Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 2)

[TheRealNoNeedy]

Derek Smith said:

TheRealNoNeedy said:

It would be funny if Corbyn is mentioned and Boris was holding it back so not to be accused of dirty tricks during an election

You think that likely?

No, but sitting here with my fingers crossed

[Earthdweller]

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.

The post war Labour Government actually increased rationing beyond what was needed during the war years

Some of it was caused by industrial unrest and strikes but a lot was deliberate policy

Bread became rationed as did potatoes for instance

Whilst some factories were running at capacity the products were all earmarked for export and sale at home was restricted

To say Labours post war policies were popular across the board isn’t quite correct

Rationing was extended and increased for political reasons not because of shortages in many cases

The immediate post war years were not a bed of roses in a socialist utopia ... far from it

[s1962a]

Burwood said:

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?

Yours is an entirely different question which doesn't address the point.

It's obvious why they haven't released the report. It will say that it is highly likely Leave might have been influenced which will only fuel Remains straw clutching. And they are right to withhold it until we get through this period because there is nothing that can be done about it and therefore no point stirring the pot.

So you think the voting public can't be trusted with this information, and it's better to hide it?

[bitchstewie]

Funny really.

"We want our independence and sovereignty back and we don't want un-elected bureaucrats meddling in UK business, but if Russia did interfere it's fine because we got the result we wanted".

Not what I thought I'd be hearing and probably not what you thought you'd be saying if someone had asked you three years ago.

[stongle]

bhstewie said:

Funny really.

"We want our independence and sovereignty back and we don't want un-elected bureaucrats meddling in UK business, but if Russia did interfere it's fine because we got the result we wanted".

Not what I thought I'd be hearing and probably not what you thought you'd be saying if someone had asked you three years ago.

Who said that?

[bitchstewie]

Simply paraphrasing the reasons given across various threads when people are trying to say it's fine to withhold the report.

"no point stirring the pot" is laughable.

[Earthdweller]

bhstewie said:

Simply paraphrasing the reasons given across various threads when people are trying to say it's fine to withhold the report.

"no point stirring the pot" is laughable.

Isn’t that a Libdum trait ... quoting yourself as though it’s a reported news piece and using it to prove a you point ?

[anonymous-user]

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.

None of the above in exchange for the freedom to work, or not, whenever I want. Not everyone wants the same as you. Not everyone is as risk averse or needs their hand holding through life. You're welcome to your rights, I don't want them, seems others don't either.

[TTwiggy]

fblm 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.

None of the above in exchange for the freedom to work, or not, whenever I want. Not everyone wants the same as you. Not everyone is as risk averse or needs their hand holding through life. You're welcome to your rights, I don't want them, seems others don't either.

That's fine if your day rate is very high and your income is in the top percentile. Many people on ZHC will be on minimum wage and might welcome a bit more security.

My view is that there's a place for ZHCs, but the system should be less open to abuse of the more vulnerable workers.

[anonymous-user]

Derek Smith said:

TheRealNoNeedy said:

It would be funny if Corbyn is mentioned and Boris was holding it back so not to be accused of dirty tricks during an election

You think that likely?

Consider this, Derek -

Say it was Corbyn or Labour that was implicated, why would the gov release when it appears that Labour are doing a good enough job of screwing themselves without that.
If they don't need to they could sit on it until they do really need to use it.
Perhaps they're holding onto it because it does implicate Labour BUT the risks are that releasing it would totally annihilate Labour and risk sending voters towards the Lib Dems and SNP.
Perhaps they are holding onto it because, regardless of who is implicated, it would muddy the waters and remainers are itching for ANYTHING that they can use to say we need to forget the whole thing and simply remain.
Now, specifically considering their geopolitical stances, then Corbyn could be useful for Putin. That's in terms of any alignment of who they favour in the Middle East, South America, Central America, Asia, and then how they would rub along, or very likely not, with the Americans.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 13th November 13:22

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 13th November 13:26

[Nexus Icon]

768 said:

Likewise.

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?

I'm not talking about banning it. This started at a reason unemployment has 'fallen'. ZHCs have given *some* employers the opportunity to take advantage of workers whilst also removing them from unemployment figures, yet they can still claim full benefits when they work zero hours (up to 16hrs, I believe).

[stongle]

bhstewie said:

Simply paraphrasing the reasons given across various threads when people are trying to say it's fine to withhold the report.

"no point stirring the pot" is laughable.

So why put it in quotation - is it the remain trick of putting words into peoples mouths, or painting us all with the same brush?

If I went on the look for Russian money it's, everywhere. I'd expect oligarchs did make donations to the conservatives. I would, if I owned half or Mayfair.

Did it influence millions of votes, unlikely - but I'm not a dreamer.

As I said, I would have published it anyway. Its a storm in a teacup - probably. We have bigher issues at hand, and thats to get BREXIT done. Trying to explain which Russian is a Kremlin stooge will get lost in the fake outrage. Which Corbyn is doing a great job with given his blatent BS and rabble raising on the NHS.

Interesting you tried to fake a quote, only last night one of team remain got caught using spurious numbers. Is this the new M.O? Is there anyone on team remaim whom can debate the issues at hand? I know the counter to Macron's latest Russian appeasement. Thats a bigger geopolitical issue than potential Russian money. Ok, some of us look at BREXIT as a financial exercise, bit like the Wu Tang Clan said - C.R.E.A.M. (Cash Rules Everything Around Me), but team remain, is now D.R.E.A.M. (Drugs Rule Everything Around Me).

It seems team remain have lost all sight of the wider world. Everytime Trump has a twitter spaz, the shockwaves are global. He threatened to ramp trade tensions last night. Team UK (that's all of us) are not immune. Likewise, none of you seem to be watching internal EU developments, you just talk about the nirvana that was, not Is (bit like Derek's posts). Look at the tensions between Germany and France on defence, Germany, Netherlands Vs rest of EUzone on finance. Look at acceleration of federal policy, such as banking union. Look at the budgetary problems, when many of the economies are struggling. Look at the record on inflation. Everytime these issues are brought up, remain avoids and goes into distraction mode.

But hey-ho, its forum sport. Either way.

[bitchstewie]

stongle said:

So why put it in quotation - is it the remain trick of putting words into peoples mouths, or painting us all with the same brush?

If I went on the look for Russian money it's, everywhere. I'd expect oligarchs did make donations to the conservatives. I would, if I owned half or Mayfair.

Did it influence millions of votes, unlikely - but I'm not a dreamer.

As I said, I would have published it anyway. Its a storm in a teacup - probably. We have bigher issues at hand, and thats to get BREXIT done. Trying to explain which Russian is a Kremlin stooge will get lost in the fake outrage. Which Corbyn is doing a great job with given his blatent BS and rabble raising on the NHS.

Interesting you tried to fake a quote, only last night one of team remain got caught using spurious numbers. Is this the new M.O? Is there anyone on team remaim whom can debate the issues at hand? I know the counter to Macron's latest Russian appeasement. Thats a bigger geopolitical issue than potential Russian money. Ok, some of us look at BREXIT as a financial exercise, bit like the Wu Tang Clan said - C.R.E.A.M. (Cash Rules Everything Around Me), but team remain, is now D.R.E.A.M. (Drugs Rule Everything Around Me).

It seems team remain have lost all sight of the wider world. Everytime Trump has a twitter spaz, the shockwaves are global. He threatened to ramp trade tensions last night. Team UK (that's all of us) are not immune. Likewise, none of you seem to be watching internal EU developments, you just talk about the nirvana that was, not Is (bit like Derek's posts). Look at the tensions between Germany and France on defence, Germany, Netherlands Vs rest of EUzone on finance. Look at acceleration of federal policy, such as banking union. Look at the budgetary problems, when many of the economies are struggling. Look at the record on inflation. Everytime these issues are brought up, remain avoids and goes into distraction mode.

But hey-ho, its forum sport. Either way.

I thought quotes were common place when making a point. I see them loads on either "side" of any debate. See how I used quotes again.

Personally I doubt it would influence "millions" of votes but I wonder if it did have some influence and if so how many votes are acceptable?

Either way not releasing it simply looks like there's something in it that they don't want people to know prior to voting and that's always going to look suspicious.

[anonymous-user]

The privileged few who find ZHCs to their liking are not likely to be the people working in fulfilment centres and other low wage, low status, low security jobs. For those people, ZHCs suck great big hairy monkey balls, but they are stuck with them. People like to bang on about unions, mainly because of perceptions of the 1970s (some of those perceptions are not always accurate), but the hapless staff doing the McJobs on ZHCs could do with getting unionised.

[anonymous-user]

The Russian report thing is very sniffy. It may be a damp squib when released, but sitting on it looks dodgy, even if it isn't. See also the highly questionable decision to mothball the corruption enquiry pending the election.

Did anyone see that toe-crawling video of Johnson trying to be all matey bloke on his tea break that the lie machine released yesterday? Those behind it must not think much of their target audience.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 13th November 15:10

[drdel]

Breadvan72 said:

The privileged few who find ZHCs to their liking are not likely to be the people working in fulfilment centres and other low wage, low status, low security jobs. For those people, ZHCs suck great big hairy monkey balls, but they are stuck with them. People like to bang on about unions, mainly because of perceptions of the 1970s (some of those perceptions are not always accurate), but the hapless staff doing the McJobs on ZHCs could do with getting unionised.

Totally agree - pure exploitation of those with no power/protection; usually young people with no hope of saving etc.

[anonymous-user]

Not a fan of ZHCs. I am not, thankfully, vulnerable to them myself at the moment, but I do not feel there is place for them in our society. They feel like a step back in time to me.
Perhaps, if they must exist, then there are rules as to which companies are allowed to use them, based on performance, executive pay scales and dividend payments. Then a rule that they can only be offered to those that profess not to be primary bill-payers with others depending on them, so only to kids at home with mum and dad, students looking for supplementary money, housewives and househusbands.

[SpeckledJim]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

So wouldn't they then simply be replaced by the One-Hour-Contract?

Or will you stipulate a minimum amount of work a role can entail?

And won't that then reduce employment opportunities, as employers fight shy of meeting your new commitment requirements?

[turbobloke]

Breadvan72 said:

The privileged few who find ZHCs to their liking are not likely to be the people working in fulfilment centres and other low wage, low status, low security jobs. For those people, ZHCs suck great big hairy monkey balls, but they are stuck with them. People like to bang on about unions, mainly because of perceptions of the 1970s (some of those perceptions are not always accurate), but the hapless staff doing the McJobs on ZHCs could do with getting unionised.

Except that data trumps the mere opinion to which you're entitled; it's not a "privileged few" it's a majority, 60% or more.

You must have missed this earlier today, ZHC workers report better job satisfaction and better work-life balance than the average which includes permies.

CIPD Worker Survey: 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.

[Nexus Icon]

SpeckledJim said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

So wouldn't they then simply be replaced by the One-Hour-Contract?

Or will you stipulate a minimum amount of work a role can entail?

And won't that then reduce employment opportunities, as employers fight shy of meeting your new commitment requirements?

It's not that stupid an idea. When I started working, 34 years ago, I was on a single-shift contract, whereby I was guaranteed a single shift a week and extras were negotiated (with 2 week's notice) to cover holidays and busy periods. Emergency shifts, to cover sickness and no-shows, could be refused without penalty.