Post Match Thread: Election 2017

[The perfect fumble]

It could be, it could be corrupt, somebody could have been paid to keep quiet (sign it off).

The enquiry is going to have be squeaky clean on this, and it has to be politically neutral, I won't hold my breath, whichever party is in government when it eventually starts.

You think Labour would be as inclined as the Tories to engage in a whitewash?

 

[Chippy_boy]

For those hoping to keep politics out of the discussion about the Grenfell Tower Fire, forget it, this is a report from the scene an hour ago....

There is a growing sense of anger and frustration among the crowds gathered under the Westway flyover where volunteers are sorting and boxing donations.

One volunteer, Sinead O’Hare, said the fire and loss of life had tapped into a deeper sense of resentment and alienation.

“People are angry about years of Tory policy of cutting corners and costs, and refusing to take responsibility. The interests of the Tory party are closely allied to the interests of business and private landlords,” she said.

People from other parts of London who are homeless and hungry had started turning up in the area hoping for food and other necessities, she said.

The media is one target for resentment. “You press people didn’t come here when people were blogging about the danger. You only come when people are dead,” said Calvin Benson, who was carrying a handmade sign saying: “I am not a photo opportunity.”

“You pick and choose your stories. The blogs have been active for years but no one was interested.”

Several photographers and camera operators have been pushed, jabbed and shouted at as anger and tension have overtaken initial shock at the fire.

Yeah, Labour councils eh. What a disgrace.

You continue to amaze me Fumble, and not in a good way.

 

[pirate]

If I can remember correctly, PFI funding although initiated by John Major, was hammered by the following Labour govt?...short term gain long term nightmare no?

as you say implimented by the major government, therefore started going wrong before Labour got in, not because labour got in. Labour didnt sort out the Tory mess and in fact carried it on, as did the subsequent Tory government.

 

[Dreadzone]

i have said what i said - every time labour get in power things seem to go tits up? Is this wrong? I can google it and give you some data but really cant be arsed. Just take my 40 years life as my view.

In my strong opinion every time labour get in power things go tits up and the tories sort it out - "professor Worlseyweb 2017"

Not really sure about 97 / 98 - i was more concerned with Alan Ball taking us down.

But surely, also the Tories must've messed up to allow the Labour back in?

 

[manctheknife]

You think Labour would be as inclined as the Tories to engage in a whitewash?

Tell you what mate....google T. Dan Smith and Poulson.

 

[worsleyweb]

But surely, also the Tories must've messed up to allow the Labour back in?

Nope - not as bad as labour - check it out.

 

[Chippy_boy]

i have said what i said - every time labour get in power things seem to go tits up? Is this wrong? I can google it and give you some data but really cant be arsed. Just take my 40 years life as my view.

In my strong opinion every time labour get in power things go tits up and the tories sort it out - "professor Worlseyweb 2017"

Not really sure about 97 / 98 - i was more concerned with Alan Ball taking us down.

My experiences 100% mate.

It's bloody hard work on here isn't it. And when I mentioned there was a left wing bias here, I was threatened with a ban. I've been banned twice in the past week as it is.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Nope - not as bad as labour - check it out.

It is true that every single labour government has left office with more people out of work than when they came into office. Quite ironic for the "Labour" Party. Sometimes the Tories have also managed this, but not every time.

 

[worsleyweb]

My experiences 100% mate.

It's bloody hard work on here isn't it. And when I mentioned there was a left wing bias here, I was threatened with a ban. I've been banned twice in the past week as it is.

Thankfully never been banned nor threatened with it either. It is nice to see the right fighting back though, They make you feel evil don't they!

 

[pirate]

Thank-you for your apology. Yes, you did upset me.

You said, "you didn't really address the points". I didn't have time to pick through it line by line since I was going out shortly. My reply at the time was "sure mate - good points". I further went on to say that of course we cannot get everyone into highly skilled work and necessarily we will have to accommodate some low paid jobs, for which I think the least worst option is to subsidize their pay with benefits. So I am not exactly sure what more you want me to say.

To recap, my position is this:

1. You cannot simply pay people more, and in the case of the unskilled and very low paid, much more than they would earn in a free market system, since it would burden the employer too much and the goods and services produced would no longer be competitive and businesses would go bust. Customers would buy cheaper imported product instead, or stop buying the product altogether. It would put people out of work.

The average pub makes around 7p a pint on beer. Put wages up to £10/h and beer becomes £6 a pint or whatever, and more pubs would shut.

2. You could lob a load of money at employers to enable them to pay more (quite the opposite of Jeremy's plans), but how would that work? What would be the moral justification for taxing everyone in the country more, in order to subsidize the likes of Mike Ashley. I think that's a non-starter. Employers could deliberately pay less, knowing they'd get a hand out. Doesn't work.

3. We could ban cheap imports. This does not work, full stop. It depresses the economy by making us pay more than we currently do for the same stuff. We have less disposable income, and the economy slumps. And we can't do it anyway until we leave the EU and depending on the deal, maybe we can't do it then either. And the exporting country would likely retaliate, wrecking our exports too. So everyone loses. Another non-starter.

4. Having ruled out 1,2 and 3 as being unworkable, the least worse option is to help the poorest with in work benefits. I can see no better alternative, but if you have one, I am all ears.

Clearly even 4 is not ideal and therefore it's important that we recognise this and strive to increase the number of skilled jobs in our economy and reduce the number of low paid unskilled ones. Obviously we'll always need some of these latter jobs, and we'll have to augment peoples' pay unless they work in industries where the pay can go up without putting the companies out of work. To get everyone off benefits, I don't know the numbers but I would imagine the minimum wage would have to be even higher than £10/h. Businesses such as farming just could not stand it, so we need to think of alternative approaches.

point 1 means thats those in those jobs have to stay poor, which is what I said you were advocating, so about 200,000 have to be poor in elementary jobs
point 2 is exactly what tax credits do, they subsidise low paid jobs you dont give the money directly to the employer but the effect is the same, with public money you subsidise mike ashley and the money he makes paying low wages.
point 3 banning cheap imports is a blunt tool and you are correct it doesnt work. However free trade agreements with social justice clauses would be the way forward.
point 4 see my answer to point 2. tax credits are a short term fix until you have a better system in place, which would free trade agreements with social justice clauses.

thankyou for taking the time to answer more fully, Iook forward to your response

I would also like your response to other points I raised earlier
You say we can pay public sector employees what they need to be paid, subject to the economy being able to afford it. When the economy cant afford it (as the Tories claim is currently the case) do we cut the public sector? Do we suppress the wages and keep the same number of employees? or do we reduce the number of employees on the same wages and reduce then services provided?
If we suppress the wages then that puts people into the welfare system and any money saved in wages are lost in welfare payments, plus a little bit more in increased admin costs.
If we cut the number of employees the direct saving in wages are again offset in increased welfare payments (the people who lose their jobs are unlikely to get other employment as the reason the government cant afford them is the economy is struggling) and reduction in tax take. In addition there is either the economic losses incurred from reduced services (for example: less road maintenance leading to increased haulage costs) or the social problems (reduced healthcare, more social strife)

Private care costs. If they increase substantially they become public care costs as people will not be able to afford them. Either the state will have to pick up the bill or just leave people to suffer and die. Which would you choose?

Why is our farming industry different from other industry? You seem happy to get rid of other industries, what makes farming special.

 

[worsleyweb]

My experiences 100% mate.

It's bloody hard work on here isn't it. And when I mentioned there was a left wing bias here, I was threatened with a ban. I've been banned twice in the past week as it is.

There is a left wing bias of course there is - the poll told you that. And Ric is proud of that and i have no issue with it or him. As long as we can debate.