Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Smell The Coffee
Have the labour party woken up and are smelling the coffee.
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by tonyav. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
How curious that before the election Labour supporters apparently agreed with everything their leaders said and yet now, in their continuing blind support, they seem to be acknowledging that Labour got it very wrong. One could be forgiven for thinking that there's a distinct lack of 'thinking' among the Labour rank and file. In an effort to publicly recover an element of respect for the party Harriet is making what she considers to be the right noises but whatever any of them say now Labour won't change - and in light of their previous determined allegiance why would the faithful want them to? That would surely amount to compromising their cherished but out-dated dyed in the wool principles.
Thinking of the Tony Benn quote about politicians being "signposts or weather cocks", I would guess that the centre of mass of the electorate has drifted ever further to the right, leaving Labour with the choice of being the signpost, waiting in the wings (for years, if need be), pending conditions changing to bring them back into favour, or they have to be thr weather cocks, perpetually shifting position, pandering to voters , trying to scavenge votes.
The trouble is, that behaviour leads to the generic policy of offering the electorate sweeteners, conjoured up using --bank loans--. The banksters love this and doubtless have the power to shape public opinion such that Labour's nose ring is pulled this way and that, frantically borrowing more to please this or that pressure group.
Socialism will always fail due to the sheer numbers of the kind of people they purport to help. You want to give nurses a pay rise of £100 (a paltry sum, each, if this is per year)? That'll be a few million which you can't otherwise spend on patients. There's only one chief exec, so their pay rise could be five figures without cramping service delivery.
(Well, these are the standard excuses, in public sector pay negotiations).
The trouble is, that behaviour leads to the generic policy of offering the electorate sweeteners, conjoured up using --bank loans--. The banksters love this and doubtless have the power to shape public opinion such that Labour's nose ring is pulled this way and that, frantically borrowing more to please this or that pressure group.
Socialism will always fail due to the sheer numbers of the kind of people they purport to help. You want to give nurses a pay rise of £100 (a paltry sum, each, if this is per year)? That'll be a few million which you can't otherwise spend on patients. There's only one chief exec, so their pay rise could be five figures without cramping service delivery.
(Well, these are the standard excuses, in public sector pay negotiations).
The problem with Ms Harman's public position, as I stated earlier, is not that she sees fit not to oppose certain planks of Tory policy (after all the Tories appear to have jumped enthusiastically on the National Minimum Wage idea tho of course as we have seen that is completely bogus ) but that she does not attempt to explain why this particular aspect of that policy rather than another
The saving grace at least for this foolish way of approaching it is that at least we are a long way off an election so the inevitable discord it sparks does not really matter. After all we are in a leadership campaign with people as diverse as Liz Kendall and Jeremy Corbijn so inevitably differences would arise just as surely as were the Tories holding a campaign with Peter Hollobone and Ken Clarke.
But given that, one has to ask what is the point of her position in the first place. What the electorate think now of labour is of little consequence
The saving grace at least for this foolish way of approaching it is that at least we are a long way off an election so the inevitable discord it sparks does not really matter. After all we are in a leadership campaign with people as diverse as Liz Kendall and Jeremy Corbijn so inevitably differences would arise just as surely as were the Tories holding a campaign with Peter Hollobone and Ken Clarke.
But given that, one has to ask what is the point of her position in the first place. What the electorate think now of labour is of little consequence
TTT....as I am already leaning well to the left at the moment, I don't feel any danger whatsoever ! If you try to sit on the fence, all that happens is that you get splinters up the **** !
Whilst I am on record of saying that we ought to get tough with the lazy, feckless and workshy, the people most adversely affected by last weeks Budget are the working poor, the very people that we ought to be supporting and encouraging.
What Osborne has tried to do with his smoke and mirrors over his so-called new "Living Wage" is to try and force employers to pay people more, rather than the State having to step in and top their incomes up. But it has failed, because it was fatally flawed.
If he really wanted to help the Working Poor, he would have raised the Minimum Wage substantially, instead of tinkering about.
