General Election July 2024

[Mojooo]

CivicDuties said:

MesoForm said:

Who_Goes_Blue said:

I'm looking forward to all the excuses from our leftie commentators when invariable everything is just as st under labour

"It was all the fault of the last government, they haven't had enough time to change it yet"

Yep, that's the argument the Tories have been making for 14 years now.

Tories found public services in generally good order

Labour are going to find public services badly depleted - so even if the magic money tree is found it will take many years to turn it around.

[thetapeworm]

Mojooo said:

Tories found public services in generally good order

Labour are going to find public services badly depleted - so even if the magic money tree is found it will take many years to turn it around.

This needs to be a message they keep hammering home - far too many will hold them to account for not fixing the country within a few months without having the ability to comprehend the mountain that needs climbing just to reset things back to where they once were.

[Vanden Saab]

thetapeworm said:

Mojooo said:

Tories found public services in generally good order

Labour are going to find public services badly depleted - so even if the magic money tree is found it will take many years to turn it around.

This needs to be a message they keep hammering home - far too many will hold them to account for not fixing the country within a few months without having the ability to comprehend the mountain that needs climbing just to reset things back to where they once were.

Why would they think that...
Cough* 100 days*cough.

https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/a-new-deal-f...

[philv]

thetapeworm said:

This needs to be a message they keep hammering home - far too many will hold them to account for not fixing the country within a few months without having the ability to comprehend the mountain that needs climbing just to reset things back to where they once were.

Yes, we must keep telling the public that the tories created covid, started the war in Ukraine and voted for Brexit alone (no labour supporters did this).

We must remind the public that labour built millions of houses for social housing when last in power.
We must remind people labour stick to their principles and would never buy a council house through right to buy which would make the housing market worse.

We must in fact.....well....lie through our teeth.

We must also keep secrets who's running Wales.
Lets say its the tories.

Job done.

[Sway]

Vanden Saab said:

thetapeworm said:

Mojooo said:

Tories found public services in generally good order

Labour are going to find public services badly depleted - so even if the magic money tree is found it will take many years to turn it around.

This needs to be a message they keep hammering home - far too many will hold them to account for not fixing the country within a few months without having the ability to comprehend the mountain that needs climbing just to reset things back to where they once were.

Why would they think that...
Cough* 100 days*cough.

https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/a-new-deal-f...

Removing age bands on NMW is utterly daft. It'll just mean that it's almost impossible to get a starter/uni job - and removal of ZHCs is ridiculous too.

[SpidersWeb]

Sway said:

Removing age bands on NMW is utterly daft. It'll just mean that it's almost impossible to get a starter/uni job - and removal of ZHCs is ridiculous too.

For an awful lot of NMW jobs there is no excuse for employers to pay 18 to 20 year olds less than 21+ as there is damn all training or experience required for the job, and if it is down to poor performance of an 18 to 20 year old, well that's a management issue and the employer needs better trained managers.

As for Zero Hour Contracts, unfortunately there are just too many stty employers out there taking the piss with their staff.

[fourstardan]

thetapeworm said:

Why is Ed Davy likely to be in the background?

I have no idea either.

Proof this election has nothing to do with supporting this country and more about the future of egotistical MPs.

I think the tories have clearly lost the plot now and know its the last week of the downfall.

I'm sure MP's like this lunatic posting stuff through my door have subconscious ideas past July 4th about what they will be doing in politics and I expect that involves not being part of the tory party.

If Sunak wins we'll have a government full of toxic MP's who wanted him out anyway.

[Sway]

SpidersWeb said:

Sway said:

Removing age bands on NMW is utterly daft. It'll just mean that it's almost impossible to get a starter/uni job - and removal of ZHCs is ridiculous too.

For an awful lot of NMW jobs there is no excuse for employers to pay 18 to 20 year olds less than 21+ as there is damn all training or experience required for the job, and if it is down to poor performance of an 18 to 20 year old, well that's a management issue and the employer needs better trained managers.

As for Zero Hour Contracts, unfortunately there are just too many stty employers out there taking the piss with their staff.

There's plenty of reason - someone doing their first ever job might not need much training or experience in doing the specific tasks, but they definitely need a lot more hand holding in becoming a useful employee in a work environment.

ZHCs definitely serve a place, and often show higher overall satisfaction rates than 'regular' jobs. Even Labour/Starmer routinely use/used ZHCs. Why on earth would you ban them, instead of putting improved controls around how they're administered?

[beko1987]

fourstardan said:

I can't believe what I've had through my door.

Not one word about manifesto just defensive scaremongering.

I might hastened to add he didn't post this himself he had some skivvy doing it.

