Post Match Thread: Election 2017

[Bigga]

Yes I agree with you they have a role to play - I am a suit myself! - what I am against is the kind of attitude that disregards the fact that no wealth can be created without the people that do the actual labour. And to be clear, I am not saying you have this attitude, I am just saying not to buy into the language of the right which raises entrepreneurs and 'wealth creators' up on a pedestal.

As far as the accordingly question goes, I actually do think they have a right to pay the bare minimum of wages if that is what they want to do but that is up to the workers to organise themselves both in the workplace and politically in order to prevent them from doing so. As I see it, it isn't really a question of rights or morality but a question of political power and the nature of the ownership of the means of production which stems from that political power. (Edit: or vice versa, as a good marxist would actually say that the political structure is determined by the ownership of the means of production!)

The workers shouldn't be happy to be in a position where they are dependent on the goodwill or morality of the bosses to have a decent wage. Goodwill and morality can too easily go out the window when times get tough!

Ah, so is it a problem when the Tories set out to smash unions then or was it their right to do so...??

 

[worsleyweb]

Mate, you wouldn't recognise an industrial strategy if Gideon rolled it up, stuck it up your arse and set fire to it.

So his efforts to rebalance the economy to the north from London were not a good thing? I don't really get your comment above?

 

[The perfect fumble]

He's leaving front line politics to spend more time with his prejudices.

 

[The perfect fumble]

So his efforts to rebalance the economy to the north from London were not a good thing? I don't really get your comment above?

It was at best sticky back plastic and glitter.

Like so many sound bite policies there was a bag of crumbs on offer and Manchester snaffled them, on the basis that something is better than nothing.

 

[worsleyweb]

It was at best sticky back plastic and glitter.

Like so many sound bite policies there was a bag of crumbs on offer and Manchester snaffled them, on the basis that something is better than nothing.

So you have no idea what he did??? So resort to rhetoric. Admit it?

 

[The perfect fumble]

So you have no idea what he did??? So resort to rhetoric. Admit it?

I know what he did, I worked with UKTI which was part of BIS at the time, but it got spun out into DIT, which looks like its days are numbered.

UKTI dealt with inward investment and the North West region of UKTI (now DIT) was due to be rolled in to a northern powerhouse super region. It never happened, the regional development plans are all there, increasing infrastructure spend, particularly on transport between the great northern cities from Sheffield to Leeds, to Liverpool, with Manchester at its centre, there are plans to up-skill the work force to address the regions poor productivity and a whole bunch of other schemes but all these plans existed before, drafted by the regional development agencies, before the Tories disbanded them, but they were kept kept alive like a flickering flame by various local councils. Nothing Gideon offered was new and what little funding there was available was less than the budgets of the old regional development agencies, coupled with the cuts, every part of the north west receives considerably less now than it did before 2010 and Gideon's cuts.

As the head of my local region stated in 2015 at our first regional meeting after the general election of that year "This government has no industrial strategy" and he's a diehard Tory. The government does what every Tory government does, they tell you what the problems are, and because these problems are all well known, they can speak with authority about them, and then they put in place policies that sound impressive but are completely hollow, there's nothing in them whatsoever. The Tories do this all the time, housing is probably the best example of the illusion of activity to address a problem, because the government cannot be seen to be doing nothing, but nothing of substance comes from these policies, the housing crisis is never solved, because they have no intention of solving it. Tory policies on regional development, housing, social care and a whole host of other issues like "just getting by families" are not designed to solve the problem, because in tandem there are a whole bunch of "real" Tory policies that actually makes things worse. These fake policies are designed to be seen to be doing something, because it would be politically unacceptable to be seen to be doing nothing.

 

[Ricster]

Yesterday will always be remembered as the day we allowed racist, homophobic, anti abortion terrorists to have a say on how our country will be run.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Yesterday will always be remembered as the day we allowed racist, homophobic, anti abortion terrorists to have a say on how our country will be run.

For me, it will always be remembered for c400 people being burned alive.

The fall out from this could be massive, from council to ministerial.

Yesterday for me puts the terrorist threat into perspective. It's awful, but yesterday's events were beyond horrific.

 

[Ricster]

For me, it will always be remembered for c400 people being burned alive.

The fall out from this could be massive, from council to ministerial.

Yesterday for me puts the terrorist threat into perspective. It's awful, but yesterday's events were beyond horrific.

Have i missed something?

 

[stonerblue]

I know what he did, I worked with UKTI which was part of BIS at the time, but it got spun out into DIT, which looks like its days are numbered.

UKTI dealt with inward investment and the North West region of UKTI (now DIT) was due to be rolled in to a northern powerhouse super region. It never happened, the regional development plans are all there, increasing infrastructure spend, particularly on transport between the great northern cities from Sheffield to Leeds, to Liverpool, with Manchester at its centre, there are plans to up-skill the wok force to address the regions poor productivity and a whole bunch of other schemes but all these plans existed before, drafted by the regional development agencies, before the Tories disbanded them, but they were kept kept alive like a flickering flame by various local councils. Nothing Gideon offered was new and what little funding there was available was less than the budgets of the old regional development agencies, coupled with the cuts, every part of the north west receives considerably less now than it did before 2010 and Gideon's cuts.

As the head of my local region stated in 2015 at our first regional meeting after the general election of that year "This government has no industrial strategy" and he's a diehard Tory. The government does what every Tory government does, they tell you what the problems are, and because these problems are all well known, they can speak with authority about them, and then they put in place policies that sound impressive but are completely hollow, there's nothing in them whatsoever. The Tories do this all the time, housing is probably the best example of the illusion of activity to address a problem, because the government cannot be seen to be doing nothing, but nothing of substance comes from these policies, the housing crisis is never solved, because they have no intention of solving it. Tory policies on regional development, housing, social care and a whole host of other issues like "just getting by families" are not designed to solve to the problem, because in tandem there are a whole bunch of "real" Tory policies that actually makes things worse. These fake policies are designed to be seen to be doing something, because it would be politically unacceptable to be seen to be doing nothing.

Well in PF

 

[goalmole]

Yes I agree with you they have a role to play - I am a suit myself! - what I am against is the kind of attitude that disregards the fact that no wealth can be created without the people that do the actual labour. And to be clear, I am not saying you have this attitude, I am just saying not to buy into the language of the right which raises entrepreneurs and 'wealth creators' up on a pedestal.

As far as the accordingly question goes, I actually do think they have a right to pay the bare minimum of wages if that is what they want to do but that is up to the workers to organise themselves both in the workplace and politically in order to prevent them from doing so. As I see it, it isn't really a question of rights or morality but a question of political power and the nature of the ownership of the means of production which stems from that political power. (Edit: or vice versa, as a good marxist would actually say that the political structure is determined by the ownership of the means of production!)

The workers shouldn't be happy to be in a position where they are dependent on the goodwill or morality of the bosses to have a decent wage. Goodwill and morality can too easily go out the window when times get tough!

It has to be a partnership. Just as the business owners cannot run their businesses without the participation of the workers then also the workers cannot hold a business to ransom thinking that the business will not function without their labour. The only way forward is for business people to recognise that their workers are entitled to a wage that will give them a decent living standard as opposed to merely a subsistence. The workers need to know that by making excessive demands they will eventually kill the golden goose that is the business. The welfare of both parties is inextricably and intrinsically linked.
Generally, depending on the state of the employment market at any one time it will be the position of the workers that will be weaker than that of the employer. The position of the workers cannot be strengthened without threatening the business. In a weak employment market the workers cannot even threaten the business with withdrawal of labour in the knowledge that the employer will simply replace the existing workforce with a more compliant and cheaper workforce. So should then an employer grind down his workforce into working for a bowl of rice a day knowing that there are no jobs to be had and that the workers have families to feed and so have no other choice. The prevailing environment might make it feasible for an employer to cut wages with impunity, the question is is it right to do so.
This is my argument for morality in capitalism. It is in fact the only recipe for progress. Both parties voluntarily understanding the position of the other and working to make each others, and therefore their own position more prosperous and stronger.

