General Election June 8th

[MellowJoe]

Well she does want us to be an 'aspirational society'!

Nothing wrong with that, but we should all be given the chance to piss it away, not have it pissed away before we start.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

So someone goes for a well paid, highly qualified job, then finds they are supposed to get it by becoming self employed by setting up their own company and "contracting" so the "employer" can avoid National Insurance. It beggars belief that people would prefer that sort of "choice" to a proper job under a benevolent employer (or at least one where the unions could negotiate some of that benevolence).

Well I prefer it. For one reason, the concept of the "benevolent employer" is not one I recognise. Most will shit on you if it suits them, union or no union. That's a large part of the reason I went self-employed. I did it willingly and by and large it suits me. I go into a client, do a job then go somewhere else. I get the variety of different work, different people and aren't at the mercy of the regular restructures or reorganisations that afflict large companies. I can work when it suits me and not work when it doesn't. Yes I don't get holiday or sick pay but I generally get well paid when I do work. I pay VAT, Corporation Tax, Income Tax & NI. That's my choice and I'm happy with it.

What I have no time for is the companies that force people into disguised employment and where they give the worker no choice. My son worked for a company like that, delivering & collecting cars for one of the big car hire companies. Only got paid for the jobs he did but had to work set days and hours while they charged him for various things. Some days he was making £20 or less. And then there are companies like Amazon & Sports Direct who mostly use agency staff who they can take on or get rid of at their whim. Or pay less to when it suits them. The more companies can get away with that, the more they'll do it. And there will be a whole raft of people who can't rely on a regular income or for who sickness may mean financial ruin. They'll struggle to get mortgages or other credit while the few, like Ashley and his cronies, get wealthier.

Real wages and productivity are falling even now because companies won't invest. They won't invest because all owners and investors are interested in is short-term profit. Share price a bit sluggish? Cut a few jobs or shut a factory. Profits a bit flat? Move production to somewhere where you can produce the stuff for half the price or less. Paying too much tax? Shift your HQ to Luxembourg or somewhere similar. You can't build shared national prosperity on that basis. People need to be able to buy goods and services, save and invest. You can't build an equal society when one part of the country sucks up investment, employment and people, leaving the rest behind. London has the Tube, Overground, Crossrail and a variety of network rail services, plus deregulated buses that work for the benefit of their users, not the companies that own them.

I don't want my paramedic daughter "outsourced" to some US-owned healthcare company which can choose to get rid of if it needs to improve its bottom line or leave her with inadequate resources or a shit pension. I want a society that works for everyone.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Nothing wrong with that, but we should all be given the chance to piss it away, not have it pissed away before we start.

or taken off our families inheritance when we die in a pool of our own piss in a care home?

 

[MellowJoe]

or taken off our families inheritance when we die in a pool of our own piss in a care home?

Well, what do you think happens to most of us? We tend to shit our pants and die. Most people would willingly pay the arse wiper if they had it.. surely.. and this proposal is only saying you pay until you have less than 100k in assets. Isn't it? Personally I think a healthier attitude to ones own mortality would help. Inheritance is a cheat (as sad as it may seem) and if we are able to not cheat, we should.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Well I prefer it. For one reason, the concept of the "benevolent employer" is not one I recognise. Most will shit on you if it suits them, union or no union. That's a large part of the reason I went self-employed. I did it willingly and by and large it suits me. I go into a client, do a job then go somewhere else. I get the variety of different work, different people and aren't at the mercy of the regular restructures or reorganisations that afflict large companies. I can work when it suits me and not work when it doesn't. Yes I don't get holiday or sick pay but I generally get well paid when I do work. I pay VAT, Corporation Tax, Income Tax & NI. That's my choice and I'm happy with it.

What I have no time for is the companies that force people into disguised employment and where they give the worker no choice. My son worked for a company like that, delivering & collecting cars for one of the big car hire companies. Only got paid for the jobs he did but had to work set days and hours while they charged him for various things. Some days he was making £20 or less. And then there are companies like Amazon & Sports Direct who mostly use agency staff who they can take on or get rid of at their whim. Or pay less to when it suits them. The more companies can get away with that, the more they'll do it. And there will be a whole raft of people who can't rely on a regular income or for who sickness may mean financial ruin. They'll struggle to get mortgages or other credit while the few, like Ashley and his cronies, get wealthier.

Real wages and productivity are falling even now because companies won't invest. They won't invest because all owners and investors are interested in is short-term profit. Share price a bit sluggish? Cut a few jobs or shut a factory. Profits a bit flat? Move production to somewhere where you can produce the stuff for half the price or less. Paying too much tax? Shift your HQ to Luxembourg or somewhere similar. You can't build shared national prosperity on that basis. People need to be able to buy goods and services, save and invest. You can't build an equal society when one part of the country sucks up investment, employment and people, leaving the rest behind. London has the Tube, Overground, Crossrail and a variety of network rail services, plus deregulated buses that work for the benefit of their users, not the companies that own them.

I don't want my paramedic daughter "outsourced" to some US-owned healthcare company which can choose to get rid of if it needs to improve its bottom line or leave her with inadequate resources or a shit pension. I want a society that works for everyone.

probably the only thing I agree with Trump on. You want to sell it here and make money on it here, then build it here and provide secured jobs for the people who end up buying it off you.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Well, what do you think happens to most of us? We tend to shit our pants and die. Most people would willingly pay the arse wiper if they had it.. surely.. and this proposal is only saying you pay until you have less than 100k in assets. Isn't it? Personally I think a healthier attitude to ones own mortality would help. Inheritance is a cheat (as sad as it may seem) and if we are able to not cheat, we should.

as I have said previously I think May has been brave to address this realistically - I am not saying its a bad idea - we are all going to need quality care and the state cannot afford it so some way has to be found. This may even be it - however it really is going down badly with Tory voters - MP's in places like Eastbourne must be shitting themselves over it - she may be brave but it may be her downfall

 

[Ghandi's Flip Flops]

It is a matter of fact that industry in Britain was decimated by Thatcherism - unemployment rose to record levels - over 3m. Many of those businesses that closed were no longer there and so apprenticeships were no longer on offer from them. I cannot for the life of me see why you deny that fact - it is well documented if you care to look it up.

I've not denied anywhere what Maggie did to some industry sectors, but at the same time i won't accept under Labour and the power of the unions that the UK was a land of milk & honey either. Also when Labour didn't do anything to actively reverse the damage that was supposedly done by the Tories

I am not denying that you and your co-workers had it tough in the Labour years but again international companies making decisions about where to base production isn't just a Labour issue - in fact in some cases you could point the finger at the EU making it easy to move jobs around. You can't change the fact that places like BAE Chadderton closed under Tory rule though. Why didn't they act to save those jobs in the two years after they got elected? Because they could do Jack shit - its international business.

The problem was the vast majority of the redundancies & job losses happened whilst Labour was in power, mainly because Labour removed previous incentives that were in place or stopped things like paying subsidies to companies for training etc. By the time that the Tories got back in power these companies/sites were a shell of their former selfs and pretty much already on life support.

I see you have continued to do your research via the Murdoch empire? blah balh Union Cronies, blah blah Abbott blah blah punishing the well catered for temporary worker..... look I won't change your mind and you sure as hell won't change mine.

Sorry i don't read any Murdoch papers, and based my views on what's actually in the Labour Manifesto that was on the BBC website here . Everything under the section of Workers Rights seems to me to be punitive attack on the majority of the people in the temp worker/contracting sector whilst also strengthening of Union powers.

For the last 20 years or so, i've worked mainly as a contractor sometimes alongside long term employees and also have had 3 staff jobs within that time.
None of the those staff jobs lasted more than 18 months, and on some occasions been kept on as a contractor where staff employees beside have lost their jobs.
On every occasion the unions weren't able to reverse any job cuts or get any enhanced severance deals.
The one time when i probably had a valid case for my union to represent me, they weren't interested.
Also i've seen on numerous occasions where the attitude & behaviour of the unions has adversely affected the workers they represent.
So you can probably see why i'm not pro-union.

On the flip-side, being a contractor/freelancer i've been able to work whatever hours i've wanted (anything between 20-70 hours a week), take long holidays to compensate, manage my income to suit (i.e. put more/less into pension scheme and pay myself less/more) depending on the situation/ hourly rate.
As i've said before, a lot of temp workers are happy with zero hour contracts or being allowed to work this way, but Labour want remove this option as a way of working and everyone to be an 'employee', just to suit their ideology and their supporters in the unions.

All i'm asking is that they leave us an option of how i supply my labour/services, without penalizing us unfairly.

 

[Vic]

as I have said previously I think May has been brave to address this realistically - I am not saying its a bad idea - we are all going to need quality care and the state cannot afford it so some way has to be found. This may even be it - however it really is going down badly with Tory voters - MP's in places like Eastbourne must be shitting themselves over it - she may be brave but it may be her downfall

We are not all going to need quality care. Some of us will die suddenly. Some will die after a short illness. Some will need short-term care. Some will need years of quality care.

Why should the latter have to end up spending thousands of their prudently-saved money for their care? May has answered that by saying there's no reason, just your and your family's bad luck.

It really is simple. You pay enough tax to cover the possibility that it might be you that needs the state to cover the cost of that care.

Or you don't allow anyone to pass on wealth to their children. That would be fair.

 

[Vic]

Despite them wanting to renationalise industries and hand centralised monopoly power back to politicised twats such as the rail unions? Unions whose members are very comfortable, thank you very much, but who give not a diddly fcuk about customer service and will happily disrupt everyone in pursuit of their latest manufactured "cause". No thanks pal.

Having worked in a nationalised industry I find that insulting. I and others (not all ideologues) gave good customer service because it was a nationalised industry and we were working for the people and not for shareholders just looking for a profit.

Many privatisations were disastrous for the customer because people who had been working for a fair wage when there was no other employer suddenly found that with competition their skills were valued much more highly. Train drivers' wages shot up - if I recall, the initial impetus was from BNFL trying to recruit drivers driving nuclear flasks to Sellafield. And privatisation is just so inefficient - you can't drive another company's trains, you know fewer diversion routes so need an extra driver for that, you need different mess rooms, and you need hundreds of lawyers to sort out the payments between companies.

 

[mcfc1632]

Ah....

Good old YouGov.

Created by and run by one of the Tory parties biggest doners. A bastian of independence.

You might prefer Yougovs latest offering - it is suggesting that the Tory lead has been halved.