Can you be in a Union at your place of work @cabbles . Unless more laws have changed than I imagined, it is possible to 'get organised' in the private sector isn't it?
Yes it is. Anybody can lawfully be a member of a trades union and it is unlawful to cause detriment to an individual because of their union membership.
Moreover a union must be recognised by an employer for collective bargaining purposes if 50% or more of the employees are members of that union - or by voluntary agreement by the employer.
If less than 50% are members and no voluntary agreement is reached the Central Arbitration Committee can determine if there is sufficient membership levels to force a ballot of all employees in regards to union recognition.
Why are people always union bashing, i know there are some unions that are too leftist but primarily they do a good job for its workers. I would rather be in than out. Show me a non unionist worker who has refused a pay rise won by their fellow union workers. The workers rights that you enjoy now weren't happily given over to you.
I can tell you precisely in my case. My union, in a strangely but typical capitalist manoeuvre, got taken over by the T&GWU which renamed itself Unite. They were after one thing and one thing only: our subs. As soon as the "merger" went through, union representation and help nose-dived. They really, really did not give a shit and the obvious view they held was that their newly acquired members all earned too much money anyway. The reps were always appointed by some "local branch" that had nothing at all to do with the people they purported to represent. Unless it was to urge us to vote Labour, of course.
The only reason I stayed as a member was because I saw the ready access to legal advice as the single perk worth having.
As soon as I got my future sorted out I resigned. Not that the union took any notice of that! They still kept sending me voting papers long after I ceased having anything to do with them. In the end I gave up trying to explain this to them and just carried on voting for anyone who wasn't Len McClusky. Just google him if you want to find out why. It is difficult to believe that any Unite elections have taken place with only its actual members being allowed to vote. Make of that what you will.
But it comes to something when even the Guardian bother reporting that Corbyn's power-broker has a nice equity-sharing relationship on his London apartment. So, why does a Union boss, pulling in a tidy six-figure sum, need his Union to put up £417,000 to fund his personal dwelling? Couldn't those subs be better spent elsewhere?
It might be unlawful to cause detriment to an individual but it means little. Nearly impossible to prove and punishments are hardly punitive.
Remember the construction blacklist scandal from a few years ago? Ian Kerr, who set up a firm to blacklist construction workers based on union activity and raising Heath and safety concerns, was only fined £5000 by the ICO. None of the 44 companies that used his service were prosecuted. They did reach an out of court settlement to avoid a privately brought court trial though. There have been no prosecutions despite disclosure showing criminal activity and evidence being destroyed. In fact, the case was referred back to the ICO who were shown to be complicit with companies in trying to hide the scandal in the first place. The IPCC also admitted that police forces colluded with the blacklist to provide names, despite being bound by law to remain neutral in such matters. How can you trust the people charged with enforcing the law when they are the very ones breaking it?
Personally, I remember at one place I worked one guy going round dropping off leaflets advocation union membership followed five minutes later by a manger picking them up. He was forever labelled a troublemaker and spoken of in meetings behind closed doors. None of provable but definitely happening.
Can you be in a Union at your place of work @cabbles . Unless more laws have changed than I imagined, it is possible to 'get organised' in the private sector isn't it?
Yes it is. Anybody can lawfully be a member of a trades union and it is unlawful to cause detriment to an individual because of their union membership.
Moreover a union must be recognised by an employer for collective bargaining purposes if 50% or more of the employees are members of that union - or by voluntary agreement by the employer.
If less than 50% are members and no voluntary agreement is reached the Central Arbitration Committee can determine if there is sufficient membership levels to force a ballot of all employees in regards to union recognition.
Main thing the above chart shows is that a "true" labour PM (Brown) will borrow & spend like its going out of fashion. The Torys have tried to reduce the borrowing but there will never be an answer the problem that is the NHS until an all party committee sort it out.
LMAO - If you genuinely reached that sole conclusion from the graph i am in shock
The graph shows a similar approach taken by all governments , a Labour government being the only one to produce a surplus for one or more years and a huge worldwide crash in 2008/9
It might be unlawful to cause detriment to an individual but it means little. Nearly impossible to prove and punishments are hardly punitive.
Remember the construction blacklist scandal from a few years ago? Ian Kerr, who set up a firm to blacklist construction workers based on union activity and raising Heath and safety concerns, was only fined £5000 by the ICO. None of the 44 companies that used his service were prosecuted. They did reach an out of court settlement to avoid a privately brought court trial though. There have been no prosecutions despite disclosure showing criminal activity and evidence being destroyed. In fact, the case was referred back to the ICO who were shown to be complicit with companies in trying to hide the scandal in the first place. The IPCC also admitted that police forces colluded with the blacklist to provide names, despite being bound by law to remain neutral in such matters. How can you trust the people charged with enforcing the law when they are the very ones breaking it?
Personally, I remember at one place I worked one guy going round dropping off leaflets advocation union membership followed five minutes later by a manger picking them up. He was forever labelled a troublemaker and spoken of in meetings behind closed doors. None of provable but definitely happening.
When these self serving opportunistic Tories win their predicted landslide on the back of a supine electorate validated by the right wing media, workers going on strike might be our only protection from the gleeful attacks by the Conservative government.
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed. So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed. So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
When these self serving opportunistic Tories win their predicted landslide on the back of a supine electorate validated by the right wing media, workers going on strike might be our only protection from the gleeful attacks by the Conservative government.
If only we lived in a democratic nation where the leader of the opposition had the opportunity to hold the prime minister to account every week...
When these self serving opportunistic Tories win their predicted landslide on the back of a supine electorate validated by the right wing media, workers going on strike might be our only protection from the gleeful attacks by the Conservative government.
If only we lived in a democratic nation where the leader of the opposition had the opportunity to hold the prime minister to account every week...
That would be a very good point, if the PM actually ever answered a question...
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed. So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
When these self serving opportunistic Tories win their predicted landslide on the back of a supine electorate validated by the right wing media, workers going on strike might be our only protection from the gleeful attacks by the Conservative government.
If only we lived in a democratic nation where the leader of the opposition had the opportunity to hold the prime minister to account every week...
That would be a very good point, if the PM actually ever answered a question...
It was diabolical today, and that is from a pretty low base.
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed. So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
This is great - I'm going to nick it!
yup, if you don't vote labour you are an awful, sub human, nasty human being, that will get the working class idiots who vote Tory or ukip to vote for us!
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed. So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
This is great - I'm going to nick it!
yup, if you don't vote labour you are an awful, sub human, nasty human being, that will get the working class idiots who vote Tory or ukip to vote for us!
Yes, please top up my champagne please, dear.
That is really nothing like what was written at all.
With fewer and fewer cogent defences of one's position available, witness the inevitable switchback to that old, trusty failsafe: discredit the opponent
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed. So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
I think this is all pretty basic stuff is it not? It explains the way many people choose to vote.
I had two clear choices back in my youth. Do the regular thing and have a family. Or not. My choice was the latter, primarily because I didn't then get on very well with the idea of owning cars with four doors.
As a consequence I am now relatively well off. I would not have been so if I'd have chosen differently. But why should I now subsidise others' life choices to a degree greater than I do already? It's different when individuals fall on hard times but I don't see, for example, why everybody with a kid should get child benefit. Over £11bn per year. Then there's child tax credits if you've got three or more of the little sods. Why are we rewarding people for bringing more into the world - it's not as if there's a shortage.
So, your friend seems very altruistic. I'm afraid I am not. Some seem to strive to be nothing other than a have-not and that's were they start and that's where they end, no matter how much of other people's money is thrown at them.
BTW there is one clear truism to those in poverty. They are more likely to have children. This is no surprise, since you can run a Bentley on what it takes to bring up a child. (Perhaps a statistic that should be made readily available to prospective parents). It will also not be a surprise to know that it is single parent families that make up the largest portion of the poor and a higher percentage of those are women rather than men.
But what may be more of a surprise, is that while single parent families made up more than 30% of the "persistently poor" in 2008, under the uncaring Conservatives, that figure has reduced by half to 15.1% as at the latest figures. It goes with another figure which shows that the number of those categorised as "persistently poor" generally has also been falling. 9.2% women and 7.7% men of the general population in 2008, has gone down to 7.2% and 5.7% respectively in th elatest figures. So, do those figures, do you think, help to make a decision on voting to "help the many rather than the few"? Or would it be better to vote for a party that will inevitably ensure that the Govt. takes a bigger slice of GDP and leaves less of everything, including productive jobs for almost everyone. I'd argue that the choice was not as clear-cut as many would have you believe.
When these self serving opportunistic Tories win their predicted landslide on the back of a supine electorate validated by the right wing media, workers going on strike might be our only protection from the gleeful attacks by the Conservative government.
If only we lived in a democratic nation where the leader of the opposition had the opportunity to hold the prime minister to account every week...
That would be a very good point, if the PM actually ever answered a question...
More like if any politician actually ever answered a question!
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed. So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
I think this is all pretty basic stuff is it not? It explains the way many people choose to vote.
I had two clear choices back in my youth. Do the regular thing and have a family. Or not. My choice was the latter, primarily because I didn't then get on very well with the idea of owning cars with four doors.
As a consequence I am now relatively well off. I would not have been so if I'd have chosen differently. But why should I now subsidise others' life choices to a degree greater than I do already? It's different when individuals fall on hard times but I don't see, for example, why everybody with a kid should get child benefit. Over £11bn per year. Then there's child tax credits if you've got three or more of the little sods. Why are we rewarding people for bringing more into the world - it's not as if there's a shortage.
So, your friend seems very altruistic. I'm afraid I am not. Some seem to strive to be nothing other than a have-not and that's were they start and that's where they end, no matter how much of other people's money is thrown at them.
BTW there is one clear truism to those in poverty. They are more likely to have children. This is no surprise, since you can run a Bentley on what it takes to bring up a child. (Perhaps a statistic that should be made readily available to prospective parents). It will also not be a surprise to know that it is single parent families that make up the largest portion of the poor and a higher percentage of those are women rather than men.
But what may be more of a surprise, is that while single parent families made up more than 30% of the "persistently poor" in 2008, under the uncaring Conservatives, that figure has reduced by half to 15.1% as at the latest figures. It goes with another figure which shows that the number of those categorised as "persistently poor" generally has also been falling. 9.2% women and 7.7% men of the general population in 2008, has gone down to 7.2% and 5.7% respectively in th elatest figures. So, do those figures, do you think, help to make a decision on voting to "help the many rather than the few"? Or would it be better to vote for a party that will inevitably ensure that the Govt. takes a bigger slice of GDP and leaves less of everything, including productive jobs for almost everyone. I'd argue that the choice was not as clear-cut as many would have you believe.
Of course, when you are old and a drain on society, your medical care etc... will be paid for by the taxes of other people's children.
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed. So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
I think this is all pretty basic stuff is it not? It explains the way many people choose to vote.
I had two clear choices back in my youth. Do the regular thing and have a family. Or not. My choice was the latter, primarily because I didn't then get on very well with the idea of owning cars with four doors.
As a consequence I am now relatively well off. I would not have been so if I'd have chosen differently. But why should I now subsidise others' life choices to a degree greater than I do already? It's different when individuals fall on hard times but I don't see, for example, why everybody with a kid should get child benefit. Over £11bn per year. Then there's child tax credits if you've got three or more of the little sods. Why are we rewarding people for bringing more into the world - it's not as if there's a shortage.
So, your friend seems very altruistic. I'm afraid I am not. Some seem to strive to be nothing other than a have-not and that's were they start and that's where they end, no matter how much of other people's money is thrown at them.
BTW there is one clear truism to those in poverty. They are more likely to have children. This is no surprise, since you can run a Bentley on what it takes to bring up a child. (Perhaps a statistic that should be made readily available to prospective parents). It will also not be a surprise to know that it is single parent families that make up the largest portion of the poor and a higher percentage of those are women rather than men.
But what may be more of a surprise, is that while single parent families made up more than 30% of the "persistently poor" in 2008, under the uncaring Conservatives, that figure has reduced by half to 15.1% as at the latest figures. It goes with another figure which shows that the number of those categorised as "persistently poor" generally has also been falling. 9.2% women and 7.7% men of the general population in 2008, has gone down to 7.2% and 5.7% respectively in th elatest figures. So, do those figures, do you think, help to make a decision on voting to "help the many rather than the few"? Or would it be better to vote for a party that will inevitably ensure that the Govt. takes a bigger slice of GDP and leaves less of everything, including productive jobs for almost everyone. I'd argue that the choice was not as clear-cut as many would have you believe.
I disagree, you only have money, and that makes you poor.
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed. So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
I think this is all pretty basic stuff is it not? It explains the way many people choose to vote.
I had two clear choices back in my youth. Do the regular thing and have a family. Or not. My choice was the latter, primarily because I didn't then get on very well with the idea of owning cars with four doors.
As a consequence I am now relatively well off. I would not have been so if I'd have chosen differently. But why should I now subsidise others' life choices to a degree greater than I do already? It's different when individuals fall on hard times but I don't see, for example, why everybody with a kid should get child benefit. Over £11bn per year. Then there's child tax credits if you've got three or more of the little sods. Why are we rewarding people for bringing more into the world - it's not as if there's a shortage.
So, your friend seems very altruistic. I'm afraid I am not. Some seem to strive to be nothing other than a have-not and that's were they start and that's where they end, no matter how much of other people's money is thrown at them.
BTW there is one clear truism to those in poverty. They are more likely to have children. This is no surprise, since you can run a Bentley on what it takes to bring up a child. (Perhaps a statistic that should be made readily available to prospective parents). It will also not be a surprise to know that it is single parent families that make up the largest portion of the poor and a higher percentage of those are women rather than men.
But what may be more of a surprise, is that while single parent families made up more than 30% of the "persistently poor" in 2008, under the uncaring Conservatives, that figure has reduced by half to 15.1% as at the latest figures. It goes with another figure which shows that the number of those categorised as "persistently poor" generally has also been falling. 9.2% women and 7.7% men of the general population in 2008, has gone down to 7.2% and 5.7% respectively in th elatest figures. So, do those figures, do you think, help to make a decision on voting to "help the many rather than the few"? Or would it be better to vote for a party that will inevitably ensure that the Govt. takes a bigger slice of GDP and leaves less of everything, including productive jobs for almost everyone. I'd argue that the choice was not as clear-cut as many would have you believe.
Of course, when you are old and a drain on society, your medical care etc... will be paid for by the taxes of other people's children.
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed. So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
I think this is all pretty basic stuff is it not? It explains the way many people choose to vote.
I had two clear choices back in my youth. Do the regular thing and have a family. Or not. My choice was the latter, primarily because I didn't then get on very well with the idea of owning cars with four doors.
As a consequence I am now relatively well off. I would not have been so if I'd have chosen differently. But why should I now subsidise others' life choices to a degree greater than I do already? It's different when individuals fall on hard times but I don't see, for example, why everybody with a kid should get child benefit. Over £11bn per year. Then there's child tax credits if you've got three or more of the little sods. Why are we rewarding people for bringing more into the world - it's not as if there's a shortage.
So, your friend seems very altruistic. I'm afraid I am not. Some seem to strive to be nothing other than a have-not and that's were they start and that's where they end, no matter how much of other people's money is thrown at them.
BTW there is one clear truism to those in poverty. They are more likely to have children. This is no surprise, since you can run a Bentley on what it takes to bring up a child. (Perhaps a statistic that should be made readily available to prospective parents). It will also not be a surprise to know that it is single parent families that make up the largest portion of the poor and a higher percentage of those are women rather than men.
But what may be more of a surprise, is that while single parent families made up more than 30% of the "persistently poor" in 2008, under the uncaring Conservatives, that figure has reduced by half to 15.1% as at the latest figures. It goes with another figure which shows that the number of those categorised as "persistently poor" generally has also been falling. 9.2% women and 7.7% men of the general population in 2008, has gone down to 7.2% and 5.7% respectively in th elatest figures. So, do those figures, do you think, help to make a decision on voting to "help the many rather than the few"? Or would it be better to vote for a party that will inevitably ensure that the Govt. takes a bigger slice of GDP and leaves less of everything, including productive jobs for almost everyone. I'd argue that the choice was not as clear-cut as many would have you believe.
I disagree, you only have money, and that makes you poor.
You have no idea what I have or how content I am with my life. So enough already with the trite unfounded remarks.
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed. So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
I think this is all pretty basic stuff is it not? It explains the way many people choose to vote.
I had two clear choices back in my youth. Do the regular thing and have a family. Or not. My choice was the latter, primarily because I didn't then get on very well with the idea of owning cars with four doors.
As a consequence I am now relatively well off. I would not have been so if I'd have chosen differently. But why should I now subsidise others' life choices to a degree greater than I do already? It's different when individuals fall on hard times but I don't see, for example, why everybody with a kid should get child benefit. Over £11bn per year. Then there's child tax credits if you've got three or more of the little sods. Why are we rewarding people for bringing more into the world - it's not as if there's a shortage.
So, your friend seems very altruistic. I'm afraid I am not. Some seem to strive to be nothing other than a have-not and that's were they start and that's where they end, no matter how much of other people's money is thrown at them.
