General Election 2017

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

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.

Really. So all business who are struggling at the moment deserve to go out of business if the minimum wages goes up 40% in the next two and a half years? Great thinking. Lets all only use the big corporations, and make all our purchases from the likes of Amazon, who will increase their profits, driving small business out of business (as they do now), without the added burden of having to pay tax, as they are big and clever enough to avoid that.

It really benefits the nation, when we drive all the business into the hands of the big corps whilst destroying all the home grown small/medium businesses doesn't it.

Great plan. You should be in the shadow cabinet.

 

[Live by the sea]

Excellent speech by our PM

The PM's speech today about the terrorist attack and Islamist threat we all face I thought was very good. I'm glad we have a strong PM. Can't imagine Corbyn giving a speech like that, he would probably be blaming America, Britain or Israel for 'encouraging it ' in his usual ignorant manner.

I'm thinking now that of heaven forbid Corbyn did get elected, he would in effect by an enemy of the state as he would be putting us at much greater risk with his stupid pacifist approach. Could he be removed by the queen if this situation occurred as a security risk even if he was elected?

Hopefully there's not enough stupid people to vote for him

 

[Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ]

 

[cloud]

I doubt they'd want to set a dangerous precedent by getting the Queen involved. Easier to just bump people off discreetly I'd have thought.

 

[theonlymikey]

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!

I applaud you ability to take it to the extreme. However that's not what I am arguing is it. I'm arguing workers should be paid at least enough to live rather that be subsidised by the tax payers.

Raising to £15 is far more than a living wage and therefore not really appropriate is it. Nice attempt to belittle my point although it does now appear this whole time you've been missing it completely.

I'll repeat this, if a worker is not being paid enough to live and therefore in my opinion - exploited - then you don't deserve to keep said worker. Sticking with the status quo in terms of this argument is protectionism of already established businesses. Protectionism if the goal is for a growing economy is simply not feasible.

It is not the job of the tax payer to prop up your business to pay your staff and make up the slack.

 

[sir albion]

The PM's speech today about the terrorist attack and Islamist threat we all face I thought was very good. I'm glad we have a strong PM. Can't imagine Corbyn giving a speech like that, he would probably be blaming America, Britain or Israel for 'encouraging it ' in his usual ignorant manner.

I'm thinking now that of heaven forbid Corbyn did get elected, he would in effect by an enemy of the state as he would be putting us at much greater risk with his stupid pacifist approach. Could he be removed by the queen if this situation occurred as a security risk even if he was elected?

Hopefully there's not enough stupid people to vote for him

So pretty much what we already know
Any kind of liberalism in leadership would probably end up destroying this country...

 

[theonlymikey]

Didn't see the speech but let me guess what happened

She chaired a cobra meeting? She condemns the attacks? We need to be strong a pull together? We won't let them win?

Heard it all before . Will anything change?

 

[Scotchegg]

A very desperate man speaking out on sky news about policing...

https://twitter.com/el4jc/status/871334312221736960

 

[clapham_gull]

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 ..

For balance it's worth noting that May and Davis voting against some of the legislation too...

Sent from my LG-K520 using Tapatalk

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Really. So all business who are struggling at the moment deserve to go out of business if the minimum wages goes up 40% in the next two and a half years? Great thinking. Lets all only use the big corporations, and make all our purchases from the likes of Amazon, who will increase their profits, driving small business out of business (as they do now), without the added burden of having to pay tax, as they are big and clever enough to avoid that.

It really benefits the nation, when we drive all the business into the hands of the big corps whilst destroying all the home grown small/medium businesses doesn't it.

Great plan. You should be in the shadow cabinet.

That's not at all what I suggested is it?

