Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Nexus Icon said:
98elise said:
What's wrong with zero hours contracts? People are happier on ZNC than those with fixed hours. CIPD surveys back this up.
I work ZHC, as did my wife while she was employed. My son has recently got his first job in a pub on ZHC. They give him more hours than he actually wants, but at least he get to tell them when he's available rather then having to be there at fixed times.
Do you get paid sick leave? How much holiday do you get? Private health cover? Car scheme? Any perks at all, besides getting to say, "No thanks," to a shift you don't want? I think I'll stick to having some rights, thanks.I work ZHC, as did my wife while she was employed. My son has recently got his first job in a pub on ZHC. They give him more hours than he actually wants, but at least he get to tell them when he's available rather then having to be there at fixed times.
I could walk into a fixed hours contract tomorrow if it suited me.
As I said CIPD backs up that more people are happy in ZHC than people in fixes hours. That's a fact.
You are repeating the same old crap that ZHC's are universally bad, which is just Cobyns opinion.
Ridgemont said:
Britain had experienced wartime socialism in peacetime and attempted to reject it. The ongoing existence of rationing was the direct result of labour policy: the poverty that the labour government drilled into the populace due to the deliberate spending priorities of the government meant that, yes, basic healthcare and education was established. But at enormous economic costs.
Yep worth mentioning that as well as food rationing clothes rationing only ended in 1949 and some rations actually got worse after the war not better. In the election of 1950 rationing was one of the key issues with Labour arguing at the time to continue it indefinitely.
Gargamel said:
Nexus Icon said:
Do you get paid sick leave? How much holiday do you get? Private health cover? Car scheme? Any perks at all, besides getting to say, "No thanks," to a shift you don't want? I think I'll stick to having some rights, thanks.
Which you could apply to almost any contractor, self employed or small business. Now self employed I buy health care and would you believe it costs less than the value my old employer put on it. Benefits are just someone else telling you how you should be paid and it takes away the choice.
Want 30 days holiday a year well if its that firms standard policy then the value of the benefit is zero as you can't give it up in exchange for cash. I can choose to work all year if I like.
Zero hours contracts are a legitimate option and should always be avalible to a flexible work force
98elise said:
Nexus Icon said:
98elise said:
What's wrong with zero hours contracts? People are happier on ZNC than those with fixed hours. CIPD surveys back this up.
I work ZHC, as did my wife while she was employed. My son has recently got his first job in a pub on ZHC. They give him more hours than he actually wants, but at least he get to tell them when he's available rather then having to be there at fixed times.
Do you get paid sick leave? How much holiday do you get? Private health cover? Car scheme? Any perks at all, besides getting to say, "No thanks," to a shift you don't want? I think I'll stick to having some rights, thanks.I work ZHC, as did my wife while she was employed. My son has recently got his first job in a pub on ZHC. They give him more hours than he actually wants, but at least he get to tell them when he's available rather then having to be there at fixed times.
I could walk into a fixed hours contract tomorrow if it suited me.
As I said CIPD backs up that more people are happy in ZHC than people in fixes hours. That's a fact.
You are repeating the same old crap that ZHC's are universally bad, which is just Cobyns opinion.
Some prefer it, some don't. So why the answer is to ban it is beyond me. Should those of us who like them be insisting contracts with guaranteed hours, sick pay and annual leave are banned?
shoutyRidgemont said:
Britain had experienced wartime socialism in peacetime and attempted to reject it. The ongoing existence of rationing was the direct result of labour policy: the poverty that the labour government drilled into the populace due to the deliberate spending priorities of the government meant that, yes, basic healthcare and education was established. But at enormous economic costs.
Is there an option to basic healthcare and education costing a lot?There was a woman who lived in my street who was a midwife. She'd undergone medical training of course. That consisted of following her mother around just after WWI and learning the ropes from her. Neither daughter nor mother had any form of qualification. The local chemist would supply her with drugs, including opiates.
So what did we get for these 'enormous costs'? An educated proletariat and a chance for the gifted but poor to be educated to their abilities. Known now as the good old days. Medically, it was a revolution. Poor people saw doctors needed them. (The good old days again.)
Infant mortality plummeted. It was dropping steadily in the interwar period, but not for the poor. I remember the number of men, mainly men, afflicted with rickets. It was so common that it was hardly noticeable. Then there was TB, polio - if you've seen some of the images of children in iron lungs, perhaps you might think that healthcare has certain benefits. There were lots of other diseases all but eradicated, so some might consider the price worth it.
It's not only healthcare that gave health benefits. Poverty kills, and without any structured support for those without work, children suffered. My paternal grandfather lost a lung in WWI. He could barely walk upstairs. My father joined the army in 1938 and was surprised, and pleased, to find that, not only did he get three meals a day, but he got three hot meals a day. Luxury indeed.
However, to limit Atlee's government's achievements to healthcare and nationalisation of failed industry is wrong.
I'm not sure how the people of the UK voted in Atlee as a way of rejecting socialism.
The continuation of rationing was the result of fiscal probity. Britain was broke. It had to depend on loans and gifts from the USA. The labour government reckoned the money better spent investing in infrastructure. I'm sure mistakes were made, but the basic premise, that it should not be frittered away, was a good one.
The interest on the national debt after WWII was enormous. Under labour it dropped steadily. It slowed a bit once the tories got in, and then stayed more or less level. Under Lloyd George, it doubled after WWI.
Derek Smith said:
1. The continuation of rationing was the result of fiscal probity. Britain was broke. It had to depend on loans and gifts from the USA. The labour government reckoned the money better spent investing in infrastructure. I'm sure mistakes were made, but the basic premise, that it should not be frittered away, was a good one.
2. The interest on the national debt after WWII was enormous. Under labour it dropped steadily. It slowed a bit once the tories got in, and then stayed more or less level. Under Lloyd George, it doubled after WWI.
1. Which is more or less the polar opposite of the current Labour spending plans (although pre-manifesto). This is probably where team Boris; have made a mistake. To total up the 1.2trillion; they worked backwards (so started with the big scary number then crowbarred 2017 and 2019 election pledges into it). Whilst the splurge is a lot, it's more like 800bn. What they should have focused on is a) the silly give always within it b) McDonnell's slightly bizarre funding mechanism where he wants to offset assets and liabilities (what they borrow to fund the splurge) in the UK's balance sheet. Off course this is where it becomes parochial; but maybe the UK electorate is becoming increasing aware / better educated given the divisiveness of BREXIT and HoC failure to deliver err anything (I refer back to my earlier Sun Tzu quote). The Tory splurge is better structured and more directed. As an aside, the markets are not reacting to Labour plans yet. Utilities are outperforming their EU peers so the risk of a Corbyn grab / theft (paying book over market value) is viewed as less likely (although the velocity this can change should not be under-estimated.2. The interest on the national debt after WWII was enormous. Under labour it dropped steadily. It slowed a bit once the tories got in, and then stayed more or less level. Under Lloyd George, it doubled after WWI.
An example of Labour economic policy in effect. I invite Derek round to clean my toilets. I pay him £10 for the privilege. I then take £8.20 back, and give £4.97 to BV72 to spend on booze, fags; and his brood of 8 kids. £3.23 is transmission loss, given socialist economic mismanagement.
2. A reflection on austerity. However debt is not all bad. Targeted infrastructure spend; that generates value, growth and upward inflationary pressure are good things. We will certainly NOT be dealing with that under the current Momentum plans. All eyes will be on the Manifesto to see how far off the wall they go. If they go after private schools and their landbanks, book value privatisation; we may be treated as economic pariah globally; significantly adjusting (upward) the rate we borrow / roll over pre-existing debt.
Edited by stongle on Wednesday 13th November 09:08
98elise said:
Nexus Icon said:
98elise said:
What's wrong with zero hours contracts? People are happier on ZNC than those with fixed hours. CIPD surveys back this up.
I work ZHC, as did my wife while she was employed. My son has recently got his first job in a pub on ZHC. They give him more hours than he actually wants, but at least he get to tell them when he's available rather then having to be there at fixed times.
Do you get paid sick leave? How much holiday do you get? Private health cover? Car scheme? Any perks at all, besides getting to say, "No thanks," to a shift you don't want? I think I'll stick to having some rights, thanks.I work ZHC, as did my wife while she was employed. My son has recently got his first job in a pub on ZHC. They give him more hours than he actually wants, but at least he get to tell them when he's available rather then having to be there at fixed times.
I could walk into a fixed hours contract tomorrow if it suited me.
As I said CIPD backs up that more people are happy in ZHC than people in fixes hours. That's a fact.
You are repeating the same old crap that ZHC's are universally bad, which is just Cobyns opinion.
Nexus Icon said:
Do you get paid sick leave? How much holiday do you get? Private health cover? Car scheme? Any perks at all, besides getting to say, "No thanks," to a shift you don't want? I think I'll stick to having some rights, thanks.
I work on a ZHC. I have a contract which states that my employer does not have to offer me work and I do not have to accept it. Suits both of us. With regards holiday, most of my life is a holiday! But I do get holiday pay. Horses for courses.stongle said:
You know the answeer to that, why ask it?
The question should be, is Russian intereference in UK politic Viz EU rapprochement to Russia and Iran a greater threat to our security?
No, the question is why haven't they released the report if there is nothing in it, and if there is something shouldn't we know before we have an election?The question should be, is Russian intereference in UK politic Viz EU rapprochement to Russia and Iran a greater threat to our security?
Yours is an entirely different question which doesn't address the point.
vonuber said:
stongle said:
You know the answeer to that, why ask it?
The question should be, is Russian intereference in UK politic Viz EU rapprochement to Russia and Iran a greater threat to our security?
No, the question is why haven't they released the report if there is nothing in it, and if there is something shouldn't we know before we have an election?The question should be, is Russian intereference in UK politic Viz EU rapprochement to Russia and Iran a greater threat to our security?
Yours is an entirely different question which doesn't address the point.
vonuber said:
Yours is an entirely different question which doesn't address the point.
Not really, I'm pretty much assuming there is going to be questionable in it. But Russian interefernce isn't just a conservative issue is it? I suspect that taking any Russian donations is going to be misconstrued or jumped upon EVEN if the money was from Mikhail Khodorkovsky. It won't be differentiated. I don't think it would matter that much, to be honest - probably should've got it out earlier rather than later. It's the last thing they want preying on peoples mind's as they hit the ballot box.Proving it pays off, is more problematic. Thats why it needs to be looked at in wider perspective and certainly against Macron's overt overtures to Russia and Iran (these countries are sanctioned to the max).
Ridgemont said:
Breadvan72 said:
A fair summary, Derek. The usual shouties will seek to rubbish it, in the usual way.
Absolute tosh. And I suspect you know it as a student of history.The late 40s were a battlefield between the left wing and the right. There were serious reforms and innovations (Beveridge etc) but as far as Bevan’s side of things were concerned the failure to nationalise the banking industry along with a whole tranche of the private sector was a betrayal of ‘45. That has always been the left wing perspective of Atlee: he bottled the biggest challenge. Whereas the rest of the country drew a breath of relief.
The issue was that by ‘50 the middle classes had been alienated. The election in ‘50 turned out a majority of 5 for labour: it was as only because labour went into the election with a majority of 146 that they held on.
Britain had experienced wartime socialism in peacetime and attempted to reject it. The ongoing existence of rationing was the direct result of labour policy: the poverty that the labour government drilled into the populace due to the deliberate spending priorities of the government meant that, yes, basic healthcare and education was established. But at enormous economic costs.
You'll be accused of being a shouty by the '*dangerous far lefties' here.
- Thought it would be a jolly wheeze to turn the usual 'dangerous far right' CRASH OUT!! into reverse mode for a moment.
XCP said:
Nexus Icon said:
Do you get paid sick leave? How much holiday do you get? Private health cover? Car scheme? Any perks at all, besides getting to say, "No thanks," to a shift you don't want? I think I'll stick to having some rights, thanks.
I work on a ZHC. I have a contract which states that my employer does not have to offer me work and I do not have to accept it. Suits both of us. With regards holiday, most of my life is a holiday! But I do get holiday pay. Horses for courses.
Earthdweller said:
XCP said:
Nexus Icon said:
Do you get paid sick leave? How much holiday do you get? Private health cover? Car scheme? Any perks at all, besides getting to say, "No thanks," to a shift you don't want? I think I'll stick to having some rights, thanks.
I work on a ZHC. I have a contract which states that my employer does not have to offer me work and I do not have to accept it. Suits both of us. With regards holiday, most of my life is a holiday! But I do get holiday pay. Horses for courses.Job satisfaction, job quality and engagement:
There is very little difference in overall job satisfaction between zero-hours contract workers and the survey average (all employees). In all, 60% of zero-hours contract workers agree or strongly agree they are satisfied with their job with 19% disagreeing, compared with a survey average of 59% agreeing and 20% disagreeing. On average 65% of zero-hours workers say they are satisfied with their work–life balance compared with 58% of all employees.
vonuber said:
stongle said:
You know the answeer to that, why ask it?
The question should be, is Russian intereference in UK politic Viz EU rapprochement to Russia and Iran a greater threat to our security?
No, the question is why haven't they released the report if there is nothing in it, and if there is something shouldn't we know before we have an election?The question should be, is Russian intereference in UK politic Viz EU rapprochement to Russia and Iran a greater threat to our security?
Yours is an entirely different question which doesn't address the point.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff