Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2024 10:43:17 GMT
I will say that when polling tested public opinion on abolishing zero hours contracts, their response was as follows.... "On the plan to ban zero-hours contracts, 71 per cent said they backed the move, while just 16 per cent said they were against it." The actual polling evidence containing the above can be found here, so no one has to take my word for it.... www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-manifesto-poll-voters-back-policies-jeremy-corbyn-latest-a7731536.htmlSo whatever self-interested exploiters of zero hours contracts might have to say in their own self interest, the vast majority of the public is against them. Unfortunately like yourself the public have no in depth knowledge of the issue, nor any desire to learn. Like Brexit they will vote for what they think sounds right and leave it to others to sort out the resultant mess.
My guess is that the tiny amount of zero hours contracts (Assuming someone ever defines what they are) are all in places where there are not enough hours to offer more.
The idea that employers deliberately take on more workers than they need in order to offer less hours to each is bonkers. Why train all those extra workers, do all that extra HR tax NI etc . Still if it keeps the troops happy, its a pretty easy promise. As no one knows what the solution is, then the solution can be whatever fudge your government choose. I suspect it will be exemptions for certain types of work, those being the ones that can only offer zero hours contracts. There are many more zero hours contracts than there used to be, also a lot of people on 5 or 6 hour contracts and that sort of thing. My own employer used to employ a lot of people on such small contracts, the idea being that they would be so desperate for hours that they would take all the overtime going, whilst the employer itself could rapidly cut staffing costs by cutting the overtime as and when it suited it to do so, regardless of their employees' needs. And expecting the taxpayer then to pick up the tab via welfare. Because in the end it is taxpayers who end up subsidising low pay. Of course what happened as we approached full employment was that such employees found second jobs and were no longer interested in the overtime or left altogether. Because of this Tesco started to guarantee contracts of at least 16 hours to all who wanted them, because that is an important threshold in regards pressure from jobcentre staff which I have explained in earlier posts. Some employers do offer very small contracts or like Sports Direct zero hours contracts because it gives them maximum flexibility just by turning the overtime tap on and off. This might not make sense for jobs where lots of training is required, but it takes very little training to learn to man a checkout or stack shelves. More employees on such smaller contracts makes sense to employers because time spebt training is minimal, and only the fact of near full employment creating circumstances where this was no longer proving viable because such people often left again after mere weeks, forced Tesco and others to offer better terms and conditions re hours. So many people do have and have had experience of tiny contracted hours or zero hours in circumstances where it need not have been necessary but was a deliberate choice to maximise profits at the expense of workers and taxpayers. I fully acknowledge that this is not you, but it has been happening a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 9, 2024 12:35:54 GMT
Unfortunately like yourself the public have no in depth knowledge of the issue, nor any desire to learn. Like Brexit they will vote for what they think sounds right and leave it to others to sort out the resultant mess. My guess is that the tiny amount of zero hours contracts (Assuming someone ever defines what they are) are all in places where there are not enough hours to offer more. The idea that employers deliberately take on more workers than they need in order to offer less hours to each is bonkers. Why train all those extra workers, do all that extra HR tax NI etc . Still if it keeps the troops happy, its a pretty easy promise. As no one knows what the solution is, then the solution can be whatever fudge your government choose. I suspect it will be exemptions for certain types of work, those being the ones that can only offer zero hours contracts. I blocked you for a week or so because I felt the debate between us on this issue was becoming too personal and generating too much animosity so needed time out. I apologise for my part in that. I should have made much more effort to exclude you and others like you from my criticisms, so that it did not become or appear to be a personal attack upon you. I do not doubt that you are a good guy to work for. Anyway, you are too good and intelligent and reasonable a debater to be blocked permanently. I am reluctant to try engaging too deeply with you on this debate. I have never worked a zero hours contract. Relatives have at Sports Direct but no longer do. I have no vested interest either way, but recognise that you might feel that your very livelihood is at stake. All I will say is that when I first entered the workplace over 4 decades ago, no one ever heard of a zero hours contract. If such an offer appeared in a jobcentre no one would have accepted it. You still had the right back then to turn down any job you could not afford to live on. The only people who would ever have taken such a job would have been those whom it genuinely suited. And you sound as if those are the only people you would consider worth employing anyway. The problem today is that people can be pressured into what are for them inadequate contracts by the threat of draconian sanctions if they refuse, and not all employers are as decent as you. Such contracts are open to abuse by bad employers, who sadly do exist and always have done. Even if they are a minority. I have worked for bad employers myself in my younger days. I know there are a few of them out there. What we somehow need to do to give people income security is ban most zero hour contracts where this is reasonable but allow for their continued existence for those who need them where both employer and employee is genuinely happy with them. There is little reason why a chain like Sports Direct need to use zero hours contracts, when most of their competitors do not. The main problem is that many people who don't want an insufficiency of guaranteed hours are forced into them by jobcentre pressure, a fact which has enabled them to expand. If we were to give people the right to refuse jobs that don't guarantee at least 16 hours, would that not suit you by ensuring that the only ones applying for your jobs genuinely wanted them? As for any ban on zero hours contracts, I accept that a total ban might not be a good thing where employers and employees both genuinely want or need them. I am open to reason in regards to the details and exemptions in any legislation. But will leave representing that to your MP to you and others like you. I have no desire to put people like you out of business, and think that any legislation needs to take you and your employees into account. But there is certainly no reason at all why a large organisation like Tesco for example, with many thousands of employees cannot give at least 16 guaranteed hours to those for whom such guaranteed income is important. As Tesco is in fact now already doing because it was losing too many people by not doing so. Lets start again, I think the first thing would be to establish what we think a zero hours contract is. I agree what Sports direct was doing was not acceptable, there were also some security firms who demanded you turn up every day and only then told you if there was any work. Clearly there is unacceptable behaviour out there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2024 13:30:30 GMT
We agree that there is unacceptable behaviour out there, and I agree with you that it is mostly just a minority.
But this is a problem.
In simple terms a zero hours contract is one that guarantees no paid hours at all.
A part time contract is one that guarantees anything from 1 hour up to just under full time hours.
16 hours is an important threshold re welfare support, below which jobcentre requirements can create much greater stress and insecurity.
Clearly we cannot ban all zero hours contracts without putting people like yourself out of business. Nor can we create a situation where any ban is evaded by simply guaranteeing one contracted hour, because that would be pointless. So there needs to be a minimum number of hours mandated by this legislation, and 16 hours makes most sense for welfare support reasons. But there clearly needs to be exemptions for businesses such as yours, where the hours on offer suit both you and your employees. How such exemptions are allowed for in law will be tricky, but maybe a blanket exemption for all businesses either of certain types or with less than a certain number of employees. But the default setting for job applicants is that they should not be mandated to accept jobs of less than 16 hours if they cannot afford to live off that. So that the applicants you get are all people who want to do it, and not some recalcitrant the local jobcentre has strong armed into applying to you. Because we both know that the latter character is highly unlikely to perform very well, will be highly unreliable, and probably have an attitude problem.
So in general terms zero hours contracts restricted, accompanied by the right to request 16 hour minimum contracts, but with exemptions for certain types or sizes of businesses, albeit with no one forced to accept contracts of less than 16 hours if they dont want to. And perhaps a little legislation tightening up the conditions so that employees are given reasonable notice of the hours they are expected to work. Finding out on the day with no notice at all is clearly not acceptable I think we both agree
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2024 18:34:01 GMT
Sorry, I cannot vote Labour in it's current form because what are they offering that is all that different? Plus I know what kind of people these centrists and Blairites are. I shared a party with them for 4 years and saw how these types think, and behave. I shared meetings with quite a few of them locally. I have met several Labour MPs personally in that time, including Lisa Nandy, Luke Pollard, and Dawn Butler. The latter was the most authentic and impressive. Luke Pollard is known locally for saying whatever he thinks people want to hear whilst only revealing what he really thinks to a select few. Nandy herself at the meeting I attended came across as trying to pitch to us but wouldn't commit to very much personally, just another politician being a politician.Is that because she knew your position and knew she couldn't fulfil your desires? If so they aren't telling you what you want to hear as you claimed above. Anyway I hope you don't get another Tory government as a reward for your principles. We are going to get a mainly Tory government no matter what, the colour of the rosette being the main difference. An exaggeration I know, but I refuse to vote for lesser evil to keep worse evil out when I don't want to support either of them. And I very much doubt my refusal will have much impact on the sheeple of Britain, who are highly likely to put the establishment b team in again anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 10, 2024 6:51:21 GMT
We agree that there is unacceptable behaviour out there, and I agree with you that it is mostly just a minority. But this is a problem. In simple terms a zero hours contract is one that guarantees no paid hours at all. A part time contract is one that guarantees anything from 1 hour up to just under full time hours. 16 hours is an important threshold re welfare support, below which jobcentre requirements can create much greater stress and insecurity. Clearly we cannot ban all zero hours contracts without putting people like yourself out of business. Nor can we create a situation where any ban is evaded by simply guaranteeing one contracted hour, because that would be pointless. So there needs to be a minimum number of hours mandated by this legislation, and 16 hours makes most sense for welfare support reasons. But there clearly needs to be exemptions for businesses such as yours, where the hours on offer suit both you and your employees. How such exemptions are allowed for in law will be tricky, but maybe a blanket exemption for all businesses either of certain types or with less than a certain number of employees. But the default setting for job applicants is that they should not be mandated to accept jobs of less than 16 hours if they cannot afford to live off that. So that the applicants you get are all people who want to do it, and not some recalcitrant the local jobcentre has strong armed into applying to you. Because we both know that the latter character is highly unlikely to perform very well, will be highly unreliable, and probably have an attitude problem. So in general terms zero hours contracts restricted, accompanied by the right to request 16 hour minimum contracts, but with exemptions for certain types or sizes of businesses, albeit with no one forced to accept contracts of less than 16 hours if they dont want to. And perhaps a little legislation tightening up the conditions so that employees are given reasonable notice of the hours they are expected to work. Finding out on the day with no notice at all is clearly not acceptable I think we both agree For me Zero hours contract is a different thing. Its a job where you don't know one week to the next how many hours you will get. Anything from 0 to 40. That makes planning your life impossible, you can't take other work because you are obliged to be available but you don't know what you will earn. So the girl who does 7 hours in a nightclub every Friday night is free to work in the care home on Monday and Wednesday etc. I see no issue with that beyond the low pay in this country. The 16 hours I see as a separate issue resulting from a governments bad decision. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2024 10:04:43 GMT
We agree that there is unacceptable behaviour out there, and I agree with you that it is mostly just a minority. But this is a problem. In simple terms a zero hours contract is one that guarantees no paid hours at all. A part time contract is one that guarantees anything from 1 hour up to just under full time hours. 16 hours is an important threshold re welfare support, below which jobcentre requirements can create much greater stress and insecurity. Clearly we cannot ban all zero hours contracts without putting people like yourself out of business. Nor can we create a situation where any ban is evaded by simply guaranteeing one contracted hour, because that would be pointless. So there needs to be a minimum number of hours mandated by this legislation, and 16 hours makes most sense for welfare support reasons. But there clearly needs to be exemptions for businesses such as yours, where the hours on offer suit both you and your employees. How such exemptions are allowed for in law will be tricky, but maybe a blanket exemption for all businesses either of certain types or with less than a certain number of employees. But the default setting for job applicants is that they should not be mandated to accept jobs of less than 16 hours if they cannot afford to live off that. So that the applicants you get are all people who want to do it, and not some recalcitrant the local jobcentre has strong armed into applying to you. Because we both know that the latter character is highly unlikely to perform very well, will be highly unreliable, and probably have an attitude problem. So in general terms zero hours contracts restricted, accompanied by the right to request 16 hour minimum contracts, but with exemptions for certain types or sizes of businesses, albeit with no one forced to accept contracts of less than 16 hours if they dont want to. And perhaps a little legislation tightening up the conditions so that employees are given reasonable notice of the hours they are expected to work. Finding out on the day with no notice at all is clearly not acceptable I think we both agree For me Zero hours contract is a different thing. Its a job where you don't know one week to the next how many hours you will get. Anything from 0 to 40. That makes planning your life impossible, you can't take other work because you are obliged to be available but you don't know what you will earn. So the girl who does 7 hours in a nightclub every Friday night is free to work in the care home on Monday and Wednesday etc. I see no issue with that beyond the low pay in this country. The 16 hours I see as a separate issue resulting from a governments bad decision. I do believe the government have changed the law so that anyone working limited or highly variable hours cannot be contractually barred from looking for second jobs anymore. Anyway you say that it is not so much limited hours but the unpredictability of those hours - inherent to many zero hours contracts I would suggest - that is the problem and it is indeed a good point. Nevertheless, I believe that insofar as it is reasonable and possible, such contracts should be reduced to a minimum, with workers knowing that whilst overtime may or may not be available, they are guaranteed a minimum of hours. I still think 16 hours not unreasonable unless both employer and employee are happy for less hours. I am not suggesting they be allowed to agree to ten hours then demand 16 as soon as they have the job. If they agree to ten hours that is all they have the right to expect. But I think this must be a genuinely free choice for both parties, without jobcentres strong arming people into such jobs against their will. This would guarantee that if you have ten hours on offer the only applicants you will get are those genuinely happy with that. So removing the element of compulsion for contracts of less than 16 hours is better all round, both for you as an employer, and for any potential employee who needs some measure of financial security. You describe the 16 hour rule as a bad government decision. But the less hours someone works in total, the more likely they are to be partly dependent upon welfare. It is not unreasonable to have a minimum number of hours to have to be worked without which it is incumbent upon welfare claimants to look for additional or alternative work. I think 16 hours is a generously low level actually. I myself only have a 16 and a half hour contract, though I almost always work more than that via overtime. Yet if I only worked my contracted hours and relied on welfare top ups, I would be allowed to do that without any requirement to look for another job. If my contracted hours were an hour less, the jobcentre would be constantly breathing down my neck with the threat of sanctions if i dont spend every waking moment not working actually looking for another job. Since I already have anxiety issues being made worse by Parkinsons, such a situation would be immensely damaging to my mental health and would probably see me ending up on long term sickness. So in what way do you think the 16 hour rule is a bad government decision? Should the threshold above which you are not under constant pressure from the jobcentre be even lower? Or should it be so high that anyone without full time hours is constantly being hounded by jobcentres whose primary focus should be those not working at all? If the latter it will not help you at all but would make things much more difficult for those sectors of the economy - notably retail and hospitality - that rely heavily on part time employees. All things considered, I think the 16 hour rule makes a lot of sense, as a point below which a claimant has an obligation to at least seek out a second job. Where else should the threshold be and why. in your opinion? |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 10, 2024 18:29:31 GMT
For me Zero hours contract is a different thing. Its a job where you don't know one week to the next how many hours you will get. Anything from 0 to 40. That makes planning your life impossible, you can't take other work because you are obliged to be available but you don't know what you will earn. So the girl who does 7 hours in a nightclub every Friday night is free to work in the care home on Monday and Wednesday etc. I see no issue with that beyond the low pay in this country. The 16 hours I see as a separate issue resulting from a governments bad decision. That's good Thank you. Turning up for work and being sent home after a couple of hours, barely covering your travel costs must be soul destroying and is totally unacceptable. I think that's effectively saying government should destroy jobs in the name of good. . That is always the case. No one here in the UK is forced to take a job. A job is a simple contract, I need X done and will pay Y would you like to do this for me. Agreed, MY company has been approached by the job centre several times with a view of us taking on "Apprentices" who need learn nothing and whom we can pay stupidly tiny money. My answer is always the same, let them apply for the jobs we have and let me pay them the going rate. Agreed. I misunderstood your initial description of this. I thought you were saying they had benefits stopped unless they acquired extra hours. I think it perfectly reasonable to ask someone to try and find at least 16 hours a week. I would go further and say you could be asked to work for your benefits money.  My mistake, see above. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2024 18:53:10 GMT
Seems we kind of agree a lot more than seemed likely to start with.
As for working for benefits I am in two minds about this. On one level as a concept it makes some sense for the fit and able, provided they earn the minimum wage for doing it. That would mean enough hours at 11.44 an hour to earn their benefit entitlement up to a maximum of 40 hours. If they put in more hours than that they would be getting less than minimum wage. Which I do not think acceptable.
Two other potential problems. When would these people have the time to actually look for proper jobs? And what work would they be doing that wouldnt take away paid employment from somebody else?
It is an easy thing to suggest but the practicalities of it are not quite so easy. I would rather they be obligated to spend a minimum of 16 hours a week actively engaged in job searching activities under supervision in jobcentres, ready at a moments notice and dressed accordingly to attend interviews.