 

[Beach Hut]

Some of the things Corbyn says make very good sense and I am amazed at how poor May has been, the only issue is I don't believe the sums with labour

 

[beorhthelm]

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.

wages are not determined by how much they need to "get by". they are determined by the demand for labour, the skills required and the supply of that labour and skills, and business budgets/profitability. if you want someone on a checkout, you can put pretty much any one in the population in that job. if your budget/business model allows for x on wages, increasing wages to x+10% means your either bust, have to cut staff, or increase prices to cover (leading to inflation). thats the raw economics of it.

now you can argue that you want society to say someone time is worth x, but that definatly is a ideological argument, not economically rational. this concept of paying people enough to "get by" is illogical and inconsistent as you know nothing of workers circumstances - different hours worked, second earners, young, retirees, and other factors throw the notion into disarray. someone with family needs x a year, someone without responsibilities doesnt. arguments that companies that cant pay enough for someone to live on are idiotic, ignoring the economic value of some jobs, dismissing those that willing to work for less than the arbitary "enough", and means lot of businesses and small organisation (charities, not-for-profits) are dismissed out of hand. by all means make the ideological case for a minimum wage, just dont pretend it has sound economic reasoning.

you're quite right on one point though, work benefits only serve to subsidies the worker so that they do not look for better paying work or demand more pay. we're paying an awful lot for that, and feeding a culture of state dependancy and low productivity too.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

wages are not determined by how much they need to "get by". they are determined by the demand for labour, the skills required and the supply of that labour and skills, and business budgets/profitability. if you want someone on a checkout, you can put pretty much any one in the population in that job. if your budget/business model allows for x on wages, increasing wages to x+10% means your either bust, have to cut staff, or increase prices to cover (leading to inflation). thats the raw economics of it.

now you can argue that you want society to say someone time is worth x, but that definatly is a ideological argument, not economically rational. this concept of paying people enough to "get by" is illogical and inconsistent as you know nothing of workers circumstances - different hours worked, second earners, young, retirees, and other factors throw the notion into disarray. someone with family needs x a year, someone without responsibilities doesnt. arguments that companies that cant pay enough for someone to live on are idiotic, ignoring the economic value of some jobs, dismissing those that willing to work for less than the arbitary "enough", and means lot of businesses and small organisation (charities, not-for-profits) are dismissed out of hand. by all means make the ideological case for a minimum wage, just dont pretend it has sound economic reasoning.

you're quite right on one point though, work benefits only serve to subsidies the worker so that they do not look for better paying work or demand more pay. we're paying an awful lot for that, and feeding a culture of state dependancy and low productivity too.

Your points are not strictly true and only look at things in simple and face-value terms; there is plenty of evidence which suggests a properly remunerated, happy, confident and secure work force benefits the nation better. At a simple level they're more productive. And if they have economic confidence they will spend and maintain the economic cycle.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

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 ..

Fascinating and worrying......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Beach Hut]

The point about cuts was drastic measures needed to happen since the banking crisis, the worry is we are very near to where we were. Unsecured debt on cards is rising rapidly let alone unsecured Chinese debt, a very serious financial crisis is on the horizon.

 

[Ernest]

Some of the things Corbyn says make very good sense and I am amazed at how poor May has been, the only issue is I don't believe the sums with labour

At least with Labour you have sums, with the Tories you have to guess it all

 

[Ernest]

Fascinating and worrying......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is seeing that none of these have worked and May herself has voted against some of them too

 

[Jim in the West]

Some of the things Corbyn says make very good sense and I am amazed at how poor May has been, the only issue is I don't believe the sums with labour

At least you have the numbers. No numbers in the Tory manifesto.

 

[Jim in the West]

At least you have the numbers. No numbers in the Tory manifesto.

Apologies - just noticed I'm agreeing with Ernest.....

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

It is seeing that none of these have worked and May herself has voted against some of them too

How do you know some haven't worked? It is highly likely a large number have been thwarted, that we never get to hear about.

As for May voting against, she did, but doesn't have anything like the track record Corbyn has for this and I have no faith that he would lead the country satisfactorily in this area.

I realise you may/do support Labour, but do you think his approach is right in this area?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk