General Election June 8th

[urban genie]

All I've learnt this morning is that may won't answer anything in detail, after saying on marr she could increase VAT tells peston she won't, the pensions are fair game though.

Also that Robert Peston is feckin useless when it comes to tough questioning, the shows a waste of space.

Time for sunday politics with it's predominently right wing pannel, but at least gives all those interviewed a though line

 

[bluethrunthru]

And others will see that 'helping the poor and needy' does not mean keeping them on benefits and handouts, reliant on the Government. Both sides want to help the disadvantaged in society, they just have different methods to attain it. Which one benefits people more comes from your own perspective, it doesn't mean that either means you hate the poor or are actively seeking to destroy them as some have claimed. I've voted Labour for years, but these policies of theirs just leave people dependent on others and that's no way to live. I say this as some who is on the minimum wage, in fact I don't think i've ever earned more than £11,000 a year in my life.

As long as there are employers like Sir Phillip Green and Mike Ashley there will be people on benefits and in work. The biggest benefits spongers are employers who pay employee's an insufficient amount to live on whilst the board and share holders cream off millions. If they were made to do so the benefits bill could be slashed and the real malingerers identified and targeted. Yes that would mean a lower tax take but with fewer benefits to pay the treasury doesn't need so much. And I am sure Sir Phillip can make do with one less yacht and Mike with one or two fewer big wads of cash in his pocket...

 

[SWP's back]

Well there is a clear choice in this election between may and corbyn. One constantly talks of helping the poor and most vulnerable in society, of protecting the nhs and public services. The other doesnt. People can vote for their own wallet or to protect the needy.

When there's little wallet to vote for, it makes the choice easier.

Most Labour voters are also voting for their own wallet to be fair. They may pretend that they are voting altruistically but they aren't.

 

[SWP's back]

All I've learnt this morning is that may won't answer anything in detail, after saying on marr she could increase VAT tells peston she won't, the pensions are fair game though.

Also that Robert Peston is feckin useless when it comes to tough questioning, the shows a waste of space.

Time for sunday politics with it's predominently right wing pannel, but at least gives all those interviewed a though line

I strongly suggest you don't vote for her then.

 

[urban genie]

I strongly suggest you don't vote for her then.

Ok I won't then, thanks for the advice, as you may have read I was on the fence before ;-)

 

[SWP's back]

Ok I won't then, thanks for the advice, as you may have read I was on the fence before ;-)

Very happy to be of service.

 

[Metal Biker]

As long as there are employers like Sir Phillip Green and Mike Ashley there will be people on benefits and in work. The biggest benefits spongers are employers who pay employee's an insufficient amount to live on whilst the board and share holders cream off millions. If they were made to do so the benefits bill could be slashed and the real malingerers identified and targeted. Yes that would mean a lower tax take but with fewer benefits to pay the treasury doesn't need so much. And I am sure Sir Phillip can make do with one less yacht and Mike with one or two fewer big wads of cash in his pocket...

I agree to some extent that companies that don't pay tax should invest their profits into their staffs wages, yet Labour want to cream that money to pay for public services instead so workers don't benefit anyway. Labour are the ones who made it easier for businesses like theirs to introduce the minimum wage to their workforce, lowering the average wage, not 'protecting' them. When it was brought in my wages were reduced to the national minimum wage because it was now legal to do so. Most businesses did the same so when we said we weren't happy we were told to either accept it or find another job. I left and now every job in my sector and skill range only pays minimum wage. I have mechanical engineering experience, carpenter experience and I was only worth minimum wage to those years of Labour Government. But that's my own personal experience.

Green and Ashley can do whatever they like; it's their businesses and it's their money. You disagree with their practice, then don't shop there or support their business. But then what happens? People lose jobs to cover their companies loss of earnings, so 'attacking' them by making them pay more tax doesn't help workers on the bottom rung, it makes them lose their jobs. Don't get me wrong, Ashley and Green are c*nts, but that was due to the inhumane work practices that they forced their staff to work under, the impossible expectations that could result in instant dismissal, working unpaid hours for minor discrepencies etc, but that's nothing to do with not being paid enough. That was going on for years and Labour did nothing, only until it became profitable to increase their public profile which was waning and even then it was done under a Conservative government that action was taken.

Green and Ashley will still want to retain their high incomes; forcing them to pay more means they will do whatever they can to keep it even if it means getting rid of people in their employ. You're not helping us, you're hindering us. Fight for fair treatment in the workplace, yes, but saying these companies should be paying us more wages when Labour were the ones who made it legal to pay us a minimum amount in the first place smacks of hypocrisy.

Also, what is Labour obsession with zero-contract hours? They are a god send for some people in my place, they couldn't do their university degrees without them, because otherwise they are 'forced' to work their minimum contracted hours when they need the time off to do dissertations and whatnot. People ask for them and most companies are flexible enough to provide them. It's an example of how far removed from reality Labour are with workers and labourers. We don't want zero hours contracts banned, they're useful to us!

 

[blue cigar]

And others will see that 'helping the poor and needy' does not mean keeping them on benefits and handouts, reliant on the Government. Both sides want to help the disadvantaged in society, they just have different methods to attain it. Which one benefits people more comes from your own perspective, it doesn't mean that either means you hate the poor or are actively seeking to destroy them as some have claimed. I've voted Labour for years, but these policies of theirs just leave people dependent on others and that's no way to live. I say this as some who is on the minimum wage, in fact I don't think i've ever earned more than £11,000 a year in my life.

Ok i get that but i think its too far the wrong way and the tories will only make it worse. Nurses using foodbanks is nothing to do with benefit scroungers, corbyn is the first labour leader in many a year to promise to deal with this.

 

[blue cigar]

When there's little wallet to vote for, it makes the choice easier.

Most Labour voters are also voting for their own wallet to be fair. They may pretend that they are voting altruistically but they aren't.

Can only speak for myself. I like what corbyn stands for, he's not perfect but he represents my values far more than may or fallon.

 

[Metal Biker]

Ok i get that but i think its too far the wrong way and the tories will only make it worse. Nurses using foodbanks is nothing to do with benefit scroungers, corbyn is the first labour leader in many a year to promise to deal with this.

I earn around £650 a month on minimum living wage of £7.50 an hour. My rent is £250 a month and monthly expenses range from the same amount. I aim to put £50 a month into savings and have built up a modest 'security blanket' in case things go wrong. I own a modest motorcycle, or cycle to work to save money and improve my fitness. My hours in work vary from 12-30 a week dependent on how busy we are or can accept more hours if needed.

I have never required foodbanks.

I've never even felt threatened to have to use foodbanks. I do not understand how people can get themselves into such a position where they need to use them and I have tried to find out. I'm starting to think that like the NHS foodbanks are being use to guilt the public into voting Labour without addressing each persons individual circumstances as to how they've gotten into such financial strife that requires them to do so.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Also, what is Labour obsession with zero-contract hours? They are a god send for some people in my place, they couldn't do their university degrees without them, because otherwise they are 'forced' to work their minimum contracted hours when they need the time off to do dissertations and whatnot. People ask for them and most companies are flexible enough to provide them. It's an example of how far removed from reality Labour are with workers and labourers. We don't want zero hours contracts banned, they're useful to us!

They are against exploitative zero hours contracts - for example you shouldn't be made by employer A to work the hours they offer on a contract that denies you the right to also sign for employer B so that you have even more flexibility. There are instances where workers get little or no work in a week but are denied the opportunity to get work and pay by taking their labour elsewhere ... surely hats a free market approach you would applaud?

 

[bluethrunthru]

I earn around £650 a month on minimum living wage of £7.50 and hour. My rent is £250 a month and monthly expenses range from the same amount. I aim to put £50 a month into savings and have built up a modest 'security blanket' in case things go wrong. I own a modest motorcycle, or cycle to work to save money and improve fitness. My hours in work vary from 12-30 a week dependent on how busy we are or can accept more hours if needed.

I have never required foodbanks. I do not understand how people can get themselves into such a position where they need to use them and i've tried to find out.

Talk to co-workers who have the same or similar income, who have children, who have a mortgage to pay and need or God forbid just want a family car for the benfits that would bring and see how happy they are. And don't just glibly say get a better paid job... if that were possible you could/would have done so

 

[Metal Biker]

They are against exploitative zero hours contracts - for example you shouldn't be made by employer A to work the hours they offer on a contract that denies you the right to also sign for employer B so that you have even more flexibility. There are instances where workers get little or no work in a week but are denied the opportunity to get work and pay by taking their labour elsewhere ... surely hats a free market approach you would applaud?

That's not what they say though. They say they want to ban zero hour contracts. Outright ban them.
They don't deny you on a zero hour, only on a 4 hour, where they usually state you HAVE to be available on a particular day for 4 hours, like usually a Staurday since it's the biggest trading day. If there is a job opportunity that only affords zero hours either don't take it, or use the free time to work elsewhere. You're on zero hours; they cannot dismiss you for working elsewhere unless they state you must still be available on a certain day. I've been on 4 hour contracts before. It was a struggle but I got by. I just got another 4 hours contract at another company and then a 4-24 hour contract job. They are out there, you just have to look and sometimes be willing to do jobs you know you'll hate, but a job is better than no job.

 

[Metal Biker]

Talk to co-workers who have the same or similar income, who have children, who have a mortgage to pay and need or God forbid just want a family car for the benfits that would bring and see how happy they are. And don't just glibly say get a better paid job... if that were possible you could/would have done so

I want I want I want. If you cannot afford you go without. No one has the right to a car. No one has the right to travel abroad. I've never been able to go abroad (unless you count the Scilly Isles) It's narcissism, a keeping-up-with-the-Jones' attitude. Mortage; personal choice. Car; personal choice. Kids; personal choice. If it's costing you too much to have it, don't have it or make allowances that help you to do so. Don't go "i'm not being paid enough!" Yeah anyone could say that "I bought a Ferrari, but i'm not being paid enough to keep it. I need £50 an hour!"

I've worked in the service/entertainment/retail sector all my life, going on 16 years now. I do talk to co-workers regularly. Some are in better positions, some have kids yet are sometimes only given 12 hours a week. They aren't on foodbanks, they aren't even anywhere near talking about being in that state of desperation. Someone's rent is £950 a month, yet they still get by on a simple supervisors wage of £8.50 an hour. Labour are fighting a battle that doesn't exist in reality. They aren't looking to help the workers they are looking to help the unemployed on benefits, saying they should be given more and it's even pissing us off!

"we want an £8 an hour minimum wage!" Great, wonderful, how is it going to be paid for and how many of us will be laid off in order for the few who remain to inherit such a wage increase due to the company being unwilling to cut into their profits to pay for it? Because that's what happens. We had our workforce cut from 120 to 90 as a result of the minimum living wage being introduced, but then our company didn't make it applicable to everyone, just the over 25's otherwise a few more would have gone. So I was fine, but fuck you if you're an 18 year old college student (which the company then made the modus operandi to only hire from then on) Where was Labour on this? Manchester has a Labour council, it knew what was going on. Nothing.

I didn't say get a better paid job, I said get ANOTHER job. That's you creating an argument that isn't there. There are plenty of jobs out that that pay the same hourly rate, to do the same sort of "menial" tasks. The only negotiation is down to hours worked; 4-24, 4-48 or zero hours. Manchester has a large service industry with people wanting to get pissed, have a night out, eat out or simply stock up their fridges. They all pay the same rate. It's hours that are the issue for many people and people want flexibility or stability. Choose the one that offers you want best suits you, not bleating about not being paid enough. I'd LOVE to be on a living wage of £10+ an hour, but not at the expense of other work collegues being laid off to pay for it because that is what happens. How are Labour going to guarentee high number workforces on high living wages? They haven't answered that.

 

[SWP's back]

Can only speak for myself. I like what corbyn stands for, he's not perfect but he represents my values far more than may or fallon.

And if anyone has a problem with that then they are a ****.

I'd never have a problem with someone voting for a party that more closely represented their view than another party. And whilst I may have a different political leaning, I've far greater respect for yourself (as someone that actually engages in politics) then a voter simply voting the same way they were taught by their parents (either Tory or Labour or whomsoever).

 

[urban genie]

That's not what they say though. They say they want to ban zero hour contracts. Outright ban them.
They don't deny you on a zero hour, only on a 4 hour, where they usually state you HAVE to be available on a particular day for 4 hours, like usually a Staurday since it's the biggest trading day. If there is a job opportunity that only affords zero hours either don't take it, or use the free time to work elsewhere. You're on zero hours; they cannot dismiss you for working elsewhere unless they state you must still be available on a certain day. I've been on 4 hour contracts before. It was a struggle but I got by. I just got another 4 hours contract at another company and then a 4-24 hour contract job. They are out there, you just have to look and sometimes be willing to do jobs you know you'll hate, but a job is better than no job.

All those flexibilites(and better ones) have always been available with Agency work
Can be short notice
May be at various workplaces - unlike zro hr contract
You can choose when to work -unlike zero hr contract where you are obilged to be available 24/7 solely for the employer or risk not being given hrs at all.
Not tied into contracts
Able to work elsewhere when employer quiet.

There is no need for zero hr contracts to exist and is a throw back to centuries ago marketed as freedom to work , when those freedoms already exist in agency and PT work.

It is estimated our economy loses 4 billion a year from zero hr contracts over set contracts.

Also there is an understood to be rampant work place bullying in companies using Zero hr which have been highlighted at 60% or the work force.

The proposal is to remove zero hr contracts but give the employee the power to negotiate flexible and suitable PT hours be it 1hr or 12hr etc.

I have also worked in the service industry for 25 years and hospitality/catering/serivce are jobs where employers have alway took the piss out of workers and paid them poorly while working them hard, I was taught with a dig in the back or slap round the head if I wasn't fast enough or gave cheek to a boss (this was in hotels in town), swore at, called every name under the sun and generally a 48hr week would end up 60-80 hr with no overtime.
That was the trade, and after dropping out of college second year of A-levels none of that bothered me as I just wanted to work, doesn't mean it was right or people should put up with it.

The last bit probably has fuck all to do with the zero hr thing but some companies will, if allowed always take the piss out of their workforce

 

[bluethrunthru]

"we want an £8 an hour minimum wage!" Great, wonderful, how is it going to be paid for and how many of us will be laid off in order for the few who remain to inherit such a wage increase due to the company being unwilling to cut into their profits to pay for it? Because that's what happens. We had our workforce cut from 120 to 90 as a result of the minimum living wage being introduced, but then our company didn't make it applicable to everyone, just the over 25's otherwise a few more would have gone. So I was fine, but fuck you if you're an 18 year old college student (which the company then made the modus operandi to only hire from then on) Where was Labour on this? Manchester has a Labour council, it knew what was going on. Nothing.

How does a city council make national wage strategies or influence and enforce national employment laws and strategies? The blame for such practises being allowable is one for central government surely - oh thats been those parties who aim to represent the hard working classes - Tory/LibDem coalition followed by those champions of the people the Conservatives.

Is your workplace organised? A withdrawal of Labour until the management fund the increased costs out of profits rather than sacking people may have focused their minds?

You did say that zero hours contracts allowed people to work, earn and gain a degree so the move to employing more students would be a good thing? Also the answer for the likes of me lies in following your teachings - just refuse to use the services provided by such employers but then that would cost even more jobs at your place of work.

As Trumpy is finding out this government thing is harder than it looks.

 

[Metal Biker]

All those flexibilites(and better ones) have always been available with Agency work
Can be short notice
May be at various workplaces - unlike zro hr contract
You can choose when to work -unlike zero hr contract where you are obilged to be available 24/7 solely for the employer or risk not being given hrs at all.
Not tied into contracts
Able to work elsewhere when employer quiet.

There is no need for zero hr contracts to exist and is a throwback to centuries ago maketiled as freedom to work , when those freedoms already exist in agency and PT work.

It is estimated our economy loses 4 billion a year from zero hr contracts over set contracts.

Also there is an understood to be rampant work place bullying in companies using Zero hr which have been highlighted at 60% or the work force.

The proposal is to remove zero hr contracts but give the employee the power to negotiate flexible and suitable PT hours be it 1hr or 12hr etc.

But Corbyn says "We want to ban zero hour contracts". That's not the message we're getting. Our place doesn't have agency work availability yet it offers the same flexibility for those who are at Uni. Not all businesses require you to be available 24/7 on a zero hour; it's available if you want it. You can work for us and work at another job. The only requirement is that you are available for one particular day because that's their biggest trading day.

Labour aren;t saying we need to amend zero hours to the benefit of workers, they just say "ban them" because people like you think it's 'Victorian workhouse' style of employment and people on them are 'suffering'. We're not, to some it's a godsend.

If there IS rampant bullying in the workplace by companies over zero hours, Labour needs to address THAT, not take away something which some people find useful.

 

[mat]

Has the PM met an actual voter yet?

Rather than setting up 'rallies' in secure locations with invite only to attend.

 

[Metal Biker]

How does a city council make national wage strategies or influence and enforce national employment laws and strategies? The blame for such practises being allowable is one for central government surely - oh thats been those parties who aim to represent the hard working classes - Tory/LibDem coalition followed by those champions of the people the Conservatives.

Is your workplace organised? A withdrawal of Labour until the management fund the increased costs out of profits rather than sacking people may have focused their minds?

You did say that zero hours contracts allowed people to work, earn and gain a degree so the move to employing more students would be a good thing? Also the answer for the likes of me lies in following your teachings - just refuse to use the services provided by such employers but then that would cost even more jobs at your place of work.

As Trumpy is finding out this government thing is harder than it looks.

Labour supporters talk about Labour "being the party of the working personmore than the Tories", my argument is that just like the Tories, neither is this Labour Party, not anymore.

I've not seen them do anything that's helped us beneficially. Who forced us to work Bank Holidays instead of being given the option to have the day off? Labour did. (oh but we do get an 'extra' week off as a result) Who made it so that companies could stop paying their staff decent wages because they introduced a National Minimum Wage putting everyone on the same lowest conceivable rate? Who did nothing in their 13 years in power to address the unsociable hours issue? I don't expect the Conservatives to do anything but I damn well expected Labour to.

I've never claimed that the Tories are a party that represents the working class. There IS no party that represents workers these days. I'm suggesting to all those who say Labour is for the workers need to speak to the workers, because we're the ones who either don't vote or vote Independent or Greens or Lib Dem, because we don't trust Labour anymore than we do the Tories.