I'd prefer the unemployed claimant to be far more focussed upon doing that to find paid employment than picking up litter or whatever other task of work is deemed necessary.
I will address one other point you made about minimum hours legislation destroying jobs in the name of good. In earlier posts I suggested exemptions based either on business size or type of business. You acknowledged that there was no need for a company like Sports Direct to rely on zero hours contracts. It is where companies are using them as their default when they have no need to that should be cracked down on. I have suggested minimum hour contracts of 16 hours as the standard, with no one being forced to accept less unless they want to, and with exceptions for certain business models. Certainly, there is and never was any good reason why a company like Tesco cannot offer 16 hours or more to anyone that wants that, as they are now belatedly doing, after many years of taking the piss.
This needs to become the norm for most businesses and organisations, with exemptions for those who genuinely want less and agree to that and for certain kinds or sizes of business. How these essential caveats are legislated will make all the difference to how well or badly it works.
If ever any legislation on this matter is forthcoming, we can discuss the details then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 10, 2024 19:34:04 GMT
Seems we kind of agree a lot more than seemed likely to start with. Strangely I'd be more generous than you on this one. I would want you to be able to have enough time for job hunting or education to get a job. So I would give you all your benefits (Whatever they are) in return for 20 hours a week, minus any hours you already work. I do this because I don't want you to work for your benefits, more to not fall into lethargy.  See above. See above. Yep. If there is a way to stop companies deliberately keeping hours short by employing more people than they need, I would approve of stopping them. Can't see why any company would want to do that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2024 8:47:21 GMT
The reason why a company like Tesco employed more employees on shorter contracts is that it gave the employer far more control over how many man hours were worked from week to week and store to store. It had a whole bunch of employees desperate for more hours who would be certain to fill any overtime available, yet it could reduce those hours again just as easily by cutting that overtime. It was a model of flexibility that suited the employer at the expense of financial insecurity for the employee.
But as we got to a situation much closer to full employment, such employees were either rapidly finding other jobs and thus turning down most of the overtime, or - more often - leaving after only a week or two because they got a better offer somewhere else. So it stopped working for Tesco which realised it had to guarantee enough hours to keep the jobcentre off people's backs if it wanted to hang on to more of its employees. They were in other words driven to a more reasonable practice not by altruism but by labour market forces. But in a time of high unemployment they could easily revert back to taking the piss. I want 16 hours to be the standard default minimum by employment law except for those employees who genuinely want less and for certain types of small businesses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 11, 2024 15:58:00 GMT
That's a really good point. My company certainly suffers from people phoning in sick on football Saturdays. Maybe its a chicken an egg situation. I'm lucky in that most of those type jobs are taken by students who are very flexible at coming in last minute to cover their friends shifts. I run a happy ship, give and take, "your mums ill, don't worry we'll find someone to cover for you" "Hi, Billy's mums ill can you help us out like we did for you" My company has grown quite big but I still insist its run like a family. Don't suppose Tesco do that. We've had a few leave for Tesco and more hours and then come back saying its horrible by comparison. Sorry read this after I answered the first part. That's good and how it should be really, a balance between the two. So the secret is to keep unemployment low.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2024 21:49:01 GMT
That's a really good point. My company certainly suffers from people phoning in sick on football Saturdays. Maybe its a chicken an egg situation. I'm lucky in that most of those type jobs are taken by students who are very flexible at coming in last minute to cover their friends shifts. I run a happy ship, give and take, "your mums ill, don't worry we'll find someone to cover for you" "Hi, Billy's mums ill can you help us out like we did for you" My company has grown quite big but I still insist its run like a family. Don't suppose Tesco do that. We've had a few leave for Tesco and more hours and then come back saying its horrible by comparison. Sorry read this after I answered the first part. That's good and how it should be really, a balance between the two. So the secret is to keep unemployment low. Actually as an employer Tesco does have its good points. It is happy to allow trade union representation and membership for its workforce, and has its own in house counselling and GP services. As far as physical and mental health of their employees are concerned they do take their duty of care seriously. Though they have had a tendency to expect the state to subsidise inadequate hour contracts for the convenience of managers. However, as with so many large organisations, how good or otherwise Tesco is to work for often depends on the managers at store level. Some stores can be quite good places