Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TIGHTCHOKE

The Next General Election.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Thunderbird said:

I've been looking at the employment implications of a labour government and it's some pretty serious stuff. There is a long list. There are some virtuous-sounding things like 'giving workers equal rights from day one' but if you examine what that actually means it has very wide ranging implications indeed for anyone who employs staff. 

 

People don’t choose to look beyond the initial headlines though and understand what that means.

As an example, there are some people who think that increasing the minimum wage means that the government pick up the tab, they don’t appreciate that it is the business who has to cover that.

Further to that, in the idealist world of McDonnell and his ilk that just means less profits for the money hungry company owners, but the truth is that it is simply going to increase the costs of goods and services to everyone so any increase in wage is lost; worse than that really as goods and services typically incur VAT then the increase in cost of goods will actually outstrip the increase in wages, so reducing the spending power of the individual despite being paid more.

It also means that we will strive to import even more from low cost economies so in fact the policy is undermining British goods and services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thunderbird said:

I was talking to a French employer last year and he said they try to get by without hiring new staff because rubbish workers can be so hard to get rid of. 

That's why a lot of companies use agencies,  they can see what your like  can you do the job and if not a phone call and your gone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mice! said:

That's why a lot of companies use agencies,  they can see what your like  can you do the job and if not a phone call and your gone. 

Labour are planning to ban that too, well not exactly ban agencies but ban both zero hour contracts and also the current status of "worker" which is going to put agencies in the difficult position of having to employ the people directly and also guarantee them hours. Like that's going to work... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, grrclark said:

People don’t choose to look beyond the initial headlines though and understand what that means.

As an example, there are some people who think that increasing the minimum wage means that the government pick up the tab, they don’t appreciate that it is the business who has to cover that.

Further to that, in the idealist world of McDonnell and his ilk that just means less profits for the money hungry company owners, but the truth is that it is simply going to increase the costs of goods and services to everyone so any increase in wage is lost; worse than that really as goods and services typically incur VAT then the increase in cost of goods will actually outstrip the increase in wages, so reducing the spending power of the individual despite being paid more.

It also means that we will strive to import even more from low cost economies so in fact the policy is undermining British goods and services.

Yes they are called habitual Labour voters! Far too many of them around!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Thunderbird said:

Labour are planning to ban that too, well not exactly ban agencies but ban both zero hour contracts and also the current status of "worker" which is going to put agencies in the difficult position of having to employ the people directly and also guarantee them hours. Like that's going to work... 

I can’t remember the name of the Labour MP that was talking to Nick Ferrari about this on LBC, but the replies were comical to being challenged on what their proposals will actually cost.  The stock response “companies like Amazon and Asda...can afford to pay...”

The Amazons and Asdas represent 0.1% of the UK business population.  SMEs employ approx 60% of the UK workforce and represent about 50% of private sector turnover in the UK, yet are totally dismissed by the idealists.  Utterly mental..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are Labour's pledges:

The party pledges to:
Introduce a “real living wage” of at least £10 an hour for all workers over 16 and help for small business with the extra costs.
Require large companies to set up an “Inclusive Ownership Fund” whereby up to 10% of a company will be owned collectively by employees.
Create a Ministry for Employment Rights to give working people a voice at government level.
Give everyone full rights from day one on the job. 
Introduce a legal right to collective consultation on the implementation of new technology in the workplace. 
 Create a single status of ‘worker’ for everyone apart from the genuinely self-employed, to prevent the evasion of workers’ rights.
 Ban zero hours contracts.
Extend statutory maternity pay from nine to twelve months, double paternity leave from two weeks to four weeks and increase statutory paternity pay.
Create four new bank holidays.
 Introduce statutory bereavement leave.
Require breaks during shifts to be paid (at present there is no right to be paid during breaks, it is down to the employer’s agreement or a workforce agreement).
Give all workers the right to flexible working.
Make it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women without prior approval of the inspectorate. 
 Require employers to take positive action to close the gender pay gap and pay inequalities underpinned by race and/or disability, and to introduce state enforcement measures.    
Ban unpaid internships.
End the opt out provision whereby workers can opt out of the maximum 48 hour working week.  
Remove certain restrictions on trade unions and create new rights for trade unions to help working people.
Move to a 32-hour average working week within the next decade.

1 minute ago, grrclark said:

I can’t remember the name of the Labour MP that was talking to Nick Ferrari about this on LBC, but the replies were comical to being challenged on what their proposals will actually cost.  The stock response “companies like Amazon and Asda...can afford to pay...”

The Amazons and Asdas represent 0.1% of the UK business population.  SMEs employ approx 60% of the UK workforce and represent about 50% of private sector turnover in the UK, yet are totally dismissed by the idealists.  Utterly mental..

It is. They are in cloud cuckoo land when they go on about big business like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking to pals about minimum wage the costing of this  does  not take into consideration that workers with higher skill set will want their wage to rise pro rata .and I can see the unions fighting for this and so the wage spiral will go on and on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I can’t remember the name of the Labour MP that was talking to Nick Ferrari about this on LBC

Laura Pidcock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, scutt said:

and so the wage spiral will go on and on.

Another traditional Labour area of expertise.  It helps destroy those nasty mean filthy rich and greedy savers by the resultant inflation eating away that their savings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

Another traditional Labour area of expertise.  It helps destroy those nasty mean filthy rich and greedy savers by the resultant inflation eating away that their savings.

UK is already amongst the highest wages burden on business's: Sure Labour would be helping the EU to strip even more jobs away from our country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Thunderbird said:

Introduce statutory bereavement leave.

This I can agree with, only thing would be how long? 

6 minutes ago, Thunderbird said:

Make it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women without prior approval of the inspectorate. 

Didn't realise companies could.

7 minutes ago, Thunderbird said:

End the opt out provision whereby workers can opt out of the maximum 48 hour working week.

Nuts, it's an opt out and guys I've worked with have often hammered the O/T I once questioned someone on the hours he did, 6.5 days a week every week,  turns out he was divorced with two houses to pay for and possibly 4 or 5 kids between two different women, couldn't imagine him getting by on 32 hours a week.

Or many small companies paying staff the same wage for doing less hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thunderbird said:

I was talking to a French employer last year and he said they try to get by without hiring new staff because rubbish workers can be so hard to get rid of. 

It's true. We were told to let a guy go around this time last year - he has been off for a year fully paid and was back in the office in France a couple weeks ago to discuss the final terms of his severance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Laura Pidcock.

I think you used the 'd & c' incorrectly, there is another letter that is far more suitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mice! said:

Didn't realise companies could.

They can as long as the reason isn't related to the pregnancy. Under the proposals, you would need to obtain state permission to sack / make redundant a pregnant woman. 

Another thing is sector-wide collective bargaining. This is likely to see a massive uptick in independent unionisation. If you want to start a business in a certain sector you would have to sign up to the sector's collective agreements. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some things come back to bite you 🙂

 

'Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, on Tuesday night tried to prevent The Telegraph from publishing details of a court hearing at which her son was accused of assaulting a police officer.

Lawyers acting for the Labour front-bencher wrote to this newspaper after it approached her for comment.

Ms Abbott, 66, will become home secretary in charge of policing if Labour wins the general election in a little over a week’s time.

She has previously expressed her concern in parliament over assaults on police officers and other emergency workers and complained that “for too long police victims of violence have felt like second-class victims”.

In a 2016 Commons debate, which she had requested, she told MPs: “All assaults on the police are unacceptable, and we will discuss how to address them.” Her son, James Abbott-Thompson, 28, was arrested outside the Foreign Office in Whitehall following the altercation with an “emergency worker”.

The alleged assault took place on Friday – less than an hour after the London Bridge terrorist attack. The two incidents are not connected but police would have been at full stretch at the time.

Mr Abbott-Thompson, who previously worked at the Foreign Office, was charged with two counts of assaulting an officer as well as a public order offence.

