General Election 2017

[Bodian]

Maybe my point was quite clear to someone with reasonable intelligence as I was talking about the planning process, but I guess some people need things spelt out in basic language to make up for their own failings. I'll bear that in mind that I need to dumb things down for you.

I read your first post on this, and drafted a response along the lines of 'what job do you do - does it involve being shouted at and insulted by 'the public' on a daily basis like many of us public sector workers are?' But I didn't post it, as I'm not keen on personal arguments on here. However, your mention of the planning process explains it all. Going on my experience of dealing with the public, and their main gripe - you've either had a planning application turned down, or someone has had planning permission for something you object to, or similar? I do have some sympathy with this, but to be fair to planners - they can never please anyone, let alone everyone. But they are an integral part of the processes of democracy.

 

[Chicken Run]

Isn't working? There have been numerous attacks thwarted by the security services/police over the last few years. There are 500 live counter-terrorist investigations at any time, there are 23000 people on the radar. The security services have always said some will eventually get through, it's impossible to guarantee 100% security in a free society. It took just 8 minutes for the Police to respond to and kill all the terrorists.

It's ridiculous bringing the nuclear deterrent issue into a discussion about fighting terrorism. The current issue is how best to combat terrorism the man you want to become PM proudly boasts “I’ve been involved in opposing anti-terror legislation ever since I first went into Parliament in 1983”.

Prevention of Terrorism Bill in 1984. It introduced police powers to arrest a person suspected of involvement in acts of terrorism connected to Northern Ireland.

Corbyn: Voted against it

1989 Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which proscribed the IRA and Irish National Liberation Army.

Corbyn: Voted against it

Terrorism Act 2000
Introduced by the Labour government - gave a broad definition of terrorism for the first time. The Act also gave the police the power to detain terrorist suspects for up to seven days and created a list of proscribed terrorist organisations.

Corbyn: Voted against it

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001

Corbyn: Voted against it

Aftermath of the London 7/7 bombings, part of the 2006 Terrorism Act - extended the detention-without-charge period from 14 to 28 days.

Corbyn: Voted against it

Counter-terrorism Act 2008

Corbyn: Voted against it

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act

Corbyn: Voted against it

Justice and Security Act 2013

Corbyn: Voted against it

Now there may be some good arguments why he opposed one or two pieces of legislation but his serial opposition record suggests protecting the public isn't a top priority ..

The guy is hurting today I promise, he of course sends his condolences to the family of those that lost their lives, of course he sends his heart felt thanks to the magnificent public servants for their incredible work but I assure you he is also hurting as the rise in support for the #enoughisenough ideology will result in a less tolerant society and his perpetual avoidance of anything that might offend is losing credibility!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Maybe my point was quite clear to someone with reasonable intelligence as I was talking about the planning process, but I guess some people need things spelt out in basic language to make up for their own failings. I'll bear that in mind that I need to dumb things down for you.

You don't know who your audience on here so I think it's best to be clear and not be ambiguous. I'd also suggest this is a good approach to life in general.

And before you start criticising public sector workers I hope you don't make such glaring omissions in whatever earth shattering job you do.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Makes Neville Chamberlain seem like a warmonger. How anyone can believe he is fit to lead and defend this country .. especially in the current environment is beyond me.

 

[larus]

I read your first post on this, and drafted a response along the lines of 'what job do you do - does it involve being shouted at and insulted by 'the public' on a daily basis like many of us public sector workers are?' But I didn't post it, as I'm not keen on personal arguments on here. However, your mention of the planning process explains it all. Going on my experience of dealing with the public, and their main gripe - you've either had a planning application turned down, or someone has had planning permission for something you object to, or similar? I do have some sympathy with this, but to be fair to planners - they can never please anyone, let alone everyone. But they are an integral part of the processes of democracy.

No. We've bought somewhere with outline planning permission in Sep/Oct last year and we're still waiting to get final planning. The next meeting is 28th June, so nearly 9 months for a small project. There is no urgency; someone goes away for 2 weeks holiday (which I understand), but then no-one else picks it up. Then trying to get the various departments to communicate and reach a decision is painful (planners/highways agency), then it has to wait for the next council planners meeting with is bloody weeks. Christ, if these were private companies they'd go bust.

 

[larus]

You don't know who your audience on here so I think it's best to be clear and not be ambiguous. I'd also suggest this is a good approach to life in general.

And before you start criticising public sector workers I hope you don't make such glaring omissions in whatever earth shattering job you do.

I would suggest that when you read things, you look at the context so that you don't go off at a tangent. If not, then everything would need to be in legal speak with various caveats to ensure that those of limited understanding do not take offence and suffer from confusion.

As to my abilities in my work life pal, I run my own successful event business/IT consultancy and I charge myself on a daily rate on a very high daily rate, and I'm always fully booked out. So thank you for your heart-felt concerns, but I can assure you that if I needed advice, based on your predictive skills and obvious limited levels of lateral thinking, I would not be asking you. Pomposity isn't something which I feel will be of help to me.

 

[Bodian]

No. We've bought somewhere with outline planning permission in Sep/Oct last year and we're still waiting to get final planning. The next meeting is 28th June, so nearly 9 months for a small project. There is no urgency; someone goes away for 2 weeks holiday (which I understand), but then no-one else picks it up. Then trying to get the various departments to communicate and reach a decision is painful (planners/highways agency), then it has to wait for the next council planners meeting with is bloody weeks. Christ, if these were private companies they'd go bust.

Yes - that's what I meant by having some sympathy. You'll probably find that someone like me has been raising issues and questions - Tesco are developing a building close to my home, and so far by querying every dodgy noise assessment they have produced, the whole thing has been stalled for many months! We often use the same analogy as you with regard to 'if they were a private company...' But private companies are, by and large, not over keen on getting involved in the non-profitable side of public sector work, so it's tricky to compare. And when they do, like Capita up here, they end up with just the same delays and problems.

Your point about trying to get the various departments to communicate also rings true - it is the one thing that most annoys me in my own local authority, one part often does something that impacts on the work of another - but doesn't bother telling them beforehand! But few of my colleagues are actually 'jobsworths'. They generally want to do a decent job, but often it is the system, democracy, and the public themselves who make this difficult to achieve.

With my tongue firmly in my cheek, just get on and build it and see what happens! Good luck....

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Makes Neville Chamberlain seem like a warmonger. How anyone can believe he is fit to lead and defend this country .. especially in the current environment is beyond me.

I would like to know whether JC approves of the terrorists being shot dead last night. If he wins on Thursday and something else happens next weekend will police orders have been changed ?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Yes - that's what I meant by having some sympathy. You'll probably find that someone like me has been raising issues and questions - Tesco are developing a building close to my home, and so far by querying every dodgy noise assessment they have produced, the whole thing has been stalled for many months! We often use the same analogy as you with regard to 'if they were a private company...' But private companies are, by and large, not over keen on getting involved in the non-profitable side of public sector work, so it's tricky to compare. And when they do, like Capita up here, they end up with just the same delays and problems.

Your point about trying to get the various departments to communicate also rings true - it is the one thing that most annoys me in my own local authority, one part often does something that impacts on the work of another - but doesn't bother telling them beforehand! But few of my colleagues are actually 'jobsworths'. They generally want to do a decent job, but often it is the system, democracy, and the public themselves who make this difficult to achieve.

With my tongue firmly in my cheek, just get on and build it and see what happens! Good luck....

Very balanced view of both the good work and the constraints to what can can be achieved in the public
sector. It matches my own experience and is a world away from the pictures painted by ideologues of both Left and Right.

 

[larus]

Yes - that's what I meant by having some sympathy. You'll probably find that someone like me has been raising issues and questions - Tesco are developing a building close to my home, and so far by querying every dodgy noise assessment they have produced, the whole thing has been stalled for many months! We often use the same analogy as you with regard to 'if they were a private company...' But private companies are, by and large, not over keen on getting involved in the non-profitable side of public sector work, so it's tricky to compare. And when they do, like Capita up here, they end up with just the same delays and problems.

Your point about trying to get the various departments to communicate also rings true - it is the one thing that most annoys me in my own local authority, one part often does something that impacts on the work of another - but doesn't bother telling them beforehand! But few of my colleagues are actually 'jobsworths'. They generally want to do a decent job, but often it is the system, democracy, and the public themselves who make this difficult to achieve.