to work and others far less so. At one Tesco store in Plymouth the night shift manager was such a notorious bully that entire union meetings were held about her. There were frequent legitimate complaints but instead of taking action against the manager they tended instead to transfer the complainants to other stores with sweeteners in the form of better contracts if necessary. Only when night shift itself was done away with did she leave. I myself had to leave that store after being victimised by another manager there. Basically I was working one Saturday from 6am to 5pm, and got asked to stay on til 10pm by the garage manager so ended up working a 16 hour shift to help them out. I was due back in at 6am the following morning, not having had a day off for many weeks, and already clocked up over 70 hours that week. I overslept and felt chronically fatigued and so only showed up for my checkout shift starting at 10am. But the manager whose shift I failed to make spoke contemptuously of me being too tired as being unacceptable. Knowing I was struggling financially, she banned me from working overtime in her department for two months, something she never did to all the others who regularly failed to show up on Sundays due to hangovers. I saw this as entirely malicious, and a massive kick in the teeth for me when I went above and beyond to help them out. No one else would have agreed to stay on an extra 5 hours after already being there for 11. And thats the thanks I got for it. I just could not work there after that which is how I ended up transferring to a store 15 miles away. Had to take what I could get. The working environment at my current store is much better. But as ever a lot of this is down to the actual managers. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 12, 2024 16:04:37 GMT
One of our employees who had worked for Tesco said a supervisor told them not to stand talking, they pointed out that they had just finished stocking and straightening the aisle and it was all neat. The supervisor walked down the aisle pushing everything back and said, its not now.
You're right it is the middle management in any workplace who define what its like to work there. But its the job of senior management to listen and hear what's going on.
We are just dealing with one of our supervisors who is accused of having favourites who do no work while everyone else carries them.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on May 1, 2024 14:44:30 GMT
Will anyone be voting Labour in the upcoming GE and if so why? I resigned from the Labour party when Starmer became leader and will have to clearly consider who I will vote for, probably not Labour though. I was and still am a Corbyn supporter, and whilst I do not know how he would have managed the country I can only believe we would not be in the mess we are now. While I think the attacks on Corbyn were way OTT, I can't see how he could have been judged Labour Leader material. The whole episode played out like the narrative to the three-year Michael Foot leadership — although reading up on the time, Corbyn was not such a good speaker. He was too old to be still in student politics and completely out of place.
If my vote means anything, I will vote against the current Tory administration. At the moment, I don't know who my Labour candidate is likely to be. Diane Abbott has lost the Labour whip and, in any case, is past her sell-by date, however good a constituency MP she may have been in the past.
I'm not necessarily against Starmer leading Labour in power — he's mostly seen off the Corbyn faction — and a couple of terms in opposition might get a competent Tory Party that's once again ready for a government that's likely to do the UK some good.
However, I don't think a landslide Labour victory in the general election would be a positive outcome, whereas the unlikely result of a hung Parliament might deliver a competent government...
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on May 1, 2024 15:16:36 GMT
Have to say for what it is worth, I think Pollard is a very good local MP and infinitely better than the City’s other one.
In terms of who I will vote for, I will vote tactically for whoever of Lab or Lib I think has the better chance of beating the Tory. I’ve been moved under boundary changes but my new seat (and old one) has always been solid Tory but electoral calculus currently thinks it might be marginal this time. My guess is like many seats in the area, the Lib, Lab, Grn vote will beat the Tory/Reform vote but it will split too much and let the Tory through to win. I think they are collectively mad to let this happen but seems they are prepared to take that risk.
Personally I don’t really understand those on the left voting other than Labour (or if their seat demands Lib) this time. While I would dearly love a voting system where we can all vote for our favourite party productively, we are currently stuck with the system we have and that means in most cases a vote for a minor party if your seat is marginal means an increased chance of another Tory government. While I understand that some would prefer a more left Labour in power than Starmer would deliver, Starmer will be closer to what you want than Sunak will offer and frankly with the Tory party as it currently is, I think there is a high chance that the Tories will veer right towards a Truss/Braverman style government even if they win the next election. If you are Centre, Centre right, Centre left or left, if you genuinely can’t see that Starmer would be a better government for you than Braverman, frankly I think you are delusional.
Of course as ever, who you vote for is your choice but a vote against Starmer does not make a more Corbyn style government a reality.
|
|
See above. 
