|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 21, 2024 8:53:44 GMT
I point out your bias because it is excessive. Care to mention how you personally suffered because of the New Labour administration? I have mentioned it. I was made redundant three times , saw job opportunities decrease , mass immigration increase , cost of living rise , and totally disagreed with labour and their bonfire of civil liberties of which here is a fair summary here... The shocking truth about the erosion of our fundamental civil liberties by Tony Blair's government will be exposed this summer in TAKING LIBERTIES, Right to Protest, Right to Freedom of Speech. Right to Privacy. Right not to be detained without charge, Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Prohibition from Torture. TAKING LIBERTIES will reveal how these six central pillars of liberty have been systematically destroyed by New Labour, and the freedoms of the British people stolen from under their noses amidst a climate of fear created by the media and government itself. TAKING LIBERTIES uncovers the stories the government don't want you to hear -- so ridiculous you will laugh, so ultimately terrifying you will want to take action. Teenage sisters detained for 36 hours for a peaceful protest; an RAF war veteran arrested for wearing an anti-Bush and Blair T-shirt; an innocent man shot in a police raid; and a man held under house arrest for two years, after being found innocent in court. Ordinary law-abiding citizens being punished for exercising their 'rights' -- rights that have been fought for over centuries, and which seem to have been extinguished in a decade.If your employment problems and job opportunities occurred between 2006 and 2010 (they were very unlikely to have occurred before that time period) then blame the Banks and the international financial meltdown, not New Labour. Mass immigration pre-Banking were at a time of high employment and an expanding economy. The entire rest of your whinge is pure politically biased nonsense, whoever wrote your list is a politically biased idiot. EDIT: New Labour introduced the Freedom of Information Act. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 21, 2024 10:22:06 GMT
Disaster for Ursula von der Leyen as she can't even get her own party to back major EUSSR law.....
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 21, 2024 11:08:57 GMT
I have mentioned it. I was made redundant three times , saw job opportunities decrease , mass immigration increase , cost of living rise , and totally disagreed with labour and their bonfire of civil liberties of which here is a fair summary here... The shocking truth about the erosion of our fundamental civil liberties by Tony Blair's government will be exposed this summer in TAKING LIBERTIES, Right to Protest, Right to Freedom of Speech. Right to Privacy. Right not to be detained without charge, Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Prohibition from Torture. TAKING LIBERTIES will reveal how these six central pillars of liberty have been systematically destroyed by New Labour, and the freedoms of the British people stolen from under their noses amidst a climate of fear created by the media and government itself. TAKING LIBERTIES uncovers the stories the government don't want you to hear -- so ridiculous you will laugh, so ultimately terrifying you will want to take action. Teenage sisters detained for 36 hours for a peaceful protest; an RAF war veteran arrested for wearing an anti-Bush and Blair T-shirt; an innocent man shot in a police raid; and a man held under house arrest for two years, after being found innocent in court. Ordinary law-abiding citizens being punished for exercising their 'rights' -- rights that have been fought for over centuries, and which seem to have been extinguished in a decade.If your employment problems and job opportunities occurred between 2006 and 2010 (they were very unlikely to have occurred before that time period) then blame the Banks and the international financial meltdown, not New Labour. Mass immigration pre-Banking were at a time of high employment and an expanding economy. The entire rest of your whinge is pure politically biased nonsense, whoever wrote your list is a politically biased idiot. EDIT: New Labour introduced the Freedom of Information Act. Mine started in 97, 6 months after I voted NewLabour. Redundancy came for myself and about 30% of 200 others in the one company and throughout 98 with immigration rising steadily most of us could not get a job, of any sort. Mass immigration was just a way of getting cheaper labour at that time as there were plenty of people looking for work. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 21, 2024 11:21:13 GMT
If your employment problems and job opportunities occurred between 2006 and 2010 (they were very unlikely to have occurred before that time period) then blame the Banks and the international financial meltdown, not New Labour. Mass immigration pre-Banking were at a time of high employment and an expanding economy. The entire rest of your whinge is pure politically biased nonsense, whoever wrote your list is a politically biased idiot. EDIT: New Labour introduced the Freedom of Information Act. Mine started in 97, 6 months after I voted NewLabour. Redundancy came for myself and about 30% of 200 others in the one company and throughout 98 with immigration rising steadily most of us could not get a job, of any sort. Mass immigration was just a way of getting cheaper labour at that time as there were plenty of people looking for work. Uk unemployment in the period you describe does not support your theory.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2024 15:02:13 GMT
Disaster for Ursula von der Leyen as she can't even get her own party to back major EUSSR law.....
