|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Sept 30, 2024 15:41:26 GMT
If Badenoch became party leader I would be very tempted to return to the Tories, however I think she is unlikely to win which means I will probably stay with Reform UK.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Sept 30, 2024 16:12:11 GMT
And it shouldn't be forgotten that Badenoch campaigned in 2018 for more legal immigration and for students to bring in dependents with them .You can't believe a word she says . Well, every government for the last half century has enacted policies to do that. Even while spouted mealy-mouthed platitudes to the opposite effect. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Oct 1, 2024 7:26:33 GMT
And it shouldn't be forgotten that Badenoch campaigned in 2018 for more legal immigration and for students to bring in dependents with them .You can't believe a word she says . Well, every government for the last half century has enacted policies to do that. Even while spouted mealy-mouthed platitudes to the opposite effect. All The Best Which is why more and more people are turning to right wing parties . The Tories have lied about immigration too many times and can not be trusted . |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Oct 1, 2024 7:32:51 GMT
Well, every government for the last half century has enacted policies to do that. Even while spouted mealy-mouthed platitudes to the opposite effect. All The Best Which is why more and more people are turning to right wing parties . The Tories have lied about immigration too many times and can not be trusted . The Right wants more immigration as much, if not more so, than the Left. THE driving factor of Immigration is Neo-Liberal Capitalism. The Right are far more wedded to that (broken) ideology than the Left. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Oct 1, 2024 9:50:44 GMT
Whoever gets elected for the tories, if and when Reform gets to be a government, we are still faced with wots sed before, and wots sed after.
Can we trust Badenoch, Reform?, i hope so. Farage has gone through too much shit to be fake, my vote is with them i keep meaning to join.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Oct 1, 2024 15:42:45 GMT
I think she's blown it now Her rantings on maternity pay show she forgets who it was in the days when Housing Prices, Married Man"s Tax Allowances, Mortgage Interest Relief At Source and Family Allowance meant a married woman could expect to have children with her husband without going bankrupt in the process. Her attack is a clear sign she enthusiastically embraces the eradication of the white race in this country, already reproducing far below sustainability levels She didn't rant about maternity pay per se - she rightly attacked the excessive regulation of business I do wish people would read what was actually said , rather than what they'd like you to believe was said |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Oct 1, 2024 15:47:31 GMT
If Badenoch became party leader I would be very tempted to return to the Tories, however I think she is unlikely to win which means I will probably stay with Reform UK. As a member (still - just about)and with a vote I'd be extremely disappointed if she doesn't make the last two - I'd give her my vote If she doesn't make the last to I'll reconsider auto-renewing my membership next year |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Oct 1, 2024 21:42:21 GMT
I think she's blown it now Her rantings on maternity pay show she forgets who it was in the days when Housing Prices, Married Man"s Tax Allowances, Mortgage Interest Relief At Source and Family Allowance meant a married woman could expect to have children with her husband without going bankrupt in the process. Her attack is a clear sign she enthusiastically embraces the eradication of the white race in this country, already reproducing far below sustainability levels She didn't rant about maternity pay per se - she rightly attacked the excessive regulation of business I do wish people would read what was actually said , rather than what they'd like you to believe was said Well, here is what the BBC report said she said. Now, that sure fucking looks like a rant at the existece of maternity pay to me. I agree she has SAID this was not what she meant, but after saying that and realising oh FUCK what did i just say,wouldn't you try to back pedal... |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Oct 2, 2024 9:28:27 GMT
She didn't rant about maternity pay per se - she rightly attacked the excessive regulation of business I do wish people would read what was actually said , rather than what they'd like you to believe was said Well, here is what the BBC report said she said. Now, that sure fucking looks like a rant at the existece of maternity pay to me. I agree she has SAID this was not what she meant, but after saying that and realising oh FUCK what did i just say,wouldn't you try to back pedal... She was talking about excessive regulation and used maternity leave as an example, for a small business owner maternity regulation is excessive and reduces the incentive to employ child bearing age women , keeping jobs open for a year , time off ,etc etc . As she said haw is it ''right'' that someone on maternity leave can still accrue holiday pay? Small company I used to work for some years ago had 15 staff , over a two month period four women announced they were pregnant and would be taking full maternity leave - that meant finding cover for 4 jobs for potentially indeterminate periods with no guarantees that any would actually return . In fact one didn't but her job was kept open for the year - another at the end of maternity leave promptly posted in a sick note and took a further three months off sick. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Oct 2, 2024 9:52:58 GMT