 

[Ricster]

For me, it will always be remembered for c400 people being burned alive.

The fall out from this could be massive, from council to ministerial.

Yesterday for me puts the terrorist threat into perspective. It's awful, but yesterday's events were beyond horrific.

Heartbreaking. Just saw the interview witha guy breaking down on camera :(

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Heartbreaking. Just saw the interview witha guy breaking down on camera :(

I can deal with most things in life. I've been through some stuff. This has hit me pretty hard though due to issues I went through as a child.

If ministers had the information that showed these tower blocks were at risk of this kind of disaster and didn't nothing to avert it to save money, then they should be charged with at least manslaughter and maybe murder if the evidence is there.

 

[Ricster]

I can deal with most things in life. I've been through some stuff. This has hit me pretty hard though due to issues I went through as a child.

If ministers had the information that showed these tower blocks were at risk of this kind of disaster and didn't nothing to avert it to save money, then they should be charged with at least manslaughter and maybe murder if the evidence is there.

Hope youre ok man. Drop me a pm if you want to get anything out or just need to talk or vent

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Hope youre ok man. Drop me a pm if you want to get anything out or just need to talk or vent

Thank you

 

[Ricster]

Just having a look at cuts to the Fire services after yesterdays tragic event's in London. Absolutely shocked to discover the Fire service has seen over 7,000 of its personnel disappear due to cuts up until 2013. Searching for the full accurate number to todays date.


Another shocking cut that has left our citizens unprotected and shown by the locality of where fire crews were deployed from.

Add that to the police cuts and reduction of officers and armed officers on the street and you have to question how important us public safety?

 

[Chippy_boy]

It has to be a partnership. Just as the business owners cannot run their businesses without the participation of the workers then also the workers cannot hold a business to ransom thinking that the business will not function without their labour. The only way forward is for business people to recognise that their workers are entitled to a wage that will give them a decent living standard as opposed to merely a subsistence. The workers need to know that by making excessive demands they will eventually kill the golden goose that is the business. The welfare of both parties is inextricably and intrinsically linked.
Generally, depending on the state of the employment market at any one time it will be the position of the workers that will be weaker than that of the employer. The position of the workers cannot be strengthened without threatening the business. In a weak employment market the workers cannot even threaten the business with withdrawal of labour in the knowledge that the employer will simply replace the existing workforce with a more compliant and cheaper workforce. So should then an employer grind down his workforce into working for a bowl of rice a day knowing that there are no jobs to be had and that the workers have families to feed and so have no other choice. The prevailing environment might make it feasible for an employer to cut wages with impunity, the question is is it right to do so.
This is my argument for morality in capitalism. It is in fact the only recipe for progress. Both parties voluntarily understanding the position of the other and working to make each others, and therefore their own position more prosperous and stronger.

Great post mate.

However, what I would say is that you make no mention of a couple of things, one is foreign competition, and the other is skills.

On the former, it's no use us paying what is considered a fair wage to provide a decent living standard in this country, bearing in mind the cost of living in the UK, if that means the goods and services produced are uncompetitive with other goods and services from other countries. So what's the solution here? There's a number of options, none of which are ideal.

1. Force the employer to pay wages that are unsustainable for the business. Will put companies out of business and increase unemployment.
2. Pay people less and compensate them with government benefits, i.e. supplement their income. Essentially the current scenario.
3. Subsidise the employer - probably not allowable under EU law, and requires taxes from others in society to enable employers to underpay people. A dubious choice.
4. Impose import tariffs on cheaper imports. Again only possible outside after Brexit (and maybe not even then). Doesn't help the businesses exports and penal to the consumer

None of these are good, are they. And without the ability to influence wages and costs in other countries, I can think of no better options than the ones above. Which brings me on to my second point: skills. Businesses happily pay people more for more valuable work and this has to be the answer, imo. Although we are currently the 5th or 6th biggest economy in the world, the direction is downwards and there's no god-given right for us to stay at 5 or 6. Anymore than to stay at number 1, or number 2, or number 3 ... We're going down!

If we are to reverse this trend, we have to accept that some kinds of work are inherently too low in value to pay our citizens an acceptably high wage. We need to transition out of these kind of jobs, into new ones with highly skilled workers producing high quality, possibly high tech goods. Of course we've seen much of this happen already with the decline of our mining, shipbuilding and textile industries. Whereas in motor manufacture, aerospace & defence and high tech, we continue to do well. We need to do much more of the latter, and less of the former.

It's not easy, and there will of course be pain as traditional low paid jobs are lost, and we as a society need to bear that in mind and invest in training and skills and help people transition. There will always be a need for some unskilled work for those who cannot transition, and for those people and for those I think the least worst option is No. 2 above. But Option 1, is not an option. A business selling uncompetitive goods and services will ultimately go bust.

 

[pirate]

Great post mate.

However, what I would say is that you make no mention of a couple of things, one is foreign competition, and the other is skills.

On the former, it's no use us paying what is considered a fair wage to provide a decent living standard in this country, bearing in mind the cost of living in the UK, if that means the goods and services produced are uncompetitive with other goods and services from other countries. So what's the solution here? There's a number of options, none of which are ideal.

1. Force the employer to pay wages that are unsustainable for the business. Will put companies out of business and increase unemployment.
2. Pay people less and compensate them with government benefits, i.e. supplement their income. Essentially the current scenario.
3. Subsidise the employer - probably not allowable under EU law, and requires taxes from others in society.
4. Impose import tariffs on cheaper imports. Again only possible outside after Brexit (and maybe not even then). Doesn't help the businesses exports and penal to the consumer

None of these are good, are they. And without the ability to influence wages and costs in other countries, I can think of no better options that the ones above. Which brings me on to my second point: skills. Businesses happily pay people more for more valuable work and this has to be the answer, imo. Although we are currently the 5th or 6th biggest economy in the world, the direction is downwards and there's no god-given right for us to stay at 5 or 6. Anymore than to stay at number 1, or number 2, or number 3 ... We're going down!

If we are to reverse this trend, we have to accept that some kinds of work are inherently too low in value to pay our citizens an acceptably high wage. We need to transition out of these kind of jobs, into new ones with highly skilled workers producing high quality, possibly high tech goods. Of course we've seen much of this happen already with the decline of our mining, shipbuilding and textile industries. Whereas in motor manufacture, aerospace & defence and high tech, we continue to do well. We need to do much more of the latter, and less of the former.

It's not easy, and there will of course be pain as traditional low paid jobs are lost, and we as a society need to bear that in mind and invest in training and skills and help people transition. There will always be a need for some unskilled work for those who cannot transition, and for those people and for those I think the least worst option is No. 2 above. But Option 1, is not an option. A business selling uncompetitive goods and services will ultimately go bust.

the problem is that the majority of those jobs will still need doing in this country.
For example, from the office of national statistics, there were 362,000 jobs paying below the national living wage in 2016
Of these 60,000 were in the caring professions, we cant transition out of these, nursing and care homes are in the UK and pretty much have to stay here.
110,000 are in elementary occupations, thats basic service industry life bar staff waiters etc, again unless we stop going out , we cant transition out of these.
55,000 are in sales and customer service, do we really want to transition out of these so we end up with more foreign call centres when you ring up a company?
45,000 are admin and secretarial, cant really transition out of these as they support the high skill and high paid jobs and without them the high skilled high paid jobs are not possible.
So thats about 75% of the really low paid jobs we cant transition out of.

If we then look at the 5,000,000 people that claim working family tax credits and the like.
The stats for these are not published centrally, but some are available
there are about 1,500,000 providing social care (info from skillsforcare.org). So even if there are absolutely no elementary or customer service or admin jobs in that 5 million (and I am guessing there are) then there is at least 30% of those we cannot transition out of.
Its more likely that more than half of those 5 million jobs we cannot transition out of.

Just for discussion chippy old chap

 

[depps]

Ah, so is it a problem when the Tories set out to smash unions then or was it their right to do so...??

