[Archived] Election called for 8th June

[onlyonetugay]

17 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

Latest figures show nearly 1m workers on zero hours contracts. That's 1m people working for bosses who treat workers like disposable labour. If you’re on a zero-hours contract you have no guarantee of work from one day to another. Put a foot wrong and you can be let go in a heartbeat. Turn down a shift because your kid’s sick and you can be left with little or no work

Yet evil creatures like Ian Drunken Smith continue to defend zero hours contracts, while Theresa May laughably tries to portray the Tories as the "workers party". Well, if you believe that, you're even more naive and deluded then you already appear.

You can wriggle and squirm, deny and deflect,  but the use of zero hours contracts by the likes of Unite the Union , Labour Councils and Labour MPs including that national laughing stock Ed Balls  is blatant hypocrisy .   Labour promised to get rid of them  but then went on to say they  "wished to retain the flexibility these contracts offer business."  It's no wonder   the likes of Sports Direct , Boohoo and the rest   agreed - shameful hypocrisy

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, Gav said:

He said 'what the majority of the country wanted', I'm sure he's referring to the ones that voted den.

You are correct Gav. If 12.9 million people didnt want to vote that aint my problem. 

The majority of who voted got what they wanted Den. Time accept the will of the voters and move on. We are leaving the EU now. 

[den]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

You are correct Gav. If 12.9 million people didnt want to vote that aint my problem. 

The majority of who voted got what they wanted Den. Time accept the will of the voters and move on. We are leaving the EU now. 

Have you finally settled on what you actually said then Chaddy?

storm in a teacup here, but my, how you change your story and blatantly lie about the words you used. 

And I DO  accept that Leave won the election. I do accept that leave got 38% of the total electorate vote, very slightly more than the remain vote. I do accept that one in four people out of the "country" (your words which you refused to acknowledge)) voted leave.

But I simply can't accept that you or any of the leave voters had any idea what they voted for. 

So move on? No chance Chaddy.

[den]

12 minutes ago, Gav said:

He said 'what the majority of the country wanted', I'm sure he's referring to the ones that voted den.

I knew all along what he meant Gav, but getting him to stop lying and just rephrase it was impossible.

[Gav]

Just now, den said:

I knew all along what he meant Gav, but getting him to stop lying and just rephrase it was impossible.

I know you did, its all down to a battle of wills in the end.

Like arguing with the Mrs 

[chaddyrovers]

15 minutes ago, den said:

And I DO  accept that Leave won the election. I do accept that leave got 52% of the total electorate voters(people who actually voted) very slightly more than the remain vote. 

But I simply can't accept that you or any of the leave voters had any idea what they voted for. 

So move on? No chance Chaddy.

Changed the 1st bit for. 

People voted cos they want a change and a new direction. Yes it is a risk but lets give it a try. 

 

[joey_big_nose]

25 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Changed the 1st bit for. 

People voted cos they want a change and a new direction. Yes it is a risk but lets give it a try. 

 

In a way this sums up where we are today. Voters are inured to risk - we have seen stable governments for decades, combined with steady rises in living conditions up to the 1970s, and while income growth stalled for the majority from the 1980s onwards stable government has persisted through Centrist and Internationalist politicians (Thatcher being an obvious exception). We have maintained stability through multilateral agents like NATO, the UN, the EU, and used these tools effectively to manage the modest crisis situations of the 1970s onwards. And as the generation that fought in WWII, and that which experienced the terror of the Cuban Missile crisis, dies off, to be replaced by those raised in the hyper-safe post cold war period of 1990-2017, awareness of political risk has been replaced by an insidious complacency.

Disgruntled voters - angry at the long period of stalled income growth, rising asset prices and reduced social mobility since the 1980s - increasingly deem it appropriate to make radical choices to express this annoyance - Brexit, UKIP, Trump in the US, Front National in France - in the name of nebulous change. But the sense of how risky these options are is lost on so many people.  Unilaterism, nationalism, isolationism, protectionism. These are the pre-conditions of conflict. They always have been, they always will be, and that is the road the world is collectively travelling down.

What makes me sad is that for the root cause of the issue - stalled income growth for the majority of the population - no one has any answers for on Left or Right, and the issue is likely to deteriorate further due to macro-economic trends.

[oldjamfan1]

Excellent summary JBN - difficult to pick any holes in that to be fair.

[Mike E]

4 hours ago, Phil T said:

So, 16-17 year olds who work and pay tax should get a vote.

I'm not clear on what you're saying about 16-17 year olds who are unable to work because of a disability. They aren't contributing taxes. Are you saying they will still get a vote?

What about 16-17 year olds who are continuing to study full time at college and therefore aren't contributing taxes?

I was arguing that ONLY those 16-17yos paying taxes should receive a vote.

However, having thought about it a little more (considering your point), it does come across as unfair as it isn't all about taxes.

In which case I'd be in favour of lowering the age of voting to 16. If they are deemed responsible enough to choose to stop further education, choose to work, have sex (and therefore presumed responsible enough to raise a child), a say in Government isn't exactly a huge leap.

[broadsword]

2 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Changed the 1st bit for. 

People voted cos they want a change and a new direction. Yes it is a risk but lets give it a try. 

 

Yes, a change from peace and prosperity.

Let's go instead in a direction of poverty and conflict. Yes, it's a wholly pointless risk for no reward at all, but let's leap into the dark abyss just for the hell of it, see what happens. Wonderful.

It's what all of the country wanted. No, it's what most of the country wanted. No. It's what just over half the country voted for. No. It's what just over half the people who voted, voted for. No. It's what 17m people blinded by prejudice and high on the print fumes of the Daily Heil and The Scum or who were seduced by a second hand car dealer in a covert coat or a strategically dressed cimpanzee in a blonde wig voted for without stopping to think about things.

Just don't come crying when it all falls to pieces.

[jim mk2]

4 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Changed the 1st bit for. 

People voted cos they want a change and a new direction. Yes it is a risk but lets give it a try. 

 

Bit like Rovers when Venky's turned up eh ....... it's a bit of a risk but let's give them a try. No doubt you welcomed them with open arms too. Sometimes in life, it's better the devil you know, and the EU for all its faults has delivered 70 years of peace and prosperity in Europe and 40 years of economic growth in this country. 

[Paul]

9 hours ago, Mike E said:

And I understand that sentiment too. I think the important distinction is that those who are actively contributing to the purse should be allowed a vote.

Those who are severely disabled would be the same as those in college or further education imo, so it isn't discriminatory.

It could also be seen as a 'reward for working', encouraging young people to take up trades instead of clogging up the system with degrees in Media Studies.

This flies in the face of the disability discrimination act. 

[blueboy3333]

On ‎19‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 9:33 AM, Glenn said:

If you look at what Tim has said on homosexuality in the past (which I did last night after being shocked at the C4 quote flying around social media), it actually sits much more comfortably with me than I'd ever imagined.

it boils down to ....

As a good Christian, I believe homosexuality is a sin.

Howerver, as a good liberal, I don't believe I have the right to impose that view on anyone else

Which works for me, I don't mind people believing whatever they want, it's pushing those beliefs onto others, or punishing them for not sharing them that I abhor.

 

 

 

 

 

It sits very uncomfortably with me. He's just hiding his bigotry behind religion and politics. The worst kind of bigot.

[perthblue02]

The corbyn speech in full (starts around 22 minutes in)

To be fair a good performance.

Meanwhile Corbyn's boss wins his election after suspending his opposition 24 hours earlier

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/21/len-mccluskey-re-elected-leader-of-unite-union-jeremy-corbyn

 

Think Dawn Butler is going to go on my must watch /listen to list , a glorious car crash in slow motion.

 

May appears to back track on live TV debates

http://edition.metro.news/content/20170420.am/htmlpages/575263.html

 

 

 

[blueboy3333]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/21/tory-election-manifesto-may-drop-2015-pledge-to-not-raise-taxes

So that's why the Tories called a new election, so they could break the promises in the last one and put up taxes. And they'll still cut public services,

Welcome to the new austerity, more brutal than the last.

 

[jim mk2]

Tax will be big story this weekend. Hammond wants to put them up, thus breaking yet another Tory party pledge.  

[perthblue02]

Just now, jim mk2 said:

Tax will be big story this weekend. Hammond wants to put them up, thus breaking yet another Tory party pledge.  

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-39671163

Link above relating to Jim's post

 

No cuts to foreign aid spending, says May

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39670703

 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Mike E said:

I was arguing that ONLY those 16-17yos paying taxes should receive a vote.

However, having thought about it a little more (considering your point), it does come across as unfair as it isn't all about taxes.

That's a relief, as I don't know many other teachers that would be a proponent of giving immediate school-leavers a right to vote, while disallowing those who continued their education from having that same right. 

There are countless other scenarios to consider, but I'm glad you've seen the light.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

So that's why the Tories called a new election, so they could break the promises in the last one and put up taxes.

It's not just limited to that...

Britons abroad for longer than 15 years denied vote in general election

The Tories promised to scrap that piece of legislation six months ago, but there's now not enough time to sort it out, so it'll be conveniently brushed away. Well, that's just as well, isn't it? It certainly doesn't suit their current agenda.

[JohnD]

12 hours ago, Paul said:

With regard to the value of a degree I think there is truth in this. 

Your comments re nurses demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge in the area. 

Fair enough Paul, I have given my opinion, you have given yours, we disagree but you criticise mine with no apparent justification.

Perhaps you would like to point out why I have a complete lack of knowledge?

[chaddyrovers]

6 hours ago, broadsword said:

Yes, a change from peace and prosperity.

Let's go instead in a direction of poverty and conflict. Yes, it's a wholly pointless risk for no reward at all, but let's leap into the dark abyss just for the hell of it, see what happens. Wonderful.

It's what all of the country wanted. No, it's what most of the country wanted. No. It's what just over half the country voted for. No. It's what just over half the people who voted, voted for. No. It's what 17m people blinded by prejudice and high on the print fumes of the Daily Heil and The Scum or who were seduced by a second hand car dealer in a covert coat or a strategically dressed cimpanzee in a blonde wig voted for without stopping to think about things.

Just don't come crying when it all falls to pieces.

How do you know it will be a direction of poverty and conflict?

No reward?

its is what over half of the people who voted wanted! If you want someone to be blame then blame the 12.9 million people who didn't vote.

3 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

 

 

[broadsword]

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

How do you know it will be a direction of poverty and conflict?

its is what over half of the people who voted wanted! If you want someone to be blame then blame the 12.9 million people who didn't vote.

 

How do you know it's not? If you're going to throw away EU membership, you have to be sure that you're going to replace it with something better.

I blame the leavers for being fooled, and the abstainers for a total lack of care.

[Mike E]

4 hours ago, Paul said:

This flies in the face of the disability discrimination act. 

Thanks for ignoring my later reconsideration

[Paul]

8 hours ago, JohnD said:

Fair enough Paul, I have given my opinion, you have given yours, we disagree but you criticise mine with no apparent justification.

Perhaps you would like to point out why I have a complete lack of knowledge?

Yes you're right I should have justified this. I have been with my wife for 39 years during which time she worked for 38 years as an SRN and SRM - trained traditionally on the wards - and laterly delivering special used training to health care professionals. She is highly qualified in a number of specialisms. 

You said:

"The nurses on the lowest wages have little to do with peoples lives.

My only point is that a nurse's lot isn't a particularly poor one."

My first point would be ALL nurses work is focused on people's lives. This is the point of nursing.  Clearly some tasks a nurse will carry out do not have a direct impact on life but then the same could be said of a doctor. The reality is only the higher paid, more qualified, nurses have a greater influence on a patient's life than lower paid, less qualified nurses. I'm thinking of nurse practitioners as an example.

By comparison with some employment nursing isn't "a poor lot" but these are not comparisons we should make. Judgement on a job should be stand alone not comparative. As far back as nearly 40 years ago the NHS was reliant on the good will of nursing staff. As a simple example at shift change there is a handover, say 9.00pm. As one shift finishes at 9.00 and the other ends at the same time how much do you think the going off shift staff are paid for a 30-45 minute handover? Zero.

For the last 15 years midwifery services have been solely reliant on the goodwill of SRM's from my wife's generation, working additional unpaid hours, never getting the time back, stressed through staff shortages and patient care. Sadly the lack of investment in training means there are very few experienced midwives coming through to replace those now retiring. 

I won't discuss my wife's closing salary and agree we have enjoyed a comfortable life but can assure you the financial reward for delivering life saving care with 25,30, 35 or more years experience is far from commensurate with the responsibility this work carries. 

[JohnD]

Thanks Paul