Why is it that wealthy people need a tax cut to work harder, as has often been posited here on AB, but poor people need a drop in their income to achieve the same result ?
Whilst I am on record of saying that we ought to get tough with the lazy, feckless and workshy, the people most adversely affected by last weeks Budget are the working poor, the very people that we ought to be supporting and encouraging.
What Osborne has tried to do with his smoke and mirrors over his so-called new "Living Wage" is to try and force employers to pay people more, rather than the State having to step in and top their incomes up. But it has failed, because it was fatally flawed.
If he really wanted to help the Working Poor, he would have raised the Minimum Wage substantially, instead of tinkering about.
Why is it that wealthy people need a tax cut to work harder, as has often been posited here on AB, but poor people need a drop in their income to achieve the same result ?
Mikey, As a Labour support you'd know all about the smoke and mirrors you're currently banging on about. I'm sure I don't need to remind you.
//He gave the working poor a small handout, and then took it back again, in spades.//
In that case the working poor are no worse off. The idea is to relieve the tax payer of the burden of an increasingly unsupportable welfare bill. As I said a day or two back you ignore the fact that many of the 'working poor' as you call them work only 16 hours a week because any more affects their benefits. Perhaps now they will have to work a full week - as do the people who currently prop them up.
//He gave the working poor a small handout, and then took it back again, in spades.//
In that case the working poor are no worse off. The idea is to relieve the tax payer of the burden of an increasingly unsupportable welfare bill. As I said a day or two back you ignore the fact that many of the 'working poor' as you call them work only 16 hours a week because any more affects their benefits. Perhaps now they will have to work a full week - as do the people who currently prop them up.
Naomi...you make huge generalisations about the working poor.
I am sure that millions of people would like to work longer hours but their employers have a distinct advantage in not letting them do so. Mt niece is a Care Assistant, who can only get 16 hours a week, but her employer prevents her from working for other firms, in the same business, in order that she might make her hours up. That is the way the care industry works, as well as other areas of work in Britain today.
I take it that you are not defending this disgrace ?
The Institute for Fiscal Studies have said that millions of families will be worse off due to this Budget. Presumably, you will continue to argue with me but not the IFS :::
http://
I am sure that millions of people would like to work longer hours but their employers have a distinct advantage in not letting them do so. Mt niece is a Care Assistant, who can only get 16 hours a week, but her employer prevents her from working for other firms, in the same business, in order that she might make her hours up. That is the way the care industry works, as well as other areas of work in Britain today.
I take it that you are not defending this disgrace ?
The Institute for Fiscal Studies have said that millions of families will be worse off due to this Budget. Presumably, you will continue to argue with me but not the IFS :::
http://
The IFS review of the budget shows that many lower paid working people will be substantially worse off as a result, although I am not sure we needed their input to demonstrate that.
Intriguingly, given that the threshold at which people can claim tax credits will rise, I would have though that that would disincentivise people to work as a matter of fact: these are actually benefits you get for working, not benefits you get because you don't work.
The Tories have effectively abolished the minimum wage, despite the rhetoric, but in any case reducing in-work benefits, even while raising tax thresholds and creating this higher "living wage" for over-25s, is a bit of a killer.
The received wisdom is that in the long run this will lead to a higher wage, lower benefit society, but there is not a whole lot of independent evidence to back that up. Or indeed how long it will take.
Intriguingly, given that the threshold at which people can claim tax credits will rise, I would have though that that would disincentivise people to work as a matter of fact: these are actually benefits you get for working, not benefits you get because you don't work.
The Tories have effectively abolished the minimum wage, despite the rhetoric, but in any case reducing in-work benefits, even while raising tax thresholds and creating this higher "living wage" for over-25s, is a bit of a killer.
The received wisdom is that in the long run this will lead to a higher wage, lower benefit society, but there is not a whole lot of independent evidence to back that up. Or indeed how long it will take.
"But to utterly dismiss the Labour Party now, shows a complete lack of a grasp of post-war history."
hahaha....no it doesnt , it shows a good grasp of reality, something you and most lefties never have...
harridan harman is desperate so is doing anything that comes to mind to garner support for the currently comatose leaderless and directionless collection of muppets known as the lie and bore party
hahaha....no it doesnt , it shows a good grasp of reality, something you and most lefties never have...
harridan harman is desperate so is doing anything that comes to mind to garner support for the currently comatose leaderless and directionless collection of muppets known as the lie and bore party
It just goes to show, whatever the government legislates, people will modify their behaviour to optimise things for themselves, such as the 16 hours thing
(I previously thought that was employer-driven, something to do with employer-side pension contributions kicking in, from 16 hours upwards).
Recall when the tax regulations concerning company cars controlled engine capacities, across all the big manufacturers?
We have the minimum wage because employers wanted to pay £2/hr, rather than £5. They really don't like people very much.
I don't know how to categorise my politics but there should be a clear divide: if you're in work, you get salary/wages; if you're unemployed you get benefits but there should be "clear blue water" between the lifestyle made possible through work and that on benefits.
No employer wants to pay wages at that level. Retail prices would go insanely high because they will always want to keep salary margins (management versus shop floor) as wide as they are now. They will not stand for wages at the bottom end getting anywhere near their own.
This was what all the strikes of the 70s were all about: wage snobbery between one job type and another. Miners got danger pay due to actual risk of death and then car workers would strike to restore their margin because they thought they were better than them.
(I previously thought that was employer-driven, something to do with employer-side pension contributions kicking in, from 16 hours upwards).
Recall when the tax regulations concerning company cars controlled engine capacities, across all the big manufacturers?
We have the minimum wage because employers wanted to pay £2/hr, rather than £5. They really don't like people very much.
I don't know how to categorise my politics but there should be a clear divide: if you're in work, you get salary/wages; if you're unemployed you get benefits but there should be "clear blue water" between the lifestyle made possible through work and that on benefits.
No employer wants to pay wages at that level. Retail prices would go insanely high because they will always want to keep salary margins (management versus shop floor) as wide as they are now. They will not stand for wages at the bottom end getting anywhere near their own.
This was what all the strikes of the 70s were all about: wage snobbery between one job type and another. Miners got danger pay due to actual risk of death and then car workers would strike to restore their margin because they thought they were better than them.
Naomi...your knowledge of how the care industry works is breathtaking in its simplicity. We need people like my niece now, and we will need them even more in the future. She doesn't even get paid for the time it takes her to go from one OAP to another.
Yes, of course she could walk away and get another low-paid job, but if she did and others like her did as well, who is going to wipe your bottom in a few years time ?
This new "Living Wage" of Osborne's will just result in young people working together, doing the same job, but some of them will get paid substantially less than others. Is that just or even fair ?
Why should a 24 year old get paid less than a 25 years old, whilst doing the same job ? The Minimum Wage was supposed to do away with discrepancies like that.
If he had raised the Minimum Wage, a successful Labour policy, by a real amount and not bothered with a new gimmick, I would have no difficulty in supporting him.
Yes, of course she could walk away and get another low-paid job, but if she did and others like her did as well, who is going to wipe your bottom in a few years time ?
This new "Living Wage" of Osborne's will just result in young people working together, doing the same job, but some of them will get paid substantially less than others. Is that just or even fair ?
Why should a 24 year old get paid less than a 25 years old, whilst doing the same job ? The Minimum Wage was supposed to do away with discrepancies like that.
If he had raised the Minimum Wage, a successful Labour policy, by a real amount and not bothered with a new gimmick, I would have no difficulty in supporting him.
Mikey, speaking of bottoms you appear to be climbing up your own. On the one hand you want employers to pay better wages, then when they're obliged to you complain. Can't help thinking had the government that did this been of a different hue you would have been finding all sorts of reasons to praise them.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
And They Wonder Why Insurance Is So...
News9 mins ago
Brexit Hit To Uk Trade Less Than...
News9 mins ago
