The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[BoroB]

7 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

and which policy would that be? still waiting for your evidence BoroB?

Just look at the link in post 9181 clearly showing Labours policy of a £10 per hour real living wage, a wa

 

You don't need Jezza's all sing all dancing free broadband to access the link.

[banjodeano]

4 minutes ago, BoroB said:

Just look at the link in post 9181 clearly showing Labours policy of a £10 per hour real living wage, a wa

 

You don't need Jezza's all sing all dancing free broadband to access the link.

Jeeeez, this is like pulling teeth.....

the link says We think Britain’s workers deserve a pay rise. That’s why Labour will raise the Living Wage to £10 an hour, giving low-paid workers on average £2,500 a year extra in their pockets.

but you said.... "it is just that their opinion is that the living wage should be a lot less than they earn as MP's"....  so i'll ask you again, where is your evidence of that?? where does it say that in their opinion  the living wage should be a lot less than they earn??

okay, admit it, you just made that bit up didnt you?

[BoroB]

7 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

Jeeeez, this is like pulling teeth.....

the link says We think Britain’s workers deserve a pay rise. That’s why Labour will raise the Living Wage to £10 an hour, giving low-paid workers on average £2,500 a year extra in their pockets.

but you said.... "it is just that their opinion is that the living wage should be a lot less than they earn as MP's"....  so i'll ask you again, where is your evidence of that?? where does it say that in their opinion  the living wage should be a lot less than they earn??

okay, admit it, you just made that bit up didnt you?

Fact - labour support a real living wage of £10 an hour, its stated in the link.  I think we agree on this?

 

Fact - MP's starting salary is in the region of £79,000 per annum. Do you agree with me on this?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament

 

Ergo, if Labour's prospective MP's support the official policy of £10 an hour, for the many, then its clear they are saying the living wage they advocate (for the many) should be a lot less than they as MP's (the few) earn.

 

Another way of looking at it is:

 

£79, 000 divided by £10 an hour equates to 7,900 hours worked.

 

Assuming a very unlikely scenario of MP's working 52 weeks a year, 7,900 hours equates to 151.92 hours a week worked, equivalent to 21.7 hours a day worked.

 

And that's before taking into accounts the very generous perks and pensions that MP's get.

 

Please explain which of the above you consider is made up?

[Anna B]

2 hours ago, BoroB said:

Fact - labour support a real living wage of £10 an hour, its stated in the link.  I think we agree on this?

 

Fact - MP's starting salary is in the region of £79,000 per annum. Do you agree with me on this?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament

 

Ergo, if Labour's prospective MP's support the official policy of £10 an hour, for the many, then its clear they are saying the living wage they advocate (for the many) should be a lot less than they as MP's (the few) earn.

 

Another way of looking at it is:

 

£79, 000 divided by £10 an hour equates to 7,900 hours worked.

 

Assuming a very unlikely scenario of MP's working 52 weeks a year, 7,900 hours equates to 151.92 hours a week worked, equivalent to 21.7 hours a day worked.

 

And that's before taking into accounts the very generous perks and pensions that MP's get.

 

Please explain which of the above you consider is made up?

I think the word you are missing is 'minimum'.

Labour is advocating £10 an hour to be the minimum wage you can live on, hence 'living wage.'

That is not to say they couldn't earn more.

So what an MP earns isn't really relevant. However, with average salary in the UK being £25,000 pa, it is an example of how far apart from everyone else the well paid are. 

Edited November 20, 2019 by Anna B

[banjodeano]

7 hours ago, BoroB said:

Fact - labour support a real living wage of £10 an hour, its stated in the link.  I think we agree on this?

 

Fact - MP's starting salary is in the region of £79,000 per annum. Do you agree with me on this?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament

 

Ergo, if Labour's prospective MP's support the official policy of £10 an hour, for the many, then its clear they are saying the living wage they advocate (for the many) should be a lot less than they as MP's (the few) earn.

 

Another way of looking at it is:

 

£79, 000 divided by £10 an hour equates to 7,900 hours worked.

 

Assuming a very unlikely scenario of MP's working 52 weeks a year, 7,900 hours equates to 151.92 hours a week worked, equivalent to 21.7 hours a day worked.

 

And that's before taking into accounts the very generous perks and pensions that MP's get.

 

Please explain which of the above you consider is made up?

you said "it is just that their opinion is that the living wage should be a lot less than they earn as MP's".....just because they think the living wage should be £10 per hour, doesnt mean that they think it should be a lot less than they earn, by your logic they should not put the living wage on anything less than £79,000 per year, do you see how stupid that looks?

The point i am trying to make is, they would love to give the poor more money, but you are making out they are greedy and couldnt care less, which may be relevant to the tories, but not a socialist led government

[BoroB]

3 hours ago, banjodeano said:

you said "it is just that their opinion is that the living wage should be a lot less than they earn as MP's".....just because they think the living wage should be £10 per hour, doesnt mean that they think it should be a lot less than they earn, by your logic they should not put the living wage on anything less than £79,000 per year, do you see how stupid that looks?

The point i am trying to make is, they would love to give the poor more money, but you are making out they are greedy and couldnt care less, which may be relevant to the tories, but not a socialist led government

Yes it is stupid, people earn different rates for a variety of reasons, some good, some bad. It depends on qualifications, work ethic, local job market, scarcity of skilled workforce  amongst many others factors. Some deserve high pay, some don't. 

 

In my opinion I think its easy for an MP on £79,000 to expect people to aspire to a real living wage of £10 per hour, and then tax them on it. Buts that's what they're doing, in my opinion.

 

That's not standing up for the working class and its why I expect they'll be some seats lost by them in December that previously you'd never have expected them to lose.

 

7 hours ago, Anna B said:

I think the word you are missing is 'minimum'.

Labour is advocating £10 an hour to be the minimum wage you can live on, hence 'living wage.'

That is not to say they couldn't earn more.

So what an MP earns isn't really relevant. However, with average salary in the UK being £25,000 pa, it is an example of how far apart from everyone else the well paid are. 

So your happy for Labour to set the bar low? 

 

 

[sheffbag]

16 hours ago, Anna B said:

The world has changed in the last 40 years . We've had Thatcher,  Blair, Coalition and now Boris, wars, creeping privatisation that has sold off the family siver and lost us our infrastructure, wars, the expenses scandal, not to mention a ife altering financial crash caused squarely by the banks leading to years of 'austerity.' 

A lot of the things I thought were inviolate,  hard won rights to things like free education, affordable council housing, welfare, cradle to grave NHS care, and more egalitarian times when the chance to get on in life, etc have been dismantled by governments both Conservative and Blair's Labour.

 

From the 1980's,  onwards the post war world I grew up in has slowly changed beyond recognition, and not for the better. Kids can now leave university with £50,000 of debt, affordable housing is a thing of the past for many young people, sky high rents and low wages and benefit cuts has lead to record numbers of homeless, in places the NHS resembles a third world country, and our politicians have been running the country like a banana republic with cronieism and corruption. They worked hand in hand with the bankers and allowed massive fortunes to be accumulated and jobs for the boys with massively inflated salaries.

 

Workers rights meanwhile have been downgraded leading to falls in wages and poorer working conditions. In other words previous governments for the last 40 years have allowed / caused the to gap between rich and poor to widen considerably. Now IMO most people don't want to be super-rich, but they do want to have enough to not spend sleepless nights worrying. They're not greedy but they work hard, pay their taxes and want enough to at least feel comfortable and secure.  And they want to be able to trust the government to do right by them.  

 

And whoever you voted for, Tory or Labour, changed nothing.

 

It got to the point where public unrest was such that people were refusing to vote and saying we needed a revolution. I believe the vote to leave the EU and general distrust and disgust with politicians was part of that rebellion. 

 

Fortunately we are a mainly law abiding nation who don't want to see blood on the streets, but we still want change. Step forward Jeremy Corbyn. He isdifferent. He saw the need for real people to have someone to represent them, for their needs to be addressed. he saw the need for a change of direction in the Labour party. He's not a communist, jew hater, a joke or any of the other things you read in the media. He is a decent, honest and fairminded man with principles, uncorrupted, who genuinely wants to do his best for the ordinnary people who are the real strength of this country, (that's you and me folks.)

 

All his policies are to that end - for the many, not the few. That's why he deserves to win.

 

 

 

And those policies have been rejected before and will be again (didnt he pull the student fees one last time only to back track after he lost). You still haven't come up with where he will win enough seats to become PM.

 

It isnt about "deserving to win", that's the kind of rubbish that Tony Blair (the only successful labour leader for the last 40 years) brought in with his "prizes for all" and "everyone wins". Its about which party can get the required number of seats to form a majority government and Labour under Corbyn (no matter how nice a guy his sentiment may be) will not get enough seats for a majority government.

 

We are never going to agree on this but come Dec 13 Labour will be planning for a new leader and unless they pick someone that can appeal outside the Socialist Labour faithful (who would vote for Labour regardless ) then they will be in opposition for the foreseeable future.

[alchresearch]

17 hours ago, Anna B said:

Kids can now leave university with £50,000 of debt, affordable housing is a thing of the past for many young people,

 

So much generalisation on your rant, mainly opinion with little in the way of fact.  I've just plucked two at random:
 

Student debt. We've covered this time and again.  The average cost is £26,000, but that figure always includes living costs - costs in housing and food that they would incur if they were not at uni.

 

Affordable housing - there are dozens of houses for sale on rightmove starting at £30,000. What's wrong with starting with a cheap terraced house?  143 properties listed on Rightmove with a value of £50K or less.

 

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-66159633.html

 

Anyway, onto last night.  What's going on with Corbyn's glasses?
 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2019 by alchresearch

[Anna B]

2 hours ago, sheffbag said:

And those policies have been rejected before and will be again (didnt he pull the student fees one last time only to back track after he lost). You still haven't come up with where he will win enough seats to become PM.

 

It isnt about "deserving to win", that's the kind of rubbish that Tony Blair (the only successful labour leader for the last 40 years) brought in with his "prizes for all" and "everyone wins". Its about which party can get the required number of seats to form a majority government and Labour under Corbyn (no matter how nice a guy his sentiment may be) will not get enough seats for a majority government.

 

We are never going to agree on this but come Dec 13 Labour will be planning for a new leader and unless they pick someone that can appeal outside the Socialist Labour faithful (who would vote for Labour regardless ) then they will be in opposition for the foreseeable future.

I don't know where he will win his seats, or whether tactical voting will alter the result. But I think the race could still go either way. I think if we have a hung Parliament the troubles of Brexit will be small beer compared to the troubles we will then have. If Boris wins God help us.

 

I have to agree that if Labour lose this time, Jeremy Corbyn will probably have to step down as Leader, and an opportunity to change politics will have been lost.

Where that leaves the Party we will have to see. I can't imagine any of the current top runners have the core of iron necessary to stand up to the kind of battering Jeremy has received in order to keep to his principles.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Anna B

[alchresearch]

41 minutes ago, Anna B said:

I have to agree that if Labour lose this time, Jeremy Corbyn will probably have to step down as Leader, and an opportunity to change politics will have been lost.

Where that leaves the Party we will have to see. I can't imagine any of the current top runners have the core of iron necessary to stand up to the kind of battering Jeremy has received in order to keep to his principles.

Jeremy isn't the saviour of politics.   Others have said similar things over the years.  I think Clegg did in 2010.

 

I agree that the choices waiting in the wings to replace Corbyn are poor.  I can't stand McDonnel, Rebecca Long-Bailey or Emily Thornberry.

 

Jess Phillips would be my stand out choice.

 

And whoever wins, there's no need to abandon Corbyn's ideals.  I just hope it ends the hate that dogs the Labour party.  Antisemitism aside, there's always been a streak of hatred running through supporters  who chant and write things like "hang the Tories", "kill the Tories", "Smash the Tories" for decades.  

 

Edited November 20, 2019 by alchresearch