BTW there is one clear truism to those in poverty. They are more likely to have children. This is no surprise, since you can run a Bentley on what it takes to bring up a child. (Perhaps a statistic that should be made readily available to prospective parents). It will also not be a surprise to know that it is single parent families that make up the largest portion of the poor and a higher percentage of those are women rather than men.
But what may be more of a surprise, is that while single parent families made up more than 30% of the "persistently poor" in 2008, under the uncaring Conservatives, that figure has reduced by half to 15.1% as at the latest figures. It goes with another figure which shows that the number of those categorised as "persistently poor" generally has also been falling. 9.2% women and 7.7% men of the general population in 2008, has gone down to 7.2% and 5.7% respectively in th elatest figures. So, do those figures, do you think, help to make a decision on voting to "help the many rather than the few"? Or would it be better to vote for a party that will inevitably ensure that the Govt. takes a bigger slice of GDP and leaves less of everything, including productive jobs for almost everyone. I'd argue that the choice was not as clear-cut as many would have you believe.
I disagree, you only have money, and that makes you poor.
You have no idea what I have or how content I am with my life. So enough already with the trite unfounded remarks.
Really!, then dont post your bloody opinion on a message forum then, FWIW there was time when I didn't have kids, material possessions meant a great deal to me, but when you have kids and if you have an ounce of emotional intelligence, then the arrival of those kids make you realise how important material things are, they automatically put all your ducks in a row.
FWIW I totally agree with your point about child benefit, and you can add to that Maternity leave and Paternity leave, why the hell should the company people work for and the government pay for people to have kids. Its bloody ridiculous.
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed. So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
I think this is all pretty basic stuff is it not? It explains the way many people choose to vote.
I had two clear choices back in my youth. Do the regular thing and have a family. Or not. My choice was the latter, primarily because I didn't then get on very well with the idea of owning cars with four doors.
As a consequence I am now relatively well off. I would not have been so if I'd have chosen differently. But why should I now subsidise others' life choices to a degree greater than I do already? It's different when individuals fall on hard times but I don't see, for example, why everybody with a kid should get child benefit. Over £11bn per year. Then there's child tax credits if you've got three or more of the little sods. Why are we rewarding people for bringing more into the world - it's not as if there's a shortage.
So, your friend seems very altruistic. I'm afraid I am not. Some seem to strive to be nothing other than a have-not and that's were they start and that's where they end, no matter how much of other people's money is thrown at them.
BTW there is one clear truism to those in poverty. They are more likely to have children. This is no surprise, since you can run a Bentley on what it takes to bring up a child. (Perhaps a statistic that should be made readily available to prospective parents). It will also not be a surprise to know that it is single parent families that make up the largest portion of the poor and a higher percentage of those are women rather than men.
But what may be more of a surprise, is that while single parent families made up more than 30% of the "persistently poor" in 2008, under the uncaring Conservatives, that figure has reduced by half to 15.1% as at the latest figures. It goes with another figure which shows that the number of those categorised as "persistently poor" generally has also been falling. 9.2% women and 7.7% men of the general population in 2008, has gone down to 7.2% and 5.7% respectively in th elatest figures. So, do those figures, do you think, help to make a decision on voting to "help the many rather than the few"? Or would it be better to vote for a party that will inevitably ensure that the Govt. takes a bigger slice of GDP and leaves less of everything, including productive jobs for almost everyone. I'd argue that the choice was not as clear-cut as many would have you believe.
Of course, when you are old and a drain on society, your medical care etc... will be paid for by the taxes of other people's children.
All of these ideas Labour have been throwing around.... Loads of new bank holidays, pay rises for the NHS, pay caps removed elsewhere over the public sector, less legislation on unions.
Have they actually ever said how they plan to fund this and backfill the hole in the economy it will create?
OK I will have a go. From top of head.
Bank Holidays - there is evidence that this provides a boost to the economy through increased spending by the public, also evidence that this improves health and productivity (and we have one of the lowest productivity rates & longest working hour cultures of industrialised nations). Also, perhaps naive, but isn't this a case of just not making as much on those days rather than having to fund it and wouldn't all those things that would be made and bought just be made and bought on another day?
NHS - Our current agency costs are prohibitive and run into the billions, so could be called efficiency savings. The NHS is in a crisis of recruitment that will only get worse when we leave the EU, it will cost us billions to use agency staff and meet minimum safety standards.
Unions- Isn't this about, freedom, taking back control and rights at work? Do we have to attach a cost to everything?
Also Corporation tax rise has been mentioned and a reverse of tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest.
The problem is much of the British electorate can't undertsand the difference between household budget management and national budget management. So - and it is just a little example - if you put moremoney in people's pockets for instance, you actually can generate more money than by taking money away from them. If you put more money in a rich person's pockets they will spend on foreign holidays and cars, poorer people are more likely to by food and spend in this country.
It is logical for me not to spend what I don't have apart from some exceptions - like a mortgage for instance. But it is not always logical for a country to do so. With low interest rates, spending and borrowing can actually mean the deficit is cut if it stimulates teh economy and revenues.
If I had a pound for every time I had heard the National economy is like a household economy line I would have enough for a Keynesian multiplier based economic solution.
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed. So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
I think this is all pretty basic stuff is it not? It explains the way many people choose to vote.
I had two clear choices back in my youth. Do the regular thing and have a family. Or not. My choice was the latter, primarily because I didn't then get on very well with the idea of owning cars with four doors.
As a consequence I am now relatively well off. I would not have been so if I'd have chosen differently. But why should I now subsidise others' life choices to a degree greater than I do already? It's different when individuals fall on hard times but I don't see, for example, why everybody with a kid should get child benefit. Over £11bn per year. Then there's child tax credits if you've got three or more of the little sods. Why are we rewarding people for bringing more into the world - it's not as if there's a shortage.
So, your friend seems very altruistic. I'm afraid I am not. Some seem to strive to be nothing other than a have-not and that's were they start and that's where they end, no matter how much of other people's money is thrown at them.
BTW there is one clear truism to those in poverty. They are more likely to have children. This is no surprise, since you can run a Bentley on what it takes to bring up a child. (Perhaps a statistic that should be made readily available to prospective parents). It will also not be a surprise to know that it is single parent families that make up the largest portion of the poor and a higher percentage of those are women rather than men.
But what may be more of a surprise, is that while single parent families made up more than 30% of the "persistently poor" in 2008, under the uncaring Conservatives, that figure has reduced by half to 15.1% as at the latest figures. It goes with another figure which shows that the number of those categorised as "persistently poor" generally has also been falling. 9.2% women and 7.7% men of the general population in 2008, has gone down to 7.2% and 5.7% respectively in th elatest figures. So, do those figures, do you think, help to make a decision on voting to "help the many rather than the few"? Or would it be better to vote for a party that will inevitably ensure that the Govt. takes a bigger slice of GDP and leaves less of everything, including productive jobs for almost everyone. I'd argue that the choice was not as clear-cut as many would have you believe.
Of course, when you are old and a drain on society, your medical care etc... will be paid for by the taxes of other people's children.
No they won't.
Tell us how you KNOW this?
I have full fat medical insurance and belong (pay into) to a charitable fund which coughs up if I were to need additional help.
It goes with another figure which shows that the number of those categorised as "persistently poor" generally has also been falling. 9.2% women and 7.7% men of the general population in 2008, has gone down to 7.2% and 5.7% respectively in th elatest figures.
It would probably help if you had linked to the ONS report you are referring to, which would show that you misunderstand the detail on single parent families.
The ONS report states clearly at the bottom of section 2 that "it is important to understand that the at-risk-of-poverty rate is a relative indicator, measuring income compared with other people, so does not in itself necessarily imply a low standard of living". Poverty and persistent poverty are defined as having disposable income of less than 60% of the median disposable income, nothing more.
The median disposable income has grown by 3.85% for 2008 to March 2016 whereas the price index has grown by 20% between March 2008 and March 2016. That means that if someone was just below the poverty line in 2008 and had their household income rise in line with inflation (ie they can buy exactly what they could buy in 2008 and so their living standards are kept constant), that person would now be considerably above the 'poverty line' despite no improvement in living standards.
Numbers can be deceiving. While the figures may make it appear that people are moving out of poverty, living standards are getting worse for those around and below the poverty line.
Comments
Moreover a union must be recognised by an employer for collective bargaining purposes if 50% or more of the employees are members of that union - or by voluntary agreement by the employer.
If less than 50% are members and no voluntary agreement is reached the Central Arbitration Committee can determine if there is sufficient membership levels to force a ballot of all employees in regards to union recognition.
The only reason I stayed as a member was because I saw the ready access to legal advice as the single perk worth having.
As soon as I got my future sorted out I resigned. Not that the union took any notice of that! They still kept sending me voting papers long after I ceased having anything to do with them. In the end I gave up trying to explain this to them and just carried on voting for anyone who wasn't Len McClusky. Just google him if you want to find out why. It is difficult to believe that any Unite elections have taken place with only its actual members being allowed to vote. Make of that what you will.
But it comes to something when even the Guardian bother reporting that Corbyn's power-broker has a nice equity-sharing relationship on his London apartment. So, why does a Union boss, pulling in a tidy six-figure sum, need his Union to put up £417,000 to fund his personal dwelling? Couldn't those subs be better spent elsewhere?
Remember the construction blacklist scandal from a few years ago? Ian Kerr, who set up a firm to blacklist construction workers based on union activity and raising Heath and safety concerns, was only fined £5000 by the ICO. None of the 44 companies that used his service were prosecuted. They did reach an out of court settlement to avoid a privately brought court trial though. There have been no prosecutions despite disclosure showing criminal activity and evidence being destroyed. In fact, the case was referred back to the ICO who were shown to be complicit with companies in trying to hide the scandal in the first place. The IPCC also admitted that police forces colluded with the blacklist to provide names, despite being bound by law to remain neutral in such matters. How can you trust the people charged with enforcing the law when they are the very ones breaking it?
Personally, I remember at one place I worked one guy going round dropping off leaflets advocation union membership followed five minutes later by a manger picking them up. He was forever labelled a troublemaker and spoken of in meetings behind closed doors. None of provable but definitely happening.
The graph shows a similar approach taken by all governments , a Labour government being the only one to produce a surplus for one or more years and a huge worldwide crash in 2008/9
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed.
So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
Yes, please top up my champagne please, dear.
I had two clear choices back in my youth. Do the regular thing and have a family. Or not. My choice was the latter, primarily because I didn't then get on very well with the idea of owning cars with four doors.
As a consequence I am now relatively well off. I would not have been so if I'd have chosen differently. But why should I now subsidise others' life choices to a degree greater than I do already? It's different when individuals fall on hard times but I don't see, for example, why everybody with a kid should get child benefit. Over £11bn per year. Then there's child tax credits if you've got three or more of the little sods. Why are we rewarding people for bringing more into the world - it's not as if there's a shortage.
So, your friend seems very altruistic. I'm afraid I am not. Some seem to strive to be nothing other than a have-not and that's were they start and that's where they end, no matter how much of other people's money is thrown at them.
BTW there is one clear truism to those in poverty. They are more likely to have children. This is no surprise, since you can run a Bentley on what it takes to bring up a child. (Perhaps a statistic that should be made readily available to prospective parents). It will also not be a surprise to know that it is single parent families that make up the largest portion of the poor and a higher percentage of those are women rather than men.
But what may be more of a surprise, is that while single parent families made up more than 30% of the "persistently poor" in 2008, under the uncaring Conservatives, that figure has reduced by half to 15.1% as at the latest figures. It goes with another figure which shows that the number of those categorised as "persistently poor" generally has also been falling. 9.2% women and 7.7% men of the general population in 2008, has gone down to 7.2% and 5.7% respectively in th elatest figures.
So, do those figures, do you think, help to make a decision on voting to "help the many rather than the few"? Or would it be better to vote for a party that will inevitably ensure that the Govt. takes a bigger slice of GDP and leaves less of everything, including productive jobs for almost everyone. I'd argue that the choice was not as clear-cut as many would have you believe.
FWIW I totally agree with your point about child benefit, and you can add to that Maternity leave and Paternity leave, why the hell should the company people work for and the government pay for people to have kids.
Its bloody ridiculous.
The ONS report states clearly at the bottom of section 2 that "it is important to understand that the at-risk-of-poverty rate is a relative indicator, measuring income compared with other people, so does not in itself necessarily imply a low standard of living". Poverty and persistent poverty are defined as having disposable income of less than 60% of the median disposable income, nothing more.
The median disposable income has grown by 3.85% for 2008 to March 2016 whereas the price index has grown by 20% between March 2008 and March 2016. That means that if someone was just below the poverty line in 2008 and had their household income rise in line with inflation (ie they can buy exactly what they could buy in 2008 and so their living standards are kept constant), that person would now be considerably above the 'poverty line' despite no improvement in living standards.
Numbers can be deceiving. While the figures may make it appear that people are moving out of poverty, living standards are getting worse for those around and below the poverty line.