General Election July 2024

[Sway]

CivicDuties said:

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.

If insider knowledge is proven, I'd agree.

They're likely all in the st though.

[SpidersWeb]

768 said:

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.

Reasonable to you who was not on the NMW but a higher rate to compensate for it, but not reasonable to the NMW employee who isn't on the higher rate but the absolute minimum.

[Sway]

hidetheelephants 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.

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.

That is a categoric ban on ZHCs. Contracts will reflect the average hours worked per week, based on a 12 week 'reference period'. Which is palpable nonsense!

[Mr Penguin]

I think it should be fairly obvious that if you know where resources are being directed and the results of private polling then you have non-public information and that a candidate for a major party would have access to one of those. It is material in this case because the view of most people is that no Conservative seat is safe so it is plausible that this seat could be a Labour win (as evidenced by the odds available being very close).

That said, if the story doesn't spread the Labour candidate is unlikely to be remembered for this compared to the cases in CCHQ and if the story does spread to the other parties then he won't be high profile enough or a serious/stupid enough case to be the totem pole of the story. He was also caught by mistake.

Ed Davey and the leader of the Scottish Lib Dems have both admitted placing bets on elections while on the party's front bench and the CEO of Best for Britain says she knows of Peers who bet on constituencies to nudge odds to make them better to put them on leaflets (market manipulation). No doubt there will be many MPs, Lords, party HQ employees or even journalists who have done something similar and possibly something more interesting like the duck house MP or Jacqui Smith's porn claim during the expenses scandal.

I notice that Starmer has said he wouldn't put a complete ban on it - possibly realising that this could become a can of worms that will only be fully opened on his watch.

[mikef]

According to a professor on Radio 4 earlier today, it's a gambling offence to either
- place a bet using insider-only information
- bet on yourself or your team to lose AND ALSO take steps that cause that loss

[hidetheelephants]

mikef said:

According to a professor on Radio 4 earlier today, it's a gambling offence to either
- place a bet using insider-only information
- bet on yourself or your team to lose AND ALSO take steps that cause that loss

Is this a repeat of 2010? Then it was the expenses scandal and there were egregious abuses in all parties, but only a few actually reached criminality and were convicted because it had been fudged as a means of giving pay increases without the bad PR of actually voting themselves a pay rise.

[pingu393]

mikef said:

According to a professor on Radio 4 earlier today, it's a gambling offence to either
- place a bet using insider-only information
- bet on yourself or your team to lose AND ALSO take steps that cause that loss

Here endeth the discussion,

All of them, and probably more are screwed have screwed themselves.

[mikef]

pingu393 said:

Here endeth the discussion,

All of them, and probably more are screwed have screwed themselves.

The prof also said that it’s legit to hedge by betting against yourself winning. It’s only taking steps to then lose which is makes it illegal, which most sports are in a position to check for, but politics don’t have the regulatory bodies that pro sports do

[redrabbit29]

I'm getting seriously sick of these kind of posts (by both sides, but more Conservatives). The back-and-forth between them is pathetic.

Conversatives post something utterly ridiculous (like below), and Labour quote it or respond. It cheapens the whole thing, it muddies the water, and honestly it reminds me of Brexit where it's just tit-for-tat, nonsense with nothing tangible or clear being said.

The last 8 of Conversatives tweets have mentioned Labour's policies before their own. For example "Labour want to do this..."

I hate the lot of them.

[Mr Penguin]

Too many Tweets make a tt

[Rufus Stone]

redrabbit29 said:

I'm getting seriously sick of these kind of posts (by both sides, but more Conservatives). The back-and-forth between them is pathetic.

Conversatives post something utterly ridiculous (like below), and Labour quote it or respond. It cheapens the whole thing, it muddies the water, and honestly it reminds me of Brexit where it's just tit-for-tat, nonsense with nothing tangible or clear being said.

The last 8 of Conversatives tweets have mentioned Labour's policies before their own. For example "Labour want to do this..."

I hate the lot of them.

And it's so hypocritical. They have presided over a steadily rising tax burden so that we are at the highest for 70 years, and even with their latest cuts and more promised the burden remains on an increasing trajectory.

[mikef]

Has anyone been following the Torygraph headlines this week? It makes Conservative Central look fair and balanced in their postings

[isaldiri]

Well, to be fair, it is almost certainly true for the Tories to be saying however much they had raised the tax burden over the years where they were in power, it would be higher yet under Labour.....

[pingu393]

mikef said:

pingu393 said:

Here endeth the discussion,

All of them, and probably more are screwed have screwed themselves.

The prof also said that it’s legit to hedge by betting against yourself winning. It’s only taking steps to then lose which is makes it illegal, which most sports are in a position to check for, but politics don’t have the regulatory bodies that pro sports do

Sorry, I completely misread (b). Back to my original belief. I think the Labour guy didn't do anything wrong, as long as he didn't scupper his election prospects.

[Rufus Stone]

isaldiri said:

Well, to be fair, it is almost certainly true for the Tories to be saying however much they had raised the tax burden over the years where they were in power, it would be higher yet under Labour.....

I doubt that.

Tories have pissed some spectacular money up the wall for little or no benefit to the taxpayer.

[Sway]

redrabbit29 said:

I'm getting seriously sick of these kind of posts (by both sides, but more Conservatives). The back-and-forth between them is pathetic.

Conversatives post something utterly ridiculous (like below), and Labour quote it or respond. It cheapens the whole thing, it muddies the water, and honestly it reminds me of Brexit where it's just tit-for-tat, nonsense with nothing tangible or clear being said.

The last 8 of Conversatives tweets have mentioned Labour's policies before their own. For example "Labour want to do this..."

I hate the lot of them.

It's why I'm spoiling my ballot.

I'm not interested in voting against, only for. So put your policies and plans out there, and if I like it I'll vote for it.

Unfortunately, none of them have anything I can be positive about.

[isaldiri]

Rufus Stone said:

isaldiri said:

Well, to be fair, it is almost certainly true for the Tories to be saying however much they had raised the tax burden over the years where they were in power, it would be higher yet under Labour.....

I doubt that.

Tories have pissed some spectacular money up the wall for little or no benefit to the taxpayer.

Ok, the acid test would be - do you expect labour to be raising or dropping the overall tax burden once they get into power?

[Rufus Stone]

isaldiri said:

Ok, the acid test would be - do you expect labour to be raising or dropping the overall tax burden once they get into power?

They may well do, but I would argue largely because of the Tory failed attempted NI bribe which has reduced the treasury income unnecessarily and inappropriately.

[pingu393]

Rufus Stone said:

And it's so hypocritical. They have presided over a steadily rising tax burden so that we are at the highest for 70 years, and even with their latest cuts and more promised the burden remains on an increasing trajectory.

I can only speak for myself, but I am pretty sure that I pay a lot less in tax now than I would be paying if nothing had changed since 2010.

Most of my tax reduction is due to the increase in the basic tax thresholds from £5720(NI) and £6475(Inc Tax) to £12570(both).

Tax and duty on spending are almost impossible to capture.

[Speed 3]

Anyone with any basic economic understanding knows the UK economy is screwed and even if we took some very significant decisions (Trident/Triple Lock/Raising pension age again) taxes are only heading one way under any flavour of government. They only way not to is increasing overall tax take through GDP growth. That's not happening quickly whoever's in power. At least Labour are having more meaningful discussion with business about blockers to growth (Planning Restrictions / Labour market etc) than the others. Whether they can actually deliver any of it remains to be seen but I don't think anyone posting here is under any illusion that we can have a low tax near-term future if we want any semblance of public services or national infrastructure.