Forum menu
I might vote Tory if it means she’ll end up homeless
Classy
Aah, we are where we are, those leave Labour votes need to come on-side, but without scaring the remain (and larger) part of the party. It’s a balancing act that is doomed in our un-nuanced system I think
It always was. Those saying labour should come down strongly on one side or the other have always been in denial of the fix labour finds itself in, and then find an easy scapegoat in Corbyn. Whoever leads the party was always going to have to try and please both sides. I almost wonder if this 'change in direction' is by design, hence why they've made such a song and dance about it. The job of seeing off the lib dems is mostly complete, now they have to look to the other side. One advantage they have is that the labour leave voters shouldn't be too difficult to win back. As we all know, many labour voters are massively tribal, and they won't need much persuasion to come back.
Re MRP poll, my understanding (from listening to Owen Jones podcast this morning) is that it doesn't take into account the recent registration surge.am I right in saying the constituency poll was likely to be based on phone calls and will therefore favour old voters?
am I right in saying the constituency poll was likely to be based on phone calls and will therefore favour old voters?
Yougov have been trying to poll younger voters & weighting their study appropriately, so it should cover it
One advantage they have is that the labour leave voters shouldn’t be too difficult to win back. As we all know, many labour voters are massively tribal, and they won’t need much persuasion to come back.
Well a labour government is in the bag then? I'll quote you on that when Boris gets his majority
Any ideas how I can stop personally addressed election cr*p coming through my letterbox? Have just had a letter from a Lib Dems NHS Psychiatrist addressing me as "dear friend". FFS please make it stop.
The MRP poll has loads of flaws. The only reason it's been hyped up is because it was the only poll that was anywhwere close to the result last time. I kind of think polls should be banned during the campaign. The lack of of transparency in how they are conducted is in direct conflict with the power they have to skew the result and change the campaign.
I right in saying the constituency poll was likely to be based on phone calls and will therefore favour old voters?
My understanding is that they try to minimise this, but also account for it in the weightings of their model. There'll be different ± margins in each constituency to reflect this (ie, constituencies with weaker data will have bigger uncertainty).
So I've just come back from a meeting with a company in Peterborough, who at 24 hour notice was asked if they would host Pritty Patel's electioneering speech. It's a high-tech company involved in additive manufacture which no doubt the government are selling as our savour when we leave the EU. The irony is that many of the people working in the company are EU nationals, but I bet she won't mention that in her speech!
In fact, thinking about it I could have prevented this whole Brexit mess when David Cameron was visiting a company I was working at during the 2010 election campaign. He even stopped to talk to my colleague at the next desk. I'd take one for the team if I could go back in time.
Sorry
I thought Pritti had been locked in a cupboard with Rees Mogg fopr the duration of the campaign? in case she said that the poor should be beaten to death with sticks for being impertinent to their betters, then made into dog food, or something.
How much do we need voting reform?!?
Well we tried and that referendum was a balls-up too.
Oh and I'm over 60. I'd happily give up my vote for a suitable annual pension and a holiday home somewhere sunny.
Autumn Pastures home for the terminally bewildered?
I'll join you 😀
Sadly binners it would be a cock up.
When I was a student I dropped my Supermarket job down to one evening shift of 3.25 hours at exam time, I assume that will definately be illegal under Labour?
You are either very dim or being deliberately obtuse to criticise Labour.
They aren't stupid, even if you think they are.
You are either very dim or being deliberately obtuse to criticise Labour.
They aren’t stupid, even if you think they are.
What will the new minimum contract hours be?
I’d happily give up my vote for a suitable annual pension and a holiday home somewhere sunny.
There's a place in Switzerland that does fantasic biscuits. And you could have all the money you can spend for the rest of your life.
What will the new minimum contract hours be?
Greater than zero I expect.
Everyone who's paid attention and had a little think understands that the issue is not giving a fixed minimum to people who want it. So you apply for a job and they say 'yeah it'll be full time' and the contract says that there is no minimum number of hours, that means you many not always get the money you might depend on.
If, however, you agree a contract for 1 hour a week with a company, and it's in the contract, then no-one will have a problem with this, because you know up-front that it's only one hour and you can plan around that. That won't be banned, cos it would be stupid. Also one is not zero.
Zero hours contracts are two way agreements - the employer doesn't have to provide any hours but equally, the employee doesn't have to work any either.
Therefore, you can ban this type of contract without stipulating how many hours an employer must offer.
Any ideas how I can stop personally addressed election cr*p coming through my letterbox?
Takes a while for the post to stop though, so even if you sign up, you may still get some unwanted mail for a while afterwards
Anyone studied the DUP manifesto yet?
What will the new minimum contract hours be?
If, however, you agree a contract for 1 hour a week
LOL, you've certainly spotted the problem!
That's one way out.
Another way out is if we leave the EU. The sole reason 0 hours contracts exist is because of the working time directive. That made contracts a legal requirement. Before that contracts were optional and casual workers didn't need one. If Labour get us out of the EU, they can tweak our new version of the working hours directive so contracts aren't allowed for *very* low contract hours. That way casual workers don't lose their jobs but Labour can genuinely claim to have banned 0 hours contracts without putting anyone out.
Your idea is ok, but 4 hours PCM is embarrassingly low given the claim and at that there will *still* be people who like their arrangement getting their jobs banned who will be all over the news with sad faces. Banning some people's jobs to move some other people 'up' to a mere four hour PCM commitment is a toxic news story.
I like the libdems idea - you don't ban causal working but you say below a certain number of hours the salary goes up. Yes, that's flawed, but it's far more doable than an outright ban.
Sky news is currently interviewing some proper morons right now in Blackpool, a leave voting teacher and an old bag of a conservative voting HR manager on crutches and sporting pink hair.
Hahahah for ****s sake, talk about Turkeys voting for Christmas - Boris must be pissing himself with laughter.
Before that contracts were optional and casual workers didn’t need one.
And you've spotted the opposite problem. A job with no contract has no requirement for hours. So a 0 hours non-contract. The problem for the person with a job that has no hours and therefore no money remains unsolved. Being in or out of the EU won't change that.
dazh
Subscriber
You’re just re-writing history now. You know full well that labour brexit policy shifted towards the remain side due to the threat of the lib dems.
What Binners knows and what he believes are not the same thing.
you don’t ban causal working
****s sake you are incredible and infuriating.
No-one's banning casual working. That would be utterly insane.
The ABUSE of zero hours contracts is the issue. This is what the Labour party wants to do. Not ban casual working. Why on earth would they want to do that?
Jeez, the Labour proposal was to ban zero hours contracts unless both sides agreed it suited them, ie they could be voluntary but not compulsory. There's no mileage trying to be clever about it
Hahahah for **** sake, talk about Turkeys voting for Christmas – Boris must be pissing himself with laughter.
Yeah yeah we get it, you are smarter than everybody else with your silly beard and dark rim glasses. In fact, is that you Jeremy?
I dislike Corbyn probably as much as McCarthy would have.
A job with no contract has no requirement for hours. So a 0 hours non-contract. The problem for the person with a job that has no hours and therefore no money remains unsolved.
Yup, so the alternative is to keep compulsory contracts and go with Molegrip's suggestion of picking a pitifully small minimum contract hours like 4 hours PCM. Which also doesn't solve the no money problem unless you regard four hours guaranteed work a months as adequate.
As Molegrips says Labour are not going to ban casual working because that would be "utterly insane". What they say they *are* going to do is ban zero hours contracts. There's only two sane ways to do that and neither of them solve the problem people want solved.
Jeez, the Labour proposal was to ban zero hours contracts unless both sides agreed it suited them, ie they could be voluntary but not compulsory.
Where's you link for that, that's not what the manifesto says. (If that *was* the policy it would just be maintaining the status quo.)
Rather than getting exasperated, please explain the policy, so that we can all try and understand it. Because I don’t.
I don't know if the policy is fully spelled out, however it would be safe to assume.thwt they won't draft laws that are simply the statements out of their manifesto. The law making process is a bit more involved.
The intention is to prevent people from being forced into zero hours contracts, presumably by making employers offer a decent number of hours. The employee could then be free to ask for a.lower number if they want.
Not hard to see how this could be the positive change that Labour are intending.
So, you don’t understand it either? Fine.
Maybe a start would be an automatic opt out unless you purposely sign up, a bit like the EU working time regulations but the opposite.
I agree that highly flexible hours might suit some people, they could do 5 hours at sports direct on a Monday, 3 hours at a coffee shop on Wednesday etc.
The big thing in my mind is that that if you work on a zero hours contract at the moment, you have to be available at beck and call and if you can't be, because your doing another zero hours contract, or doing a school run, they can just sack you off.
It's like slavery.
I dislike Corbyn probably as much as McCarthy would have.
Unsuprising given you are about as right wing as McCarthy
I have worked on a zero hours contract. My choice. I was also free to take up other work if I wanted, free to refuse work if I wanted, did not have to be on call to take work.
that sort of zero hours contract is fine and not abusive.
What is not acceptable is to be unable to take up other work and to have to agree to work when called. that is abusive.
So, you don’t understand it either?
No, all I've got is a single sentence.
I'm exasperated that people are filling in the blanks with their own made up rubbish, then disapproving of the policy because it's rubbish - when it's their own made up rubbish. A highly destructive level of confirmation bias. Reminds me of that Harry Enfield character that rants on about celebrities having done hypothetical things he just made up.
Johnson saying he wants to revoke C4 s license because they empty chaired him
He really is the most remarkable coward, isn't he!
I love the whiney middle class cockbags blokes who’s biggest dilemma is what Audi spec to get get for their next company car, and what Santa Cruz to put on the roof bars, loftily pontificating on the pros and cons of zero hours contracts
No, all I’ve got is a single sentence.
There isn’t a policy, just an aim. If you can’t explain what you’ll do, people have to either fill in the blanks, or assume you’re floating farts. No more “we have a plan, it’s the best plan, the greatest plan, we just can’t tell you what it is”. That’s not good enough, from any party. 2016 and its aftermath should be warning enough. It’s no better than assurances from Johnson that his party has a plan for social care… we just can’t see it or scrutinise it. Don’t accept such empty fluff from politicians.
Anyway, just made the mistake of watching BBC The Papers, they saying that Johnson had the right approach to the C4 debate because it had made the Conservative Party complaints the front page story ON THE TELEGRAPH instead of the climate debate and issues. THE TELEGRAPH. As if Johnson and the paper were in no way connected.
I love the whiney middle class cockbags blokes who’s biggest dilemma is what Audi spec to get get for their next company car, and what Santa Cruz to put on the roof bars, loftily pontificating on the pros and cons of zero hours contracts
Steady on binners. Maybe lay off the ether for a bit?
I've worked on a zero hours contract. In fact, it's pretty common round where I currently live. No one has any issue with it as it provides "freedom" in both directions, employees being able to take up other work as they desire.
That's probably a good example of zero hours, the bad aspect is that technically you can basically be on call to do work at any time time, and if you're unavailable due to other commitments they could just sack you off for 'being inflexible'..
The moral of the story is that it has to work both ways.
When you have a situation where an employer is not setting specific hours but expect you to work at short notice or irregular hours, that's when it becomes very unfair.
No one has any issue with it as it provides “freedom” in both directions, employees being able to take up other work as they desire.
I was under the impression that there will be a silent chunk of people who get shafted because of this flexibility and Labour are interested in those people - rather than the ones who can make it work, that are happy with it - and perhaps have other good life choices available to them.