I would say it is a problem, but that it is also their right to do so. Just like it the workers' right to resist that and it is the workers' right to try to smash capitalism.

Trying to argue everything in terms of rights is something I would try to avoid. What are generally perceived to be 'rights' change over time depending on the make up of political and economic power. In the 1800s loads of people argued in favour of slaveholders' rights, and before that people argued for the divine right of kings.

However, even using the general understanding of rights that we have today I would still stay that the Tories had the right to try to set out to smash the power of the unions. Where they would have crossed the line would be if they had banned unions which would be in breach of the right of free assembly/association.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Great post mate.

However, what I would say is that you make no mention of a couple of things, one is foreign competition, and the other is skills.

On the former, it's no use us paying what is considered a fair wage to provide a decent living standard in this country, bearing in mind the cost of living in the UK, if that means the goods and services produced are uncompetitive with other goods and services from other countries. So what's the solution here? There's a number of options, none of which are ideal.

1. Force the employer to pay wages that are unsustainable for the business. Will put companies out of business and increase unemployment.
2. Pay people less and compensate them with government benefits, i.e. supplement their income. Essentially the current scenario.
3. Subsidise the employer - probably not allowable under EU law, and requires taxes from others in society.
4. Impose import tariffs on cheaper imports. Again only possible outside after Brexit (and maybe not even then). Doesn't help the businesses exports and penal to the consumer

None of these are good, are they. And without the ability to influence wages and costs in other countries, I can think of no better options that the ones above. Which brings me on to my second point: skills. Businesses happily pay people more for more valuable work and this has to be the answer, imo. Although we are currently the 5th or 6th biggest economy in the world, the direction is downwards and there's no god-given right for us to stay at 5 or 6. Anymore than to stay at number 1, or number 2, or number 3 ... We're going down!

If we are to reverse this trend, we have to accept that some kinds of work are inherently too low in value to pay our citizens an acceptably high wage. We need to transition out of these kind of jobs, into new ones with highly skilled workers producing high quality, possibly high tech goods. Of course we've seen much of this happen already with the decline of our mining, shipbuilding and textile industries. Whereas in motor manufacture, aerospace & defence and high tech, we continue to do well. We need to do much more of the latter, and less of the former.

It's not easy, and there will of course be pain as traditional low paid jobs are lost, and we as a society need to bear that in mind and invest in training and skills and help people transition. There will always be a need for some unskilled work for those who cannot transition, and for those people and for those I think the least worst option is No. 2 above. But Option 1, is not an option. A business selling uncompetitive goods and services will ultimately go bust.

You have just engaged in an exercise that every government since Harold Wilson has wrestled with and come, very roughly to some of their conclusions, though there are some conspicuous by their absence. But they will not be solved by this government, they are politically hardwired never to solve them.

Put simply there have been four types of approaches to these problems, A National Plan approach, white hot heat of the technological revolution, infrastructure investment under pinned by taxation and Keynesian economics, red brick universities, mid 60s Harold Wilson. The enabling government, nudge, nudge approach of Blair, while simultaneously letting unrestrained market forces rip. The shock and awe, slash and burn, don't give a fuck about the great unwashed, class warfare of Thatcher and the neoliberalism of May and Cameron, who don't seek to address these problems at all, as they are felt most acutely by people, who Duncan Smith rightly pointed out, "don't vote for us" and therefore don't matter.

That is why I and millions like me rallied to Corbyn, because these problems matter and they can only be addressed by massive investment underpinned by borrowing and higher rates of taxation on the rich. I would suggest you actually listen to Corbyn and John Mcdonnell and read the manifesto, because whatever your opinions are, these men seriously address the underlying problems that have plagued this country for decades, they're not obfuscating, they speak to the problems directly, for what they are, and they generated hope because they are serious in their intentions to address them. No other party is.

My anger with you and other right wingers in here is the narrowness of your vision, the utter hopelessness of it all. Nothing you post and nothing this government you support will ever do will solve any of the problems you've outlined. Maybe you buy in to the vicars daughter's biblical interpretation "you will always have the poor among you" and therefore you're quietly satisfied that she does nothing to alleviate it.