anonymous_abc
Member
That is entirely up to you and how involved you want to be.
From just reading their newsletters to actively proposing things for the manifesto or even standing for election at any level imaginable.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
May 7th | UK General Election 2015 OT - Please go vote!
- Thread starter Volotaire
- Start date
- Status
That is entirely up to you and how involved you want to be.
From just reading their newsletters to actively proposing things for the manifesto or even standing for election at any level imaginable.
CharmingCharlie
Member
Seems Alan Sugar is leaving the Labour party and going as an Independant in the house of lords :-
As a long time ZX Spectrum owner all I can say is "fuck off you odious cunt". Never liked Sugar and I never understood what the fuck that guy was doing in the Labour party.
As a long time ZX Spectrum owner all I can say is "fuck off you odious cunt". Never liked Sugar and I never understood what the fuck that guy was doing in the Labour party.
Other gems from this pillock include
Culture Secretary.
This is going to be such fun
Sir_Crocodile
Member
is the guy who stands behind him still part of the labour party
he always cracked me up
ferrasvansen
Member
Great news never liked him to be honest, years of making shit electrical gear god knows how many of my failed sky boxes came from Amstrad, most of them i guess.
IMO this is one of the biggest issues facing Labour--shedding their image of being 'anti-business', because nothing is further from the truth. worker rights and welfare, and a healthy and happy workforce, make businesses better.
starting with the welfare of the people at the bottom and letting that work upwards leads to better results than starting at the top and working down, and the left needs to remind people of that instead of falling into right wing rhetoric about only managers and CEOs 'creating wealth'.
Audioboxer
Member
*shakes head*
PrivateRyan
Member
For anyone interested in joining the LibDems and based in or near London, they have a 'newbie' meeting on Monday 18th May at Westminster: http://www.londonlibdems.org.uk/psigrist/london_libdem_newbies_meetup
I'll be attending. No idea what to expect - this is all relatively new to me - but I really, really want to get involved.
I'll be attending. No idea what to expect - this is all relatively new to me - but I really, really want to get involved.
CyclopsRock
Member
That depends on how you define "better", doesn't it?
Not really.
CyclopsRock
Member
OK, but if it makes them better in every way, why do we require legislation forcing them to do it? Clearly they don't all think it makes their businesses better. So what does the Labour party know that they don't?
Miles Quaritch
Member
Oh, what the fuck.
I thought we were relatively clear of cunts like this in mainstream politics.
SymbiantXenos
Member
Haha, what could go wrong.
We've been spoiled for the last ~20 years by not having to deal with a real Conservative Majority Government, red in tooth and claw.
If history is anything to go by, when this baby hits 326 seats in Parliament, you're going to see some serious shits.
Dirtyshubb
Member
Thanks for the response, gonna think about it but i may well end up joining as its the logical next step for me doing something other than trying to make people i know aware of issues and signing petitions etc.
anonymous_abc
Member
I've been a member of the green party (of Germany) for over 10 years and active on various levels.
Just do it!
anonymous_abc
Member
CyclopsRock
Member
I can't imagine there's much to save in JSA, given how relatively small it is and that the numbers on it are disappearing so quick.
So.....sourced from twitter we have...
A Justice Secretary who wants hanging (Take that either way, my hatred of Gove knows no bounds).
A Culture secretary who wants rid of the BBC licence fee.
An Equalities minister who voted against gay marriage.
No wonder the 1922 committee were quite pleased about meeting Cameron...
A Justice Secretary who wants hanging (Take that either way, my hatred of Gove knows no bounds).
A Culture secretary who wants rid of the BBC licence fee.
An Equalities minister who voted against gay marriage.
No wonder the 1922 committee were quite pleased about meeting Cameron...
Because businesses and business leaders are generally stupid and short-termist. It's the same reason they're unable to internalise things like the environmental costs of their actions without legislation forcing it.
Do you think that our countries would be as successful as they are if we didn't legislate against child labour? If we didn't have public education or public healthcare?
"Business" is destructive and its advice should be ignored, because it's consistently, shockingly wrong.
I think they are going to make it contribution based, so no stamp no JSA
QuicheFontaine
Member
What's wrong with that? The licence fee is an outdated idea these days, and enforcement is basically impossible.
I like the BBC, but I'd rather they just roll their funding into general taxation and forget a "TV licence" altogether.
The Cowboy
Member
Well the under 21 ban on housing benefit is 1 we've heard about being a possibility, the next is making it so the bedroom tax hits even more people like people in private housing as an example (also possibly pensioners?), and then also possibly increasing the bedroom tax rate (up from 14% and 25%).
Don't forget Jeremy Hunt, a secretary of state for health who believes in homeopathy.
Cameron's England...
Because then you have not just a state owned broadcaster, but a broadcaster with a vested interest in pandering to government as much as possible. This is, after all the culture secretary who has recently stated that not only should the licence fee disappear after 2026, but that the BBC trust should be brought under more governmental control, and the privatisation of Channel 4 should be moved underway.
