seen that a country evolved and reached its peak only by welcoming people with skill sets they themselves did not have. So closing a door completely may have far reaching consequences that are not evident until the damage is quite severe. This may necessitate drastic measures that can undo the good it was meant to in the first place.

ShareThis

What would happen if the Coalition cut Job Seeker’s Allowance even further??

admin — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:33:12 +0000

Job Seeker’s Allowance is an expense that job seekers are eligible to receive in order to continue living at a ’minimum'standard while they actively search for employment. However, in many areas of the country (particularly Greater London), Job Seekers’Allowance simply isn’t enough to even pay the bills, let alone rent, food and transport costs. Cutting this allowance even further will lead to an increase in homelessness and raise unemployment rates to record levels.

Most people on JSA already have a full time job: making countless job applications

Many people on the political right (particularly readers of the Daily Mail and The Sun) resent people who claim JSA because they assume that such individuals are too lazy to find work and prefer to ’scrounge'off the state at the expensive of ’hard working individuals’. The truth is that unless job seekers can find work, there is no option but to seek financial support from the Government or face homelessness.

The vast majority of people claiming JSA are not sitting on the sofa listening to Youtube; instead they are constantly searching for every job that they can find, making endless applications on the Internet for jobs ranging from cleaning to data audit positions. Many JSAs send their CV to every business in their local area to increase their chances of securing full or part time work.

Cutting JSA would put even more pressure on the unemployed

Cutting this essential allowance could even force some job seekers to abuse the system in order to make ends meat. An example of this is when people who make individual applications and then later move in with a partner can receive two individual JSAs, even though couples are not allowed to claim JSA separately.

It would also make it harder for people to travel to interviews or local job centres, which would actually counteract any attempt to reduce the amount of money paid to job seekers by ensuring that people remain on JSA for an even longer period of time.

Similar Posts:
Tories Stories : Well we all wanted this glorious, amazingly…
Justin Timberlake Attends Marine Corps Ball : Justin Timberlake…
Truth Hurts : And while many people tend to believe that N…
Tips for buying cheap flights : …

ShareThis

Olympic Overspend

admin — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:03:03 +0000

The Olympic Games in London this year is meant to be one of the biggest sporting events ever to take place and is set to be a grand event. The pressing question that many people are looking to answer now, is whether or not it is ethical to spend such an astronomical amount of money on a sporting event, when people in this country are in severe financial difficulty and all over the world people are desperate for help.

The games were supposed to cost less than 2.5 billion pounds, and this amount was budgeted for by the predictions that they would earn more than that amount back by sponsorship and advertising fees. The actual cost of the games is now running at almost 12 billion! That figure is absolutely unbelievable. The most unbelievable thing about it is that this extra money keeps appearing from somewhere to pay for all of the overspending. Surely if the government had a spare 8 or 9 billion pounds lying around somewhere they should be using it to help people in the country out of some pretty awful situations. They could have pumped that money into the NHS to improve the system for all to benefit from, or into the schools system to help the future generations.

Don’t get me wrong, I am a huge sports fan, and I love the Olympics, but spending that amount of money on it is just not right; especially when the country is in such a difficult financial situation already. It seems as if no data matching has taken place during the process or in the planning stages, as if it had been, the spending would not have reached this level. In no other system on earth would someone be allowed to spend 8 billion more than they said they were going to spend.

ShareThis

Cameron threatens to veto the Tobin tax

admin — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:03:07 +0000

The British Prime Minister David Cameron has said that he would veto the proposal for EU-wide tax on financial transactions, unless this measure doesn’t get introduced in the rest of the world. His words further deepen the confrontation with the leading forces in the European Union, namely, France and Germany. Nevertheless, all things considered I believe that Cameron should be recognised for his baldness and willingness to protect the rights of the British citizens.

According to Cameron, France is more than free to introduce taxation on financial transactions. Paris and Berlin are trying very hard to get the Tobin tax, a rather unusual, but commonly used name for the directive, introduced in all member states. A couple of days ago, after a meeting with the new Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti, the French president Nicolas Sarkozy announced that he intends to introduce such a taxing policy this year and he has no intention to wait for the other EU countries to do so. On the other hand Great Britain demonstratively opposes the German-French plan, simply because the new taxing policy will hit hard London, which is a global financial centre and is responsible for a major share of the national tax revenue. Cameron’s threat to block the new tax makes his relations with the rest of the EU even more complicated. As you all remember, in December 2011 he made the other EU leaders very frustrated by refusing to join a new European treaty for deeper fiscal integration in the Euro zone, a treaty that aims to tackle the still on-going financial crisis in Europe. Anyhow, Cameron claims that the new tax is highly unnecessary and it will further complicate the economic system, which even today needs some cleansing data manipulations almost every day, as there are way too many numbers and procedures. He argues that the other EU countries can use the existing British financial instruments, which according to the PM are more than sufficient.

ShareThis

Cameron’s Diverse Opinions

admin — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 14:46:47 +0000

It is not an unknown fact that the UK PM David Cameron is a person who has approached the idea of the European Union with severe skepticism and unfavorable considerations. But it is just as much surprising that the leader of the UK government is actually taking steps to introduce a concept of governance as close to the unification of Europe as the general German ideas - something quite surprising and somehow amusing given the fact that it was the prime minister who doubted the participation of the UK in the European Union.

Firstly, this autumn, mister Cameron emphasized on his idea that membership in the Union is problematic for the UK - an eventual recession would hit the ’growing'UK economy. His attempt to provoke EU skepticism within the Parliament resulted in a complete failure when even members of his own party voted against his proposition for a referendum to the UK public whether or not the UK needs the EU. And just like a divorce lawyer would approach the matter in the context of family law, the House of Lords advised that Cameron should restore the relationship within his own party and aim not to depart from its

Now, Mr Cameron appears to have suddenly switched sides. His bipolar opinion of the EU (something inadvisable to demonstrate for a political of his rank) has resulted in him urging unity throughout the Union. So what happens? Firstly our PM rejects that benefits of EU membership and then indirectly emphasizes on a stronger Union?!
This might appear a bit confusing to the general public. It is surely a game of advanced politics and a struggle to obtain the benefit of EU membership. Cameron is a smart politician but he appears to be promoting his ideas far too widely. Rather, and the better approach, would be to carefully consider political actions in times such as the current. What Cameron did was stepping side by side with Angel Merkel and urging unity… only after submitting his own skepticism over the big political table in Europe.

Similar Posts:
Tories Stories : Well we all wanted this glorious, amazingly…
Truth Hurts : And while many people tend to believe that N…
Tips for buying cheap flights : …
A Pipedream? : Not long ago, most people would have chosen the…

ShareThis

Summer 2011 Has Proven Explosive

admin — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 20:33:03 +0000

Summertime has proven to be an explosive one in political terms in the UK. For the first time in many years, parliament was recalled twice over the break and August turned out to be one of the most interesting months of the year so far. Riots spread across the cities of Britain and social unrest and dissatisfaction seemed to be at an all time high. Yet one of the most divisive political actions occurred within one of the most treasured organisations the UK has – the NHS.

The new healthcare bill has been making its way through the Commons and has divided opinion sharply both within and outside Westminster. To the opposition things like care home manager jobs and similar positions may be under threat. The new bill allows for private companies to tender for the services that the NHS currently provides. David Cameron was at pains to point out during several weeks of Prime Minister’s Questions that no private company is being given control of the NHS. What is happening is that companies are being offered the chance to be providers for some of the services paid for by the public. Control would still remain within the NHS and the government hopes that this would encourage a more efficient and effective service for patients. At the moment as there is no competition within the NHS, the reasoning is that we allow poor service and care to flourish.

As imagined, this bill has proven to be political dynamite for the opposition who have used every opportunity to openly criticise Cameron and his party for even tabling it. Yet is there logic to the madness? No one wants to see the NHS destroyed, least of all Cameron as it would taint his legacy permanently. Yet the public purse is empty and still has holes in it that need repairing. Allowing the private sector to work within the NHS could be a masterstroke if it works and as long as it can be shown that the NHS remains a solely public body with no outside influence. Yet detractors and doubters remain.

Whilst there are many positions like social care jobs readily available at the moment, opponents of the new bill fear that medical staff would choose to go and work for the private companies employed by the government as they would receive higher salaries and benefits then they would under the NHS.

This situation will prove to be a tricky minefield for the government to navigate. Retaining existing doctor and nursing staff whilst cutting money to the NHS, remains problematic at best. Many GPs are already concerned that the control they are now being given over their local budgets will result in health care standards dropping as they are forced to place a £ sign over every patients'head. Most are concerned that if they spend their budget before the end of the fiscal year then they would have to delay referrals and treatments until funds became available again.

Summertime is rarely bright in the UK. The changes that have occurred this season have proven to be politically explosive and gloomy for many outsiders looking in.

ShareThis

Finally Some Regulation

admin — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:33:20 +0000

The British political elite has vested extreme powers in regulatory functions ascribed to specialized authorities which observe and investigate the business behaviour of telecoms, banking industries and other business-related activities. However, what the political elite has failed to foresee is the fact that granting powers is not as good as having a distinguished investigatory body that would deliver results to an independent authority. Nevertheless, a good result has been produced in relation to a problem related to the UK Telecoms.

TalkTalk, one of UK’s largest telecom service providers has been fined by Ofcom, the telecom regulator in the country, for billing people for services they have not received. The number of people is shocking - almost 65,000 people have paid more than they have used simply because of a negligent mistake by the operator. Furthermore, the investigation by the authority has revealed irregularities in the complaint handling services - it was way too stretching and time consuming thus discouraging people from seeking their rights. The fine imposed on TalkTalk is 3 million UK pounds - becoming one of the largest fines ever imposed on a telecom in the UK and Europe as a whole. The company can now seek some unsecured business loans to pay the state and finally meet its liabilities for overbilling people for no service delivered.

The finding of the Ofcom authority, however, indicates poor regulation. If this was allowed to occur somehow it is a sign that the regulatory functions of the body are ignored by Telecom companies to an extent - political leaders would now have the option to remedy the situation by imposing stricter regime for telecom companies. Definitely, a good way would be establishing an investigatory body to look into the industry.

Similar Posts:
Tories Stories : Well we all wanted this glorious, amazingly…
Truth Hurts : And while many people tend to believe that N…
Tips for buying cheap flights : …
The Country of Technology : For one thing I would say that…

ShareThis

Family Spending Power Falls by £350

admin — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:33:03 +0000

The world economy is currently facing a rather hard time. This is leading to a very negative effect on the spending power of individual and families and the UK is no different.

Jobs these days are being lost at an alarming rate and no sector has been spared. From civil service jobs, manufacturing, to care jobs everyone is being affected. Inflation rate is on the increase and this combination had led to a number of disturbing challenges all over the world.

Recent statistical information has shown that family spending power has fallen by £350.

The causes

One of the factors responsible is inflation. Because of the high inflation being experienced prices of goods and services have increased and to that end families are spending less. Also the Pound has lost some of its value which means what £1 could purchase a years ago the same pound won’t be able to purchase it this years.

Loss of jobs too can have its own impact on the family spending power. If there is no job, the spending power will reduce. Basically an advanced situation of joblessness leads to considerably high increase in the rate of family spending reduction.

It is true that there may be increase in earning. But if the conditions of employment are still the same, it becomes rather difficult to notice any positive change in the family earning and spending power. What many families that are earning more are doing is saving whatever extra funds they may have for a rainy day.

ShareThis

The Change In Banking

admin — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 12:33:03 +0000

Well if it is simply about cycling accidents compensation rules, the government would be eased in establishing legal principles. However, the problem with the UK banking world are far more disturbing and the government is seeking a way to relax things for consumer and strengthen the situation for bankers. To avoid any future financial cataclysms, the UK government, along with many foreign governments, issued statements regarding the several recommendations made by the Basel Committee on Banking (an internationally regulated body to supervise and direct the financial systems around the world).

The first requirement that would be legislated in favor of the UK consumer would be capital requirements for banks. Banks would have to face larger capital stored within their assets if they want to continue being within the business. Thus future risks related to financial problems will not occur and customers would be protected against such extensive problems.

Dependence of banks upon each other would also be solved through a number of regulatory schemes. The Basel Committee recommends that a body of bankers establishes the level of independence of each bank. However, the government has issued different legislative proposal - that every bank should be charged for dealing with the competition in maters excluding the preferences of their customers. This would limit the dependence of banks upon one another and would ensure that a collapse of one of them will not bring down the others.

These are just simple regulatory measures. The government is still to issue decision on how it plans to cope with foreign institutions, building societies and other financial services providers which can not be classified as banks.

ShareThis

It Is A Matter of Politics

admin — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:03:06 +0000

The problems of Greece are well known since the beginning of last year when many of the Greek people went on the streets protesting about the worsening economic climate in the state. However, recently, the problems seem to be escalating on political and social level when almost all of the EU restricted the access of emergency funds for the country only to cases of political stability. This would mean one thing only - that Greece would be able to use recovery funds only if it is able to maintain political order without inconfidence votes against the current government.

The people holding the roller banners protesting against the current political formations were not heard for the greater good. Greece knows that only through cuts and economic shortening of the industry it can obtain the so necessary funds for its recovery. The EU has also realized that the proper Euro stability would be threatened indirectly by political instability in the country of democracy. So the Greek Parliament voted confidence to the current government and the Greek can be calm that billions of Euros would enter the economy in the upcoming month.

The financial pack that EU provides thus seems to be quite politically oriented. Only selected political leaders can obtain the financial help for their countries, otherwise, Greece would be simply let alone in dealing with some of the most serious economic problems the European Union has ever encountered. Such a game of politics determines the stability of the EU economy and with or without the expected leaders, Greece should not be destined to starvation only because the people want to respect their right of free choice.

Similar Posts:
Tories Stories : Well we all wanted this glorious, amazingly…
Truth Hurts : And while many people tend to believe that N…
Tips for buying cheap flights : …
A Confident Law System : If not for the current state of…

ShareThis