He appeared at Westminster magistrates’ court on Monday and is next due to appear at the City of London magistrates’ court on Feb 7.

In a statement on Tuesday, Scotland Yard said: “A man has been charged with assault following an incident at around 2.45pm Friday Nov 29 at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in King Charles Street, Westminster.

“James Adam Abbott-Thompson, 28, was charged on Sunday Dec 1 with two counts of assault by beating of an emergency services worker. He was further charged with an offence under Section 4 of the Public Order Act.”

Ms Abbott was approached by The Telegraph for comment after claims that her son had appeared in court began to circulate on the internet.

Solicitors sent a legal letter shortly after. The details of the letter are private and cannot be published.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Some things come back to bite you 🙂

 

'Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, on Tuesday night tried to prevent The Telegraph from publishing details of a court hearing at which her son was accused of assaulting a police officer.

Lawyers acting for the Labour front-bencher wrote to this newspaper after it approached her for comment.

Ms Abbott, 66, will become home secretary in charge of policing if Labour wins the general election in a little over a week’s time.

She has previously expressed her concern in parliament over assaults on police officers and other emergency workers and complained that “for too long police victims of violence have felt like second-class victims”.

In a 2016 Commons debate, which she had requested, she told MPs: “All assaults on the police are unacceptable, and we will discuss how to address them.” Her son, James Abbott-Thompson, 28, was arrested outside the Foreign Office in Whitehall following the altercation with an “emergency worker”.

The alleged assault took place on Friday – less than an hour after the London Bridge terrorist attack. The two incidents are not connected but police would have been at full stretch at the time.

Mr Abbott-Thompson, who previously worked at the Foreign Office, was charged with two counts of assaulting an officer as well as a public order offence.

He appeared at Westminster magistrates’ court on Monday and is next due to appear at the City of London magistrates’ court on Feb 7.

In a statement on Tuesday, Scotland Yard said: “A man has been charged with assault following an incident at around 2.45pm Friday Nov 29 at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in King Charles Street, Westminster.

“James Adam Abbott-Thompson, 28, was charged on Sunday Dec 1 with two counts of assault by beating of an emergency services worker. He was further charged with an offence under Section 4 of the Public Order Act.”

Ms Abbott was approached by The Telegraph for comment after claims that her son had appeared in court began to circulate on the internet.

Solicitors sent a legal letter shortly after. The details of the letter are private and cannot be published.'

Funny you should use the word 'bite'. Allegedly he bit one officer and spat at another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Funny you should use the word 'bite'. Allegedly he bit one officer and spat at another.

Completely intentional :good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Damage limitation plan by the unseen plotters behind Corbyn I suspect.

I reckon your right they seem to have taken the advice from Boris to keep their embarrassments out of the public eye. Do you think maybe the two are sharing the naughty cupboard? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, oowee said:

I reckon your right they seem to have taken the advice from Boris to keep their embarrassments out of the public eye. Do you think maybe the two are sharing the naughty cupboard? 

Hopefully, but it needs to be a very large cupboard as it should have a lot of very poor quality politicians in it!

Edited by TIGHTCHOKE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Hopefully, but it needs to be a very large cupboard as it should have a lot of very poor quality politicians in it!

The two of them would take up a fair bit of space. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Has she no shame?

The answer to that is almost certainly "no, none at all".

Just like the Onasanya incident (where she was jailed, but still had to be forced out of office) and the Osamor incident where her son was drug dealing and again she left office very reluctantly after a lot of delay and pressure - these people have no shame.

I think to an extent - it is a cultural thing - just as in some cultures 'backhanders' which we would call bribes are part of the normal activities of day to day life.  There are those who now live here who have had families and parents who see this sort of activity as nothing to be ashamed of - just "the way things work".

I think it is the same with 'embarrassment' and 'shame' in that they are emotions that some people from some cultures feel much less than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Shadow Home Secretary's son is arrested for assaulting two police officers!!! How has she not fallen on her sword?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...