Well, here is what the BBC report said she said. Now, that sure fucking looks like a rant at the existece of maternity pay to me. I agree she has SAID this was not what she meant, but after saying that and realising oh FUCK what did i just say,wouldn't you try to back pedal... She was talking about excessive regulation and used maternity leave as an example, for a small business owner maternity regulation is excessive and reduces the incentive to employ child bearing age women , keeping jobs open for a year , time off ,etc etc . As she said haw is it ''right'' that someone on maternity leave can still accrue holiday pay? Small company I used to work for some years ago had 15 staff , over a two month period four women announced they were pregnant and would be taking full maternity leave - that meant finding cover for 4 jobs for potentially indeterminate periods with no guarantees that any would actually return . In fact one didn't but her job was kept open for the year - another at the end of maternity leave promptly posted in a sick note and took a further three months off sick. The lack of joined up thinking in this post is astounding. What do you suppose a woman having baby achieves - economically (think big-picture)? Oh, and what is your position on the current state of immigration to the UK? Taken together those questions should supply you with a HUGE hint. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 2, 2024 11:06:08 GMT
If Badenoch became party leader I would be very tempted to return to the Tories, however I think she is unlikely to win which means I will probably stay with Reform UK. As a member (still - just about)and with a vote I'd be extremely disappointed if she doesn't make the last two - I'd give her my vote If she doesn't make the last to I'll reconsider auto-renewing my membership next year I'm listening to the prospective leaders at conference as I write. Tugendhat and Cleverly were in my opinion unconvincing, Jenrick is currently speaking and it's just more of the same shallow predictable rhetoric that came from the previous two. Badenoch is speaking last. Lets hope she gives a better speech than the first three. I think it's worth mentioning that Tugendhat and Jenrick were remainers, they both voted to stay in the EU. Cleverly and Badenoch both voted to leave the EU, even so Cleverly is too centrist for me. As I said previously, I may be persuaded to return to the Tories if Badenoch became the leader, which is an unlikely prospect I think. Edit: Jenrick has just said "we must finish the job we started with Brexit"! Naturally he neglected to mention the fact that he voted to remain in the EU. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 2, 2024 11:48:47 GMT
Badenoch has just finished, that concludes the speeches from the four leadership contenders and in my opinion she gave the best performance. She came across as self assured, competent and confident, perhaps a little light on detail, as they all were. However I doubt it will be enough, I think Jenrick probably has to much of a lead, we'll see.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Oct 2, 2024 12:09:19 GMT
She was talking about excessive regulation and used maternity leave as an example, for a small business owner maternity regulation is excessive and reduces the incentive to employ child bearing age women , keeping jobs open for a year , time off ,etc etc . As she said haw is it ''right'' that someone on maternity leave can still accrue holiday pay? Small company I used to work for some years ago had 15 staff , over a two month period four women announced they were pregnant and would be taking full maternity leave - that meant finding cover for 4 jobs for potentially indeterminate periods with no guarantees that any would actually return . In fact one didn't but her job was kept open for the year - another at the end of maternity leave promptly posted in a sick note and took a further three months off sick. The lack of joined up thinking in this post is astounding. What do you suppose a woman having baby achieves - economically (think big-picture)? Oh, and what is your position on the current state of immigration to the UK? Taken together those questions should supply you with a HUGE hint. All The Best Another lefty who has no understanding whatsoever of who is a net payer of tax towards the government pot and thinks that net takers are funded from a magic money tree . |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Oct 2, 2024 13:30:38 GMT
The lack of joined up thinking in this post is astounding. What do you suppose a woman having baby achieves - economically (think big-picture)? Oh, and what is your position on the current state of immigration to the UK? Taken together those questions should supply you with a HUGE hint. All The Best Another lefty who has no understanding whatsoever of who is a net payer of tax towards the government pot and thinks that net takers are funded from a magic money tree . Not at all. Corporate Welfare costs more per than Out-Of-Work Benefits and Housing Benefit COMBINED. The ONLY way to pretend that Social Welfare costs more than Corporate Welfare is to pretend that "Pensions" are a "benefit" that is otherwise unfunded. I take it the change of tack by you means the two huge fucking clues I gave you were not enough for to apply joined-up-thinking. Colour me surprised - NOT. Let me explain, in baby steps for you. Women having babies in "This Generation" are providing both Workers and Consumers of the "Next Generation"; without either of which Capitalism FAILS. When the cost of providing the Consumers and Workers of the Next Generation becomes too high the Birth-Rate drops. Too few Workers and Wage-Bargaining can get out of hand, lowering Profit Margins. Too few Consumers and Sales Units drop, lowering Profit Margins. Governments enamoured, or under the heel, of Capitalism then have to make a choice on how to increase the availability of both Workers and Consumers. There are two ways of doing this: 1) Subsidise the production of Workers and Consumers in some way (Maternity Benefit, Child Benefit etc), or 2) Import them. For much of the time since the last war option 1 was more or less enough, with limited Immigration really only filling niche skills shortages. However, one of the side-effects of Neo-Liberal Capitalism especially Late Stage Capitalism (marked by ever increasing wealth inequality and the erosion / eradication of the "Middle Class") is that too much money is concentrated in too few pockets. Meaning to make it cost effective for the "native population" to take times out to produce the Next Generation of Workers and Consumers requires more taxation of those in the top two quintiles of the economic ladder and Capitalism, and the political