Vivalaraza
Member
Interesting to see Pickles dropped from DCLG. Greg Clark comes in in his place which suggests Osborne having his way with the Cities plans/mayors/devolved powers.
In general this reshuffle looks good for Osborne. As though Cameron is helping him position himself for a run at the leadership in 3/4 years time.
In general this reshuffle looks good for Osborne. As though Cameron is helping him position himself for a run at the leadership in 3/4 years time.
....My mind had wiped that fact to protect me....good catch!
Audioboxer
Member
I just can't....
Its as if we're becoming one of the backwards US states instead of a proud and progressive country.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Agreed.
ooh, Pickles was on radio 5 yesterday saying he hoped to get the same job or better
Edit
I see he has not lost his job, which is a shame as I find him to be a pillock of the highest order
Eric Pickles
EricPickles
I could not wish for a better successor than @gregclarkmp He will do a fantastic jog. More announcements later in the week of my new role
Why assume that business leaders know what's better for businesses on a macroeconomic scale than, say, the academics who conduct research into it?
For instance, business leaders around the world routinely campaign against the minimum wage even though all available evidence suggests that it's a good thing for the economy (that is, it's good for business).
In the US, business leaders insisted that introducing ObamaCare would drive many businesses bankrupt with the need to provide insurance for more people. Nothing of the like has happened.
Business leaders are routinely in favour of things like supply-side economics that are intellectually discredited in theory and harmful to economies in practice, as the spectacular selfdestruction of the financial sector in 2006-07 after their years of campaigning for deregulation finally took its toll.
Why assume business leaders don't know what's good for business? Because their track record on the matter is abysmal.
Well, good luck with getting the Tories to roll the BBC license fee into general taxation.
CyclopsRock
Member
I strongly suspect that the things Sugar was talking about were actual bits of business legislation, regulation, incentives, tax etc rather than healthcare and public education. It's these things he was refering to when he said that Labour's policies are anti-business and so presumably also these things that Godelsmetric was saying was wrong. Even child labour is basically an issue of human rights since children have no ability to consent to such things, nor any way to support themselves alone making them very easy to cooerce - the reason for banning them from working has nothing to do with making businesses better, which appears to be different to the quote I took issue with.
A better example would be the minimum wage.
QuicheFontaine
Member
It's already got an interest in pandering to the government of the day, and in my opinion they do a fine job of remaining impartial. In any case, most of the BBC's output has nothing to do with the government anyway.
Thanks!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think businesses are usually quite good at knowing what would be good for their individual business. Unfortunately, sometimes things that are good for an individual businesses are actually really bad for businesses as a collective. As an example, it's great for one business if wages go down just for that business, and therefore it makes sense for that one business to push for weaker worker bargaining positions and weaker wage laws. However, it's pretty terrible for businesses if all wages everywhere go down, because then you end up selling less! Collective action problems at their finest. Unfortunately, Smith's invisible hand is sometimes an invisible arsehole.
It's been years but I'm still in absolute disbelief Jeremy Cunt is health secretary.
I will be surprised if we're all still alive by then.
Saving in itself.
CyclopsRock
Member
Because "business interests" aren't macro - you seem to be conflating the interests of businesses with the interests of the wider economy, but they aren't the same thing. Whilst generally speaking a more prosperous economy is obviously good for businesses, various metrics of measuring economic prosperity will affect different businesses in different ways (for example, a boost in wage growth is better for Waitrose than it is for Aldi, for example, who are basically already the bargain bottom choice) So when Sports Direct says they like zero hour contracts because they benefit from the flexibility they offer, they aren't wrong about that just because a study says that the economic uncertainty that zero-hour contracts bring leads to a personal lowering on economic activity - they can actually both be right.
Kotetsu534
Member
I predict Tax Credits, both Child (much the bigger) and Working are going to get crapped on. The introduction of Universal Credit's goal is to "make work pay". Since the government has no way of forcing companies to raise wages (well, they do, but if you think the Tories are going to raise the National Minimum Wage ahead of inflation...) the most effective way of ensuring that each extra hour worked is a boon to each individual's economic circumstances it to take weaken Tax Credits.
The Disability Allowance -> Personal Indepedence Payment transition will be completed under this government. I doubt they'll go much further - support for the disabled under the new regime is already miserly. Child Benefit is a big question mark - I imagine there may be differences of opinion at the top of government about it. Probably gets capped at 2 children for new claimants, at the very least. JSA takes up such a small proportion of the DWP's bill it's essentially irrelevant, and is already extremely low by EU standards - doubt it gets hit much. Could see Carer's Allowance being wound down/scrapped.
Housing Benefit is the other big question mark. With the government resurrecting RTB for social tenants I doubt they'd want to go in too hard on those in the private sector, but who knows.
I'm not surprised, income support is only there if you work under 11 hours a week at minimum wage. Anything earned up to the amount (£72 a week) is deducted. So if you earn £72 in a week you don't get any extra support. It's less for under 25s, I think around £50.
Kotetsu534
Member
It's well known that JSA staff have targets for meting out sanctions, and they're trigger happy with them. There's a ton of bookkeeping required to show you're applying for enough jobs, so any slip up and boom, sanctioned. It's the delays that cause the real problem - even if you get a sanction overturned it'll take 2-3 weeks minimum to get the money back, which is a real problem if your electric bill or rent needs paid today. And if you're too meek or poorly spoken to mount an appeal, well, you're out of luck.
CyclopsRock
Member
This isn't necessarily the case. The problem we had before was that someone in a poor financial situation had a massive (like, potentially more than 10) various bits of welfare they could apply to but that a) relied on them actually applying for it and b) made it insanely complex for that individual (As well as the DWP I'm sure) because they all had different requirements and they all had different cut offs etc. This meant that there were certain scenarios in which an extra few hours a week meant suddenly losing money over all - obviously an undesirable state of affairs. So it's not necessarily the case that the only way to "make work pay" is to lower the total value but rather ensure that its "falloff" doesn't come in giant chunks, but more granually. I believe that's the point, anyway. Whether they successfully do that is another matter.
EdIT:
16 hours, isn't it?
You're entitled to claim if you're working 16 hours or under, but like I said they deduct any money earned from the claim. 11 hours @ £6.50 (min wage) is £71.50 which is basically the maximum you can work to claim any money, and then it would be around £1 you would receive.
CyclopsRock
Member
This is, AFAIK, the main cause for referrals to food banks (and why the majority of people don't need to go there more than 3 times) as opposed to actual poverty causing people to go to food banks.
Gotcha.
Why do the left minded get offended when people tar everyone with benefits with the same brush than think nothing of doing the same themselves.
The vast majority of employers in the UK are SMEs, hundreds of thousands will be people following a dream and willing to bet everything they have ever owned that they can make a success of themselves. As their employee base grows they not only have to worry about their livelihood but that of those under their employment too.
I'm an employer and loose sleep over this shit. Not so much anymore but there has been a time where work ran dry and I went without myself to make sure my lads got paid.
The Cowboy
Member
Once you get past (i think 6 months) your required to do 35 hours per week of job searching, and you need to keep a record of everything you do as with some advisors any discrepancy = a sanction. On top of this if your advisor feels the need to do so, you can be referred to a work program in which you do around 3 months work at 30 hours per week for the equivalent of around £2 an hour wage (you work 30 hours a week to earn your JSA) - they can also put you on a course to "help" with your prospects.
Personal experience here last year.
I attended the jobcentre for my weekly appointment and was sat downstairs waiting after putting my card in the box i always was told to put it in, turned out the advisor had moved upstairs and the box number hadn't moved with her - as such i was 10 minutes late to see her as i was sat downstairs waiting. It was only found out after the new person who had the desk came back from lunch, i got my 1st sanction for this even though i explained i was sat downstairs waiting just like i always did. I was told i should have asked where the advisor was (which i did, was told she was on lunch) or that i should have known i was now upstairs - i lost the appeal on this, despite showing that i had in fact arrived 15 minutes early.
After my sanction i was put on a course (similar to an A4e course), i was on this for 3 months and had to attend 1 day a week. On the last 2 weeks we had to come every day for 5 hours, unfortunalty for me on the last week i got food positioning and not wanting to risk anything I ACTULLY WENT AND ATTENDED and i was then sent home by the person in charge of the course that day (we informed my jobcentre and personal advisor of this, i was sent a sick form, filled it in and sent it off and confirmed it was received on my next sign on day) - 1 month later i got a sanction letter from the main office dealing with sanctions: the reason being failing to do that day and going home, i lost my benefits for over a month whilst i had to prove i was actually told it was OK to go home.
Its a bloody minefield now and they try to catch you with everything, they try to say there isn't targets - but there is.
Sure, it depends on how you define 'business interests' too (for instance do you mean greater profit and security in the long term, or bigger payouts for shareholders in the short term?). But so far as I can tell from the policies they advocate, business leaders seem very prone to the fallacy of composition on economic matters, and prone to extraordinary short-termism. Moreover, many business leaders aren't even good at running their own businesses, let alone prescribing policies that affect all of them. Should the government be falling over themselves to listen to what the CEO of Tesco has to say about what would be good for Tesco?
Nevertheless, the historical record for listening to what business leaders think is best for business (at least in as much as it hasn't involved, say, communism) has been a disaster for almost everybody but the richest handful of people in the country.
More broadly, that's why I don't think the left should fall into the trap of pandering to 'wealth creators'. Everybody who works is a wealth creator. In fact, since they still have to spend money on staying alive, even people who're on benefits are doing their bit to keep the economy afloat and to keep other people prosperous. It's time to rescue political discourse from the right-wing framing it's had since the late 70s.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked