Jeremy Corbyn

It would be good if Labour came up with some big picture long term aims re productivity and infrastructure. Think Milliband could have one with some ambition/ optimism/ make GB great type stuff.

May said workers on the board of companies (she u-turned on that aswell) Hope its a Labour policy.

I think the civil servants told her it wasn't legally possible to have worker directors.

She just hadn't thought it through. Sounded good though.

So the idea of more bank holidays is a great idea but who is going to pay for them, as a small business owner struggling to make ends meet having to pay people not to be there is a vote winner for me.

Don't forget that Bank holidays in Germany are "always" on the day they fall. So if Christmas and New Year fall on a Saturday and boxing day a Sunday you have to work the full 5 days between. They never move weekend dates to a Monday like we do here. Not sure how it is in other EU countries.

"So the idea of more bank holidays is a great idea but who is going to pay for them, as a small business owner struggling to make ends meet having to pay people not to be there is a vote winner for me."

You just subtract from annual leave allowance.

Everywhere I have worked its been so many days plus bank holidays.

"Everywhere I have worked its been so many days plus bank holidays."

Me too, but the law doesn't require that.

I wonder how members of unite would react to being told " you've got 4 more bank holidays but they are coming out of your annual leave ".

"I wonder how members of unite would react to being told " you've got 4 more bank holidays but they are coming out of your annual leave "

My guess is they'd cheerfully accept it as a necessary step.

🙂

Most of us get 4/5 weeks plus the bank hols. In the states they get three weeks, don't they?

Usually just two AFAIK. And they do have lots of public holidays but mostly only government employees get those - most peope work on them.

I think I know why we have a productivity issue. The relentless drive to cut costs to improve profitability means we outsource everything and lose skills, so things are continually being ****ed up.

This will cheer Binners up

https://order-order.com/2017/04/24/karen-danczuk-seeks-selection-in-bury/

We've already got a candidate.

Mind you... nice bloke though James is, I've always thought someone who likes getting their norks out is bound to be an improvement 😀

rone - Member

Jeez, who doesn't want a better world?

Everyone does, it's just that some people's idea of a better world is radically different from others.

IME Time spent off work is way down the list of things that stop work being done.

A friend was pontificating about the company cost of bank hols on faceache, from her very privileged position of being allowed a 5 year career break to have kids, then being able to return to a guaranteed job at the end (same pay).

Tories to beat Labour in Wales for the first time in 100 years

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-labour-poll-wales-yogov-majority-seats-first-time-century-a7699776.html

Everyone does, it's just that some people's idea of a better world is radically different from others.

I think what's radically different is how people expect it to be paid for.

Northwich I think the biggest disagreement is about how we get to a better world.

I think what's radically different is how people expect it to be paid for.

stumpyjon - Member

Northwich I think the biggest disagreement is about how we get to a better world.

I really don't think it is- I think it's pretty clear that not everyone wants to go in the same direction. In fact the UK's 2 parties spend a lot of their time tearing down the other party's effort to get to [i]their[/i] better world.

Everyone does, it's just that some people's idea of a better world is radically different from others.

Agreed, apart from some folks' vision of utopia seems to want/accept a lot of people suffering at the bottom.

I think what's radically different is how people expect it to be paid for.

I'm not buying this. There is money, resources and the technology out there.

It's the distribution that's off.

Plus I genuinely believe conservatism is all about protecting the interests of those that already have stuff and lecturing the bottom rung on how to live their lives in the hope they do as they're told.

You know, look after the pennies and the pounds etc.

The Tories I know have generally done very well out of lucky inheritance. Hardly a skill - but seem to have a strong world view on how everything should work.

Plus I genuinely believe conservatism is all about protecting the interests of those that already have stuff and lecturing the bottom rung on how to live their lives in the hope they do as they're told.

You haven't met enough conservatives, or perhaps you've been wearing red tinted glasses when you have met them 😉

Most conservatives I know have been passed very little if anything in inheritances, and have worked hard to get where they are. They have had to budget and to take care of their own families as well as contributing financially to other people's families. Is it wrong to expect the same financial discipline and responsibility that they apply to themselves to be applied to those who they pay for ?

Most conservatives I know have been passed very little if anything in inheritances, and have worked hard to get where they are. They have had to budget and to take care of their own families as well as contributing financially to other people's families. Is it wrong to expect the same financial discipline and responsibility that they apply to themselves to be applied to those who they pay for ?

Whereas most conservatives I know have just been lucky (family, upbringing, genetics and maybe inheritance but probably not)

They have not worked any harder than anyone else but they have had a good start in life, they are genetically blessed with intelligence and ability and have used that.
Your last line totally sums up what is wrong with the conservative attitude. They don't realise how fortunate they are but expect everyone else to do as they have but without the fortune combined with a complete lack of empathy.
They need to go and see what lives the people "they pay for" are leading and why it is not about having "financial discipline and responsibility"

All the Labour voters I know are workshy benefit spongers who steal from old ladies and kick puppies. All the Conservative voters I know are landed gentry who cynically exploit the peasantry. And all the LibDem voters I know are allergic to fish fingers.*

*Obviously, this is all utterly untrue**, but as anecdotal evidence goes, it carries as much weight as those above.

**Apart from the fish fingers bit.

Hate puppies, me

Only do fishfingers in a hangover sandwich

😆

@cranberry
You haven't met enough conservatives, or perhaps you've been wearing red tinted glasses when you have met them 😉

I thought I would be unwilling to vote labour in the Corbyn era but this puppy kicking policy seems very compelling.

Hang on, am I allowed to twirl my moustache and cackle whilst kicking the puppies ?

Vote Corbyn!
Corbyn for PM!

Conservatism can be boiled down to this question:

"I managed to succeed - why can't you?"

The conservative asks this as a rhetorical question, and does not expect an answer. The leftie asks it as a real question and listens to the answer.

Conservatism can be boiled down to this question:

"I managed to succeed - why can't you?"

The conservative asks this as a rhetorical question, and does not expect an answer. The leftie asks it as a real question and listens to the answer.

If so, to be electorally successful the conservative must help as many people to be successful as possible to generate people who will vote for them. Whilst the leftie must ensure as many people are unsuccessful as possible to generate people who will vote for them.

If so, to be electorally successful the conservative must help as many people to be successful as possible to generate people who will vote for them. Whilst the leftie must ensure as many people are unsuccessful as possible to generate people who will vote for them.

There's been some pretty bad logic on here, but that has to take the biscuit.

+1 Spectacular.

The Tories I know have generally done very well out of lucky inheritance

All of them ? Most Tories I know haven't inherited anything as their parents are still alive.

CFH 🙂 last page has to take the biscuit for sweeping generalisations

I think the press is getting a bit ahead of itself with Tories on 400 and Labour on 175 but it could end up there once the Tories start going at Corbyn

"There's been some pretty bad logic on here, but that has to take the biscuit."

Perhaps. What's the flaw?

Perhaps. What's the flaw?

Honesty. How very dare you ?

[img] [/img]

If so, to be electorally successful the conservative must help as many people to be successful as possible to generate people who will vote for them.

Not really - you just have to convince people that you're giving them the opportunity to succeed, even if you're not. See USA.

You can be a compassionate conservative, and want everyone to succeed - that is true. And you can certainly create the conditions where pepole can prosper. But this is ultimately a centrist position, not a right wing one. This is also what centre lefties want, but they go about it a different way.

All of them ? Most Tories I know haven't inherited anything as their parents are still alive.

Grandparents? Great grandparents?

Not really - you just have to convince people that you're giving them the opportunity to succeed, even if you're not.

Ok, and the other half of my hypothesis following from your statement?

Whilst the leftie must ensure as many people are unsuccessful as possible to generate people who will vote for them.

Can you explain that away as well?

Whilst the leftie must ensure as many people are unsuccessful as possible to generate people who will vote for them.

eh?

Corbyns base seems to be the quinoa eating islington set!

Are you even serious!?
No wonder this thread is such a mess

eh? Corbyns base seems to be the quinoa eating islington set!

I'm not saying I agree with the statement my statement was based on. I started what I said with "if so".

Ok, and the other half of my hypothesis following from your statement?

Are you referring to the suggestion that Labour want to make people 'unsuccessful'?

If you want logic - it's patently absurd because if too many people are unsuccessful they will vote to change a government.

A successful labour government has to help those who aren't successful - help them to BE successful.

Are you trying to make a point here? If so, out with it.

Are you even serious!?

If someone points out the fault in the logic I'll decide if I think it's flawed or not.

If someone points out the fault in the logic I'll decide if I think it's flawed or not.

🙄 oob is trolling now?

If you want logic - it's patently absurd because if too many people are unsuccessful they will vote to change a government.

Surely that applies to a government of any complexion.

1) It suggests that to be a leftie, you aren't actually a leftie, just someone who wants power and votes at any cost.
2) It suggests that as soon as someone becomes successful, they forget who made them so, so they change allegiance.
3) It suggests that people are incapable of compassion. I.e. people will only look after themselves, not others.

Labour performed strongly with good employment among working class people earning low but fair wages.

Are you saying those people are successful or unsuccessful?

Surely that applies to a government of any complexion.

It's far more nuanced than that, as you know.

Voters are not rational operators, for a start. And most of them are successful in some areas and not in others. And it's not at all clear why this is the case.

So it's very difficult, if not impossible to link most government policies with most of your problems.

That's where the logic breaks down. I haven't really got time here to write a political essay. But the way people choose governments is not at all rational.

1) It suggests that to be a leftie, you aren't actually a leftie, just someone who wants power and votes at any cost.
2) It suggests that as soon as someone becomes successful, they forget who made them so, so they change allegiance.
3) It suggests that people are incapable of compassion. I.e. people will only look after themselves, not others.

It's far more nuanced than that, as you know.

If so you can't just say "One party is for the benefit of successful people and one party is for unsuccessful people.".

If so you can't just say "One party is for the benefit of successful people and one party is for unsuccessful people.".

That's not what I said, is it?

That's not what I said, is it?

I must confess I thought that's what this meant:

Conservatism can be boiled down to this question:
"I managed to succeed - why can't you?"
The conservative asks this as a rhetorical question, and does not expect an answer. The leftie asks it as a real question and listens to the answer.

If you meant, "all the parties do their best for as many people as they can because that's a vote winner" then I'd agree.

If so you can't just say "One party is for the benefit of successful people and one party is for unsuccessful people.".

Might not be literal inheritance, maybe a guaranteed management job at the family company. People in a council estate are much less likely to have that prospect.

Good article here for the "corbyn is unelectable" repeaters, read the Labour policies and decide if you think they are a good idea or if you disagree with them rather than just going along with the media attack on a person

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/how-to-answer-lazy-corbyn-is.html?m=1

That and being able to afford to move near to better schools, better fund higher education or vocational choices and to support their kids. Being comfortable and budgeting is a long way from surviving.

I must confess I thought that's what this meant:

My comment was about people's motivations to vote - not the policies of the parties.

all the parties do their best for as many people as they can because that's a vote winner

But again - voters are not rational actors. If we were, politics would be completely different.

We know that people's opinions can be shaped by campaigning. So even though campaigning doesn't change anyone's material circumstanes, it affects how people vote. In other words - people can be persudaed either way.

So it might be more worthwhile for a government to curry favour with those who control media or other organisations, rather than voters themselves. Which would require a completely different set of priorities from a government, wouldn't it?

See people in the USA with no healthcare campaigning against universal healthcare.

All of them ? Most Tories I know haven't inherited anything as their parents are still alive.
Grandparents? Great grandparents?

Pointless banging head against a wall, Mol, the concept of privilege and nurtured mindsets is lost on this one...

and now for some policy

It says it would:
Scrap Mrs May's Brexit plan - outlined in a White Paper in February - which envisages leaving the single market and customs union
Focus on a deal that "retains the benefits" of both organisations
Guarantee the legal status of the three million EU nationals living in the UK on its first day in office
Press for a reciprocal guarantee for the 1.2 million Britons living on the continent
Replace the government's proposed Great Repeal Bill - which would scrap the 1972 European Communities Act and transpose myriad existing EU laws applying to the UK into domestic law - with an EU Rights and Protections Bill

When I heard that policy this morning, I thought that that could well change a lot of peoples attitudes. Especially being espoused by keir starmer, who's one of the very few credible voices on the opposition front bench

Its almost as if it can be described as centrist?

On comparison of both main parties policy on Brexit, theres only one that now looks extreme to the point of being unhinged.

The trouble is that I can now hear the Mail and the rest of the right wing attack dogs winding themselves up into full blown Enemy of the People hysteria for having the effrontery to confront their self-destructive isolationist utopia.

But its certainly progress to put a more moderate policy to everyone on a subject where most people see the present government direction of travel of an ultra-hard Brexit as completely bonkers, and economically suicidal!

Unfortunately policy is all over the place - his stay in single market is based on being able to get the EU to agree to changes in Freedom of Movement which they have said is not on the table.

Would be good to chuck in FOM too then. It would be a popular policy

Do you think the penny has finally dropped that the present lot aren't likely to be using Brexit as the opportunity to create a socialist workers utopia after all?

Better late than never, I suppose?

Unfortunately policy is all over the place

Perhaps, but it's a stated specific aim - better than 'the best possible deal' which is hugely subjective.

Seems ok to state what they want up front - one could certainly imagine partial concessions being agreed upon in each area. So perhaps single market access in some areas, in response to easier movement of labour (but perhaps not free).

It would seem to make sense for say EU citizens to be able to relocate here, rather than simply work here and send all their money back home..

Not really - just unrealistic Brexit. His position is basically the same as the Government's if you accept FOM is a red line.

just unrealistic Brexit. His position is basically the same as the Government's if you accept FOM is a red line.

It is for Europe so any deal premised on relaxation is pie in the sky and thus perfect for the current Labour party.

and the current tory party, though they feel like ruling more out before they start so a much weaker negotiating position

Without getting into the whole EU debate again, it seems the 2 main parties are saying we should be going into negotiations with very different attitude. From what I've heard this morning Labour is proposing a far softer, less confrontational approach, with an open mind on where the red lines are drawn, allowing for compromise.

The Tories are just bowling in, waving their little flags, telling everyone to stick their single market, customs union and FOM, and if you don't like it then you can **** off

Given that every other issue is secondary to Brexit in this election, if those battle lines have now been drawn in that manner, that can surely only benefit the labour party?

binners - Member
The Tories are just bowling in, waving their little flags, telling everyone to stick their single market, customs union and FOM, and if you don't like it then you can **** off

Vote winner for the Brexiteers who will all be voting Tory. I guess Corbyn/Farron need to get Tory remainers on board...

https://order-order.com/2017/04/25/new-tory-attack-ad-hits-corbyn-on-defence/

the Conservative fleet puts a shot across the bows of the Corbyn flotilla

what else have they got in the archive?

Given that every other issue is secondary to Brexit in this election, if those battle lines have now been drawn in that manner, that can surely only benefit the labour party?

Vote winner for the Brexiteers who will all be voting Tory. I guess Corbyn/Farron need to get Tory remainers on board...

Didn't Zac Goldsmith recently demonstrate that there are quiet a few of those to be had.

Like I said, if Labour is going to not just address the Brexit issue (instead of the head-in-the-sand attitude its had so far), but put forward a more nuanced, intelligen, less confrontational t approach, then that can only win them votes, surely?

Lets be honest... the Mail reading, hysterical, racist, hard-of-thinking are never going to vote labour anyway. Their default is the Tories, or UKIP. But as the Richmond by-election showed, there are more intelligent natural Tory voters who are pro-remain, or very uncomfortable about the present hardline approach.

I know that their natural ground would be to vote Lib Dem, but I presume this is Labours pitch to try and nick a few of those voters too?

It's a big assumption to make given how divisive it all is (unless May really does think she has unified the country)

But as the Richmond by-election showed, there are more intelligent natural Tory voters who are pro-remain, or very uncomfortable about the present hardline approach.

Yep but don't read too much into it, as that was By-election, not a GE. People who would have been willing to kick the Government in a by-election, where the outcome on the government majority is already known, are far less likley to gamble in a GE.

On this one I'd say bets are off, there is a lot more to loose.

Like I said, if Labour is going to not just address the Brexit issue (instead of the head-in-the-sand attitude its had so far), but put forward a more nuanced, intelligen, less confrontational t approach, then that can only win them votes, surely?

Yep agreed state what your intentions/ambitions are and hold the Tories to account on theirs. TM can only get away with nothings like red/white/blue Brexit or strong/stable for so long.

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/gran-who-doesnt-understand-politics-really-impressed-by-theresa-may-20170424126456 ]I wish I shared your confidence[/url]

May has a substantial policy position on Brexit, which she laid out in a detailed speech earlier in the year. A speech that has been greeted by those that matter in the EU as a good starting place for negotiations. Does it cover, of course not, but it is clear and straightforward. All this noise about confrontation etc is just noise based on comments made by nutters on both sides like IDS and Verhofstadt.

The Labour position is harking back to days of Cameron's last negotiations, the EU would say go back to the drawing board and come up with something we can talk about.

Re: Richmond where I live, don't read too much into it. First it was soon after the referendum when feelings were much more pronounced. All polling suggests the electorate has cooled down alot except for a small noisy minority on both sides, so while Brexit will be an issue it won't be the only one. (It was also a relatively safe LibDem seat until Zac came along). Second, the LibDems poured resources into the constituency at the by-election, which a partyless Goldsmith couldn't match. He still only just lost, so I think there is a good chance of it reverting to the Tories whoever the candidate is.

Just to keep you happy, the Guardian are reporting that lots of Northern Labour MPs are reporting that Theresa May is very popular on the doorstep. This doesn't surprise me, I had a sneaking suspicion she was going to be very popular when she was elected.

I had a sneaking suspicion she was going to be very popular when she was elected.

She's been elected already? That was a snap election...