I had to look twice there, I mapped Mid Dorset/North Poole for the Labour party the other day, I wonder what their leaflet was.

[SpidersWeb]

Sway said:

SpidersWeb said:

Sway said:

Removing age bands on NMW is utterly daft. It'll just mean that it's almost impossible to get a starter/uni job - and removal of ZHCs is ridiculous too.

For an awful lot of NMW jobs there is no excuse for employers to pay 18 to 20 year olds less than 21+ as there is damn all training or experience required for the job, and if it is down to poor performance of an 18 to 20 year old, well that's a management issue and the employer needs better trained managers.

As for Zero Hour Contracts, unfortunately there are just too many stty employers out there taking the piss with their staff.

There's plenty of reason - someone doing their first ever job might not need much training or experience in doing the specific tasks, but they definitely need a lot more hand holding in becoming a useful employee in a work environment.

Do they need that much handholding for an 18 to 20 year old? If they do then I would suggest the employer has a poor recruitment and poor management problem, and the 18 to 20 year olds who can do the job without needing that handholding shouldn't be penalised financially because their employer is bad in business.

Sway said:

ZHCs definitely serve a place, and often show higher overall satisfaction rates than 'regular' jobs. Even Labour/Starmer routinely use/used ZHCs. Why on earth would you ban them, instead of putting improved controls around how they're administered?

Because it is damn hard to put controls on employers to stop them being stty and taking the piss with the staff.

For example I was in a large national retailer a little while ago (who I won't name but is cosying up to Labour) and one of the employees was commenting to the person before me in the queue who was a friend they knew personally that they hadn't yet been informed what hours they would be working the next day.

Is that reasonable? Why should the employee suffer and not know what they are going to be earning from one day to the next because their employer is so useless at organising rotas - and as before, this wasn't a one man band convenience store but a national retailer with 1,000 UK stores.

[768]

Sway said:

Why on earth would you ban them

Standard approach of the authoritarian left. You're looking at it logically, not from dogma.

[Sway]

SpidersWeb said:

Sway said:

SpidersWeb said:

Sway said:

Removing age bands on NMW is utterly daft. It'll just mean that it's almost impossible to get a starter/uni job - and removal of ZHCs is ridiculous too.

For an awful lot of NMW jobs there is no excuse for employers to pay 18 to 20 year olds less than 21+ as there is damn all training or experience required for the job, and if it is down to poor performance of an 18 to 20 year old, well that's a management issue and the employer needs better trained managers.

As for Zero Hour Contracts, unfortunately there are just too many stty employers out there taking the piss with their staff.

There's plenty of reason - someone doing their first ever job might not need much training or experience in doing the specific tasks, but they definitely need a lot more hand holding in becoming a useful employee in a work environment.

Do they need that much handholding for an 18 to 20 year old? If they do then I would suggest the employer has a poor recruitment and poor management problem, and the 18 to 20 year olds who can do the job without needing that handholding shouldn't be penalised financially because their employer is bad in business.

Sway said:

ZHCs definitely serve a place, and often show higher overall satisfaction rates than 'regular' jobs. Even Labour/Starmer routinely use/used ZHCs. Why on earth would you ban them, instead of putting improved controls around how they're administered?

Because it is damn hard to put controls on employers to stop them being stty and taking the piss with the staff.

For example I was in a large national retailer a little while ago (who I won't name but is cosying up to Labour) and one of the employees was commenting to the person before me in the queue who was a friend they knew personally that they hadn't yet been informed what hours they would be working the next day.

Is that reasonable? Why should the employee suffer and not know what they are going to be earning from one day to the next because their employer is so useless at organising rotas - and as before, this wasn't a one man band convenience store but a national retailer with 1,000 UK stores.

Yep, they absolutely do. The difference in 'working maturity' between an 18yo and a 20yo is very visible, especially on customer facing stuff. Nothing to do with recruitment capabilities, etc. - just how things are as young adults develop in an entirely new environment.

No, it's not reasonable - but guess what, it'd be far easier and less harmful for those who ZHCs are brilliant, with superb employers, to just legislate that non-emergency shifts are communicated x days prior. That won't have been an issue for retailer as a whole, but the one person at that specific store who does the rotas.

[768]

SpidersWeb said:

For example I was in a large national retailer a little while ago (who I won't name but is cosying up to Labour) and one of the employees was commenting to the person before me in the queue who was a friend they knew personally that they hadn't yet been informed what hours they would be working the next day.

Is that reasonable? Why should the employee suffer and not know what they are going to be earning from one day to the next because their employer is so useless at organising rotas - and as before, this wasn't a one man band convenience store but a national retailer with 1,000 UK stores.

It was reasonable to me.

I wanted zero hours because if there wasn't valuable work for me to do, I didn't want to be there. I also understood I was on a higher rate because the employer had that flexibility, zero risk to them. Of course, if they didn't have sufficient work for me over an extended period, it was reciprocal; one day I wouldn't take the work they offered me the next day and I would have gone elsewhere.

[President Merkin]

768 said:

Standard approach of the authoritarian left. You're looking at it logically, not from dogma.

You're going to have to explain several strands of Conservative legislation to me including photo ID for voting, multiple repressions of protest, several attempts to replace human rights law with a watered down bill of rights before Raab imploded & the hostile environment before I take that nonsense seriously & frankly, I don't think you can.

[philv]

Sks Says labour mp voting against himself is materially different to tories betting on election date.

He's right.
Betting on the election date, whilst very wrong, has no possible bearing on the result.

Betting against yourself means there is an incentive to lose.
That is a conflict of interests.

[CivicDuties]

philv said:

Sks Says labour mp voting against himself is materially different to tories betting on election date.

He's right.
Betting on the election date, whilst very wrong, has no possible bearing on the result.

Betting against yourself means there is an incentive to lose.
That is a conflict of interests.

Get a grip. And don't forget to mention "insider information", which is the critical difference, because it means one is defrauding the bookmaker, and the other isn't.

Not only that, do you think the Labour candidate in question would prefer to win:

a) whatever tiny sum it was he stood to gain if he loses the election, or

b) an MP's salary of £91,346 for the next 4-5 years?

Edited by CivicDuties on Wednesday 26th June 14:17

[Sway]

CivicDuties said:

philv said:

Sks Says labour mp voting against himself is materially different to tories betting on election date.

He's right.
Betting on the election date, whilst very wrong, has no possible bearing on the result.

Betting against yourself means there is an incentive to lose.
That is a conflict of interests.

Get a grip. An don't forget to mention "insider information", which is the critical difference, because it means one is defrauding the bookmaker, and the other isn't.

Not only that, do you think the Labour candidate in question would prefer to win:

a) whatever tiny sum it was he stood to gain if he loses the election, or

b) an MP's salary of £91,346 for the next 4-5 years?

There's not yet proof of insider information.

There's just as much defrauding of the bookmaker being the subject of your bet, but not informing them of it.

[hidetheelephants]

Sway said:

SpidersWeb said:

Sway said:

Removing age bands on NMW is utterly daft. It'll just mean that it's almost impossible to get a starter/uni job - and removal of ZHCs is ridiculous too.

For an awful lot of NMW jobs there is no excuse for employers to pay 18 to 20 year olds less than 21+ as there is damn all training or experience required for the job, and if it is down to poor performance of an 18 to 20 year old, well that's a management issue and the employer needs better trained managers.

As for Zero Hour Contracts, unfortunately there are just too many stty employers out there taking the piss with their staff.

There's plenty of reason - someone doing their first ever job might not need much training or experience in doing the specific tasks, but they definitely need a lot more hand holding in becoming a useful employee in a work environment.

ZHCs definitely serve a place, and often show higher overall satisfaction rates than 'regular' jobs. Even Labour/Starmer routinely use/used ZHCs. Why on earth would you ban them, instead of putting improved controls around how they're administered?

It's a good job they aren't proposing to ban them; the wording used is

evil socialists said:

Labour will end ‘one sided’ flexibility and ensure all jobs provide a baseline level of security and predictability, banning exploitative zero hours contracts and ensuring everyone has the right to have a contract that reflects the number of hours they regularly work, based on a 12-week reference period.

which is a bit woolly but not quite the apocalypse being talked about.

[CivicDuties]

Sway said:

CivicDuties said:

philv said:

Sks Says labour mp voting against himself is materially different to tories betting on election date.

He's right.
Betting on the election date, whilst very wrong, has no possible bearing on the result.

Betting against yourself means there is an incentive to lose.
That is a conflict of interests.

Get a grip. An don't forget to mention "insider information", which is the critical difference, because it means one is defrauding the bookmaker, and the other isn't.

Not only that, do you think the Labour candidate in question would prefer to win:

a) whatever tiny sum it was he stood to gain if he loses the election, or

b) an MP's salary of £91,346 for the next 4-5 years?

There's not yet proof of insider information.

There's just as much defrauding of the bookmaker being the subject of your bet, but not informing them of it.

Righto, chief.

Neither case is exactly virtuous, but clearly one is categorically worse than the other.

[President Merkin]

Kevin Craig is a director of several companies, the principal vehicle for his activities has £1.2m in cleared funds. The argument that he's shilling for coins at Betfred is weak as piss. Someone above mentioned getting a grip. Some of you should take that advice.