Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2
Discussion
pim said:
Is this the Tory party conference on here?
What a negative bunch.If it wasn't for the Labour party you be all paying private for your healthcare.The Tories are making a good effort destroying what is left of it.
We have now the working poor.Zero hrs contracts and the majority of kids having a poor education.Take the mick out of Jeremy at your leisure.If you think Theresa is the answer.
Not sure why you think kids get a poor education these days. In my parents days you could leave at 14, in my day you could leave at 16 (and most did). These days you can leave at 18, but 50% go to Uni.What a negative bunch.If it wasn't for the Labour party you be all paying private for your healthcare.The Tories are making a good effort destroying what is left of it.
We have now the working poor.Zero hrs contracts and the majority of kids having a poor education.Take the mick out of Jeremy at your leisure.If you think Theresa is the answer.
The majorty of people on ZHC are happy with it (thats from actual research rather than a politicians soundbite). That includes my wife and I. I do very well out of the fact my contract is zero hours!
As for poor. You need to look outside of this country to see poverty. Its a relative measure so if we gave everyone £1m we would still have "poor" people.
BigMon said:
I would describe myself as centrist rather than right or left wing. I grew up in Sheffield in the 80's, experienced the full 'joys' a Thatcher government brought to Yorkshire and have no love for the Tories at all.
My biggest concern is that Corbyn has decimated Labour as a credible opposition, and surely a credible opposition is needed in our parliamentary system?
I think Labour will be pretty much finished as a party if Corbyn carries on, and god help us all if by some miracle he gets into government.
Similar, I'm a bit right of centre, but not by much. My biggest concern is that Corbyn has decimated Labour as a credible opposition, and surely a credible opposition is needed in our parliamentary system?
I think Labour will be pretty much finished as a party if Corbyn carries on, and god help us all if by some miracle he gets into government.
The thing I can't figure out is why it's taking the parliamentary labour party so long to either split and form a new breakaway party, or migrate rapidly to the Lib Dems. The current Labour party is heading down a path towards Socialism, and no Socialist government in history in any country has ever delivered benefits to any of the people. Socialism has only made everyone equal in one way - it makes them equally poor and equally unhappy. If in any doubt about this, go speak to people who've moved here from the former socialist states of the USSR, and who are old enough to remember how bad things were over there. For those who don't think that the USSR was fundamentally Socialist, remember that it was founded entirely on the principles of Marx. For this reason, Labour members who don't support Socialism really only have two options - new party or Lib Dems.
To answer the negativity about zero hours contracts..... Firstly, if you remove zero hours contracts, you'll take people out of jobs completely. The zero hours contract won't magically become a full time job - trying to force this to happen would simply kill employment. Also, I know a few people with zero hours contracts, because it suits them to have these contracts. An example is a guy we know who does a number of things, including leading outdoor pursuits in good weather, and working in an outdoor shop in bad weather - both zero hours contracts that give him an income for doing the things he enjoys. And both jobs that Corbyn would ban, despite the fact that it's the employee's choice to work in this way.
Come on, Parliamentary Labour Party - stick to your principles, and either form a new, moderate left party than can provide a credible opposition - or defect to the Lib Dems, and provide opposition from there.
The thing about Zero Hour Contracts being given a bad name has been entirely to do with the likes of SportsDirect seemingly using them in entirely the wrong way, if what is being said in the media is accurate.
Any business where there is going to be a fixed amount of work, really ought to be offering staff a contract which has a guaranteed number of hours to fulfil the workload.
Any seasonal demand, or fluctuating demand, is going to require some extra work hours to be given, either in the form of overtime, or in the form of part time, fixed term, or zero hour contracts. And people who want to work a bit, to supplement income, or to work around studies, or childcare, can benefit from being able NOT to work the 40 hours per week required in a full time contract.
I started on a "casual" contract when I was 18 as a way to earn money whilst I was at uni. Worked pretty well for me, and the company, as I knew to make myself available at short notice if I needed to but could also turn it down.
However, for me now, I would not be able to live on such a contract as I have things like a mortgage to pay, whereas at 18, I was mostly still living with my parents etc.
Abolishing them altogether, would resonate well with some factions of staff who have been mistreated, or are upset that others have been mistreated, by working such crappy contracts, but would really affect a great number of people in a negative way and also business too.
It is telling that since Weatherspoons offered staff fixed-hours contracts, that whilst they have had a lot take it up, it is not a 100% uptake.
Any business where there is going to be a fixed amount of work, really ought to be offering staff a contract which has a guaranteed number of hours to fulfil the workload.
Any seasonal demand, or fluctuating demand, is going to require some extra work hours to be given, either in the form of overtime, or in the form of part time, fixed term, or zero hour contracts. And people who want to work a bit, to supplement income, or to work around studies, or childcare, can benefit from being able NOT to work the 40 hours per week required in a full time contract.
I started on a "casual" contract when I was 18 as a way to earn money whilst I was at uni. Worked pretty well for me, and the company, as I knew to make myself available at short notice if I needed to but could also turn it down.
However, for me now, I would not be able to live on such a contract as I have things like a mortgage to pay, whereas at 18, I was mostly still living with my parents etc.
Abolishing them altogether, would resonate well with some factions of staff who have been mistreated, or are upset that others have been mistreated, by working such crappy contracts, but would really affect a great number of people in a negative way and also business too.
It is telling that since Weatherspoons offered staff fixed-hours contracts, that whilst they have had a lot take it up, it is not a 100% uptake.
DavidJG said:
Similar, I'm a bit right of centre, but not by much.
The thing I can't figure out is why it's taking the parliamentary labour party so long to either split and form a new breakaway party, or migrate rapidly to the Lib Dems. The current Labour party is heading down a path towards Socialism, and no Socialist government in history in any country has ever delivered benefits to any of the people. Socialism has only made everyone equal in one way - it makes them equally poor and equally unhappy. If in any doubt about this, go speak to people who've moved here from the former socialist states of the USSR, and who are old enough to remember how bad things were over there. For those who don't think that the USSR was fundamentally Socialist, remember that it was founded entirely on the principles of Marx. For this reason, Labour members who don't support Socialism really only have two options - new party or Lib Dems.
If the Lib Dems hadn't gone into coalition with the Conservatives and then been almost wiped out at the last GE, then I think they would now be the main opposition, and would have possibly 100+ Labour MPs swelling their ranks.The thing I can't figure out is why it's taking the parliamentary labour party so long to either split and form a new breakaway party, or migrate rapidly to the Lib Dems. The current Labour party is heading down a path towards Socialism, and no Socialist government in history in any country has ever delivered benefits to any of the people. Socialism has only made everyone equal in one way - it makes them equally poor and equally unhappy. If in any doubt about this, go speak to people who've moved here from the former socialist states of the USSR, and who are old enough to remember how bad things were over there. For those who don't think that the USSR was fundamentally Socialist, remember that it was founded entirely on the principles of Marx. For this reason, Labour members who don't support Socialism really only have two options - new party or Lib Dems.
As it is, however, I would imagine they're looking at the current situation and asking themselves whether the bulk of their electorate would forgive them for going to the party which went into government with the evil nasty Tories...
As for forming a new party, I'm not sure how they'd go about doing that? As I understand it, the vast majority of their money and most of their grass roots infrastructure comes from the Unions. Are there sufficient moderate unions that might be willing to jump ship and go with them to make this viable? If not, how on earth do they replace that?
pim said:
If it wasn't for the Labour party you be all paying private for your healthcare. The Tories are making a good effort destroying what is left of it.
What utter, utter nonsensepim said:
We have now the working poor.
and what exactly should the poor be doing? Surely poor people working is a way to them not being as poor?pim said:
Zero hrs contracts
these are the same evil ZHC that the labour party use for their staff? As always people look at an issue take the worst possible view of it and then try and make out the the whole issue is evil, there are any number of reasons where ZHC are very good indeed but (just like calls of racism where non exist) any attempt at sensible debate gets shrieked at pim said:
...the majority of kids having a poor education.
and the question happens to be why have educational standards dropped over the years? Surely it couldn't have anything to do with teachers being more interested in politics than y'know actually teaching
Shakermaker said:
The thing about Zero Hour Contracts being given a bad name has been entirely to do with the likes of SportsDirect seemingly using them in entirely the wrong way, if what is being said in the media is accurate.
Any business where there is going to be a fixed amount of work, really ought to be offering staff a contract which has a guaranteed number of hours to fulfil the workload.
Any seasonal demand, or fluctuating demand, is going to require some extra work hours to be given, either in the form of overtime, or in the form of part time, fixed term, or zero hour contracts. And people who want to work a bit, to supplement income, or to work around studies, or childcare, can benefit from being able NOT to work the 40 hours per week required in a full time contract.
I started on a "casual" contract when I was 18 as a way to earn money whilst I was at uni. Worked pretty well for me, and the company, as I knew to make myself available at short notice if I needed to but could also turn it down.
However, for me now, I would not be able to live on such a contract as I have things like a mortgage to pay, whereas at 18, I was mostly still living with my parents etc.
Abolishing them altogether, would resonate well with some factions of staff who have been mistreated, or are upset that others have been mistreated, by working such crappy contracts, but would really affect a great number of people in a negative way and also business too.
It is telling that since Weatherspoons offered staff fixed-hours contracts, that whilst they have had a lot take it up, it is not a 100% uptake.
People are mistreated on fixed hours contracts but we don't seek to abolish them. As I said before more people are happier in ZHC contracts that in fixed hours contracts. Thats from an actual survey.Any business where there is going to be a fixed amount of work, really ought to be offering staff a contract which has a guaranteed number of hours to fulfil the workload.
Any seasonal demand, or fluctuating demand, is going to require some extra work hours to be given, either in the form of overtime, or in the form of part time, fixed term, or zero hour contracts. And people who want to work a bit, to supplement income, or to work around studies, or childcare, can benefit from being able NOT to work the 40 hours per week required in a full time contract.
I started on a "casual" contract when I was 18 as a way to earn money whilst I was at uni. Worked pretty well for me, and the company, as I knew to make myself available at short notice if I needed to but could also turn it down.
However, for me now, I would not be able to live on such a contract as I have things like a mortgage to pay, whereas at 18, I was mostly still living with my parents etc.
Abolishing them altogether, would resonate well with some factions of staff who have been mistreated, or are upset that others have been mistreated, by working such crappy contracts, but would really affect a great number of people in a negative way and also business too.
It is telling that since Weatherspoons offered staff fixed-hours contracts, that whilst they have had a lot take it up, it is not a 100% uptake.
Politicians are just using it as a soundbite for entirely selfish reasons.
98elise said:
People are mistreated on fixed hours contracts but we don't seek to abolish them. As I said before more people are happier in ZHC contracts that in fixed hours contracts. Thats from an actual survey.
Politicians are just using it as a soundbite for entirely selfish reasons.
Yes - a good point I didnt raise in my post. Politicians are just using it as a soundbite for entirely selfish reasons.
Dealing with unscrupulous and/or exploitative employment contracts does not mean focusing on zero hour contracts/casual contracts at all. It means focusing on employers being dicks.
AJL308 said:
On the positive side though, there was probably a power strike on at the time so few people will have seen it!
Of course this is the point I should have made to him when he told me that the "miners strike would have been different if we had, had social media". If I'd been quicker off the mark I would have pointed out that computers don't work very well without electricity and in the days of Amstrads and Acorns you needed mains power.I was more aghast at his bringing the miners strike up out of the blue, but then he had just been to a showing of the excellent Pride.
A more interesting point is where would we be today with carbon targets if we'd not shut down all the coal mines.
But it was never about coal, it was about union power.
Simon
pim said:
If it wasn't for the Labour party you be all paying private for your healthcare. The Tories are making a good effort destroying what is left of it.
We need a vibrant economy to generate the tax revenues to pay for the NHS. The Labour Party is a far bigger risk to the NHS than the Tories. They always leave us in economic ruins.AstonZagato said:
pim said:
If it wasn't for the Labour party you be all paying private for your healthcare. The Tories are making a good effort destroying what is left of it.
We need a vibrant economy to generate the tax revenues to pay for the NHS. The Labour Party is a far bigger risk to the NHS than the Tories. They always leave us in economic ruins.What is the right level of spending?
Is privatisation always wrong or the NHS?
Where do we draw the line?
Is there an automatic assumption that the NHS can always do it better, or do we need a more informed debate?
pim said:
If it wasn't for the Labour party you be all paying private for your healthcare.
There were some good things the post-war Labour Government brought in. Most of them were things that UK is rightly proud of, but (and it's a very big but) it needed Conservative Governments to find ways to afford them without recourse to the magic money tree.irocfan said:
pim said:
...the majority of kids having a poor education.
and the question happens to be why have educational standards dropped over the years? Surely it couldn't have anything to do with teachers being more interested in politics than y'know actually teachingAnother headache for Corbyn?
Momentum vice-chair 'suspended by Labour' amid anti-Semitism row
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37526320
Momentum vice-chair 'suspended by Labour' amid anti-Semitism row
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37526320
SmoothCriminal said:
Another headache for Corbyn?
Momentum vice-chair 'suspended by Labour' amid anti-Semitism row
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37526320
Why would it cause him a probem ? He'll just ignore it like everything else he doesn't like. Ignorance and arrogance.Momentum vice-chair 'suspended by Labour' amid anti-Semitism row
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37526320
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff