The Labour Government

[Vic]

He'd probably have them all locked up for years now if he had the chance.

And that would be a bad thing because...

(Why no arrests? Two-tier policing then?)

 

[Vic]

Sooner or later this new Labour government has to jettison the conspiracy of silence and address the elephant in the room. When Brexit Boston is turning against it , it's surely time for a complete about turn. I reckon a referendum now would produce a 60/40 win for re-entry, but instead of reopening a damaging debate it's time to put this supermajority to good use and by pass the need (especially if polling confirms my beliefs) and show leadership which I think people in the UK really want now.

Anything we didn't know years ago? If the Bloviator is lurking he might want to offer an opinion about the fictional free trade zone etc etc...

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

France sees Channel migrant deaths as a problem of Britain's making

Many in France deeply resent the way their own lives have been transformed by a crisis they see as British-made.

www.bbc.co.uk

Interesting that the French Interior minister didn't shy away from blaming the UKs loosely regulated job market that attracts illegal migration resulting in people risking their lives to cross the channel for a better life. He didnt mention asylum seekers at all.

This is clearly something that UK politicians have clearly shied away from. If we are honest this comes back to France's more strict enforcement of employment laws and right to work and especially their requirement for national ID cards. Employment laws and the right to work are essentially self enforcing in the UK with few checks and we as a country have continued to reject ID cards. Something that Tony Blair suggested to Starmer as a way of controlling illegal migration recently. Perhaps the UK government need to recheck their approach to this problem.

 

[Kompany Car]

It is a combination of state and insurance funding. The insurance element is fairly highly regulated in other European countries but there maybe an element of copay followed by reimbursement. The problem is the majority of the UK public won’t countenance any change to healthcare funding even if it’s still free at point of delivery and neither Labour nor Tory will risk any change due to the optics.

Its interesting that many people point to places like Sweden and Nordic countries as how the state system should work.

Whilst its only a small amount, if you visit a doctors, need an ambulance or require a stay in hospital in Sweden there is a small surcharge. To see a doctor costs between £8 and £30 but its capped in any 12 month period to around £90 in total. Hospital stays are around £10 per night. There is also a cost for an ambulance on top if one is needed but once again its capped.

There's are no cost if you're under 20 or over 85.

It does make you wonder if by doing something similar it would cut down on people making unnecessary calls. I know a few who work in A&E who have told me anecdotally of people going with a headache and being given a couple of paracetamols, plus those who decide to drink to excess or come unstuck doing "recreational" drugs who then require treatment would at least be paying something back.

Whilst its not the sole answer, the money might allow us to improve the healthcare system, however it would also need more taxation on top to achieve the same doctor & hospital bed ratios per person as Sweden, which is roughly twice as many as the UK.

Update... Just had a look and there are 1.38m doctors appointments per day in the UK, if only 500k were eligible to pay at a figure of £10 per appointment that would over a year (based on 260 working days) equate to £1.3Bn. I dont know the exact figure but lets say a doctor costs the NHS 200k per year, thats 6500 extra doctors you could have or probably three times that many nurses.

 

[metalblue]

No problem with the last paragraph, but the first paragraph makes some giant statistical leaps.

1. That Labour Leave voters were evenly represented in the 70% of Leave voters concerned about immigration. They could all be the 30% of Leave voters not concerned about immigration, and simply anti-EU as it's a capitalist institution.

2. My original comment was based on canvassing - anybody for whom immigration was a strong issue was not going to vote Labour, and of anyone going to vote Labour who had concerns about immigration some were quite likely to blame the Tories for creating the asylum backlog (and for the nasty rhetoric). From hundreds of contacts, only one seemed angry enough for me to think (now) that he might have gone rioting.

What’s the expression there are lies and statistic’s? or summit like that. I get your original post now, appreciate the extra details.

 

[metalblue]

Interesting to see Tory likes for that. Did they not know it was a Tory "bright spark" idea?

I liked his post because it was a shit idea - and yes I did know who brought it in. It’s a very Tory thing is personal responsibility.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Ouch..

