|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Mar 30, 2024 16:17:42 GMT
I will be voting Labour in the GE, although it's not really my natural home. I've become a tactical voter rather than an idealist. My constituency (Coventry NW) is a straight Labour Tory battle, so that decision is rather easy. The local elections is more interesting. My ward has introduced 2 Green councillors in the last 2 elections, I voted for one of them, so something to consider. The LibDems didn't run last time.
I look at Labour nationally, I see them as (more) competent (than the Tories), but they do seem to be rowing back on their policies at such a rate of knots that it's hard to know what they will do rather than what they want.
I also worry that by not investing in infrastructure they'll get no more growth than the Tories have managed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Mar 31, 2024 15:31:48 GMT
I will be voting Labour in the GE, although it's not really my natural home. I've become a tactical voter rather than an idealist. My constituency (Coventry NW) is a straight Labour Tory battle, so that decision is rather easy. The local elections is more interesting. My ward has introduced 2 Green councillors in the last 2 elections, I voted for one of them, so something to consider. The LibDems didn't run last time. I look at Labour nationally, I see them as (more) competent (than the Tories), but they do seem to be rowing back on their policies at such a rate of knots that it's hard to know what they will do rather than what they want. I also worry that by not investing in infrastructure they'll get no more growth than the Tories have managed. These are my worries to Andrew. I think they might have to change the rules on how much they can borrow or call it capital investment. I would very much like to see a council house building program, which would alleviate the housing problem and give government an income in the long term. I also think they could get an income from renewable energy while giving us better insulation from future Putins. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2024 18:44:36 GMT
I will be voting Labour in the GE, although it's not really my natural home. I've become a tactical voter rather than an idealist. My constituency (Coventry NW) is a straight Labour Tory battle, so that decision is rather easy. The local elections is more interesting. My ward has introduced 2 Green councillors in the last 2 elections, I voted for one of them, so something to consider. The LibDems didn't run last time. I look at Labour nationally, I see them as (more) competent (than the Tories), but they do seem to be rowing back on their policies at such a rate of knots that it's hard to know what they will do rather than what they want. I also worry that by not investing in infrastructure they'll get no more growth than the Tories have managed. These are my worries to Andrew. I think they might have to change the rules on how much they can borrow or call it capital investment. I would very much like to see a council house building program, which would alleviate the housing problem and give government an income in the long term. I also think they could get an income from renewable energy while giving us better insulation from future Putins. Any council house building program needs to be accompanied by abolition of the right to buy, or at least of the massive discounts so that they are bought at market rates, with the proceeds ploughed back into building more social housing. Personally I would favour the suspension of right to buy altogether until such time as the waiting list for social housing is no more than a year long for most people. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2024 18:54:02 GMT
Back that up. Name me a policy I don't like? I've not been party to such a conversation. I think you were highly sceptical about the policy to greatly increase the living wage and extend it to all adults. As for the popularity of the 2017 economic policies which you claim ignorance of, not only did I share it often in former years on threads in which you were a participant but it was widely referenced in the media at the time. But just for you, here is some of that polling evidence. It is easy to find.... www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-manifesto-poll-voters-back-policies-jeremy-corbyn-latest-a7731536.html |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 1, 2024 13:57:17 GMT
These are my worries to Andrew. I think they might have to change the rules on how much they can borrow or call it capital investment. I would very much like to see a council house building program, which would alleviate the housing problem and give government an income in the long term. I also think they could get an income from renewable energy while giving us better insulation from future Putins. Any council house building program needs to be accompanied by abolition of the right to buy, or at least of the massive discounts so that they are bought at market rates, with the proceeds ploughed back into building more social housing. Personally I would favour the suspension of right to buy altogether until such time as the waiting list for social housing is no more than a year long for most people. 100% You can't buy the house you are renting unless the landlord is selling it, then you pay market value. Same should be true of council houses. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 1, 2024 14:00:18 GMT
I think you were highly sceptical about the policy to greatly increase the living wage and extend it to all adults. I was sceptical about the lack of meat on the bones. How much, when, has it been discussed with business. Etc etc. In that sense you are right, I considered Corbyn to be likely to damage industry, but I was open to a minimum wage if I knew its limits. Ah well I'm getting old, can't even remember why I went upstairs. I support renationalisation But again with zero hours contracts, define one before you tell me you're banning them. If I tell a weekend worker their hours on a Thursday and those hours vary week to week, is that zero hours? Theoretically they could be zero, but they never are. If those same workers are students who regularly say they can't work Saturday coz they're off out, should I sack them for breach of contract or look to the rest of the pool to cover for them. Ending zero hours contracts sounds great if you think they're turning up at the gate and being told we have nothing for you, that's why people who don't know think they should be banned. Employers on the other hand need to know what you mean by zero hours before they agree with the idea. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2024 21:28:48 GMT
I think you were highly sceptical about the policy to greatly increase the living wage and extend it to all adults. I was sceptical about the lack of meat on the bones. How much, when, has it been discussed with business. Etc etc. In that sense you are right, I considered Corbyn to be likely to damage industry, but I was open to a minimum wage if I knew its limits. Ah well I'm getting old, can't even remember why I went upstairs. I support renationalisation But again with zero hours contracts, define one before you tell me you're banning them. If I tell a weekend worker their hours on a Thursday and those hours vary week to week, is that zero hours? Theoretically they could be zero, but they never are. If those same workers are students who regularly say they can't work Saturday coz they're off out, should I sack them for breach of contract or look to the rest of the pool to cover for them. Ending zero hours contracts sounds great if you think they're turning up at the gate and being told we have nothing for you, that's why people who don't know think they should be banned. Employers on the other hand need to know what you mean by zero hours before they agree with the idea. You asked me to name one 2017 policy you had problems with. I did. Now you yourself have come up with another. I myself agree with the principle of banning zero hours contracts. I think they engender far too much income insecurity and are open to abuse. But how such contracts are defined in law would have to be part of the detail hammered out. Employers guaranteeing just one hour per week to circumvent the legislation itself is a possibility if legislation is ill thought through. But essentially anyone should if they wish have the right to a guaranteed minimum number of hours, say at least 16 hours a week, unless they actually want less. Flexible contracts allowing employers with reasonable notice saying when these hours should be worked should be able to supply the necessary flexibility. But that is just a suggestion on my part. I agree with the principle but would like to see the detail hammered out and reported on at every stage before giving a definite thumbs up to the end result |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 1, 2024 21:54:59 GMT
I was sceptical about the lack of meat on the bones. How much, when, has it been discussed with business. Etc etc. In that sense you are right, I considered Corbyn to be likely to damage industry, but I was open to a minimum wage if I knew its limits. Ah well I'm getting old, can't even remember why I went upstairs. I support renationalisation But again with zero hours contracts, define one before you tell me you're banning them. If I tell a weekend worker their hours on a Thursday and those hours vary week to week, is that zero hours? Theoretically they could be zero, but they never are. If those same workers are students who regularly say they can't work Saturday coz they're off out, should I sack them for breach of contract or look to the rest of the pool to cover for them. Ending zero hours contracts sounds great if you think they're turning up at the gate and being told we have nothing for you, that's why people who don't know think they should be banned. Employers on the other hand need to know what you mean by zero hours before they agree with the idea. You asked me to name one 2017 policy you had problems with. I did. Now you yourself have come up with another. I myself agree with the principle of banning zero hours contracts. I think they engender far too much income insecurity and are open to abuse. But how such contracts are defined in law would have to be part of the detail hammered out. Employers guaranteeing just one hour per week to circumvent the legislation itself is a possibility if legislation is ill thought through. But essentially anyone should if they wish have the right to a guaranteed minimum number of hours, say at least 16 hours a week, unless they actually want less. Flexible contracts allowing employers with reasonable notice saying when these hours should be worked should be able to supply the necessary flexibility. But that is just a suggestion on my part. I agree with the principle but would like to see the detail hammered out and reported on at every stage before giving a definite thumbs up to the end result Just two things. 1, So you agree Corbyn never provided any indication as to what constituted zero hours? 2, 16 hours? What do you do with the company that only has 10 hours to offer? And the employee can decide, but the person paying the money can't? That is true Corbynism. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2024 9:53:06 GMT
You asked me to name one 2017 policy you had problems with. I did. Now you yourself have come up with another. I myself agree with the principle of banning zero hours contracts. I think they engender far too much income insecurity and are open to abuse. But how such contracts are defined in law would have to be part of the detail hammered out. Employers guaranteeing just one hour per week to circumvent the legislation itself is a possibility if legislation is ill thought through. But essentially anyone should if they wish have the right to a guaranteed minimum number of hours, say at least 16 hours a week, unless they actually want less. Flexible contracts allowing employers with reasonable notice saying when these hours should be worked should be able to supply the necessary flexibility. But that is just a suggestion on my part. I agree with the principle but would like to see the detail hammered out and reported on at every stage before giving a definite thumbs up to the end result Just two things. 1, So you agree Corbyn never provided any indication as to what constituted zero hours? 2, 16 hours? What do you do with the company that only has 10 hours to offer? And the employee can decide, but the person paying the money can't? That is true Corbynism. That was just a suggestion on my part. You see, 16 hours is an important threshold in regards to the welfare system. If you are guaranteed 16 hours a week you have no obligation to seek alternative employment as a condition of welfare support, but if you are guaranteed less than this you get no help at all unless you actively seek alternative employment. For this reason my own employer started guaranteeing a 16 hour minimum contract to those who wanted it because those with less kept leaving after very short periods due to pressure from the jobcentre to look for another job. So the 16 hour figure was not plucked out of the air. Abolishing zero hour contracts can only work if a guaranteed number of minimum hours is legislated for those who want them. 16 hours makes sense for the reasons outlined above. And it is nothing to do with so-called Corbynism and everything to do with common-sensism. Workers should have the right to expect some sort of financial security from their employment, and ten hours with no certainty of welfare support just isnt it. If someone only wants to work ten hours and does not need welfare support thats fine, but people being forced into such unfair circumstances is not really acceptable. If we are going to allow piss takingly small hour contracts to continue, then we need to remove the obligation that job seekers have to accept them so that only those who actually want them take them. And for jobcentre staff to be told that an offer of less than 16 guaranteed hours is a valid reason for turning down that job for anyone who cannot afford to live on that. Your ten hours a week might be fine and dandy for you as an employer, but it is likely to impose tremendous insecurity on anyone with a family to feed who is forced into such a job, especially since they will also have all the hassle of the jobcentre breathing down their neck forcing them to look for another job and ready to impose sanctions at the drop of a hat. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 2, 2024 20:18:30 GMT
Just two things. 1, So you agree Corbyn never provided any indication as to what constituted zero hours? 2, 16 hours? What do you do with the company that only has 10 hours to offer? And the employee can decide, but the person paying the money can't? That is true Corbynism. That was just a suggestion on my part. You see, 16 hours is an important threshold in regards to the welfare system. If you are guaranteed 16 hours a week you have no obligation to seek alternative employment as a condition of welfare support, but if you are guaranteed less than this you get no help at all unless you actively seek alternative employment. For this reason my own employer started guaranteeing a 16 hour minimum contract to those who wanted it because those with less kept leaving after very short periods due to pressure from the jobcentre to look for another job. So the 16 hour figure was not plucked out of the air. Abolishing zero hour contracts can only work if a guaranteed number of minimum hours is legislated for those who want them. 16 hours makes sense for the reasons outlined above. And it is nothing to do with so-called Corbynism and everything to do with common-sensism. Workers should have the right to expect some sort of financial security from their employment, and ten hours with no certainty of welfare support just isnt it. If someone only wants to work ten hours and does not need welfare support thats fine, but people being forced into such unfair circumstances is not really acceptable. If we are going to allow piss takingly small hour contracts to continue, then we need to remove the obligation that job seekers have to accept them so that only those who actually want them take them. And for jobcentre staff to be told that an offer of less than 16 guaranteed hours is a valid reason for turning down that job for anyone who cannot afford to live on that. Your ten hours a week might be fine and dandy for you as an employer, but it is likely to impose tremendous insecurity on anyone with a family to feed who is forced into such a job, especially since they will also have all the hassle of the jobcentre breathing down their neck forcing them to look for another job and ready to impose sanctions at the drop of a hat. Well i didn't know that. But I must say, instead of trying to invent work where there is none, surely better to provide a better benefits system. One that reflects reality rather than defies it. As for piss taking small contracts, how would you feel if you had to give your window cleaner a guaranteed 16 hours? Or the guy who repairs your car? Would you be happy with your £200 window cleaning bill or is that only for those evil employers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2024 20:34:14 GMT
That was just a suggestion on my part. You see, 16 hours is an important threshold in regards to the welfare system. If you are guaranteed 16 hours a week you have no obligation to seek alternative employment as a condition of welfare support, but if you are guaranteed less than this you get no help at all unless you actively seek alternative employment. For this reason my own employer started guaranteeing a 16 hour minimum contract to those who wanted it because those with less kept leaving after very short periods due to pressure from the jobcentre to look for another job. So the 16 hour figure was not plucked out of the air. Abolishing zero hour contracts can only work if a guaranteed number of minimum hours is legislated for those who want them. 16 hours makes sense for the reasons outlined above. And it is nothing to do with so-called Corbynism and everything to do with common-sensism. Workers should have the right to expect some sort of financial security from their employment, and ten hours with no certainty of welfare support just isnt it. If someone only wants to work ten hours and does not need welfare support thats fine, but people being forced into such unfair circumstances is not really acceptable. If we are going to allow piss takingly small hour contracts to continue, then we need to remove the obligation that job seekers have to accept them so that only those who actually want them take them. And for jobcentre staff to be told that an offer of less than 16 guaranteed hours is a valid reason for turning down that job for anyone who cannot afford to live on that. Your ten hours a week might be fine and dandy for you as an employer, but it is likely to impose tremendous insecurity on anyone with a family to feed who is forced into such a job, especially since they will also have all the hassle of the jobcentre breathing down their neck forcing them to look for another job and ready to impose sanctions at the drop of a hat. Well i didn't know that. But I must say, instead of trying to invent work where there is none, surely better to provide a better benefits system. One that reflects reality rather than defies it. As for piss taking small contracts, how would you feel if you had to give your window cleaner a guaranteed 16 hours? Or the guy who repairs your car? Would you be happy with your £200 window cleaning bill or is that only for those evil employers. Most window cleaners are self employed and do not rely upon cleaning my windows alone. I would be just one of many paying customers. As for the guy who repairs my car, he might well be self-employed as well but is more likely to be employed by some garage or other. Most mechanics I know are full time employees working on multiple cars in their working week. I know of none on contracts of less than 16 hours, or on zero hour contracts. If you only have ten hours of employment to spare, offer it as overtime to one or more of your existing employees or take on someone who only wants to work ten hours. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 2, 2024 21:27:41 GMT
Well i didn't know that. But I must say, instead of trying to invent work where there is none, surely better to provide a better benefits system. One that reflects reality rather than defies it. As for piss taking small contracts, how would you feel if you had to give your window cleaner a guaranteed 16 hours? Or the guy who repairs your car? Would you be happy with your £200 window cleaning bill or is that only for those evil employers. Most window cleaners are self employed and do not rely upon cleaning my windows alone. I would be just one of many paying customers. As for the guy who repairs my car, he might well be self-employed as well but is more likely to be employed by some garage or other. Most mechanics I know are full time employees working on multiple cars in their working week. I know of none on contracts of less than 16 hours, or on zero hour contracts. If you only have ten hours of employment to spare, offer it as overtime to one or more of your existing employees or take on someone who only wants to work ten hours. The same for the people who work for us. They work for me Saturday daytime and in a pub in the evening. Or for the inland revenue three days a the week and my place Sundays. That's the world today. And to create your winsome world you would remove the jobs of a great many people. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2024 21:48:38 GMT
Most window cleaners are self employed and do not rely upon cleaning my windows alone. I would be just one of many paying customers. As for the guy who repairs my car, he might well be self-employed as well but is more likely to be employed by some garage or other. Most mechanics I know are full time employees working on multiple cars in their working week. I know of none on contracts of less than 16 hours, or on zero hour contracts. If you only have ten hours of employment to spare, offer it as overtime to one or more of your existing employees or take on someone who only wants to work ten hours. The same for the people who work for us. They work for me Saturday daytime and in a pub in the evening. Or for the inland revenue three days a the week and my place Sundays. That's the world today. And to create your winsome world you would remove the jobs of a great many people. I have no problem with people choosing to work that way. My problem is with them having to do so. And insofar as the picture you paint being the world today, how much of that is actually free choice? I am after all only advocating minimum guaranteed hours for those who want that. It is employers forcing a shitty deal on a workforce that can get no better offer is what needs to be tackled. How can someone plan a future if he doesnt have any guaranteed hours from week to week? Start working with the system in the interests of all working people, instead of expecting the system to work for you at their expense. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 3, 2024 8:00:50 GMT
The same for the people who work for us. They work for me Saturday daytime and in a pub in the evening. Or for the inland revenue three days a the week and my place Sundays. That's the world today. And to create your winsome world you would remove the jobs of a great many people. I have no problem with people choosing to work that way. My problem is with them having to do so. And insofar as the picture you paint being the world today, how much of that is actually free choice? I am after all only advocating minimum guaranteed hours for those who want that. People have never had that sort of choice, do you think its possible to give them it? Do you think the small farmer of 1930 wanted to get up at 4am and work till 8pm and still not feed his family well. Advocating a guaranteed 16 hours for those who want it, how would you do that without : 1, The 10 hour jobs disappearing 2, The number of jobs reducing I don't offer 10 hours work because I want 6 hours work not done. I offer 10 hours work because there is only 10 hours work. On the face of it your proposal would mean I have to pay someone 6 hours to do nothing. That would not be affordable and the jobs along with my company would disappear altogether. Your view of employers is awful and completely wrong. What are these shitty deals we employers offer? Why are we restricting working hours instead of selling more? I would really like to educate you on what running a business is really like, but I can't without giving away too much on here about my business, something I would never do. Same way employers do. No one guarantees my income, I haven't been paid for 13 months now. I am able to survive that because I built it into my plans for such a time. But if I couldn't I would have to find other work (Perhaps go back to being a kitchen fitter) No one gets a free ride No one. If you are talking about changes then you better have some ideas on how you do it or you will get marked down as a dreamer. I would add that I think wealth distribution is a big issue in the UK, but government ideas are never targeted at those with enormous wealth, but instead its those trying to run businesses. The investors and land owners never get a mention nor the bankers. Their 5 year investment plans never get a heave-ho of tax. Their purchase of third and forth homes never get a 20% tax. I say if you want more equality in Britain look where the money really is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2024 12:38:43 GMT
There is too much in your post for me to have the energy to respond to every point in it.