parties most wedded to it, are ideologically opposed to that. The upshot of that is the import of Workers and Consumers becomes increasingly necessary to maintain Private Sector Profit Margins. Don't get me wrong, I am no communist; heck in most policy areas I don't even make it to "left of centre". But I am neither naïve, stupid, nor dishonest enough to simply overlook the inherent flaws in the current Capitalist model. Ne-Liberal Capitalism wants less regulation, and that is why the Capitalist Model is breaking down. It is no longer the case that knuckling-down and working hard is enough to pay your way through life with a few luxuries here and there; and more and more people are not only realising this, but living it every day. Unless some effort is put into regulating Capitalism in a smarter manner, so that it benefits more, not just a tiny few then not only will Western economies continue to falter from one crisis to another, but the underpinning political structure of Capitalism - Democracy - will be seen to be failing as well. We have seen this play out already in Russia, where Crony-Capitalism serving the needs of a small minority of Oligarchs came under pressure and required Putin to stamp down on both Democracy and Protest. That is coming to the West unless something changes pretty soon. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Oct 2, 2024 13:45:26 GMT
Another lefty who has no understanding whatsoever of who is a net payer of tax towards the government pot and thinks that net takers are funded from a magic money tree . Not at all. Corporate Welfare costs more per than Out-Of-Work Benefits and Housing Benefit COMBINED. The ONLY way to pretend that Social Welfare costs more than Corporate Welfare is to pretend that "Pensions" are a "benefit" that is otherwise unfunded. I take it the change of tack by you means the two huge fucking clues I gave you were not enough for to apply joined-up-thinking. Colour me surprised - NOT. Let me explain, in baby steps for you. Women having babies in "This Generation" are providing both Workers and Consumers of the "Next Generation"; without either of which Capitalism FAILS. When the cost of providing the Consumers and Workers of the Next Generation becomes too high the Birth-Rate drops. Too few Workers and Wage-Bargaining can get out of hand, lowering Profit Margins. Too few Consumers and Sales Units drop, lowering Profit Margins. Governments enamoured, or under the heel, of Capitalism then have to make a choice on how to increase the availability of both Workers and Consumers. There are two ways of doing this: 1) Subsidise the production of Workers and Consumers in some way (Maternity Benefit, Child Benefit etc), or 2) Import them. For much of the time since the last war option 1 was more or less enough, with limited Immigration really only filling niche skills shortages. However, one of the side-effects of Neo-Liberal Capitalism especially Late Stage Capitalism (marked by ever increasing wealth inequality and the erosion / eradication of the "Middle Class") is that too much money is concentrated in too few pockets. Meaning to make it cost effective for the "native population" to take times out to produce the Next Generation of Workers and Consumers requires more taxation of those in the top two quintiles of the economic ladder and Capitalism, and the political parties most wedded to it, are ideologically opposed to that. The upshot of that is the import of Workers and Consumers becomes increasingly necessary to maintain Private Sector Profit Margins. Don't get me wrong, I am no communist; heck in most policy areas I don't even make it to "left of centre". But I am neither naïve, stupid, nor dishonest enough to simply overlook the inherent flaws in the current Capitalist model. Ne-Liberal Capitalism wants less regulation, and that is why the Capitalist Model is breaking down. It is no longer the case that knuckling-down and working hard is enough to pay your way through life with a few luxuries here and there; and more and more people are not only realising this, but living it every day. Unless some effort is put into regulating Capitalism in a smarter manner, so that it benefits more, not just a tiny few then not only will Western economies continue to falter from one crisis to another, but the underpinning political structure of Capitalism - Democracy - will be seen to be failing as well. We have seen this play out already in Russia, where Crony-Capitalism serving the needs of a small minority of Oligarchs came under pressure and required Putin to stamp down on both Democracy and Protest. That is coming to the West unless something changes pretty soon. All The Best Clearly you failed to understand my post detailing small employer problems with maternity rights An excerpt from a letter explaining the issues SMEs suffer in relation to maternity regs in the DT today which even a lefty anti private sector business wannabe che guevara should be able to understand if capable . ''I employe d about 50 people, and the office was run by four wonderful women, two of whom had been with me for many years. When the other two became pregnant at the same time, office life became a nightmare.
We had to employ three temporary workers as cover; they needed training and help from the two remaining permanent staff. This caused overtime to soar. Then, as the temps could leave at very short notice, issues arose with finding replacements and initiating more training. Even when temps stay for longer periods, mothers can change when or if they want to return with only eight weeks’ notice.
Larger companies can easily move staff internally for a few months, as individuals are nowhere near as critical to the operation of any particular department. Processes and software tend to be company-wide, so training isn’t such an issue. Small businesses, however, are generally run on very tight financial lines, where everyone is critical to the smooth functioning of the operation.
It seems unreasonable to me that there is no differentiation in the rules for small and large businesses. Pregnancies certainly had a major effect on my company’s productivity and profitability, and while it’s absolutely necessary to offer an effective system for women in the workplace, I am not sure we have the right balance at present.'' |
|
