DJ Barry Hammond Posted 5 July 2016 Posted 5 July 2016 Fox and Crabb have both pubically backed May now Alf - of course that doesn't mean their support will, but I imagine as the most credible candidate she will pick up a fair share of votes from these two. Now clearly May is in such a strong position that her supporters could potentially pick her run off opponent - and you'd think they would fancy their chances more against Gove than Leadsom (who would have thought that a month ago!). However, if the position looked too contrived there could conceivably be a backlash amongst the party members. What could be very interesting, if not good for the country, is if the majority of MP's came out for May (as looks likely), but after the members vote Leadsom got the job as PM - because the Conservatives would suddenly find themselves in a very similar position to the Labour Party, where the members views didn't match that of their MP's.
SMX11 Posted 5 July 2016 Posted 5 July 2016 Fox and Crabb have both pubically backed May now Alf - of course that doesn't mean their support will, but I imagine as the most credible candidate she will pick up a fair share of votes from these two. Now clearly May is in such a strong position that her supporters could potentially pick her run off opponent - and you'd think they would fancy their chances more against Gove than Leadsom (who would have thought that a month ago!). However, if the position looked too contrived there could conceivably be a backlash amongst the party members. What could be very interesting, if not good for the country, is if the majority of MP's came out for May (as looks likely), but after the members vote Leadsom got the job as PM - because the Conservatives would suddenly find themselves in a very similar position to the Labour Party, where the members views didn't match that of their MP's. I think that is already the case. Most of the mp's from both parties are against the views of their members. Looks a dead cert for May now, clearly offering roles for Fox and David Davis as I cannot see them supporting her otherwise.
Cadno'r Cymoedd Posted 5 July 2016 Posted 5 July 2016 Perhaps, but the fecking teachers are a bunch of irresponsible, scruffy cnuts, that will strike for any reason. They have been doing it for years. Overpaid and under worked abominations, for the most part, though not all of them. Huge left wing influences effecting education.I'll pass this on to my wife a teacher still downstairs marking scripts and writing references for kids at nearly 10 o'clock and who, like very many teachers, works her socks off to do her best by her pupils by working weekends and evenings. Dickhead.PS it's affecting not effecting. Perhaps you failed to listen to your teachers at school.
Alf Bentley Posted 5 July 2016 Posted 5 July 2016 http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/07/05/minimum-wage-maternity-pay-scrapped-plans-andrea-leadsom "People working for the UK's smallest businesses would be stripped of their right to a minimum wage, maternity leave and protection from unfair dismissal, under plans previously backed by one of the favourites to become next Tory leader and prime minister. Speaking in 2012, Andrea Leadsom told the House of Commons that she would like businesses with three employees or fewer to no longer have to comply with any employment regulations. "I envisage there being absolutely no regulation whatsoever," she said. "No minimum wage, no maternity or paternity rights, no unfair dismissal rights, no pension rights—for the smallest companies that are trying to get off the ground, in order to give them a chance."
Dr The Singh Posted 5 July 2016 Posted 5 July 2016 http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/07/05/minimum-wage-maternity-pay-scrapped-plans-andrea-leadsom "People working for the UK's smallest businesses would be stripped of their right to a minimum wage, maternity leave and protection from unfair dismissal, under plans previously backed by one of the favourites to become next Tory leader and prime minister. Speaking in 2012, Andrea Leadsom told the House of Commons that she would like businesses with three employees or fewer to no longer have to comply with any employment regulations. "I envisage there being absolutely no regulation whatsoever," she said. "No minimum wage, no maternity or paternity rights, no unfair dismissal rights, no pension rights—for the smallest companies that are trying to get off the ground, in order to give them a chance." Good thing my bird Teresa is going to win
Dr The Singh Posted 5 July 2016 Posted 5 July 2016 Fox and Crab (my fav sandwich filling), are backing sexy cleavage Teresa!!
reynard Posted 5 July 2016 Posted 5 July 2016 http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/07/05/minimum-wage-maternity-pay-scrapped-plans-andrea-leadsom "People working for the UK's smallest businesses would be stripped of their right to a minimum wage, maternity leave and protection from unfair dismissal, under plans previously backed by one of the favourites to become next Tory leader and prime minister. Speaking in 2012, Andrea Leadsom told the House of Commons that she would like businesses with three employees or fewer to no longer have to comply with any employment regulations. "I envisage there being absolutely no regulation whatsoever," she said. "No minimum wage, no maternity or paternity rights, no unfair dismissal rights, no pension rights—for the smallest companies that are trying to get off the ground, in order to give them a chance." God how depressing. Let's all go back to the 1920s it was all so much better then! Out of the EU I wouldn't put it past her to extend this to other companies.
reynard Posted 5 July 2016 Posted 5 July 2016 Perhaps, but the fecking teachers are a bunch of irresponsible, scruffy cnuts, that will strike for any reason. They have been doing it for years. Overpaid and under worked abominations, for the most part, though not all of them. Huge left wing influences effecting education. Written by someone who clearly has absolutely zero understanding of what it is like to be a teacher.
Rincewind Posted 5 July 2016 Posted 5 July 2016 I Written by someone who clearly has absolutely zero understanding of what it is like to be a teacher Thought this was apt.And funny.
Guest Posted 5 July 2016 Posted 5 July 2016 Written by someone who clearly has absolutely zero understanding of anything Fixed
Rincewind Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 Nah, he considers walking a form of social mobility and is therefore dead against it. He'd run her over outside the school she is walking her grandkids to in his chauffeur driven limousine.
SMX11 Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/07/05/minimum-wage-maternity-pay-scrapped-plans-andrea-leadsom "People working for the UK's smallest businesses would be stripped of their right to a minimum wage, maternity leave and protection from unfair dismissal, under plans previously backed by one of the favourites to become next Tory leader and prime minister. Speaking in 2012, Andrea Leadsom told the House of Commons that she would like businesses with three employees or fewer to no longer have to comply with any employment regulations. "I envisage there being absolutely no regulation whatsoever," she said. "No minimum wage, no maternity or paternity rights, no unfair dismissal rights, no pension rights—for the smallest companies that are trying to get off the ground, in order to give them a chance." I don't see what is wrong with this comment. Businesses under three employees couldn't afford to have one or two employees go off on maternity/paternity leave. Or the stupid forced pension schemes. Why can't the employee and the employer come to an agreement between themselves?
Rincewind Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 I think if they only employ one or two it is likely to be a family run business. But where does it stop? In a years time they could change it to under ten employees. Whether it is right regarding under three the right should still be there or else we are going backwards as a society.
Alf Bentley Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 I don't see what is wrong with this comment. Businesses under three employees couldn't afford to have one or two employees go off on maternity/paternity leave. Or the stupid forced pension schemes. Why can't the employee and the employer come to an agreement between themselves? If such deregulation were allowed, I'm sure many small businesses would act responsibly. They'd enjoy a bit more flexibility, but would value their staff and treat them well. However, others would take the piss. They'd employ people on £3 per hour, maybe sacking British employees and replacing them with migrant labour prepared to work for a low wage. They'd dismiss women who got pregnant - or order them to return to work immediately after the birth on pain of losing their jobs. This would help such bad employers compete with good small business employers who treated their staff responsibly. The good employers might well be unable to compete for business when faced with such a race to the bottom. Good employers might go bust and bad employers might thrive, creating serious problems for individuals and for society. I appreciate that it's more inconvenient for a very small business to lose a key staff member to maternity leave, but there are alternatives to binning maternity/paternity rights: agency temps, part-time working, flexible legislation, even govt compensation for very small firms who temporarily lose staff in this way. Greater flexibility should be allowed in certain areas, within reason: e.g. working hours & pension schemes, possibly (I don't know much about this, but forcing micro-businesses to run them does sound excessive). There is also the likelihood that big business would take advantage of loopholes in such small business deregulation. We know that already many in-house staff at big firms have been turned into self-employed "small business" contractors, often on zero-hour contracts. That suits some, but not others. What would prevent big businesses turning units of their corporations into independent "small businesses" that could offer low pay and zero employment rights. Why can't employer and employee come to an agreement themselves? Sometimes they can, but often they can't. Because there is an imbalance of power between, say, a business with work to offer and an unemployed man with debts and a family to support. If you followed the same logic, you could say the same thing about the police or the law: why have any legal protection? Why not tear up all law, sack all police and let everyone protect themselves against fraudsters, thugs or whatever? Ultimately, business exists to benefit its stakeholders - owners (primarily), employees, customers, suppliers. But politicians need to make sure that business at least has a neutral impact on society, not a negative one. Humanity and society do not exist to serve business.