But a few things, if more jobs available means more pissy contracts that few can afford to live on then this is not economically beneficial to people, especially with the cost of living crisis.
And if you cannot afford to pay someone minimum wage for 16 hours because you only have ten hours of work available, then offer it as overtime to existing employees or pay fewer employees to do more hours. Millions should not have to be impoverished, the welfare system creaking at the seems to support them, because a few seek personal prosperity by only offering pitifully small hours to their employees in the interests of maximum flexibility for the employers bought by minimum security for the workers.
It is not unreasonable for the welfare system to specify a minimum number of hours being necessary, below which seeking further or alternative employment has to be an obligation. 16 hours is a generously low level of necessary employment to receive sufficient welfare support to continue in that role without having to look for another. Businesses need to get with the program and instead of employing 6 people on 8 hour contracts or something like that, employ 3 on 16.
And if you cannot organise that in your workplace for any reason, then dont expect to have a steady stream of unwilling people forced to apply by jobcentres. Because we both know unwilling employees tend to put in very poor performances. If you really only have one job on offer for ten hours and no other employees who could do it as overtime, then employ people who can afford to live on it. Examples could include pensioners just seeking a few hours of work to top up their pension incomes, youngsters still living at home with their parents, students partly getting by on loans but needing just a few hours a week to fit around their studies, or people who have partners as the main breadwinner and only need to few hours of work. The problem is only as insurmountable as you want it to be.
A business model that relies on piss takingly small contracts is not fit for purpose when it comes to earning enough to live off. Only those for whom such low hours are desirable should be doing them.
I bet that if we outlawed zero hour contracts and forced companies to offer 16 guaranteed hours if employees wanted that, you would adapt your business model to employ fewer people for more hours and still be in business. When it comes to employers prospering off the backs of offering pitiful terms and conditions re pay security, you yourself have skin in the game on the side of such employers, apparently being one of them yourself.
On a personal level, I like you and think you are a decent bloke, and none of what I say above is intended as an attack. But I think we will fundamentally disagree on this and that cannot be helped. Because I fundamentally believe that all workers who want it should have the security of 16 hours a week which is the level the DWP accepts as being necessary for workers not to be chased from pillar to post by the welfare system forcing them to look for something better. And that businesses need to develop a business model that can accommodate this or they are part of the problem. Sorry but I am not going to change my mind on this simply because a handful of businesses seek to continue relying on piss take contracts.
However, as you only have one vote and I only have one vote, neither of us has the power to either change anything or prevent change. Whether anything will change and if so how is pretty much out of our hands. I cannot make what I want to happen, happen. Nor can you stop it from happening if the powers that be decide that it should. All either of us can ever really do is make representations to our respective MPs, and write letters to the media. My current MPa is a Tory who would probably take your side on this one anyway, though there is a good chance he might be replaced by the Labour candidate later this year, but where he might stand is anyone's guess.
Meanwhile I suggest you and I just agree to differ on this one. Otherwise we are just going to go round in circles getting nowhere. I am entrenched in my position, as you seem to be in yours.
I do though think it likely that if a Labour government decides to abolish zero hours contracts it will do so in consultation with businesses and think up ways to accommodate people such as yourself, whilst still wishing to mandate a better deal for workers. One thing centrists and Blairites like to do or be seen to do is come up with improvements that all interested parties can live with.
So the current Labour leadership is far more likely to listen to concerns such as yours than the previous one was. So it might be beneficial for you and others like you to discuss it with the party. I just hope they don't sell out the workers with a wet lettuce masquerading as change in the interests of keeping employers on board with their piss take hours model.
|
|