With my tongue firmly in my cheek, just get on and build it and see what happens! Good luck....

That's just it. We can't just get on and build it until we get final planning. So, assuming they don't come back with any new objections, it will have taken 9 months approx from date of purchase to getting final planning. As I said, we bought somewhere with outline planning. I could have taken the easy option of buy-to-lets, but I feel taht I am then making money out of someone else's misery. At least by building new properties, in some really small and insignificant way, I feel as though I am helping the problem of housing shortage. The frustration is that we know there is a housing supply problem, but trying to address it feels hard work. Yes, I know we need a planning process, but it's archaic and needs overhauling.

 

[DataPoint]

To balance things out, I'd like to challenge Corbyn's record in Government. Trouble is he doesn't have a record in Government - in fact in 40 years he's never had a job in Parliament - in fact I don't think he's ever had a job of any sort other than in the Trade Union movement.

Why?

That's the question - the answer is the reason he'll loose this election.

 

[theonlymikey]

you're quite wrong about this. the "fairness" of setting minimum wage to some arbitary, round figure bears no relation to the economic value of the job. you can argue that its right to value a persons labour at a certain amount, but its not a valid argument to say thats fair for a business to have to pay. you're making a ideological argument to support one group and forcing it upon another. increasing minimum wage will be inflationary as it doesnt only raise the wages of the lowest paid, it also raises wages of those layers of pay above them, to maintain pay diferentials. the impcat to business depends on the business and pay structures, for those that the increases breaks the business model they will have to cut staff hours to accomodate, so the net result for many low pay will be negligable.

No no no no no. I am not having that.

I haven't created an ideology, I have explained to you how labours policies will work in real terms and will boost the economy.

You may be unwilling to put a minimum valuation on the lowest paid work, but i am sorry to burst your bubble, there already is one - because without one, people wouldn't be able to get by.

Let's say you are unwilling you pay your workers £10.00 an hour then fair enough that is your(current) prerogative. But those workers are still getting the minimum wage, but instead of being paid by their employers instead they are paid through in work benefits - subsidised by the tax payer.

Why should we pay your staff wages in order to allow them to survive?

Now lets say average Joe public are absolutely sick of subsidising low wages which in truth, I am angry as it has a direct impact on how much ANY government can spend on public services. So people c campaign for these to be scrapped. Now, surely even you know that if this happens WITHOUT raising the minimum wage, there will ultimately be a recession and deflation, which is a lot worse than a slight rise in inflation. Do you understand what this means?

You take away in work benefits and leave many workers on their current wages and it ends so badly.

- people won't be able to afford their mortgages and will ultimately become homeless - banks would be at a loss.
- Those living in rented accommodation won't be able to keep up with current rent payments and will become homeless unless property owners agreed to reduce.
- This drives down rental yields and drives down property value - ergo a knock on loss to middle/upper earners with property assets.
- Less rental yield would see landlords struggle to keep up on their buy to let mortgage payments.
- Because of this, the low income earners and the buy to let landlords and a lot of middle classes have less expendable income.
- Less expendable income means less potential punters pumping money into businesses.
- Businesses go under as a result and you still have job losses further driving deflation and the recession.

It is not fair for tax payers to subsidise low wages and businesses are lucky to have gotten away with the tax credit con for as long as they have. It has to end and the only way to do this is to increase the minimum wage.

 

[Titanic]

...It is not fair for tax payers to subsidise low wages and businesses are lucky to have gotten away with the tax credit con for as long as they have. It has to end and the only way to do this is to increase the minimum wage.

Is that still true if the alternative for a small business who can't operate with such a high wage structure is to close, make the employees redundant, so they and the business all stop paying any taxes/NI, and those who were earning a wage are now unemployed and fully dependent on the tax payer?

 

[Silk]

To balance things out, I'd like to challenge Corbyn's record in Government. Trouble is he doesn't have a record in Government - in fact in 40 years he's never had a job in Parliament - in fact I don't think he's ever had a job of any sort other than in the Trade Union movement.

Why?

That's the question - the answer is the reason he'll loose this election.

Is being an MP not "a job in parliament" then?

Sent from my F5121 using Tapatalk

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I would suggest that when you read things, you look at the context so that you don't go off at a tangent. If not, then everything would need to be in legal speak with various caveats to ensure that those of limited understanding do not take offence and suffer from confusion.

As to my abilities in my work life pal, I run my own successful event business/IT consultancy and I charge myself on a daily rate on a very high daily rate, and I'm always fully booked out. So thank you for your heart-felt concerns, but I can assure you that if I needed advice, based on your predictive skills and obvious limited levels of lateral thinking, I would not be asking you. Pomposity isn't something which I feel will be of help to me.

There's few things as crass as bragging about how much you earn. I'll leave you to it.

 

[theonlymikey]

Is that still true if the alternative for a small business who can't operate with such a high wage structure is to close, make the employees redundant, so they and the business all stop paying any taxes/NI, and those who were earning a wage are now unemployed and fully dependent on the tax payer?

My argument to that would be if you can't afford to pay your employees a good enough wage your business doesn't deserve to keep that worker. I have no time for protectionism. It helps nobody other than help that business to pay their staff low wages, be less efficient and take one spot in the market that another person could take up make it more efficient and make it work.

It's the elephant in the room but the truth is, businesses don't have an automatic right to survive. They make it work or they don't. If they don't someone else with better ideas will.Business is business. Harsh i know. But even under the current economic climate business debt is at an all time high.

But on a lighter note -

I have already explained why impact to businesses will be minimal. The amount of people with more expendable income will far outweigh the amount of employees in businesses where the businesses are struggling. The extra expendable income will allow more people to pump money into that particular business and offset against the the minimum wage increases. Oh and happy workers are more productive which means more efficiency.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Is that still true if the alternative for a small business who can't operate with such a high wage structure is to close, make the employees redundant, so they and the business all stop paying any taxes/NI, and those who were earning a wage are now unemployed and fully dependent on the tax payer?

If you can't afford to pay your staff a living wage I'd argue you shouldn't have been in business in the first place.

I'm of the view there are always smarter businesses and people who can operate more efficiently and pay a living wage. Getting rid of the dead wood will encourage their growth and only benefit the nation.

 

[Titanic]

...I have already explained why impact to businesses will be minimal. The amount of people with more expendable income will far outweigh the amount of employees in businesses where the businesses are struggling. The extra expendable income will allow more people to pump money into that particular business and offset against the the minimum wage increases. Oh and happy workers are more productive which means more efficiency.

Why will they have extra money? Are they still going to get taxpayers money on top of the £10 minimum wage? or does the current minimum + benefits come to less than £10?

 

[theonlymikey]

Why will they have extra money? Are they still going to get taxpayers money on top of the £10 minimum wage? or does the current minimum + benefits come to less than £10?

Not all low paid workers are subsidised by the tax players. I.E a lot don't qualify - living arrangements, ages, household income etc. + a lot probably won't know that they can claim.

Their income is more beneficial to the country if it comes from the employer not out of the tax payers pocket

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

It's not bull shît as you say.

Your premise only works if there are wage rises to your staff without adding in the extra benefits to the economy.

Are you suggesting that if millions of low paid households get a pay increase that spending power won't be more?

Are you suggesting that if spending power increases that businesses won't benefit from that?

Are you suggesting that a £10 minimum wage is unfair on businesses but millions of workers being paid less than the living wage is fair?

Do you believe that it is fair for me a normal tax payer to subsidise these low wages through working benefits? Dare I even say for your business too.

And as for inflation, considering it's only the lowest paid workers getting an increase inflation isn't going to go up as much as you're suspecting. I put this down to scare mongering and I'll informed nonsense.. If the entire economy gets a pay rise then you might have a point but it isn't so you don't.

As I said impact to businesses will be minimal. The millions of people getting an increase will be a greater reward.

But no I see you have a vested interest believing you are one of the FEW who MAY be adversely affected and not one of the MANY who will see a benefit.

#forthemany

If your right, then brilliant. If upping the minimum wage to £10 will so great, lets put it up to £15.

But speak to small/medium business owners, who in the last year have been hit hard by a declining pound, and for some a hike in business rates.

Ask them what a 40% increase in staff costs will mean for them and how they will cope with it.

If you really think it will be only a FEW adversely affected, then I think you are living with your head in the clouds.

The the good thing is we will never know. Because the it won't happen, because Labour won't win!