General Election/UK Politics

[Bailey]

23 hours ago, MikeO said:

Personally, though being left of centre I've never voted Labour in my life (though I would if my "tactical" vote would unseat a Tory), I'm guessing you're predominantly talking about the Brexit "neutrality" position? I don't see a problem with that, both the main parties had people on either side of the argument during the referendum debate. It's only since Johnson took over that the Tories became the only party to have changed their position and become zealots one way or the other. I didn't notice Kate Hoey getting the whip removed by the Labour party for example.

If you're talking about other policy I've had a pretty mad day so not really seen much.

I was referring to all of them, some interesting ones to say the least.

I think the "neutrality" position is a bit of a case of them trying to be too clever. I think they think that those who are strongly on either side of the argument will still vote Labour because they haven't committed to one side but I am not sure people will buy it. It could turn out to be a genius move though if people don't see that they are a remain party with a leave leader.

[pete0]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-walks-out-commons-20224711?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&fbclid=IwAR1PmvZzDOgFFeaLeUNKtewQQi2joZSw1gWSokBpfq3VjsifU5BlLDpDj1s

Crazy that the worst three prime ministers have all come from the same party during the same period. You'd think people would learn and vote for someone else.. Oh wait they weren't given a chance. 

[Bailey]

He sat through 3 hours of bullshit questions from MPs trying to get their 5 minutes of fame. He had to repeat himself time and time again. It was an embarrassment to this country watching them behave that way. I lasted about 40 minutes watching it last night, he did magnificently well to last as long as he did, in fact I would guess over 50% of MPs had left long before he did.

[MikeO]

25 minutes ago, Bailey said:

He sat through 3 hours of bullshit questions from MPs trying to get their 5 minutes of fame. He had to repeat himself time and time again. It was an embarrassment to this country watching them behave that way. I lasted about 40 minutes watching it last night, he did magnificently well to last as long as he did, in fact I would guess over 50% of MPs had left long before he did.

If he'd have answered one or two of the questions honestly he probably wouldn't have had to repeat himself at all.

[Bailey]

5 hours ago, MikeO said:

If he'd have answered one or two of the questions honestly he probably wouldn't have had to repeat himself at all.

It wouldn't have mattered Mike. They just say the same things time and time again. It's almost like they have their pre-set questions and they are determined to ask them regardless of what gets asked before them.

[MikeO]

31 minutes ago, Bailey said:

It wouldn't have mattered Mike. They just say the same things time and time again. It's almost like they have their pre-set questions and they are determined to ask them regardless of what gets asked before them.

But if he could say quite legitimately that he'd already answered said question, he'd make himself look sane and the questioner stupid. As it was he just kept looking stupid himself and bringing on the repeats.

[Bailey]

1 hour ago, MikeO said:

But if he could say quite legitimately that he'd already answered said question, he'd make himself look sane and the questioner stupid. As it was he just kept looking stupid himself and bringing on the repeats.

He has and he does. Where he doesn't, this is politics and he gives a typical MP answer. The same ones those MPs give to their constituents, to the media, on question time etc etc. 

The large majority love to take the moral high ground. Then after all of the money spent and time wasted at Court, they broke today at 5pm today and won't return again until Monday at 2.30pm and what have they done? 

[Bailey]

Potential vote of no confidence and Corbyn government coming next week.

Not sure they will get the numbers myself but it will be very tight. It will depend on how many rebels agree to vote against Boris. I'd have thought a caretaker PM like Clarke or Harman would win the vote with a lot more ease. 

[MikeO]

34 minutes ago, Bailey said:

Potential vote of no confidence and Corbyn government coming next week.

Not sure they will get the numbers myself but it will be very tight. It will depend on how many rebels agree to vote against Boris. I'd have thought a caretaker PM like Clarke or Harman would win the vote with a lot more ease. 

Not quite sure where you're coming from with that in terms of who you are defining "rebels" as. The "governing" Tory/DUP alliance has 298 members and the others 352, why do the opposition need rebels?

(I've not seen the story so may have missed something fundamental, that's why I ask)

[Palfy]

The Tories have pledged that by 2024 the minimum wage for 21s will be £10.50 hr, which is great but possibly not enough by then. 

What annoys me with the Tories is that they are using the minimum wage to try and buy the young vote, who mainly vote for labour and shun the Tories.

And this from the party who  was deadly against the minimum wage when labour introduced it, they said it was unworkable that businesses would go under and financially the country couldn’t afford it, what a dirty tricks party they are. 

[MikeO]

5 minutes ago, Palfy said:

The Tories have pledged that by 2024 the minimum wage for 21s will be £10.50 hr, which is great but possibly not enough by then. 

What annoys me with the Tories is that they are using the minimum wage to try and buy the young vote, who mainly vote for labour and shun the Tories.

And this from the party who  was deadly against the minimum wage when labour introduced it, they said it was unworkable that businesses would go under and financially the country couldn’t afford it, what a dirty tricks party they are. 

After years of austerity they've found a money tree when it comes to a potential GE, doesn't surprise me at all; least of all the billions they're committing to help the pain of "no deal" when it was going to be the easiest deal in history. It'd be funny if you watched it in a movie, not so much if you have to live it.

[Matt]

1 hour ago, Palfy said:

The Tories have pledged that by 2024 the minimum wage for 21s will be £10.50 hr, which is great but possibly not enough by then. 

What annoys me with the Tories is that they are using the minimum wage to try and buy the young vote, who mainly vote for labour and shun the Tories.

And this from the party who  was deadly against the minimum wage when labour introduced it, they said it was unworkable that businesses would go under and financially the country couldn’t afford it, what a dirty tricks party they are. 

Great?! Fuck me. They gradually lowered the expectations. Mind you, at this rate the minimum wage will be a kings salary at this rate. Trouble there is that the kingdom is worth nothing 

[MikeO]

9 minutes ago, Matt said:

Great?! Fuck me. They gradually lowered the expectations. Mind you, at this rate the minimum wage will be a kings salary at this rate. Trouble there is that the kingdom is worth nothing 

But you need to remember that that they're specifically talking about the "living wage" and not the "minimum wage". Living wage isn't legally enforceable, while minimum wage is.

[Bailey]

Increasing the minimum wage will mean very little when small and medium sized businesses are going bust or making redundancies because they can't afford to pay these wages. Either that or they up the prices which in turn means that you don't see a real term increase in earnings.  

Increasing the minimum wage is just a vote winner. At least a gradual increase won't mean a sudden hit on employers.

[pete0]

18 minutes ago, Bailey said:

Increasing the minimum wage will mean very little when small and medium sized businesses are going bust or making redundancies because they can't afford to pay these wages. Either that or they up the prices which in turn means that you don't see a real term increase in earnings.  

Increasing the minimum wage is just a vote winner. At least a gradual increase won't mean a sudden hit on employers.

Before minimum wage wages were higher. It was well intentioned but a poor idea ultimately its been used as a benchmark wage rather than a minimum as such. You've got businesses like Asda and Amazon making billions and pay 20p(?) over minimum. 

If the only reason you're making money is because you don't pay your staff enough you shouldn't be in business. Talking of businesses or should I say their owners are now making more money than ever before yet wages are lower than ever. Its exploitation. 

[MikeO]

This is an old client of mine from many years back who I recently got in touch with because I saw he was still active, great bloke who used to operate out of a shop in Tooting market...

 

[Bailey]

On 01/10/2019 at 22:59, pete0 said:

Before minimum wage wages were higher. It was well intentioned but a poor idea ultimately its been used as a benchmark wage rather than a minimum as such. You've got businesses like Asda and Amazon making billions and pay 20p(?) over minimum. 

If the only reason you're making money is because you don't pay your staff enough you shouldn't be in business. Talking of businesses or should I say their owners are now making more money than ever before yet wages are lower than ever. Its exploitation. 

Your lumping all businesses together. Many businesses in the UK aren't making much money at all, in fact a lot are already losing money. If big businesses can go under like Thomas Cook, then think how significant such measures will effect a small and medium businesses.

Exploitation? We are all free in this country to choose what we do as a job. We also have a free education system and heavily subsidised govt grants to attend further education after that. With these proposals people working on checkouts or stacking shelves with nothing behind them will earn as much or marginally less than trained and skilled workers. Then those in the middle will start demanding more money. Those above them will do the same. The businesses that stay afloat will put up their prices and those that can't will make more people unemployed. 

Sure some people will benefit and earn more but others, ultimately the poorest in society, will suffer more because there will be less unskilled jobs on the market. 

There is no significant evidence that I have seen to support that increasing the minimum wage will decrease levels of poverty in society. It's a vote winning tag line for anyone gullible to believe it will make a difference.

[pete0]

51 minutes ago, Bailey said:

Your lumping all businesses together. Many businesses in the UK aren't making much money at all, in fact a lot are already losing money. If big businesses can go under like Thomas Cook, then think how significant such measures will effect a small and medium businesses.

Exploitation? We are all free in this country to choose what we do as a job. We also have a free education system and heavily subsidised govt grants to attend further education after that. With these proposals people working on checkouts or stacking shelves with nothing behind them will earn as much or marginally less than trained and skilled workers. Then those in the middle will start demanding more money. Those above them will do the same. The businesses that stay afloat will put up their prices and those that can't will make more people unemployed. 

Sure some people will benefit and earn more but others, ultimately the poorest in society, will suffer more because there will be less unskilled jobs on the market. 

There is no significant evidence that I have seen to support that increasing the minimum wage will decrease levels of poverty in society. It's a vote winning tag line for anyone gullible to believe it will make a difference.

Mate no offense but I'm lost for words. Genuinely, have a good think about it. People used to live off one wage. Yet now struggle on two incomes. 

[rubecula]

/Boris came out on the news and stated that the wage would be   a   minimum of £10.50ph.

 

[rubecula]

which is about 3 times of my weekly wage in my first job … lol

[StevO]

On 04/10/2019 at 00:27, pete0 said:

Mate no offense but I'm lost for words. Genuinely, have a good think about it. People used to live off one wage. Yet now struggle on two incomes. 

Increase in cost of living has been huge. That and back when people lived off one wage everyone in the family didn’t have an iPhone, they didn’t have sky packages, tv in every room, two cars. 
Cost of living has gone up, but people need more because people want more. 
 

Im terrible for it, if me or the missus get a pay rise the next thing that happens is she gets a better car and we go on holiday. Keep giving people more, people spend more. One of us needs to get a pay rise soon, I need a new 3 wood. 

[Bailey]

On 04/10/2019 at 00:27, pete0 said:

Mate no offense but I'm lost for words. Genuinely, have a good think about it. People used to live off one wage. Yet now struggle on two incomes. 

As StevO refers to that isn't anything to do with increasing the minimum wage. In fact your comment proves the point. The minimum wage has increased by crazy amounts over the last 20-30 years and have peoples living standards improved? No they haven't, and that's because it doesn't make a difference. Its the same nonsense you get from the Government and opposition about the NHS and their spending pledges. All attempting to win your vote but have very little actual impact on your life.

[pete0]

9 hours ago, StevO said:

Increase in cost of living has been huge. That and back when people lived off one wage everyone in the family didn’t have an iPhone, they didn’t have sky packages, tv in every room, two cars. 
Cost of living has gone up, but people need more because people want more. 
 

Im terrible for it, if me or the missus get a pay rise the next thing that happens is she gets a better car and we go on holiday. Keep giving people more, people spend more. One of us needs to get a pay rise soon, I need a new 3 wood. 

For the price of a TV and car in the 70s you could get a new car, TV, fridge, freezer, washer, iPhone, and Internet for a year. Good have got much much cheaper, everything is made out of plastic now. Holidays used to be easily double the amount too if you were flying (and that's just looking back to the late 90s). 

The main real term increase are house prices, rent, utility bills and travel costs. Which is down to the government mismanaging the country or to put it more bluntly letting the public get exploited. 

6 hours ago, Bailey said:

As StevO refers to that isn't anything to do with increasing the minimum wage. In fact your comment proves the point. The minimum wage has increased by crazy amounts over the last 20-30 years and have peoples living standards improved? No they haven't, and that's because it doesn't make a difference. Its the same nonsense you get from the Government and opposition about the NHS and their spending pledges. All attempting to win your vote but have very little actual impact on your life.

Minimum wages has increased but medium and mean wage hasn't. We've set the bar low and big companies are making more profit than ever yet wages aren't reflecting the increased economy. 

[StevO]

12 hours ago, pete0 said:

For the price of a TV and car in the 70s you could get a new car, TV, fridge, freezer, washer, iPhone, and Internet for a year. Good have got much much cheaper, everything is made out of plastic now. Holidays used to be easily double the amount too if you were flying (and that's just looking back to the late 90s). 

The main real term increase are house prices, rent, utility bills and travel costs. Which is down to the government mismanaging the country or to put it more bluntly letting the public get exploited. 

My point wasn’t specifically about the products, but about in current times we all have to have everything. Back in them days kids didn’t go to school in £600 coats, everything wasn’t about the labels and the want it all instantly culture we have now. People spend more money on crap they don’t need, but crap they want. 
 

You idea about the cost of a tv and a car in the 70s is just daft, I’m sure some of our members here remember how bad times were in Liverpool in the 70s (it’s been a constant conversation in my life with my parents about how bad it was). 
One difference is that now we buy all sorts on the drip and we have PCP finance to make cars more affordable, but that’s a different argument all together. 

[pete0]

8 minutes ago, StevO said:

My point wasn’t specifically about the products, but about in current times we all have to have everything. Back in them days kids didn’t go to school in £600 coats, everything wasn’t about the labels and the want it all instantly culture we have now. People spend more money on crap they don’t need, but crap they want. 
 

You idea about the cost of a tv and a car in the 70s is just daft, I’m sure some of our members here remember how bad times were in Liverpool in the 70s (it’s been a constant conversation in my life with my parents about how bad it was). 
One difference is that now we buy all sorts on the drip and we have PCP finance to make cars more affordable, but that’s a different argument all together. 

You brought up the cost so don't know why it's not daft? My auntie used to rent a TV in the early 90s. Maybe you're family had been more fortunate by then. When people lived off one wage they had one expensive holiday a year and went the pub 3 times a week. 

I'm sure back then people were affluent buying stuff they didn't need to. Personally I never got a £600 coat but be honest a £600 coat isn't the reason people are worse off now. Rent/mortgage, bills, and travel costs as a percentage of wages is up astronomically these are all controllable by the government, likewise wages are down this is also effected by he weak government lowering employment rights, restricting Union powers, and setting a minimum wage. Companies are taking the piss. 

By setting a minimum wage and getting rid of unions we basically told firms this is all you have to pay, rather than this is the minimum you need to pay. 

[StevO]

8 minutes ago, pete0 said:

You brought up the cost so don't know why it's not daft? My auntie used to rent a TV in the early 90s. Maybe you're family had been more fortunate by then. When people lived off one wage they had one expensive holiday a year and went the pub 3 times a week. 

The bit I thought was daft was the cost of a tv and car would be the same as all the other things. 
People still rent all kinds now, back in the 70s it wasn’t everywhere. It got bigger over the 90s and now people stick everything on credit.

I grew up with my mum and dad both having a job, we had holidays but they couldn’t afford to be in the pub three nights a week with kids to look after.

£600 coats weren’t even a thing when me and you went to school, no if a kid doesn’t have a Canada Goose coat they will be the scruffy kid in class. Society is as much part of the problem as the companies and the governments. People buying things they can’t afford and letting the credit cards build up is a massive issue. Thinking they need all this crap that they really don’t. 

[pete0]

9 hours ago, StevO said:

The bit I thought was daft was the cost of a tv and car would be the same as all the other things. 
People still rent all kinds now, back in the 70s it wasn’t everywhere. It got bigger over the 90s and now people stick everything on credit.

I grew up with my mum and dad both having a job, we had holidays but they couldn’t afford to be in the pub three nights a week with kids to look after.

£600 coats weren’t even a thing when me and you went to school, no if a kid doesn’t have a Canada Goose coat they will be the scruffy kid in class. Society is as much part of the problem as the companies and the governments. People buying things they can’t afford and letting the credit cards build up is a massive issue. Thinking they need all this crap that they really don’t. 

Doesn't that just show people are poorer now if they are needing to pay on the drop more? 

I've actually read the coat argument elsewhere, can't remember if it was telegraph poppycock or a guardian newspaper using it as the type of thing people say to justify the poor being poor, that they're bad with money yet completely ignoring the very valid argument disposable income is down. Wages are relatively lower and bills much higher. 

[StevO]

4 hours ago, pete0 said:

Doesn't that just show people are poorer now if they are needing to pay on the drop more? 

I've actually read the coat argument elsewhere, can't remember if it was telegraph poppycock or a guardian newspaper using it as the type of thing people say to justify the poor being poor, that they're bad with money yet completely ignoring the very valid argument disposable income is down. Wages are relatively lower and bills much higher. 

I’m not saying the situation is ideal, I’m just saying people waste money. I know I do, if you don’t I’d be shocked. Society has changed, people have changed, people want shit they don’t need and buy what they can’t afford. It’s not a guess, it’s not made up, it played a huge part in the 2008 banking crisis. I was in there too, I had two loans and two credit cards at 21. It felt like free money. I’d like to think I was the only idiot out there doing that, but it was millions right across the western world. The governments and the banks let it happen, but millions of us still took the money. I spent it on cars, holidays, clothes and girls. I had a fucking riot but I was buying shit I didn’t need and couldn’t afford. Now I still see it happening. I’ve got two apprentices in work, I took one for a beer on Friday after work. He turned up in a pair of trainers that his Mum got him for £600, the lad earns £715 a month. He’s got the iPhone 11 too, stupid parents buying things they can’t afford for their kids (19 year old kid in this case). 
I think the point I’m trying to make is that people are just stupid, live beyond their means. I think back in the 70s people were more frugal. Or maybe it’s just late and I need some sleep. 

[pete0]

2 hours ago, StevO said:

I’m not saying the situation is ideal, I’m just saying people waste money. I know I do, if you don’t I’d be shocked. Society has changed, people have changed, people want shit they don’t need and buy what they can’t afford. It’s not a guess, it’s not made up, it played a huge part in the 2008 banking crisis. I was in there too, I had two loans and two credit cards at 21. It felt like free money. I’d like to think I was the only idiot out there doing that, but it was millions right across the western world. The governments and the banks let it happen, but millions of us still took the money. I spent it on cars, holidays, clothes and girls. I had a fucking riot but I was buying shit I didn’t need and couldn’t afford. Now I still see it happening. I’ve got two apprentices in work, I took one for a beer on Friday after work. He turned up in a pair of trainers that his Mum got him for £600, the lad earns £715 a month. He’s got the iPhone 11 too, stupid parents buying things they can’t afford for their kids (19 year old kid in this case). 
I think the point I’m trying to make is that people are just stupid, live beyond their means. I think back in the 70s people were more frugal. Or maybe it’s just late and I need some sleep. 

Nothing to do with being mood frugal, they just had more disposable income. 

A £600 coat is hardly the reason why people are poorer, the reason is they simply earn less. Just look at buying a house. Most people that's 6 years solid income if you didn't eat or pay bills compared to 2 years salary in the 80s, add on top of that the cost of living is higher too and you might as well add another year. 

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/30/672103209/why-arent-millennials-spending-more-they-re-poorer-than-their-parents-fed-says?t=1570409617202

[StevO]

12 hours ago, pete0 said:

Nothing to do with being mood frugal, they just had more disposable income. 

A £600 coat is hardly the reason why people are poorer, the reason is they simply earn less. Just look at buying a house. Most people that's 6 years solid income if you didn't eat or pay bills compared to 2 years salary in the 80s, add on top of that the cost of living is higher too and you might as well add another year. 

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/30/672103209/why-arent-millennials-spending-more-they-re-poorer-than-their-parents-fed-says?t=1570409617202

I really don’t believe there was more disposable income. There was so many out of work, the country wasn’t in a very good place. 
 

Im not saying the coat is the reason they are poorer, but people spend money on crap they don’t need. There wasn’t as much crap on the shelves 40 years ago. People are going out and buying things they can’t afford and don’t need. Each to their own what they do with their money. But there are plenty out there saying how skint they are while they queue up for the new iPhone.  It’s not even debatable, it’s happening all over the western world. 

When I worked in bootle a few of us used to joke that one of the lads spent so much money on his clothes he would go home and be sat in the dark because he had nothing left for his bills.