Are Labour a total shambles now as an opposition?

Bigga said:
It IS a 'win' like it or not.

It was asked how YOU propose we move forward and you cannot.

Cheers dude for proving my point on your intellectual deficit on the matter.
Click to expand...
Proving your point????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Admit it, you are 12 aren't you.
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
Apparently Wetherspoons would go under without the welfare system (paid for by me and you) thats supports their staff ..... enabling the owner to trouser millions in dividends and profits .... at least fair play he pays his taxes
Click to expand...
Then the thing to do is look at the employment(no JA, spending power, VAT etc)/PAYE/NI they provide, their benefit to the communities they're in and the corporation tax paid and weigh it up against the cost of supporting their low paid staff to see if it's worth it.
If you don't want people living below the poverty line in a capitalist economy there's always going to be a level of social support for low earners.
 
hilts said:
I think some need to look at job sites if they think it’s only service industries that are on low wages. I asked several months back how labour would implement £10 minimum wage and none of the fairytale followers could answer. It’s a general problem with the momentum movement, big on promises but fuck all in the way of detail.
Click to expand...

Still waiting, come on you dreamers shed some light on the Corbyn give away.
 
Fiona Onasanya: despite being convicted of perverting the course of justice and already being suspended by the labour party, has said she will stay on in parliament should her sentance be less that 1 year (automatically out if greater) “to represent her constituents and continue to fight against injustices”

What a shameless fucking piece of work.
 
Djibrilshairdo said:
Fiona Onasanya: despite being convicted of perverting the course of justice and already being suspended by the labour party, has said she will stay on in parliament should her sentance be less that 1 year (automatically out if greater) “to represent her constituents and continue to fight against injustices”

What a shameless fucking piece of work.
Click to expand...
Don't make it a party issue.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...fidence-vote-tories-decide-whether-allow-two/
 
Ok, call it a conviction issue.
She’s gone anyhow. A petition of 10% of constituents will trigger a by-election regardless of sentence, Corbyn has to sack her if labour want to retain that seat.
 
Djibrilshairdo said:
Ok, call it a conviction issue.
She’s gone anyhow. A petition of 10% of constituents will trigger a by-election regardless of sentence, Corbyn has to sack her if labour want to retain that seat.
Click to expand...

don't think Corbyn can sack her under the party constitution and Parliamentary rules but yep come the next election she is toast - currently just milking the salary now until the inevitable. Bet she doesn't pop into her local Labour club for a drink any time soon lol
 
If anyone seriously thinks that she’s going to be serving ANY time in clink, they’re kidding themselves.
 
hilts said:
Still waiting, come on you dreamers shed some light on the Corbyn give away.
Click to expand...

How did we get to a 'minimum wage'?

How do we manage to keep moving the 'minimum wage' up, incrementally, over the years?

Why haven't big businesses or the Gov gone bust despite protestations?

More money than they let on? Quantitative easing?

If there's only a finite amount of money 'worth' anything, why is more being found??

Do you not think Labour would have a plan about how it would implement rises...?

Is it only okay for the Tories to make it up as they go along?

No solution is 100% 'workable', only 'acceptable'. We're in new territory, so what difference will it make to strategize a new way forward?

What's wrong with an easing of tax or raising wages for the Little People and finding a bit more tax for big business?

How else is it possible? Put a cap on pricing? Pay less rent? Pay less on foods and petrol? Pay less on utilities??

The common people cannot keep being squeezed for the little they have! I cannot understand how you can't see the logic in the obvious!

It will just lead to more poverty, less infrastructure, more business collapsing, less affordability all around, more stress, more illness.

Just more.

And you talk about 'dreamers' and 'giveaways'??

Giving us back more of what we worked for? Giving back to the society we've built so far?

What part of that is stupid in your head??
 
2sheikhs said:
If anyone seriously thinks that she’s going to be serving ANY time in clink, they’re kidding themselves.
Click to expand...

She is a solicitor, a factor that will be considered by the sentencing judge. CPS guides 4 - 36 month custodial sentence. She is getting bird and deservedly so.
 
hilts said:
Still waiting, come on you dreamers shed some light on the Corbyn give away.
Click to expand...
I can add my own two cents to what I think may happen.

Before the living wage, I used to get around 35-45 hours a week. After the living wage, I'm getting around 20-30 hours a week. I'd imagine with a £10 living wage my hours would be reduced further, maybe to about 16 hours a week with a skeleton staff workforce every shift. Corbyn would have to ensure that for his £10 living wage to be impactful in the way he wants, businesses are required to ensure a minimum hours/minimum staffing levels requirement, but that might affect uni students who sometimes only want three or two shifts a week.
 
Bigga said:
Oh, the irony...

Shall I ask you again...?

How do you propose we move forward as an unhappy society where we are not paid our worth?
Click to expand...
Ok, against my better judgement, I'll try and engage in sensible debate with you for a moment.

First, I don't accept the basis premise of your question. People ARE paid what they are worth, by definition. Your issue is presumably that this amount - by your estimation - is not enough.

Putting the question aside for one moment and assuming that you are correct and that it is not enough (and I am inclined to agree, btw) then the solution is that we must try as much as possible to transition as many workers as we can to more value-added activity where "what they are worth" is greater, and therefore they can be paid more. This is a long term goal and critical to it, is high quality education. Also critical is trying to engineer a business environment conducive to entrepreneurialism and creativity, where more highly paid jobs can be created.

Of course some people are never going to be capable of highly skilled jobs, and indeed there will always be some jobs which require little or no skills. These are inherently low paid jobs and unfortunately have to remain so. So people who undertake these jobs should be supported by a generous benefits system. One that is well funded by the success of the businesses and the more highly paid (and taxed) people above.

The very OPPOSITE of what we should do, is to unilaterally force businesses to pay people more than they are worth. Pushing up labour costs like that would make businesses less competitive, stifle growth and put people out of work. And with less tax receipts, the government then has even less money to fund the benefits system. It's the sort of policy which moves us in exactly the wrong direction and makes things worse.

Of course in all things, there has to be balance, so am I suggesting that people who can only do work that is "worth" £2/hour should only be paid £2/hour? No. The minimum level of pay has to be "reasonable" and arguably the current minimum is a bit low. I would not be terribly opposed to £10/hour as a minimum, although it would have a slightly damaging effect on businesses. But even £10/hour is probably not enough for the average family to house, cloth and feed themselves and their family, so even at that level, benefits will likely have to play a part.
 
Bigga said:
Oh, the irony...

Shall I ask you again...?

How do you propose we move forward as an unhappy society where we are not paid our worth?
Click to expand...


You might be unhappy but to suggest all of society is unhappy is just plain wrong. Well being statistics published by the ONS show that from 2012 to 2018, people are more content on average, not less so.

As to being paid what you consider to be your worth, well, that's just economically illiterate. Your value as an employee is no more than someone is willing to pay you. If you feel you are underpaid, then see if you can find employment elsewhere that does pay you what you think you are worth. If you can't get more elsewhere, then you are being paid what you're worth. QED.
 
Bigga said:
How did we get to a 'minimum wage'?

How do we manage to keep moving the 'minimum wage' up, incrementally, over the years?

Why haven't big businesses or the Gov gone bust despite protestations?

More money than they let on? Quantitative easing?

If there's only a finite amount of money 'worth' anything, why is more being found??

Do you not think Labour would have a plan about how it would implement rises...?

Is it only okay for the Tories to make it up as they go along?

No solution is 100% 'workable', only 'acceptable'. We're in new territory, so what difference will it make to strategize a new way forward?

What's wrong with an easing of tax or raising wages for the Little People and finding a bit more tax for big business?

How else is it possible? Put a cap on pricing? Pay less rent? Pay less on foods and petrol? Pay less on utilities??

The common people cannot keep being squeezed for the little they have! I cannot understand how you can't see the logic in the obvious!

It will just lead to more poverty, less infrastructure, more business collapsing, less affordability all around, more stress, more illness.

Just more.

And you talk about 'dreamers' and 'giveaways'??

Giving us back more of what we worked for? Giving back to the society we've built so far?

What part of that is stupid in your head??
Click to expand...

As I thought you cannot give details. Cool ideology by the way
 
Chippy_boy said:
Ok, against my better judgement, I'll try and engage in sensible debate with you for a moment.

First, I don't accept the basis premise of your question. People ARE paid what they are worth, by definition. Your issue is presumably that this amount - by your estimation - is not enough.

Putting the question aside for one moment and assuming that you are correct and that it is not enough (and I am inclined to agree, btw) then the solution is that we must try as much as possible to transition as many workers as we can to more value-added activity where "what they are worth" is greater, and therefore they can be paid more. This is a long term goal and critical to it, is high quality education. Also critical is trying to engineer a business environment conducive to entrepreneurialism and creativity, where more highly paid jobs can be created.

Of course some people are never going to be capable of highly skilled jobs, and indeed there will always be some jobs which require little or no skills. These are inherently low paid jobs and unfortunately have to remain so. So people who undertake these jobs should be supported by a generous benefits system. One that is well funded by the success of the businesses and the more highly paid (and taxed) people above.

The very OPPOSITE of what we should do, is to unilaterally force businesses to pay people more than they are worth. Pushing up labour costs like that would make businesses less competitive, stifle growth and put people out of work. And with less tax receipts, the government then has even less money to fund the benefits system. It's the sort of policy which moves us in exactly the wrong direction and makes things worse.

Of course in all things, there has to be balance, so am I suggesting that people who can only do work that is "worth" £2/hour should only be paid £2/hour? No. The minimum level of pay has to be "reasonable" and arguably the current minimum is a bit low. I would not be terribly opposed to £10/hour as a minimum, although it would have a slightly damaging effect on businesses. But even £10/hour is probably not enough for the average family to house, cloth and feed themselves and their family, so even at that level, benefits will likely have to play a part.
Click to expand...

Ah, decent conversation, at last!

I have no desire for the making of play things (gaming items, sports wear, useless things) to be considered more than the worth of looking after Human needs, not wants. 'Want' becomes a private transaction between a buyer and seller. The person making those items for desire deserve to be treated as Human beings, so yeah, there needs to be 'reasonable' payment, which we agree on. Profits are going to be affected; that's just the way it is, until the companies decide to offset this by adjusting to the market.

I'm MORE concerned about Human service to each other. Human to Human cannot be worth less!! It's a Human Being that shows love and kindness, looks after other lonely Human Beings, older Human Beings, unwell Human Beings, etc.

We have to find the balance, you're absolutely correct and something we both agree on!

So, yes, if you ask the public, they are more willing to contribute to the NHS to save it. To contribute more to society to make things better, if it goes DIRECTLY where it needs to, but business SHOULD/ MUST contribute more for this to work.

I do wonder, is it the long term goal for robots to take over? Will we all get a personalised bot to do our every bidding, every thought?

Is that dystopian future really what we're looking at...?

You might think I'm being dramatic, but blink and we're there!

Jack Hackett said:
You might be unhappy but to suggest all of society is unhappy is just plain wrong. Well being statistics published by the ONS show that from 2012 to 2018, people are more content on average, not less so.

As to being paid what you consider to be your worth, well, that's just economically illiterate. Your value as an employee is no more than someone is willing to pay you. If you feel you are underpaid, then see if you can find employment elsewhere that does pay you what you think you are worth. If you can't get more elsewhere, then you are being paid what you're worth. QED.
Click to expand...

People believe what they're told. They may think 'why am I struggling to feed the family? Why am I in so much debt?', but then be told 'There! There! You could be living in country 'X', 'Y' or 'Z' and then you'd really have problems! Here's what you're worth. Be satisfied!'.

Let me ask you if you worked for a company who decided to can you for someone who took £200 a month less, would you offer even less than that to keep the job? Do even longer hours? Take more responsibility for the same or less price? See less of your family? Less life balance?

Where do you start valuing your own worth?

Where does it stop...?
 
Bigga said:
Ah, decent conversation, at last!

I have no desire for the making of play things (gaming items, sports wear, useless things) to be considered more than the worth of looking after Human needs, not wants. 'Want' becomes a private transaction between a buyer and seller. The person making those items for desire deserve to be treated as Human beings, so yeah, there needs to be 'reasonable' payment, which we agree on. Profits are going to be affected; that's just the way it is, until the companies decide to offset this by adjusting to the market.

I'm MORE concerned about Human service to each other. Human to Human cannot be worth less!! It's a Human Being that shows love and kindness, looks after other lonely Human Beings, older Human Beings, unwell Human Beings, etc.

We have to find the balance, you're absolutely correct and something we both agree on!

So, yes, if you ask the public, they are more willing to contribute to the NHS to save it. To contribute more to society to make things better, if it goes DIRECTLY where it needs to, but business SHOULD/ MUST contribute more for this to work.

I do wonder, is it the long term goal for robots to take over? Will we all get a personalised bot to do our every bidding, every thought?

Is that dystopian future really what we're looking at...?

You might think I'm being dramatic, but blink and we're there!



People believe what they're told. They may think 'why am I struggling to feed the family? Why am I in so much debt?', but then be told 'There! There! You could be living in country 'X', 'Y' or 'Z' and then you'd really have problems! Here's what you're worth. Be satisfied!'.

Let me ask you if you worked for a company who decided to can you for someone who took £200 a month less, would you offer even less than that to keep the job? Do even longer hours? Take more responsibility for the same or less price? See less of your family? Less life balance?

Where do you start valuing your own worth?

Where does it stop...?
Click to expand...

There is a huge raft of legislation on the statute books to protect employees' rights, so I'm not sure whether your example above is realistic or not. In my experience, employers are more concerned about keeping good employees than going for the cheapest which is a false economy.

You might have a sense of your own worth but frankly, that's irrelevant if no one else shares that view. The reality is that the market rightly rewards hard work, skills and experience. If you want to better your position and ultimately what you get paid, get a skill or professional qualification that is in demand. If that means working or studying in your spare time to achieve that, so be it. Don't expect something for nothing and no one owes you a living.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top