[Politics] The General Election Thread

[Bold Seagull]

I will admit to only skim reading your links. But the Guardian piece makes mention of ‘57% of all sick days being work stress related’, I really struggle to believe that. I am happy to agree that a shorter working week would enable workers to produce more per hour but there is ‘that line’ when the increases are outweighed by less time worked. Added to that is a number of workforce’s chasing the dream of a western lifestyle, China, India, Thailand to name but three. They have historically worked hard just to survive, now they see what can be achieved with up to date technology and production methods. They want a bit of what the west have had.

Many people in the UK still work 40 hours per week, the office norm is 37.5, but to aim for 32 in such a short space of time is just hot air.

This along with free university education, massive increases in funding for the NHS, increased maternity leave, introduction of menopause leave, nationalisation of many private companies equals massive cost, upgrading EVERY UK home with energy saving measures, ‘fix blighted coastal towns’, free bus travel for under 25s etc etc etc.......

It is lie after lie after lie. If not lies, it will bankrupt the UK. But that is what hard left politics does. Unless you like the living standards of the average Russian or North Korean. But I am sure that many young lefties will subscribe to the mantra and then complain that ‘But Jeremy promised us free cider and spliffs’.

There is only one thing that bankrupted the UK and that was the global financial industry.

The Tories want to leave the EU so they can deregulate even further, at the same time raising the higher rate of tax threshold costing £8bn boasting the income of just 8% of the population while cutting services and support to those most in need.

A well educated, well trained population is surely a progressive goal for a modern dynamic economy? Isn't taking an adult that wants to go from shop worker to IT specialist but can't afford the training, an investment worth making to ensure our workforce can evolve with demand? Surely making education and training expensive and out of reach to many is regressive and not something that produces the savvy workforce a modern economy needs.

Of course, like a reactionary you mention Russia or North Korea, whereas Labour's policies are really no different to democratic socialist policies of Scandinavia and other European Countries that have world leading education systems, high standards of living and thriving state utilities and services.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

When all expert reports confirm no deal would be catastrophic, that makes no sense.

This deal v Remain gives Brexiteers a brexit to vote for, and the democratic remainers a palatable compromise

This Deal v No Deal is just leave or leave. And no deal would never win anyways and has consistently polled badly, even for Brexiters. So this would be a glorified waste of tax payers money to even hold it.

As we have been saying all along, if the public can't agree to a "compromise" brexit, then we were never really meant to leave were we.

Ah the good old' Experts ', more frilly bullshit mikey
Regards
DF

 

[Guinness Boy]

How the blue blazes do they think that can possibly improve the standard of living in the UK when developing countries are catching up technologically every day, and their people are chasing a better standard of living and prepared to work far longer hours?

I would love a shorter working week, I will be nearer 60 before I achieve it.

Your second sentence contradicts your first. There is more to standard of living than just owning the latest Samsung or being able to buy Super Dry t-shirts every month. Healh, mental wellbeing and work/life balance all come in to it as well. Working longer hours is against all that. You iterally cannot say that longer hours = better standard of living in sentence one and then say you'd love a shorter working week in sentence two.

 

[wellquickwoody]

There is only one thing that bankrupted the UK and that was the global financial industry.

The Tories want to leave the EU so they can deregulate even further, at the same time raising the higher rate of tax threshold costing £8bn boasting the income of just 8% of the population while cutting services and support to those most in need.

A well educated, well trained population is surely a progressive goal for a modern dynamic economy? Isn't taking an adult that wants to go from shop worker to IT specialist but can't afford the training, an investment worth making to ensure our workforce can evolve with demand? Surely making education and training expensive and out of reach to many is regressive and not something that produces the savvy workforce a modern economy needs.

Of course, like a reactionary you mention Russia or North Korea, whereas Labour's policies are really no different to democratic socialist policies of Scandinavia and other European Countries that have world leading education systems, high standards of living and thriving state utilities and services.

You seem to have conveniently avoided the spending promises and the question of how they will be paid for. And to compare Scandinavia to the far left policies of Momentum is frankly ridiculous.

