Jeremy Corbyn

True, although I havent mentioned a remain party, just a new labour party with a heavy dose of remain sentiment. What they do with it would be a v long game indeed.

sadly I agree with ninfan

Im still not 100% convinced by Corbyn even if I like many of his policies, but hes better than I thought a while ago, but Im getting ever more convinced the Theresa May wont be good for the country

@kelvin - I pretty much agree with you. The really poor need education/work skills training and of course welfare support. I would weight welfare much more towards the really poor than is done today. That would mean less money for the no-so-poor

damn I agree with Jamba too

things like Sure Start should be getting more funding not less. having worked with kids in some not so great places, putting effort into community centres, activities, giving kids positive role models (and access to good education) is the best way to improve outcomes

its why tory austerity- saving money in the short term, will cost us more in the long term as those left behind will find it harder to catch up as they get older and be a problem for society down the road

Rest of Europe has VAT on food, VAT on childrens clothes in France etc ... primpary burden would be on the employed of course

So despite all your Tory bluster you do have some clear left ideas. Good - and I mean this not just because I also agree but because you're prepared to admit to it despite being on the face of it bluer than Stilton 🙂

You realise May is never ever going to raise taxes significantly to fund the NHS don't you?

Oh.. wait.. is this a cynical ploy to steal the centre ground Jam? 🙂

Agreeing with Jamba.

Of course, stopping welfare going to private landlords would be good extra move. Build/keep council houses and housing association housing to enable this. Scary how much benefit money is paying the mortgages of property speculators.

I'd like to hear what Corbyn has to say about the Monarchy. I have a feeling he's a staunch republican who'd like to see them all dispensed with and their wealth distributed for the common good. Wouldn't that be good!?

Wouldn't that be good!?

I know, that's it exactly. I think that's probably why we're not hearing about it. I think his feelings are clear when he chose not to sing the national anthem. I'm surprised his rivals aren't using it to bash him.

Plenty of time for that I'm afraid. Although I think this comprehensive manifesto has been the best move they could ever make.
I wouldn't be surprised if the tories have rushed in a lot of policies to make theirs look at least not mickey mouse in comparison.

ramifications of Brexit are being felt around the UK and enough Leavers have changed their minds.

Pmsl!

I'm going to make a statement that I never though I would:
I'm warming to Corbyn. There, I said it.

I think the biggest difference is the total contrast in style between him and the Maybot when 'in public'.

The difference is that May is clearly terrified of encountering anyone not pre-approved by central office, hence the ludicrously stage managed photo-ops, with Tory staffers. And we all know that young people in suits waving placards about patriotism just looks weird, and creepy. And when one of the great unwashed does make it through, she's like a rabbit in the headlights. Lost without her prepared answers.

Whereas we've only ever previously seen Corbyn at PMQs etc, where he looks really uncomfortable and like a cantankerous old goat. But the news now shows him relaxed and in his natural environment. Out amongst people waving placardsI Now a big chunk of them are Momentum members, or at least Labour. But they look like normal people, and he's happy to chat to them. He looks like a human being. In comparison, May looks like an android, with all the personal charm of the terminator.

It does look like in the last week or so he's actually realised that isn't a dream, and he really is the leader of the labour party

Get those red flags waving kiddies! He's on his feet 😀

I wish they'd have finished the intro with a business exec/ceo that supported investment, innovation, etc.
Would have been easy to do and would have done a lot imo.

I think the biggest difference is the total contrast in style between him and the Maybot when 'in public'.

I wonder if traditional politicians and the media have adapted to each other. They expect meaningless soundbites, so the politicians strive to create the right kind of meaningless soundbites, and if you don't create soundbites then you don't work.

Corbyn's Labour seem to have created a proper raft of actual policies that would make a real difference to people's lives - and might've forced the Tories to try and do the same at least partly - and the media now have to actually talk about policy.

Now a big chunk of them are Momentum members, or at least Labour. But they look like normal people, and he's happy to chat to them. He looks like a human being.

I very much doubt that many of the thousands who turned up in hebden bridge and Leeds yesterday have been anywhere near a momentum meeting. Besides that though, those of us who don't buy into the media claptrap about him have been saying for months that there is more to him than his media image. I'm quietly hopeful that this election won't be the disaster everyone assumes. I don't think he'll win, but he may just do well enough to prove his critics in the PLP wrong. Question is if he does, will they then finally support him and his policies, or continue doing the tories job for them?

The "let's debate" line is a good one.
Makes Corbyn seem confident May secretive.

It would be pretty amazing if he did win though eh?

I don't think much is being made of Brexit so far because both major parties have said it will happen; it's now down to what sort of Brexit deal is available and that's where i have concerns - May's antagonistic approach thus far seems to me to have driven a counterpoint position from the EU.

And the rhetoric from the Tories on that has focused not on the deal, but on whether you want a 'strong and stable' leader that will make herself 'bloody difficult' to deal with vs 'a mutton headed old mugwump'.

Which makes me think of two things.

1/ It's to me clearly a strategy designed to appeal to the person that just wants out of Europe and if that means punching them repeatedly on the nose, even if that means getting punched a bit ourselves, well that's a price worth paying.

2/ Does anyone really trust either of them to actually be doing the negotiating? Because i wouldn't - but I'm more inclined to be persuaded that JC will employ someone who does know what they're doing and can take a balanced position that doesn't set the whole house ablaze; May's surrounded herself with the political equivalents of Alf Garnett in a suit and they'll take us all down if they have to.

The difference is that May is clearly terrified of encountering anyone not pre-approved by central office

She certainly looked it yesterday when meeting a person on reduced benefits. It wasn't far off from her breaking down with her just endlessly repeating "Strong and Stable", "Will of the People", "Brexit" in a loop until someone took her away.

Funny that she isn't doing leaders debates because her approach is to go out and meet people instead (the very thing she is worst at)

If only all of the people could meet all of the leaders and question them, get a true sense of what they are about, what they would do for them etc,. I think we would se a very different result.

[quote=kimbers ]Im still not 100% convinced by Corbyn even if I like many of his policies, but hes better than I thought a while ago, but Im getting ever more convinced the Theresa May wont be good for the country

This x1000 - there's still something about Corbyn which makes me hesitant, but given a choice between him and the Maybot there's no contest (even from a competence and leadership POV before we get to the toxic policies). I write as somebody who has voted Tory in the past, and still struggling to understand why everybody else hasn't worked out what they're really about.

[quote=theotherjonv ]2/ Does anyone really trust either of them to actually be doing the negotiating? Because i wouldn't - but I'm more inclined to be persuaded that JC will employ someone who does know what they're doing and can take a balanced position that doesn't set the whole house ablaze; May's surrounded herself with the political equivalents of Alf Garnett in a suit and they'll take us all down if they have to.

Being a remainer I clearly don't have the majority view, but being "bloody difficult" appears a "bloody stupid" position to take in negotiations when you don't actually have a strong hand to play. Of course such a stance goes down well with the hardcore brexiteers who believe the EU's stance on negotiations is because they want to punish us 🙄

kerley - Member

She certainly looked it yesterday when meeting a person on reduced benefits.

Something I've seen a few people pick up on from that- it's not just the look of terror or the total inability to admit that her government has chosen to **** this person, that PIP is destroying lives as a policy choice... It's also the bit where she thinks learning difficulties are a mental health issue.

It reminds me of the whole "car crash interviews" thing the other week. When Diane Abbott has a car crash interview, it's because she said something wrong. But when Theresa May has a car crash interview it's because she said what she thinks. It's not the same thing at all- one is a mistake, and can be corrected or clarified. The other doesn't go away.

[quote=Northwind ]kerley - Member
She certainly looked it yesterday when meeting a person on reduced benefits.
Something I've seen a few people pick up on from that- it's not just the look of terror or the total inability to admit that her government has chosen to **** this person, that PIP is destroying lives as a policy choice... It's also the bit where she thinks learning difficulties are a mental health issue.
It reminds me of the whole "car crash interviews" thing the other week. When Diane Abbott has a car crash interview, it's because she said something wrong. But when Theresa May has a car crash interview it's because she said what she thinks. It's not the same thing at all- one is a mistake, and can be corrected or clarified. The other doesn't go away.

being "bloody difficult" appears a "bloody stupid" position to take in negotiations when you don't actually have a strong hand to play

spot on. I used to negotiate on a daily basis, and the position you take is dictated by circumstances, not what type of person you are. In some cases then a 'that's what's on offer, take it or leave it' stance is perfectly fine. But not in this case.

Also as a remainer, but one who has 'resigned myself' to the fact that we voted, we decided, and it's going to happen so let's get the best we can for all parties now - taking the stance of 'if I can't have exactly what i want then I'm prepared to **** it up completely' is what i have the issue with now.

Coupled to the fact that the election was called on this basis, that May could use Brexit to garner support from the pro-leave side to get another 5 years, and then use those 5 years to impose her toxic national policies as well EVEN THOUGH THE PEOPLE WHO SUFFER MOST WILL BE MANY OF THOSE THAT PUT HER IN THE PLACE TO DO IT - that's why we need as many seats to go to other parties as possible so she doesn't get the overwhelming majority that her strategists have told her would be the outcome.

Very interesting looking at all the different media outlets today about the labour manifesto.
Just the way they frame it is very telling.

Can't believe my inlaws and parents read the telegraph/mail respectively 🙁

On another note, I've discovered many Grime artists over the last hour or so 🙂
#grime4corbyn

[img] [/img]

On the crowds to watch Corbyn being all labour party / momentum members, I am not so sure.

I went with a friend and neither of us has been to a political speech in our lives.

I'm not really a party politics person - I was a labour member briefly in the 90s but stopped. Any campaigning I've done has been for human rights and the environment. Yes, there were plenty of people who were more politically active than me there but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot more people like me around.

I came away convinced that there's something really odd about the media and quite wrong. And also that I would do what I could to counter it. I also read about the way in which the Trump campaign cut out the media in the US. I am not sure that anyone working on the labour party campaign has adopted a similar strategy deliberately or indeed has the access to data and analytics but it was really interesting to see that it is possible to reach people without mainstream media support. There's a tiny bit of me that wonders whether the media is a bit scared, and whether this fear is what has provoked the vilification.

To be honest, the last day has been a bit odd, because I've worked in communications and PR for a lot of my life, and whilst you know that the media is a frame for the news, I've never seen such a massive discrepancy. I keep thinking about it and it's like having an attack of professional vertigo.

@kimbers as I have said before it see it as very occasionally me being right as I agree with you 🙂

Apologies not had time to read the thread today will catch up later

Excellent words from The Spectator on The Labour Manifesto. Real NHS uplift is half the cost of aboloshing tuition fees. That plus tax rises change behaviour and always raise less than estimated.

Today Labour launched its manifesto. Thanks to last week's draft manifesto leak, the focus has not been on the contents (which range from nationalising the railways, Royal Mail and National Grid to scrapping tuition fees), but how Labour will actually pay for the £48.6bn worth of pledges.

Before Jeremy Corbyn could get on stage at the launch in Bradford to explain that costly policies will be funded from extra tax revenue, John McDonnell dropped a clanger on the Today programme. Despite saying the document was 'fully costed', the shadow chancellor was forced to admit that Labour won’t include figures for its nationalisation plans – even though nationalising water alone is expected to cost tens of billions. Matters weren't helped when McDonnell guessed the UK deficit wrongly.

As for the plans to raise an extra revenue by increasing income tax bands for top earners, raising corporation tax, introducing an excessive pay levy and a new tax avoidance programme, the party doesn’t seem to understand that taxes change behaviour. On Coffee House, Matthew Lynn says you can argue about the rights and wrongs of the Laffer Curve, which holds that at a certain point the revenue from raising taxes go down, all day long. What you can’t argue with is that people will respond to each tax rise usually by trying to reduce their tax bill. The result? The amount you raise will always be very different from what you forecast.

But disregarding these problems, does Labour’s manifesto really look like one to cheer the hearts of old socialists? This is a document which would deeply disappoint Robin Hood, says Ross Clark, because while there are new tax measures aimed at the rich, many of the spending commitments would also disproportionately benefit the wealthy. The single most expensive measure in Labour’s spending plans is abolishing university tuition fees – at a cost of £11.2bn a year, more than twice the sum that Labour is planning to put into the NHS. The end of tuition fees would help some poor students, but it would help middle-class families more for the simple reason that their children are more likely to go to university.

But there is another more favourable way to look at the document. If it's viewed as a pre-emptive Labour leadership manifesto for Corbyn then it makes more sense. It could prove invaluable for him in the aftermath of a disastrous election result.

Let's not forget, Jamba, that fiscal prudence is not exactly important to the Tory party any longer. Brexit is the biggest potential threat to Britain's economy since it got involved in two world wars. Corbyn borrowing a few extra billion fades into complete insignificance in that context if things don't pan out in the way Brexiteers are hoping.

Real NHS uplift is half the cost of aboloshing tuition fees.

Free tuition is massively important for the country as a whole. And TBH we're mostly already paying for it anyway.

Free tuition... And TBH we're mostly already paying for it anyway.

Yep I didn't hear this said today.

Also trains are going to be took back franchise by franchise as they become available and the last one was profitable so arguably no extra cost.

Water: A business bought at market worth seems not such a massive problem to me?

Energy: Isn't the plan just to create a state run competitor not nationalise the whole thing?

EDIT: Wouldn't it have been great if Milliband came up with something like this manifesto?

Yep, three measured policies I can get behind, without scary cost implications in the long term. All good investments.

Yep, it really needs to be repeated over and over on tuition fees- you have to take into account the current cost. The student loan company is entirely funded with government borrowing, and a huge proportion of the debt will never be repaid. So the abolishment of tuition fees would be cost neutral today (well, there'd presumably be efficiency savings). It would make the national financial state look a little worse but only because of dodgy accounting, not because of any real cost.

And then the long-term cost would be some fraction of the perceived cost- basically the repayment amount not the loaned amount. In 2016 the IFS predicted that 70% of students won't fully repay their loan, and that'll have been worsened now. It's not quite that simple because some of the loan book will be sold off (cheaply) and some of that 70% will pay off a large amount of their loan, just not all. But it's reasonable to assume a return of well under 50%. Plus, again, efficiency savings

Unfortunately it's easy for people to mislead on this point. Frankly it's hard to convince people of just how low the repayment rate is so it's no wonder people assume that the cost of cancelling a £9250 loan and paying the fees instead will be £9250 rather than... £3500? And equally because of the way it's discussed, most people don't realise that it's already public borrowing anyway.

Basically the truth is hard to believe and the lie seems more likely.

[quote=Clover ]On the crowds to watch Corbyn being all labour party / momentum members, I am not so sure.
I went with a friend and neither of us has been to a political speech in our lives.

I'm disappointed I found out too late that he was coming here - I'd have gone to hear him. Not only have I never been a member of any political party (let alone Labour), I'm not even a natural Labour voter (I've still only voted Labour once, and won't be this time, but it would be a wasted vote here - I should probably point out that Corbyn was visiting the next door constituency which has always been a Labour/Tory marginal).

Isn't it interesting how Momentum have taken on such mythic proportions? There's 22000 of them, which makes them 4% of the entire Labour membership. But people see them everywhere- everyone Corbyn meets is a Momentum member, every rally is nothing but Momentum fanboys. 7000 people apparently turned up to see him in Liverpool, my dad and Binners and many others reckon they're all Momentum members- that's 1/3d of all of them in one room, amazing!

It's almost as though it's not true eh.

[img] [/img]

An American perspective, but does any of this sound familiar considering how the Tory Party have cosied up to US corporate money since Thatcher

Police work was integrated with the system of poor relief, as constables worked on registration of the poor and their placement in workhouses. That’s even before the police were professionalized—the constables were sorting out the “deserving poor” from the “undeserving poor.” If people were unemployed and unable to work, constables would direct them toward charity from churches or the city itself. But if folks were able to work, they were judged to be “idlers” and sent off to the horrors of the workhouse.

The system for poor relief made a crucial contribution to the creation of the market for wage labor. The key function of the relief system was to make unemployment so unpleasant and humiliating that people were willing to take ordinary jobs at very low wages just to avoid unemployment. By punishing the poorest people, capitalism creates a low baseline for the wage scale and pulls the whole scale downward.

https://libcom.org/history/origins-police-david-whitehouse

Philip Hammond says that the manifesto spending plan is unbalanced and doesn't add up, and therefore is no good.

However, he was also unable to answer when his manifesto will even be published ("soon"...."How soon?" ...... "soon") taking politicians avoiding simple questions to a new level. If I could have torn the radio out of the car dashboard it would now be in bits on the A31.

Philip Hammond says that the manifesto spending plan is unbalanced and doesn't add up, and therefore is no good.

Well he's right - the magic fully costed manifesto turned out to have a rather large gaping hole in it that would require some hefty borrowing.

However, he was also unable to answer when his manifesto will even be published

I can see me not voting for the first time ever as all the options seem rubbish.

Isn't it interesting how Momentum have taken on such mythic proportions? There's 22000 of them, which makes them 4% of the entire Labour membership. But people see them everywhere- everyone Corbyn meets is a Momentum member, every rally is nothing but Momentum fanboys. 7000 people apparently turned up to see him in Liverpool, my dad and Binners and many others reckon they're all Momentum members- that's 1/3d of all of them in one room, amazing!

It's almost as though it's not true eh.

You've never heard the term "fellow travellers"?

That's because they don't have one, the strategy is stay quiet, let JC shoot himself in the foot, gain increased majority, but without significant manifesto pledges to tie you down you can do whatever you like for 5 years.

If that's what they're doing it's them shooting their own feet. Corbyn is still a long, long way off winning but now he's getting airtime and people are listening to labour and their ideas it seems many like what they hear. The thumping great majority may not be quite as thumping if things keep going as they are.

Everyone expected the child catcher to be competent and steady. She's proving to be anything but.

Corbyn was meant to be a bonkers head banger. He's actually coming across as a compassionate bloke who has decent intentions.

Corbyn was meant to be a bonkers head banger. He's actually coming across as a compassionate bloke who has decent intentions.

sadly not to the sun/daily mail/telegraph readers

hamonds interview this morning sound like stability isnt a factor in his relationship with Maybot

either we will see some major u-turnms in tory policy in their manifesto when it eventually surfaces or he'll b4 the autumn statement (do we still have those)

people are listening to labour and their ideas it seems many like what they hear.

Are they though? The polls show only a little movement (2-3%) in Labours direction. However, more importantly that seems to be coming from UKIP, with the Tory share staying level.

I can see me not voting for the first time ever as all the options seem rubbish.

I heard the choice put brilliantly the other day

"You can vote for the right thing, done badly, or the wrong thing, done well"

Indeed.

The Tory housing minister has just been on Five Live saying that the absolutely huge increase in homelessness over the last 5 years (which is an absolute disgrace in such a rich country!) has nothing whatsoever to do with changes to the benefits system

[img] [/img]

hamonds interview this morning sound like stability isnt a factor in his relationship with Maybot

Being reported that she's just refused to deny she will sack him in the near future......

Comply or die! Comply or die!

I can see me not voting for the first time ever as all the options seem rubbish.

That's really not a reason not to vote. You need to

- Decide the order of rubbishness of candidates/parties in your constituency.
- Use your vote, tactically if necessary, to secure the least rubbish outcome.

- Decide the order of rubbishness of candidates/parties in your constituency.
- Use your vote, tactically if necessary, to secure the least rubbish outcome.

Very much this. In my (ultra-marginal) constituancy the Greens and Lib Dems have stood aside to give the Labour candidate a clear run. Our present sitting Tory MP is an utter and complete **** of the highest order, with a majority of only 300

In this election, we're basically being asked if we'd like our huge shit sandwich on brown or white bread?

Now sit down and eat your butty!!! Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 😉

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/16/in-stoke-may-marches-on-with-familiar-neuron-crushing-dullness?CMP=twt_gu ]Brilliant from Marina Hyde this morning.[/url]

And so to Screwfix’s Trentham distribution centre, the latest blacksite where May’s election is being held. Each day the prime minister is rendered to a sealed regional facility, where she tortures a captive audience with looped repetitions of the phrase “strong and stable”. After a sustained period of it, people are unsure whether to applaud or confess to a ****stani embassy bombing they had nothing to with just to make it stop.

🙂

Life insurers now insist that you declare if you have been exposed to a Theresa May response, with failure to disclose the fact liable to render your policy void. Outside the Screwfix gates, even the Mirror chicken looked like it wanted to turn itself in to the nearest Nando’s.

😀

Thus far on the campaign, Conservative party branding on the huge THERESA MAY posters has been incredibly small, giving it the flavour of those speedily garbled disclaimers at the end of US TV drug adverts: “May cause mood swings, palpitations, hives, hair loss, suicidal thoughts, anal leakage, a savagely underfunded NHS and the continuing elevation of Liam Fox.”

😆

"You can vote for the right thing, done badly, or the wrong thing, done well"

Having just seen the front cover of the LibDem manifesto, I cant help but think the quality of political slogans is pisspoor this time around:

Change Britain's Future
For the many, not the few
Strong & Stable

Where are the new classics?
Labour isn't working
Britain deserves better
New Labour, New danger
Never had it so good
Labour's tax bombshell

And not forgetting the all-time-great:
Are you thinking what we're thinking?

Incredible today to see the same lie repeated time and time again without challenge - i.e. that the numbers published yesterday should have included the borrowing for investment. I hope that the Tory manifesto is treated similarly (I know the answer to this one).

They promised 10000 Mental health nurses. Pretty sure no one has asked them how they'll be paid for. You expect STRONG anyone STABLE will COALITION actually put OF it to the same CHAOS level of scrutiny?

What I don't understand is why Labour staff appearing on TV haven't been briefed to say these rebuttals.

I note that Lady Thornberry is everywhere over the last couple of days, and has come across remarkably well (probably after her telling Michael Fallon he was 'talking bollocks') but thankfully someone seems to have locked Dianne in a cupboard.

What Jezza now needs to do is tell Len McCluskey to STFU, and put him under the stairs with his ex 😆

With friends like these.....

[img] :large[/img]

The thread sums up Labour's problem. Post after post how much peolple hate the opposition. Much like the EU thread there is little positivity about Labour's campaign

Binners as per my post on the other thread she is formally Lady Nugen

Post after post how much peolple hate the opposition.

as opposed to every comment on the BBC HYS about corbyn or abbot or the years of xenophobia spewed out by the right wing press regards the EU 🙄

Binners as per my post on the other thread she is formally Lady Nugen

I know. And she has a problem with flags. But so what? It's just refreshing to see a member of the Labour front bench who's savvy enough not to go blundering into every elephant trap set by the (mostly right wing) press. No wonder they've gaffer taped Dianne up in a cellar somewhere 😉

The thread sums up Labour's problem. Post after post how much peolple hate the opposition. Much like the EU thread there is little positivity about Labour's campaign

Personally, I'm positive about the recognition that the working poor need more help. I think their policies around this show that they understand the issues they face and how the balance has gone against them over the last few years.
I'm very enthusiastic about their appreciation of co-operatives and a National Investment Bank.

In general, I totally believe that the people responsible for creating this manifesto have absolutely the best interests of the British people [i]as a collective[/i] at heart.

Much like the EU thread there is little positivity about Labour's campaign

Also don't agree. Everything in the manifesto is a positive pro-active step and solving some of Britain's problems.

£10 minimum wage - that's huge. It might cause trouble with employers, and it might spark inflation, but it's better than doing nothing.

Much like the EU thread there is little positivity about Labour's campaign

? This thread is mostly inhabited by rightwing trolls so hardly surprising. Those of us on the other side have been extolling the virtues of labour policies and campaign for some time now. Christ even Binners is back on board.

And of course the tories campaign is a ray of sunshine isn't it? No policies, endless repetition of vacuous soundbites, outright lies and pathetic smears against Corbyn, exclusion of the public, and stage managed events setup to give the impression of crowds of supporters when in fact it's abour 30 tory activists lined up in front of a bus.

£10 minimum wage - that's huge. It might cause trouble with employers, and it might spark inflation, but it's better than doing nothing.

I remain to be convinced that higher unemployment and inflation are 'better'.

I remain to be convinced that higher unemployment and inflation are 'better'.

Why higher unemployment? One way an employer could deal with having to pay their lowest paid employees more would be to better balance the other salaries within the company. Radical.

The fact it is not 100% fawning positivity just shows that some people expect more from their leaders/parties.

On the other hand the input from the righties on the Trump / May threads is just full of unquestioning support.

Radical.

Lose for the employee when instead of £8/hr they have no job, lose for the economy as they are paying benefit for said employee not receiving taxes and lose for everyone else as end product gets more expensive.

Much like the EU thread there is little positivity about Labour's campaign

That statement has really exposed you for what you are: a lying, Tory obsessive.

Out of all the manifestos the Labour one is by far the most positive. Out of the main leaders, Corbyn is the one looking focused, idealistic, calm, secure, confident. And this from someone who has never voted Labour, and was unsure of Corbyn. But I'll be voting for them now.

Binners as per my post on the other thread she is formally Lady Nugen

So what?

I think Corbyn's bad for Labour and the country for reasons touched on lightly over 9000 or so pages above. The reason I care is I want Labour in government. Guess how I'll be voting?

I remain to be convinced that higher unemployment and inflation are 'better'.

Would that be like the higher unemployment and inflation that business was squealing about when Labour introduced the minimum wage in the first place?

The unemployment and inflation that never happened?

As an aside, here's a stat for you....

If the minimum wage had kept pace with average boardroom pay increases since its inception, it would now be over 21 quid an hour

Makes you think....

Lose for the employee when instead of £8/hr they have no job, lose for the economy as they are paying benefit for said employee not receiving taxes and lose for everyone else as end product gets more expensive

I see you completely missed the part about balancing the other wages within the company then....

I see you completely missed the part about balancing the other wages within the company then....

I remain to be convinced that higher unemployment and inflation are 'better'.

I'm not sure employers will just fire pepole. After all, it's the people who are making them the money. So if you fire people whose wages cost you more, your company will do less business and you'll lose more money than you would have lost simply giving them a bit more cash.

The inflation argument is more significant, imo - but we do need inflation. It's been below target for years, so they've been keeping interest rates down to try and keep it up. If other pressures push it up, they will be able to raise interest rates which will be good for certain parts of the economy. It would also cool the housing market. So lower income people would face lower house prices and more £s with which to buy them.

I'm not an economist mind, so maybe someone who is more than just an armchair speculator could provide more information.

Given the choice between giving themselves a paycut and punting Dave in the goods in department what do you think a MD is going to choose?

Who handles goods in then if Dave is fired?

Given the choice between giving themselves a paycut and punting Dave in the goods in department what do you think a MD is going to choose?

They will choose to re-balance the wages across the company. Dave is required in the goods department so they will have to pay him whatever the minimum wage is.

Why exactly do you not want Dave to be paid a slightly better wage, are you happy that people are paid so little?

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/theresa-mays-campaign-schedule-for-today-20170517127815 ]The Maybot's schedule for tomorrow has been leaked to the press[/url]

Who handles goods in then if Dave is fired?

Why exactly do you not want Dave to be paid a slightly better wage, are you happy that people are paid so little?

binners - Member

The Maybot's schedule for tomorrow has been leaked to the press

I've done my stint shoving cardboard boxes into a compactor for £3.33/hr, and frankly it would be absurd to get paid £10/hr for such a trivial task.

so 140 quid a week b4 tax/ NI

how much in work benefits would the government need to pay to support you?

I think you are hugely missing the point of a minimum wage

I'm more or less a believer that a job is worth what someone is willing to do it for and don't believe in imposing artificial limits. I've done my stint shoving cardboard boxes into a compactor for £3.33/hr, and frankly it would be absurd to get paid £10/hr for such a trivial task.

best get a robot to do it then.

best get a robot to do it then.

Exactly

Yes, and then Dave can get a more worthwhile job that also pays him £10 an hour.

£10 an hour may sound like a lot for trivial tasks but it is not in isolation. You need a minimum amount to live on and that is why we have/need minimum wages.