So what? Who cares? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 21, 2024 15:20:28 GMT
If your employment problems and job opportunities occurred between 2006 and 2010 (they were very unlikely to have occurred before that time period) then blame the Banks and the international financial meltdown, not New Labour. Mass immigration pre-Banking were at a time of high employment and an expanding economy. The entire rest of your whinge is pure politically biased nonsense, whoever wrote your list is a politically biased idiot. EDIT: New Labour introduced the Freedom of Information Act. Mine started in 97, 6 months after I voted NewLabour. Redundancy came for myself and about 30% of 200 others in the one company and throughout 98 with immigration rising steadily most of us could not get a job, of any sort. Mass immigration was just a way of getting cheaper labour at that time as there were plenty of people looking for work. 1997 (there was only seven months left for Labour in 97) & 98 and you want to blame New Labour, you are joking of course, or perhaps you are just revealing the depth of your bias. IIRC at no time did unemployment under NL significantly rise above that which it was when NL arrived in 1997. At least not until after 2008. Mass Immigration in 2004 was encouraged because 1. Down to Thatcher destroying the old apprenticeship system. 2. Because the UK had an expanding Economy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2024 15:21:19 GMT
I do not have the psychic energy for a prolonged disagreement with you, so will probably let you have the last word. But what you have said, the bit I have emboldened, is logical nonsense. It is perfectly legal to pay more than the minimum wage, so how can it be a maximum? It is illegal to pay less. That is why it is a minimum wage and not a maximum wage. Many on minimum wage are actually being paid more than they would be if it didnt exist. I am on more than the minimum wage, but every time the minimum wage goes up close to our level, my employer feels the need to raise our pay too to keep us substantially above the minimum level. So the minimum wage is proving to be anything but a maximum for us. I said your arguments sounded like Tory arguments just because some of them have said similar things in order to criticise the very concept of a minimum wage. But if you think abolishing it would result in big pay increases I think you are being dishonest with yourself if not with me. I kind of agree with you here, but I get Thomas's point. Perhaps if you took his 'Minimum/Maximum' as 'The wage' Many employers used the minimum wage as an arrow for what wage to offer. By example; The local pub instead of looking to see what other pubs in the area were offering turned instead to the minimum wage. That point made, I think that has disappeared. It disappeared when the unemployment fell below zero (I qualify, when those unemployed and looking for work fell below zero) Now pay is defined by what an employer needs to offer to get someone any good in the job. Some of the lower paid jobs my company offers have seen pay rate rise by up to 15% to get decent reliable people. Consequently the more skilled jobs above them have also had to rises, though not as much. Its causing real problems at the moment as we are unable to pass these costs onto the public at this time. I do take on board and acknowledge what you have said. Putting money in peoples pockets especially at the lower end of the pay scale should be at least as much to do with cutting costs as raising pay. By far the biggest burden on low paid people is housing costs and there should be a serious focus upon reducing these. Providing more social housing needs to be part of the solution and probably some form of rent control for the private rental sector. If housing costs could be cut by a third that would provide a far bigger boost to the low paid than even a double digit percentage minimum wage increase. But there is serious resistance in the corridors of power in regards to doing anything about housing costs. Too many influential people are making too much money out of the current situation. Half of all Tory MPs are themselves landlords, along with a couple dozen or so Labour ones. And the people who control media outlets, have the most useful contacts in high places, and have the funds to make significant donations, are the very people who are far more likely to be landlords than tenants. And far more likely to already own their own homes. Rising property values are great for them, but ruinous to the chances of most people under 40. And herein lies the determining factor to another realisation. In terms of political allegiance and economic prosperity, the great divide now is not class but age. Class has become almost an irrelevance, which poses a philosophical problem for committed Marxists, lol. Now how likely you are to vote Tory is determined much more by how old you are rather than your class background. How secure you are financially and in terms of your housing situation, likewise. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 21, 2024 16:27:40 GMT
Mine started in 97, 6 months after I voted NewLabour. Redundancy came for myself and about 30% of 200 others in the one company and throughout 98 with immigration rising steadily most of us could not get a job, of any sort. Mass immigration was just a way of getting cheaper labour at that time as there were plenty of people looking for work. 1997 (there was only seven months left for Labour in 97) & 98 and you want to blame New Labour, you are joking of course, or perhaps you are just revealing the depth of your bias. IIRC at no time did unemployment under NL significantly rise above that which it was when NL arrived in 1997. At least not until after 2008. Mass Immigration in 2004 was encouraged because 1. Down to Thatcher destroying the old apprenticeship system. 2. Because the UK had an expanding Economy. Usually measures are made as regards the first 100 days in office, then the first year and then people start talking about the next election. NewLabour did not help the British working man instead in the end they gave the jobs to large numbers of immigrants. I had a year and a bit out of work and in the end we had to start our own business. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 21, 2024 16:47:44 GMT
I kind of agree with you here, but I get Thomas's point. Perhaps if you took his 'Minimum/Maximum' as 'The wage' Many employers used the minimum wage as an arrow for what wage to offer. By example; The local pub instead of looking to see what other pubs in the area were offering turned instead to the minimum wage. That point made, I think that has disappeared. It disappeared when the unemployment fell below zero (I qualify, when those unemployed and looking for work fell below zero) Now pay is defined by what an employer needs to offer to get someone any good in the job. Some of the lower paid jobs my company offers have seen pay rate rise by up to 15% to get decent reliable people. Consequently the more skilled jobs above them have also had to rises, though not as much. Its causing real problems at the moment as we are unable to pass these costs onto the public at this time. I do take on board and acknowledge what you have said. Putting money in peoples pockets especially at the lower end of the pay scale should be at least as much to do with cutting costs as raising pay. By far the biggest burden on low paid people is housing costs and there should be a serious focus upon reducing these. Providing more social housing needs to be part of the solution and probably some form of rent control for the private rental sector. If housing costs could be cut by a third that would provide a far bigger boost to the low paid than even a double digit percentage minimum wage increase. But there is serious resistance in the corridors of power in regards to doing anything about housing costs. Too many influential people are making too much money out of the current situation. Half of all Tory MPs are themselves landlords, along with a couple dozen or so Labour ones. And the people who control media outlets, have the most useful contacts in high places, and have the funds to make significant donations, are the very people who are far more likely to be landlords than tenants. And far more likely to already own their own homes. Rising property values are great for them, but ruinous to the chances of most people under 40. And herein lies the determining factor to another realisation. In terms of political allegiance and economic prosperity, the great divide now is not class but age. Class has become almost an irrelevance, which poses a philosophical problem for committed Marxists, lol. Now how likely you are to vote Tory is determined much more by how old you are rather than your class background. How secure you are financially and in terms of your housing situation, likewise. 100% . The crazy hikes in pay needed to deal with a temporary rise in fuel and food prices are entirely down to stupid government responses. We all know you cool inflation by slowing the economy, but only if the inflation is caused by the economy overheating in the first place. On housing. I have been saying this forever. The people with the money own the land, they don't want it devalued (Not when they own hundreds of square miles of it) So they keep it rare, restrict planning by a series of make believe conditions. When in fact there are thousands of acres of land that could be built on without blighting anyone's existing view etc. Any government that takes that on will face a massive media assault, but if they succeed will gain massive support for the next generation. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 21, 2024 18:09:24 GMT
I do take on board and acknowledge what you have said. Putting money in peoples pockets especially at the lower end of the pay scale should be at least as much to do with cutting costs as raising pay. By far the biggest burden on low paid people is housing costs and there should be a serious focus upon reducing these. Providing more social housing needs to be part of the solution and probably some form of rent control for the private rental sector. If housing costs could be cut by a third that would provide a far bigger boost to the low paid than even a double digit percentage minimum wage increase. But there is serious resistance in the corridors of power in regards to doing anything about housing costs. Too many influential people are making too much money out of the current situation. Half of all Tory MPs are themselves landlords, along with a couple dozen or so Labour ones. And the people who control media outlets, have the most useful contacts in high places, and have the funds to make significant donations, are the very people who are far more likely to be landlords than tenants. And far more likely to already own their own homes. Rising property values are great for them, but ruinous to the chances of most people under 40. And herein lies the determining factor to another realisation. In terms of political allegiance and economic prosperity, the great divide now is not class but age. Class has become almost an irrelevance, which poses a philosophical problem for committed Marxists, lol. Now how likely you are to vote Tory is determined much more by how old you are rather than your class background. How secure you are financially and in terms of your housing situation, likewise. 100% . The crazy hikes in pay needed to deal with a temporary rise in fuel and food prices are entirely down to stupid government responses. We all know you cool inflation by slowing the economy, but only if the inflation is caused by the economy overheating in the first place. On housing. I have been saying this forever. The people with the money own the land, they don't want it devalued (Not when they own hundreds of square miles of it) So they keep it rare, restrict planning by a series of make believe conditions. When in fact there are thousands of acres of land that could be built on without blighting anyone's existing view etc. Any government that takes that on will face a massive media assault, but if they succeed will gain massive support for the next generation. Well I would point out that it was the post-war Labour Government that introduced planning restrictions - the right-wing neoliberal view is to blow up the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and allow a return to the pre-war situation where builders built to meet demand. But as that would mean that Government bureaucrats lost power that probably is not going to happen.. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 21, 2024 21:09:45 GMT
100% . The crazy hikes in pay needed to deal with a temporary rise in fuel and food prices are entirely down to stupid government responses. We all know you cool inflation by slowing the economy, but only if the inflation is caused by the economy overheating in the first place. On housing. I have been saying this forever. The people with the money own the land, they don't want it devalued (Not when they own hundreds of square miles of it) So they keep it rare, restrict planning by a series of make believe conditions. When in fact there are thousands of acres of land that could be built on without blighting anyone's existing view etc. Any government that takes that on will face a massive media assault, but if they succeed will gain massive support for the next generation. Well I would point out that it was the post-war Labour Government that introduced planning restrictions - the right-wing neoliberal view is to blow up the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and allow a return to the pre-war situation where builders built to meet demand. But as that would mean that Government bureaucrats lost power that probably is not going to happen.. That was a long time ago. The country has changed, there's a few more people (Don't know if you noticed?) |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 21, 2024 22:13:59 GMT
Well I would point out that it was the post-war Labour Government that introduced planning restrictions - the right-wing neoliberal view is to blow up the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and allow a return to the pre-war situation where builders built to meet demand. But as that would mean that Government bureaucrats lost power that probably is not going to happen.. That was a long time ago. The country has changed, there's a few more people (Don't know if you noticed?) That is true - but it would be fun to scrap one of the 2 last remaining great reforms of the Attlee Government. Then all we need is for the NHS to become more European and its job done - in less than a 100 years we could unwind everything he did. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2024 1:13:55 GMT
100% . The crazy hikes in pay needed to deal with a temporary rise in fuel and food prices are entirely down to stupid government responses. We all know you cool inflation by slowing the economy, but only if the inflation is caused by the economy overheating in the first place. On housing. I have been saying this forever. The people with the money own the land, they don't want it devalued (Not when they own hundreds of square miles of it) So they keep it rare, restrict planning by a series of make believe conditions. When in fact there are thousands of acres of land that could be built on without blighting anyone's existing view etc. Any government that takes that on will face a massive media assault, but if they succeed will gain massive support for the next generation. Well I would point out that it was the post-war Labour Government that introduced planning restrictions - the right-wing neoliberal view is to blow up the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and allow a return to the pre-war situation where builders built to meet demand. But as that would mean that Government bureaucrats lost power that probably is not going to happen.. We tend to sit on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but I can see you have a point. It is far too difficult to build in this country. How we release restraints in a guided way so it is not a total free for all is the tricky thing to get right. But it does need to be made a lot easier. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 22, 2024 4:16:09 GMT
Tens of thousands of protesters across France call on Micron not to sign immigration law...
Germans protest nationwide after far-fight meeting on deportation of migrants....
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 22, 2024 8:00:24 GMT
Well I would point out that it was the post-war Labour Government that introduced planning restrictions - the right-wing neoliberal view is to blow up the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and allow a return to the pre-war situation where builders built to meet demand. But as that would mean that Government bureaucrats lost power that probably is not going to happen.. We tend to sit on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but I can see you have a point. It is far too difficult to build in this country. How we release restraints in a guided way so it is not a total free for all is the tricky thing to get right. But it does need to be made a lot easier. It most certainly is. HS2 is costing £66 Billion for a project that reduces travel times on half the route by 20 minutes and increases travel times on the rest of the route by 5 minutes..  The Thames Estuary crossing is still in the planning stage but has cost £800 Million on planning paperwork alone - a planning application 359,000 pages long. And this for a tunnel that nobody is going to see because it is a tunnel.... |
|