Sad to bring it up, but will keep the gammons going.

 

[metalblue]

Its interesting that many people point to places like Sweden and Nordic countries as how the state system should work.

Whilst its only a small amount, if you visit a doctors, need an ambulance or require a stay in hospital in Sweden there is a small surcharge. To see a doctor costs between £8 and £30 but its capped in any 12 month period to around £90 in total. Hospital stays are around £10 per night. There is also a cost for an ambulance on top if one is needed but once again its capped.

There's are no cost if you're under 20 or over 85.

It does make you wonder if by doing something similar it would cut down on people making unnecessary calls. I know a few who work in A&E who have told me anecdotally of people going with a headache and being given a couple of paracetamols, plus those who decide to drink to excess or come unstuck doing "recreational" drugs who then require treatment would at least be paying something back.

Whilst its not the sole answer, the money might allow us to improve the healthcare system, however it would also need more taxation on top to achieve the same doctor & hospital bed ratios per person as Sweden, which is roughly twice as many as the UK.

A&E was comparatively empty during COVID lockdowns because people weren’t out on the piss or attempting DIY their talents couldn’t achieve.

You’re spot on that people use it inappropriately- the clue is in the name, accident and emergency. I’d fine any **** who turned up and didn’t fall in to either of those categories however we know that will never happen.

Regarding GP appointments I’d happily pay a bit to see them to help fund it. Those with chronic health conditions should be exempt otherwise those of us that use it infrequently can spare a few bob.

 

[meltonblue]

Absolute bollocks, you've showed your true colours and are trying to hide behind your indefensible POV, I hate that "he/she works for me" change your stance, it's shocking tbh.

Yes, that’ll be it, I don’t even know my own perception, you’re absolutely right… Ffs.

If that was my true perception then I wouldn’t be making the entire point I was in that first post, would I?

 

[metalblue]

France sees Channel migrant deaths as a problem of Britain's making

Many in France deeply resent the way their own lives have been transformed by a crisis they see as British-made.

www.bbc.co.uk

Interesting that the French Interior minister didn't shy away from blaming the UKs loosely regulated job market that attracts illegal migration resulting in people risking their lives to cross the channel for a better life. He didnt mention asylum seekers at all.

This is clearly something that UK politicians have clearly shied away from. If we are honest this comes back to France's more strict enforcement of employment laws and right to work and especially their requirement for national ID cards. Employment laws and the right to work are essentially self enforcing in the UK with few checks and we as a country have continued to reject ID cards. Something that Tony Blair suggested to Starmer as a way of controlling illegal migration recently. Perhaps the UK government need to recheck their approach to this problem.

Undoubtedly it helps but is that really what motivates people? I’d argue it’s more desperate than that and that there is more than a causal link between Brexit and the channel crossings.

Before Brexit: refused in any EU country - your application ain’t getting accepted in the UK

After Brexit: refused in any EU country - try UK as it’s another roll of the dice.

How many illegal immigrants have committed acts of terrorism? I haven’t checked but my guess is it’s 0. So they are here for a better life and to contribute rather than some horde we need to repel at the gate. So I conclude it’s not the people, but the process, that is the issue and we have to be practical, we can’t stop it. I’d have no issue with us striking a deal with EU on accepting EU granted asylum seekers to UK for those that want to come here (subject to some annual caps on numbers so we don’t fail either those coming here and those already here but there is little to no evidence to suggest hundreds of thousands would want to come here so cap would probably not be met). Any who arrives from an EU country otherwise will be immediately deported to their country of birth without putting them up in a hotel for a year or more and granting them any legal recourse. That would stop the vast majority of small boats. Whilst it would put the burden on EU states to process asylum seekers I’d see no issue with either providing some resources to help process them or cash to fund it.

 

[metalblue]

Well that’s more on you and how you chose to read it to be fair. I was making the point of the different levels between those on a grade higher than me, myself and then those on a grade lower. I said they “worked for me” in the context of I feel personally responsible for them and them feeling rewarded as well as enjoying what they do as a personal accountability, however I’m constrained by the same company rules everyone else is.

I consider them all my colleagues and actually primarily friends, neither of which apply as much as to how I feel about those in the director or exec level roles.

Regardless of that, it’s only demeaning and insulting depending on the context. There’s numerous times a week where I have to say “I work for x” or “x works for me”. It’s only baffling when you attempt to project an ulterior motivation for doing it like you’ve done there, which I find even more baffling than attempting to check the motivation before doing so.

I guarantee everyone who reports in to you thinks you’re a **** - one thing they ain’t is your friends. The only reason they’ll post on their social they’ve had a terrible day if you get sacked/die is so someone can reply “you ok hun? x”

Graveyards are full of the indispensable.

 

[Kompany Car]

Absolute bollocks, you've showed your true colours and are trying to hide behind your indefensible POV, I hate that "he/she works for me" change your stance, it's shocking tbh.

Think you're being a bit unfair here on @meltonblue. In all large organisations I have worked in, people have been referred to as working in x's bit of the business or y's team. Or x works for a particular person. It's a turn of phrase as awkward as it may be rather than anything which is derogatory.

If you want derogatory or demeaning , look at most employment contracts where it normally says one of the reason for disciplinary procedures is "insubordination".

 

[meltonblue]

I guarantee everyone who reports in to you thinks you’re a **** - one thing they ain’t is your friends. The only reason they’ll post on their social they’ve had a terrible day if you get sacked/die is so someone can reply “you ok hun? x”

Graveyards are full of the indispensable.

I can guarantee they don’t, although they’d all agree with the sentiment no one is indispensable. I’d have thought that’s a given for anyone that’s worked for a company for even a small amount of time.

All of this still has sod all to do with my initial point though so it’s a rabbit hole I’m not that interested in going down!

 

[hammocity]

Think you're being a bit unfair here on @meltonblue. In all large organisations I have worked in, people have been referred to as working in x's bit of the business or y's team. Or x works for a particular person. It's a turn of phrase as awkward as it may be rather than anything which is derogatory.

If you want derogatory or demeaning , look at most employment contracts where it normally says one of the reason for disciplinary procedures is "insubordination".

I understand the bit about being in a Line Manager's team, no problem with that but over the years I've heard plenty of people say ""he/she works for me", they don't, they work for the same organisation, both hopefully contributing to the company making a profit by doing a good job.

Around the early 1990's, I worked for a Hiorse Racing Broadcaster (SIS) headed by the best boss I've ever met, a guy called Nigel Payne who part owned Grand National winner Earth Summit. I accompanied him to Haydock Park Races one day, we went into the parade ring and he introduced me to top jockey Pat Eddery, he said "Pat, this is my colleague from SIS, Mark", he was the top dog, I was the Customer Relation's Manager for the North of England, I'll never forget that.

I know @meltonblue is a good lad with sensible opinions, it's just the proprietorial nature of that particular post irked me along with some other ridiculous posts on this thread :-)

 

[hammocity]

I guarantee everyone who reports in to you thinks you’re a **** - one thing they ain’t is your friends. The only reason they’ll post on their social they’ve had a terrible day if you get sacked/die is so someone can reply “you ok hun? x”

Graveyards are full of the indispensable.

Made me laugh anyway.

 

[meltonblue]

I understand the bit about being in a Line Manager's team, no problem with that but over the years I've heard plenty of people say ""he/she works for me", they don't, they work for the same organisation, both hopefully contributing to the company making a profit by doing a good job.

Around the early 1990's, I worked for a Hiorse Racing Broadcaster (SIS) headed by the best boss I've ever met, a guy called Nigel Payne who part owned Grand National winner Earth Summit. I accompanied him to Haydock Park Races one day, we went into the parade ring and he introduced me to top jockey Pat Eddery, he said "Pat, this is my colleague from SIS, Mark", he was the top dog, I was the Customer Relation's Manager for the North of England, I'll never forget that.

I know @meltonblue is a good lad with sensible opinions, it's just the proprietorial nature of that particular post irked me along with some other ridiculous posts on this thread :-)

I completely agree with your first paragraph, there’s nothing I said that is contrary to having that as a sentiment. The point I was making was around the disparity in salary between the different grades in the organisation not being reflective of the value to the organisation that those roles provide. Thats made very real to me in both the visibility and constraint I see for those directly in my org, either above or below. I don’t use the terminology of “x works for me” in general parlance at all, it was clearly in making a specific point.

Thats reflective not just in salary but in bonus payments and pension contributions on top. I would much rather see a much flatter structure and less discrepency between the rewards.

I’d be interested to know why you’d think either that or anything else I’ve said is ridiculous as that’s the only real point I’ve made?

 

[metalblue]

I can guarantee they don’t, although they’d all agree with the sentiment no one is indispensable. I’d have thought that’s a given for anyone that’s worked for a company for even a small amount of time.

All of this still has sod all to do with my initial point though so it’s a rabbit hole I’m not that interested in going down!

How the fuck did you get to be a boss? You treat them like, and think, your reports are your mates?

I’ve no doubt you’re a good boss so long as you don’t have to make any hard decisions. It’s small wonder you’re embarrassed with how much you now earn.

No offence intended, just some tough love xx

In addition to career advice I am also available for birthdays, weddings and the such.

 

[Chippy_boy]

You work for an Organisation but still say "I'm able to pay some people that work for me"? How proprietoral is that?

I've been a Senior Manager in my time and ran my business for 10 years before I retired, I never once described anyone as "worked for me" they were colleagues, simple as, describing someone as working for you is utterly demeaning and insulting, you've got likes off some "Socialists" on here, absolutely baffling.

Honestly, I find this just another example of wokeish bollocks. What on earth is wrong with saying that people work for you.

Describing everyone as colleagues is plain misleading. I am not a colleague of my CEO, I work for him and have zero shame in that. Colleague implies we are equals on the same level and we are not.

I heard on Monday that we should not describe parents as parents in case it offends the delicate souls who have adopted or whatever, so we must call ourselves "care providers". What an absolute load of horseshit. I file not being able to say "Peter works for me" in the same stupid bin.

The sooner woke is got rid of, and we can call a spade a spade, society will be a lot better off.

 

[KS55]

Honestly, I find this just another example of wokeish bollocks. What on earth is wrong with saying that people work for you.

Describing everyone as colleagues is plain misleading. I am not a colleague of my CEO, I work for him and have zero shame in that. Colleague implies we are equals on the same level and we are not.

I heard on Monday that we should not describe parents as parents in case it offends the delicate souls who have adopted or whatever, so we must call ourselves "care providers". What an absolute load of horseshit. I file not being able to say "Peter works for me" in the same stupid bin.

The sooner woke is got rid of, and we can call a spade a spade, society will be a lot better off.

You can find anything objectionable if you try hard enough…….and plenty do.

 

[hammocity]

I completely agree with your first paragraph, there’s nothing I said that is contrary to having that as a sentiment. The point I was making was around the disparity in salary between the different grades in the organisation not being reflective of the value to the organisation that those roles provide. Thats made very real to me in both the visibility and constraint I see for those directly in my org, either above or below. I don’t use the terminology of “x works for me” in general parlance at all, it was clearly in making a specific point.

Thats reflective not just in salary but in bonus payments and pension contributions on top. I would much rather see a much flatter structure and less discrepency between the rewards.

I’d be interested to know why you’d think either that or anything else I’ve said is ridiculous as that’s the only real point I’ve made?

I think we can all agree on your penultimate paragraph, I was on the receiving end of huge bonus discrepencies on more than one occasion, more than doubled our target, got a 4K bonus whilst the Directors trousered up to half a million, (ours was a small part of the business). The Sales Reps got a small bonus but the three admin girls who worked with me (see what I did there) got Jack.

I put that right with some creative thinking. (fiddling tbh) and they all got about 2.5k, the same as me after tax and NI on my bonus.