So on the one hand we need to draft in workers from overseas to cover the shortfall due to our lazy workforce, but on the other hand the workforce are being told not to take on graft unless you got tip top conditions with it.
They haven't been individually named, but the The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority revealed the figures. MPs employ 151 on these contracts, including 77 Conservative, 62 Labour, 5 Libs
Good research! That's one of the brilliant things about Charlton Life - someone can ask a massively-obscure question and, within minutes, someone else can provide a clear, sourced answer.
However, the numbers do not show that "most" Labour MPs employ zero-hours contracts. There are 256 Labour MPs. So even if they employ one each, it's something like 25%.
It's also not zero-hours contracts. Instead, IPSA have calculated numbers of staff on "casual contracts", for example, "this may include any short-term staff taken on – for example, to provide paternity, maternity or sickness cover – part-time as well as full-time staff and apprentices and interns whose employment conditions have fulfilled the conditions set out in paragraphs 7.8 and 7.9 of the MPs’ Scheme of Business Costs and Expenses (‘the Scheme’)".
So, it's not true to say "most" Labour MPs employ staff on zero-hours contracts; nor is this number calculated. It would be true to say that they employ fewer than the coalition (82) and fewer than the Conservatives (77).
Exploitative zero-hour contracts should be outlawed.
Not only zero hours contracts used by hypocritical Labour MPs but the even worse use of interns, with the promise of experience in the political field.
Truly 'free' Labour.
A bit desperate. It is a point to distract from the massive growth of insecure zero hour contracts the discussion at hand. Doesn't negate that many zero hours contract are truly horrible contracts to work under. Surely this is the point rather than going on about internships.
The ONS said the increase was not so much the result of a surge in the number of zero-hours jobs offered by employers last year, but due more to increasing recognition of the contracts by staff when asked by researchers about their employment terms.
2 million apprenticeships have been started since 2010 - the Lib Dems claim this is a 78% increase over the equivalent 5 years under Labour.
Mind you they also say they have built 190,000 affordable houses - the first net increase in social housing supply in over 30 years. (plus 70,000 empty houses put back into occupancy.) Not that they would get any credit on this board!
2 million apprenticeships have been started since 2010 - the Lib Dems claim this is a 78% increase over the equivalent 5 years under Labour.
Mind you they also say they have built 190,000 affordable houses - the first net increase in social housing supply in over 30 years. (plus 70,000 empty houses put back into occupancy.) Not that they would get any credit on this board!
We need a new house built every 7 minues though Art!
2 million apprenticeships have been started since 2010 - the Lib Dems claim this is a 78% increase over the equivalent 5 years under Labour.
Mind you they also say they have built 190,000 affordable houses - the first net increase in social housing supply in over 30 years. (plus 70,000 empty houses put back into occupancy.) Not that they would get any credit on this board!
Which definition of affordable housing are we using there? To rent for 80% of market rent, shared ownership or the traditional social rent, and how many social rent properties have we lost through right to buy in that period? And are those completions or just starts?
Increasing apprenticeships is welcome, as long as they are good quality ones that actually provide transferable skills and qualifications, rather than using them as an excuse to get away with paying the apprentice minimum wage (less than half the usualhourly rate) for basic training they'd be giving staff anyway. I'd be interested to know what proportion of the new apprenticeships are intermediate, higher or advanced level. Might have to have a root around on the GOV website to see if they've published the figures.
The noise of nails being banged into the Ukip coffin is getting louder and louder. Even the Telegraph is sticking the boot in: Suddenly, Nigel Farage is mortal. The magic is gone. The lustre is fading. The days when Ukip stood poised to sweep away the old political order seems – if not quite a distant memory – a loose and incomplete one.
Yeah but Nigel scored a million squid last Friday so he's laughing. The money is for UKIP, but I understand there are ways and means when you're in charge judging by that programme regarding UKIP fundraising, wherein the 'national' fundraising pop up shop in Kent raised money just to fund Nige's campaign to become a MEP.
...so as long as others have them we need them ...
I sincerely hope that you guys are right, because if you're not I might not have enough time to enjoy my 'told you so' moment. ;-)
I bet you 50k that there won't be a nuclear war in the next 100 years... ; )
I'll take that bet.
(On the basis that you can't win it, because neither of us will be around in 100 years; but if there is one, and we both survive it, I'll take the payment in tinned tuna and bottled water!)
2 million apprenticeships have been started since 2010 - the Lib Dems claim this is a 78% increase over the equivalent 5 years under Labour.
Mind you they also say they have built 190,000 affordable houses - the first net increase in social housing supply in over 30 years. (plus 70,000 empty houses put back into occupancy.) Not that they would get any credit on this board!
We need a new house built every 7 minues though Art!