I will save you the bother of answering.

Like many dreamers, JC &. Co will tell you about increased productivity, better tax incomes, more trade with the rest of the world. The reality is the ‘never, never’. To the uninitiated that is the practice of ‘I will never have to actually pay it back as my increased income will cover it’. That has been proven time and time and time again to be absolute balderdash, for people in the street and for governments peddling fantasies.

 

[theonlymikey]

You seem to have conveniently avoided the spending promises and the question of how they will be paid for. .

You seem to have conveniently avoided the fact the manifesto explaining how it will all be paid for has not been released before you argue the fact it's not possible to honour them.

 

[CHAPPERS]

I haven't grasped this one yet. The 2nd referendum they propose, doesn't weigh up to me.

It's THIS DEAL or REMAIN I believe.

So, Remain voters will not vote for the deal. Folks that find an aspect here or an aspect there will not vote for the deal. Hard Brexiteers won't accept the deal. So Remain it would be.

Labour should be proposing No Deal/this deal. Far more balanced, and a vote winner.

This deal is No Deal if no FTA by the end of transition, as David Gauke has pointed out (amongst others including Farage).

 

[wellquickwoody]

Your second sentence contradicts your first. There is more to standard of living than just owning the latest Samsung or being able to buy Super Dry t-shirts every month. Healh, mental wellbeing and work/life balance all come in to it as well. Working longer hours is against all that. You iterally cannot say that longer hours = better standard of living in sentence one and then say you'd love a shorter working week in sentence two.

I can, because I have done nearly 40 years at the work face. As I say, I would love a shorter working week but can not afford it right now, but because of trying my best for many years maybe I will be able to reduce my hours before 60 years of age. That is far from thinking that a lifelong 32 hour week is achieveable.

 

[Bold Seagull]

You seem to have conveniently avoided the spending promises and the question of how they will be paid for. And to compare Scandinavia to the far left policies of Momentum is frankly ridiculous.

I will save you the bother of answering.

Like many dreamers, JC &. Co will tell you about increased productivity, better tax incomes, more trade with the rest of the world. The reality is the ‘never, never’. To the uninitiated that is the practice of ‘I will never have to actually pay it back as my increased income will cover it’. That has been proven time and time and time again to be absolute balderdash, for people in the street and for governments peddling fantasies.

And the last 10 years have seen a really successful reduction in UK borrowing and debt right? As it was from '79 to '97, as it was from '70 to '74?

The lowest UK government debt has been as a percentage of GDP is under a Labour government. Doesn't suit the narrative of the narrow minded though.

 

[wellquickwoody]

And the last 10 years have seen a really successful reduction in UK borrowing and debt right? As it was from '79 to '97, as it was from '70 to '74?

The lowest UK government debt has been as a percentage of GDP is under a Labour government. Doesn't suit the narrative of the narrow minded though.

And when was that again, in recent history?

 

[Bold Seagull]

And when was that again, in recent history?

Early 2000s. Recent enough for you?

 

[Bozza]

There are sound arguments behind a 4 day week:

https://www.businessinsider.com/eco...h-to-a-four-day-working-week-2019-2?r=US&IR=T

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/12/four-day-working-week-report

https://www.redpepper.org.uk/less-work-more-play-a-solution-to-britains-economic-woes/


Your initial conclusion is not unreasonable to draw, but sometimes it's worth reading up on the economics of such policies. It's not always as dumb as it seems.

I assumed you were going to link to the recent story on this about Microsoft - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/04/microsoft-japan-four-day-work-week-productivity

Perpetual Guardian in New Zealand undertook a similar trial and it was so successful, they switched to a permanent 4-day week - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...m-adopts-four-day-week-after-successful-trial

 

[Baldseagull]

I can, because I have done nearly 40 years at the work face. As I say, I would love a shorter working week but can not afford it right now, but because of trying my best for many years maybe I will be able to reduce my hours before 60 years of age. That is far from thinking that a lifelong 32 hour week is achieveable.

Should have managed your finances better, 40 years of work and you can't afford to slow down a bit? Or maybe the system is such that it is designed to get you to borrow as much as you can for as long as you can, so you work as hard as you can to pay for the house you now spend little time enjoying as you are at work all the ****ing time, possibly leading to a divorce because you hardly see your wife and when you do you are too tired or stressed with money worries to enjoy each others company. Kids in child care so your wife can go to work too, because the extra few quid that are left after paying for child care are needed and a career break could mean she never gets back to the same level of earnings.
Too late for us, but is that how you want it for your kids?

 

[wellquickwoody]

Early 2000s. Recent enough for you?

Absolutely, under a centre left Blair government, that I actually could vote for, not a far left neo Marxist ideology. Corbyn and chums will wreck the UK.

 

[Diablo]

Do those on here looking for a four day week expect to be paid the same as now which for most is five days. If so a 20% pay rise ..payable by employer?
Or are they that well off they can live on 80% of their wage ?

 

[wellquickwoody]

Should have managed your finances better, 40 years of work and you can't afford to slow down a bit? Or maybe the system is such that it is designed to get you to borrow as much as you can for as long as you can, so you work as hard as you can to pay for the house you now spend little time enjoying as you are at work all the ****ing time, possibly leading to a divorce because you hardly see your wife and when you do you are too tired or stressed with money worries to enjoy each others company. Kids in child care so your wife can go to work too, because the extra few quid that are left after paying for child care are needed and a career break could mean she never gets back to the same level of earnings.
Too late for us, but is that how you want it for your kids?

Don’t tar me with your brush fella. Many on here chastise the mini generation before me, the baby boomers, slagging them off for having final salary pensions, previous redundancy packages etc etc. You reap what you sow, if I can kick back a bit at 60 I will have done better than most considering state pension age will soon be 67.

 

[Bozza]

I can, because I have done nearly 40 years at the work face. As I say, I would love a shorter working week but can not afford it right now, but because of trying my best for many years maybe I will be able to reduce my hours before 60 years of age. That is far from thinking that a lifelong 32 hour week is achieveable.

In most implementations of 4-day weeks, there is no concept of "can not afford it right now" as employees retain full-pay after the working time reduction.

Some implementations of this have been accompanied by other changes such as a shortening of lunch breaks and a reduction in annual leave allowances.

Whilst this may work well for office-based activities, where a workforce is often able to be as equally productive, if not more so, in a compressed 4-day week, there are clearly other spheres of work where this is not so straight forward. A 20% reduction in working time may require a similar uplift in the size of the workforce, and this could certainly present cost challenges for the employer.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Edit: Nevermind.

 

[Bozza]

Do those on here looking for a four day week expect to be paid the same as now which for most is five days. If so a 20% pay rise ..payable by employer?
Or are they that well off they can live on 80% of their wage ?

I've just covered this up there ^^^^

Many implementations do involve full pay being retained as, simply, staff are as productive if not more so. It's a loosening of the tired old arrangement of being paid for number of hours present and, instead, recognising what someone delivers instead,

WPP's implementation is a bit of a half-way house - staff drop back to 85% of full pay when they move to a 4-day week.

 

[wellquickwoody]

In most implementations of 4-day weeks, there is no concept of "can not afford it right now" as employees retain full-pay after the working time reduction.

Some implementations of this have been accompanied by other changes such as a shortening of lunch breaks and a reduction in annual leave allowances.

Whilst this may work well for office-based activities, where a workforce is often able to be as equally productive, if not more so, in a compressed 4-day week, there are clearly other spheres of work where this is not so straight forward. A 20% reduction in working time may require a similar uplift in the size of the workforce, and this could certainly present cost challenges for the employer.

Somewhere in there I think we concur. A shorter working week is a great ideal, any target/ promise of a 32 hour week is fanciful propaganda right now.

 

[Baldseagull]

Don’t tar me with your brush fella. Many on here chastise the mini generation before me, the baby boomers, slagging them off for having final salary pensions, previous redundancy packages etc etc. You reap what you sow, if I can kick back a bit at 60 I will have done better than most considering state pension age will soon be 67.

Not my brush, but it is a common situation among my contemporaries.