The Guvnor Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 Theresa Mays choice to keep under the radar and her apparent leaning towards remain might not paint the true picture. The more I read about her previous comments and actions the more I feel she was secretly applauding the decision to leave, and why should we at all be surprised when often there is a dichotomy between what politicians say and do,interesting times?
Alf Bentley Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 Theresa Mays choice to keep under the radar and her apparent leaning towards remain might not paint the true picture. The more I read about her previous comments and actions the more I feel she was secretly applauding the decision to leave, and why should we at all be surprised when often there is a dichotomy between what politicians say and do,interesting times? Before the vote, MattP posted a list of how the various leaders might have voted, possibly a bit tongue-in-cheek (Cameron Leave, Farage Remain etc.) But I reckon some items on his list might well have been correct: e.g. Boris voting Remain & Corbyn voting Leave. Politics can be a very calculating, deceitful world sometimes.
Dodgy Bob Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/07/05/minimum-wage-maternity-pay-scrapped-plans-andrea-leadsom "People working for the UK's smallest businesses would be stripped of their right to a minimum wage, maternity leave and protection from unfair dismissal, under plans previously backed by one of the favourites to become next Tory leader and prime minister. Speaking in 2012, Andrea Leadsom told the House of Commons that she would like businesses with three employees or fewer to no longer have to comply with any employment regulations. "I envisage there being absolutely no regulation whatsoever," she said. "No minimum wage, no maternity or paternity rights, no unfair dismissal rights, no pension rights—for the smallest companies that are trying to get off the ground, in order to give them a chance." Interesting that all of her examples make things worse for the employee but she stops short of suggesting that maybe small businesses could pay reduced corporation tax or be exempt from employer's national insurance contributions. I do understand her desire to make life a little easier for small businesses but employees shouldn't be carrying the entire burden.
The Guvnor Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 Before the vote, MattP posted a list of how the various leaders might have voted, possibly a bit tongue-in-cheek (Cameron Leave, Farage Remain etc.) But I reckon some items on his list might well have been correct: e.g. Boris voting Remain & Corbyn voting Leave. Politics can be a very calculating, deceitful world sometimes. Agreed I have no doubt Corbyn's vote is by no means clear, he was very reluctant to get involved with the campaign looked very uncomfortable when asked how his feelings were towards the EU 7.5 out of 10 more like 7.5%. Theresa has already given a taster to how she see's negotiations moving forward with the EU maybe not what you would expect from a pro european
lifted*fox Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 I'll pass this on to my wife a teacher still downstairs marking scripts and writing references for kids at nearly 10 o'clock and who, like very many teachers, works her socks off to do her best by her pupils by working weekends and evenings. Dickhead. PS it's affecting not effecting. Perhaps you failed to listen to your teachers at school. Yep, just thinking the same thing. My fiancee was putting together a video collage of photos from a recent school trip until 11pm last night whilst I was sat there gaming on the PS4. Right slacking scruffy cvnt she is!
lifted*fox Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 Written by someone who clearly has absolutely zero understanding of what it is like to be a teacher. Or zero understanding of what it's like to live with one... My missus is absolutely dedicated to that job - often detrimental to our own lives. She barely functions in the evenings / weekends because she's so shattered all the time. I work a full time job and do everything around the house as well because she's so busy. She refuses to do any other job though because she loves working with and bettering young people. A thankless job at times. People who think teachers are lazy are ****ing idiots tbh.
Strokes Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 Interesting that all of her examples make things worse for the employee but she stops short of suggesting that maybe small businesses could pay reduced corporation tax or be exempt from employer's national insurance contributions. I do understand her desire to make life a little easier for small businesses but employees shouldn't be carrying the entire burden. That's a very good point. The government could also help by covering the burden of such rights, like maternity/paternity pay. A silly comment from Andrea and a bit disappointing tbf.
SMX11 Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 Interesting that all of her examples make things worse for the employee but she stops short of suggesting that maybe small businesses could pay reduced corporation tax or be exempt from employer's national insurance contributions. I do understand her desire to make life a little easier for small businesses but employees shouldn't be carrying the entire burden. You don't have any employment rights when you are out of work. I think that is the crux of what her point is. People with no/little skills have to jump through the government's barriers to get a job (min wage, NI, pension etc) Why would an employer set on people with low skills or even disabilities if they are going to cost them more money than they bring in due to these 'protections'?
purpleronnie Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 Never thought I'd laugh at something Theresa may said but. The last time Boris negotiated with the EU he came back with 3 second hand water cannons.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.