2 million apprenticeships have been started since 2010 - the Lib Dems claim this is a 78% increase over the equivalent 5 years under Labour.
Mind you they also say they have built 190,000 affordable houses - the first net increase in social housing supply in over 30 years. (plus 70,000 empty houses put back into occupancy.) Not that they would get any credit on this board!
We need a new house built every 7 minues though Art!
Just had a very amusing day at school about the election because it is the first time we can vote.
We had the candidates for Beckenham of Tories, Labour, UKIP, Greens and Lib Dems in school and they have just finished an hour long debate.
In summary, the Green candidate lived in cloud cuckoo land, the Labour and Tory candidate bickered with there blinkered views, the UKIP candidate slagged everyone off (including us, the people he's trying to win votes off ... Doesn't that ring a bell) and the Lib Dem tried to lick everyone's arse.
Oh how I laughed.
Talk about making the younger generation disillusioned. Win my vote? A big "Fuck You" on my ballot paper would do nicely!
I said it quite some posts ago, but big mistake for opponents painting him to be some sort of lightweight. The exposure he was always going to get in an election campaign was going to show that people are trying to manipulate us. He is a serious politician, and in all honesty - whether some people like it or not - he is likely to be our next prime minister. I'm not so sure who would not want a fairer society but many clearly don't. All will benefit.
Re Zero Hours contracts and other proposals that target low paid workers:- If you own a business and you cannot afford to pay your staff a competitive living wage, holiday pay etc then you have no right being in business.
I said it quite some posts ago, but big mistake for opponents painting him to be some sort of lightweight. The exposure he was always going to get in an election campaign was going to show that people are trying to manipulate us. He is a serious politician, and in all honesty - whether some people like it or not - he is likely to be our next prime minister. I'm not so sure who would not want a fairer society but many clearly don't. All will benefit.
Are they not neck and neck in the polls? As in Tories and Labour. Still can't imagine him as PM. It would be a global embarrassment.
Thinking about a job offer in Southern California and a chance to move the family over for a bit. If Labour get their hands on the country again it will be going down the shitter. Orange County sunshine here I come, and we are out.
I said it quite some posts ago, but big mistake for opponents painting him to be some sort of lightweight. The exposure he was always going to get in an election campaign was going to show that people are trying to manipulate us. He is a serious politician, and in all honesty - whether some people like it or not - he is likely to be our next prime minister. I'm not so sure who would not want a fairer society but many clearly don't. All will benefit.
Are they not neck and neck in the polls? As in Tories and Labour. Still can't imagine him as PM. It would be a global embarrassment.
Thinking about a job offer in Southern California and a chance to move the family over for a bit. If Labour get their hands on the country again it will be going down the shitter. Orange County sunshine here I come, and we are out.
That's one bastard of a commute to the Valley every other week!
From what I have followed so far I am swayed more toward labour. I was thinking Lib Dems but just gaining a bit more confidence that they have learnt or are at least aware of how important the wider economy is this time. I wasn't alive during previous economic downturns apart from the global crash in 2008, and I don't think you can pin that on Labour. I do hear on a constant basis from my 2 Directors that they will vote to keep Labour out (prob conservative) because of their perception of how bad Labour are with the economy. Conservatives also seem to be better friends to business so that will be a factor
Socialist principles appeal more to me. I'm sure many of you can argue that Labour are no longer that aligned with traditional social causes, but I think modern society has meant that all parties have had to move to the centre ground. I'm sure many of you have the opposite view and I look forward to being shot down, but for me and based on my individual circumstances and also who I think will try and put in place a more equal and fair society, giving back to those who need it the most, I'll prob go with Labour
Re Zero Hours contracts and other proposals that target low paid workers:- If you own a business and you cannot afford to pay your staff a competitive living wage, holiday pay etc then you have no right being in business.
See mate that's not really fair, my business is very seasonal, the reason we can pay such good money for the months where you actually work is that we don't have the overheads when there is no work, this allows them to go into the courier game or other seasonal work they are not obliged to me nor me them, now with all seasonal work alot of it is weather depending or if there's a major event you manage to hook on to, even during that season / period it slowly rises to a peak,
The business within that time is extremely viable and profitable, during the slower times the full time employee of which there are two me and my second in command survive by working each event that we pick up and adding any other we need with self employed Terms
I can't offer them part time or short term contract unless on considerbly less hr rate orvday rate as we don't know demand of the same week let alone weeks ahead and to do so would jeopardise the whole thing,
There is no other solutions for me other than offer them a reduced amount with a guaranteed amount over a period, I can't do the agency bit as it goes over 11 weeks their costs go up if they go self employed
Zero hrs fits with a lot of people especially those that work in many sectors of logistics and delivery to just dismiss it as a non entity isn't right or fair
My guys on zero hrs work
Mid- April until October then have end of October off and work on the courier network from November until Xmas sometimes Jan but from Jan to March they have earned enough to not work so 9 months of zero hrs within their life pays more than enough for 12 months in most others
Re Zero Hours contracts and other proposals that target low paid workers:- If you own a business and you cannot afford to pay your staff a competitive living wage, holiday pay etc then you have no right being in business.
What if your business is a tenant dairy farmer and although your maximum output is effectively fixed, your overheads can vary greatly and the price is set by wholesale buyers such as supermarkets, who continuously make the deal worse for you, for example demanding they will only pay for a milk delivery months after taking that delivery, and if you refuse then they will go somewhere else and you lose a large chunk of income.
Now clearly that is a regulatory problem rather than a business problem but this is by no means the only business/sector that has no control over how much profit it makes and therefore how much they pay their staff.
Re Zero Hours contracts and other proposals that target low paid workers:- If you own a business and you cannot afford to pay your staff a competitive living wage, holiday pay etc then you have no right being in business.
See mate that's not really fair, my business is very seasonal, the reason we can pay such good money for the months where you actually work is that we don't have the overheads when there is no work, this allows them to go into the courier game or other seasonal work they are not obliged to me nor me them, now with all seasonal work alot of it is weather depending or if there's a major event you manage to hook on to, even during that season / period it slowly rises to a peak,
The business within that time is extremely viable and profitable, during the slower times the full time employee of which there are two me and my second in command survive by working each event that we pick up and adding any other we need with self employed Terms
I can't offer them part time or short term contract unless on considerbly less hr rate orvday rate as we don't know demand of the same week let alone weeks ahead and to do so would jeopardise the whole thing,
There is no other solutions for me other than offer them a reduced amount with a guaranteed amount over a period, I can't do the agency bit as it goes over 11 weeks their costs go up if they go self employed
Zero hrs fits with a lot of people especially those that work in many sectors of logistics and delivery to just dismiss it as a non entity isn't right or fair
My guys on zero hrs work
Mid- April until October then have end of October off and work on the courier network from November until Xmas sometimes Jan but from Jan to March they have earned enough to not work so 9 months of zero hrs within their life pays more than enough for 12 months in most others
This is a really good exchange of views from two people who are diametrically opposed. (Again, this is one of the great things about Charlton Life: if two very disparate people meet in "real life", they're hardly likely to hang around long enough to have a proper debate). All credit to everyone who has expressed their views fairly and with restraint.
I am inclined to agree with @Greenie 's view. If you can't afford to employ people, full-time on a living wage, then you don't actually have a business.
I am also able to see NLA's point of view. If your business is seasonal, there can be peaks and troughs in income that are so significant that full-time employment in the "troughs" is next to impossibe.
My view is this. If you run a seasonal business, or a business with wildly unpredictable income levels, you should have the help and encouragement from central government to ensure you can predict income and employ people full time. This might be in the form of tax breaks for small businesses; grants to bring apprentices on board; seasonal adjustment to National Insurance in some instances; in other words, help and assistance from central tax receipts to ensure people can be employed full-time or trained up to increase the pool of skilled labour. With this help - and even more help in other areas - small businesses should be provided with the financial support to bring staff on - at a living wage - on a full-time basis. Small businesses offer the country three hugely significant benefits: (1) profit, which enables the Treasury to earn greater tax receipts; (2) employing staff, and, in so doing, paying National Insurance, enabling employees to pay income tax and removing numbers from JSA and other benefits; and (3) training today's apprentices to become future staff and business leaders. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy and should be encouraged to thrive. However, it is grossly unfair for small businesses to place the risks associated with seasonal or variable income levels onto their staff. They should plan costs across the year, so that full-time, committed, permanent staff enable their businesses to grow.
Re Zero Hours contracts and other proposals that target low paid workers:- If you own a business and you cannot afford to pay your staff a competitive living wage, holiday pay etc then you have no right being in business.
See mate that's not really fair, my business is very seasonal, the reason we can pay such good money for the months where you actually work is that we don't have the overheads when there is no work, this allows them to go into the courier game or other seasonal work they are not obliged to me nor me them, now with all seasonal work alot of it is weather depending or if there's a major event you manage to hook on to, even during that season / period it slowly rises to a peak,
The business within that time is extremely viable and profitable, during the slower times the full time employee of which there are two me and my second in command survive by working each event that we pick up and adding any other we need with self employed Terms
I can't offer them part time or short term contract unless on considerbly less hr rate orvday rate as we don't know demand of the same week let alone weeks ahead and to do so would jeopardise the whole thing,
There is no other solutions for me other than offer them a reduced amount with a guaranteed amount over a period, I can't do the agency bit as it goes over 11 weeks their costs go up if they go self employed
Zero hrs fits with a lot of people especially those that work in many sectors of logistics and delivery to just dismiss it as a non entity isn't right or fair
My guys on zero hrs work
Mid- April until October then have end of October off and work on the courier network from November until Xmas sometimes Jan but from Jan to March they have earned enough to not work so 9 months of zero hrs within their life pays more than enough for 12 months in most others
Hey NLA, it's not a personal dig mate, and I do hope you didn't take it as one. Maybe I should elaborate, if zero hours works and is an option for both parties then where is the harm? However, when I hear people say that if a person is offered a role on zero hours then they must take that job or lose benefits with no provision to plan and make a personal budget, then it is plainly unfair. Also as a general and opposing point to zero hours, what is wrong with contract work ie offering a 3 month contract? At least an employee can make plans because they know for at least 3 months they have a fixed income. I worked as a freelance design studio manager for 2 years on contracts but the difference between full time and contract was that the remuneration was over a third more, this is paid for the inconvenience of not having a permanent role. I did comment that employers should pay a decent living wage, you obviously do that, but there are many more that do not. I hope that clears up my stance on zero hours but dont get me started on the slave labour that masquerades under the title of 'volunteering'!
From what I have followed so far I am swayed more toward labour. I was thinking Lib Dems but just gaining a bit more confidence that they have learnt or are at least aware of how important the wider economy is this time. I wasn't alive during previous economic downturns apart from the global crash in 2008, and I don't think you can pin that on Labour. I do hear on a constant basis from my 2 Directors that they will vote to keep Labour out (prob conservative) because of their perception of how bad Labour are with the economy. Conservatives also seem to be better friends to business so that will be a factor
Socialist principles appeal more to me. I'm sure many of you can argue that Labour are no longer that aligned with traditional social causes, but I think modern society has meant that all parties have had to move to the centre ground. I'm sure many of you have the opposite view and I look forward to being shot down, but for me and based on my individual circumstances and also who I think will try and put in place a more equal and fair society, giving back to those who need it the most, I'll prob go with Labour
I think you've nailed it here. On the right side of British politics, support comes from people who think "what's in it for me?". And the left side of British politics, support comes from people who think "is this fairer for everyone?"
There's nothing wrong with thinking either of these things. One's a selfish view and the other is altruistic. We're all a bit of both. But the right wins the votes of those who think more selfishly; the left wins the votes who look beyond their own personal circumstances.
From what I have followed so far I am swayed more toward labour. I was thinking Lib Dems but just gaining a bit more confidence that they have learnt or are at least aware of how important the wider economy is this time. I wasn't alive during previous economic downturns apart from the global crash in 2008, and I don't think you can pin that on Labour. I do hear on a constant basis from my 2 Directors that they will vote to keep Labour out (prob conservative) because of their perception of how bad Labour are with the economy. Conservatives also seem to be better friends to business so that will be a factor
Socialist principles appeal more to me. I'm sure many of you can argue that Labour are no longer that aligned with traditional social causes, but I think modern society has meant that all parties have had to move to the centre ground. I'm sure many of you have the opposite view and I look forward to being shot down, but for me and based on my individual circumstances and also who I think will try and put in place a more equal and fair society, giving back to those who need it the most, I'll prob go with Labour
I think you've nailed it here. On the right side of British politics, support comes from people who think "what's in it for me?". And the left side of British politics, support comes from people who think "is this fairer for everyone?"
There's nothing wrong with thinking either of these things. One's a selfish view and the other is altruistic. We're all a bit of both. But the right wins the votes of those who think more selfishly; the left wins the votes who look beyond their own personal circumstances.
This isn't even remotely true. The main difference between left and right is the degree of power that the state should have over our day-to-day lives.
The idea that left-wingers are more humanitarian or altruistic and right-wingers are more selfish or ignorant of poverty is emphatically and empirically wrong, both historically and in today's society. Historically, the left supported forced eugenics programs and wanted to abolish private charities as they felt they undermined the state's influence, whereas some of greatest philanthropists were politically conservative.
Nowadays there are studies that indicate that conservative-minded citizens are more charitable than left-wingers. Meanwhile Labour-run councils actively tried to block food banks from being set up in their areas and banned food banks from advertising in job centres. There is also a left-wing activist group who track down NHS whistleblowers in order to intimidate them or vandalise their homes or even the graves of those who reportedly died due to NHS malpractice uncovered by whistleblowers.
The idea that 'lefties are nice, Tories are evil' is a fantasy left-wingers repeat to themselves because they are too ignorant to realise that the parties and policies they support can actually be very nasty and not in the interests of wider society. A famous politician once said something along the lines of that some people on the Left would much rather that all citizens were equally impoverished than allow the gap of wealth distribution to widen even if the poor were also getting richer than they previously were. Sadly that appears to still be true today and we're very close to sleepwalking towards a government that would make both the rich and the poor poorer.
From what I have followed so far I am swayed more toward labour. I was thinking Lib Dems but just gaining a bit more confidence that they have learnt or are at least aware of how important the wider economy is this time. I wasn't alive during previous economic downturns apart from the global crash in 2008, and I don't think you can pin that on Labour. I do hear on a constant basis from my 2 Directors that they will vote to keep Labour out (prob conservative) because of their perception of how bad Labour are with the economy. Conservatives also seem to be better friends to business so that will be a factor
Socialist principles appeal more to me. I'm sure many of you can argue that Labour are no longer that aligned with traditional social causes, but I think modern society has meant that all parties have had to move to the centre ground. I'm sure many of you have the opposite view and I look forward to being shot down, but for me and based on my individual circumstances and also who I think will try and put in place a more equal and fair society, giving back to those who need it the most, I'll prob go with Labour
I think you've nailed it here. On the right side of British politics, support comes from people who think "what's in it for me?". And the left side of British politics, support comes from people who think "is this fairer for everyone?"
There's nothing wrong with thinking either of these things. One's a selfish view and the other is altruistic. We're all a bit of both. But the right wins the votes of those who think more selfishly; the left wins the votes who look beyond their own personal circumstances.
This isn't even remotely true. The main difference between left and right is the degree of power that the state should have over our day-to-day lives.
The idea that left-wingers are more humanitarian or altruistic and right-wingers are more selfish or ignorant of poverty is emphatically and empirically wrong, both historically and in today's society. Historically, the left supported forced eugenics programs and wanted to abolish private charities as they felt they undermined the state's influence, whereas some of greatest philanthropists were politically conservative.
Nowadays there are studies that indicate that conservative-minded citizens are more charitable than left-wingers. Meanwhile Labour-run councils actively tried to block food banks from being set up in their areas and banned food banks from advertising in job centres. There is also a left-wing activist group who track down NHS whistleblowers in order to intimidate them or vandalise their homes or even the graves of those who reportedly died due to NHS malpractice uncovered by whistleblowers.
The idea that 'lefties are nice, Tories are evil' is a fantasy left-wingers repeat to themselves because they are too ignorant to realise that the parties and policies they support can actually be very nasty and not in the interests of wider society. A famous politician once said something along the lines of that some people on the Left would much rather that all citizens were equally impoverished than allow the gap of wealth distribution to widen even if the poor were also getting richer than they previously were. Sadly that appears to still be true today and we're very close to sleepwalking towards a government that would make both the rich and the poor poorer.
Interesting. Although, of course, nothing to do with what I posted. Because I didn't mention left-wing. Or right-wing. Or poverty. Or charity or philanthropy or nice or evil.
However, if I do come across any left-wingers who repeat fantasies to themselves, I'll tell them I know someone who knows about a famous politician who is reported to have said something about something, once.
smiley, winky thing.
My view remains, however. There are two types of people - those who think "what's in it for me?" and those that think "what's in it for us". And I think there's a clear right-left (respectively) distinction between the two.
From what I have followed so far I am swayed more toward labour. I was thinking Lib Dems but just gaining a bit more confidence that they have learnt or are at least aware of how important the wider economy is this time. I wasn't alive during previous economic downturns apart from the global crash in 2008, and I don't think you can pin that on Labour. I do hear on a constant basis from my 2 Directors that they will vote to keep Labour out (prob conservative) because of their perception of how bad Labour are with the economy. Conservatives also seem to be better friends to business so that will be a factor
Socialist principles appeal more to me. I'm sure many of you can argue that Labour are no longer that aligned with traditional social causes, but I think modern society has meant that all parties have had to move to the centre ground. I'm sure many of you have the opposite view and I look forward to being shot down, but for me and based on my individual circumstances and also who I think will try and put in place a more equal and fair society, giving back to those who need it the most, I'll prob go with Labour
I think you've nailed it here. On the right side of British politics, support comes from people who think "what's in it for me?". And the left side of British politics, support comes from people who think "is this fairer for everyone?"
There's nothing wrong with thinking either of these things. One's a selfish view and the other is altruistic. We're all a bit of both. But the right wins the votes of those who think more selfishly; the left wins the votes who look beyond their own personal circumstances.
This isn't even remotely true. The main difference between left and right is the degree of power that the state should have over our day-to-day lives.
The idea that left-wingers are more humanitarian or altruistic and right-wingers are more selfish or ignorant of poverty is emphatically and empirically wrong, both historically and in today's society. Historically, the left supported forced eugenics programs and wanted to abolish private charities as they felt they undermined the state's influence, whereas some of greatest philanthropists were politically conservative.
Nowadays there are studies that indicate that conservative-minded citizens are more charitable than left-wingers. Meanwhile Labour-run councils actively tried to block food banks from being set up in their areas and banned food banks from advertising in job centres. There is also a left-wing activist group who track down NHS whistleblowers in order to intimidate them or vandalise their homes or even the graves of those who reportedly died due to NHS malpractice uncovered by whistleblowers.
The idea that 'lefties are nice, Tories are evil' is a fantasy left-wingers repeat to themselves because they are too ignorant to realise that the parties and policies they support can actually be very nasty and not in the interests of wider society. A famous politician once said something along the lines of that some people on the Left would much rather that all citizens were equally impoverished than allow the gap of wealth distribution to widen even if the poor were also getting richer than they previously were. Sadly that appears to still be true today and we're very close to sleepwalking towards a government that would make both the rich and the poor poorer.
Interesting. Although, of course, nothing to do with what I posted. Because I didn't mention left-wing. Or right-wing. Or poverty. Or charity or philanthropy or nice or evil.
However, if I do come across any left-wingers who repeat fantasies to themselves, I'll tell them I know someone who knows about a famous politician who is reported to have said something about something, once.
smiley, winky thing.
My view remains, however. There are two types of people - those who think "what's in it for me?" and those that think "what's in it for us". And I think there's a clear right-left (respectively) distinction between the two.
It's fair enough if you want to think that, I was merely advising you that what you think runs empirically contrary to reality.
From what I have followed so far I am swayed more toward labour. I was thinking Lib Dems but just gaining a bit more confidence that they have learnt or are at least aware of how important the wider economy is this time. I wasn't alive during previous economic downturns apart from the global crash in 2008, and I don't think you can pin that on Labour. I do hear on a constant basis from my 2 Directors that they will vote to keep Labour out (prob conservative) because of their perception of how bad Labour are with the economy. Conservatives also seem to be better friends to business so that will be a factor
Socialist principles appeal more to me. I'm sure many of you can argue that Labour are no longer that aligned with traditional social causes, but I think modern society has meant that all parties have had to move to the centre ground. I'm sure many of you have the opposite view and I look forward to being shot down, but for me and based on my individual circumstances and also who I think will try and put in place a more equal and fair society, giving back to those who need it the most, I'll prob go with Labour
I think you've nailed it here. On the right side of British politics, support comes from people who think "what's in it for me?". And the left side of British politics, support comes from people who think "is this fairer for everyone?"
There's nothing wrong with thinking either of these things. One's a selfish view and the other is altruistic. We're all a bit of both. But the right wins the votes of those who think more selfishly; the left wins the votes who look beyond their own personal circumstances.
This isn't even remotely true. The main difference between left and right is the degree of power that the state should have over our day-to-day lives.
The idea that left-wingers are more humanitarian or altruistic and right-wingers are more selfish or ignorant of poverty is emphatically and empirically wrong, both historically and in today's society. Historically, the left supported forced eugenics programs and wanted to abolish private charities as they felt they undermined the state's influence, whereas some of greatest philanthropists were politically conservative.
Nowadays there are studies that indicate that conservative-minded citizens are more charitable than left-wingers. Meanwhile Labour-run councils actively tried to block food banks from being set up in their areas and banned food banks from advertising in job centres. There is also a left-wing activist group who track down NHS whistleblowers in order to intimidate them or vandalise their homes or even the graves of those who reportedly died due to NHS malpractice uncovered by whistleblowers.
The idea that 'lefties are nice, Tories are evil' is a fantasy left-wingers repeat to themselves because they are too ignorant to realise that the parties and policies they support can actually be very nasty and not in the interests of wider society. A famous politician once said something along the lines of that some people on the Left would much rather that all citizens were equally impoverished than allow the gap of wealth distribution to widen even if the poor were also getting richer than they previously were. Sadly that appears to still be true today and we're very close to sleepwalking towards a government that would make both the rich and the poor poorer.
Interesting. Although, of course, nothing to do with what I posted. Because I didn't mention left-wing. Or right-wing. Or poverty. Or charity or philanthropy or nice or evil.
However, if I do come across any left-wingers who repeat fantasies to themselves, I'll tell them I know someone who knows about a famous politician who is reported to have said something about something, once.
smiley, winky thing.
My view remains, however. There are two types of people - those who think "what's in it for me?" and those that think "what's in it for us". And I think there's a clear right-left (respectively) distinction between the two.
It's fair enough if you want to think that, I was merely advising you that what you think runs empirically contrary to reality.
Likewise, although you are mistaken, you are totally free to hold that view. I will certainly hold my view, unless and until you can demonstrate the empirical evidence you're claiming. And I certainly have enough ammo to argue my view, which isn't going to shift.
Before I finish on this - because I don't want to bore anyone else any more - let me repeat what I posted earlier: there's nothing wrong with a degree of altruism or with a bit of selfishness. Someone with a conservative outlook who wants to improve her own prospects by increasing his opportunities to create wealth - it's selfish and it's based on right-leaning politics. Someone more interested in the broader society will often think beyond his and ensuring other people are well looked-after and given opportunities has a more altruistic viewpoint and that finds a closer correlation in left-of-centre politics. The vast majority of people fall somewhere between the two. So it's not right to say "right-wingers are selfish" or "left-wingers don't care enough about themselves". Instead, the vast majority of people fall somewhere in between; and, sometimes (most of the time?) it's the place they are on the scale which informs their political persuasion.
Comments
It's a bit of a vicious circle really ain't it
Mind you they also say they have built 190,000 affordable houses - the first net increase in social housing supply in over 30 years. (plus 70,000 empty houses put back into occupancy.) Not that they would get any credit on this board!
; )
Increasing apprenticeships is welcome, as long as they are good quality ones that actually provide transferable skills and qualifications, rather than using them as an excuse to get away with paying the apprentice minimum wage (less than half the usualhourly rate) for basic training they'd be giving staff anyway. I'd be interested to know what proportion of the new apprenticeships are intermediate, higher or advanced level. Might have to have a root around on the GOV website to see if they've published the figures.
Suddenly, Nigel Farage is mortal. The magic is gone. The lustre is fading. The days when Ukip stood poised to sweep away the old political order seems – if not quite a distant memory – a loose and incomplete one.
Telegraph article: Nigel Farage is fading away without a fight
(On the basis that you can't win it, because neither of us will be around in 100 years; but if there is one, and we both survive it, I'll take the payment in tinned tuna and bottled water!)
We had the candidates for Beckenham of Tories, Labour, UKIP, Greens and Lib Dems in school and they have just finished an hour long debate.
In summary, the Green candidate lived in cloud cuckoo land, the Labour and Tory candidate bickered with there blinkered views, the UKIP candidate slagged everyone off (including us, the people he's trying to win votes off ... Doesn't that ring a bell) and the Lib Dem tried to lick everyone's arse.
Oh how I laughed.
Talk about making the younger generation disillusioned. Win my vote? A big "Fuck You" on my ballot paper would do nicely!
P.s my favourite moment was this
Q: what will you do about Tax Avoidance.
Green Party Candidate: Implement laws ...
Lovely. Nice to know ...
That Evan fella does my head in though.
If you own a business and you cannot afford to pay your staff a competitive living wage, holiday pay etc then you have no right being in business.
Still can't imagine him as PM. It would be a global embarrassment.
Thinking about a job offer in Southern California and a chance to move the family over for a bit. If Labour get their hands on the country again it will be going down the shitter. Orange County sunshine here I come, and we are out.
Socialist principles appeal more to me. I'm sure many of you can argue that Labour are no longer that aligned with traditional social causes, but I think modern society has meant that all parties have had to move to the centre ground. I'm sure many of you have the opposite view and I look forward to being shot down, but for me and based on my individual circumstances and also who I think will try and put in place a more equal and fair society, giving back to those who need it the most, I'll prob go with Labour
See mate that's not really fair, my business is very seasonal, the reason we can pay such good money for the months where you actually work is that we don't have the overheads when there is no work, this allows them to go into the courier game or other seasonal work they are not obliged to me nor me them, now with all seasonal work alot of it is weather depending or if there's a major event you manage to hook on to, even during that season / period it slowly rises to a peak,
The business within that time is extremely viable and profitable, during the slower times the full time employee of which there are two me and my second in command survive by working each event that we pick up and adding any other we need with self employed Terms
I can't offer them part time or short term contract unless on considerbly less hr rate orvday rate as we don't know demand of the same week let alone weeks ahead and to do so would jeopardise the whole thing,
There is no other solutions for me other than offer them a reduced amount with a guaranteed amount over a period, I can't do the agency bit as it goes over 11 weeks their costs go up if they go self employed
Zero hrs fits with a lot of people especially those that work in many sectors of logistics and delivery to just dismiss it as a non entity isn't right or fair
My guys on zero hrs work
Mid- April until October then have end of October off and work on the courier network from November until Xmas sometimes Jan but from Jan to March they have earned enough to not work so 9 months of zero hrs within their life pays more than enough for 12 months in most others
Now clearly that is a regulatory problem rather than a business problem but this is by no means the only business/sector that has no control over how much profit it makes and therefore how much they pay their staff.
I am inclined to agree with @Greenie 's view. If you can't afford to employ people, full-time on a living wage, then you don't actually have a business.
I am also able to see NLA's point of view. If your business is seasonal, there can be peaks and troughs in income that are so significant that full-time employment in the "troughs" is next to impossibe.
My view is this. If you run a seasonal business, or a business with wildly unpredictable income levels, you should have the help and encouragement from central government to ensure you can predict income and employ people full time. This might be in the form of tax breaks for small businesses; grants to bring apprentices on board; seasonal adjustment to National Insurance in some instances; in other words, help and assistance from central tax receipts to ensure people can be employed full-time or trained up to increase the pool of skilled labour. With this help - and even more help in other areas - small businesses should be provided with the financial support to bring staff on - at a living wage - on a full-time basis. Small businesses offer the country three hugely significant benefits: (1) profit, which enables the Treasury to earn greater tax receipts; (2) employing staff, and, in so doing, paying National Insurance, enabling employees to pay income tax and removing numbers from JSA and other benefits; and (3) training today's apprentices to become future staff and business leaders. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy and should be encouraged to thrive. However, it is grossly unfair for small businesses to place the risks associated with seasonal or variable income levels onto their staff. They should plan costs across the year, so that full-time, committed, permanent staff enable their businesses to grow.
Maybe I should elaborate, if zero hours works and is an option for both parties then where is the harm? However, when I hear people say that if a person is offered a role on zero hours then they must take that job or lose benefits with no provision to plan and make a personal budget, then it is plainly unfair.
Also as a general and opposing point to zero hours, what is wrong with contract work ie offering a 3 month contract? At least an employee can make plans because they know for at least 3 months they have a fixed income.
I worked as a freelance design studio manager for 2 years on contracts but the difference between full time and contract was that the remuneration was over a third more, this is paid for the inconvenience of not having a permanent role.
I did comment that employers should pay a decent living wage, you obviously do that, but there are many more that do not.
I hope that clears up my stance on zero hours but dont get me started on the slave labour that masquerades under the title of 'volunteering'!
There's nothing wrong with thinking either of these things. One's a selfish view and the other is altruistic. We're all a bit of both. But the right wins the votes of those who think more selfishly; the left wins the votes who look beyond their own personal circumstances.
The idea that left-wingers are more humanitarian or altruistic and right-wingers are more selfish or ignorant of poverty is emphatically and empirically wrong, both historically and in today's society. Historically, the left supported forced eugenics programs and wanted to abolish private charities as they felt they undermined the state's influence, whereas some of greatest philanthropists were politically conservative.
Nowadays there are studies that indicate that conservative-minded citizens are more charitable than left-wingers. Meanwhile Labour-run councils actively tried to block food banks from being set up in their areas and banned food banks from advertising in job centres. There is also a left-wing activist group who track down NHS whistleblowers in order to intimidate them or vandalise their homes or even the graves of those who reportedly died due to NHS malpractice uncovered by whistleblowers.
The idea that 'lefties are nice, Tories are evil' is a fantasy left-wingers repeat to themselves because they are too ignorant to realise that the parties and policies they support can actually be very nasty and not in the interests of wider society. A famous politician once said something along the lines of that some people on the Left would much rather that all citizens were equally impoverished than allow the gap of wealth distribution to widen even if the poor were also getting richer than they previously were. Sadly that appears to still be true today and we're very close to sleepwalking towards a government that would make both the rich and the poor poorer.
However, if I do come across any left-wingers who repeat fantasies to themselves, I'll tell them I know someone who knows about a famous politician who is reported to have said something about something, once.
smiley, winky thing.
My view remains, however. There are two types of people - those who think "what's in it for me?" and those that think "what's in it for us". And I think there's a clear right-left (respectively) distinction between the two.
Before I finish on this - because I don't want to bore anyone else any more - let me repeat what I posted earlier: there's nothing wrong with a degree of altruism or with a bit of selfishness. Someone with a conservative outlook who wants to improve her own prospects by increasing his opportunities to create wealth - it's selfish and it's based on right-leaning politics. Someone more interested in the broader society will often think beyond his and ensuring other people are well looked-after and given opportunities has a more altruistic viewpoint and that finds a closer correlation in left-of-centre politics. The vast majority of people fall somewhere between the two. So it's not right to say "right-wingers are selfish" or "left-wingers don't care enough about themselves". Instead, the vast majority of people fall somewhere in between; and, sometimes (most of the time?) it's the place they are on the scale which informs their political persuasion.
I love this clip. Every lefty in England should be shown it on repeat.
"I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that I have the same contempt for his socialist policies as the people of east Europe" LOL